Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
4/10/2024 - Planning Commission - Agenda -Regular
Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM, Regular Session 7:00PM Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard: WORK SESSION 1.Call to Order 2.Comprehensive Plan Update 3.Old Business A.Discussion of items on the April agenda 1. 860 Mount Vernon Lane rezoning from RSF to PUD 2. 1200 block Thompson Memorial Dr rezoning from RSF to HBD 4.New Business A.Discussion of items on the April agenda 1. Home Occupation Permit Amendment - 275 Fort Lewis Blvd 2. Use Not Provided For Permit Amendment - 125 Knotbreak Road B.Discussion of items on the May agenda 1. 324 Pennsylvania Avenue - two family dwelling 5.Adjournment REGULAR SESSION 1.Call to Order A.Pledge of Allegiance 2.Consent Agenda A.Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the March 13, 2024, work session and regular meeting. 3DJHaWaRIaOWK 3.Old Business A.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. (Continued from the March 13, 2024, meeting.) B.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District. (Continued from the March 13, 2024, meeting) 4.New Business A.Home Occupation Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of Philip M. and Rachel C. Knouff, property owners, for the amendment of a Home Occupation Permit to allow retail sales at the cut flower farm (garden) on the property located at 275 Ft Lewis Blvd (Tax Map # 130-2-22). B.Use Not Provided For Hold public hearing to consider the request of PHC of Virginia, LLC/Acadia Healthcare, Mt Regis Center, property owner, for the amendment of the Use Not Provided For permit to allow additions to the outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment center on the property located at 125 Knotbreak Road, (Tax Map # 148-1-5). 5.Adjournment City Council meeting, April 22, 2024, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street 3DJHaOaRIaOWK Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Wednesday, March 13, 2024, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM, Regular Session 7:00PM Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard: WORK SESSION 1.Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. on March 13, 2024; there being the members of said Commission, to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid Garst, Neil L. Conner, and Jackson Beamer; together with H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development; Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner; and Christopher Dadak, on behalf of Jim Guynn, City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chair Daulton called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and reported that this, date, place, and time had been set for the Commission to hold a work session. 2.Old Business A.Discussion of items on the March agenda 1. 860 Mount Vernon Lane rezoning from RSF to PUD A discussion was held regarding 860 Mount Vernon Lane on the March agenda. 3.New Business A.Discussion of items on the March agenda 1.744 Electric Rd rezoning from HBD to HM 2.1200 block Thompson Memorial Dr rezoning from RSF to HBD 3.Code Change Storage Containers A discussion was held regarding items on the March agenda. B.Discussion of items on the April agenda Page 3 of 214 1. Home Occupation Amendment - Oak & Bloom - 275 Fort Lewis Blvd 2. Use Not Provided For Amendment - 125 Knotbreak Rd Items for the April agenda were introduced, and a discussion was held. 4. Adjournment Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none, adjourned the work session at 6:34 p.m. REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held after due and proper notice in the Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on March 13, 2024. Notice of such hearing was published in the February 29, and March 7, 2024, issues of the "Salem Times-Register," a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City of Salem. All adjacent property owners were notified via the U.S. Postal Service. The Commission, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Christopher Dadak on behalf of Jim Guynn, City Attorney; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell S. Dillon, City Planner; and Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development, and the following business was transacted: A. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the February 14, 2024, regular meeting, and February 21, 2024, joint work session. Jackson Beamer motioned approve February 14, 2024, meeting and February 21, 2024, work session minutes. Neil Conner seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 3. Old Business Page 4 of 214 A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. (Continued from the February 14, 2024, meeting.) Jon Morris, President, and CEO of HopeTree, appeared before the Commission and thanked everyone for being at the meeting. He also thanked the Commission for the last public hearing and the public work session. We appreciated all the feedback we received, the dialogue in the public work session. We have had several other meetings since then to talk about some of the changes that we could possibly make, and we have made several changes to the application. He then asked Chris Burns from Balzer and Associates to speak about the changes. Chris Burns, Balzer and Associates, 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, appeared before the Commission and stated that we have been working with Tom Lowe and the development team on some of the changes that have been made to the document. He feels like some pretty significant changes have been made in response to the feedback received and the additional discussions that the developers have had. He believes the Commission received a markup version of the document with the changes clouded as well as a detailed list of what those changes were. So, I’m not going to hit on every little change, but I am going to hit on some of the some of the more major ones, so the document was clarified, to add the maximum residential unit count at 340, which we have talked about previously; there was a maximum for hotel rooms on the site set at 34, which is consistent with what the discussions have been as far as what that type of hotel use that they see on the property. There was a maximum square footage of restaurant use set at 15,000 square feet, and then there was just a clarification really this was something that we talked to planning staff about clarification that home occupations would not count towards these maximum densities and that is consistent with the Salem zoning ordinance and how that is handled currently in all zoning districts. In addition to that on the land use plan, there were four areas at the northern end of the site that were revised from the T5 zone to the less intense T4 zone that covers the area that is across from North Oaks that fronts Red Lane, as well as some other areas south of that. There was a clarification added to the document regarding the sidewalk in the on -street parking along Red Lane that would be provided as part of the development. We have talked a lot about that but it was not specifically called out in the document so that's been added. In addition to that there were several revisions made to the use table. We removed several of the agricultural uses based on feedback that we got. The flea market use was removed, hospital use was removed, veterinary hospital was removed, and then there were several commercial uses that were removed from T4. This is not applicable to that specific zone. In addition to that we have continued to receive feedback and work with planning staff. There are some additional changes that we are willing to commit to that are not reflected in the current document—there were some commercial uses that were left in the T4 zone use table, which will be removed. I believe that there were a couple of boxes that were checked inadvertently in the use table. I just wanted to clarify that the intent is not to add any uses to Page 5 of 214 the document, and we will get that corrected. In addition to that, we are willing to commit to a maximum of 340 total residential units to include any accessory dwelling units. So those would be included in the total. That was a question that we had received. And then a couple other uses that we are willing to remove from all zones within the development. And this is just contingent on assurance that this will not impact any of HopeTree's current operations. But we are willing to remove outpatient mental health and substance abuse as well as personal storage. The final change is we had a question about height of accessory structures and whether those could exceed the primary structure on the lot, and we are willing to change that language to limit the height of those accessory structures to the height of the primary structure. Thank you. With that, we would be happy to answer any questions that you all have. Vice Chair King stated she thinks she misunderstood what was said at the end of the work session, accessory residential structures are not allowed in the current zoning, they must be attached to the main residence. My concern is that accessory residential buildings will increase when you have at least one vulnerable car. I fully understand that the thought process there is to have something where a mom-in-law moves in or the child moves in who now wants to go to grad school needs a place to live, but when that need is no longer there, does it become rental property? And so, what happens here is it increases that overall number of 340. So, can I have some comments on that? Mr. Burns stated that is one of the changes that we're committing to is that the 340 would include any accessory dwelling units on the property, which is not what the language in the current version that you have says; but that's one of the things that we're committing to tonight so that the maximum would not exceed 340 and in truth those accessory dwelling units will actually generate less traffic than a typical residential unit would. Chair Daulton stated that staff has some concerns that have not been addressed: the difference between civic buildings and historic buildings and asked for clarification. Mr. Burns stated that is something that we need additional discussion on and is not 100 % sure exactly what that comment means. We just got that today, so we are certainly willing to discuss that and address it. Mary Ellen Wines, Planning and Zoning Administrator, clarified that on the use table where it says historic existing and civic buildings, it is not clear what the future use of those buildings will be and why they are differentiated between one or the other. She stated that more clarification is needed. Mr. Burns questioned if there were any differences in the use table as far as between the two uses. He apologized for not knowing the answer. Ms. Wines stated that there are a few differences, and we are trying to understand why there is a difference and how they are going to be used in the future. Page 6 of 214 Mr. Burns stated that there is very little on the land use plan that is shown as a civic building; that of the buildings are shown as the historic core buildings in the middle of the site. Vice Chair King questioned if the 15,000 s.f. commercial includes the existing buildings because we keep seeing retail and restaurant space so if it does not, how much more commercial space is there. Mr. Burns stated that 15,000 s.f. is the maximum amount of retail and restaurant space including the existing buildings. Member Conner questioned if there would be other commercial uses--would there be office uses or other business uses that are anticipated. The only thing we are addressing is the commercial use, but there could be other business uses, correct? Mr. Burns stated that there could be office space. Retail and restaurant are two of the more intense, and so through the conversations those ones were identified as being critical ones to limit. Member Conner stated that he wants to make sure that it is not limiting the amount of other business space in any way, except as the plan is written. Chair Daulton questioned if the on-street parking and sidewalks on Red Lane were part of the proffers because there currently is no indication of what the improvements will look like. Mr. Burns stated that they are part of the document but are not shown in the graphics as we have not gotten down to that level of detail. That is something that would be submitted with a site plan for approval through the typical site plan process—site distance, widths of the parking spaces, etc. would be addressed to the satisfaction of the city during that process. Chair Daulton inquired about the placement of trees throughout the development. Todd Robertson of Stateson Homes appeared before the Commission and stated that the graphics in the document were not supposed to represent the distancing of the trees as it has to do with the species of the trees and other things, but they want to form a canopy and a visual break along Red Lane. Vice Chair King inquired about the commercial part of the concept—the concept shows miscellaneous, commercial, office, and civic—and wants to make sure that everything combined is to be 15,000 s.f. or less. Mr. Robertson stated that is not what is proposed at this time. Currently, much of the campus at HopeTree is used for office space—approximately 103,000 s.f. HopeTree will continue to house its offices in the existing buildings on the property, which will be over 15,000 s.f. Several of the buildings are vacant, but there are offices in multiple buildings as well. He Page 7 of 214 believes HopeTree is planning to focus on two buildings—one for a smaller school and the other for offices that are handicap accessible and a better facility. Vice Chair King clarified that the 15,000 s.f. commercial use does not include HopeTree’s offices. Mr. Robertson stated that it does not, but the to place the offices in one of the buildings that are currently underutilized. Ms. Wines clarified that the maximum 15,000 s.f. is for retail and restaurant use only, not other nonresidential uses. A discussion was held regarding 15,000 s.f. and comparable building sizes, use of HopeTree’s cafeteria as a restaurant, etc. It was noted that each commercial space in the project will not be larger than 5,000 s.f. Chair Daulton inquired about cemetery use on the project. Mr. Robertson, stated that there are not plans to create a new cemetery on the property and they will remove that use from the proposal, but will have to protect any existing cemetery. Member Garst questioned if removing the outpatient mental health services will affect HopeTree’s mission. Mr. Morris stated that HopeTree currently does outpatient mental health counseling, but not substance abuse counseling. A discussion was held regarding the uses at HopeTree and the difference between outpatient mental health services and outpatient substance abuse services. It was noted that HopeTree wants to continue outpatient mental health counseling but does not and will not offer substance abuse outpatient therapy. It was noted that HopeTree’s use needs to be specifically noted within the existing use table. Chair Daulton noted that it would be beneficial for HopeTree to meet with Planning Commission members one or two at a time to go over the commercial uses line by line to remove any unneeded uses. There has been so much information given and more time is needed to go over the documents and suggested the item be continued until the April meeting. Jackson Beamer motioned to approve to continue the item until the April 10, 2024, meeting. Vice Chair King seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King Page 8 of 214 B. Amendment to the City Code - Chapter 106 Zoning Hold public hearing to consider amending Chapter 106, Zoning, Article IV Development Standards, section 106-406 miscellaneous provisions of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to storage containers. (Continued from the November 15, 2023, meeting.) (Staff has requested to continue item) Jackson Beamer motioned to approve to continue the item until the June 12, 2024, meeting. Vice Chair King seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 4. New Business A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing and consider the request of E3MAG LLC, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 744 Electric Road (Tax Map # 155 - 2 - 2.2) from HBD Highway Business District to HM Heavy Manufacturing District. Staff noted the following: The subject property (744Electric Road) consists of a 2.036 acre tract of land which currently sits within the HBD Highway Business District designation. To provide a bit of history, this parcel was formerly zoned HM Heavy Manufacturing until a 2007 rezoning reverted its designation to HBD Highway Business District. Since then, the St. John Place Commerce Center has developed in an industrial nature, and correspondingly, this request seeks to return 744 Electric Road to the HM Heavy Manufacturing classification. This request mimics several successful rezoning applications in recent months to revert the undeveloped land within the St. John Place Commerce Center to an industrial setting. This parcel is currently vacant, but a concept plan has been submitted to prepare it for future development. While there is no concrete site plan for the future development of the property, the uses specified in the HM Heavy Manufacturing District are consistent with existing development in the adjacent St. John Place Commerce Center. Although some of the site sits within the floodplain, any future development will be elevated above the 100-year floodplain to meet the necessary requirements. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as industrial, which is consistent with the proposed future utilization of the property. Barney Horrell, Brushy Mountain Engineering, 3553 Carvins Cove Road, appeared before the Commission and stated that this is the last tract of land in the St. John Page 9 of 214 Place development that is still zoned HBD, and the request is to rezone the parcel to HM, which is consistent with the other parcels in the development. Neil Conner motioned to approve the request of E3MAG LLC, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 744 Electric Road (Tax Map # 155 - 2 - 2.2) from HBD Highway Business District to HM Heavy Manufacturing District. Vice Chair King seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing and consider the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District. Staff noted the following: The subject property (1200 blk Thompson Memorial Drive) consists of a 2.674-acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from RSF to HBD to facilitate the construction of a gas station, convenience store, and drive through restaurant development. Situated adjacent to Interstate 81, this property is uniquely positioned to potentially serve the commercial needs of both travelers and local residents alike as there are no other commercial establishments currently located in this portion of Salem. Furthermore, the approved Edgebrook Development to the north of this site in Roanoke County may catalyze the evolution of its surrounding corridor. Still, the subject property is currently bounded (within Salem) by residentially zoned parcels, many of which serve single family homes. A conceptual site plan has been included with the submittal that displays a proposed convenience store and restaurant positioned behind the gas pump structures (located closer to Thompson Memorial Drive). The exhibit indicates two separate access points – one which intersects Penguin Lane and the other with Thompson Memorial Drive. If this rezoning application is approved, this development project is subject to site plan review and corresponding compliance with Salem’s ordinances. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential which is inconsistent with the proposed future utilization of the property. Compton Biddle, attorney with OPN Law, 110 East First Street, Salem, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owners. He stated that they have owned the property since 2007 and during the course of their ownership, they have realized that the property is not developable as residential land and would like the Page 10 of 214 parcel rezoned to HBD Highway Business District in order to build a gas station, neighborhood store, and fast-food restaurant. He clarified that it will not be a truck stop and is not intended to serve 18-wheelers or accommodate them overnight— there is no room and no plans for it. It is designed to be a neighborhood store more along the lines of you get off the highway to go to your home and you need to get gas, you can get gas, get a cup of coffee in the morning, or if there is an urgent need like cold medicine or something, you don’t have to get on the highway or go into town to get it—you can just go to the neighborhood store with the idea there also would be a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru next to it. He stated that the applicants have been residents in the community for 25 years and want to be good neighbors. This is not something an out-of-town business is trying to shove upon the community. The owners would like to have one of the gas pumps dedicated to a donation per gallon to Salem High School sports. They also have an extensive landscaping plan to try to keep the neighborhood feel that it’s intended to be and to be consistent with the Thompson Memorial corridor. He stated that Ben Crew with Balzer and Associates is also present to further answer questions regarding the project. Member Conner noted that a gas station is one of the more intensive uses in the Highway Business District. A discussion was held regarding the traffic associated with a convenience store, if VDOT will need to be contacted; underground stormwater retention; the amount of rock on the site, etc. Mr. Biddle gave the Commission the landscaping plans proposed for the site. He noted that the proposed plan is similar to the store located off of Exit 132 at Dixie Caverns and will have an EV charging station. Chair Daulton noted that the speakers will have three minutes to speak during the public hearing and opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Jim Williams, Winston Estates, appeared before the Commission and asked for a show of hands of the people present who live in the area near the project. He then asked for a show of hands from those people who raised their hands who want the project. Case closed. Archie Pugh, 1416 Evergreen Court, appeared before the Commission and stated that he is a lifelong resident of the City of Salem and has been a resident in Salem Woods for 28 years. He stated that he is vide president of a utility that covers 13 states, is a registered professional engineer in the states of Virginia and West Virginia. He further stated that he is not representing the utility, but feels it is important to know his background as he has a career in engineering, structural analysis, foundation design, and geotechnical engineering to enhance our transmission grid. He is opposed to the rezoning due to the high cost of site Page 11 of 214 development. The presence of extensive rock will result in a high cost of grading and foundation design, which is often underestimated and results in extensive foundation costs. When foundation and grading is over budget, it is usually the result for the developer to save those costs in the above ground structure, and he expects that to happen with this project. The significant drainage pattern that runs through the center of the property will result in an extensive cost of underground culvert system. There is currently a stream that flows on the property and has running water in it regularly. There is currently a four-foot culvert that takes the water away from the property and will incur additional subsurface costs in order to take the drainage away from the property. Due to this, he feels the developer will overshoot their foundation budget and developments costs and will save those on the above-ground structure. Very often there are suspicious out-of-state vehicles that come off Interstate 81 and park on Penguin Lane. He has called the police numerous times to come by to let them know they are being watched. If there is a commercial business on the parcel, it is going to give an avenue for people to come off the interstate and use the property for what he feels are suspicious activities. Finally, this exit is the gateway to the City of Salem. Currently there is a welcome sign, plantings, trees, and the beautiful boulevard of Thompson Memorial Drive. Roanoke College has made extensive enhancements to their campus entrance. This is the entrance to Salem, it’s the entrance to Roanoke College. What do you want the traveler to see when they exit Interstate 81 and approach our beautiful city—a four-pump gas station sends the wrong message to travelers. Carrie Pugh, 1416 Evergreen Court, appeared before the Commission and stated that she has been a resident of Salem Woods for 28 years. In her professional life, she was the assistant real estate manager for the Kroger company for over 21 years, handling new store development, but specifically the fuel center program in a six- state region. She personally led the development and installation of over 35 fuel centers and three of which are in Salem. From this experience in not only commercial real estate, but specifically gas stations, she is opposed to the rezoning of the property for the following reasons: she has spoken with VDOT, and it is not desirable for the egress of the site. According to discussions with VDOT and the Salem District P.E. Mr. Blevins, the standards of VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, this site would not meet the spacing standards for commercial entrances, signals, intersections, and crossovers. The limited access right-of-way that is shown on the plan onto Thompson Memorial Drive does not meet the minimum traffic standards per VDOT. The code notes spacing for a commercial entrance in a 45 MPH zone to be 305 feet from the entrance ramp. Penguin Lane is currently in that 300-ish feet setback so that you have an idea of reference. Based on the survey in the proposal, it appears that the right-in, right-out is about 175 feet, which creates a dangerous situation from a traffic standpoint and would not be permissible. To have the only access point off Penguin Lane does not create a very desirable real estate site. In addition, the intersection at Penguin Lane and Thompson Memorial Drive would not ever meet VDOT’s requirements for a traffic light. She also stated that there is almost 100 percent residential single family from Page 12 of 214 the 140 exit down to Roanoke College and highway business district is a big jump from that. Unless this use is proffered, the rezoning will open about 60-plus additional uses that could be on the property. Blair Burns, 1204 Mountainview Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that she has lived at that address since 1996, which is located at the end of Penguin Lane. She has similar concerns as the previous speakers. Thompson Memorial is our prettiest access to Salem. The other two exits that enter Salem are fully developed—hotels, restaurants, fast food places. Thompson Memorial is the only one that is memorable, and she would like to see if left as it is. She opposes the rezoning. The parcel in question is divided by Penguin Lane and if the property is rezoned, the other side of Penguin Lane could be developed as well. If this were to happen, she feels it would negatively affect the property values and negatively affect the viewshed when you come into Salem. Traffic is also a concern with gas tanker trucks coming into the property, beverage and other food delivery trucks coming onto the property at all hours of the night. Plus, it is already hard to find the right shot to get across the intersection at Thompson Memorial Drive from Penguin Lane, or to access the interstate from Penguin Lane. Lawrence Kessman, 353 Penguin Lane, and has lived there since 2021 when they moved from Lake Wise in South Carolina, but he grew up in Salem and loves Salem. While he shares the other concerns addressed, he is also concerned about our children. Common sense tells him that if you build something right off the interstate, you are going to draw those travelers not from this area to stop there and wonder “what’s up this road” and then travel into the neighborhood and possibly bring predators into the neighborhood. The children need to be protected. He asked the Commission to listen to his constituents because their concerns are valid. Don Thomas, 1304 Panarama Circle, appeared before the Commission and stated that like many of his neighbors, he is here to voice his concerns about the rezoning request. His perspective on the matter comes from both a practical and a professional standpoint. In addition to being a resident of Salem Wood Subdivision, he is a certified general real estate appraiser licensed by the State of Virginia and has been licensed since 1992. He stated that one of the criteria for a property achieving its highest and best use is for it to be financially feasible. He questioned if the finished site that the proposed rezoning provides a large enough footprint to achieve the necessary economies of a scale for an economically viable convenience store and asked if a feasibility study of the project has been given to the Commission. He also asked if a traffic study has been done to show the number of cars and trucks that must come to the side for it to be a financial win for the developer. He further stated that he can state with certainty that high value properties are without exception more negatively affected by undesirable external influences and are affected in a higher rate than lower value properties. According to the city’s most recent reassessment, the average market value for the 86 homes Page 13 of 214 in the neighborhood is approximately $460,000. The Virginia Association of Realtors published in January that the median home sale price in Salem is about $250,000. Paul Scolneck, 1309 Winson Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that he shares the concerns previously shared and emphasized the traffic issues. He stated that if you’re going south on Penguin Lane and turn left to go east on Thompson Memorial Drive, it is a very difficult turn as there is traffic all day, but at certain times it is almost impossible to make the turn due to the traffic. Likewise, if you are going east on Thompson Memorial Drive and try to turn north onto Penguin Lane, it is also difficult to make that turn. He feels that if a traffic study were done, this project would be “dead in the water.” He asked the Commission to consider all the concerns that have been mentioned. Chair Daulton paused the hearing at 8:06 for a brief break. The meeting was reconvened at 8:11 p.m. Gary Saunders, 367 Penguin Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated that he has lived in the neighborhood twice. He stated that a commercial establishment is being proposed but half of the traffic coming into the site is channeled back out into a residential neighborhood. Unless you live on Penguin Lane, you don’t realize how many people go onto Penguin Lane and think they’re on the ramp to I-81. He and his neighbor had the fun of repairing our yards last winter after a tractor trailer came on Penguin Lane and used our front yards as the cul-de-sac to turn around in. He opposes the rezoning. Buster Mowles, 342 Academy Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that he does not live near the parcel, but lives in Salem and has his entire life. He stated that curb appeal is a big deal, and that exit is our curb appeal to Salem. He travels to see his grandchildren in Maryland and Florida and uses that exit to get back home and feels that the gas station will end up looking terrible and we don’t need something like this for the entrance into our city. He opposes the rezoning. Virginia Frame, 1412 Evergreen Court, appeared before the Commission and stated that she has walked the neighborhood with a petition to be presented to City Council that nearly everyone has signed saying they are against this project. Curtis Ellwanger, 150 Freedman Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated that he lives in the house that you cannot see and has lived there for 24 years. The drive-thru being shown in the proposal will be 17 yards from his front door. He stated that when his water system was installed, it had to be blasted to place the water line and he could not connect to city sewer because it would be too expensive blasting to install it; therefore, he has a septic tank which is right near the property line of the parcel. He is concerned the affects the blasting to clear the site will have on the foundation of his house. He further stated that even though this is not proposed to be a truck stop, trucks will stop there. Trucks currently stop along the Page 14 of 214 entrance ramp to Interstate 81 and he has the Virginia State Police on speed dial for tractor trailers using the entrance ramp as a truck stop. He is opposed to the rezoning as he feels it will cause damage to his house and he doesn’t feel it is for the well-being of the rest of the neighborhood. Tracy Patton, 318 Penguin Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated that she and her husband have lived there approximately 17 years. They love their home, and this is the most beautiful entrance to Salem. She feels the development—blasting will cause damage to other homes and will decrease the property value of the homes in the neighborhood. Susan Robertson, 1400 Evergreen Court, appeared before the Commission and stated that she feels the truck traffic parked along the entrance ramp to Interstate 81 will get worse once there is a convenience store. It is a safety hazard and a fire hazard. There are woods all around and it is a haven for wildlife that will be affected. She opposes the rezoning. Bill Robertson, 1400 Evergreen Court, appeared before the Commission and stated that everyone has had a lot of important points—traffic safety, traffic merging off the interstate to get to a ramp here to get fuel is going to increase the risk and accidents. The City of Salem Emergency Services is going to bear the cost of that so any tax revenue that might be gained from this project is going to be quickly offset by servicing. He stated that fuel will be leaked into water and wildlife will suffer. He purchased his residence due to the secluded entrance and the proposed development will destroy that. He opposes the rezoning. Russell Deyerle, 620 Red Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was originally present due to the other major item, but decided to stay for this item. He stated that he has an uncle who owned a gas station in South Carolina that was near an exit ramp but closed it down due to the number of times it was robbed being that close to the entrance of the interstate. He further stated that I-81 is like I-95 and is considered corridors for trafficking children, sex trafficking, as well as gun trafficking. He feels that adding something like this could add problems, crime, to the neighborhood. He is also concerned about the traffic issues. He opposes the rezoning. Ted Dyer, 357 Penguin Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated that he also owns 15 other properties in Salem. He stated that the “bunny trail” is not an adequate second way to get out of the neighborhood and has been overlooked by the city for years. If a fuel trailer or tractor trailer can get on this property, so can any other tractor trailer coming down the interstate and they are not going to change the way they service this. Second, the extra property on the side can now allow for the Ferrell’s property and the Winston’s property that is for sale right now for about $875,000 to be resold. He stated he would buy it tomorrow and put five hotels on the property. This development will change the entire gateway of how Page 15 of 214 our city looks by allowing this to happen. You can have several different businesses on the property if it is rezoned and this is the one chance to veto changing a residential single-family parcel to highway business. There are other EVs in Salem— they are at all the Sheetz stores. He also has a petition of over 140 people and counting who are neighbors in the community of this city opposing the rezoning. The Penguin Lane neighborhood is a great community, it is a high-function, highly involved members of the Salem community—business owners, car dealers, schoolteachers, principals, lawyers, doctors, clerks of this city, public workers, employees of the city, construction workers, retirees, etc. It is simple, we as a neighborhood and taxpayers do not want a gas station and do not want a zoning for highway business into our residential single-family neighborhood and will do little for our neighborhood. We have managed without a gas station for years and can live many years to come without another gas station. He feels that this store will mainly cater to interstate traffic, and he will not stop at this store if it affects the way I drive to Salem. Gary Sovine, 1229 Forest Lawn Drive, appeared before the Commission and yielded his time to Mr. Dyer. Mr. Deyer stated that we are here to look at the possibility of the land use, and not what could possibly go on the parcel. If the rezoning is approved, he will purchase 27 acres for sale and will change the way the gateway to our city works. Our city is pretty, our city is elegant, and we should not change the major gateway. As this moves forward to City Council, we will petition, and our petitions will continue to add over 200 names to show that the community of Salem does not wish for this to be a high business district and to remain a residential single family. Mr. Sovine, reappeared before the Commission and stated that he has a concern for safety. He knows what safety is like on the highways as he had a daughter killed in 1995 because of an intersection that is not even quite as bad as this one. He opposes the rezoning. John Byrd, 1803 Winston Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that he is concerned about the crime, litter, light pollution, and the Gish branch which is the name of the little stream on the property. He does not feel this is an environmental win or a win for the City of Salem. He opposes the rezoning. Stella Reinhardt, 213 North Broad Street, appeared before the commission and stated that he agrees with all the previous comments. She stated there are other gas stations at the other exits to Salem. This is the pretty entrance to Salem. She opposes the rezoning. Dennis Twine, 349 Penguin Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated that he is the next closest to the development and has lived there 20 years. He has multiple items stolen and feels this development is not a good idea. Page 16 of 214 No other person(s) appeared related to the request. Chair Daulton closed the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Mr. Biddle reappeared before the Commission and asked that the Commission continue the item so that the issues brought forward in the meeting can be addressed with a neighborhood meeting. Neil Conner motioned to continue the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District to the April 10, 2024, meeting. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 5. Adjournment Neil Conner motioned to adjourn at 8:46 p.m. Jackson Beamer seconded. City Council meeting, March 25, 2024, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street Page 17 of 214 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA held in the Community Room, Salem, Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: RSF Residential Single Family Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Existing Use: Civic Proposed Use: PUD Planned Unit District BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject property is commonly known as “HopeTree”, formerly as the “Baptist Home” and consists of seven parcels land of approximately 62.318 acres. It is bounded by the Stonegate & Emerald Hills subdivisions and North Broad Street on the west, East Carrollton Avenue on the south, Red Lane on the east, and Interstate 81 to the north. The property is currently, and will continue, to be the home of HopeTree Family Services. These services include clinical services such as equine assisted psychotherapy, therapeutic foster care, the HopeTree Academy, therapeutic group homes, and developmental disability homes. This request is to rezone the property in order for it to be developed as a planned unit district that will contain the existing HopeTree services, a significant number of residential building types (not to exceed 340 units including Accessory Dwelling Units), single-use renovated and/or one-story structures, and mixed use structures that will contain commercial uses. Approximately 35% of the site will be preserved or used as public or private open space areas including a proposed lawn area near the center of the site. As a planned unit district is extremely flexible by design, the exact building types and locations have not been determined. The applicant is proposing access adjustments to the property. According to the proposal, the existing main entrance from Mount Vernon Lane and East Carrolton will remain. The northern entrance on Red Lane will be moved in line with the intersection to the North Oaks Subdivision. The second existing entrance from Red Lane will remain and four additional entrances from Red Lane will be added. Two additional entrances will be constructed on East Carrollton Avenue along with the opening and extension of North Broad Street. All roads within the PUD will be privately owned. Several potential areas for stormwater management are identified throughout the plan. As a PUD is designed to be flexible in nature, the exact size and location of the SWM areas have not been determined. As a light imprint development, stormwater facilities are often small in nature and dispersed throughout the development. The actual number of facilities and their design will depend on engineering and regulatory requirements and will be reviewed and approved through the site plan review process. Page 18 of 214 PROFFERED CONDITIONS: The Planned Unit District master plan (labeled PUD Rezoning Application in attached documentation) will constitute the required conditional zoning proffers. All other documentation included throughout the application process is supportive in nature. INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC DATA SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The City hired Mattern & Craig, an independent, licensed professional engineer to review the traffic data that was submitted with the request for accuracy and to obtain a third party opinion. In summary, Mattern & Craig found the need for an expansion of the study area in regard to the intersections examined (not just Red Lane/East Carrolton Ave and East Carrolton Ave/North Broad St) and data points collected. Additionally, there needs to be justification for the trip generation reduction (currently as assumption of 25%); otherwise, standardized metrics (provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers or VDOT) should be utilized. Mattern & Craig’s analysis can be found in the supporting documents of this staff report. Balzer and Associates responded to Mattern & Craig’s independent analysis, and correspondingly updated its Traffic Impact Study. Those materials can be found in the supporting documents of this staff report. Mattern & Craig responded to the updated Balzer and Associates Traffic Impact Study, noting that “the revised study appears to conform with VDOT and industry standard practices, and addresses our concerns with the original study.” SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN REGARDING TRAFFIC: The applicants have amended page 7 of the PUD document to reflect that traffic generation from new residential and non-residential uses will not exceed 4,037 trips per day. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS: The proposed development was submitted to all city departments for comment and review. Below is the response of each department: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Engineering Division If approved, the project will have to comply with all applicable local and state stormwater regulations and requirements, including over-detention. An independent analysis of the submitted traffic data was performed by Mattern & Craig, Professional Engineers. For more details, please see the Traffic Section above. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Planning & Zoning Division The intent of the Planned Unit District (PUD) is to encourage maximum flexibility in the design and development of land. PUD developments facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets, utilities and other improvements, and allow for the management of the natural and scenic qualities of Page 19 of 214 vacant land that is proposed for development. The PUD district allows a variety of housing options, as well as commercial, civic and office use types of a number and scale sufficient to serve the needs of the PUD residents. This proposal offers a delightful light imprint development focused on walkability, open space, amenities, and a sense of community. The numerous revisions to the submitted documents serve as helpful guidelines to ensure that the plan’s stated objectives are fulfilled by the development’s potential buildout. For example, maximums have been introduced both residentially and commercially, guaranteeing that there will be no more than 340 residential units constructed in the development (including Accessory Dwelling Units), no more than 15,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses (not including other limited permitted commercial uses), no more than 34 hotel rooms, and no more than 35,000 square feet of limited “other commercial” (non-retail/restaurant/hotel) and office space. While it is likely that single-family detached homes will be constructed as part of the project should it be approved, there is no guarantee of that housing archetype based on the current plan. Since the original submission, the project team has greatly refined the allowable use list in respect to the appropriate uses for HopeTree’s location and proximity to downtown. Additional discussion with City staff and City leadership since the March Planning Commission meeting has resulted in the removal/adjustment of approximately 50 proposed uses. HopeTree’s Project Team has been very receptive to the suggestions of staff and City leadership. The PUD document has significantly involved since its original submittal, and its allotted maximums provide safeguards for use and density concerns. In its current form, staff feels that the Planned Unit District document satisfies the corresponding requirements listed in the zoning ordinance. Economic Development HopeTree’s proposed development appears to be a very creative “outside the box” development, unique to the Roanoke Region. The overall development has the potential for becoming a well-known planned development well outside the Roanoke Valley. Historically, economic development only engages in commercial and industrial land use development. The proposed HopeTree development is a unique master planned community largely consisting of residential development. However, in the interest of economic development, the plan incorporates several initiatives related to Economic Development’s strategic plan and incorporates a small portion of proposed commercial uses. Proposed commercial uses are predominantly associated with the adaptive reuse of older HopeTree buildings. Related to Economic Development’s strategic plan, the HopeTree development supports several objectives, including: 1. Opportunities to diversify the housing options in the City of Salem a. Support existing efforts in retention and attraction of talent 2. Opportunities to expand quality of life amenities to local residents a. Pedestrian walking paths, preserving open green space and recreation for the public b. Increase beatification efforts in building design and city corridors i. Reference of Wiley Court & pocket parks are positive 3. Business attraction & entrepreneurial support a. Enhanced adaptive reuse of older buildings can boost efforts to attract eclectic businesses with potential to be retail/hospitality destinations Page 20 of 214 ELECTRIC Electric loading - The proposed development would not adversely affect the power in that area. We have adequate feeds available for the new load. Easement/Pre-Construction – This development will require extensive easements and phase planning prior to construction. The existing power on site will need to be replaced/intercepted as Salem Electric will be bringing the existing power up to its code. Well in advance to construction, materials and equipment will need to be decided upon in coordination with the developer and ordered to ensure that they will be available at the time of construction. Construction – The proposed development will require all new power feeds into the site. Coordinating the existing power with the new facilities will require extensive electrical work and planning to ensure that outages will be manageable and new electric services will be available to the proposed phases of construction. POLICE Along the same lines of the Police Department’s response to the Simms Farm development, we would anticipate a slight increase in Calls for Police Services which is expected from any development of this nature. We are not in a position to dispute the facts presented in the Traffic Study which details the increase of vehicular traffic in the adjacent neighborhoods. At this time, there is no immediate concern regarding quality of life issues such as homelessness. SCHOOLS Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this matter. Ultimately, please know that the School Board and School Administration trust the City Council and City Administrators to make good decisions that benefit all Salem residents. From the perspective of the Salem City School Division, new development is likely to increase enrollment. Since 2017, the Salem City School Division has experienced a significant decline in enrollment, negatively affecting state funding (approximately 300 students in grades K-12). Increased enrollment will provide additional revenue from the state on a per–pupil basis for annual instructional costs. Additionally, enrollment increases generally happen over time, which permits staffing and program delivery to adapt and adjust incrementally. Outside of annual instructional programming, the other consideration is the capacity of school facilities. The proposed development is in what is currently the West Salem Elementary Attendance Zone. West Salem Elementary School has a facility capacity of approximately 450 students and is currently operating below capacity with approximately 400 students, some of whom are nonresident students or in-division transfer students. So, there is capacity for increased enrollment at West Salem. ALMS and SHS also have ample space to address increases in enrollment in grades 6-12. If additional enrollment results in the need to adjust attendance zones, changes will be phased in over time by permitting current students in affected neighborhoods to continue attending the neighborhood's traditional school while new students are transported to the newly assigned school. In large or rural districts, the redundant transportation required to phase in changes would be a more significant challenge than it will be here in Salem. While there would be a modest increase in transportation costs during implementation, it would be a small price to pay to mitigate the impact of changing attendance zones on families. Page 21 of 214 STREET DEPARTMENT All roads in this PUD will be privately owned; therefore, the City will not have any maintenance cost. All maintenance, snow removal, asphalt patching, and etc. would be the responsibility of the owner. When it comes to trash, we feel we can service those new residential units initially with current staffing levels and keep the collection day the same as it currently is, until the PUD is fully built out. There will be a slight increase in fuel and maintenance. Once it is completed, we would need to re-evaluate to see if we need to increase staff to handle the total number of residential units there. There is the possibility of increased staff and salary along with fuel and maintenance costs once the PUD is completed. We will provide a garbage tote to each new residential unit; I’m only counting one tote for each of the units. The traffic study mentions 340 residential units (115 single family detached, 140 single family attached, 85 multi-family units). The current cost of a new tote is about $75 each including shipping, which is going to cost $25,500.00. Garbage totes last approximately ten years. I’m estimating the residential units might dispose of 150lbs of garbage per week, which equals 26 tons a week. We currently pay $55.00 a ton, equals $1,430.00 a week or $5,700.00 a month or $74,400.00 a year for disposal. We would also provide curbside bulk collection. Being they will be new residential units this is a difficult one to estimate; I would estimate $6,000.00 in tipping fees for bulk. In round numbers, the impact to garbage collection will be approximately $80K annually. WATER DEPARTMENT We still have a concern about how the water metering will be handled since the complex is currently served by a master meter. Likely, some of the existing HopeTree buildings will have to be separately metered. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the request. 2. Recommend denial of the request. Page 22 of 214 REZONING NARRATIVE As outlined in the PUD document, the vision for this property is to allow for the development of a fully integrated, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood woven into the existing HopeTree campus of buildings and surrounding open space, while being sensitive to, and providing meaningful connections to, the surrounding neighborhoods in the community. On behalf of HopeTree Family Services (HopeTree), we are providing the narrative below as supplemental information to support the rezoning application and Planned Unit District (PUD) document with associated zoning information and guidelines for the development. This request is to rezone a portion of existing Tax Parcel 44-3-10 from RSF-Residential Single Family, to PUD-Planned Unit District for a proposed mixed- use neighborhood to be developed on the property. The HopeTree PUD document is the only document that is proffered with this request and all other documents are provided as supplemental information to further explain the request. Project Narrative The portion of the property that is proposed to be rezoned is approximately 62.318 acres along Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue. The parcel is owned, operated, and occupied by HopeTree Family Services. HopeTree Family Services offers a wide range of ministries for at-risk children and youth and their families. These services include Treatment Foster Care, the HopeTree Academy secondary educational program, and Therapeutic Group Home. HopeTree also serves the needs of adults with intellectual disabilities and their families through their Developmental Disabilities Ministry. HopeTree Family Services is supported by the Virginia Baptist Children’s Home & Family Services Foundation and is a mission partner of the Virginia Baptist Mission Board. Over the last several decades, the use of this property has changed significantly, mainly due to a changing regulatory environment surrounding the specific types of services that have occupied the Salem campus. At its peak, when HopeTree was an orphanage, the campus was home to more than 400 youth ranging in age from 5 to 18. New regulations have discouraged the type of large-scale group home that existed on this campus in the past and have moved instead toward smaller-scale facilities that are integrated with the surrounding communities in which they are located. Because of limits from licensing bodies, the HopeTree campus is now limited to housing no more than 16 youth residents ages 13 to 17. In the past, youth would live on the campus for years until they turned 18. Today, youth residents typically stay no more than 6 months before being moved to another setting or back to their home. Care for youth and adults is moving away from a congregate, campus-style setting. Today, most services are offered in the communities in which they already live. As a result, HopeTree no longer has a need for the large amount of property that exists at this site; however, there is a strong desire to stay true to HopeTree’s roots and maintain a presence in this location. The HopeTree Board of Directors has been discussing options for the Salem campus since 2007. Several recommendations have been considered over the years, including selling the Salem campus property and moving elsewhere, or selling a portion of property along the Red Lane frontage for development. The proposed rezoning request is a result of HopeTree’s desire to “do more” with the property and to create something that will benefit HopeTree, the City of Salem, and its residents for years to come. The proposed PUD rezoning and associated development will allow HopeTree to remain on the property where they have so much history, while integrating HopeTree’s services with the proposed development, which is in keeping with the intent of the new regulations. HopeTree is currently teamed with a residential Page 23 of 214 home builder (Stateson Homes) and commercial builder (Snyder & Associates), who are providing construction expertise on the project. Existing Conditions Existing improvements on the site include approximately 20 buildings of varying condition, drive aisles and parking areas, pool, tennis and basketball courts, two existing baseball fields near Red Lane, picnic shelter, above-ground stormwater management facility, and other miscellaneous improvements. The existing improvements have served various purposes for HopeTree over the years and many of them are under utilized or no longer utilized at all. Many of the buildings are centered around the core area in the center of the site. Six of these buildings (Portsmouth, Memorial, Carpenter, English, the Infirmary, and Ruth Camp Campbell) are currently vacant and will not be used again by HopeTree and were previously planned to be demolished. The proposed development envisions preserving as many of these structures as possible and converting them to residential or commercial uses that the entire community can benefit from. Utilizing the existing structures will preserve the unique character of the campus and allow this existing infrastructure to be re-purposed for the intended new uses. Existing topography is rolling with a ridge through the middle of the site running north to south that contains much of the existing development. There is an existing pond and two existing creeks on the property. One creek is on the west side to the south of the pond and the other creek is located in the southeast corner of the site. These features are anticipated to remain and have been incorporated into the Master Plan. There is a wooded area near the pond and creek along the western side of the property and this vegetation will be preserved to the extent practical. The property has frontage on the public rights-of-way of Red Lane, East Carrollton Avenue, North Broad Street, and Mount Vernon Avenue. This property is designated for residential use on the City of Salem Future Land Use Map dated June 11, 2012. The property is surrounded by Interstate 81 to the north and existing residential development on other sides. Community Vision The intent of this project is to preserve the HopeTree campus and buildings to the extent practical (including the buildings that were previously planned to be demolished) and provide new and infill development, where appropriate. Guiding principles of the project are to create a new community that minimizes traffic congestion, suburban sprawl, site grading, infrastructure costs, and preserves natural features and amenities. The plan for the HopeTree project is based on neighborhood design and development conventions which were widely used in the United States up until the 1940s and were based on the principles outlined throughout the PUD document. A design charette was held in October 2022 to solicit input from, and engage with, adjacent property owners, City staff, elected City officials, and other stakeholders for the project. While engaging with the community during the development of the Master Plan, it was noted that the existing neighborhood lacks pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks or trails. Residents currently walk along Red Lane and the speed of traffic along this road was also cited as a major concern. It is the intent of the project to reduce vehicle trips and encourage pedestrian activity by limiting the width of vehicular drives, providing on-street parking where possible, and providing a network of sidewalks and trails throughout the property. In addition to these design principles, the project also proposes to install on-street parking along the frontage of Red Lane, which will slow traffic and provide additional parking opportunities, and to install a new sidewalk along the frontage of Red Lane to provide safe pedestrian accommodations for the surrounding community. Page 24 of 214 Density The City of Salem has very limited land resources remaining to be developed and it is paramount to utilize these remaining land resources to their true potential. The proposed PUD plan allows for the HopeTree property to be developed to its potential while also being sensitive to the existing community and its residents. These are guiding principles of this PUD plan. The density of the development will be limited by what is allowed in the PUD document. The total number of primary residential units shall not exceed 340. Accessory dwelling units will also be allowed but are not expected to be a major component of the project. Residential uses will make up the majority of the development with the proposed commercial uses and existing HopeTree institutional uses being integrated into the overall development. The commercial uses within the development will be determined based on what this community can support but is anticipated to consist of smaller users that are integrated into the neighborhood at an appropriate scale and in thoughtful locations. Approximately 40% of the property will be preserved either in a natural state or as public or private open space areas. This includes the large area on the west side of the site that contains the existing pond, creek, and natural vegetation. Several interior open space areas will be provided as well, including the proposed lawn area near the center of the site. Development Guidelines The development of the property will be governed by the PUD document. Lot development regulations, architectural standards, etc. are provided within the document and will be enforceable throughout the development. Allowable uses are outlined in the Use Table that is provided within the PUD document. Roads Roads and drive aisles internal to the development will be private. On-street parking will be a preferred parking solution for the development and will be utilized where practical. All proposed roads will be paved, and we will work with the appropriate City staff to ensure that sufficient access for emergency and trash collection vehicles is provided. A network of sidewalks will be provided throughout the development to encourage pedestrian activity and connectivity, as this is a central theme of the project. On-street parking and new sidewalk will be provided on Red Lane along the frontage of the property. The intent of these improvements is to slow traffic along this section of Red Lane, provide additional public parking opportunities, and to provide a dedicated pedestrian accommodation where one does not exist now. This section of Red Lane has a significant amount of pedestrian activity, and these improvements will serve existing and new residents. Access There are existing vehicular access points on Red Lane (2 locations) and East Carrollton Avenue (1 location). Additional access points are proposed along Red Lane, East Carrollton Avenue, and at the end of North Broad Street. One of the central themes within this development is to provide multiple access points to increase connectivity within the existing street grid pattern and to allow vehicular trips to be distributed to the existing road network more efficiently. As requested by the City, a Traffic Study has been prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. that analyzes the development and impacts to the existing roadway network adjacent to the project. In addition to this, turn lane warrants have been analyzed. The quantities of residential and commercial uses have been assumed in order to study a reasonable and conservative level of traffic that will be generated by this project. The uses assumed in the study intended to be placeholders and are not intended to represent exactly what will be developed on the property. As outlined in the Traffic Study, the surrounding road network is Page 25 of 214 sufficient to handle traffic from the proposed development and impacts to delay and level of service are minimal. The development does not meet any turn lane warrants at any of the proposed access points. Sight distance requirements will be required to be met with the final development plans. Utilities This project will be served by public water and sewer. As discussed with the City of Salem Water and Sewer Department, sufficient capacity exists within the existing public water and sewer systems to serve the proposed development. Public water and sewer will be extended through the property to serve the existing and proposed buildings and replace the existing private utility systems that are currently in place. New public water mains are anticipated to provide additional interconnectivity and redundancy in the system, which will improve service to the property and the surrounding area. Comprehensive Development Plan This project is in conformance with many of the Goals and Objectives defined in the City of Salem’s current Comprehensive Plan. The development pattern for this project is sensitive to the existing surrounding neighborhoods by centering the most intense uses near the core of the property furthest from the existing residential houses. The least intense residential uses are located around the perimeter of the property, closest to the existing roadways and existing residential homes. The variety of housing types acknowledges and addresses the need for new housing and varying types of housing in the City of Salem. The intent of the project is to maximize the development potential of the most developable portions of the property and to preserve the most environmentally sensitive areas of the property. The preservation of open space, development of pedestrian amenities, and extensive landscaping will all enhance the neighborhood and directly address the goals of improving the beauty and appearance of the City of Salem and Preserving and Enhancing Open Space on Private properties. Summary The proposed development regulations and Master Plan are fully outlined in the HopeTree PUD document, attached to this application. It is the intent that this be the official document that will guide the development of this property. HopeTree has repeatedly stated that its three main goals for the project are “to honor the history of HopeTree on this campus, to position HopeTree for the future, and to make our community proud.” We are extremely excited to submit this application for rezoning. This project provides an excellent opportunity for the City of Salem to gain a new mixed-use community that will serve existing and future residents of Salem. The HopeTree project will provide many different housing types, while being sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhoods, preserving important natural features, and providing services and amenities that will benefit the entire community. Page 26 of 214 Page 27 of 214 Page 28 of 214 Page 29 of 214 Page 30 of 214 Page 31 of 214 PROJECT NO. REVISIONS SCALE DATE CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY www.balzer.cc Roanoke / Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley PLANNERS / ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS J: \ 2 2 \ 0 0 \ 0 4 \ 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 9 . 0 0 H O P E T R E E M A S T E R P L A N \ C I V I L \ d w g \ 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 9 . 0 0 C i v i l B a s e 6 . 2 9 . 2 0 2 3 . d w g P L O T T E D : 1 2 / 1 / 2 0 2 3 9 : 0 7 : 4 3 A M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 AAB CPB CPB 12/1/2023 1" = 100' HO P E T R E E P L A N N E D U S E D I S T R I C T PR O P E R T Y E X H I B I T CI T Y O F S A L E M , V I R G I N I A MO U N T V E R N O N A V E N U E EX-A 04220029.00Page 32 of 214 PROJECT NO. REVISIONS SCALE DATE CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY www.balzer.cc Roanoke / Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley PLANNERS / ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS J: \ 2 2 \ 0 0 \ 0 4 \ 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 9 . 0 0 H O P E T R E E M A S T E R P L A N \ C I V I L \ d w g \ 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 9 . 0 0 H o p e T r e e P r o p e r t y E x h i b i t . d w g P L O T T E D : 2 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 4 1 0 : 3 4 : 4 8 A M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 AAB CPB CPB 2/9/2024 1" = 100' HO P E T R E E PR O P E R T Y O W N E R S H I P E X H I B I T CI T Y O F S A L E M , V I R G I N I A MO U N T V E R N O N A V E N U E EX-A 04220029.00 PRE L I M I N A R Y PROPERTY EXPECTED TO BE RETAINED BY HOPETREE (±22 ACRES TOTAL) LEGEND Page 33 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 HOPETREE SALEM, VIRGINIA PUD REZONING APPLICATION 1Page 34 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 SALEM PUD REZONING APPLICATION CITY OF SALEM VIRGINIA PUD APPLICATION PLANNING OBJECTIVES Per the Salem Zoning Application Sec. 106-228.4. Application process:To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary master plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 1.A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2.Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3.A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific manmade and natural characteristics located on the site. 4.A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, etc. 5.A land use plan designating specific use types for the site, both residential and non-residential use types, and establishing site development regulations, including setback, height, building coverage, lot coverage, and density requirements. 6.A circulation plan, including location of existing and proposed vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and other circulation facilities and location and general design of parking and loading facilities. General information on the trip generation, ownership and maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A traffic impact analysis may be required by the administrator. 7.A public services and utilities plan providing requirements for and provision of all utilities, sewers, and other facilities to serve the site. 8.An open space plan, including areas proposed for passive and active recreational uses, natural and undisturbed areas, and proposed buffer areas proposed around the perimeter of the site. Information on the specific design and location of these areas and their ownership and maintenance should be included. 9.Generalized statements pertaining to any architectural and community design guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, etc. 10.A development schedule indicating the location, extent and sequence of proposed development. Specific information on development of the open space, recreational areas, and non-residential uses should be included. 2Page 35 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Development The site is currently developed with a network of private driveways and several existing buildings on the property. The center core of the site is located on top of a ridge and consists of many of the existing buildings, as well as supporting parking areas and other improvements. Some of the existing buildings are currently being utilized by HopeTree, while others are vacant. There are also two recreational fields located near Red Lane to the north of the center core. The existing site has road frontage on East Carrollton Avenue, Red Lane, and North Broad Street. There is an existing private access drive (Mount Vernon Lane) from East Carrollton Avenue that accesses through the site and provides access to the center core before continuing through the site and back to Red Lane. A separate private access drive (Printers Lane) from Red Lane provides access to the recreational fields, as well as providing an additional connection to Mount Vernon Lane to the north of the center core. In addition to these private roads, there are also adult homes located at the north end of the property with driveways that access directly from Red Lane. Existing Topography There is an existing ridge bisecting the property from north to south. The east side of the property slopes from this ridge and from Red Lane to an existing drainage swale and storm sewer system. There is an existing stormwater management detention pond located near the center core of the property that was constructed with a previous development project. Existing Natural Features/Floodplain There is an existing pond located on the property in the northwest corner adjacent to Interstate 81. The pond discharges to an existing creek to the south that conveys stormwater from north to south toward the existing residential area at the end of North Broad Street. There is also an existing creek located at the southeast corner of the property that begins at the end of the existing storm sewer system that conveys water through the HopeTree property. This creek conveys runoff to an existing culvert under East Carrollton Avenue. The property is not located within a FEMA-defined floodplain. Existing Vegetation Much of the property that is not developed with buildings or pavement/hardscape is covered with a mix of managed turf and pasture. There is a large wooded area on the west side of the property around the pond and existing creek. There is a variation of other trees that are located throughout the property, with many of these being in the southeast corner of the site or along Red Lane. EXISTING SITE PLAN EXISTING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE 4.A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, etc. BALZER ENGINEERS 1.A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2.Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. BALZER AND ASSOCIATES 62.318 3 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10. Page 36 of 214 EXISTING SITE PLAN HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 BALZER ENGINEERS SWIMMING POOL BASKETBALL & TENNIS COURTS STABLES ALMA HUNT BUILDING BLEADSOE BUILDING BLESSINGS BUILDING RUTH CAMP CAMPBELL BUILDING MEMORIAL BUILDING LONGVIEW BUILDING PRESIDENT’S HOUSE BROWNLEY DOCK EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES FISHING POND BAPTIST ORPHANAGE CEMETARY HOBDAY BOXLEY BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING ANNEX BUILDING INFIRMARY BUILDING JAMES CAMP CARPENTER BUILDING 4Page 37 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 EXISTING SITE PLAN AERIAL Dra$ 9.25.22 5Page 38 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN WITH AERIAL 6Page 39 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF SALEM VIRGINIA PUD APPLICATION HOPETREE Master Planned TND Traditional Neighborhood Development PLANNING OBJECTIVES Per the Salem Zoning Application Sec. 106-228.4. - Application process: “ 3. A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific manmade and natural characteristics located on the site.” The purpose of the Hopetree master plan is to allow for the development of fully integrated, mixed-use pedestrian oriented neighborhood woven into the existing Hopetree campus of buildings and surrounding open space while connecting to the surrounding neighborhoods where feasible. The intent is to preserve the Hopetree campus and buildings and for new and infill development to minimize traffic congestion, suburban sprawl, site grading, infrastructure costs, and environmental degradation. The provisions of the Hopetree neighborhood are based on urban design and development conventions which were widely used in the United States since its founding until the 1940's and were based on the following principles: A. All neighborhoods have identifiable centers and edges. B. The center of the neighborhood is easily accessed by non-vehicular means from lots on the edges (i.e. approximately one-quarter-mile from center to edge, or a five-minute walk). C. Uses and housing types are mixed and in close proximity to one another. D. Street networks are interconnected and blocks are small. E. Civic buildings are given prominent sites throughout the neighborhood. THE HOPETREE MASTER PLAN INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING DESIGN FEATURES: A. Neighborhood form. 1. Dwellings at the edge of the neighborhood are roughly a five-minute walk or less to the center of the neighborhood. 2. A great variety of housing types and price ranges is included in the neighborhood, with the highest density of housing located towards the center of the neighborhood. 3. Within the neighborhood a mix of land uses is arranged to serve the needs of the residents in a convenient walking environment: open space/recreational areas, civic buildings, low and high density residential, retail/commercial, business/workplace, institutional, educational, and parking. 4. The area of the overall master plan includes the existing core campus with the surrounding open areas divided into blocks, streets, lots, greenways, and open space. 5. Similar land uses generally front across each street. Dissimilar land uses generally abut at rear lot lines. Corner lots which front on streets of dissimilar use generally observe the setback established on each fronting street. 6. Along existing streets, new buildings are compatible with the general spacing of structures, building mass and scale, and street frontage relationships of existing buildings. 7. The appearance of the neighborhood blends in with existing surrounding neighborhoods and feature the use of similar materials in construction. B. Lots and buildings: 1. New lots share a frontage line with a street or public space; lots fronting on a public space shall have access to a rear alley. 2. Consistent build-to lines are established along all streets and public space frontages. 3. All buildings, except accessory structures, have their main entrance opening on a street or public space. 4. No structure exceeds 3 stories in height in the Edge zone, and 4 stories in the General and Center zones. Height of buildings shall be measured per the Salem code and shall not exceed 45’ in any location. C. Streets, alleys and pathways: 1. Designs permit comfortable use of the street by motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Pavement widths, design speeds, and number of motor travel lanes are minimized to enhance safety for motorists and non-motorists alike. The specific design of each street considers the building types which front on the street and the relationship of the street to the overall town street network. An extensive system of connected pathways is woven through the core campus extending to the perimeter. 2. A combination of perimeter public streets and internal private streets provide access to all tracts and lots 3. Streets and alleys connect where feasible at other streets within the neighborhood and connect to existing and projected streets outside the development. Cul-de-sac and dead-end streets are discouraged and should only occur where absolutely necessary due to natural conditions. 4. Block faces do not have a length greater than 500 feet without dedicated alleys or pathways providing through access. 5. To prevent the build-up of vehicular speed, disperse traffic flow, and create a sense of visual enclosure, long uninterrupted segments of straight streets are avoided. 6. A continuous network of rear alleys is provided for the majority of lots. 7. Existing and proposed utilities are underground and run along alleys wherever possible as well as some streets and greenways. 8. Streets are organized according to a hierarchy based on function, size, capacity and design speed. Streets and rights-of-ways are therefore expected to differ in dimension. The proposed hierarchy of streets is indicated on the submitted master plan and each street type is separately detailed in the master plan. 9. Every street, except alleys, has a sidewalk on at least one side that is at least five feet wide. In commercial areas, sidewalks shall be at least ten feet wide. D. Parking: 1. On-street parking is provided on all streets where feasible. Occasional on-street parking may be accommodated without additional pavement width. For streets which serve workplace and storefront buildings, on-street parking is required and should be marked as such. On-street parking is parallel to the street unless the street lends itself to other parking layouts. 2. Parking lots are generally located at the rear or at the side of buildings and screened from public rights-of-way and adjoining properties by land forms or evergreen vegetation . 3. To the extent practicable, adjacent parking lots are interconnected. 4. Small and strategically placed parking areas are also provided. 5. Parking areas are paved as required and all parking areas and traffic lanes shall be clearly marked. 6. The number, width and location of curb cuts is such as to minimize traffic hazards, inconvenience and congestion. 7. Off-street parking and loading requirements as outlined in the city’s parking regulations may be used as guidance but there are no minimum parking standards. 8. The master plan provides adequate parking and off-street loading areas for different areas of the development, based on the uses allowed and the density of development. 9. In addition to landscaping provided for screening above, trees are planted around the perimeter and interior of parking lots to provide shade. E. Landscaping: 1. Trees are planted within right-of-ways parallel to the street along all streets except alleys. 2. Tree spacing is determined by species type selected from the City list of approved trees. Large maturing trees are generally planted a minimum of 30 feet and a maximum of 50 feet on center. Small and medium maturing trees are planted a minimum of ten feet and a maximum of 30 feet on center. 3. Large maturing trees are generally planted along residential streets and along the street frontages and perimeter areas of parks, squares, greenbelts and civic structures. 4. Small maturing trees are generally planted along non-residential streets, interior portions of parks, squares, greenbelts and civic lots. Storefronts are not obstructed by the planting pattern. 5. The natural features of the landscape are incorporated into the landscaping plan. 6. All plantings are with native or appropriate species (refer to the City list). 7. Buffer requirements for property located on the perimeter of the neighborhood has setbacks and buffers that are consistent with the setbacks and buffers of the adjoining zoning district, including provisions for accessory buildings, but are a minimum of 10 feet. F. Sidewalks and Greenways: 1. Sidewalks or greenway easements are proposed in locations shown on the master plan or proposed to connect to pedestrian facilities shown on the master plan. 2. Existing sidewalks at the time of development or re-development in each phase are improved, repaired, or replaced as necessary. G. Uses 1. Maximum number of total residential units is 340. 2. Maximum number of total hotel rooms is 34. 3. Maximum total square footage of retail and restaurant uses is 15,000 s.f. 4. Home occupations shall not be counted toward any maximum densities. Permitted uses shall be based on the general category of use that has been established for a lot or group of lots as shown in the Use Table. 3.A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific manmade and natural characteristics located on the site. 7Page 40 of 214 T-4 NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL T-4 The Neighborhood General Zone consists of higher-density scale urban fabric with predominantely attached residential and serves as a transition from neighborhood edge to the neighborhood center with the historic campus core. Home occupation and accessory buildings are allowed. Setbacks and landscaping are also similar and may vary some. These houses front on new streets, and greenways. Streets vary depending on location and may include curbs, planting strips, sidewalks arranged with traditional size blocks including side streets, rear lanes, and greenways. General Character A mix of houses with a range of medium to high density building types including a range of single-family urban houses, multi-family estates, cottages, townhouses in a variety of configurations, cottage courts, stacked flats, loft houses, mews houses, multi-family houses, tree houses, and multi-family buildings. Building Placement Shallow front and side yard setbacks. Accessory building and parking are accessed from rear lanes. Frontage Type Porches, stoops, terraces, light wells, forecourts, shopfronts, Galleries, and arcades. Typical Building Two to four-story Types of Civic Space: Urban streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, courtyards, plazas, terraces, mews, and linear green fingers with pathways. T-5 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER T-5 The Neighborhood Center Zone consists of higher-density scale urban fabric with predominantely attached residential and mixed- use buildings including infill in the historic campus core. These buildings front on squares, campus greens, plazas, parking courts, streets, and greenways. Street are limited in the core and vary depending on location and may include curbs, planting strips, sidewalks arranged with traditional size blocks including side streets, rear lanes, and greenways. General Character A mix of buildings with a range of medium to high density building types including townhouses in a variety of configurations, tree houses on steep slopes, stacked flats, loft houses, mews houses, multi-family estates, multi-family buildings, and mixed-use buildings. Building Placement No setbacks are required for buildings in the general campus parcel. Parking is accessed from on-street parking, rear lanes, in nearby perimeter areas adjacent to the core campus including the parking allee, and in small parking courts that also serve as civic gather space. Frontage Type Stoops, terraces, light wells, forecourts, shopfronts, Galleries, and arcades. Typical Building Two to four-story Types of Civic Space: Urban streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, courtyards, plazas, terraces, mews, and linear green fingers with pathways. HISTORIC EXISTING CAMPUS CORE The historic campus consists of a range of institutional buildings originally serving the orphanage as well as newer school buildings, a chapel, dormitories, and other related uses. Each historic building is to be retained where feasible for on going institutional uses, commercial, residential and mixed-use with additional infill mixed-use buildings, building additions, and spaces. These buildings front on squares, campus greens, plazas, parking courts, streets, and greenways. Streets are limited in the core and vary depending on location and may include curbs, planting strips, sidewalks arranged with traditional size blocks including side streets, rear lanes, and greenways. General Character A mix of buildings with a range of medium to high density building types including townhouses in a variety of configurations, tree houses on steep slopes, stacked flats, loft houses, mews houses, multi-family houses, multi-family buildings, and mixed-use buildings. Building Placement Minimum or no setback are required. Parking is accessed from on-street parking, rear lanes, in nearby perimeter areas adjacent to the core campus including the parking allee, and in small parking courts that also serve as civic gathering space. Frontage Type Stoops, terraces, light wells, forecourts, shopfronts, Galleries, and arcades. Typical Building Two to four-story Types of Civic Space: Urban streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, courtyards, plazas, terraces, mews, and linear green fingers with pathways. T-3 NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE T-3 The Neighborhood Edge Zone consists of residential scale urban fabric similar to existing neighborhoods and serves as a buffer and transition to higher internal zones that have more residential and other mixed use. Home occupations and accessory buildings are allowed. Setbacks and landscaping are also similar and may vary some. These houses front on existing streets facing similar scale existing homes on the opposite side. Streets include curbs, planting strips, and will include new sidewalks with on-street parking on the Hopetree side arranged with traditional size blocks including connected streets, rear lanes, and greenways. General Character A mix of houses with a range of neighborhood density building types including larger estate houses, smaller single-family houses, multi-family estates, cottages, pair houses, stacked flats, townhouses in a variety of configurations, and cottage courts. Building Placement Shallow to medium front and side yard setbacks. Outbuilding and parking are accessed from rear lanes. Frontage Type Porches, stoops, landscaped front yards Typical Building One to two-story, with some three story Types of Civic Space: Neighborhood streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, and linear green fingers with pathways. EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS The existing surrounding neighborhoods consist of primarily traditional single family homes. Home occupations and accessory buildings are evident. Setbacks and landscaping are generally front lawns and vary in character. General surrounding neighborhood houses front on streets facing similar scale homes on the opposite side. Some blocks include rear lanes, while others use front loaded driveways. Existing streets include curbs, planting strips, both with and without sidewalks. Most neighborhoods are arranged with traditional size blocks. In the case of homes immediately around Hopetree, the homes generally face the campus open space in the form of recreation fields, lawn, pasture, or natural vegetation. There are no sidewalks along Red Lane and sidewalks only on one side of one block for North Broad Street and Carrollton Avenue. General Character A mix of houses immediately around Hopetree include larger estate houses, smaller single-family houses. Nearby neighborhoods include a range of larger estate houses, smaller single-family houses, multi-family estates, cottages, duplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, multi-family houses, multi-family buildings, and mixed-use buildings. Nearby Wiley Court is a famous example of a pocket court. Building Placement Shallow to medium front and side yard setbacks. Outbuilding and parking are accessed from rear lanes. Frontage Type Porches, stoops, landscaped front yards Typical Building One to two-story, with some three story Types of Civic Space: Neighborhood streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, and linear green fingers with pathways. HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 TRANSECT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS MISSING MIDDLE H O U S I N G ILLUSTRATION BY OPTICOS FOR AARP LIVABLE COMMUNITIES PUBLICATION ON MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-communities/housing/2022/Discovering and Developing Missing Middle Housing-spreads-093022.pdf SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES HOUSES COTTAGES MULTI-FAMILY HOUSES PAIR HOUSES COTTAGE COURTS TOWN HOUSES APARTMENT BUILDINGS MIXED-USE BUILDINGS URBAN CORE STACKED FLATS TRANSECT ZONES SUMMARY LESS URBAN MORE URBAN 3.A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific manmade and natural characteristics located on the site. 8Page 41 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 LAND USE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: •Building Types generally provide parking from rear alleys and lanes screened from frontages on lots. •On-street parking shall be provided along all streets where pratical. •Each Block Group includes a minimum of three (3) building types. •Each Block Group shall have 20% minimum of each of the building types used. •A minimum of six (6) building types shall be used for the overall project. • A maximum of five (5) of the same building type attached consecutively. •Civic or Historic Core Buildings may be converted to T5 - Neighborhood Center transect zone if the current use is discontinued. •Land may be subdivided into seperate ownership. •These standards do not CIVIC SPACE RESERVES HISTORIC CORE BUILDINGS CIVIC BUILDINGS STREETS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS & DETAILS BLOCK GROUP RECOMMENDED GALLERY RECOMMENDED SHOPFRONT VISTA POINTS PEDESTRIAN SHED - 5 MINUTE WALK RADIUS TRANSECT ZONES w/ FRONTAGE LINES T5 - NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER T4 - NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL T3 - NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE OPEN SPACE / NATURAL T5 T3 T4 TRANSECT ZONES & BUILDING TYPES KEY (SEE SPECIFIC BUILDING TYPES FOR STANDARDS) 5.A land use plan designating specific use types for the site, both residential and non-residential use types, and establishing site development regulations, including setback, height, building coverage, lot coverage, and density requirements. STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED 9 E - ESTATE H - HOUSE / ADU C - COTTAGE / ADU PH - PAIR HOUSE / ADU T - TOWNHOUSE / ADU PC - POCKET / COTTAGE COURT TH-PU - TOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER 3THE - 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE SF - STACKED FLAT LH - LOFT HOUSE MH- MEWS HOUSE TR - TREE HOUSE AH - MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE AB - MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING MXB - MIXED-USE BUILDING CV - HISTORIC CORE BUILDING SITE T5 T3 T4 H C PH T AH PC TH- PU SF 3 THE LH MH MX B CV AB TR E Page 42 of 214 CIRCULATION PLAN HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 PARK ALLEE’ ST 20-64 PLAZA PL VARIES PEDESTRIAN PATH** PP 5/10 REAR LANE* RL 14-30 HOPETREE THOROUGHFARE TYPES HILLSIDE LANE HL 20-20 The Purpose of Streets designed within Hopetree is to create a network with managed motor vehicle driver speeds that are compatible with safe, comfortable walking and bicycle mobility. Target Speeds are 20 miles per hour. Lane widths of 10 feet maximum and street trees planted between certain parking spaces and between the curb and sidewalk help manage driver speeds via lateral views and provide shade for travelers in summer months. Wet utilities are typically placed in the front of buildings and dry utilities are in the rear. Solid waste is collected in the rear lanes enhancing walkability in front. MOUNT VERNON AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS* MV 36-60 RED LANE IMPROVEMENTS* RED - 28-60 ** On existing thoroughfares dimensions and details may vary based on existing conditions and site constraints. The first number is the estimated pavement width and second is the estimated R.O.W. width but dimensions may vary as the design is engineered in more detail. 6.A circulation plan, including location of existing and proposed vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and other circulation facilities and location and general design of parking and loading facilities. General information on the trip generation, ownership and maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A traffic impact analysis may be required by the administrator. ST ST PL PL RL RL RL RL RL RL RED MV MV HL HL HL HL HL HL MV RED RED PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PPPP PP PP PP PP PP PP 10 * On-street parking and a minimum 5' sidewalk shall be provided along Red Lane. Page 43 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 4.25.23 7.A public services and utilities plan providing requirements for and provision of all utilities, sewers, and other facilities to serve the site. PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILITY PLAN * BALZER ENGINEERS * Loca'ons are conceptual and subject to change with the final design. 11Page 44 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 OPEN SPACE PLAN SHOWING PARKS, GREENWAYS, GREEN FINGERS, TREE CANOPY, TREE PLANTINGS, ,WATER FEATURES, & THE QUADRANGLE 8. An open space plan, including areas proposed for passive and active recreational uses, natural and undisturbed areas, and proposed buffer areas proposed around the perimeter of the site. Information on the specific design and location of these areas and their ownership and maintenance should be included. 12Page 45 of 214 POCKET COURT TRANSECT ZONES & BUILDING TYPES KEY (SEE SPECIFIC BUILDING TYPES FOR STANDARDS) HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 COMMUNITY DESIGN STANDARDS SUMMARY T5 – CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD T3 – EDGE NEIGHBORHOOD T4 – GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD COTTAGE MULIT-FAMILY HOUSE PAIR HOUSEESTATE TOWNHOUSEHOUSE SHOP FRONT / MIXED-USE MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGTOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE STACKED FLAT LOFT HOUSE MEWS HOUSE T5 – CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD T4 – GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD T3 – EDGE NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE / PARK T1 – NATURAL CIVIC CIVIC AHTH- PU SF3 THE LH MH MX B CV ABTR C PH T PCEH HOUSING & BUILDING TYPES BY TRANSECT ZONES TREE HOUSE 9.Generalized statements pertaining to any architectural and community design guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, etc. E - ESTATE H - HOUSE / ADU C - COTTAGE / ADU PH - PAIR HOUSE / ADU T - TOWNHOUSE / ADU PC - POCKET / COTTAGE COURT TH-PU - TOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER 3THE - 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE SF - STACKED FLAT LH - LOFT HOUSE MH- MEWS HOUSE TR - TREE HOUSE AH - MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE AB - MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING MXB - MIXED-USE BUILDING CV - CIVIC BUILDING SITE T5 T3 T4 H C PH T AH PC TH- PU SF 3 THE LH MH MX B CV AB TR E 13 Note: These standards do not apply to the existing buildings. Page 46 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 BUILDING TYPES STANDARDS TEMPLATE F/G A E B C D HH I K J L TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE A Townhouse is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For Townhouses, garages and/or parking is provided from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a street or public greenway. Townhouses in the Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 16’ min. x 80’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 10’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 100 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 5’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 4’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. DESCRIPTION LOT DIMENSIONS DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS KEYED TO THE GRAPHIC PLAN FORM-BASED GRAPHIC PLAN NAME OF BUILDING TYPES ACCESSORY’ DWELLING UNIT PRIMARY ‘BUILDING SIDE PORCH LOT BOUNDARY REAR LANE DRIVEWAY REAR YARD PLANTING STRIP FRONT STREET STREET CORNER FRONT FACADE SIDE YARD FRONT YARD SIDE STREET PLANTING STRIP SIDEWALK FRONT PORCH SIDEWALK SAMPLE STANDARDS TEMPLATE KEY 14 THIS IS A SAMPLE BUILDING TYPES TEMPLATE KEY FOR REFERENCE ONLY AS A GUILD TO THE BUILDING TYPES STANDARDS GRAPHICS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT. THE TEXT LABELS IN RED IIDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FEATURED ON THE GRAPHICS FOR EACH TYPE. NOTE: THESE STANDARDS DO NOT APPLY TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. Page 47 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 GREENWAY OPTION A E B C D HH I K J LF/G GREENWAY OPTION — AVAILABLE OF ALL TYPES A Greenway Option is for reference. Instead of fronting a street, the primary facade faces a public greenway connected to walks and trails while garages and/or parking is generally provided from a rear lane frontage. For each Type the Standards are the same. EXAMPLE of the HOUSE TYPE SHOWING the GREENWAY OPTION Lot width x depth 50’ min. x 100’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 20’ min. (B) Front Corner 15’ min. (C) Side 8’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side 5’ min. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 5’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 30’ min. (J) Building Front Encroachments 12’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 8’ max. (L) Height Principle Building Varied Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS ESTATE ESTATE An Estate is a large single-family dwelling on a large lot of more suburban character, often shared by one or more ancillary buildings. The primary facade faces a street or public greenway where a porch and entry are prominent. Garages and/or parking is generally provided from the street frontage and is set back from the primary facade, side-loaded, or set forward side-loaded. Garage forward doors are not permitted to face the street. Lot width x depth 80’ min. x 100’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 25’ min. (B) Front Corner 20’ min. (C) Side 20’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 25’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side 10’ min. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 6’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 60 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 15’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 12’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. A E B C HH I K L J D F/G A C H H F J L EI K D B/G J 15Page 48 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 HOUSE HOUSE A House Type is a single-family residence on its own lot. For House the primary facade faces a public street or a greenway where a porch and entry are prominent. Garages and/or parking is generally provided from a rear lane or from the street frontage set back from the primary façade. Lot width x depth 50’ min. x 100’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 20’ min. (B) Front Corner 15’ min. (C) Side 8’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side 6’ min. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 6’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 30’ min. (J) Building Front Encroachments 12’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 8’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. A E B C D HH I K J L F/G BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS A E B C HH I K J L F/G D COTTAGE DD HH F/G M COTTAGE A Cottage is a smaller single-family residence on its own lot. For Cottages garages and/or parking is required to be provided from a rear lane while the primary house front faces a public street or greenway. Lot width x depth 30’ min. x 65’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 12’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 5’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 40’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 20’ min. (J) Building Front Encroachments 10’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Building Back Wing 15’ max. (M) Height Principle Building 3.0 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.0 Stories max. 16Page 49 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 PAIR HOUSE PAIR HOUSE A Pair House is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with one other of the same type, each on their own lot. Garages, ADUs and/or parking is provided from the rear lane while the primary front faces a street or public greenway. Lot width x depth 24’ min. x 65’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 15’ min. (B) Front Corner 10’ min. (C) Side 6’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 35’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 20’ min. (J) Building Front Encroachments 12’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Building Back Wing 15’ max. (M) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2 Stories max. F/G A E B C D HH I K J L M H BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS TOWNHOUSE F/G A E B C D HH I K J L M H TOWNHOUSE A Townhouse is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with another of the same type, with a minimum of three units in a row, and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For Townhouses, garages, ADUs, and/or parking is provided from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a street or public greenway. Townhouses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 16’ min. x 80’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 35’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 100 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Building Back Wing 15’ max. (M) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Sidewalk Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. 17Page 50 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 POCKET COURT POCKET COURT A Pocket Court is permitted with up to 8 units. Pocket Courts permit units that do not front a public vehicular right-of-way, Attached and detached houses can be grouped in pedestrian courts facing a mews, small common, green or garden, shared through an owners’ association. A pocket court is often, but not always, arranged in a U-shape. The units are separated from the common area only by a sidewalk, path or other non-vehicular way. Parking is from rear lanes or alleys in attached or detached garages or open parking in a central location. Lot width x depth (may rotate) 60’ min. x 90’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 5’ min. (B) Front Corner 10’ min. (C) Side 5’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 80 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 5’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 5’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 2.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. A E B C D F K J LPer Fire Code BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS LOFT F AE B C D K J L LOFT A Loft is a single-family residence that is detached or shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For Loft types, garages, and/or parking is provided adjacent or under the townhouse from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a lane, street, or public greenway. Lofts in the T-5 Neighborhood Center Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 20’ min. x 30’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 0’ min. (B) Front Corner 0’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 0’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 90 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. 18Page 51 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 TOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER F AE B CD K J L TOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER A Townhouse is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For Townhouse Park-Under types, garages, and/or parking is provided under the townhouse from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a street or public greenway. Townhouses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 20’ min. x 50’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 30’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 100 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE A 3-Townhouse Estate is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with two other of the same type with the building and architectural massing of a large house or estate. and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For 3-Townhouse Estate types, garages, and/or parking is provided under the townhouse from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a street or public greenway. Townhouses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 24’ min. x 50’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 30’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 100 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. F AE B CD K J L C L 19Page 52 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 STACKED-FLAT F AE B CD K J L STACKED-FLAT A Stacked-Flat is a single floor or town house residence that is stacked vertically with one above the other and occupies the full frontage line on a shared lot lot. For Staked-Flat types, garages, and/or parking is provided under or behind the building accessed from the rear lane frontages while the front faces a street or public greenway. Stacked-Flats in the T-5 Neighborhood Center are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 60’ min. x 50’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 30’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 80 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 4 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS MEWS HOUSE MEWS HOUSE A Mews House is a single-family residence that is detached or shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. Mews House types are generally wide and shallow. For Mews House types, garages, and/or parking is provided adjacent from the rear lane frontages screened from the frontage while the primary townhouse front faces a lane, street, or public greenway. Mews Houses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 50’ min. x 30’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 5’ min. (B) Front Corner 5’ min. (C) Side 5’ min. (D) Rear 5’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade Screened (F) Building Frontage at Setback 90 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. F AE B C D K J L 20Page 53 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 A E B C D HH I K J L D H F D MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE M H MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE A Multi-Family House is a multi-family residence with up to 8 units that is similar in scale, massing, and character with a large single-family house and intended to be compatible in form and adjacency. For Multi-Family Houses, garages, ADUs and/or parking is provided from the street and lane frontages while the primary front faces a street or public greenway. Multi-Family Houses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 72’ min. x 100’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 12’ min. (B) Front Corner 6’ min. (C) Side 8’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 45’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 60’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 90 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 10’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. M BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS A E B C D H I K J L D H F D MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING H MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING A Multi-Family House is a multi-family residence with up to 16 units that is similar in scale, massing, and character with the frontage of a Multi-Family Building and intended to be compatible in form and adjacency. For Multi-Family Buildings, garages, ADUs and/or parking is provided in a rear common parking area and/or park-under garages screened from the street while the primary front faces a street or public greenway. Multi-Family Buildings in the T-5 Neighborhood Center are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 72’ min. x 60’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 6’ min. (B) Front Corner 6’ min. (C) Side 6’ min. (D) Rear 0’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 45’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 90 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 10’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 4 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. 21Page 54 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS TREEHOUSE A Treehouse Type is a single-family dwelling. The small footprint is vertical in proportion and typically includes substantially deep cantilevered porches and balconies. Parking is generally provided along the street frontage or by driveways set back from the frontage. Lot width x depth & max footprint 50’ min. x 50’ min. (A) 576 sq. ft. max. building footprint Setbacks Front 5’ min. (B) Front Corner 12’ min. (C) Side 12’ min. (D) Rear 5’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 40 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 15’ max.(K) Building Side & Rear Encroachments 12’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 4 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding N/A TREEHOUSE A E B D F K C L J SHOPFRONT / MIXED-USE SHOPFRONT / MIXED USE Shopfront and Mixed-Use Buildings are small to medium size size traditional building types typically following the platting patterns of the historic main street. Ground level uses typically include retail shops, restaurants and cafes, and commercial. Upper level uses typically include residential and/or commercial uses. Ground level facades are detailed with inviting storefronts with abundant windows and canopies, balconies, and/or awnings above. Parking is provided on-street and in shared screened parking areas or park-under accessed from a rear alley while the primary front faces the street or public green space. Refer to the Land Use Plan for recommended shopfront locations. Lot width x depth 12’ min. x 40’ min. (A) Building Footprint 5,000 sf building footprint max. Setbacks Front 0’ min. (B) Front Corner 0’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 0’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 80 % min. (J) Building Front Encroachments Above 1st Level 15’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments Above 1st Level 8’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 4 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 0’ min. A E B CF K L J 22 Note: These standards do not apply to the existing buildings. Page 55 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 ACCESSORY BUILDING ACCESSORY BUILDING •Accessory Structures are permitted in zones with residential uses. In all cases, garages and storage buildings should be located behind or set back from the principal dwelling. When the housing type does not include a garage, a storage building is recommended. •Garages: Garages should be located behind the principal dwelling. Construction of garages for houses should be optional. •Accessory buildings are allowed everywhere that accessory building standards are called out in specific Building Types Standards including Estate, House, Cottage, Pair House, Town House, and Multi-Family House. •Accessory Dwelling Unit: A secondary dwelling unit associated with a principal residence on a single lot is permitted. ADUs shall be a maximum of 50% of the square footage of the primary building footprint. An accessory unit is typically located over the detached garage of a townhouse or detached house. Refer to each Building Type for specific standards. • See the Use Table for “accessory apartment” when attached to the principal residence. BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS 23Page 56 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 ROOFS Roofs shall be clad in galvanized metal, fiberglass/asphalt shingles, or slate. Roof Penetrations, including vent stacks, shall be placed on the rear slope of the roof where feasible. Roof penetrations shall be finished to match the color of the roof. Mechanical equipment including solar panels shall be screened and located away from frontages. Roof Slope shall be between 6:12 and 12:12. Porch Slope shall be a minimum of 3:12. Gutters, Downspouts, and Projecting Drainpipes shall be made of galvanized metal, copper, or painted aluminum in white or same color as building. Flashing shall be galvanized/pre-painted metal or copper. Eaves shall be continuous. Eaves shall be either exposed with custom cut rafter tails, partially exposed with square-cut rafter tails, or closed soffits and on the front facade shall project 12 to 36 inches from the exterior wall sheathing to the outer edge of gutter. Rafter Tails shall not exceed 6 inches in depth at the tip. OPENINGS Doors shall provide a clear width of not less than 32”. Exterior doors shall have a maximum nominal width of 36” for single doors. If double doors are used, one leaf shall provide a minimum 32” clearance. Local compliance for fire egress and ADA standards takes precedent. Doors shall be side-hinged swinging type (no sliders) at frontages. Doors shall be painted. Windows shall be made of wood, extruded aluminum, vinyl, or hollow steel frame and glazed with clear glass. Windows shall be with a vertical or square proportion, Storm Windows and Screens, shall cover the entire window area. Panes shall be of square or vertical proportion. Shutters shall be operable w/ shutter dogs, sized, and shaped to meet the associated openings. SUSTAINABILITY GUIDELINES Sites should be disturbed as little as possible during construction. Natural drainage patterns shall be kept wherever feasible. Excavated soil shall be used for required contour line modifications and onsite backfill. Materials should be locally sourced where feasible. Use of Recycled Materials is encouraged. Building Shape is recommended to be rectangular to allow breezes inside, cross-ventilation, and provide natural cooling. Landscaping should encourage deciduous trees next to buildings to provide them with shade in summer and solar heating in winter. Building Shading should be used selectively to minimize unwanted solar heat gain in the summer and maximize heat gains in the winter. Cross ventilation is recommended to be provided through narrow floor plans with large, operable windows, porches and breezes. Paints are recommended to have Low-VOC emissions. Stormwater Management for guidance on stormwater management and the application of tools for paving, channeling, storage, and filtration including maintenance and costs refer to the; Light Imprint Handbook; Integrating Sustainability and Community Design. HEIGHT Height of buildings shall be measured per the Salem code. For residential dwellings the ground floor shall be a minimum of 18” above the back of curb measured at the front corners. ELEMENTS Porches and Colonnades are generally covered and shall have their columns, and posts. Porches shall have square or vertically proportioned intercolumniation. Porches may encroach into the setbacks. Railings shall be made of metal, wood, or composite. Railings shall have horizontal top and bottom rails centered on the balusters. The openings between balusters shall not exceed 4 inches. Bottom rails shall be raised above the level of the floor. Equipment including HVAC and utility meters shall be screened and located away from the primary entries. Vista Points where shown on the Land Use Plan are prominent locations including corners, deflections, and at the axial conclusion of a thoroughfare or public space. A building located at a Vista Point designated on a Regulating Plan is required to be designed in response to this location. Galleries shall be aligned close to the frontage line with an attached cantilevered shed or lightweight colonnade overlapping the Sidewalk. WALLS Walls shall be in stone, brick, stucco, wood clapboard, board and batten, fiber cement, or vinyl, or polymeric. Walls shall show no more than two materials above the foundation. Materials shall change along a horizontal line, with the heavier material below the lighter. Siding shall be of integral color, painted or stained. Arches and Piers shall be brick, stone, or stucco. Posts shall be pressure treated, wood, or protective wrapped with vinyl or PVC. Foundations shall be enclosed with horizontal wood boards, wood louvers, stucco over block, stamped poured concrete, stone, or brick. Trim shall be high grade lumber, pre-painted metal, polymeric, vinyl, or fiber cement board, and shall be 3.5 inches to 6 inches in width at corners and around corners. Wood, if visible, shall be painted or stained with an opaque stain, except walking surfaces, which may be left natural. Stucco shall be cement with smooth sand or pebble finish. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES SIGNAGE A Master Signage Plan and Sign Standards may be submitted prior to specific site plan submissions. General to all zones: a.There shall be no signage permitted additional to that specified in this section. Temporary signage for builders is excluded. General and Edge zone a.The address number, no more than 6 inches measured vertically, shall be attached to the building in proximity to the Principal Entrance or at a mailbox. Center zone a. Blade signs, not to exceed 6 square ft. for each separate business entrance, may be attached to and should be perpendicular to the Facade, and shall clear 8 feet above the Sidewalk. b. A single external permanent sign band may be applied to the Facade of each building, providing that such sign not exceed 3 feet in height by any length. 9.Generalized statements pertaining to any architectural and community design guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, etc. 24 Note: These standards do not apply to the existing buildings. Page 57 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 10.2.23 PHASING PLAN SWIMMIN BASKETBALL STABL ALMA BLEADSO BLESSIN RUTH CAMP MEMORI LONGVIE PRESIDENT BROWNL EQUESTRI FISHIN BAPTIST ORPHANA HOBDA BOXLEY MAINTENAN ANNEX INFIRMA JAMES CARPENT A B J I H G F D E C 10. A development schedule indicating the location, extent and sequence of proposed development. Specific information on development of the open space, recreation areas, and non-residential uses should be included. 25Page 58 of 214 Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Agriculture The use of land for the production of food and fiber, including farming, dairying, pasturage, agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, and animal and poultry husbandry. A garden accessory to a residence shall not be considered agriculture. The keeping of a cow, pig, sheep, goat, chicken or similar animal shall constitute agriculture regardless of the size of the animal and regardless of the purpose for which it is kept. Agritourism Any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, wineries, ranching, historical, cultural, harvest-your- own activities, or natural activities and attractions. Farm stand An establishment for the seasonal retail sale of agricultural goods and merchandise primarily produced by the operator on the site, or on nearby property. Agricultural goods produced on other properties owned or leased by the operator may also be allowed provided a majority of the produce comes from land surrounding the wayside stand. This use type shall include agricultural products picked by the consumer. Forestry operations The use of land for the raising and harvesting of timber, pulp woods and other forestry products for commercial purposes, including the temporary operation of a sawmill and/or chipper to process the timber cut from that parcel or contiguous parcels. Excluded from this definition shall be the cutting of timber associated with land development approved by the City of Salem, which shall be considered accessory to the development of the property. Stable √* The boarding, keeping, breeding, pasturing or raising of horses, ponies, mules, donkeys or llamas by the owner or occupant of the property and/or their paying or non-paying guests. Included in this definition are riding academies. *HopeTree Equine Therapy to remain a viable use. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance - Hopetree Uses & Definitions - Revised 03.18.2024 Agriculture 1 3DJHAM ARIALK Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Accessory apartment √ √ √ √ A second dwelling unit within a detached single family dwelling which is clearly incidental and subordinate to the main dwelling unit. Accessory Dwelling Unit √√√√Additional use type to include attached or detached accessory dwelling units. Family day care home √ √ A single family dwelling in which more than five but less than ten individuals, are received for care, protection and guidance during only part of a 24 hour day. Individuals related by blood, legal adoption or marriage to the person who maintains the home shall not be counted towards this total. The care of five or less individuals for portions of a day shall be considered a home occupation. Home occupation √ √ √ √ An accessory use of a dwelling unit for gainful employment involving the production, provision, or sale of goods and/or services. Manufactured home A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode is eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation. A manufactured home shall contain one dwelling unit. Some manufactured homes are also referred to as mobile homes. Manufactured home, accessory A manufactured home that is subordinate to a single family dwelling on a single lot and meets the additional criteria contained in this chapter. Manufactured home, emergency A manufactured home used temporarily for the period of reconstruction or replacement of an uninhabitable dwelling lost or destroyed by fire, flood, or other act of nature, or used temporarily as housing relief to victims of a federally declared disaster in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Manufactured home subdivision A ten acre or larger community of manufactured home dwellings with lots that are subdivided for individual ownership. Manufactured home park A ten acre or larger tract of land intended to accommodate a manufactured home community of multiple spaces for lease or condominium ownership. A manufactured home park is also referred to as a mobile home park. Multi-family dwelling √√ √ A building or portion thereof which contains three or more dwelling units for permanent occupancy, regardless of the method of ownership. Included in the use type would be garden apartments, low and high rise apartments, apartments for elderly housing and condominiums. Residential human care facility √ √ √ √ A building (1) used as a group home where not more than eight mentally ill, mentally retarded or other developmentally disabled persons, not related by blood or marriage, reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services is the licensing authority, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2291, or (2) used as a group home where not more than eight aged, infirm or disabled persons, not related by blood or marriage, reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority, pursuant to § Virginia Code § 15.2-2291(B). Excluded from this definition are drug or alcohol rehabilitation centers, half-way houses and similar uses. Residential 2 3DJHANARIALK Single family dwelling detached √ √ √ √ A site built or modular building designed for or used exclusively as one dwelling unit for permanent occupancy. A single family dwelling which is surrounded by open space or yards on all sides, is located on its own individual lot, and which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means. Single family dwelling attached √ √ √ √ A site built or modular building designed for or used exclusively as one dwelling unit for permanent occupancy. Two single family dwellings sharing a common wall area, each on its own individual lot. Temporary family health care structure √ √ √ √ A transportable residential structure providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for mentally or physically impaired person that (i) is primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation, (ii) is limited to one occupant who shall be the mentally or physically impaired person, (iii) has no more than 300 gross square feet, (iv) complies with the applicable provisions of the Industrialized Building Safety Law and the Uniform Statewide Building Code, and (v) is not placed on a permanent foundation. For purposes of this definition "caregiver" and "mentally or physically impaired person" are as defined in § 15.2-2292.1 of the Code of Virginia. Townhouse √ √ √ A grouping of three or more attached single family dwellings in a row in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more common walls. Two family dwelling √ √ √ √The use of an individual lot for two dwelling units which share at least one common wall, each occupied by one family. 3 3DJHANKARIALK Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Administrative services Governmental offices providing administrative, clerical or public contact services that deal directly with the citizen. Typical uses include federal, state, county, and city offices. Assisted care residence An establishment that provides shelter and services which may include meals, housekeeping, and personal care assistance primarily for the elderly. Residents are able to maintain a semi-independent life style, not requiring the more extensive care of a nursing home. Residents will, at a minimum, need assistance with at least one of the following: medication management, meal preparation, housekeeping, money management, or personal hygiene. At least one nurse's aid is typically on duty, with medical staff available when needed. Camps √*A use which primarily provides recreational opportunities of an outdoor nature on a daily or overnight basis. Included in this use type would be scout camps, religious camps, children's camps, wilderness camps, and similar uses which are not otherwise specifically described in this chapter.*Includes special events of a temporary nature. Cemetery √* Land used or dedicated to the burial of the dead, including columbariums, crematoriums, mausoleums, and necessary sales and maintenance facilities. Funeral Services use types shall be included when operated within the boundary of such cemetery. * There is small cemetery located on the edge of our pasture Clubs √√ A use providing meeting, or social facilities for civic or social clubs, and similar organizations and associations, primarily for use by members and guests. Recreational facilities, unless otherwise specifically cited in this section, may be provided for members and guests as an accessory use. This definition shall not include fraternal or sororal organizations associated with colleges or universities. A Club does not include a building in which members reside. Community recreation √√ √ A recreational facility for use solely by the residents and guests of a particular residential development, planned unit development, or residential neighborhood, including indoor and outdoor facilities. These facilities are usually proposed or planned in association with development and are usually located within or adjacent to such development. Correction facilities A public or privately operated use providing housing and care for individuals legally confined, designed to isolate those individuals from a surrounding community. Crisis center A facility providing temporary protective sanctuary for victims of crime or abuse including emergency housing during crisis intervention for individuals, such as victims of rape, child abuse, or physical beatings. Cultural services √*√*A library, museum, or similar public or quasi-public use displaying, preserving and exhibiting objects of community and cultural interest in one or more of the arts or sciences. **HopeTree Museum Specifically Educational facilities, college/university An educational institution authorized by the Commonwealth of Virginia to award associate, baccalaureate or higher degrees. Educational facilities, primary/secondary √√A public, private or parochial school offering instruction at the elementary, junior and/or senior high school levels in the branches of learning and study required to be taught in the public schools of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Civic 4 3DJHANLARIALK Guidance services √√ A use providing counseling, guidance, recuperative, or similar services for persons requiring rehabilitation assistance or therapy for only part of a 24 hour day. This use type shall not include facilities that dispense and/or administer controlled substances and/or pharmaceutical products for the treatment of drug addiction and substance abuse and/or mental health disorders. Non-medicinal counseling-based treatment of drug addiction and substance abuse and/or mental health disorders may be considered guidance services after review by the administrator. Facilities that do dispense and/or administer controlled substances and/or pharmaceutical products for the treatment of drug addiction and substance abuse and/or mental health disorders shall be considered an Outpatient mental health and substance abuse clinic. Halfway House An establishment providing residential accommodations, rehabilitation, counseling, and supervision to persons suffering from alcohol or drug addiction, to persons reentering society after being released from a correctional facility or other institution, or to persons suffering from similar disorders or circumstances. Life care facility A residential facility primarily for the continuing care of the elderly, providing for transitional housing progressing from independent living in various dwelling units, with or without kitchen facilities, and culminating in nursing home type care where all related uses are located on the same lot. Such facility may include other services integral to the personal and therapeutic care of the residents. Nursing home A use providing bed care and in-patient services for persons requiring regular medical attention but excluding a facility providing surgical or emergency medical services and excluding a facility providing care for alcoholism, drug addiction, mental disease, or communicable disease. Nursing homes have doctors or licensed nurses on duty. Park and ride facility A publicly owned, short-term, parking facility for commuters. Post office Postal services directly available to the consumer operated by the United States Postal Service. Public assembly Facilities owned and operated by a public agency accommodating public assembly for sports, amusement, or entertainment purposes. Typical uses include auditoriums, sports stadiums, convention facilities, fairgrounds, and sales and exhibition facilities. Public maintenance and service facilities A public facility supporting maintenance, repair, vehicular or equipment servicing, material storage, and similar activities including street or sewer yards, equipment services centers, and similar uses having characteristics of commercial services or contracting or industrial activities. Public parks and recreational areas Publicly-owned and operated parks, picnic areas, playgrounds, indoor or outdoor athletic facilities, greenways and open spaces. Religious assembly √√A use located in a permanent building and providing regular organized religious worship and related incidental activities, except primary or secondary schools and day care facilities. Safety services Facilities for the conduct of safety and emergency services for the primary benefit of the public, whether publicly or privately owned and operated, including police and fire protection services and emergency medical and ambulance services. 5 3DJHANARIALK Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Financial instutitions √√* Provision of financial and banking services to consumers or clients. Walk-in and drive-in services to consumers are generally provided on site. Typical uses include banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, lending establishments and free-standing automatic teller machines. • Walk-In Only General office √√ Use of a site for business, professional, or administrative offices, excluding medical offices/clinic. Typical uses include real estate, insurance, management, travel, computer software or information systems research and development, or other business offices; organization and association offices; or law, architectural, engineering, accounting or other professional offices. Retail sales do not comprise more than an accessory aspect of the primary activity of a General Office. Medical Office/clinic A facility used for human health care of the body, such as medical, dental, therapeutic, chiropractic or similar consultation, diagnosis, and treatment by one or more practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Medical offices/clinics provide outpatient care on a routine basis, and may offer minor surgical care, but do not provide overnight care or serve as a base for an ambulance service. Outpatient mental health and sustance abuse clinic An establishment which provides outpatient services primarily related to the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders, alcohol, or other drug or substance abuse disorders. Services include the dispensing and administering of controlled substances and pharmaceutical products by professional medical practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Laboratories √√ Establishments primarily engaged in performing research or testing activities into technological matters. Typical uses include engineering and environmental laboratories, medical, optical, dental and forensic laboratories, x-ray services, and pharmaceutical laboratories only involved in research and development. Excluded are any laboratories which mass produce one or more products directly for the consumer market. Office 6 3DJHANARIALK Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Adult business Any adult bookstore, adult video store, adult model studio, adult motel, adult movie theater, adult nightclub, adult store, business providing adult entertainment, or any other establishment that regularly exploits an interest in matters relating to specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas or regularly features live entertainment intended for the sexual stimulation or titillation of patrons, and as such terms are defined in Chapter 58 of this Code. Agricultural services An establishment primarily engaged in providing services specifically for the agricultural community which is not directly associated with a farm operation. Included in this use type would be servicing of agricultural equipment, independent equipment operators, and other related agricultural services. Antique shops √√A place offering primarily antiques for sale. An antique for the purposes of this chapter shall be a work of art, piece of furniture, decorative object, or the like, of or belonging to the past, at least 30 years old. Assembly hall √√A building, designed and used primarily for the meeting or assembly of a large group of people for a common purpose. Typical uses include meeting halls, union halls, bingo parlors, and catering or banquet facilities. Athletic instruction services √√ Establishments primarily engaged in providing indoor instruction and training in athletic sports that require high ceiling heights for the activity. Typical uses include gymnastics academies, baseball and softball training centers, tennis centers and golf centers. Automobile dealership, new The use of any building, land area or other premise for the display of new and used automobiles, trucks, vans, or motorcycles for sale or rent, including any warranty repair work and other major and minor repair service conducted as an accessory use. Automobile dealership, used Any lot or establishment where three or more used motor vehicles, including automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles are displayed at one time for sale. Automobile repair services, major Repair of construction equipment, commercial trucks, agricultural implements and similar heavy equipment, including automobiles, where major engine and transmission repairs are conducted. This includes minor automobile repairs in conjunction with major automobile repairs. Typical uses include automobile and truck repair garages, transmission shops, radiator shops, body and fender shops, equipment service centers, machine shops and other similar uses where major repair activities are conducted. Automobile repair services, minor Repair of automobiles, noncommercial trucks, motorcycles, motor homes, recreational vehicles, or boats, including the sale, installation, and servicing of equipment and parts. Typical uses include tire sales and installation, wheel and brake shops, oil and lubrication services and similar repair and service activities where minor repairs and routine maintenance are conducted. Automobile rental/leasing Rental of automobiles and light trucks and vans, includ-ing incidental parking and servicing of vehicles for rent or lease. Typical uses include auto rental agencies and taxicab dispatch areas. Automobile parts/supply, retail Retail sales of automobile parts and accessories. Typical uses include automobile parts and supply stores which offer new and factory rebuilt parts and accessories, and include establishments which offer minor automobile repair services. Commercial 7 3DJHANMARIALK Business support services √√ Establishments or places of business engaged in the sale, rental or repair of office equipment, supplies and materials, or the provision of services used by office, professional and service establishments. Typical uses include office equipment and supply firms, small business machine repair shops, convenience printing and copying establishments, as well as temporary labor services. Business or trade schools A use providing education or training in business, commerce, language, or other similar activity or occupational pursuit, and not otherwise defined as an educational facility, either primary and secondary, or college and university. Campgrounds Facilities providing camping or parking areas and incidental services for travelers in recreational vehicles and/or tents. Car wash Washing and cleaning of vehicles. Typical uses include automatic conveyor machines and self-service car washes. Commercial indoor amusement Establishments which provide multiple coin operated amusement or entertainment devices or machines as other than an incidental use of the premises. Such devices would include pinball machines, video games, and other games of skill or scoring, and would include pool and/or billiard tables, whether or not they are coin operated. Typical uses include game rooms, billiard and pool halls, and video arcades. Commercial indoor entertainment Predominantly spectator uses conducted within an enclosed building. Typical uses include motion picture theaters, and concert or music halls. Commercial indoor sports and recreation Predominantly non-instructional participant-based uses conducted within an enclosed building. Typical uses include bowling alleys, ice and roller skating rinks, indoor racquetball, swimming, and/or tennis facilities. Commercial outdoor entertainment Predominantly spectator uses conducted in open or partially enclosed or screened facilities. Typical uses include sports arenas, motor vehicle or animal racing facilities, and outdoor amusement parks. Commercial outdoor sports and recreation √*√*Predominantly participant uses conducted in open or partially enclosed or screened facilities. Typical uses include driving ranges, miniature golf, swimming pools, tennis courts, outdoor racquetball courts, motorized cart and motorcycle tracks, and motorized model airplane flying facilities. *Limited to two existing ballfields in current or future location/design. Communications services Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of broadcasting and other information relay services accomplished through the use of electronic and telephonic mechanisms. Excluded from this use type are facilities classified as Utility Services - Major or Towers. Typical uses include television studios, telecommunication service centers, telegraph service offices or film and sound recording facilities. Construction sales and services Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in retail or wholesale sale, from the premises, of materials used in the construction of buildings or other structures, but specifically excluding automobile or equipment supplies otherwise classified herein. Typical uses include building material stores and home supply establishments. Consumer repair services √√ Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of repair services to individuals and households, rather than businesses, but excluding automotive and equipment repair use types. Typical uses include appliance repair shops, shoe repair, watch or jewelry repair shops, or repair of musical instruments. Convenience store √√Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of frequently or recurrently needed goods for household consumption, such as prepackaged food and beverages, and limited household supplies and hardware. Convenience stores shall not include fuel pumps or the selling of fuel for motor vehicles. Typical uses include neighborhood markets and country stores. 8 3DJHANNARIALK Dance hall Establishments in which more than ten percent of the total floor area is designed or used as a dance floor, or where an admission fee is directly collected, or some other form of compensation is obtained for dancing. Day care center √√Any facility operated for the purpose of providing care, protection and guidance to ten or more individuals during only part of a 24 hour day. This term includes nursery schools, preschools, day care centers for individuals, and other similar uses but excludes public and private educational facilities or any facility offering care to individuals for a full 24 hour period. Equipment sales and rental Establishments primarily engaged in the sale or rental of tools, trucks, tractors, construction equipment, agricultural implements, and similar industrial equipment, and the rental of mobile homes. Included in this use type is the incidental storage, maintenance, and servicing of such equipment. Flea market Businesses engaged in the outdoor sale of used or new items, involving regular or periodic display of merchandise for sale. Funeral services Establishments engaged in undertaking services such as preparing the dead for burial, and arranging and managing funerals. Typical uses include mortuaries and crematories. Garden center Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in retail or wholesale (bulk) sale, from the premises, of trees, shrubs, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, plants and plant materials primarily for agricultural, residential and commercial consumers. Such establishments typically sell products purchased from others, but may sell some material which they grow themselves. Typical uses include nurseries, plant stores and lawn and garden centers. Gasoline station Any place of business with fuel pumps and gasoline storage tanks which provides fuels and oil for motor vehicles. Golf course A tract of land for playing golf, improved with tees, greens, fairways, hazards, and which may include clubhouses and shelters. Included would be executive or par 3 golf courses. Specifically excluded would be independent driving ranges and any miniature golf course. Homestay inn A dwelling in which not more than five bedrooms are provided for overnight guests for compensation, on a daily or weekly basis, with or without meals. The owner or the owner's agent shall reside on the same parcel occupied by the homestay inn. A homestay inn may also be known as a bed and breakfast. Hospital A facility providing medical, psychiatric, or surgical service for sick or injured persons primarily on an in-patient basis and including ancillary facilities for outpatient and emergency treatment diagnostic services, training, research, administration, and services to patients, employees, or visitors. Hotel/motel/motor lodge √√ A building or group of attached or detached buildings containing lodging units intended primarily for rental or lease to transients by the day, week or month. Such uses generally provide additional services such as daily maid service, restaurants, meeting rooms and/or recreation facilities. Kennel, commercial The boarding, breeding, raising, grooming or training of dogs, cats, or other household pets of any age not owned by the owner or occupant of the premises, and/or for commercial gain. Laundry Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of laundering, cleaning or dyeing services other than those classified as Personal Services. Typical uses include bulk laundry and cleaning plants, diaper services, or linen supply services. Manufactured home sales Establishments primarily engaged in the display, retail sale, rental, and minor repair of new and used manufactured homes, parts, and equipment. 9 3DJHANARIALK Massage parlor Establishments having a fixed place of business where any person other than a massage therapist, as licensed by the Virginia Board of Nursing, administers or gives any kind or character of massage, manipulation of the body or other similar procedure. Massage therapy as licensed by the Virginia Board of Nursing shall be considered a personal service. This definition shall not be construed to include a hospital, nursing home, medical clinic, or the office of a duly licensed physician, surgeon, physical therapist, chiropractor, osteopath, or a barber shop or beauty salon in which massages are administered only to the scalp, the face, the neck, or the shoulders, or an exercise club where massage is performed by a person of the same sex as the subject of the massage. Microbrewery √√An establishment engaged in the production of beer with a significant commercial component, such as a restaurant or retail store. Microdistillery √√An establishment engaged in the production of spirits with a significant commercial component, such as a restaurant or retail store. Personal storage A building designed to provide rental storage space in cubicles where each cubicle has a maximum floor area of 400 square feet. Each cubicle shall be enclosed by walls and ceiling and have a separate entrance for the loading and unloading of stored goods. Pawn shop A use engaged in the loaning of money on the security of property pledged in the keeping of the pawnbroker and the incidental sale of such property. Personal improvement services √√ Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of informational, instructional, personal improvements and similar services. Typical uses include driving schools, health or physical fitness centers (excluding athletic instruction services), reducing salons, dance studios, handicraft and hobby instruction. Personal services √√ Establishments or places of business engaged in the provision of frequently or recurrently needed services of a personal nature. Typical uses include beauty and barber shops; grooming of pets; seamstresses, tailors, or shoe repairs; florists; and Laundromats and dry cleaning stations serving individuals and households. Recreational vehicle sales and service Retail sales of recreational vehicles and boats, including service and storage of vehicles and parts and related accessories. Restaurant* √*√*An establishment engaged in the preparation and sale of food and beverages. Service to customers may be by counter or table service, or by take-out or delivery. * Walk-In Only. Retail Sales √√Sale or rental with incidental service of commonly used goods and merchandise for personal or household use but excludes those classified more specifically by these use type classifications. Short-term lender Establishments primarily engaged in short-term lending such as payday loans, car title loans, and refund anticipation loans. Studio, fine arts √√A building, or portion thereof, used as a place of work by a sculptor, artist, or photographer. Truck stop An establishment containing a mixture of uses which cater to the traveling public and in particular motor freight operators. A truck stop might include such uses as fuel pumps, restaurants, overnight accommodations, retail sales related to the motor freight industry, and similar uses. Veterinary hospital/clinic Any establishment rendering surgical and medical treatment of animals. Boarding of animals shall only be conducted indoors, on a short term basis, and shall only be incidental to such hospital/clinic use, unless also authorized and approved as a commercial kennel. 10 3DJHANOARIALK Use Type Existing Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Amateur radio tower A structure on which an antenna is installed for the purpose of transmitting and receiving amateur radio signals erected and operated by an amateur radio operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Aviation facilities Private or public land areas used or intended to be used for the take-off and landing of aircraft. Aviation facilities may include facilities for the operation, service, fueling, repair and/or storage of the aircraft. Mixed use √√Mixed use is a single building or parcel wherein multiple uses such as residential and commercial share space. Outdoor gathering Any temporary organized gathering expected to attract 500 or more people at one time in open spaces outside an enclosed structure. Included in this use type would be music festivals, church revivals, carnivals and fairs, and similar transient amusement and recreational activities not otherwise listed in this section. Such activities held on publicly owned land shall not be included within this use type. Parking facility, surface/structure Use of a site for surface parking or a parking structure unrelated to a specific use which provides one or more parking spaces together with driveways, aisles, turning and maneuvering areas, incorporated landscaped areas, and similar features meeting the requirements established by this chapter. This use type shall not include parking facilities accessory to a permitted principal use. Shooting range, outdoor The use of land for archery and the discharging of firearms for the purposes of target practice, skeet and trap shooting, mock war games, or temporary competitions, such as a turkey shoot. Excluded from this use type shall be general hunting, and the unstructured and nonrecurring discharging of firearms on private property with the property owner's permission if in compliance with the Code of the City of Salem. Tower Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas. The term includes but need not be limited to radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier towers, and cellular telephone and wireless communication towers. Tower types include, but are not limited to monopoles, lattice towers, wooden poles, and guyed towers. Excluded from this definition are amateur radio towers, which are otherwise defined. Utility services, minor √ √ √ √ √ Services which are necessary to support existing and future development within the immediate vicinity and involve only minor structures. Including in this use type are distribution lines and small facilities that are underground or overhead, such as transformers, relay and booster devices, and well, water and sewer pump stations. Also included are all major utility services owned and/or operated by the City of Salem, or any major utility services which were in existence prior to the adoption of this chapter. Utility services, major Services of a regional nature which normally entail the construction of new buildings or structures such as generating plants and sources, electrical switching facilities and stations or substations, water towers and tanks, community waste water treatment plants, and similar facilities. Included in this definition are also electric, gas, and other utility transmission lines of a regional nature which are not otherwise reviewed and approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Miscellaneous 11 3DJHAN ARIALK HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 SALEM PUD REZONING APPLICATION (1 OF 3) Not Applicable for existing buildings. Not Applicable due to campus arrangements of multiple buildings. 32Page 70 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 SALEM PUD REZONING APPLICATION (2 OF 3)33Page 71 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 SALEM PUD REZONING APPLICATION (3 OF 3)34Page 72 of 214 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 HOPETREE SALEM, VIRGINIA PUD REZONING APPLICATION 35Page 73 of 214 HopeTree Re-Zoning Updates Notes only – not a proffered document. HopeTree – List of revisions made previously on 3/07/2024 (Red Bubble Clouds) Pgs. 1/2 – No change Pg. 3 – Revised tax map numbers to include all parcels within the project boundaries. Pgs. 4/5/6 – No change Pg. 7 – In Parking, section 2: removed barrier height and timeline for growth. Pg. 7 – In Uses, added: • Maximum residential units at 340. • Maximum hotel rooms at 34. • Maximum square footage of retail / restaurant at 15,000SF. • Home occupations shall not be counted toward any maximum densities. This is consistent with how home occupations are typically handled in the City. • Removed note about establishing densities during master plan review. Pg. 8 – Removed reference to tree houses in T-3 Zone to be consistent with land use map. Pg. 9 – Revised four areas around the lower-left perimeter to be T-4 in lieu of T-5. Also: • Added clarification note that Historic Core Buildings or Civic Buildings would become T-5 zone if current use is discontinued. • Revised labeling of “Civic Building Site” to “Historic Core Building Site” for consistency with Use Table. • Revised general note to explain the definition of a “row” to mean a maximum of (5) of the same building type attached consecutively. • Deleted note about Commercial, Mixed Use, and Live-Works in T-5 (already noted in use table). Pg. 10 – Added note that sidewalk and on-street parking would be provided along Red Lane to be consistent with what has been discussed and committed to in meetings. Pgs. 11-22 – No change Pg. 23 – Accessory Buildings: • Removed language from “Garages” section that required a storage building be added if no garage. • Added language denoting what building types allow for accessory buildings, including ADU’s. Pg. 24 – Removed “General Zone” signage specifications, as signage is not applicable to residential use types. Pg. 25 – No change Pgs. 26-31 – Use tables: • “Existing Buildings” column change to “Historic Core Buildings” throughout Use Table to be consistent with Land Use Plan. • Removed several Agricultural Uses. • Added “Residential Human Care Facility” to all T-zones. Per City comment, this must be allowed throughout. • Added “Home Occupation” to list of Residential Uses – already allowed by ordinance, so this is a clarification. • Removed certain uses from T-4 zone as mixed-use building is not allowed. • Removed “Medical Office” from Open Space – typo. • Removed “Flea Market” from allowable uses. • Removed “Hospital” from allowable uses. • Removed “ Veterinary Hospital” from allowable uses. Pgs. 32-35 – No change 3DJHBRI HopeTree Re-Zoning Updates Notes only – not a proffered document. HopeTree – Additional changes made on 3/18/2024 and 4/1/2024 (Green Bubble Clouds) Pages 1-6 – No change Page 7 • Section A, Item 8 – Addresses the varying facades for townhouse units as noted in the zoning ordinance. • Section B, Item 4 – Add language to address the height of accessory buildings not exceeding that of the principal structure. • Section G, Item 5 – Adds maximum square footages for Office and other Commercial uses. • Section G, Item 6 – Limits total traffic generation for new residential and non-residential uses. • Section G, Item 7 – Denotes that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) shall count toward the maximum number of residential units. • Section G, Footnote – Clarifies that square footage maximums are for total square footage. Page 8 – No change Page 9 • General Notes were updated on the left-hand side of the page based upon Planning Commission feedback. o Building types do not apply to existing buildings. o Single-story mixed use buildings may be single use. o Existing buildings can be 100% non-residential use. o Minimum open space shall be 35% of total site area. • Civic Use Building Type was removed from the key. • Block ground delineation was updated (black dashed lines ILO green dashed lines) Page 10 • Note clarifying that Pedestrian Paths will be open to the public, except as necessary for HopeTree events and therapeutic interactions. Pages 11-12 – No change Page 13 • Changed “Civic Building Site” to “Historic Core Building Site” Pages 14-16 – No change Page 17 • Removed mixed use permission from Townhouse Building Type Page 18 • Removed mixed use permission from Loft Building Type Page 19 • Removed mixed use permission from Townhouse Park-Under Building Type • Removed mixed use permission from 3-Townhouse Estate Building Type Page 20 • Removed mixed use permission from Stacked-Flat Building Type • Removed mixed use permission from Mews House Building Type Page 21 • Removed mixed use permission from Multi-Family House Building Type • Removed mixed use permission from Multi-Family Building Building Type Pages 22-24 – No change Page 25 • Note added that final phasing plan will be determined during engineering design and development. Pages 26-36 • Use tables updated following feedback from Planning Commission and City Staff. Pages 37-40 – No Change 3DJHBRI 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 www.balzer.cc Roanoke Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley En v i s i o n i n g T o m o r r o w , D e s i g n i n g To d a y February 2, 2024 City of Salem, Virginia Department of Planning 21 South Bruffey Street Salem, VA 24153 Attn: William Simpson, Jr., PE RE: HopeTree Planned Unit Development Response to City of Salem Traffic Study Review B&A Project # 04220029.00 Dear Mary Ellen, Please find attached the revised Site Plans for the above referenced project. These plans have been revised in accordance with comments in the review letter prepared by Mattern & Craig, dated December 20, 2023, and provided to us by the City of Salem. Mattern and Craig comments are shown in italics, Mattern and Craig recommended actions are shown in bold italics. Balzer responses are provided in bold below each comment and recommended action. REVIEW LETTER COMMENTS: 1. The proposed development is a rezoning of approximately 62 acres of land located along Red Lane in the City of Salem and is proposed as a mixed-use development consisting of single family detached housing, multi-family housing, hotel use, general office use, and retail (restaurant) use. Since the proposed development is a mixed-use development, the study does not qualify as a low volume road submission as defined in the VDOT Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations (must be residential only). The “Required Elements of a Traffic Impact Analysis” table as depicted on pages 46-49 of the Administrative Guidelines (see Exhibit A) was used in determining conformity with VDOT and standard practices. The unadjusted trip generation contained in the TIS prepared by Balzer & Associates identifies 286 site- generated AM peak hours trips and 312 site-generated PM peak hour trips for the proposed development. As such, the “Less than 500” column in the above-referenced table was used to define the necessary elements of the study. Recommended Action: None. 2. Page 1 of the Balzer-prepared TIS identifies the study area intersections (indicated as discussed with the City of Salem) as Red Lane at East Carrollton Avenue and East Carrollton Avenue at North Broad Street. Recommended Action: Documentation should be provided that shows what conversations were had and what decisions were agreed upon with the City. The defined area study of only two intersections seems insufficient considering the scope of the proposed development, the location of the proposed development, the multiple access points to the development, and the existing transportation infrastructure surrounding the development. At a minimum, along with the two intersections identified above, all existing access points should be included in the study area as well as the intersection of East Carrollton Avenue at Mt. Vernon Lane since this intersection is located in-between the two identified study intersections and serves as an access point to the development. Further intersections for consideration include Mt. Vernon Lane at Red Lane and Printer’s Lane at Red Lane. The applicant should provide documentation justifying the limited study area or revise the TIS to include an expanded study area as described above. Response: The scope of the traffic study was previously discussed and agreed upon with the City of Salem. The intersection of Mount Vernon Avenue and East Carrollton Avenue was not chosen for analysis simply because it is evident that the volumes at this intersection Page 76 of 214 Page 2 of 4En v i s i o n i n g T o m o r r o w , D e s i g n i n g To d a y would be very similar to the volumes at the two intersections that were being studied and it seemed redundant to include. However, after further discussion with the City of Salem, this intersection has been included in the traffic study to further document that the existing roadway network and intersections will function adequately. As shown in the study, this intersection will function at a level of service ‘A’ in all scenarios. Turn lane warrants have been analyzed for the highest volume entrances to show that turn lanes are not warranted for the development. Level of service and queuing along Red Lane will not be affected at any of these entrance points because there is not a stop condition along this roadway. 3.Page 3 of the Balzer-prepared TIS indicates that, among other things, the study was undertaken to determine the impacts to level of service and queue lengths at the existing intersections. Page 15 of the study includes tabular results of level of service (LOS) and delay (control delay) for the two study intersections but does not include any queue length results. Recommended Action: The summarized capacity analyzed results should include tabulated results of the Synchro 95th Percentile queue as well as the SimTraffic max queue or discussion should be included as to the results of the queue length analyses. Response: SimTraffic queuing analysis has been included for the study intersections for all scenarios. The Buildout queue lengths are very similar to Existing and Background scenarios for all intersections and no improvements are warranted based on these results. 4. The traffic volumes on Figure 1 (existing peak hour turning movement counts) match the raw turning movement count data included in Appendix C of the Balzer-prepared TIS. The use of a 1.5% growth rate over a period of 5 years (to achieve the background year of 2028) seems reasonable and the traffic volumes on Figure 2 (2028 turning movement counts) appear to be correctly calculated. Recommended Action: None. 5. Section 4. Trip Generation of the Balzer-prepared TIS provides information related to the trips expected to be generated by the development as well as information on potential trip reduction due to the mixed-use nature of the development (internal capture) and due to the walkable aspect of the proposed development. The unadjusted trips presented in Table 2: Site Generated Traffic on Page 8 of the TIS seem reasonable. The ITE Trip Generation Manual and Handbook contains methodology for the application of trip reductions for multi-use developments. In addition, VDOT provides an alternative trip generation methodology for mixed use developments (see page 43 of the VDOT Administrative Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations in Exhibit A attached to this letter report). Page 9 of the Balzer-prepared TIS applies a flat 25% reduction to the trip generated values presented in Table 1. While this may or may not be a reasonable reduction to apply, it is unclear how this 25% number was realized. Recommended Action: The TIA should employ the use of either the ITE internal capture trip reduction methodology or the VDOT alternative trip generation methodology to achieve the appropriate trip reduction and document how the reduction numbers are obtained. Response: The ITE and VDOT methodologies both require a high level of detail about proposed uses that is not available at this time. In addition, these methodologies do not adequately account for other qualities of this development that are expected to further reduce Page 77 of 214 Page 3 of 4En v i s i o n i n g T o m o r r o w , D e s i g n i n g To d a y generated trips. These include urban design principles such as close proximity between uses within the development and outside the development, proximity to downtown, and the very nature of the development, which is to prioritize pedestrian connectivity and de-emphasize vehicle trips. Additional information is included in the traffic study regarding research that has been done on other mixed-use developments. Based on the characteristics of this development, a 25% reduction is considered to be reasonable and has not been revised in the study. However, additional analysis was performed to determine how the results of the study would be affected if the 25% reduction was eliminated. It was determined that eliminating the 25% reduction results in almost no increase in delay/queuing at the study intersections and would not change the results of the study. These results are not included in the study as they are not deemed to be an accurate representation of trip generation for this development, but are summarized here as supplemental information for this review. 6. Section 5. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment describes how traffic was distributed to the various existing and proposed access points for the development. Figures 3 and 4 identify 8 different access points which seems excessive for a development of this magnitude. Recommended Action: The applicant should have discussions with the City of Salem and VDOT regarding the locations of proposed access points to serve the development. If those discussions have already taken place, documentation of those discussions and decisions agreed upon should be provided. While it is true that the multiple access points will “disperse traffic and efficiently distribute vehicles to the adjacent road system” as stated on Page 10 of the Balzer-prepared TIS, having multiple access points introduces additional potential conflict points on the existing transportation infrastructure and is counter-productive to modern access management techniques. Generally, proposed access points should be kept to the minimum required to adequately serve the proposed development in an efficient and safe manner. The applicant should consider consolidation of some of the proposed access points or provide documentation as to why this is not feasible. Response: Additional discussions have occurred with the City of Salem Engineering Department. While it is true that modern access management technique is to consolidate entrances in most instances, this is more applicable to busier corridors with higher traffic volumes and higher speeds. The location of this development along lower volume roads and in proximity to residential areas warrants a different approach. One of the guiding principles of this type of development is to create a ‘block’ system of roads with multiple routes to each destination and to avoid high volumes of cars entering or exiting at any specific point. To consolidate entrances would run counter to the type of development that this is. In addition to this, one of the main concerns that we have heard from existing residents in the area is about vehicle speed on Red Lane combined with pedestrians that walk along Red Lane. The design of this development with multiple access points on Red Lane, on-street parking proposed along Red Lane, and new pedestrian improvements adjacent to Red Lane are all designed to lower traffic speeds on Red Lane and improve pedestrian safety. 7. Section 7. Turn Lane Warrants of the Balzer-prepared TIS contains a summary of the results for analyses of left and right turn lanes at the study intersections. However, analyses were not provided for the left and right turn lanes at the intersection of East Carrollton Avenue at Red Lane (currently a study intersection) or at the intersection of East Carrollton Avenue at Mt. Vernon Lane. Page 78 of 214 Page 4 of 4En v i s i o n i n g T o m o r r o w , D e s i g n i n g To d a y Recommended Action: Additional analyses should be performed at the above-mentioned intersections at a minimum and potentially more intersections if the access points to the development are consolidated and/or if either the City or VDOT expand the study area. Response: VDOT turn lane warrants are not appropriate for analyzing the need for turn lanes on local, low speed, roadways with other intersection controls already in place. These warrants are generally utilized for new entrances between existing intersections where there are not already stop controls in place. The provided intersection modeling supports the conclusion that the intersections function at an acceptable level of service in both pre-development and post-development conditions and turn lanes are not warranted at any of these approaches. 8. Section 8. Conclusions of the Balzer-prepared TIS concludes that no improvements are recommended to the existing transportation infrastructure as a result of this proposed development. Recommended Action: Pending the answers provided to the above comments and the further discussions the applicant may need to have with the City and/or VDOT, the Conclusions Section may need to be rewritten to include recommended mitigation improvements. Response: No revisions to Conclusions as a result of the traffic study revisions. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any concerns and/or questions. Respectfully Submitted, BALZER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Christopher Burns, P.E. Associate Vice President Page 79 of 214 1 HOPETREE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Traffic Impact Study B&A Project #04220029.00 Date: December 1, 2023 Revised: February 2, 2024 Planners | Architects | Engineers | Surveyors 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, VA 24018 www.balzer.cc Page 80 of 214 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR HOPETREE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TAX MAP #: 44-3-10 860 MOUNT VERNON LANE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA B&A PROJECT #04220029.00 DATE: December 1, 2023 REVISED: February 2, 2024 PLANNERS ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone: (540) 772-9580 Page 81 of 214 List of Figures Fig. 1 – 2023 Existing Turning Movements…..……………………..………….……............………..5 Fig. 2 – 2028 Projected Turning Movements..…………………………..............................………..7 Fig. 3 – Site-Generated Entering Movements..……………...………….............................………..12 Fig. 4 – Site-Generated Exiting Movements..…...…………...………….............................………..13 Fig. 5 –2028 Buildout Turning Movements..…………..….…...………………..………….……........15 List of Tables Table 1 – LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM)………...……………………………..3 Table 2 – Site-Generated Traffic…………………...…..…………………………….…….....………..8 Table 3 – Site-Generated Traffic w/ 25% Reduction…………………...…..……....…….....………..10 Table 4 – Red Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis……….………..………..16 Table 5 – Mount Vernon Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis…….………..16 Table 6 – North Broad Street & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis….…..………..17 Page 83 of 214 Traffic Study 1 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 1. Introduction HopeTree Family Services is proposing to rezone 62.318 acres of land located along Red Lane in the City of Salem (see Appendix A for vicinity map). The property is proposed to be rezoned from RSF, Residential Single Family, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The P.U.D. Land Use Plan, prepared by Civic by Design, is included in Appendix B. The development will have a mix of residential and commercial use types. The maximum number of residential units allowed for this development is 340 and these are assumed to be broken down by type as outlined in the list below. Residential and commercial uses will be determined by market conditions and opportunities available at the time of development. The list below outlines the uses that have been assumed for the purposes of this traffic study. •115 Single-Family Detached Dwelling Units •140 Single-Family Attached Dwelling Units •85 Multi-Family Dwelling Units •60 Total Hotel Rooms •15,000 s.f. of Total General Office Space •7,500 s.f. of Total Restaurant Space The breakdown of uses above is based on what is considered to be a reasonable and conservative expectation for the development based on the P.U.D. Land Use Plan. The actual breakdown will differ from these assumptions. It is recommended that projected trip generation be tracked as the development progresses for comparison to the traffic study. If the actual development results in significantly more traffic than what is included in these assumptions, then it may be necessary to update this study. The site is located on the west side of Red Lane with East Carrollton Avenue to the south and Interstate 81 to the north. The property is described as City of Salem Tax Parcel #44-3-10. The development has several proposed existing and proposed entrances on Red Lane, East Carrollton Avenue, and North Broad Street. Page 84 of 214 Traffic Study 2 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 As discussed with the City of Salem, the following intersections will be analyzed to determine levels of service with the proposed development: •Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue (Unsignalized) •East Carrollton Avenue and Mount Vernon Lane (Unsignalized) •East Carrollton Avenue and North Broad Street (Unsignalized) All roads in the direct vicinity of the project are two-lane local roads that provide access between mostly residential areas. A mix of residential building types is present in this area, including single-family, two-family, townhome, and multi-family units. Roanoke College is located approximately 0.25 miles from the site to the southeast. The Main Street and downtown Salem commercial corridor is located approximately 0.7 miles south of the site. There are also two golf courses located in this area, Hanging Rock Golf Course to the north and Salem Municipal Golf Course to the west. Red Lane is utilized as a connection between downtown Salem, Hanging Rock Golf Course, and existing residential developments to the north. The speed limit on all of the local roads in the direct vicinity of the project is 25 mph. Three scenarios will be considered: Existing Condition 2023, Background Condition 2028, and Buildout Condition 2028 to determine the effects of the background traffic growth and the proposed development on the levels of service at the existing intersections. Level of service (LOS) for unsignalized intersections is evaluated based on control delay per vehicle and the driver’s perception of those conditions. Control delay is the portion of the total delay attributed to the control at the intersection. Table 1 depicts the LOS scale with corresponding control delay per vehicle, with LOS “A” representing the best operating conditions and LOS “F” representing the worst. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level Of Service Avg. Control Delay (Sec./Veh) A < 10 B > 10 – 15 C > 15 – 25 D > 25 – 35 E > 35 – 50 F > 50 Table 1: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) Page 85 of 214 Traffic Study 3 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 The Synchro 11 software was used for traffic modeling and analysis. This study was undertaken by Balzer and Associates, Inc. to: •determine the total number of vehicle trips generated by the potential development to be added to the adjacent street network; •determine the impacts to level of service and queue lengths at the existing intersections as a result of the background traffic growth and from the proposed development; •determine if any roadway or intersection improvements are warranted as a result of the proposed development; •and to determine turn lane/taper requirements at the proposed entrances to the site. Page 86 of 214 Traffic Study 4 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 2. Analysis of Existing Conditions The site is currently owned and operated by HopeTree Family Services and has been for many years. Changing regulations over the last several decades have greatly decreased the number of permanent residents that are allowed to be housed at the site at any one time. There are many existing buildings, some of which are still in use by HopeTree, and others that are no longer in use. Among other things, the site includes a school, group homes for children and adults, and offices where staff members work on-site. Other improvements on-site include access drives and parking areas, pool and athletic courts, two existing baseball fields near Red Lane, and other miscellaneous improvements. There is an existing pond and two existing creeks located on the site as well and these will be preserved to the extent practical. All intersections in the vicinity of the site are unsignalized. 2021 VDOT traffic count data is available for Red Lane just to the north of the site in Roanoke County, and this data is provided below as general background information. 2021 VDOT Traffic Count Data: Red Lane, Rte. 705 (from Salem/Roanoke County line to North Road) AADT = 1,100 vpd Directional Factor = not provided K Factor = not provided In addition to the VDOT published traffic count data, manual traffic counts were performed at two of the study intersections. Counts were performed at the Red Lane/East Carrollton Avenue intersection and the East Carrollton Avenue/North Broad Street intersection on Tuesday, October 3, 2023 from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM to capture the AM and PM peak hours. All turning and through movements were counted to facilitate analysis of the intersections. The manual traffic count data for these intersections is provided in Appendix C. After the first review of the traffic study, it was requested by the City of Salem that the intersection of East Carrollton Avenue/Mount Vernon Lane be added to the analysis. Traffic volumes for this intersection were derived from the previous counts that were obtained at the other two intersections. In addition, a site visit was made to observe traffic patterns at this intersection during the peak traffic times to inform the breakdown of turning movements at each approach. Figure 1 graphically depicts the existing peak hour traffic volumes at all intersections. The Synchro 11 software was used to analyze delay and level of service for existing weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro 11 results are included in Appendix E. Page 87 of 214 Page 88 of 214 Traffic Study 6 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 3. Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development It is anticipated that the proposed development will be constructed and in use by the year 2028. To analyze the future conditions and obtain the projected background traffic volumes, an annual growth factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes. Based on historical VDOT traffic data, the average growth rate over the last 10 years or so has been approximately 1% on Red Lane and there has actually been a reduction in traffic volume over the last 5 years. To provide a conservative analysis, a 1.5% annual growth rate was applied to bring the existing traffic volumes from the current year of 2023 to the buildout year of 2028. Figure 2 graphically depicts the projected background traffic in the year 2028 with the growth rate applied. The Synchro 11 software was used to analyze delay and level of service for background weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro 11 results are included in Appendix E. Page 89 of 214 Page 90 of 214 Traffic Study 8 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 4. Trip Generation Trip generation for this study was based on the anticipated and assumed uses outlined in the Introduction and information provided by the developer regarding the possible uses of the property. The policies and procedures found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, were employed to determine the potential site generated traffic volumes for the proposed development for the average weekday and AM and PM peak hours. Trip generation calculations were performed using the equations provided in the ITE manual. Table 2 shows the potential site-generated traffic for this development. Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing 210 115 Dwelling Units 21 64 85 71 42 113 1,147 Single-Family Attached Housing 215 140 Dwelling Units 17 50 67 47 33 80 1,016 Multi-Family Housing (Low- Rise) 220 85 Dwelling Units 12 37 49 36 21 57 620 Hotel 310 60 Rooms 13 10 23 8 9 17 227 General Office 710 15,000 s.f.29 4 33 6 28 34 223 Sit-Down Restaurants 932 7,500 s.f.39 33 72 41 27 68 804 Total 131 198 329 209 160 369 4,037 Table 2: Site-Generated Traffic Please note that the table above does not include traffic volumes for the HopeTree school or office uses. These specific uses are already taking place on the site and will not be trips that are “added” to the street network. The addition of the other use types on-site may actually reduce some of the existing trips due to the fact that some of the existing trips may be redirected to or from the new facilities that are developed within the site. The intent of the proposed development is to provide a cohesive, connected, walkable community where pedestrian connectivity is a primary focus and vehicular trips are secondary. Due to the nature of the development and the mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and other uses, a portion of the site-generated trips will be pedestrian trips and/or “internally Page 91 of 214 Traffic Study 9 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 captured”. Internal capture reductions consider site trips “captured” within a mixed-use development, recognizing that trips from one land use can access another land use within a development without having to access the adjacent street system. It is well-documented that this type of pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development will result in less traffic to the adjacent street network than what is calculated using traditional trip generation methods. It should also be noted that ITE and VDOT both have methodologies for estimating trip generation reduction for mixed-use developments. These methodologies require a high level of detail about proposed uses that is not available at this time for this particular development. In addition, these methodologies also do not adequately account for other characteristics of this development that are expected to further reduce traffic. These include urban design principles such as proximity between uses interior and exterior to the development, proximity to Roanoke College and downtown, and the very nature of the development which is to prioritize pedestrian connectivity and walkability and de-emphasize vehicle trips. Walkable mixed-use developments have been documented to reduce traffic dependent on factors such as location, density, mix of uses, etc. A report by the American Planning Association entitled “Getting Trip Generation Right: Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development,” indicates that, on average, conventional trip generation methods overestimate trip generation by 49 percent for typical mixed-use developments. It is acknowledged that this development does not have all of the characteristics that would warrant a 49 percent reduction in traffic. However, it is expected to share many of the same characteristics such as density, diversification of uses, proximity between uses, and walkability. Based on the characteristics and initiatives of this P.U.D. development and utilizing engineering judgement, a 25% reduction was deemed to be reasonable for this project. Table 3 below shows the potential site-generated traffic for this development with the internal capture reduction applied. Page 92 of 214 Traffic Study 10 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing 210 115 Dwelling Units 16 48 64 53 32 85 860 Single-Family Attached Housing 215 140 Dwelling Units 13 37 50 35 25 60 762 Multi-Family Housing (Low- Rise) 220 85 Dwelling Units 9 28 37 27 16 43 465 Hotel 310 60 Rooms 10 8 18 6 7 13 170 General Office 710 15,000 s.f.22 3 25 4 21 25 167 High-Turnover Sit- Down Restaurant 932 7,500 s.f.29 25 54 31 20 51 603 Total 99 149 248 156 121 277 3,027 Table 3: Site-Generated Traffic w/ 25% Reduction Page 93 of 214 Traffic Study 11 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 5. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment The distribution of potential site generated traffic was completed by applying engineering judgement based on knowledge of the proposed uses, as well as the surrounding area. These assumptions were then applied to the site generated traffic to determine the ingress/egress movements at each entrance and in each direction. Traffic will enter to and exit from the site to the north toward I-81 or to the south or west to go toward downtown Salem. There are several entrances planned for the site in strategic locations to disperse traffic and efficiently distribute vehicles to the adjacent road system in an interconnected grid-type network that is similar to what already exists to the north of Main Street. This development is proposed to have four access points on Red Lane, three access points on East Carrollton Avenue, and one access point on North Broad Street. The roadway network creates a network of streets within the development with a high level of interconnectivity both internally and externally to the existing streets. After distribution of trips to the roadway, trips were distributed to each road and intersection based on the assumptions described above. Traffic assignment for traffic entering the development is shown graphically in Figure 3 and for traffic exiting the development is shown graphically in Figure 4. Page 94 of 214 Page 95 of 214 Page 96 of 214 Traffic Study 14 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 6. Analysis of Future Conditions With Development The buildout traffic was calculated by adding the 2028 background traffic (Figure 2) to the site-generated traffic (Figures 3 and 4). The 2028 buildout traffic for each of the study intersections is shown in Figure 5. The intersections were then modeled and evaluated using the Synchro 11 software. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the levels of service and delays calculated at each intersection for the 2023 Existing, 2028 Background, and 2028 Buildout conditions. The detailed Synchro 11 reports are included in Appendix E. As shown in the data, all approaches at the two study intersections will function at the same level of service in the Buildout condition as they do in the Existing and Background conditions, with minimal increases in delay. No further improvements are warranted or recommended as a result of the development traffic. Page 97 of 214 Page 98 of 214 Traffic Study 16 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CONDITION LANE GROUP LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) NBLT A (7.4)40 A (7.9)52 EBLR A (7.4)31 A (7.9)39Existing 2023 Condition SBTR A (7.2)52 A (7.3)55 NBLT A (7.5)47 A (7.9)53 EBLR A (7.5)37 A (8.0)48 Background 2028 Condition SBTR A (7.3)55 A (7.4)55 NBLT A (7.7)46 A (8.4)56 EBLR A (7.7)37 A (8.4)44 Buildout 2028 Condition SBTR A (7.6)57 A (7.7)62 Table 4: Red Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis Mount Vernon Lane and East Carrollton Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CONDITION LANE GROUP LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) NBLTR A (7.5)34 A (7.7)34 EBLTR A (7.5)53 A (7.8)61 WBLTR A (7.5)55 A (7.9)68 Existing 2023 Condition SBLTR A (7.0)31 A (7.4)34 NBLTR A (7.6)43 A (7.8)32 EBLTR A (7.5)60 A (7.9)61 WBLTR A (7.5)52 A (8.0)70 Background 2028 Condition SBLTR A (7.1)31 A (7.4)33 NBLTR A (7.8)47 A (8.1)40 EBLTR A (7.9)62 A (8.5)66 WBLTR A (7.9)62 A (8.4)61 Buildout 2028 Condition SBLTR A (7.5)45 A (7.8)44 Table 5: Mount Vernon Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis Page 99 of 214 Traffic Study 17 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 North Broad Street and East Carrollton Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CONDITION LANE GROUP LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) NBLTR B (10.3)49 B (12.1)64 EBL --2 A (7.5)11 WBL A (7.6)22 A (7.7)27 Existing 2023 Condition SBLTR A (8.7)18 B (10.3)28 NBLTR B (10.5)46 B (12.6)77 EBL ----A (7.5)11 WBL A (7.7)15 A (7.7)23 Background 2028 Condition SBLTR A (8.7)18 B (10.5)31 NBLTR B (11.6)50 B (14.8)76 EBL A (7.5)12 A (7.6)41 WBL A (7.8)33 A (7.8)35 Buildout 2028 Condition SBLTR B (10.9)34 B (11.8)47 Table 6: North Broad Street & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis Page 100 of 214 Traffic Study 18 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 7. Turn Lane Warrants The analyses to determine turn lane requirements for the new development were completed by following the procedures and methodologies found in the VDOT Road Design Manual, Volume I, Appendix F. Turn lane warrants were analyzed based on the highest volumes for each roadway (Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue) to show that the warrants are not met and will not be met for any of the intersections. Right-Turn Lane into Site from Red Lane AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 22 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Red Lane - Approach Volume = 127 + 22 = 149 VPH Red Lane -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 36 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Red Lane - Approach Volume = 133 + 36 = 169 VPH Red Lane -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). Left-Turn Lane into Site from Red Lane AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 7 (9.7%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Red Lane Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 72 VPH - Opposing Volume = 127 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 11 (6.8%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Red Lane Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 161 VPH - Opposing Volume = 133 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). Page 101 of 214 Traffic Study 19 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Right-Turn Lane into Site from East Carrollton Avenue AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 6 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from East Carrollton Avenue - Approach Volume = 122 VPH East Carrollton Avenue -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 9 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from East Carrollton Avenue - Approach Volume = 166 VPH East Carrollton Avenue -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). Left-Turn Lane into Site from East Carrollton Avenue AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 8 (8.4%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from East Carrollton Avenue Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 95 VPH - Opposing Volume = 122 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 14 (9.0%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from East Carrollton Avenue Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 155 VPH - Opposing Volume = 166 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). Page 102 of 214 Traffic Study 20 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 8. Conclusions Based on the data collected, the assumptions made, and the projected site-generated traffic, the results of the analysis are outlined below. •The proposed development will generate additional traffic to the existing road network. •The proposed development results in very minimal increases in delay and queue lengths at the study intersections and all approaches function at the same level of service in the Existing, Background, and Buildout scenarios. •No turn lanes or tapers are warranted by the proposed development. Page 103 of 214 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix A Vicinity Map 21 Page 104 of 214 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 SITE SITE 22 Page 105 of 214 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix B P.U.D. Master Plan 23 Page 106 of 214 24 Page 107 of 214 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix C Existing Traffic Data 25 Page 108 of 214 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: North Broad Street Date: October 03, 2023 Tuesday and: Carrollton Avenue Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:North Broad Street on:North Broad Street on:Carrollton Avenue on:Carrollton Avenue N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 11 2 0 13 20 5 0 0 25 44 7:15 - 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 13 2 0 15 21 10 0 0 31 54 7:30 - 7:45 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 1 18 2 0 21 50 13 0 0 63 89 7:45 - 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 8 0 15 2 0 17 32 20 0 0 52 77 8:00 - 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 0 25 0 0 25 15 18 0 0 33 71 8:15 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 0 10 0 16 0 0 16 19 8 0 0 27 54 8:30 - 8:45 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 8 0 7 0 0 7 25 11 0 0 36 52 8:45 - 9:00 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 0 10 0 13 0 0 13 16 9 0 0 25 49 2 Hr Totals 3 3 0 0 6 6 3 56 0 65 1 118 8 0 127 198 94 0 0 292 490 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 22 0 24 1 57 8 0 66 123 48 0 0 171 264 7:15 - 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 32 0 34 1 71 6 0 78 118 61 0 0 179 291 7:30 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 33 0 36 1 74 4 0 79 116 59 0 0 175 291 7:45 - 8:45 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 36 0 39 0 63 2 0 65 91 57 0 0 148 254 8:00 - 9:00 2 1 0 0 3 4 3 34 0 41 0 61 0 0 61 75 46 0 0 121 226 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 33 0 36 1 74 4 0 79 116 59 0 0 175 291 PM 4:00 - 4:15 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 8 0 10 0 24 0 0 24 19 17 0 0 36 71 4:15 - 4:30 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 0 20 0 20 1 0 21 18 19 0 0 37 79 4:30 - 4:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 13 0 34 1 0 35 15 20 0 0 35 83 4:45 - 5:00 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 18 0 18 0 28 3 0 31 12 18 1 0 31 81 5:00 - 5:15 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 25 0 27 0 35 0 0 35 19 25 1 0 45 109 5:15 - 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 23 0 25 0 36 4 0 40 32 26 1 0 59 124 5:30 - 5:45 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 16 0 16 1 20 1 0 22 17 23 0 0 40 80 5:45 - 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 22 0 24 2 0 26 19 25 1 0 45 93 2 Hr Totals 3 4 0 0 7 8 1 142 0 151 1 221 12 0 234 151 173 4 0 328 720 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 1 2 0 0 3 2 1 58 0 61 0 106 5 0 111 64 74 1 0 139 314 4:15 - 5:15 2 2 0 0 4 2 1 75 0 78 0 117 5 0 122 64 82 2 0 148 352 4:30 - 5:30 1 2 0 0 3 4 1 78 0 83 0 133 8 0 141 78 89 3 0 170 397 4:45 - 5:45 2 3 0 0 5 4 0 82 0 86 1 119 8 0 128 80 92 3 0 175 394 5:00 - 6:00 2 2 0 0 4 6 0 84 0 90 1 115 7 0 123 87 99 3 0 189 406 PEAK HOUR 5:00 - 6:00 2 2 0 0 4 6 0 84 0 90 1 115 7 0 123 87 99 3 0 189 406 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 3DJH RI TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: Red Lane Date: October 03, 2023 Tuesday and: Carrollton Avenue Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:Red Lane on:Red Lane on:on:Carrollton Avenue N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 12 6 0 0 18 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 5 28 7:15 - 7:30 9 7 0 0 16 0 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 11 32 7:30 - 7:45 10 18 0 0 28 0 3 6 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 0 11 48 7:45 - 8:00 13 9 0 0 22 0 4 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 7 0 13 42 8:00 - 8:15 14 9 0 0 23 0 6 6 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13 0 17 52 8:15 - 8:30 10 11 0 0 21 0 6 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 36 8:30 - 8:45 5 2 0 0 7 0 8 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0 12 28 8:45 - 9:00 10 3 0 0 13 0 6 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 12 33 2 Hr Totals 83 65 0 0 148 0 37 28 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 61 0 86 299 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 44 40 0 0 84 0 11 15 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 26 0 40 150 7:15 - 8:15 46 43 0 0 89 0 14 19 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 37 0 52 174 7:30 - 8:30 47 47 0 0 94 0 19 19 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 31 0 46 178 7:45 - 8:45 42 31 0 0 73 0 24 14 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 32 0 47 158 8:00 - 9:00 39 25 0 0 64 0 26 13 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 35 0 46 149 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 47 47 0 0 94 0 19 19 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 31 0 46 178 PM 4:00 - 4:15 18 12 0 0 30 0 13 5 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 0 20 68 4:15 - 4:30 16 2 0 0 18 0 9 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 15 0 20 48 4:30 - 4:45 21 7 0 0 28 0 12 7 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 18 0 23 70 4:45 - 5:00 21 10 0 0 31 0 12 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 18 65 5:00 - 5:15 12 8 0 0 20 0 17 11 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 18 0 25 74 5:15 - 5:30 19 6 0 0 25 0 12 13 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 20 0 27 77 5:30 - 5:45 13 7 0 0 20 0 10 3 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 0 16 49 5:45 - 6:00 19 9 0 0 28 0 7 4 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 0 20 59 2 Hr Totals 139 61 0 0 200 0 92 48 1 141 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 126 0 169 510 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 76 31 0 0 107 0 46 17 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 61 0 81 251 4:15 - 5:15 70 27 0 0 97 0 50 23 1 74 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 66 0 86 257 4:30 - 5:30 73 31 0 0 104 0 53 35 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 71 0 93 286 4:45 - 5:45 65 31 0 0 96 0 51 31 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 67 0 86 265 5:00 - 6:00 63 30 0 0 93 0 46 31 1 78 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 65 0 88 259 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 73 31 0 0 104 0 53 35 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 71 0 93 286 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 3DJHRI Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix D VDOT Turn Lane Worksheets 28 Page 111 of 214 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-89 FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY) Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private). LEGEND PHV - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent) Adjustment for Right Turns For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, PHV right turns > 40, and PHV total < 300. Adjusted right turns = PHV Right Turns - 20 If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow Note: An average of 11% for K x D will suffice. When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria.* * Rev. 1/15 NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED 29 Page 112 of 214 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-69 WARRANT FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-4 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-5 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY 30 Page 113 of 214 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-89 FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY) Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private). LEGEND PHV - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent) Adjustment for Right Turns For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, PHV right turns > 40, and PHV total < 300. Adjusted right turns = PHV Right Turns - 20 If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow Note: An average of 11% for K x D will suffice. When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria.* * Rev. 1/15 NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED 31 Page 114 of 214 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-69 WARRANT FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-4 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-5 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY 32 Page 115 of 214 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix E Synchro 11 Intersection Analysis Data 33 Page 116 of 214 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 7:30 am 10/03/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 7:30 am 10/03/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 7:30 am 10/03/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 412 419 411 363 368 375 359 Vehs Exited 411 418 405 364 369 380 354 Starting Vehs 2 2 0 3 1 7 2 Ending Vehs 3 3 6 2 0 2 7 Travel Distance (mi)87 89 85 77 80 79 77 Travel Time (hr)4.2 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 Total Delay (hr)0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 Total Stops 413 433 403 360 389 365 373 Fuel Used (gal)3.7 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 384 396 396 385 Vehs Exited 386 399 399 388 Starting Vehs 8 5 3 0 Ending Vehs 6 2 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)78 84 83 82 Travel Time (hr)3.7 4.0 4.0 3.9 Total Delay (hr)0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 Total Stops 355 373 399 386 Fuel Used (gal)3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 127 125 124 111 113 103 114 Vehs Exited 125 122 119 106 108 106 109 Starting Vehs 2 2 0 3 1 7 2 Ending Vehs 4 5 5 8 6 4 7 Travel Distance (mi)26 26 24 23 24 21 24 Travel Time (hr)1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 128 120 106 108 129 99 113 Fuel Used (gal)1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 102 120 104 114 Vehs Exited 104 119 105 113 Starting Vehs 8 5 3 0 Ending Vehs 6 6 2 3 Travel Distance (mi)21 25 21 24 Travel Time (hr)1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 95 110 99 110 Fuel Used (gal)1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 90 90 85 71 94 99 81 Vehs Exited 89 92 87 74 100 101 86 Starting Vehs 4 5 5 8 6 4 7 Ending Vehs 5 3 3 5 0 2 2 Travel Distance (mi)19 19 18 15 20 21 18 Travel Time (hr)0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 93 96 86 66 92 104 88 Fuel Used (gal)0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 100 99 97 89 Vehs Exited 105 103 97 94 Starting Vehs 6 6 2 3 Ending Vehs 1 2 2 0 Travel Distance (mi)21 23 21 20 Travel Time (hr)1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 102 113 100 92 Fuel Used (gal)0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 119 98 94 96 92 96 81 Vehs Exited 120 95 90 93 86 92 82 Starting Vehs 5 3 3 5 0 2 2 Ending Vehs 4 6 7 8 6 6 1 Travel Distance (mi)24 21 20 20 19 19 18 Travel Time (hr)1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 109 109 94 95 93 88 86 Fuel Used (gal)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 92 88 100 95 Vehs Exited 88 86 101 93 Starting Vehs 1 2 2 0 Ending Vehs 5 4 1 1 Travel Distance (mi)17 18 21 20 Travel Time (hr)0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 Total Delay (hr)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 71 76 99 92 Fuel Used (gal)0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 76 106 108 85 69 77 83 Vehs Exited 77 109 109 91 75 81 77 Starting Vehs 4 6 7 8 6 6 1 Ending Vehs 3 3 6 2 0 2 7 Travel Distance (mi)17 22 23 19 16 17 18 Travel Time (hr)0.8 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 Total Stops 83 108 117 91 75 74 86 Fuel Used (gal)0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 90 89 95 86 Vehs Exited 89 91 96 88 Starting Vehs 5 4 1 1 Ending Vehs 6 2 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)18 17 20 19 Travel Time (hr)0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 87 74 101 91 Fuel Used (gal)0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 3DJHRI Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft)31 40 52 Average Queue (ft)25 22 32 95th Queue (ft)43 46 48 Link Distance (ft)383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)2 22 49 18 Average Queue (ft)0 1 20 1 95th Queue (ft)0 12 46 11 Link Distance (ft)292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)53 55 34 31 Average Queue (ft)29 28 20 10 95th Queue (ft)50 47 44 33 Link Distance (ft)373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 3DJHRI HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 4:30 pm 10/03/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 4:30 pm 10/03/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 4:30 pm 10/03/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 550 568 518 505 500 529 506 Vehs Exited 551 561 518 507 497 528 502 Starting Vehs 9 3 4 7 4 6 7 Ending Vehs 8 10 4 5 7 7 11 Travel Distance (mi)122 122 115 114 111 118 113 Travel Time (hr)6.0 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.7 5.5 Total Delay (hr)1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 Total Stops 658 628 623 629 611 640 604 Fuel Used (gal)5.3 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 5.2 4.8 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 517 535 506 522 Vehs Exited 509 540 509 523 Starting Vehs 4 7 4 2 Ending Vehs 12 2 1 5 Travel Distance (mi)115 118 111 116 Travel Time (hr)5.6 5.8 5.4 5.7 Total Delay (hr)1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 Total Stops 629 646 590 627 Fuel Used (gal)5.0 5.2 4.9 5.0 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 4:45 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 3DJH RI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 136 126 130 95 108 114 113 Vehs Exited 137 123 128 97 110 115 116 Starting Vehs 9 3 4 7 4 6 7 Ending Vehs 8 6 6 5 2 5 4 Travel Distance (mi)31 26 28 22 24 27 26 Travel Time (hr)1.5 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 170 132 148 122 128 147 133 Fuel Used (gal)1.3 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 135 138 111 120 Vehs Exited 134 143 108 120 Starting Vehs 4 7 4 2 Ending Vehs 5 2 7 3 Travel Distance (mi)29 31 24 27 Travel Time (hr)1.4 1.5 1.1 1.3 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 Total Stops 159 169 124 142 Fuel Used (gal)1.3 1.4 1.0 1.2 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 168 150 138 148 158 159 152 Vehs Exited 171 150 138 143 154 163 153 Starting Vehs 8 6 6 5 2 5 4 Ending Vehs 5 6 6 10 6 1 3 Travel Distance (mi)38 32 30 32 35 35 33 Travel Time (hr)1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 204 163 159 180 195 190 180 Fuel Used (gal)1.7 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.4 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 144 155 160 152 Vehs Exited 142 150 161 153 Starting Vehs 5 2 7 3 Ending Vehs 7 7 6 2 Travel Distance (mi)32 33 35 34 Travel Time (hr)1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 181 180 177 183 Fuel Used (gal)1.4 1.4 1.6 1.5 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:30 End Time 5:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 130 127 115 118 135 137 115 Vehs Exited 131 125 114 124 133 131 111 Starting Vehs 5 6 6 10 6 1 3 Ending Vehs 4 8 7 4 8 7 7 Travel Distance (mi)28 27 27 27 30 29 25 Travel Time (hr)1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.2 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 148 143 148 153 166 153 136 Fuel Used (gal)1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.0 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:30 End Time 5:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 114 104 111 119 Vehs Exited 113 106 114 122 Starting Vehs 7 7 6 2 Ending Vehs 8 5 3 3 Travel Distance (mi)25 23 25 27 Travel Time (hr)1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 136 131 138 144 Fuel Used (gal)1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:45 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 116 165 135 144 99 119 126 Vehs Exited 112 163 138 143 100 119 122 Starting Vehs 4 8 7 4 8 7 7 Ending Vehs 8 10 4 5 7 7 11 Travel Distance (mi)25 37 30 32 22 27 28 Travel Time (hr)1.2 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.4 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 136 190 168 174 122 150 155 Fuel Used (gal)1.1 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:45 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 124 138 124 129 Vehs Exited 120 141 126 129 Starting Vehs 8 5 3 3 Ending Vehs 12 2 1 5 Travel Distance (mi)28 31 28 29 Travel Time (hr)1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 153 166 151 157 Fuel Used (gal)1.2 1.4 1.2 1.3 3DJHRI Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft)39 52 55 Average Queue (ft)29 32 33 95th Queue (ft)41 46 49 Link Distance (ft)383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)11 27 64 28 Average Queue (ft)0 1 34 4 95th Queue (ft)6 10 56 20 Link Distance (ft)292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)61 68 34 34 Average Queue (ft)34 34 15 12 95th Queue (ft)54 50 41 37 Link Distance (ft)373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 3DJHRI HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 4:22 pm 10/20/2023 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.4 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 4:22 pm 10/20/2023 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 4:22 pm 10/20/2023 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 430 415 428 404 400 398 440 Vehs Exited 424 409 426 405 397 399 434 Starting Vehs 1 1 0 3 1 5 3 Ending Vehs 7 7 2 2 4 4 9 Travel Distance (mi)88 87 92 84 85 85 94 Travel Time (hr)4.2 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.6 Total Delay (hr)0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 Total Stops 401 422 468 369 406 402 460 Fuel Used (gal)3.8 3.8 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.7 4.0 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 394 424 426 416 Vehs Exited 395 426 425 415 Starting Vehs 3 5 1 0 Ending Vehs 2 3 2 0 Travel Distance (mi)83 90 89 88 Travel Time (hr)4.0 4.3 4.3 4.2 Total Delay (hr)0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 Total Stops 396 423 417 418 Fuel Used (gal)3.6 4.0 3.9 3.8 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 128 117 133 111 118 120 148 Vehs Exited 126 116 129 109 114 121 145 Starting Vehs 1 1 0 3 1 5 3 Ending Vehs 3 2 4 5 5 4 6 Travel Distance (mi)26 24 29 23 25 25 31 Travel Time (hr)1.3 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Total Stops 119 117 149 94 119 115 139 Fuel Used (gal)1.1 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 124 130 120 121 Vehs Exited 121 134 112 121 Starting Vehs 3 5 1 0 Ending Vehs 6 1 9 2 Travel Distance (mi)26 29 24 26 Travel Time (hr)1.2 1.4 1.1 1.3 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 Total Stops 120 142 109 120 Fuel Used (gal)1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 3DJH RI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 107 90 88 83 98 100 94 Vehs Exited 105 88 87 83 101 101 98 Starting Vehs 3 2 4 5 5 4 6 Ending Vehs 5 4 5 5 2 3 2 Travel Distance (mi)22 18 19 17 21 21 21 Travel Time (hr)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 102 87 98 67 106 105 100 Fuel Used (gal)0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 106 96 99 95 Vehs Exited 111 95 102 95 Starting Vehs 6 1 9 2 Ending Vehs 1 2 6 1 Travel Distance (mi)24 21 21 21 Travel Time (hr)1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 123 101 101 99 Fuel Used (gal)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 110 100 99 107 92 94 110 Vehs Exited 110 98 96 106 89 90 102 Starting Vehs 5 4 5 5 2 3 2 Ending Vehs 5 6 8 6 5 7 10 Travel Distance (mi)21 21 22 22 19 20 23 Travel Time (hr)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 89 104 110 100 89 101 118 Fuel Used (gal)0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 79 97 100 99 Vehs Exited 73 97 105 97 Starting Vehs 1 2 6 1 Ending Vehs 7 2 1 3 Travel Distance (mi)16 20 22 21 Travel Time (hr)0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 Total Delay (hr)0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 73 89 95 100 Fuel Used (gal)0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 85 108 108 103 92 84 88 Vehs Exited 83 107 114 107 93 87 89 Starting Vehs 5 6 8 6 5 7 10 Ending Vehs 7 7 2 2 4 4 9 Travel Distance (mi)19 23 22 22 19 18 19 Travel Time (hr)0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 91 114 111 108 92 81 103 Fuel Used (gal)0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 85 101 107 98 Vehs Exited 90 100 106 97 Starting Vehs 7 2 1 3 Ending Vehs 2 3 2 0 Travel Distance (mi)17 20 23 20 Travel Time (hr)0.8 0.9 1.1 1.0 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 80 91 112 100 Fuel Used (gal)0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 3DJHRI Queuing and Blocking Report Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft)37 47 55 Average Queue (ft)26 22 33 95th Queue (ft)44 46 48 Link Distance (ft)383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)15 46 18 Average Queue (ft)1 24 1 95th Queue (ft)11 47 9 Link Distance (ft)373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)60 52 43 31 Average Queue (ft)30 28 20 8 95th Queue (ft)51 48 46 31 Link Distance (ft)373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 3DJHRI HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 4:18 pm 10/20/2023 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 4:18 pm 10/20/2023 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 4:18 pm 10/20/2023 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 End Time 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 608 572 581 509 564 592 556 Vehs Exited 608 567 579 507 564 593 547 Starting Vehs 9 7 4 8 4 8 6 Ending Vehs 9 12 6 10 4 7 15 Travel Distance (mi)135 124 129 115 126 132 125 Travel Time (hr)6.7 6.1 6.3 5.6 6.2 6.5 6.1 Total Delay (hr)1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Total Stops 743 661 699 627 675 707 684 Fuel Used (gal)5.9 5.3 5.6 5.0 5.5 5.8 5.4 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 End Time 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 573 574 563 566 Vehs Exited 569 580 562 569 Starting Vehs 4 6 4 3 Ending Vehs 8 0 5 5 Travel Distance (mi)130 128 125 127 Travel Time (hr)6.4 6.3 6.1 6.2 Total Delay (hr)1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Total Stops 718 697 672 684 Fuel Used (gal)5.8 5.6 5.4 5.5 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 4:15 End Time 4:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 4:30 End Time 4:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 150 125 145 112 120 134 120 Vehs Exited 151 126 144 116 121 138 125 Starting Vehs 9 7 4 8 4 8 6 Ending Vehs 8 6 5 4 3 4 1 Travel Distance (mi)33 26 32 26 27 32 29 Travel Time (hr)1.6 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 Total Stops 183 139 171 145 140 181 156 Fuel Used (gal)1.5 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 4:30 End Time 4:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 143 148 130 132 Vehs Exited 139 152 127 133 Starting Vehs 4 6 4 3 Ending Vehs 8 2 7 2 Travel Distance (mi)31 34 29 30 Travel Time (hr)1.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 170 191 145 162 Fuel Used (gal)1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 4:45 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 144 141 134 114 149 143 141 Vehs Exited 145 138 134 110 149 142 140 Starting Vehs 8 6 5 4 3 4 1 Ending Vehs 7 9 5 8 3 5 2 Travel Distance (mi)33 31 29 24 32 31 31 Travel Time (hr)1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.5 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 178 170 160 132 181 178 168 Fuel Used (gal)1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.4 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 4:45 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 128 124 139 135 Vehs Exited 134 123 139 135 Starting Vehs 8 2 7 2 Ending Vehs 2 3 7 2 Travel Distance (mi)31 27 31 30 Travel Time (hr)1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 176 153 166 166 Fuel Used (gal)1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 3DJH RI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 146 119 128 126 139 145 128 Vehs Exited 148 120 126 126 129 142 122 Starting Vehs 7 9 5 8 3 5 2 Ending Vehs 5 8 7 8 13 8 8 Travel Distance (mi)33 25 30 28 32 32 29 Travel Time (hr)1.6 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 184 134 159 152 172 166 160 Fuel Used (gal)1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 131 130 124 133 Vehs Exited 124 123 128 131 Starting Vehs 2 3 7 2 Ending Vehs 9 10 3 6 Travel Distance (mi)30 28 27 29 Travel Time (hr)1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 162 149 160 159 Fuel Used (gal)1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 168 187 174 157 156 170 167 Vehs Exited 164 183 175 155 165 171 160 Starting Vehs 5 8 7 8 13 8 8 Ending Vehs 9 12 6 10 4 7 15 Travel Distance (mi)37 41 39 36 36 37 37 Travel Time (hr)1.8 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 198 218 209 198 182 182 200 Fuel Used (gal)1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 171 172 170 168 Vehs Exited 172 182 168 169 Starting Vehs 9 10 3 6 Ending Vehs 8 0 5 5 Travel Distance (mi)39 39 38 38 Travel Time (hr)1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 210 204 201 199 Fuel Used (gal)1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 3DJHRI Queuing and Blocking Report Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft)48 53 55 Average Queue (ft)30 32 33 95th Queue (ft)41 49 47 Link Distance (ft)383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)11 23 77 31 Average Queue (ft)0 1 35 4 95th Queue (ft)6 10 56 20 Link Distance (ft)292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)61 70 32 33 Average Queue (ft)36 34 14 11 95th Queue (ft)54 51 39 35 Link Distance (ft)373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 3DJHRI HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 1:26 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 1:26 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 1:26 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 554 584 531 514 533 592 558 Vehs Exited 553 581 526 516 530 591 560 Starting Vehs 3 0 5 4 3 6 7 Ending Vehs 4 3 10 2 6 7 5 Travel Distance (mi)118 125 114 108 111 127 119 Travel Time (hr)5.7 6.1 5.6 5.3 5.4 6.2 5.8 Total Delay (hr)1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.2 Total Stops 580 636 597 522 555 654 599 Fuel Used (gal)5.2 5.6 5.0 4.7 4.8 5.6 5.1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 594 567 537 556 Vehs Exited 595 569 537 556 Starting Vehs 7 6 4 2 Ending Vehs 6 4 4 2 Travel Distance (mi)127 121 115 119 Travel Time (hr)6.2 5.9 5.7 5.8 Total Delay (hr)1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 Total Stops 637 626 603 600 Fuel Used (gal)5.5 5.3 5.0 5.2 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 178 159 187 156 163 161 173 Vehs Exited 175 153 186 153 161 157 173 Starting Vehs 3 0 5 4 3 6 7 Ending Vehs 6 6 6 7 5 10 7 Travel Distance (mi)37 33 39 31 34 34 37 Travel Time (hr)1.8 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.8 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 180 166 208 144 181 179 176 Fuel Used (gal)1.6 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 172 177 148 167 Vehs Exited 168 178 147 165 Starting Vehs 7 6 4 2 Ending Vehs 11 5 5 3 Travel Distance (mi)36 37 31 35 Travel Time (hr)1.8 1.8 1.5 1.7 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 Total Stops 187 177 160 175 Fuel Used (gal)1.6 1.6 1.3 1.5 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 121 130 109 110 129 129 132 Vehs Exited 122 130 107 114 131 136 134 Starting Vehs 6 6 6 7 5 10 7 Ending Vehs 5 6 8 3 3 3 5 Travel Distance (mi)26 28 23 25 27 28 29 Travel Time (hr)1.3 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 138 147 125 114 126 145 150 Fuel Used (gal)1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 157 139 122 126 Vehs Exited 159 141 125 129 Starting Vehs 11 5 5 3 Ending Vehs 9 3 2 2 Travel Distance (mi)34 31 27 28 Travel Time (hr)1.7 1.5 1.3 1.4 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 176 167 139 143 Fuel Used (gal)1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 143 139 116 114 123 141 129 Vehs Exited 141 140 117 112 118 138 133 Starting Vehs 5 6 8 3 3 3 5 Ending Vehs 7 5 7 5 8 6 1 Travel Distance (mi)30 30 27 24 26 30 27 Travel Time (hr)1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 144 150 138 119 126 161 135 Fuel Used (gal)1.3 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.1 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 133 127 142 130 Vehs Exited 135 124 140 129 Starting Vehs 9 3 2 2 Ending Vehs 7 6 4 1 Travel Distance (mi)28 27 30 28 Travel Time (hr)1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 Total Stops 137 148 159 141 Fuel Used (gal)1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 3DJH RI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 112 156 119 134 118 161 124 Vehs Exited 115 158 116 137 120 160 120 Starting Vehs 7 5 7 5 8 6 1 Ending Vehs 4 3 10 2 6 7 5 Travel Distance (mi)24 34 25 28 25 35 26 Travel Time (hr)1.2 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.3 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 Total Stops 118 173 126 145 122 169 138 Fuel Used (gal)1.1 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.1 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 132 124 125 134 Vehs Exited 133 126 125 131 Starting Vehs 7 6 4 1 Ending Vehs 6 4 4 2 Travel Distance (mi)28 27 27 28 Travel Time (hr)1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 137 134 145 141 Fuel Used (gal)1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 3DJHRI Queuing and Blocking Report Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft)37 46 57 Average Queue (ft)27 27 35 95th Queue (ft)43 47 52 Link Distance (ft)383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)12 33 50 34 Average Queue (ft)1 4 28 16 95th Queue (ft)7 22 49 41 Link Distance (ft)292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)62 62 47 45 Average Queue (ft)33 32 22 22 95th Queue (ft)53 50 46 47 Link Distance (ft)373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 3DJHRI HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 1:27 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 1:27 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 1:27 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 757 750 729 730 679 735 724 Vehs Exited 753 749 730 733 680 739 723 Starting Vehs 7 7 7 9 5 10 10 Ending Vehs 11 8 6 6 4 6 11 Travel Distance (mi)174 167 165 164 152 164 163 Travel Time (hr)8.8 8.4 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.2 8.2 Total Delay (hr)2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.9 Total Stops 997 941 925 911 852 916 913 Fuel Used (gal)7.8 7.5 7.3 7.3 6.7 7.3 7.2 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 745 750 693 727 Vehs Exited 738 752 689 730 Starting Vehs 7 10 4 4 Ending Vehs 14 8 8 6 Travel Distance (mi)162 166 151 163 Travel Time (hr)8.0 8.3 7.5 8.2 Total Delay (hr)1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 Total Stops 911 947 856 918 Fuel Used (gal)7.2 7.4 6.8 7.2 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 4:45 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 188 163 175 167 144 149 177 Vehs Exited 187 167 174 168 140 152 177 Starting Vehs 7 7 7 9 5 10 10 Ending Vehs 8 3 8 8 9 7 10 Travel Distance (mi)42 36 40 39 31 34 40 Travel Time (hr)2.2 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.0 Total Delay (hr)0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 245 195 224 218 175 189 218 Fuel Used (gal)1.9 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.8 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 172 194 163 169 Vehs Exited 169 198 156 167 Starting Vehs 7 10 4 4 Ending Vehs 10 6 11 3 Travel Distance (mi)37 43 35 38 Travel Time (hr)1.9 2.1 1.7 1.9 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 210 239 188 212 Fuel Used (gal)1.7 1.9 1.6 1.7 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 228 214 203 212 227 217 214 Vehs Exited 226 211 202 207 230 216 221 Starting Vehs 8 3 8 8 9 7 10 Ending Vehs 10 6 9 13 6 8 3 Travel Distance (mi)51 47 46 46 51 47 50 Travel Time (hr)2.7 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.6 Total Delay (hr)0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 Total Stops 296 261 265 257 291 254 289 Fuel Used (gal)2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 214 220 198 214 Vehs Exited 219 219 198 215 Starting Vehs 10 6 11 3 Ending Vehs 5 7 11 6 Travel Distance (mi)47 49 44 48 Travel Time (hr)2.4 2.5 2.2 2.4 Total Delay (hr)0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 Total Stops 277 286 244 270 Fuel Used (gal)2.1 2.2 1.9 2.1 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:30 End Time 5:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 182 177 176 165 151 183 166 Vehs Exited 187 172 172 168 147 183 159 Starting Vehs 10 6 9 13 6 8 3 Ending Vehs 5 11 13 10 10 8 10 Travel Distance (mi)44 39 40 38 35 40 36 Travel Time (hr)2.2 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.8 Total Delay (hr)0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 248 227 217 214 203 231 208 Fuel Used (gal)2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.6 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:30 End Time 5:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 162 150 172 167 Vehs Exited 156 149 176 168 Starting Vehs 5 7 11 6 Ending Vehs 11 8 7 6 Travel Distance (mi)35 33 38 38 Travel Time (hr)1.7 1.6 1.9 1.9 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 187 189 224 214 Fuel Used (gal)1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 3DJHRI SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:45 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 159 196 175 186 157 186 167 Vehs Exited 153 199 182 190 163 188 166 Starting Vehs 5 11 13 10 10 8 10 Ending Vehs 11 8 6 6 4 6 11 Travel Distance (mi)37 45 40 41 35 43 36 Travel Time (hr)1.8 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.2 1.8 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 Total Stops 208 258 219 222 183 242 198 Fuel Used (gal)1.6 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.6 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:45 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 197 186 160 175 Vehs Exited 194 186 159 178 Starting Vehs 11 8 7 6 Ending Vehs 14 8 8 6 Travel Distance (mi)42 41 34 40 Travel Time (hr)2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 Total Delay (hr)0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 237 233 200 219 Fuel Used (gal)1.8 1.9 1.5 1.8 3DJH RI Queuing and Blocking Report Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft)44 56 62 Average Queue (ft)31 36 36 95th Queue (ft)38 53 54 Link Distance (ft)383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)41 35 76 47 Average Queue (ft)3 5 39 17 95th Queue (ft)21 24 64 44 Link Distance (ft)292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)66 61 40 44 Average Queue (ft)38 34 19 21 95th Queue (ft)58 49 45 45 Link Distance (ft)373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 3DJHRI Page 171 of 214 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 Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 Blk Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20-2-4) from RSF Residential Single Family to HBD Highway Business District. SUBMITTED BY: Max Dillon, Planner SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: RSF Residential Single Family Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Commercial – gas station, convenience store, drive thru restaurant The subject property (1200 blk Thompson Memorial Drive) consists of a 2.674 acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from RSF to HBD in order to facilitate the construction of a gas station, convenience store, and drive thru restaurant development. Situated adjacent to Interstate 81, this property is uniquely positioned to potentially serve the commercial needs of both travelers and local residents alike as there are no other commercial establishments currently located in this portion of Salem. Furthermore, the approved Edgebrook Development to the north of this site in Roanoke County may catalyze the evolution of its surrounding corridor. Still, the subject property is currently bounded (within Salem) by residentially zoned parcels, many of which serve single family homes. A conceptual site plan has been included with the submittal that displays a proposed convenience store and restaurant positioned behind the gas pump structures (located closer to Thompson Memorial Drive). The exhibit indicates two separate access points – one which intersects Penguin Lane and the other with Thompson Memorial Drive. If this rezoning application is approved, this development project is subject to site plan review and corresponding compliance with Salem’s ordinances. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential which is inconsistent with the proposed future utilization of the property. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-214.3. Site development regulations for HBD. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the request. 2. Recommend denial of the request. Page 172 of 214 Page 173 of 214 Page 174 of 214 Page 175 of 214 Page 176 of 214 Page 177 of 214 Page 178 of 214 Page 179 of 214 Page 180 of 214 Page 181 of 214 Page 182 of 214 Page 183 of 214 Page 184 of 214 Page 185 of 214 Page 186 of 214 Page 187 of 214 PAYMENT DATE 01/04/2024 COLLECTION STATION Engineering/Inspections RECEIVED FROM Pinkesh Patel City of Salem P.O. Box 869 Salem, VA 24153 BATCH NO. 2024-00003588 RECEIPT NO. 2024-00070721 CASHIER Krystal Graves DESCRIPTION rezone 1200 Thompson Memorial Drive 20-2-4 Printed by: Loretta Prillaman Page 1 of 1 02/01/2024 01:40:17 PM PAYMENT CODE RECEIPT DESCRIPTION TRANSACTION AMOUNT PLAN FILING FEE Planning Rezoning/Site Plan Rev $1,000.00 Total Cash $0.00 Total Check $1,000.00 Total Charge $0.00 Total Wire $0.00 Total Other $0.00 Total Remitted $1,000.00 Change $0.00 Total Received $1,000.00 $1,000.00Total Amount: Customer Copy Page 188 of 214 From:Compton Biddle To:Maxwell S Dillon Subject:RE: [Ext.] RE: Continuance - Patel - 1200 Thompson Mem REZONE Date:Friday, March 22, 2024 4:24:10 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png Thank you Max. With that in mind, the applicant would like to continue thematter until May. Let me know what you need from me to accomplish the continuance. CoMpTon M. BiddLe, esq.direCT: 540.725.8197Fax: 540.389.9560 cbiddle@opnlaw.com 110 e. 1sT sTreeT | saLeM, Va 24153po Box 279 | saLeM, Va 24153 www.opnlaw.com From: Maxwell S Dillon <msdillon@salemva.gov> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 12:16 PM To: Compton Biddle <CBiddle@opnlaw.com> Subject: RE: [Ext.] RE: Continuance - Patel - 1200 Thompson Mem REZONE [EXTERNAL] Mr. Biddle, You all can request to continue the item as long as you please. The time restriction only applies if you all are not requesting the continuance, and Planning Commission is delaying their decision. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Max Dillon, CZA City of Salem Department of Community Development Planner I From: Compton Biddle <CBiddle@opnlaw.com> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 2:55 PM Page 189 of 214 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA held in the Community Room, Salem, Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153 AGENDA ITEM: Home Occupation Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of Philip M. and Rachel C. Knouff, property owners, for the amendment of a Home Occupation Permit to allow retail sales at the cut flower farm (garden) on the property located at 275 Ft Lewis Blvd (Tax Map # 130-2-22). SUBMITTED BY: Max Dillon, Planner SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: RSF Residential Single Family Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Existing Use: Residential – Wholesale for Home Occupation Proposed Use: Residential – Wholesale AND Retail for Home Occupation The subject property (275 Fort Lewis Boulevard) consists of a 1.779 acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is requesting the addition of a retail license for the Home Occupation permit related to the sale of flowers. In 2022, the applicant requested the allowance of a wholesale flower business sustained by the garden located on the subject property. Because a wholesale flower business is a unique use in regard to a Home Occupation permit, staff referred the application to Planning Commission for approval. Planning Commission correspondingly approved that item, and since that time, the applicant has experienced a demand for small-scale purchases which are more profitable than bulk orders. As a result, the current request entails the addition of a retail license to the home occupation permit which would facilitate the purchase of flowers by individuals. If approved, all sales will be delivered to customers off-site. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal is in regard to the requirements of Section 106-304.5. Home occupations. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the request. 2. Recommend approval of the request with the condition that all sales will be fulfilled off-site. 3. Recommend denial of the request. Page 190 of 214 275 Fort Lewis Blvd., Salem, VA 24153 February 20, 2024 Executive Secretary of the City of Salem Planning Commission City Hall 114 North Broad Street, Salem, VA 24153 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to request permission to add a retail license to my home business, Oak & Bloom, LLC. In 2022, the Planning Commission graciously granted my request for a wholesale license to sell cut flowers grown at my residence. During the summer and fall of 2022, I grew on my original “postage stamp” garden space and began learning the ropes of business and marketing. At the end of the season, I expanded into the full garden space with a fall planting. The 2023 season was spectacular. I gained 3 weekly florist customers and sold most of what I grew. When I had leftovers, it provided me with an opportunity to share beauty with friends and neighbors. The more I shared, the more my flowers were noticed. Friends and acquaintances began asking to buy bouquets from me. I declined those sales opportunities because I didn’t have a retail license, but happily gifted the flowers on many occasions. While I find great joy in giving my flowers to others, there is a practical necessity to make money from the flowers that I work hard to grow. Like many goods, the retail value of flowers is appreciably higher than wholesale. The straight-forward nature of wholesale transactions lends itself well to my busy schedule as a homeschooling mother and will remain my primary focus for sales. However, I want to increase the opportunities for my business to be profitable and I believe a retail license will provide that growth. The everyday operation of my business will remain essentially the same with the addition of a retail license. Wholesale and retail orders alike will be delivered using my personal vehicle and pick ups will only be offered at an off premises location. I ask that you will favorably consider my request for a retail license so that I may supply the public as well as my wholesale customers with the quality and freshness only locally sourced flowers can provide. Sincerely, Rachel Knouff Page 191 of 214 Page 192 of 214 Page 193 of 214 Page 194 of 214 Page 195 of 214 Page 196 of 214 Page 197 of 214 Page 198 of 214 Page 199 of 214 Page 200 of 214 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA held in the Community Room, Salem, Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153 AGENDA ITEM: Use Not Provided For Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of PHC of Virginia, LLC/Acadia Healthcare, Mt Regis Center, property owner, for the amendment of the Use Not Provided For permit to allow additions to the outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment center on the property located at 125 Knotbreak Road, (Tax Map # 148-1-5). SUBMITTED BY: Max Dillon, Planner SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: BCD Business Commerce District Land Use Plan Designation: Economic Development Area Existing Use: Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Proposed Use: Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (24 bed expansion) The subject property (125 Knotbreak Road) consists of a 5.012 acre tract of land which currently sits within the BCD Business Commerce District. The applicant is requesting an update to the previously issued Use Not Provided For Permit to allow the addition of 24 beds (~5,400 square foot addition). In 2015, the applicant requested the issuance of a Use Not Provided For Permit to accommodate the construction of an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility primarily serving the needs of those suffering from substance abuse and addiction. While that request was approved, it limited the size of the facility to 48 beds. Since that time, Mount Regis has experienced an increase in demand for beds within their facility, a trend that is expected to continue in the future due to their partnerships with other medical providers. Should this request be approved, Mount Regis intends to add a two-wing addition to this location which would accommodate 8 bedrooms and 24 beds. Through preliminary concept plan discussions, staff can confirm that Mount Regis is able (and will be required) to meet City Code requirements (setbacks, landscaping, parking, stormwater, etc.). Those details will be addressed through the site plan review process with relevant city departments. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-216.3. Site development regulations for BCD. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the request. 2. Recommend approval of the request with conditions. 3. Recommend denial of the request. Page 201 of 214 Page 202 of 214 Page 203 of 214 Page 204 of 214 Page 205 of 214 Page 206 of 214 Page 207 of 214 IR F IR F IR F IR F IR F IR F C. I . T . C . : 1 1 0 6 . 2 6 I N V . : 1 1 0 2 . 4 1 C. I . T . C . : 1 1 0 6 . 0 1 IN V . : 1 1 0 1 . 6 5 18" RCP 12 " R C P WM H W WWW W6''W6''W6''W6''W 6''W6''W6''W6''W6''W6''W S83°48'57"W 78.65'(m) S81°05'14"W 377.42'(m) 1 4 6 . 9 0 ' ( m ) S 0 9 ° 3 8 ' 3 8 " E 4 1 2 . 9 3 ' ( m ) N83°54'21"E 100.80'(m) S0 6 ° 1 8 ' 0 4 " E 5 0 . 0 0 ' ( m ) 1 4 6 . 9 0 ' ( r ) 4 1 2 . 9 0 ' ( r ) S 0 9 ° 3 8 ' 3 8 " E 100.80'(r) N83°46'59"E 5 0 . 0 0 ' ( r ) S0 6 ° 0 6 ' 1 3 " E 78.41'(r) S83°43'27"W 377.38'(r)S81°07'36"W N 1 0 ° 0 6 ' 2 4 " W 5 2 2 . 8 3 ' ( m ) 5 2 2 . 6 0 ' ( r ) N 1 0 ° 0 6 ' 1 3 " W N76° 3 7 ' 4 4 " W 58.8 1 ' ( m ) 2''G2''G2''G2''G2''G2''G2''G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 2'' G 12 Bed Addition 12 Bed Addition Existing Building Added Parking 7 SPACESAdded Parking 7 SPACES 2,700 SF 2,700 SFEach side 2,700 SF each, or 5,400 SF total for 24 Beds Minimum Parking Requirements 48 Beds 1 SP/2 PERSONS OF RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY +1 SP/EMPLOYEE [1 SPACE x (72 BEDS/2)] + [1 SPACE X (50 EMPLOYEES)] TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 36+59 = 95 SPACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 95 SPACES (4 ACC.) 4551 Trousdale Drive Nashville, TN 37204 fax tel 615.837.0657 615.837.0656David E. Johnson ArchitectJDEA PROJECT NUMBER DATE 24054.00 February 28, 2024 A1 Concept Site PlanMount Regis Center Salem, Virginia 20'20'0 Concept Site Plan Page 208 of 214 LOBBY Q317 RECEPT. Q315 LOCKER Q316 PUB. TLT. Q314 W/C Q313 PUB. TLT. Q312 PROP. STORAGE F336 HALLWAY Q318 HR/BUSN DIR. A335 CONF. ROOM A341 TLT. A340 TLT. A339 DIR. NURSING A343 JAN D342 MED REC A344 ADM. DIR. A345 CLIN. DIR. A347HR ASST. A346 MEDICAL RECORDS A355 FIN. COUNS. A356 BUSN. DEVELOP. DIR. A349 CEO A351 CFO A348 ACCNT. REC. A350 UTIL. REVIEW A352MULTI-PURP. A353 ADMIN FILES A354 PAT. TLT. F321 OFFICE F320 HALL F319 DINING F318 STAFF LOCKERS A324 STORAGE F323 S.H. A326 CLEAN LINEN A327 ENVIRON. A328 REPAIR A329 PLANT OPS A330 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT A331 MECHANICAL B332 ELECTRICAL B333 SUBWAITING G310 PAT. EFFECTS G210 CLEAN UTILITY D212 SOILED A214 DETOX RM G216 OFFICE A218 COMM. B220 OFFICE A222 OFFICE A224 PAT RM U202 TLT U202A TLT U204A PAT RM U204 COUNCIL G226 PAT RM U206 GROUP ACTIVITY G209LOUNGE A110 PAT RM U106 PAT RM U108 TLT U108A TLT U106A COUNCIL A127 PAT RM U103 TLT U103A TLT U101A PAT RM U101 OFFICE A125 OFFICE A123 NURSE MNG. A121 OFFICE A119 JAN D109 LAUNDRY A115 STAFF LOUNGE A113 STAFF TLT. A111 LIBRARY A112 LIBRARY G211 PAT RM U102 PAT RM U104 TLT U102A PAT RM U205 TLT U207A TLT U205A PAT RM U201 Room U203 TLT U201A TLT U104A PAT RM U203 PAT RM U207 TLT U203A INTAKE OFFICE E308 NURSING ADMIN E309 CHARTING E306 LAB E310 NURSE WORK E304 MEDS E302 MEDS E303 TLT E307 KITCHEN F322 STAFF TLT A325 PAT RM U105 PAT RM U107 TLT U105A TLT U107A PAT RM U208 TLT U206A TLT U208A Room D111 INTAKE DIR D112 CORRIDOR Q322 HALL U210 STOR. A357 CORRIDOR Q321 CORRIDOR Q320 CORRIDOR Q319 CORRIDOR Q327 CORRIDOR Q328 CORRIDOR Q323 CORRIDOR Q324 CORRIDOR Q325 VEST Q329 CONSULT E305 SMALL CON. D113 CORRIDOR Q322 N.S. E301 MEETING ROOM E311 CLASS 1 E312 CLASS 3 E313 CLASS 2 E314 STOR E315 TLT E316 CORR E317 TLT E318 STOR E319 CLASS 4 E320 TLT --- TLT --- TLT --- TLT --- PAT RM --- TLT --- TLT --- TLT --- TLT --- LAUND. --- STO. --- SHR. --- SHR. --- GROUP ROOM --- PAT RM --- PAT RM --- PAT RM --- PAT RM --- LAUND. --- STO. --- SHR. --- SHR. --- GROUP ROOM --- PAT RM --- PAT RM --- PAT RM --- 12 Bed Addition Each side 2,700 SF each, or 5,400 SF total for 24 Beds 12 Bed Addition Vicinity Plan 4551 Trousdale Drive Nashville, TN 37204 fax tel 615.837.0657 615.837.0656David E. Johnson ArchitectJDEA PROJECT NUMBER DATE 16'16'0 24054.00 February 28, 2024 A2 Concept Floor PlanMount Regis Center Salem, Virginia Concept Floor Plan Page 209 of 214 4551 Trousdale Drive Nashville, TN 37204 fax tel 615.837.0657 615.837.0656David E. Johnson ArchitectJDEA PROJECT NUMBER DATE 24054.00 February 28, 2024 A3 Reference PhotosMount Regis Center Salem, Virginia Page 210 of 214 Page 211 of 214 Page 212 of 214 Page 213 of 214 Page 214 of 214