HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/14/2024 - Planning Commission - Agenda -RegularPlanning Commission Meeting
AGENDA
Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 7:00 PM
Work Session 6:00PM Regular Session 7:00PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street:
WORK SESSION
1.Call to Order
2.New Business
A.Discussion of items on the August agenda
1. 101 Corporate Blvd - SEP amendment
B.Discussion of items on the September agenda
1. Simms Farm - Proffer and condition amendment
2. Code Changes
3.Adjournment
REGULAR SESSION
1.Call to Order
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Consent Agenda
A.Minutes
Consider acceptance of the minutes from the July 10, 2024, work session and regular meeting.
4.New Business
A.Special Exception Permit Amendment
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner,
to amend the existing special exception permit to allow for a second elementary educational
facility on the property located at 101 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 117-2-1).
5.Adjournment
1
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES
Wednesday, July 10, 2024, 7:00 PM
Work Session 6:00PM Regular Session 7:00PM
Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street:
Work Session
1. Call to Order
A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was
held in Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street,
Salem, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. on July 10, 2024, there being the members of said
Commission, to wit: Denise King, Reid Garst, Jackson Beamer, and Mark
Henrickson; together with Mary Ellen Wines, Planning and Zoning Administrator,
Maxwell Dillon, Planner, Charles E. Van Allman Jr., Director of Community
Development, Christopher J. Dorsey, City Manager, and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City
Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Denise King called the
meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and reported that this date, place, and time had
been set for the Commission to hold a work session.
2. New Business
A. Discussion of items on the July agenda
1. 1590 West Main Street rezoning from LM to HBD
2. 1221 Lynchburg Turnpike special exception permit for
cemetery use
3. 141 Electric Road approval of preliminary site plan
A discussion was held regarding the items on the July agenda.
B. Introduction of items on the August agenda
1. 101 Corporate Blvd special exception permit for elementary
school
2. 1014 East Main Street special exception permit for
outpatient mental health and substance abuse clinic
2
Items for the August agenda were introduced, and a discussion was
held.
3. Adjournment
Denise King inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing
none, adjourned the work session at 6:49 p.m.
Regular Session
1. Call to Order
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was
held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at
7:00 p.m. on July 10, 2024. Notice of such hearing was published in the June 20
and 27, 2024, issues of the “Salem Times Register,” a newspaper published and
having general circulation in the City of Salem. All adjacent property owners were
notified via the U.S. Postal Service.
The Commission, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with Jim H.
Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; Christopher J. Dorsey, City Manager and Executive
Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission, to wit; Mary Ellen Wines,
Planning and Zoning Administrator; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of
Community Development, and Maxwell Dillon, Planner, and the following
business was transacted.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Agenda Amendment
Jackson Beamer motioned to add item 4D to the agenda regarding remote
participation for Planning Commissioners. Reid Garst seconded the motion.
Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King
3. Election of Officers
An Election of officers was held. Reid Garst made a motion for Denise King to
serve as Chair of the Planning Commission. Jackson Beamer seconded that
motion.
Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King
3
Mark Henrickson made a motion for Reid Garst to serve as Vice Chair. Jackson
Beamer seconded that motion.
Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King
Chair King noted that this meeting is Mr. Henrickson’s first meeting as a Planning
Commissioner.
4. Consent Agenda
Chair King asked if each member had reviewed the minutes, and without
objection, accepted the minutes as amended.
5. New Business
A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Seaside Heights, LLC, property
owner, to rezone the property located at 1590 West Main Street (Tax Map #
140-1-3) from LM Light Manufacturing District to HBD Highway Business
District.
Staff noted the following:
The subject property consists of a 0.734-acre tract of land which currently sits
within the LM Light Manufacturing zoning designation. The applicant is
requesting to rezone the parcel to allow for the expansion of the drive-thru
services.
The restaurant was constructed in 2003. At that time the property was zoned
Business District B3, which allowed for a restaurant use. In 2005, the City
conducted a mass rezoning of the entire city, and this parcel was inadvertently
rezoned to LM Light Manufacturing District. At the time of that citywide
rezoning, the restaurant use entered into a nonconforming status.
Section 106-526.3 of the zoning ordinance states that any improvement that
would enlarge or expand the existing use requires a rezoning to an appropriate
district which, in this case, is from LM Light Manufacturing to HBD Highway
Business District.
Chair King opened the public hearing at 7:04p.m.
Ben Crew, 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke VA, 24018, of Balzer and
Associates appeared before the commission as the agent of Seaside Heights
LLC. Ben explained that interior updates will be done, as well as small parking
4
updates in the back and the addition of a second drive thru order board. He
explained that this request is to smooth out the zoning as a result of the 2005
mass rezoning of the City of Salem where the property in question was
rezoned to LM Light Manufacturing.
Chair King asked if any parking in the rear will be affected by the additional
drive thru space.
Mr. Crew explained that some parking will be altered in regard to its angle. He
noted that parking demand has decreased while drive thru demand has
increased.
Member Beamer asked where the location of the second drive thru would be.
Mr. Crew explained that the additional drive thru will be directly behind the
first drive thru, and those two lanes will merge into one serviced by the
windows.
Chair King asked if staff had been contacted by anyone interested parties
Staff confirmed that nobody had reached out in regard to this matter.
No other person(s) appeared related to the request.
Chair King closed the public hearing at 7:07p.m.
Mark Henrickson motioned approval of the request of Seaside Heights, LLC,
property owner, to rezone the property located at 1590 West Main Street
(Tax Map # 140-1-3) from LM Light Manufacturing District to HBD Highway
Business District. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion.
Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King
B. Special Exception Permit
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Sherwood Memorial Park, Inc.,
property owner, for a Special Exception Permit to allow for the expansion of
the cemetery into the adjacent property located at 1221 Lynchburg Turnpike
(Tax Map # 117-1-8).
Staff noted the following:
The subject property consists of a 6.056 acre tract of land which currently sits
within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is
requesting the addition of the cemetery use to allow for the expansion of the
5
existing adjacent cemetery. The current plan is to utilize two of the six acres
for cemetery purposes.
The applicant is proposing the utilization of two of the six acres for burial plot
purposes. It is further proposed that two terraces/patio areas will be
constructed for patrons of the cemetery. The single-family dwelling and
surrounding area will remain single-family. Vegetation will be planted to
screen along the boundaries of the parcel adjacent to residential properties.
Access will remain through the existing entrances to the cemetery. There will
not be a new entrance created through this parcel. The petitioner does not
expect an increase in funeral services as a result of this expansion.
On-site stormwater facilities will be constructed.
Chair King opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
Mike Woolwine, 3800 Electric Road, Roanoke, VA 24018, of Hughes and
Associates appeared before the commission as the agent of Sherwood
Memorial Park, Inc. He noted that the request is for a Special Exception
Permit to expand the existing cemetery into the adjacent parcel.
Member Henrickson asked about the intent of the single-family dwelling in the
future.
Susan Mini, President of Sherwood Memorial, explained that a grounds crew
member lives there, and the plan is for him to continue to live there. She
mentioned that some additional landscaping will be installed on that property.
Chair King asked about an entrance to the cemetery along Lynchburg
Turnpike from this parcel.
Ms. Mini explained that there will not be another entrance to the cemetery
from this site.
Vice Chair Garst clarified that the portion of the planned cemetery will be
accessible by vehicle, but there will not be a new entrance to the cemetery
created along Lynchburg Turnpike.
Nancy Ikenberry, accompanied by Archie Brooks, 1309 Texas Street, asked
about the existing access to 1309 Texas Street and whether that driveway
would be altered.
Staff noted that they were not aware of any planned changes to that access.
6
Ms. Mini explained that no changes will be made to that access.
Chair King asked city staff about relevant zoning requirements for the
cemetery.
Ms. Wines explained that 25 feet is required between any property line and
the any burial site. She further noted that there are no landscape buffering
requirements, but existing landscaping is present and that could be a condition
placed on the permit by the Commission.
Member Henrickson asked whether monuments will be allowed in this portion
of the cemetery.
Ms. Mini explained that this portion of the cemetery is intended to have flat
grave markers.
No other person(s) appeared related to the request.
Chair King closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m.
Vice Chair Garst motioned approval of the request of Sherwood Memorial
Park, Inc., property owner, for a Special Exception Permit to allow for the
expansion of the cemetery into the adjacent property located at 1221
Lynchburg Turnpike (Tax Map # 117-1-8) with the condition that there is no
entrance to the cemetery from the subject parcel along Lynchburg Turnpike.
Jackson Beamer seconded the motion.
Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King
C. Site Plan Approval
Consider the request of Lakeside (Salem) Station LLC, property owner, for the
approval of a building addition at 141 Electric Road (Tax Map # 81-4-4) in
conjunction with the proffered conditions of Ordinance #118.
Staff noted the following:
The subject property consists of a 9.692-acre tract of land which currently sits
within the HBD Highway Business zoning designation. The applicant is
requesting the approval of the proposed addition in accordance with the
conditions on Ordinance #118 from 1987 when the old Lakeside Amusement
Park property was rezoned to allow for the construction of the retail shopping
center.
7
Condition #1 of Ordinance #118 states that “a preliminary site plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval for any future
development of the property, other than the development indicated on the
proffered site plan submitted to the Planning Commission on November 11,
1987. Said preliminary site plan to include the location of the flood plain,
floodway and river, proposed use of the floodway and any other remaining
amusement park land and street rights of way, pavement, poles, adjacent
streets and drives...”
City staff is in the process of reviewing the entire site plan in further detail,
and if approved by the Planning Commission, will coordinate any additional
requirements with the developer.
Ben Crew, 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke VA, 24018 of Balzer and
Associates appeared before the commission as the acting agent of Lakeside
(Salem) Station LLC and explained that Dollar Tree is the new tenant for this
location, and a building expansion is required to accommodate their needs in
regard to inventory display. An ordinance from 1987 requires that any
development not shown on the attached concept plan be presented and
approved by the Planning Commission.
Member Beamer asked how many units are being occupied by Dollar Tree.
Mr. Crew explained that like any good shopping mall, the interior had been a
variety of different spaces. He thought two spaces would be utilized.
Member Beamer asked about the existing utility meters in the rear of the
building where the expansion is planned.
Mr. Crew explained that those meters will be reconfigured to accommodate
the new development, and that he is working with the city’s utility
departments to get everything straightened out.
Member Beamer asked what the new space will be utilized for.
Mr. Crew explained that most of the space will be retail space, as modern
trends do not call for dedicated inventory space.
Vice Chair Garst asked if parking would be affected in any way by this
expansion.
Staff stated there would be no parking issues.
Vice Chair Garst motioned approval of the request of Lakeside (Salem) Station
LLC, property owner, for the approval of a building addition at 141 Electric
8
Road (Tax Map # 81-4-4) in conjunction with the proffered conditions of
Ordinance #118. Mark Henrickson seconded the motion.
Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King
6. Remote Participation
Chair King explained that this remote participation policy would allow a
Commissioner to call into a meeting and participate if not able to be physically
present. She noted that City Council passed an identical policy at Monday’s
meeting.
Jackson motioned to adopt the remote participation policy for Commission
members participating in Planning Commission meetings for fiscal year 24-25.
Reid Garst seconded the motion.
Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King
7. Adjournment
Having no other items before the Commission, Chair King adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
9
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
AGENDA ITEM: Special Exception Permit Amendment
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori
School, Inc., property owner, to amend the existing special
exception permit to allow for a second elementary educational
facility on the property located at 101 Corporate Boulevard (Tax
Map # 117-2-1).
SUBMITTED BY: Max Dillon, Planner
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: RSF Residential Single Family
Land Use Plan Designation: Residential
Existing Use: Civic – Educational facilities, primary/secondary (1 building)
Proposed Use: Civic – Educational facilities, primary/secondary (2 buildings)
The subject property consists of a 3.602-acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF
Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is requesting an amendment to an existing
Special Exception Permit to allow for the construction of an additional educational facility that will serve
upper elementary school students.
In February of 2011, a Special Exception Permit was issued for the subject property to allow the
construction of a primary/secondary educational facility; however, the conditions on that permit restrict
any development other than the sole building shown on the concept plan at the time. Due to expanding
operations, the applicant is requesting permission to construct an additional building in conjunction with
the provided plans.
In May of 2023, the applicant received a Special Exception Permit to construct an elementary school
building on the property at 112 Corporate Boulevard but has since pivoted to the current request due
to the exorbitant cost associated with developing that previously approved site.
If approved, all relevant requirements will be coordinated through the site plan review process.
REQUIREMENTS:
The proposal is in compliance with the requirements of Section 106-202.3 (RSF).
Staff recommendations:
Recommend approval of the request.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
'_. .............................. mau ........ HRI ................... I-.. fi.-•• UR.----HR.f,~~.~·.··.1n~lI.ii.~._.G.M·.5.\._.S.L.ID.E_-~~~-1 ___ IIIIIIl ____ IIII ... ! ___ I .. I!!IIU!tI!I_I-.. !-__ .. IIIII!I!.II ___ III-.m'llll __ -IIi!llllllll~.! __ I11III1 __ "___ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_ ........ ,~ ...... ___ ~_
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS TO WIT:
THAT THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA IS THE FEE SIMPLE OWNm OF THE PARCEL OF LAND
SHOWN HmEON, BOUNDED ON THE OUTSIDE BY CORNERS 19 THF?OUGH 26 INCLUSIVE TO 9, 8
TO 19 INCLUSIVE CONTAINING 3.6834 ACRES, BEING A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVE'(ED TO
SAID OWNm BY INSTRUMENT DA TED SEPTEMBm 16, 1996 AND F(ECORDED IN THE CLERK'S
OFFICE OF IHE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CfTY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA IN DB. 254, PG. 654 AND
BEING AU OF THE LAND CONVD'ED TO SAID OWNER BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 21, 2010 AND
RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TI-{E CITY OF S,~LEM, ~1RGINIA IN
INSTRUMENT No. 100002534.
THA T ~"'ALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. is THE FEE SIMPLE OWNO? OF THE PARCEL OF
LAND SHOWN HEREON, BOUNDED ON THE OUTSIDE 8Y CORNERS 1 THROUGH 18 TO 1 iNCLUSIVE
CONTAINiNG 3.9194 ACRES, BEING A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO SAiD OWNER BY
INSTRUMENT DA TED JUNE 17, 2011 AND RECOR'DED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE ON T!-fE CITY OF
SALEM, VIRGINIA IN INSTRUMENT 110001303 AND SUB')ECT TO A CREDIT UNE DEED OF mUST
FROM SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL INC TO BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, A NORTH
CAROLINA BANKING CORPORA TlON (BENEFICIARY), AND BB&T-VA COLLA TERAL SERVICE
COR'PORA TlON (TRUSTEE) EI THER OF ImOM MA,( AC T DA TED JUNE 17, 2011 AND RECORDED IN
THE ABOVE MENTIONED CLERK'S OFFICE IN iNSTRUMENT No. 110001304.
THE SAID OWNERS HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THEY HAVE SUBDIVIDED THE LANDS SHOWN
HEREON EN77REL Y OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL AND ACCORD AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 15.2-2240
THROUGH 15.2-2279 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA AS AMENDED TO DA TE, AND AS
REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AS AMENDED TO DA TE.
'M7NESS THE SIGNA TURE AND SEAL OF SAID a VINER:
----.--__ 1/-5-;lC)15
CITY OF SALEM-AumORIZED AC'ENT
(iNSTRUMENT No. 100002534, D.B. 254, PG. 654)
_\l41bU., VArtJf(/~
SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC.-AUTHORIZED AGENT
(INSTRUMENT No. 110001303)
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY
DEED OF TRUST-AUTHORIZED AGENT
{INSTRUMENT No. 110001304}
DATE
_.&3-/r
DATE
IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CfTY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA.
mls MAP WAS PRESENTED WITH mE CERT/FICA TE OF ACKNOWlEDGEMENT ThERETO
ANNEXED /S ADMITTED TO RECORD ON -111 (, _ 2015,
A r-.:l'.;p O'CLOCK __ .A::_.M.
TESTE: CHANCE CRA WFORD
-~1!uTf CLERK-----
NOTfS:
1. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY,
THEREFORE, THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES Im/CH AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THA T MAY NOT
BE SHOWN HEREON.
2. THE SUBJECT PROPERlY UES WITHIN mE LIMITS OF lONE "X UNSlfADED" AS SHOWN ON THE FEMA
FLOOD INSURANCE RA TE MAP, 51161C0141G, MAP REVISED SEPTEMBm 28, 2007.
3. REFERENCE: * SURVEY FOR ROANOKE COLLEGE BY JOHN D. ABBOTT, PE, CLS DATED AUGUST 14, 19.96
AND RECORDED IN P.B. 6, PG. 47.
• RESUBDIVISION PLAT OF PARTIAL SURVEY & FROM RECORDS FOR THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA BY BALlER AND ASSOCIA TES, iNC. DA TED NO'([MBm 19, 2004 AND RECORDED IN P.B. 10, PG.
69 and 70, SLIDE 185.
* RESUBDIVISION PLA T OF PARTIAL SUl~VEY &-FROM RECORDS FOR THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA BY BALZER AND ASSOCIA TES, INC. DATED AUGUST 1, 2006 AND RECORDED IN P.B. 11, PG.
65, SUDE 195.
• PLA T SHOWING THE VACA TlON AND COMBINA TlON FOR CfTY OF SALEM BY CALDWELL WlflTE
ASSOCIA rES DA TED SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 LAST REVISED MARCH 23, 2011 AND RECORDED IN P.B. 13,
PG. 49-52, SLIDE 213.
4. REFERENCE OF PROPERTY CONVEYANCE:
tDB. 254, PG. 654 BEING TAX PARCEL 148-1-2 CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SALDJ, VIRGINIA.
"'INSTRUMENT No. 100002534 BEING TAX PARCEL 149-1-4 CONVEYED TO mE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA.
"'INSTRUMENT No. 110001303 BEING TAX PARCEL 117-2-1 CONVEYED TO SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC.
5. THIS PLAT IS PREPARED FROM A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY.
6. TRACTS 1A AND 3B ARE lONED RSF /HBD-I?ESIDENTIAL SiNGLE FAMIL Y AND HIGliWA Y BUSINESS
DISTRICT. TRACT 3A IS ZONED RSF /HBD/BCD-RESiDENTIAL SiNGLE FAMIL Y, HIGHWA Y BUSINE!3S
DISTRICT AND BUSINESS COMMERCE DISTRICT AS OF mE DA TE OF THIS SURVEY. .Y1c.I}JJ rr... MAE
STA TE OF VIRGINIA
~ OF ~O~~ ____ __
£" U' /<0 TO WfT: 1,_J11/r/ltL-. n u.g .J A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE AFORESAiD
STA TE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT _ ~ ;'l'bl/e-r-, WHOSE NAME IS SIGNED TO THE
FOREGOING WRITING HAS PERSONALL Y APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME
IN MY AFORESAID JljRISDICTION ON THIS .d1"'~DA Y OF /'fIvu"b-VI--_.-, 2015.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ()U<;b.A., 3/ 0l0!7 . -------.+------_.-
,??Sfp 8'3,:) ~~
NOTARY REGISTRA nON No. ~~F-NOTARY PUBLIC
APPROVED:
APPROVED: _~~ f~Uu--CtA ___ ._
CHARLES E. VAN ALLMAN, JI.::P.E., L.S.
CITY ENGINEER -CITY OF SALEM, ~1RGINIA
NO SCALE
:-::", ',,r-; "';~-~
,,~ , :: '
R£SUBDIV1S1ON PLA r
FOR
CITY OF SALEM __ r._ ft .. -___ _
SHOK7NG R£SUBDIVISION OF TRACT " 3.9194 ACRES (INSTRUMENT No. 110001303)
AND TRACT 3, 3.6834 ACRES (D.8. 264, PG. 654, INSTRUMENT No. 100002534)
P.B. 13, PC. 49 -52, SUDE 213
CREA TING HEREON
TRACT 1A (3.6022 Ac., 156913 Sq.Ft.)
TRACT JA (2.1872 Ac., 95271 Sq.rt.)
AND TRACT 3B (1.8134 Ac., 78989 Sq. Ft.)
SITUATE CORPORA TE BOULEVARD
CI TY OF SALEM, WRGINIA
.~urCWf\ ------------'",-" , --,--,--
CALDWELL WI-lITE ASSOCIAT'E;S 'M'''''.'''M.Itt'.-eM.... ···· ... '· .. ,·IIn_ ... ·' ...... n.r_· r ___ ~."'-.. _,..., ... _.,. __ _
ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS / PLANNERS _________ .. _!F __ , ___ ~; _____ IB_ .. ____ ._. __ .. _ .. _____ ____
4203 MELROSE AYENUE, N.W. P.O. BOX 6260
ROANOKl!I, VIROINLf\. 2·'017-0260
Telephone:(154.0) 366-3400 Fax: (1540) 366-6702
REV: OCTOBER 29, 2015 E-Mail: owaroanokoe.aol.coln TAX No. 149-1-4
REV: OCTOBER 22, 2015 SCALE: 1"= 100'
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2015 N.B.: WES-66
CALC. cur CI-{K'D FBC DRA WN: CLI-{
CLOSED: CLH SHEET 1 OF 2 w.o.: 15-0034
________ -__ ' ... II.IIIIII_IIIUII_IIIUI-1III!I1 ____ IIII1I111111M11_I' .. -__ i-III-_-.aJlllUI'MIBRI"PIII_!IIIIIMII __ IRFT"'_'-IIIIIII __ "_""_I!.-" __ IM!_i_I1I._III!IiII~iI!IIIIlIIII!_1IIIIl1I
P. B . ..J:t.._PG .. .-2.LSLIDE_-'-~i_
19
1_1IIIIIII-__ II-. __ I1I111I-_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_' __ IIIO_' ... ___________ -____ . -------------------
PROPERTY LINE TABLE
---------------'----.. _-_._--
PROPEf?TY CURVE TABLE
i-----
CURVE RADIUS ARC TAN DEL TA CHORD D/ST
i--~------f---. f--._._--
20-21 25.00' 45.84' 32.62' 105'03'40" N 64'48'09" W 39.68~_
21-22 115.00' 114.82' f--?211' __ -'.'21'12'22" __ N 16'57'59" E 110.11' -..:...:.--23-24 550.00' 56.59' 28.32' 09'08'30" N 39'22'28" E 56.57' --
25-26 320.73' 217. 43' 113.08' 22'12'57" S 18'22'01" W 213.29'
25-~ 1----
320.73' 29.88' 14.95' 05'20'14" N 35'11'51" E 29.87' --
28-26 320.73' 187.57' 96.55' 33~JO'27" N 15'41'11" E 184.91' --' .~----
10-11 331.17' 56.69' 28.41' 10'41'45" N 07'05'54" W 56.62' _ --_c ___ 1----____ i------.=-=--.
...J.?-73 265.79' 288.24' 160.13' 61'19'50" N 41'56'04" W 274.32' .. ----.---f--._----
14-15 112.13' 9.3. 78' __ 49.?.L ~~9'09" S 81'42'00" W 91.07'
15-16 18,3.20' 69.43' 35.14' 22'09'12" S 69'02'07" W 69.02' -----------'-----f------
16-17 6,J.51' 84.84' 50.10' 76'31 '53" N 48'23'37" W 78.67' ----:-1--------f.-----_. . .
18-1 25.00' 40.04' 25.78' 91'45'25" N 57"46'31" E 35.89'._
'---. . •. ________ .. _L..... ____________ .. ___
NEW !3ANITARY SEWeR EASEMENT
LINE TABLE
UNE BEARING DISTANCE
S 01'19'56"E 107.68'
S 62'23'4·':"'9--::'II'="W-1---i6.7Y--
• ..:.--+-. N 01'19'56" W 115.08
---27-19
AY-27 N88'40'04"£--i5.00'--·
~-----~~---------
IE/iiSniic--WXtEi{UNE EASEMENT-
IErNE 8EARING DISTANCE
~_-B ____ ~07~35'01 .. £..-198.10_' _
B --C S 61'27'00" E 21.42'
C -0 S 07'3,5"DrW 232.53'
D -11 S 78'09'50" W 5.00'
[ 11 -A N_11'40'1?,' W ---46.35'-
-----.
EXISTlNG DRAINAGE EASEMENT
LINE TABL£
1--
LINE BEARING __ j]lsr~NCE __
I--
S 01'18';23" E ,J..p-AG(rIQ, ___ 42. ~7~,------_._=--
AG-AH S 8J'53'10" [ 189~47:_
AI-1-8 S 64 '30'38" E 68.55' ..
8-AJ S 01'19'56" E 22.41'
N 64 ~JO'J8" W --AJ-AK 75.25' ------
AK-AL N 8J~53'10" W __ 120.81' ____ --------AL-AM S 65'19'51" W 67. 67' f--.. ------------_. ---_.--_.-
AM-AG N 01'18'23" W 55.09' f---_._ ..
N 58'00'54"[ --81.03' 21-AN -------N 30'23'41" W 1-_ AN-22 _ 72.34' -_. . r--??--AP . N 45~J4'06" E 20.62
S J0'23'41" E
..-
I-~P-AO .. 77.20' --_._-
492,69' AO-AR N 59'25'25" E
~.:-AS N 4Y41'38" E 28.51'
f--~S:-A T S 01'19'56" [ --28.27'
AT-AU S 4J'41'38" W f---11.29'
S 59'25'25" W --512,24' AU-AV 1---f----S -58'00'54" W 82,39' AV-AW
N 01'19'56" W
f------.. ---
19-AT 53.82'
-I-.
____ ... _L..
B __ EXISTING DRAINAGE £AS£}{~._N __ r_C_U...-_R_VE __ -·7:_~_=BL-E-·~
CUR~FTRADIUS ARC TAN DEL TA CHORD DIST
_ AW-:-~J2Q_' __ ,--.20,63' 10.94' L-47'16'26"Ji._35"54'32" W 2'2.QL
IPF
EX/S77NG 20' WA TEF?UNE
EASEMENT ---
iNSTRUMENT No. 120000171
PROPERlY OF
' '"\ .. 1..... . .. l"C: '0",,,,: :~:C ..... : :VV:-:I •
l1W:T 1 (3.9194 N:RfS)
/NS7'RUUf.NT' No. 110001JOJ
P.B. 1:1, PO. 49 -52, ,sUDE 21J
r.4X No. 117-2-'
TRACT 1 3.9194 ACRES
LESS 0,J172 ACRES TO TRACT J
Tr?ACT 1A ,}..!..6022 ACRES
0.J172 ACRf.~FROM fBACT 1..
AND ADOED TO TRACT 3
C"'V ",-.... " ,-, , ! I • ..r. ,',A:" = . ." .: vi ~ ... :...:_,,1
LEGEND
ACT.
DB.
EP
IPF
IPS
OHE
PIPE/F
PK/F
R/W
TRACT 1A
3.6022 ACRES
ACTUAL
DEED BOOK
EDGE OF PA VEMEN T
IRON PIN FOUND
IRON PIN SET
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
PIPE FOUND
PK NAIL FOUND
RIGHT OF WAY
(156913 SO. FT.)
BOUNDED 8Y CORNERS 1 THRU 8
IPF INCLUSIVE TO 29, 30, 31, TO 10
Tf7RU 18 INCLUSIVE TO 1
IPF BEARS
S 02'56'37" W
9.16' FROM CORNER
(SEE P_B. 3, PG. 67)
PROPEi?TY OF
-EXISnNG VARIABLE WIDTH •
DRAINAGE EASEMENT ~ ~
WILLIAM E. MULLINS
&-JUD Y 8. MULLINS
r-..: ~t ~
~
IPF
~ 0_·
~
NEW TPACT A
WB. 5, PG. 160
P8. J, PG. 67
TAX #149-1-1
~ EXISTING CITY OF SALEM ~ II -----PROPEI~TY OF
1.8134 ACeES ~ ST~1~~~/~~5~:~~Gf;~NT ~ t;;;; BRACKMAN PROPERTIES,
(78989 SO. FT.) .:S P.B, 1J, PC. 49-52. I NEW TRACT B
• SLIDE 213 .~ r-, 0.8. 299, PG. J27
BOUNDED 8Y CORNERS 28, 26, tiffS TAX No. 149-1-5 j ~ ~ P8. J, PG. 67
9, J1, JO, 29, 8, 27 TO 28 I ~ f ~ ~ TAX #149-1-1.1
LLC
TRACT 3 J. 68J4 ACRES
ADD1770N FROM TRACT 1 Q,3172 ACRES
NET 4.0006 ACRES
TRACT 3A 2.1872 ACRES
TRACT 38 1.8134 ACRES
U ri8J ~-NEW DIVISION LINE ~ ~ ~-L __ ,,_J03,23' iAV\. iPS A V) IP~>p fPS S 88'40'O:~::W - -.-::"',L,.. ~
.... ' ® TRACT 3,4-@ @
@
~
IPF BEARS
S 89'32'54" W
0.30' mOM CORNER
100' 50' 0' 100' 200'
EXISnNG 20' DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
(P.8. 13, PG. 49 --52,
SLIDE 213)
MjIf~-"""_g. 1" ,= 100'
GRAPHIC SCALE
NEW 15' SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT
FOR TI1E BENEFf r
OF TRACT 38
RESUBDIWSlON PLA T
FOR
CITY QF S'ALfM
SHO'MNG RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT 1, 3.9194 ACRES (INSTRUMENT No. 110001303)
AND TRACT J, 3,68J4 ACRES (D,B. 264, PG. 654, INSTRUMENT No. 100002534)
P.8. 13, PG. 49 -52, SLIDE 213
CREA TING HEREON
TRACT 1A (J.6022 Ac., 15691J Sq.Ft.)
TRACT JA (2.1872 Ac., 95271 Sq.rt.)
AND TRACT.38 (1.81J4 Ac" 78989 Sq.Ft.)
SIWAT[ CORPORATE BOULEVARD
C/ TY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
"1rcw/\ _____ ,_ _-___ ... -._ .. .., .. ' ... __ .. 'P'.... _.' .. ' ... _
CALDWELL WI-lITE ASSOCIATE~S ___ ... ..'..... _.' ...... "'*_·1 ' .,,_
ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS / PJ~NNERS ---"' .. • ........ _ 'S. * _._ __ ... m •• ___
4203 MELROSE AVENUE, N.W. P.O. BOX 13260
ROANOKE, VIRGINL<l 2·(017-0260
Telephone:(CS.(O) 366-3400 Fax: (640) 366-8702
REV: OCTOBER 29, 2015
REV: OCTOBER 22, 2015
DA 7£: OCTOBER 1J, 2015
CALC. CLH CHK'D FBC
CLOSED: CLH
E-Mail: cffaroanokeOaol.con1
SHEET 2 OF 2
TAX No. 149-1-4
SCALE: 1"= TOO'
N,B.: W[S-66
DRAWN: CLH
W.O.: 15-00J4
_1I1U1111111U11l11111l!1Bi .. MU ____ -IImI ___ IBIlIIllUUIIIIIIBIIIIIII_U _____ -.....,IIUI __ -I __ iWl ____ .. ____ '_I __ .I ......... W!!I. ____ -II-__ MlllII!III ____ IIBlMIW
P.B. I't PG. 5~l--SLIDE 1..Z:/ _1___ _u_ _1lII0I __
20
Salem City Council Minutes
February 28, 2011
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council
Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, on February 28, 2011, at 7:30 p.m., there
being present the following members of said Council, to wit: Byron Randolph Foley,
John C. Givens, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst (Jane W. Johnson– absent); with
Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager;
James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Frank P. Turk,
Director of Finance; Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Economic Development;
Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., City Engineer; Mike Stevens, Communications Director; and
Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney, and the following business was transacted:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * *
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public
hearing to consider the request of the City of Salem, property owner, for the issuance of
a Special Exception Permit to allow primary/ secondary educational facilities on an
approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime
Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O Tax Map #148-1-2); notice of such hearing was
published in the February 9 and 16, 2011, issues of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper
having general circulation in the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held March 16, 2011,
recommends approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: t he subject property consists of two
parcels zoned RSF, and situated on opposite sides of Corporate Drive, near the Salem
YMCA; the eastern parcel is approximately 3.9 acres, and the western is approximately
1.8 acres; both properties are currently vacant; and this request is to issue a special
exception permit to allow primary/secondary educational facilities; and
WHEREAS, Anna Sachs, 825 Virginia Avenue, appeared before the Council and
questioned if this item pertains to additional construction on the campus, land grant
from Andrew Lewis site; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the property in question is located on the
property formerly known as the Elizabeth Campus; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that if you are entering the Salem YMCA,
the property is located to the left of the YMCA; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City of Salem is the petitioner of the
request as there is not yet a contract purchaser; however, the Salem Montessori School
has a representative present at the meeting who would give a presentation on the
21
proposed project; he stated that the proposed project would be located on a parcel of
property located between Commerce Street and Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that the
City was approached by the Salem Montessori School a couple of months ago about
purchasing the property, as well as a small parcel across the street, which is a wooded
area, in order to construct a primary elementary-type school for the Montessori
program; he stated that the Montessori school has outgrown its current location on the
Boulevard and will move some of the older students from the Boulevard location to the
Commerce Street location; he further stated that the Special Exception Permit request
and the sale of the property went concurrently, and Council held a public hearing to
authorize the sale of the property; the City Attorney began to negotiate a contract with
the proposed purchaser being the Salem Montessori School; he stated that at the same
time the special exception process was going through because in a residential single-
family zoned area a primary or secondary education school requires a Special Exception
Permit in a residential area; he stated that the item has gone before the Planning
Commission and the body recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell, 3555 Carvins Cove Road, representing the Salem
Montessori School appeared before the Council; he stated that Council has a packet of
information regarding the proposed plans and pointed out the parcels the Montessori
School would like to purchase; he stated that the Montessori School is currently located
across from the GE facility on Roanoke Boulevard; Valerie VanderHoeven has been
running the facility for 18 years and has been very successful; he further stated that the
Montessori School has grown to the point where it has used up all of the available land
at its current location; he stated that Ms. VanderHoeven started looking for an
alternative site to expand, not replace the existing facility, but to use it to focus more on
the infants and toddlers and use the additional location for children ages 3 to 6 and a
couple children up to 10 years of age; he stated that when Ms. VanderHoeven started
looking for a location, the undeveloped property located next to the Salem YMCA was
foun d; the property is currently zoned residential and a school is allowed in residential
zoning with a Special Exception Permit; he stated that the Montessori program has a
couple key differences than a public school or a traditional daycare facility —a Montessori
school is intended to be very residential in character, the idea that the children are
coming home during the day; the children change their shoes to inside slippers and
traditional classroom settings are not used, it’s more of a carpet and beanbag feel; he
further stated that when sites were being looked at it was important for it to be in a
residential area so that the residential feel could be captured; the architecture of the
building, the appearance of the site—its heavily landscaped with garden plots to get the
children involved with as many outdoor activities as possible; that’s important to the
program—with its residential feel and the added benefit of having the YMCA next door
made this property ideal; he stated that the YMCA allows for some cross-programming
opportunities that the Montessori school could not afford if it had to build its own gym
and athletic facilities; Mr. Horrell stated that he and Ms. VanderHoeven have talked with
Mark Johnson and the YMCA staff about utilizing the YMCA facility during the day when
it is underutilized (i.e. swim lessons, use the gym, etc.); he stated that the advantage to
the YMCA of the Montessori school’s use is that they would increase the YMCA’s
22
numbers during slower times, and it would encourage the parents of the children to join
the YMCA if their children are going there; he further stated that the wooded area parcel
was identified as an additional piece of property to be kept wooded and utilize for
outdoor programming; the trees would be preserved as much as possible with the
understanding that some of the trees are aged, but the idea is to preserve the wooded
area as a nature and exploring area for the children; he stated that they have tried to
keep the residential character of the area in the design of the building—one-story brick
structure with a gray metal hip roof to keep the roof line down and prevent blocking the
view of the neighbors; and to address traffic, the traffic will be kept to Commerce Drive
instead of being directed toward Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that the goal is to
educate the parents and direct them to utilize Commerce Drive toward Texas Street
away from Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Brad Graham, 801 Carrollton Avenue, appeared before the Council
and stated that he has owned a residential home building business in Salem since 1987
and he worked out at the Salem YMCA today; he stated that he mentioned those facts
because he feels that there is a nation-wide demand for residential housing to be located
near facilities like the YMCA; he stated that he has reviewed the plan of the Elizabeth
Campus and went for a long run; he stated that there are some walking trails and he
would like to see the remainder of the walking trails developed on the property; he feels
that Salem is about promoting families and healthy living and feels that is what Council
and the former City Manager had in mind when they made the compromise with the
neighbors; he stated that it is his understanding that the Montessori school plans to
move to Roanoke County if their request is not approved; he assured Council that his
business will not leave Salem regardless of Council’s decision; he stated that the
followin g are reasons he opposes the Special Exception Permit for the Montessori
school: he is not convinced that the request conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Plan
for the property, the Montessori school is not a by-right use for the property; he feels
that the Planning Commission and City Council have a strong obligation to look at other
projects whose owners have made written offers that would have less of an adverse
affect on surrounding neighbors, and the reason there is not a roomful of upset residents
present at the meeting is because they have been worn down and are tired of fighting to
get what they were promised by a previous Council and City Manager; he stated that he
has spoken with several of the neighbors surrounding the property and they feel that the
decision has already been made and he hopes that is not true; he stated that he has
personally been very close to the entire Elizabeth Campus project for the past 10 years
and it has dominated his family’s happy hour conversations for at least two years; he
stated that through fights with neighbors, lawsuits, and eventual compromise in order to
approve the current plan, his company has proposed a compromise that would allow the
Montessori school to locate on the tract adjacent to the residential tract, which in his
view is a win -win situation; however, no one seems to want to compromise and the
citizens may be correct, this decision has already been made; he questioned what is
wrong with homes being built on the residential tract and the Montessori being built on
the commercial tract below, which would fulfill the commitment made to the residents
by prior City officials; he stated that he was at the Planning Commission meeting
23
regarding the Special Exception Permit request and the City Council meeting regarding
the sale of the property, and feels that he was not given the same opportunity to have
access to the City Attorney who has met with the Montessori school and is in the
process of drafting a contract to sell the property to the school; he feels that he has not
been given the same consideration as the Montessori school; he stated that a traffic
study was not presented at the Planning Commission meeting or the City Council
meeting and feels that there is not enough parking for parents and visitors; he further
stated that if approved, there would be a line of cars stretching to Texas Street as up to
150 students are dropped and picked up each day; any parent driving their children to
school can attest to long car pool lines; he stated that if the request is approved, parking
will have to be expanded; Mr. Graham stated that he submitted his proposal to purchase
the property the morning of February 23, 2011, and have received no response and will
provide a copy of the offer if needed; he stated that by his calculation, his proposal of 14
residential units with an average tax valuation of $250,000 per unit would bring in
approximately $41,000 per year in real estate taxes for the City versus his calculation of
150 students at $5,000 per year roughly BPOL tax of $3,000 is far less of an income
generator for the City; he asked Council to explain how the Montessori school is more
advantageous to the City than his proposal; he stated that at the very least he feels the
project demands further review and by the City Manager’s own admission, the process
has been expedited as requested by a private entity which would not have been granted
to a residential home builder; he stated that in closing, as a life-long resident of Salem if
Council can prove that the Montessori school project is better for the City it has his full
support; he thanked Council for its time and consideration; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones asked Mr. Graham to repeat the numbers he talked
about regarding the taxes and explain how he came up with those numbers; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that the first part of the numbers are factual; he
stated that if he had not been at a dinner party the week before last he would not have
known this was being proposed; he stated that right before the former City Manager
retired, he scheduled a meeting with him to discuss the project and he informed Mr.
Graham that he was on his way out and it needed to be the next city manager’s decision;
he stated that he met with the current City Manager as soon as he took office and the
City Manger stated that he was not up to speed on the project and he needed more time
to study the project; he stated that, what was quickly put together, without a doubt 14
units which is based on a plan drawn up by the City that shows 12 units, but 14 units will
fit within the same block of housing, would generate an average valuation of $250,000
each; he stated that based upon his experience of people who are looking to move to a
patio home, that price would sell and would be extremely popular; he stated that based
upon his assumption with an average valuation of $250,000 with the units being sold
from $260,000 or $270,000 to $310,000 or $320,000 that the City’s current real estate
tax rate of $1.18 per $100 equals $41,000 per year; he stated that the BPOL tax was
calculated based on a service if you take 150 students multiplied by $5,000 per student,
which is an assumption, $3,000 per year was determined; he stated that he does not
know what the Montessori School’s offer is and questioned if Council has seen his offer;
24
and
WHEREAS, Council stated that they have seen Mr. Graham’s offer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that as a gesture to the City he would purchase
the wooded parcel located across the street and would donate it to the Montessori
school if they are willing to build on the commercial tract, which he feels is a better
building site for the school based upon the grade of the property; he stated that the way
the proposed site is graded, he would place the street in the middle with homes on a slab
on the left and homes with basements on the right, which would be perfect for the site;
and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that it is her understanding that the
property located below this parcel is zoned HBD Highway Business District, which
makes it a more valuable piece of property and would be more expensive to acquire; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that the
parcel in question is zoned Highway Business District; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that doesn’t mean that the City wouldn’t
negotiate; he stated that he feels that the entire Elizabeth Campus project has been
about compromise; he stated Council is aware of the relationships he has with people
who were involved with the project and a former Council member, who is currently
trying to sell his house, told Mr. Graham that the project Mr. Graham is proposing would
be the perfect project for he and his wife to move to, and Mr. Graham feels that means a
lot; he again stated that the former City Manager stated that the plan for the residential
parcel was for homes to be placed on the property; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there was a covenant on the
property that states homes were to be built on the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he is not aware of a covenant on the
property; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if when the property was in
question, there was not a covenant placed on it; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that there was not a covenant placed on the
property that restricted it to only single family residences; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that single family residences are allowed within
residential zoning; the commercial parcel was mentioned and the Montessori school
could be built on the commercial parcel just as well as it could be built on the residential
parcel with a special use permit; and
25
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley thanked Mr. Graham for his comments; and
WHEREAS, Nora Smith, 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the Council
and stated that she is also representing Lucy Coons; she stated that she and Ms. Coons
own the residence located at 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike; she stated that rezoning to
accommodate the construction of a Montessori school is the best thing that could
happen to us; she understands the reasoning of some of the neighbors who area
opposed to the project; however, she feels that if the property is not rezoned to
accommodate the school, she will be either looking at modest patio homes or less than
impressive businesses which will decrease the value of the surrounding properties; she
stated that either option will produce more noise, lights, and traffic than the school
would especially at night; she further stated that she supports the school being built
because all of the available land will be purchased, she will be assured there will be no
more construction on the property; the site will be landscaped and properly maintained
which will add value to the surrounding properties; the school will have a campus
environment which will blend in with what is already nearby (Roanoke College and the
Salem YMCA) and is a very good fit; she stated that she appreciates the school’s plan
that the grove of old oak trees will be preserved as they are; she stated that when she
moved into her residence in 1956 the trees were huge then and she is certain that they
are over 100 years old and possibly close to 200 years old; she stated that when the
property was part of the Lutheran Children’s Home she knows that arrowheads were
found in the vicinity and feels Salem should recognize the historic property for what it is;
she stated that the first manor house was named Sherwood and feels the property
should properly be called the Sherwood Property; she further stated that having studied
the Montessori concept of education in graduate school at Virginia Tech and having a
granddaughter who has attended a Montessori school, she is impressed with the concept
and the quality of education students receive at these schools; she feels the school will
add prestige to the neighborhood and neighbors should be grateful that the school has
chosen them to be neighbors; she then read a comment from Sarah L. Ahalt and Martha
S. Ahalt who reside at 1123 Lynchburg Turnpike: “As owners and residents of the
property at 1123 Lynchburg Turnpike, we are very interested in the potential sale of the
land under consideration. The sale of the land for construction of a Montessori school is
a good fit with the use of the land to the west of those parcels of land. The school will
not create a substantial increase in traffic and noise during the day time. We consider
the Montessori school to be a good fit. At night, it should create less traffic and less light
and noise pollution than many alternate uses for which the land might be sold. We also
see an advantage to having the matter settled in an acceptable way rather than as a
source of continued controversy;” and
WHEREAS, William Mullins, 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the
Council and stated that the property is located next to his property and he was promised
homes, not a school; he stated that he would like for homes to be built on the property,
not a school; he also questioned what happened to his bid on an acre of the property in
question; and
26
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that his bid for an acre of the parcel was
forwarded to Council and Council is aware of his offer also, along with Mr. Graham’s
offer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins questioned if the land was going to be sold at this
meeting and asked for clarification on the item before Council; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the item is regarding granting a Special
Exception Permit to allow a school to be built on the property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins questioned if the Special Exception Permit was approved
and his bid was accepted, will the school still be built on the property; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the Special Exception Permit is to grant them
the ability to build the school; he stated that if the permit is approved, their offer is for
the entire property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that he was told that he could bid on one acre of
the property and it would be sold that way; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that Mr. Mullins was told that he could place
a bid on the property, but not that the property would necessarily be subdivided; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that if he had realized that he may have placed a
bid for the entire parcel he would have done so; he stated that when the City promises
something and then doesn’t keep its promise, what can residents expect; he further
stated that homes would not only generate real estate tax revenue, but would also
generate personal property taxes on vehicles also; he thanked Council for its time; and
WHEREAS, Jamie Sachs, 825 Virginia Avenue, appeared before the Council and
stated that he came to the meeting to discuss chickens, but he is concerned about this
issue; he stated that as a resident of the neighborhood, he would prefer to see a
Montessori school than 14 new houses down the hill; he stated that he feels that there
has already been too much development in that area; he stated that he is also the great-
great -great nephew of Andrew Lewis so he feels that he has a bias related to this item,
but he would prefer to see the Montessori school than 14 people with vehicles, etc.; he
stated that he feels the Montessori school would be better stewards of the land and
better members of the community; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale, 1155 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the Council
and stated that he originally intended to not attend the meeting because he felt like the
entire process has been on a fast track with blinders on to anything else that was coming
from the sides; he stated that he lives in the acreage that will be somewhat directly
across the street from the proposed development; he stated that he has been looking at
the dirt pile across the street for five years and has been patiently waiting for its
27
removal; he stated that portions of the dirt pile have gradually been removed, but there
is still a large pile of dirt located on the parcel that would have to be leveled or removed,
etc.; he does not oppose the Montessori school, but opposes the school being built
across the street from his residence; it is a residential neighborhood; therefore, he would
like to see homes built on the property; he referenced the patio homes that were built
on Maple Street and feels that they are nice homes; he stated that as many people begin
to “season out” who have homes to maintain may not be able to care for their homes in
the future and would prefer to live in a patio style home; he stated that his greatest
concern regarding the proposal is that it was fast tracked and was something else he
didn’t know about; he asked Council to look at the whole picture and consider the best
interests of the City—financial gains, good contributions to the property, etc.; he further
stated that there are many things he has recognized over the past 11 years and feels
there are several mechanical things that have yet to be resolved that go beyond a vote at
this meeting; he again asked Council for its consideration and thanked Council for its
time; and
WHEREAS, Joe Thomas, Jr., owner of Thomas Ltd. located at 494 Glenmore
Drive, appeared before the Council and stated that he has been before Council many
times on behalf of most things; he stated that through a lot of years serving on the Board
at the YMCA, and also through performing a lot of the site work on the Elizabeth
Campus, he feels that he almost knows the property as well as his own property; Mr.
Thomas apologized to Mr. Hale for piling a lot of the dirt up across from his property and
thanked him for his comments regarding the townhouses on Maple Street; he stated that
he supported the City’s conceptual plan for the Elizabeth Campus when it was approved
years ago, and addressed many issues and concerns and proved to be a nice blend of
proposed business and residential that was all connected by walking trails and green
space; he stated that he does not understand why the City is abandoning the proposed
residential in favor of a private school; he stated that his company, and noted that he
and Brad Graham are partners, submitted a proposal that would allow Council to follow
through with its promises to the citizens of Salem at least in regard to the residential use;
he stated that the walking trails have not been developed and the additional job
producing businesses that were a part of the original concept have not been fulfilled, but
feels the City is doing everything it can to make sure those promises will come to fruition
as well; he stated that his various companies have been located in the City of Salem
since the early 1960s and in the last 10 years, over $70 million worth of revenue has
been generated out of his operation on Glenmore Drive; he further stated that many of
his subcontractors and suppliers are also located in the City of Salem so the economic
impact to the City of Salem is somewhat far -reaching; he stated that a residential
development proposal was submitted to the City that offers the City significantly more
money than what he understands has been offered for the previously proposed
residential parcel; he stated that his proposed development is in conformance with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, doesn’t require rezoning or a special use permit, and will
generate over $2.8 million in potential work for local subcontractors and suppliers; the
proposal fulfills a need related to affordable housing for empty nesters and active adults;
it is a convenient location to area businesses, shopping, and restaurants; he stated that
28
between Carter Machinery, GE, Atlantic Mutual, One Beacon, and Virginia Orthopaedic
alone there are at least 2,000 jobs whereby employees at those companies could walk to
work from the location if they desired; he further stated that details to the offer were
submitted on February 23, 2011, and they have yet to receive a response; he stated that
the potential economic impact his proposal would generate has been calculated and
asked Council to address how the private school would in fact be more fiscally beneficial
to the City of Salem than his proposal; he stated that the citizens deserve to know those
numbers before any proposal is accepted; he stated that in closing, he believes that his
proposal addresses a direct need in the City, it provides a significant economic impact,
both immediate and long-term, and it allows the current Council to fulfill its promise to
the residents that the parcel would be use for its intended residential purpose; he stated
that all anyone wants is what is best for the City; he further stated that after considering
both proposals with equal diligence, if Council feels the construction of a private school
on the property is the best use for the property and maximizes the fiscal impact of the
residents of the City, then Council has no alternative but to accept the proposal and
move forward; otherwise, he feels his proposal should be accepted; he thanked Council
for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Michelle Hartman, Roanoke, appeared before the Council and
stated that she is a pediatric nurse practitioner on the faculty at Jefferson College of
Health Sciences, and most importantly a mom of two children who have attended Salem
Montessori School for the last seven years; she stated that as a pediatric nurse
practitioner, she is well trained in pediatric growth and development principles; she
stated that Salem Montessori School is an optimal environment to allow children to
master the critical task of development such as autonomy, independence, and being
industrious; she stated that she brings her nursing students to observe this excellent
environment which highlights what children can and should be able to do; she
encouraged Council to take time to observe the school also; she stated that along with
the exceptional instruction in math, reading, science, and other subjects, as a Montessori
mom she values the many life lessons her children have and are learning at Salem
Montessori School; her children and other children are learning how to problem solve, be
stewards of their environment, be community servants, and learn how to resolve
conflicts peacefully; she urged Council to approve the Special Exception Permit to allow
the Montessori school so that more children and their families may benefit from the
enriched environment at Salem Montessori School; she stated that she picks up and
drops off her children twice a day at different times during the day, and she has never
had to wait on the Boulevard; she stated that the families stagger their drop-off and
pick -up times so that has never been an issue; she thanked Council for its consideration;
and
WHEREAS, Merna Helsty, a Southwest Roanoke County resident and parent of a
Montessori school student, appeared before the Council and stated that she drops off
her child at 8 a.m., which is the busiest time of the day, and she has never been delayed
for more than five minutes; she stated that the parking flow is very easy; she stated that
29
she lives on Keagy and Sugarloaf Drive, which is across from the Allstate building, and
there has been a large parcel that has been depleted of trees and everything that’s called
nature to build homes; she stated that the original plan was for 50 homes, but there have
only been two homes that people have purchased; she questioned how in the current
soft economy and housing market, how it is expected for a $250,000 plus home to be
sold, especially 14 of them; she questioned if there truly is a market for the homes right
now; she stated that based on what she has seen where she lives is that homes have
been sitting and nothing is being built; she further stated that the site near her residence
is one of the saddest sights because where the land was full of trees and nature, now
there is nothing; she stated that she has been very happy with the Montessori school
and feels that many of the residents of Salem realize the value that the school would
bring to the community, especially with preservation of nature being of first importance
to the school; and
WHEREAS, Walt Gordon, 100 Kimball Avenue, appeared before the Council and
questioned how the sale of City property is advertised; he stated that according to the
newspaper, the school made an offer for the property back in December 2010; he again
questioned how it was advertised that the property was for sale; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that a public hearing is held prior to the sale
of piece of property; therefore, if someone makes an offer on a parcel owned by the
City, City Council then would hold a public hearing whether or not to sale the property
and enter into a contract under the terms of that offer or ask for a different offer, or
deny the offer outright; he stated that is the process the City goes through to sell a piece
of City -owned property; he stated that the City has property that it markets for
economic development reasons and those pieces of property are typically not listed
either and often “sit” and wait for an offer to come in; he stated that if the City had a
piece of property it wanted to sell, it could advertise and accept bids also; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon stated that the City Manager said “could” accept bids and
questioned if the city has to accept bids; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City does not have to accept bids on
property it wants to sell; he further stated that there are a number of ways for the City
to sell property, but they must be accompanied by a public hearing at some point; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon asked whether the school is a private school and
questioned if the school is a proprietary school, a school for profit; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the school is a business; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon reiterated that the school is a taxable business; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the school is a taxable business; and
30
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon noted that a business is going to be placed in a residential
area without the property being rezoned; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that any use can be placed on the property
that is allowed in the ordinance; he stated that the ordinance allows, with a Special
Exception Permit, a school use; he further stated that whether the school is making a
profit or not is not relevant, the use is what is relevant; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon reiterated that the school is a business; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the school is a business, just like other
uses that are allowed by special exception in residential zoning (i.e. stables, etc.); he
again stated that it is the use that is the issue, not necessarily whether someone makes a
profit or not; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon thanked Council for its time; and
WHEREAS, Inez Good, 1203 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the Council
and stated that she lives directly across from the property in question and has lived there
for 50 years; she stated that she feels that the school would be a good fit for the area;
she would rather have the school with some open area and landscaping than homes; she
stated that she does not feel the homes would sell very well due to the noise and lights,
etc. from the ballpark and the civic center; she feels it would be beneficial for the school
to be built on the property; she stated that the neighborhood is no longer a quiet
residential neighborhood as it was 50 years ago; and
WHEREAS, Bob Hunt, 709 Maryland Avenue, appeared before the Council to
address the environmental aspects of the plans; he stated that he does not plan to
address the 3.8 acres where the school, homes, or other use might be placed, but would
like to address the 1.8 acres of wooded area; he stated that he was very active in the
Elizabeth Campus plans in what was planned on the campus and what has been
developed on the site; he stated that there were pros and cons at every step and the
only thing that was not controversial at any point was the wooded area; he stated that
Harry Haskins started calling the parcel an ancient grove of trees, which is what it is
referred to in social discussions; he further stated that everyone feels that the parcel of
trees should be preserved and hopes to continue to see that the trees are preserved and
enhanced; he stated that the trees are beautiful even though they have deteriorated
some in the last few years; he stated that it is a beautiful grove of trees that adds a lot to
the area; he questioned if the wooded area could be segregated from the other acreage
so that the City could concentrate more on the use of the 3.9 acres and then
concentrate separately on the wooded area; he stated that the City currently owns the
wooded area and feels that the City would be a better owner of the wooded area than
the Montessori school or a homeowners’ association; he stated that he feels the City
could better care for the trees; he further stated that the pond that forms on the
property from time to time also needs to be preserved; he stated that wetland areas
31
such as the pond that forms on the property have special protection under the EPA; he
stated that whoever the property is sold to, if the wooded area is included with the other
acreage to be developed, he feels that special terms need to be in the contract as to how
the wooded area would be handled and preserved for the future; he again stated that he
feels it would be better if the City maintained ownership of the wooded parcel and let
the Montessori school use the area for activities; he again stated that he would rather
the City maintain ownership of the wooded area than have a private entity own the
parcel; and
WHEREAS, Stella Reinhard, 213 North Broad Street, appeared before the Council
and stated that from what she has heard so far at the meeting, there is cause to slow
down the process a bit; she stated that fast tracking has been mentioned and several
projects have been proposed for the property in question; she feels that more thinking
and discussion time needs to be taken; she stated that she was also a part of the process
a few years ago that was looking at the land known as the last part of a land grant to
Andrew Lewis; she stated that she saw the development of the mixed use design of the
property and one of the main arguments used by the City as to why the property would
be developed in the first place was because the City of Salem needed revenue; she
questioned if the revenue being brought into the City would be sufficient to justify the
development of another chunk of Elizabeth Campus; she stated that several parcels have
been developed, but there is still some open land that has been undeveloped; she stated
that she is not against the Montessori school, but a school does not bring in much tax
revenue; she also knows that a school located next to the YMCA will benefit from the
YMCA, but she also questioned if the school would want two campuses separate from
each other in the long-term; she stated that Elizabeth Campus has one of the best views
in Salem, and feels that it is an ideal space for the use of the undeveloped land to be
used for the running trails that were a part of the campus design; she stated that there
are at least two separate wetland areas on the site, as well as the grove of trees; she
stated that she feels that it would be better for the City to retain ownership of the grove
of trees and begin to think about giving the citizens what they were promised several
years ago —the running trails, maybe the use of the grove of trees, and the wetlands to
possibly be used as part of a linear park that could be a benefit to the YMCA, Roanoke
College students, and the neighbors near the property; she further stated that the
citizens were promised running trails and as Council chooses what to do with the last
pieces of property located on the Elizabeth Campus, she hopes Council considers that
the City would be a better steward of the grove of trees, the wetlands, and the potential
for the linear park that was promised before; she asked Council to also consider the tax
revenues; she stated that she would not like to see the last piece of Andrew Lewis’ land
to go for no good enough reason; she further stated that if revenue is needed for the
City, then Council needs to consider the best way to obtain the revenue; she thanked
Council for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked Mr. Horrell to show Council what he has
32
been showing the audience present at the meeting; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell showed Council a rendering of what the school would
look like —all brick construction, single story building with a hip roof to help preserve the
views of the neighbors; he stated that with the grade of the parcel they will be able to
bench the site so that the building will be placed as low as possible on the property and
will be on a slab; he stated that they are trying to do everything possible to keep from
blocking the view from across the street; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked Mr. Horrell to state what construction
materials will be used; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that in order to stay residential in appearance and
character, the building will have a 100 percent brick exterior, will be a single story
building, the brick will be a red color consistent with the other buildings in the area, will
have white trim, the building will have a gray/ slate in color metal roof, a couple of
dormers will be on the building itself to help further create a residential character to the
building and also to bring in as much natural light as possible; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the total height of the building; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the plans are not final yet pending the
outcome of the request, but the building is between 22 and 23 feet in height at its peak;
and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the roof would be tin; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the roof would be like a standing, seemed
metal roof and not a corrugated metal roof; he stated that the metal will be a coated
metal roof; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones asked Mr. Horrell the projected cost to construct
the building; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the estimate is a little over $1 million; he
showed the conceptual drawing of the proposed building; he stated that the building
was purposefully placed away from Mr. Mullins’ property and away from Lynchburg
Turnpike in an effort to preserve the existing trees and landscaping along Lynchburg
Turnpike; he again stated that the traffic would be directed to Texas Street from
Commerce Drive, and stated that the whole focus of the building is to take advantage of
the view of the surrounding area; he discussed the parcels the Montessori school wants
to purchase and reiterated that the existing landscaping will be preserved; he displayed
various photos taken from different driveways near the property that show the height of
the proposed building and how little it will block the neighbors’ view of the area; he
addressed the concern he heard regarding revenue that would be brought into the City
33
from the school versus homes being built on the site; he stated that more than just tax
revenue needs to be considered in as a financial benefit to the community; he stated that
as a community Salem needs to have points to sell the City on, and Salem has plenty of
great things to point to, but another facility for early childhood development and care,
and early education is a great draw to the community; he stated that the school would
benefit the community as another selling point—at least 15 new jobs will be created; he
pointed out that the property is not being rezoned, a Special Exception Permit is being
requested and if for some reason the school would close, the property could not be used
for anything else other than a private school; Mr. Horrell also addressed the concerns
that the property needs to stay residential in use; he stated that the Montessori school is
a perfect transition use in his mind of going from homes to the future commercial use to
the south of the parcel, and in keeping with a campus feel going across Lynchburg
Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that the construction schedule is very
aggressive and questioned how the building could be completed in such a short period of
time; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that there is an alternative site available that they
would prefer not to go to, but they have gone ahead and started designing the building
itself; a local architect is currently working on building plans and they are close to having
a final set to send out to begin the bidding process; he stated that this process has not
been fast tracked in any way other than their aggressiveness in pushing our contractors;
the City process has been followed and will continue to be followed; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the building could be built on another piece
of property, and questioned if that is why he is confident in moving forward with the
project; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that is why the design of the building was ordered;
he stated that the building will be built either in Salem or on the alternative property; he
stated that the preferred site is here in Salem; he stated that the goal is to start
construction in April and have been assured by several contractors they have met with
that it is a doable schedule because of the style of construction, nearby utilities, etc.; he
stated that it is not a complicated construction and they have been reassured that the
project can be completed on the timeframe they have requested; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if any type of LEED or energy
efficiency programs would be implemented; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are not seeking LEED certification due
mostly to a cost issue for the certification itself; however, there are many design
elements being placed into the school such as a lot of natural light, lighting fixtures and
water fixtures; he stated that there will be a lot of things incorporated but they are not
seeking actual certification; he further stated that part of the Montessori theme ties into
environmental education and making a building that is environmentally efficient is part
34
of their goal; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the intended use of the 1.8 acres of
wooded area to be used as a nature area; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they view the wooded area the same way as
the citizens do; there is a beautiful grove of trees there that we want to preserve as long
as possible, and at the same time add to it with some plantings of new trees on the
parcel; he stated that the intent is to create a couple of mulch paths on the parcel and
use it as an outdoor exploring area for the children; the 3.9 acre lot the building is
proposed to be built on does not have a grove of trees and they would like for the
children to explore the grove of trees to find lizards, butterflies, etc.; he stated that his
children attend the Montessori school and came home and could identify six birds; he
further stated that in the future they would like to lay down a couple of logs and use it as
a log amphitheatre; he discussed various programs offered at the school; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked the City Attorney what type of
concessions the Montessori school could offer to ensure the 1.8 acre parcel would stay a
wooded area; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that there could be a condition that there
would be no development on the site; he stated that he would need to research it
further; he stated that as far as maintaining the wooded area, it would be subject to the
disease of trees, etc.; he stated that there could be reasons why it couldn’t be
maintained; he stated that he believes that a condition could be placed on that parcel
that it could not be developed in any way, shape, or form unless it was brought back
before Council with the appropriate advertisement and public hearings, etc.; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the City could place a right of first
refusal if the property were to be sold; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that could be done and has been done
consistently; he stated that the process has been done consistently by every City
Council since he has been City Attorney, which is almost 30 years; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the lower parcel was recently repurchased
by the City; he stated that if the developer had developed the property the way he had
hoped to develop it, there would now be an existing building of some size on the parcel,
but he was unable to construct the building; therefore, the City exercised its option to
repurchase the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that the City repurchased the property for
the original purchase price the developer paid; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that if the property is ever sold, it would still be
35
zoned residential with the only special exception allowed being a school facility; he
stated that a McDonald’s could not be placed on the property if it were sold; he further
stated that the Montessori school does not have any intention of selling the property;
and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the Montessori school would be
willing to proffer a condition that on the lower side near Mr. Mullins’ property to plant a
close growing row of trees that would act as both a visual and a sound barrier and
possibly some lower growing trees or shrubs along Lynchburg Turnpike, not to block the
view of the neighbors across the street, but to also act as a barrier; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are very willing to make that proffer; he
stated that the intent is to fully landscape the part of the parcel located next to Mr.
Mullins’ property; he stated that they have met with Mr. Mullins and all of the neighbors
and landscaping has been discussed; he stated that along Lynchburg Turnpike, the school
has a vested interested in screening that side of the property because any traffic noise
that can be absorbed by trees, etc. also benefits the school; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the type of exterior lighting to be used on
the development (height, brightness, etc.); and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 6
p.m. five days a week; he stated that the last teacher goes home at 6 p.m. and at that
point there is no need for lighting other than just security lighting right around the
building itself; he stated that the rendering shows a covered entryway on the south side
of the building facing the stadium, which would be the entryway for all students being
dropped off and picked up; he stated that some lighting may be placed underneath the
covered entryway that would shine down, but would not shine out; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if there would be any dusk to dawn lighting
in the parking lot; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they would prefer not to have dusk to dawn
lighting if possible and would like as much natural exchange as possible; he stated that
they do not want a consistent lighting throughout the day, they want a connection to
what is outside; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins reappeared before the Council and questioned where the
air conditioning units will be placed; he described a situation where a church placed air
conditioning units facing residential property; he also questioned if the units would be
shielded from Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the designs are still at the conceptual level and
he does not know exactly where the units will be placed, but he assured Mr. Mullins and
the other residents that wherever the units are placed on the exterior of the building,
they will be screened in an enclosure and landscaping will be placed around the units in
36
an effort to reduce the noise from the units as much as possible; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that Mr. Mullins’ concern is a legitimate
concern because when Roanoke College was doing some construction, the Broad Street
neighbors had an issue with the noise from the chillers; therefore, the plantings were not
as mature as they needed to be in order to accommodate the noise; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that because of their hours of operation and
because they are trying to be as green as possible, the thermostats will be adjusted so
that the units will not run as much as night; he stated that the entire site will get much
quieter at night, as opposed to a residential facility which gets louder at night; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the type of fencing that would surround the
parcel; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the existing facility has solid cedar fencing that
is six feet high, and a similar type fencing would be used on the proposed property; he
stated that it has not been determined exactly where the fencing will be placed on the
property; he further stated that they do not want the fencing to be an impediment to the
neighbors across the street and is more effective closer to the building; he stated that
they are not going to fence the entire property, they are going to create little play areas
outside of each classroom that would utilize an outdoor classroom space when the
weather permits; he stated that fencing would be closer to the building and likely cedar
in nature; he stated that there would not be chain link fencing on the property; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned the maximum number of children who
could attend the school; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that between 120 and 150 students is the
maximum number of students; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked how many students are currently enrolled in the
school; and
WHEREAS, Ms. VanderHoeven stated that 110 students are currently enrolled in
the school; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale reappeared before the Council and stated that he does
have some trees and the floodlights, etc. light up his house at night but it has never
bothered him; he stated that real estate sells well in Salem as most people know;
therefore, he does not feel that would be an issue if homes were built on the property;
he questioned if the utilities (electric, water, and sewer) for the proposed building would
come from Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are still in the conceptual design phases
37
of the project, but there is sanitary sewer along Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that it
appears that the depth needed to service the school is not available in order to have the
water and sewer lines from Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that there is also sanitary
sewer along Texas Street and they are looking to extend a main down to Texas Street
which would benefit the commercial lot below the parcel; he further stated that water
would probably come from Lynchburg Turnpike, and he assumes that the electric will
come from the Turnpike also; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that all of that is located on the opposite side of the
street; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the electric could be buried; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that yes the electric could be buried; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that the street has been called Commerce Drive, but
the street sign says Corporate Lane; he clarified that it was the same street that is being
discussed; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that the street sign needs to be looked at; and
WHEREAS, Joe Thomas, Jr., reappeared before the Council and stated that Mrs.
Reinhard makes a point and he doesn’t know why they have to move so fast on this, and
maybe they aren’t; maybe part of the process is getting the zoning and then slowing
everything down; he stated that there is a good reason for placing the school in the City
of Salem because if you need to get something built fast, Salem is the best place to do it
because the City has the best people to deal with; he further stated that even with the
good people in Salem, to get site plans in and approved, it is a tough schedule; he stated
that he has been doing this a long time and it’s tough; he requested that the school at
least gets a response from its proposal and hopefully make a presentation to Council, the
City Manager, or Engineering so that they can have a better feel for what the school
plans to do; he stated that as of yet a decision has not been made on whether the school
can move forward or not; he stated that even though design plans for the building are
moving forward he does not feel that things need to be pushed that quickly so that
Council can take time to make an educated decision and have some of the questions
answered that have been brought forth at the meeting; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if the City Manager or the Director of
Planning and Economic Development have any reservations about what the school has
proposed; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that he is not aware of any reservations; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned why a traffic study was not conducted; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that most roadways are 30 feet curb to curb
38
and usually the vertical and horizontal curves are built to VDOT standards; he stated that
in most situations those type streets can handle upwards of 10,000 ADT (average daily
traffic); unless there is a situation where there is an extreme amount of traffic, a traffic
study is not needed unless there is a specific reason; he stated that there is not a need in
the area of the proposed development; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that in other areas where development has been
discussed, that has been an issue; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the traffic on Commerce, in and of itself,
there is no traffic on Commerce besides the YMCA traffic and that is the only draw; he
stated that he has not looked at it specifically but there is no concern in Engineering
regarding traffic on Commerce or off Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if staff had any additional comments;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that staff is available to answer any
questions; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the Special Exception Permit was
approved and the school was built and later sold, the building could only be used as a
school or would the property need to be rezoned; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the Special Exception Permit would
allow a school, but the property could also be used for a single family dwelling, or
anything that is allowed in the zoning ordinance for the Residential Single Family District
zoning classification; he stated that the mere fact that there is a permit to build a school
on the property does not preclude someone making another use of it; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if a government building could go on the
property; and
39
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he did not think a government building
is allowed in RSF zoning; he stated that RSF zoning allows parks, golf courses, stables
and other things allowed according to the code; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding possible uses of the property if the
school was built and then later sold and what the current zoning ordinance would allow,
etc.; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager noted that in the current RSF classification, there
are very few other uses the property could be other than a school; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked Mr. Graham and Mr. Thomas what would the
approximate height of a patio home similar to the ones built on Maple Street be; and
WHEREAS, Brad Graham stated that the height would be approximately 20 feet
in height; he stated that he lives on Carrollton Avenue in The Hill subdivision and there is
a constant stream of noise from the interstate; he stated that he goes running at the
YMCA and there is no noise; he stated that he has been developing projects in Salem for
20 years and Salem has been very diligent about knowing exactly what is going to be on
a property and what is allowed before it is approved by the City; he stated that the
building should be designed and submitted before a special use is approved, otherwise
the City will lose control if the project continues to go through at the current pace; he
stated that it is unrealistic to think the school will be able to open by its projected
opening date; he stated that there is extensive cut and fill work that has to be done on
the site and rain can cause a two or three day delay; he stated that he doesn’t feel that
there is anyway the school can open by its projected September 1 opening date; he
further stated that if that is why the project has to be approved so quickly, it is another
reason to slow down; he stated that the school may have to open in January but it would
give the City a chance to step back and get the project done correctly; and
WHEREAS, Nora Smith reappeared before the Council to address the issue about
there not being any noise at the YMCA; she invited him to come to her house on a
Friday night when there is a football game going on, or when the Horse Show, or the
Salem Fair is in town; she stated that the noise sounds louder than if you were on the
premises; she stated that people are not going to pay a whole lot of money for expensive
housing to live in that kind of situation with the noise and lights, and feels that it is not a
suitable site for homes; and
WHEREAS, Bob Hunt reappeared before the Council and questioned if there was
any distinction in Salem between a park and property like the ancient grove of trees that
the City owns; he questioned if calling City-owned property a park was more significant
than not; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he does not think there is a difference;
40
and
WHEREAS, Lisa Reynolds, 1458 Deacon Street, appeared before Council and
stated that she has a school in her neighborhood; she stated that she understands the
logistics that must be considered from a fiscal or business standpoint, but she stated that
the children also need to be remembered; she stated that all of her children have grown
up in Salem—one graduated from Salem High School and has two children who currently
attend Salem High School; she further stated that all three of her children also attended
Salem Montessori School; she stated that her oldest son, who is now 20, attended the
school when there were only 25 students; she stated that Ms. VanderHoeven did not
plan to get any larger, but students kept coming and coming because of the programs
offered at the school; she stated that her children learned how to be productive citizens,
were taught conflict resolution, and other life lessons; she further stated that if children
could learn these things when they are small, they take it with them and continue to
practice what they have learned; her children still say they miss Salem Montessori
School; she stated that her oldest son couldn’t wait to get out of Salem went to school in
Connecticut, and is back telling his friends that they don’t know how good they have it in
Salem and that he can’t wait to get back; she stated that Salem is a great city and asked
Council to consider the children as a part of everything else to be considered; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that it’s been mentioned about fast tracking
the request; he stated that issues regarding Elizabeth Campus have been on-going for 10
years; he further stated that he has been on Council for two years and eight months, and
this is the first time to his knowledge that anyone has come to the City wanting to
purchase the parcel in question; he stated that he feels that when someone comes to the
City wanting to purchase city-owned property, especially during the current economic
times, Council needs to listen to what they have to say and what they have to present;
he stated that he feels that the Montessori school has been honest and upfront on
where it stood, where it was going, and time tables; he stated that he does not feel that
this process has gone through fast; he further stated that Council has listened to both
sides and no one has spoken against the school and most schools are located in a
residential area; he stated that Salem’s motto is kids first; he stated that previous
Councils promised different things and he was not involved in what was previously
promised; he stated that times are different now; he again stated that this is the first
time since he has been on Council that the City has been approached about selling this
parcel; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins reappeared before the Council and stated that that the
former City Manager told him personally that he would talk to the residents before
anything was developed on the land; he stated that he was told that if homes were
placed on the property, it would be discussed how the residents wanted the homes
placed on the property, etc. and that the residents would be notified before anything
was done on the property; he stated that he didn’t receive any notification until people
from the Montessori school walked up and knocked on his door; and
41
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that he was not told that the former City
Manager had told the residents they would be notified; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that he realizes that, but he figured the current
City Manager was told because he called the former City Manager at home and asked
him what was going on; he stated that the former City Manager told him that he did not
know what was going on, and told him that he promised Mr. Mullins that homes would
be built on the property and that Mr. Mullins would be notified before anything was
done on the property; he again stated that he was not notified prior to people from the
Montessori school knocking on his door; he stated that he feels that it should also be
considered that the City did not notify the neighbors that anything was being proposed
for the property; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the City was accepting any less than what
is required by standard operating procedures or City Code; is the City allowing anything
that it would not normally allow; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that a site plan has not been received or
anything of that sort; he stated that the site plan review process has not even begun;
and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the process should have already begun;
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the site plan review process normally
begins after someone who owns a property submits a proposal to develop the property,
once the owner has all the details; he stated that the City does not have the details for a
site plan review; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if anything in this request is happening faster
than it has in any other situation regarding the sale of City-owned property; he
questioned if the City is requiring less from the petitioners than it has from anyone else;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the sale of City owned property goes
through the process that is required by State Code; he stated that what has happened in
this case that is not always done, and someone who has been with the City longer than
he has would know if the City has done this before, is that the Special Exception Permit
request is being done concurrently with the sale of the property; he stated that it is not
unusual outside of Salem for the process to be done that way, but he does not know in
the City of Salem if it’s been done before; he stated that in a more typical transaction,
the contract with the contract purchaser is done contingent upon a Special Exception
Permit being approved; he stated that in this case the contract and the Special Exception
Permit request are being considered at the same time; he further stated that the same
notice and public hearing requirements are being followed as if they are being done
separately rather than concurrently; and
42
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned in a normal sale of property would one
bidder know the proposal offered by another bidder; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that as Council is aware, an offer to purchase
another parcel on the Elizabeth Campus property was presented to Council recently for
Council to decide if the offer would be considered; he stated that Council decided not to
consider the offer; he stated that the offer is generally kept confidential until such point
that it is required to be made public by state code; he stated that the City is allowed to
keep the terms of the sale of certain property confidential up to a certain point; he
stated that in this case, the Montessori School’s offer was made public very early on in
the process and has been public knowledge from the beginning; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there were any proffers being
offered and asked the City Attorney if she could ask that question; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that proffers concerning a rezoning request
are different than conditions being placed on a Special Exception Permit request; he
stated that the City’s ordinance and the state code states that in approving any special
exception or a use not provided for, Council may require and attach any conditions
necessary to ensure the proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and
community, etc.; he stated that conceivably if Council were inclined to approve the
special exception request, Council could make the request subject to everything that has
been presented at the meeting; including the statement that the HVAC units would be
screened, the fencing would be cedar or cedar-like, etc.; he stated that Council would
not need to specify the conditions because they are all part of the record and Council
could make all of those conditions part of the special exception approval; he further
stated that not only would the conditions be special conditions to the Special Exception
Permit, but the conditions would be incorporated into the deed on the property, as has
been the practice, and if the conditions are not met then Council could exercise its
option to repurchase the property; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale reappeared before Council and questioned what happens
to the other individuals who are interested in the property; he questioned if the other
individuals will still have a viable option to purchase the property; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that if the Special Exception Permit is approved
and the contract is executed, then a contractual agreement has been made; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale questioned if it will just be implied that the other individuals’
offers were not accepted; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that if Council has three offers and only
accepts one of the offers, then it means that Council has denied the other two offers;
and
43
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale clarified that it is implied since the individuals were not
verbally told; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he feels it is explicit that the other
offers were denied if Council accepts one offer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that he feels that Council should have let the other
individuals who submitted offers know that their offers were not accepted; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the procedure when there are multiple
bidders on a piece of property; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that there are currently three offers on the
parcel or a portion of the parcel; he stated that the City has not entered into a contract
at this point; therefore, all three offers are still on the table; he stated that the City
would not generally provide a letter stating that the contract was rejected unless Council
said that it wasn’t going to consider the offer, or the City had accepted another contract
on the property; he stated that if Council decides to approve the Special Exception
Permit, then it is implied that the sale of the property to the Montessori school would
move forward; he stated that if Council decides not to approve the Special Exception
Permit, there are two other viable offers because he is certain that the Montessori
school will withdraw its offer to purchase the parcel; he noted that Council then would
have to decide whether to accept one of the other offers, not accept any of the other
offers, continue to “sit” on the property while the adjoining property develops, or any
other alternative; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that it is a gray area and he appreciates the
consideration given to help him understand the process; he stated that he now
understands that the Special Exception Permit is the issue and not whether to sell the
property to the highest bidder; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that is correct; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council and stated that the
Montessori school is very comfortable with voluntarily proffering the landscaping that
was discussed, screening the HVAC units outside, that the building will be a single-story
brick building with a gray, metal hip roof, traffic will be directed onto Commerce Drive,
and the character of the building will be very similar as to what was presented at the
meeting; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if the 1.8 acre parcel will remain all
trees; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the parcel is not all trees, but the trees that are
44
on the parcel will remain and the school will maintain them; he stated that he needs to
make a minor correction for the record; he stated that he said the fencing would be a
solid, cedar fencing but Ms. VanderHoeven pointed out a black wrought iron type higher
fencing that will allow some visibility might be erected in the play areas as an alternative
to cedar; he stated that there may be some cedar fencing, but the wrought iron type
fencing is more desirable; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the school would agree to granting the
City first right of refusal on the two parcels in question; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City would have right of first refusal
on both parcels if the parcels are not developed; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that he would like for the City to have right of
first refusal on the 1.8 acre parcel even if the 3.9 acre parcel was developed; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the 1.8 acre parcel would not be developed;
and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the review time once a site plan is
submitted; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the City has 45 days to review the site
plan, but staff tries to get it done as fast as they can; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that it
takes approximately two weeks for a site plan to be reviewed; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if that was standard procedure; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Economic
Development stated that two weeks are standard for Salem; the City Engineer stated
that if it is a complicated site plan, it can take longer but he does not consider the
Montessori school proposal to be a complicated plan based on what has been presented
at the meeting; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the existing detention pond is
sufficient for the development of the parcel, or if another storm water management
system would need to be placed on the parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the existing detention pond was built to
serve approximately 52 acres of the Elizabeth Campus, and when it was designed, it was
designed for an ultimate build-out which meant it was assumed that there would be a lot
of paving, a lot of impervious surfaces; he stated that the pond was designed to handle a
25-10 and a 10-2, which exceeded state standards at that point in time; and
45
WHEREAS, Bob Hunt reappeared before the Council and stated that he hopes
that the use of the 1.8 acre parcel would still be available for all residents to enjoy and
not for the exclusive use of the school; he stated that he feels there is no reason to sell
that parcel to the school because the parcel is ok with the City owning the parcel; he
stated that the City does not have to sell the parcel to the school, it can allow the school
to use it; he stated that he feels that the City could be taking on a problem by selling the
parcel to the school; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that he is now aware that the City currently
maintains the 1.8 acre parcel; he stated that the City does own the property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt stated that the property does need some maintenance; he
stated that he feels it would be a low liability for the City to allow the school to use the
property; he asked Council to consider that the 1.8 acre parcel does not need to be sold
to the school, if the school is allowed to be built on the 3.9 acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that the school intends to make the 1.8
acre parcel a nature trail; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt stated that the City should allow the school to build the trail
without actually owning the property; he stated that he wants to see the maximum
preservation and use by the citizens of Salem of the parcel so that it’s not determined to
be private property; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council and stated that the
school has liability reasons for not making the 1.8 acre parcel open to the general public
even after school hours; he stated that the school will invite people other than its
students to attend the cross programming opportunities at the site; he stated that the
parcel will be used by more than just the Montessori students, but it will be at the
school’s invitation only; therefore the school will control the liability of it; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned how the proposed walking trails on
the Elizabeth Campus cross in relation to the 1.8 acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that there is a section of an easement the
City has on the border of the YMCA property on the north side, but it would not be
directly adjacent to it; he stated that the City still owns the property and a trail can
connect down to the parcel up to the point of purchase; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned when the trail was discussed and
conceptualized, were easements put in place around the properties to be sold; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that currently is being worked on to have
easements in place for the City to put in trails; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the sale of the 1.8 acre parcel
46
would prohibit the development of the proposed trails; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that if the 1.8 acre parcel was sold, it would
not affect the layout of the proposed walking trails; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRED, a Special Exception Permit to allow
primary/secondary educational facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract and an
approximate 1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O
Tax Map #148-1-2) was hereby approved conditioned on what was presented – the roll
call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C.
Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * *
There being no further business to come before the Council, the same on motion
adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
A true copy teste:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
47
48
49
Tax Parcel 117-2-1 (101 Corporate Blvd)
BEGINNING at a point on the south right-of-way line of Lynchburg Turnpike at the east right-of-way line
of Corporate Boulevard; thence following the south right-of-way line of Lynchburg Turnpike the
following five calls; S. 76° 11’ 36” E. 155.67 feet to a point; thence S. 68° 44’ 26” E. 231.09 feet to a
point; thence S. 61° 27’ 00” E. 254.56 feet to a point; thence S. 67° 52’ 22” E. 202.15 feet to a point;
thence S. 68° 43’ 38” E. 170.77 feet to a point; thence departing the south right-of-way line of Lynchburg
Turnpike; S. 04° 15’ 56” E. 277.77 feet to a point; thence S. 87° 01’ 55” W. 221.12 feet to a point; thence
N. 01° 19’ 56” W. 16.81 feet to a point; thence N. 64° 30’ 38” E. 63.53 feet to a point; thence N. 83° 53’
10” W. 193.99 feet to a point on the east right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard; thence following the
east right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard the following eleven calls; N. 01° 18’ 23” W. 27.34 feet to a
point; thence a curve to the left with a radius of 331.17 feet, Chord Bearing N. 07° 05’ 54” W., Chord
Distance 56.62 feet, and Arc Length 56.69 feet; thence N. 11° 40’ 17” W. 119.26 feet; thence a curve to
the left with a radius of 265.79 feet, Chord Bearing N. 41° 56’ 04” W., Chord Distance 274.32 feet, and
Arc Length 288.24 feet; thence N. 76° 16’ 29” W. 93.20 feet to a point; thence a curve to the left with a
radius of 112.13 feet, Chord Bearing S. 81° 42’ 00” W., Chord Distance 91.07 feet, and Arc Length 93.78
feet; thence a curve to the right with a radius of 183.20 feet, Chord Bearing S. 69° 02’ 07” W., Chord
Distance 69.02 feet, and Arc Length 69.43 feet; thence a curve to the right with a radius of 63.51 feet,
Chord Bearing N. 48° 23’ 37” W., Chord Distance 78.67 feet, and Arc Length 84.84 feet; thence N. 10° 33’
11” E. 53.19 feet to a point; thence a curve to the right with a radius of 25.00 feet, Chord Bearing N. 57 °
46’ 31” E., Chord Distance 35.89 feet, and Arc Length 40.04 feet to the place of BEGINNING, containing
3.6022 acres, and being known as Tract 1A, on Resubdivision Plat for City of Salem, dated October 29,
2015, prepared by Caldwell White Associates, as recorded in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, Roanoke
County, Virginia, in Plat Book 14, Pages 051-052, Slide 224.
50
51
52
53
54