Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-89May 5,.1989 8535 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Pulaski Town Council held May 5, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Municipal Building. There were present: Mayor Gary C. Hancock, presiding Council Members: James M. Neblett, J. R. Schrader, Jr., Mary Lou Copenhaver, James R. Neighbors, Andrew L. Graham, Alma H. Holston, Ira S. Crawford Also Present: Frank Terwilliger, Town Attorney Daniel E. McKeever, Town Manager Anne Burgess, Assistant Town Manager Ruth A. Harrell, Clerk Visitors: Dee Lindsey, Bob Kittredge of the Claud Kirkland Virginia Collins Don Crispin Dan Talbert 12 area citizens Thomas and Kevin news media The invocation was given by Vice Mayor Neighbors. Mayor Hancock stated that Mr. McKeever had indicated he had infor- mation to bring to Council and as he had a jury trial on Monday, this was the only day he could call the meeting as he would be gone next week SHOPPING CENTER Memorial Mr. McKeever advised that C ouncil had proposed that he and Town Drive Attorney work with the developer to see if he could work out a proposal that was significantly different as required by the ordinance. Whenever a petition requesting amendment, supplement or change has been denied by the Town Council, such petition or one substantially similar shall not be considered sooner t han one year after its denial. Mr. W. H. Sch rader made the motion, and it passed, that we work wit hin the ordinance to put it back on the other side. The developer has submitted a new proposal to the Town. On display was the old proposal and the new proposal, for the west side of Memorial Drive. Under the previous proposal, it was a 20.27 acre proposal. Initially, it was proposed to be 132,295 sq, ft. with a future expansion to 153,130 sq. ft. This was the proposal that was rejected. The new proposal, including some proffers, is a 41.87 acre proposal. Proposal has doubled in land. It encompasses both sides of the street; the old side where you see the shopping center as proposed and the new side or the side that the house in on. Originally, on old site, it was 20.27 acres and it is now 21.87 acres. The Vermillion Development has bought 1.7 acres from Hunt and Associates. It is proposed, in the 10,000 sq. ft. building, that a theatre or restaurant be built. It is now a 41.87 acre proposal, so effectively, it has doubled in size. The developer has also proposed that the land 8536 May 5, 1989 across the street retain its current zoning for a period of three years. That the 300 ft. strip of R-0 that is currently existing where the house is, he would proffer that as remaining R-0 for a period of three years as he would the R-1 behind it remaining for three years. Vermillion and Allison will both be the petitioners this next time around. He will be the contract purchaser on 21.87 acres and Allison will be the executor/power of attorney on all 41.87 acres. The responsibility falls upon Council to determine if there is substantial change or not to refer this on to the Planning Commission. Mr. Terwilliger advised that Mr. McKeever had spoken to the developer directly and he had spoken with the developer's Tennessee counsel and gave him his opinions as to the criteria that was neces y to be followed and the developer talked with Mr. McKeever and came with this proposal. Mr. Terwilliger basically gave him the same criteria that he gave three weeks ago in Council. It is a finding fact by the Council as to whether or not a particular proposal is substantially similar or not. That in the absence of arbitrary and capricious action, Council's decision on that point would probably be of help and that any proposal that they submitted should have significant enough change for Council to feel comfortable in making a determination on whether or not they should reconsider it, entertain it as a substantially different proposal. Mayor Hancock advised you cannot come back and make a second proposal on the same piece of property if it is the same, or substantially the same. But if it is substantially different, then you can come back and make another proposal. Mr. Terwilliger stated this was correct. Councilman Graham asked Mr. Terwilliger if the proposal was substantially different from the one we have already had. Mr. Terwilliger replied that this was factual determination Council should make as to whether or not this is a substantially different proposal. That is the purpose of the meeting tonight. Councilman Graham asked if Mr. Terwilliger had a conference with these people personally or if he did it by telephone. Mr. Terwilliger replied that he had talked with his Tennessee counsel by telephone. Councilman Graham stated that really Mr. Terwilliger had not negotiated this, the Town Manager ha done this personally. Mr. Terwilliger stated it was his understand that he had not had much personal contact either because Mr. Vermillion has been out of the area. He did not know the extend of any personal contact. Councilman Graham further asked Mr. Terwilliger in his interpretation, was this substantially different than what we had already considered. Mr. Terwilliger stated his opinion would be if Council so ruled, he would be very comfortable defending that decision in court because he thought they were talking here about substantially larger track of land. This particular proposal that is put in there deals with both sides of the road, it indicates planning not only for the short term development of the one track, it indicates some planning for at least three years down the road and ties in with our water line projects that we have planned for going down Peppers Ferry Rd. Mr. Terwilliger had no idea if they would cancel the proposal for the east side of Memorial. Right now this is the third proposal. The issue is whether the third proposal is substantially the same as the first L_J May 5, 1989 8537 proposal. It was his understanding that they have not yet withdrawn the second proposal and if he were in their shoes, he certainly wouldn't until they knew whether the third proposal was going to be considered. Mayor Hancock stated it was his understanding from Mr. Schrader's motion that he wanted both proposals to come before Council at the same time. It was also noted that an additional entrance had been added to the restaurant or theatre. Councilperson Holston stated the only difference as far as the shopping center is concerned, not talking about the other land on other side of the road, is the restaurant/theatre and being a little larger. She liked the other side of road zoned like it is. Councilman Graham felt this was basically the same document that was presented to them originally. Councilman Graham read a letter from Viola and Ed Newman, 1325 Grove Drive, opposing a shopping center and felt this area should be used for residential growth. Councilman Crawford made a motion that the proposal received today is a significant enough change that we refer it to the Planning Commission for scheduling of a public hearing, seconded by Councilman Neighbors. Councilman Graham requested that minutes reflect that he did not believe this does show a substantial change. Also, Councilman Graham signed the Waiver of Notice of Special Meeting under protest as Council was called here one hour and forty-five minutes and our citizens have no input into this. We are railroading the job that is very emotional in this neighborhood and the folks that want it approved, you are defeating it all the way. You are causing the people to rise up stronger. You can't run over people like you are doing tonight. Mayor Hancock stated he felt we should hear the public due to the time the meeting was called. Mr. Claud Kirkland stated he was appalled that we would try, as a Council and as a Staff, to beat around the bush. Council was looking for reasons to turn back something they have already done. Councilman Neighbors stated when the new proposal was made for the east side (where house is) so many of the people who signed the petition against the shopping center on Memorial Drive originally, called and said please, work to get it back on the other side of the street and we will support you. Get it off the other side of the street. The calls he received on the shopping center were opposite from Alma's. His were 75 to 80°s for it. Mrs. Virginia Collins asked who proposal was from --Corker or Vermillion? She was informed it was from Vermillion Development. She felt this was the second person making the proposal. It is not Corker. Mr. Terwilliger stated that basically, what they have been told it apparently is substantially the same. Basically, both derived their standing to even come before Council as optioners of the Allisons and 8538 May 5, 1989 basically the interpretation that we have given, not to just this particular situation, but to other rezoning situations, is that contract purchasers and holders of the options are treated as standing in the shoes of the owner of the property and this also prevents Mr. Allison from optioning it to a John Doe or somebody else. We treat them all as being substantially the same person. Councilman Graham asked if staff had received any official documented request from Vermillion. Mr. McKeever stated that we just have the site plan. He stated they were directed to bring back a for something that is substantially different and that is the proposal that came in today and the developer would like to have forwarded to the Planning Commission. Mr Kirkland felt that one and one-half hours notice of meeting important as this is very short. He stated he had heard the first the week that a meeting would be held. Also, it seemed this was something we were trying to ram through. He stated that Council had taken a position tonight. Council would vote however they had voted tonight. Councilman Graham stated that if these people wanted to develop this property they would be here in person and present it to them instead of sending the Town Manager. This is not normally the way it has been done. Councilman Crawford stated this was how we requested them to do it at the last meeting. Motion then carried on the following recorded vote: James M. Neblett - Aye Andrew L. Graham - No J. R. Schrader, Jr. - No W. H. Schrader, Jr. - Absent Mary Lou Copenhaver - Aye Alma H. Holston - No James R. Neighbors - Aye Ira S. Crawford - Aye Councilman Graham requested that the record show that Mr. Schrader, who made the motion originally, was not present today to express his opinion Councilman Graham stated we do not have a legal document to fo rd to the Planning Commission. Mr. Crispin stated that a motion had been passed and the people who are requesting the motion are not here, they have not submitting anything in writing,so it is different than what has been previously done. He also stated they had almost destroyed the Town tonight with what they were doing. Mayor Hancock stated that nothing had been done tonight except the plan has been filed. There will be public hearings held. Mr. Terwilliger stated if he were the Town Manager, to make sure there were no problems with it, he would request this proposal be in writing. You cannot prevent anyone from coming in at anytime, whether it was rezoned today, or tomorrow, or anytime, to make the motion. His opinion would be that if they agree to the terms, it would be very odd for any court to come back and later say that the existing zoning is unreasonable in the three year period. He would feel very comfortable in attempting to enforce that three year restriction. Mr. Terwilliger May 5, 1989 8539 further stated, on inquiry if the sold the property to someone else, that if the conditional zoning is passed, then the zoning maps are marked accordingly that it is not just zoned R-1 the way it is now. Area would also be marked as conditional so that any person taking that property would take it subject to the conditions. Mr. McKeever stated the proposal governs whether you are allowed to accept it, not the name of the developer or owner. Councilman Graham inquired if the Allisons were going to drop the lawsuit with Mr. McKeever replying he had one task - to work with the developer to bring a plan to Council for consideration of whether it was substantially the same or different. This is what he has done. He has not talked with them about lawsuits. He suspected the Town Attorney would deal with this and not him. Mr. Terwilliger stated the proffers are not effective until it is made in writing. It is not binding until it is made in writing. Council has the written proffer which they then reiterated and incorporated by reference in their telephone request, but it was his understanding there is no written document right now to forward to the Planning Commission. He was a little uncomfortable with this. He felt we should have something in writing when it gets to the Planning Commission. Mr. McKeever stated it was his understanding that Mr. Vermillion will appear before the Planning Commission with full documentation requesting that that be the number one priority and he may request withdrawal of the other site. At 5:45 p.m., Councilman Neblett made a motion that Council adjourn, seconded by Councilman Neighbors and carried. WAIVER OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING We, the undersigned, duly elected members of the Council of the Town of Pulaski, Virginia, hereby waive notice of a Special Meeting of said Council at 5:00 p.m. on the 5th day of May, 1989, for the purpose of reviewing revised site plan for shopping center from Vermillion Development Corp. WITNESS our signatures this 5th day of May, 1989. 'II~ I ,_~ ATTEST: Clerk of Council ~G ~• Mayor 8540 1