Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-878210 April 13, 1987 Minutes of the Joint Public Hearing of the Pulaski Town Council and the Town Planning Commission held April 13, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. at the Pulaski Middle School. There were present: Mayor Gary e. Hancock, presiding Councilmembers: John A. Johnston, Robert N. Glenn, Andrew L. Graham, James M. Neblett, James R. Neighbors, W. H. Schrader, Ira 5. Crawford, Mary Lou Copenhaver Rlanning Commission Dr. A. W. Anneski, Chairman, William T. Smith, Jr. Members: Roy T. Rives, Roy D'Ardenne, Tamera Nash Also Present: Frank Terwilliger, Town Attorney D. E. McKeever, Town Manager Anne Burgess, Assistant to the Town Manager Grace Bowers, Clerk. of Planning Commission Ruth Harrell, Clerk of Council Visitors: Dee Lindsey and Bob Thomas of the News Media John Cofer Approximately 57 area citizens PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE PLAN The invocation was given by Miss Anne Burgess. Mayor Hancock advised the purpose of the public hearing was to gather citizen input concerning the Town's proposed future land use plan. The plans concerns not only the existing limits of Pulaski but also the prposed annexed area and will form the basis for a new zoning ordinance for the Town. Mr. John Cofer, consultant for the Town, gave a proposal for land use for the Town of Pulaski. From a procedural standpoint, the public hearing is required by state law. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Town Council, either as submitted or with certain changes. After receiving the recommenations, the Town Council will officially adopt the plan, either in form submitted by Planning Commission or again, in some changed form. This is not the same as zoning, and this is not a public hearing on zoning. Mr. Cofer advised that the land use plan is intended to offer guidance to the Council and Planning Commission on questions of usage. The first land use plan was adopted as a part of the comprehensive plan in 1984, and is a reflection of existing land use. Mr. Cofer furtehr gave a brief background on the origination of the Town and how it was formed and grew. With the assistance of a map, Mr. Cofer explained the different land uses in the Town, their present location and anticipated future locations. One proposal is for commercial area - shopping center and office use along Memorial Drive. It was expected that eventually, Memorial Drive would run through to Randolph Avenue. Mr. Cofer stated the annexation area. is generally northeast of the Town and this was an extension of the industrial corridor, following the railroad. He also stated that Rt. 11 was an alternate to Memorial DRive location for commercial use. Mr. Pat Kirkland, Camper Street, presented petition containing 964 signatures against business zoning in the Memorial Drive area. He stated these signatures represent members of the Presbyterian Church in America, business and professional people within the Twon, people from all sections of-the Town; and interested people from surrounding areas. They strongly urged Council not to rezone this area business, B-1 but rather keep the area residential, R-1 in the land use and in the zoning proposal. Mr. J. B. Warner, Oakhurst Avenue, advised the residents of Pulaski were becomin weary of this issue we are discussing. The only controversial land use is Memorial Drive. He advised five residents of this area. have put their houses on the market. He asked that Memorial Drive be left alone. He gave a brief history of Memorial DRive, stating if Pulaski ever had a 10 year plan, it died soon after being born. We have never had a plan for streets. Memorial DRive was designed to move traffic from Bob White Blvd. to Rt. 11. He further asked that Council address some of the other issues--sewer plant that is going to bankrupt the Town; water treatment plant that is going to require complete renovation; and main thrust should be on the annexation area as we paid dearly for it. He stated there would never be any development in Needmore and a road was not needed in this direction. April 13, 1987 8211 1 Mr. Warner advised that shopping center should be at Rt. 11 and Morehead Lane and leave Memorial Drive out of it. As soon as annexation is finalized, get a plan started to acquire the right of way from Newbern Road, near Wurno area, up hollow and come out the intersection of Morehead Lane. He stated to get the Board of Supervisors and County to run the road from Morehead Lane area out to the old airport. This will drain the traffic back to the Mountain, and bring out on Morehead Lane. Mr. Don Crispin, Claremont Court, expressed concern over businesses moving from downtown area to the new shopping center. He felt Mr. McKeever was being paid to protect the Town's best interests and not Horne Properties. He should make the existing shopping centers more inviting to local residents. Downtown stores should be encouraged to stay where they are. This strip shopping center will not stop the flow of shopping out of Town. Felt that Horne Properties would not live up to their agreement. We don't need another shopping center; jsut the existing centers improved. Dr. Anneski advised we came here tonight for one purpose, the idea of the land use. We are not here to rezone Memorial DRive or any other area. If we don't want to utilize the Memorial DRive land for a shopping center, do we want to use for multi- housing or office complex. One resident advised they would liek to have the map colored in blue, residential, in the Memorial Drive area. Map shows this area in brown, commercial. Mrs. Barbara. Corter, Pleasant Hill Drive, stated they had just build a home behind Beverly Ratcliffe and expressed concern regarding the planned road that will run from Memorial Drive to Randolph Avenue. Mayor Hancock advised the extension of Memorial Drive was on the 2000 Year Plan for Highways within the Twon of Pulaski. This was originally prepared by the Virginia Department of Highways and at some point in the past was ratified by Council (1982). Mr. McKeever advised the Year 2000 Transportation Plan was started in 1975. Three town residents were on it, including the-Town Manager Mr. Marshall, some County residents and representatives from the Department of Highways. Original proposal was dated 1969. In 1975, the State decided to go back and restudy the plan and the options suggested to them by the Town Council. The first four years, 1975-1979 dealt with a lot of data which Mr. Cofer explained earlier as to what direction the Town was going and what the population would be in the year 2000. In 1979, they actually started drawing the new transportation routes and improvements to accommodate where they thought the Town would be in the year 2000. One of the routes was an extension of Memorial Drive from Route 11 over to Randolph Avenue as they also felt the growth in essentially the same direction as Mr. Cofer explained. They felt that most of the employment in the future was going to be on the east side of the Town and in order to get the people from the northwest area and the Robinson Tract area to the eastern part of the Town, there needed to be a new transportation route from Randolph Avenue to the eastern part. They felt Randolph Ave. could not handle the volume of traffic that we will probably see in 1990-1995, and the year 2000. These projects were prioritized, in phases 1 through 4. He felt Memorial Drive was a phase 3 or 4 project as it was not to be initiated until toward the year 2000. In answer to Mr. Corder's question of roads being of more primary concern than Memorial Drive, Mr. McKeever stated that there are three phase l priorities; 1) widening Randolph Avenue; 2) Rt. 11, south as you go up hill and begin to wind through the "S" up near Tom's;; that also needs to be widened to accommodate the vehicle traffic and 3) total reconstruction of Edgehill Drive. Other priorities before Memorial Drive are extension of Rt. 99 to 4 lane almost to the interstate; 4 laning Rt. 11 to Memorial. Drive and then from Memorial DRive back to Rt. 11 on the north side. He stated that the State has approved and recommended, and the Council in 1982 adopted a plan that would mkae the other improvements first. Mayor Hancock advised the highway department would reassess their plan year after year, and this was something way down the road if at all. Mr. James Chaffin stated that Town Council .had been asked to stake off where the shopping center was to be located on Memorial DRive. This has not been done. When will it be done. He was informed this would be done one week to 10 days prior to the public hearing. DR. Anneski again asked if citizens would accept mutli-residence on Memorial Drive. Citizens responded "R-1" on both sides. Mr. Andy McCrady, owner of McCrady Lumber Co., advised he had. recently invested one half million dollars in a new manufacturing plant generally located on the old Dora Furnace property. He selected Pulaski because he felt it was a community that was showing growth, proximity. to the interstate, thus they can use both train and trucks. They are located in the industrial corridor. Thsi is probably the best land available to the Town, and this industrial area is your prime property. He advised the Town is suffering from a low tax base. We have not attracted any industries. His property and other properties in Town, has potential to bring employment into Town. He agreed we should spend some money in .the annexed area. We could understand the residents on Memorial Drive being opposed to the development in that area, but 8212 April 13, 1987 stated you don't put the feed trough at the far end of the field for the horse; you put it near where he will be all the time. He stated that Mr. Lindop, while he was not saying he was pro or con that he supports his shopping center, he did know that he was in Galax and there are some very nice shopping centers over there. He did know that the proximity of the residential base over there, he has an opportunity to serve a large majority of the public. He further stated that industries planning to locate want to see a Town that is for some development, for some growth, bath commercial, light industrial, and even heavy industrial. The Town will have to rely on small guys like himself to bring in jobs, and it is a dangerous signal when we say, hold on, we don't want anymore. Mr. Warner stated we needed to promise that we would protect the residential areas, and in particular the young people. Mr. Joe Weddle, 1201 Memorial Drive, asked "in the land use plan and map, is there any requirement as to the percentage breakdown of commercial, residential, and industrial land-use" with Mr. Cofer answering no. Mr. Weddle further asked Mr. McKeever is the land use map had any bearing on the upcoming rezoning request or any future request. Mr. McKeever advised that the land use map was a basis for making zoning decisions. This particular map will more than likely not be adopted by the time the rezoning request is heard in two weeks. Mr. McKeever stated a land use map is a guide when you apply zoning to the property and it is a guide at some point in the future when you rezone property. It is not a guarantee that that property will be zoned a particular zone or that it will continue to be that; but it is only used as a guide. Zoning will not always correspond with what the map says. Mr. Weddle further advised he was not against commercial development, but he purchased his property based on the zoning that was there and he felt the zoning was a protection for his investment. He feels his investment is jeopardized. He asked Council and Planning Commission to consider carefully the land use map and he too requested that both sides of Memorial DRive be R-1. Mr. Claud Kirkland stated he was alittle confused over the purpose of the two meetings. He hada copy of the land use plan, zoning and subdivision ordinance for the Town dated November, 1986, and proceeded to read from this regarding Memorial DRive beign the best suited for business. He suggested that consideration be given to removing this paragraph and any other reference in the planning land use so far as Memorial Drive is concerned, any reference toward business or commercial, then there would be no objection to the land use plan. Mayor Hancock stated he believed Mr. Kirkland was quoting from Mr. Cofer's recommendation to the Planning Commission and Council and this was only a proposal and may or may not be adopted by Council and the Planning Commission. Dr. Anneski requested that Mr. Cofer repeat a quotation he had made to the Planning Commission earlier. Mr. Cofer stated that a citizen, whether he owns property or not, really has no legal rights, would refer to the Town Attorney though, to any particular kind of zoning on any piece of property. He does have a right to be treated reasonably however the property is Boned; it should be reasonable with respect to any property whether he owns the property in question or not. Councilman Graham advised that as he understood it, the Land Use Plan was a guidance or blueprint that we have to live with for years to come. He knew people built their homes in area with the understanding it was R-l. We have an obligation to these people. They want it to remain R-1 and he would like to see it left R-l. Councilman Glenn agreed with Councilman Graham to the extent that people had met tonight to see what people had to say, and people are addressing an issue that is important to them. The majority of people have a very deep and serious concern about the fact that they feel these two items, land use and zoning, are very much connected. Maybe they, as elected officials, and appointed members of the Planning Commission, know differently. But he thought it important for them as elected. officials and the Planning Commission, to put those citizens who have taken the time to come to a public meeting, and to exercise their rights as citizens to put them ast ease in what we are doing. He did not sense that the Planning Commission or Council were willing to entertain any forms of motions at this time. They would like time to consider all comments. The land, if in fact percentages of commercial to industrial to residential are not a factor, and if, in fact,the ~~. land use map is only a blue print, it seemed to him there would be no particular problem in accommodating those citizens who have exercised their rights this evening in making that area, that is of most concern to them, into R-1. That would leave it to teh person in the future who wants to change it to address the issue without having a"upper" hand right off the bat. He, too, would say this should be an R-1 and would recommend this to the Planning Commission and to the Council for their consideration. April 13, 1987 8213 Mayor Hancock advised that after this meeting, the Planning Commission would be making a recommend~:tion to Council. Dr. Anneski advised that the Planning Commission should have a recommendation for Council by May. Mr. Ralph Grubb stated that planned extension of Memorial Drive to Randolph Ave. was not practical due to terrain and would be very expensive. He recommended moving to teh north where terrain would be better. He encouraged Council and Planning Commisiion to consider the wishes of the people and leave the Memorial Drive area R-1. At 8:20 p.m. on motion made by Councilman Neblett, seconded by Councilman .Neighbors, and carried, public hearing adjourned. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: Cle of Council