Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-08-171 1 Minutes of the Pulaski Town Council meeting held at 7:00 p.m., November 8, 2017 in the Council Chambers of the Town Municipal Building at 42 First Street, N.W. In attendance were: Mayor: Robert N. Glenn. presiding Councilmen Present: David L. Clark, Gregory C. East; Joseph K. Goodman; Lane R. Penn; James A. Radcliffe Councilman Absent: H.M. Kidd (excused) Planning Commission Present: Robert N. Glenn; Terry Hale, Sr.; Linda Hall, Kevin Meyer; Clark Payne Planning Commission Member Absent: Cathy Sealander Administration: Shawn M. Utt, Town Manager Nichole L. Hair, Deputy Town Manager Spencer A. Rygas, Town Attorney Press: Brooke J. Wood, Southwest Times Staff Dave Hart, Director Parks & Facilities Carla Hodge, Code Compliance Officer Robbie Kiser, Chief P.F.D. Jessica McKinney, Permit Technician Bill Pedigo, Town Engineer David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council Rebecca Reece, Finance Director Gary Roche, Chief P.P.D. Justin Sanders, Planner Others Present Harry Collins Chuck Daughtery David Hagen Ike Jeanes Sharon McKinney Abigail Neel Freddie Sonner Shannon Collins Jo Ann Davidson Carl Hanks, Sr. Lynn Loftus Arthur Meadows John Neel Karen Thompson Mayor Glenn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chris Conner Ruthie Duncan Faye Hanks Bob McKinney Michael Neeble Karen Payne Charles Wade Councilman Goodman led the Pledge of Allegiance and Councilman East gave the Invocation. Following the roll call of Council, Chairman Meyer called the Planning Commission to order and Ms. Hair called the roll. After the roll call, Mayor Glenn noted that there was a quorum for Page 1 of 11 /November 8, 2017 1 the conduct of business for both Town Council and the Planning Commission and welcomed all persons in attendance. There being no modifications to the agenda, Mayor Glenn asked Ms. Hair to introduce two new members of the Town staff. Ms. Hair introduced Ms. Jessica McKinney, Permit Technician who would be in charge of issuing building and various other permits and Mr. Justin Sanders, Planner who would be working with the day to day planning operations and assisting with code enforcement. Mayor Glenn then welcomed both new staff members to the Town. Next item on the agenda was a joint public hearing of Town Council and the Planning Commission regarding urban agriculture (Item 8a). Mr. Utt called on Ms. Hair for the staff report. Ms. Hair reviewed a draft ordinance that had been prepared during the Planning Commission review and study as directed by Town Council. Provisions mentioned in the draft ordinance included: a limitation of six (6) chicken hens per one acre of residential property (single-family residential use only); permitting bee hives; regulations for setbacks; requirement of a $25.00 annual permit that would be handled by the Planning and Zoning Department; setback inspections to protect adjacent property owners; and plans by the owner for the disposal of waste. Mayor Glenn then opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. to receive public comments. Ms. Lynn Loftus said that she hoped to see a great reduction in the required acreage and the use of setbacks as done by other jurisdictions. Mayor Glenn asked if any other members of the public wished to speak. There being no other speakers or comments received by the Council from those in attendance, Mayor Glenn closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and opened discussion of the issue by Council. Mr. Goodman suggested that: (1) the required acreage should be dropped to one-half acre; and, (2) after a grace period, that effective on a particular date, persons found with chickens in Town without a permit be required to remove the animals and wait one year to apply for a permit. Mr. East felt that one acre was too much and thought about 10,000 ft.z as a sufficient area. He had looked at Christiansburg's provisions, but did not see that lot area mentioned. Ms. Hair responded that Christiansburg's single family residential lot area is 10,000 ft.2, but they regulate chickens strictly by setbacks and the zoning has to be residential only. Mr. East commented that looking at the setbacks he did not think that 10.000 ft.z helped much because the setbacks could not be met. He guessed that was why other localities used setbacks which were similar to those in the draft ordinance. He mentioned he was inclined to a further reduction and asked for other Councilmen's comments. Mr. Clark and Mr. Radcliffe both said that if the setbacks were met they did not have an issue or problem. Page 2 of 11 /November 8, 2017 Following a short discussion regarding setbacks and lot size, Mayor Glenn summarized for the Planning Commission, Council's recommendation concerning eliminating Section 507-1.3 and the addition of a potential Section 507-1.14 dealing with penalties for non-compliance. Mayor Glenn then moved to the next agenda item under consideration regarding the Smith Lane Proffer amendment (Item 8b.). Ms. Hair reported that SHAH Development. L.L.C. was applying to amend the proffer on a property located at the corner of 16th Street, N.W. and Smith Lane. The applicant was requesting removal of the original proffer for the property which restricted the parcel to cluster home development only with one duplex. Mayor Glenn then opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. to solicit comment. Mr. John Neel of Gay and Neel addressed the Council concerning the past history of the property at the corner of 16th Street, N.W. and Smith Lane which was subject to a proffer ten years ago during the beginning of its development. The proffer was to permit cluster home development with only one duplex. One cluster home group of four units was constructed all of which were occupied. Mr. Neel said the new owner of the property, Mr. David Hagen wished to consider the site for single-family homes. Cluster homes he continued did not align themselves readily to subdivision as condominiums. Also condos carry with them a considerable burden of legal documentation and backing. Mr. Neel said that his client wished to pull the proffer requirement out to look at a more conventional product, which would still be offered for sale, but could be subdivided out for each unit. The zoning of the property would stay the same, all that was requested was the removal of the proffer. Mayor Glenn then asked for Council comment or questions. Mr. Goodman said he understood that the applicant was looking to build single-family homes or townhomes. Mr. Neel said the R-3 District allowed for detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, attached single-family dwellings and multiple family dwellings. He added that his client was considering townhouses in the same style of the existing development. The layout of the existing four structures, allows only condominiums which results in a huge amount of expense. Mr. Penn asked if the lot was subdivided now. Mr. Neel replied that the parcel was still a single property since the previous owner did not proceed with drafting condominium documents. Mr. Penn asked how many lots were proposed. Mr. Neel replied that they would propose no more than the existing ordinance allows, but there was no plan at the present time. The next step he added would be to subdivide the existing structure along the interior wall lines since they were built with firewalls, then move forward to determine the best layout for the neighborhood and the property. The next speaker was Mr. Arthur Meadows. Mr. Meadows stated he was not there to oppose the proffer but did have some concerns. He said he strongly opposed the original apartments that were proposed before cluster homes were built to which he assented. The property was left in a mess, he continued, which changed the contour of the land and left his property on Page 3 of 11 /November 8, 2017 an embankment which before had had tapered off into a flat area. His noted that in completing the original project, he was assured there would be a buffer between his property and the cluster homes which was never done. His concern, was when the new development was completed, that it be done in accordance with the site plan. Mr. Radcliffe told Mr. Meadows that since SHAH Development and Mr. Hagen were involved in the project that he felt it would done correctly. There being no further comments, Mayor Glenn closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. He gave notice that the Planning Commission would reconvene in the front hallway conference room and said that persons with a concern over the urban agriculture or the proffer issue, could come to the meeting. In the interim, Vice Mayor East would continue the Council meeting, beginning with the Public Comment Period (Item 9) and continue through the agenda until the Planning Commission reported back with its recommendations. After the departure of persons going to the Planning Commission hearing, Vice -Mayor East called for the Public Comment Period and recognized the first speaker, Mr. Charles Wade. Mr. Wade mentioned the increase in foot traffic between 5th Street, N.W. and 1611 Street, N.W. and noted there were a number of hazards to persons walking or jogging through this area. Among the hazards mentioned were: holes next to manhole covers, steel plates over the sidewalk on Jefferson, water line leaks and bushes from properties that covered one-half of the sidewalk. He presented Council with photographs of these problem areas which showed not only crumbling sidewalks but eroded curb and gutter. Mr. Wade said there needed to be a plan to repair these damages. He cautioned Council that if someone got hurt, and these areas were reported to the Town, the Town may become liable in the event of an injury. One suggestion he made was for the Town to take the street allocation funds to fix these issues. Vice -Mayor East then asked if Council had any comments. Mr. Goodman said he had noticed the same issues mentioned by Mr. Wade and that sidewalks in the area needed to be cleared of growth and repaired. He also mentioned there had been past discussions not only on fixing the sidewalks on Prospect and neighboring streets, but taking the sidewalks to 16th Street. He thought that Mr. Wade was asking where Council stood in regards to those conversations. Mr. Wade added that the problems were all over the area not just on Prospect and thanked Council for listening. Mr. Utt referred back to the question of sidewalks on Prospect noting that the sidewalks in that area ended at or near 10th Street. He added that the amount of grading and widening needed would make a good sized project that would be contracted out. However, the project could use most of the Town's state road allocation unless it was done in segments. He thought that a plan could be drawn up and that internal discussions had taken place before about doing a sidewalk plan, until other projects in that department slowed work on the plan. He noted that a rating system for sidewalks had been started for working into the Town's GIS system. He cautioned Council that due to the number of sidewalks, it would be a slow process. Page 4 of 11 /November 8, 2017 Mr. Goodman remarked that he had seen only two sidewalk replacements in his twelve years in the community. He suggested that these hazards could be mapped out and grant opportunities sought, such as the TEA -21 grants (now referred to as TAP) to fund sidewalk maintenance. Mr. Radcliffe referred to discussions during the retreat as to how some of this work could be done in house. He noted that the Town had already started grading sidewalks. Mr. East observed that grading the roads were done in a short period of time. He felt that Mr. Wade was correct in that the pictures showed hazards and that the Town should make it safe for the citizens. He also mentioned Main Street as another area that had a lot of trip hazards from grates or tree roots. There should be a sense of urgency he said, to get a plan prepared and funding considered to move forward. The next speaker during the Public Comment Period was Mr. Isaac "Ike" Jeanes. Mr. Jeanes asked if Council had received a packet and did they have any questions on its contents. Mr. Goodman remarked that he did have the packet but Council had just received and would not comment upon it until after reading it. Mr. Jeanes attempted to summarize the handouts contents for Council. His concern that the chicken issue was being treated as a bigger issue that it really was. Bantam chickens and regular hens he noted were of comparable weight to other pets such as dogs. He felt that in his view, that chickens were little pets that people were keeping. His point was that chickens, after they laying period passed, really became pets, not agricultural assets and that the reference to urban agriculture was misguided. He referred Council to alternative amendments to Section 507 on the last page of his handout which he felt would be cheaper for the Town to maintain. He said that the zoning code wanted to develop good family life but that the Town was removing chickens as pets. In reference to diseases, Mr. Jeanes said that all pets presented some kind of problem. As far as chickens go, he said that salmonella did not apply as much to live chickens, but to dead ones used in food or to persons "hugging" chickens. Raising chickens did have some virtues such as learning to take care of animals he said in reference to his own childhood experiences. The fear he had was that there was an anchoring of this whole problem to suggestions from people who have limited experience with chickens. In reference to the specifications contained in Section 507, Mr. Jeans felt they were irrelevant. Vice -Mayor East informed Mr. Jeanes that he had one minute left to address Council. Mr. Jeanes continued that the provisions under Article 500 in the Zoning Regulations were use permits regulating what could be done with the land. His view, was if he wanted his children to care for chickens, he could not do it unless he was a rich man with sufficient land. He felt the acreage requirement should be removed and also urged Council to read through his document because chickens meant a lot. Page 5 of 11 /November 8, 2017 Vice -Mayor East reminded Mr. Jeanes that his time was up and he needed to make his concluding remarks. Mr. Jeanes responded that he hoped Council would consider the handout and not throw it away. He added that he had problems with the agenda in that he would have liked to have made his comments before the Planning Commission. There was a real problem he felt, because he was compelled to speak here and not where he wanted. Regarding the agenda, he felt it was mixed in terms of comments that were needed before and that it did deprive a person of the normal development (unintelligible). Mr. Goodman told Mr. Jeanes that five minutes were allowed for speakers per issue at a public hearing, so if he needed to speak concerning the proffer he had five minutes; five minutes on chickens; and five minutes for general public comment. He explained to Mr. Jeans that it was five (5) minutes for each item listed for public comments so he would have had fifteen minutes to speak in three five minute blocks. Mr. Jeanes replied that he was not sure what Mr. Goodman was saying. Mr. Goodman replied that regarding the chickens and the joint hearing that was conducted, the comment period was five minutes on that particular issue in front of the Planning Commission and Council to give his thoughts to both groups at the same time. Mr. Jeanes said the problem he had with the agenda was the order. If these comments had appeared before the public hearing, both bodies would have heard it. Mr. Goodman replied that he was correct and regarding the issue of chickens, Mr. Jeanes should have spoken when the public hearing was open so both bodies could have listened to him. Vice -Mayor East added that the opportunity to speak to both issues was during Section 8 of the agenda. Mr. Jeanes took issue saying that he was speaking to the agenda items that would not have been proper, so he felt he was stuck. If he wanted to speak to the order of the agenda, he felt it would not have been proper for him to do so in front of the Planning Commission, because that relates to Town Council. Vice -Mayor East responded that it was a joint hearing with the Planning Commission as well as Council, so that members of both could hear the comments at once for efficiency so that Mr. Jeanes would not have to state his case two separate times before the two groups. Vice -Mayor East apologized that there was a misunderstanding, with which Mr. Jeanes disagreed, but said Mr. Jeanes was afforded the opportunity to speak. Mr. Goodman added that at the same time that Ms. Loftus came forward to speak anyone who wished to speak could. He understood Mr. Jeanes concern with setbacks and lot size, but they were there to allow a careful balance between the chicken owner and the adjacent property owners. Mr. Jeanes started to respond, but Vice -Mayor East said the meeting needed to move forward and thanked Mr. Jeanes for his handout presented to Council. Next item for Council's consideration was the Consent Agenda (Item 10). Vice -Mayor East asked for a motion for the October 3, 2017 Council meeting minutes. Mr. Clark moved to adopt the minutes of October 3, 2017 as written. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion which was approved by unanimous voice vote. Page 6 of 11 /November 8, 2017 Following the approval of the minutes, Vice -Mayor East called for the Project Updates (Item 11). Mr. Utt referenced the Project Review Chart in the packet apologizing that the first page had not been updated, but the rest of the chart had been. He would answer any questions that Council had, but would focus on the short term/long term goals. There being no questions from Council on the Project Review Chart, Mr. Utt said he had given thought on how best to prepare an action list for Council that would show actual items. The problem he encountered was that most of the Town's activities were of a reactionary basis using the Police Department and the Finance Department as examples. The only departments that ended up with projects were Public Works and Engineering and the Town Manager's Office (e.g. Compensation Study). If a project was not listed, he requested that Council let him know so Department Heads could add in information as things moved forward. The first objective targeted for completion, Mr. Utt said, was the Compensation Study. Two weeks prior, representatives from Springstead met with Department Heads to obtain final feedback and to follow up on questions to insure the study would be as complete as possible. Springstead he continued would be presenting its results to Council on November 21 st Mayor Glenn returned to the Council meeting at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Utt reported that the Downtown Parking Study would be presented to Council on November 21 St. The installation of the Christmas lights in Jackson Park had been underway for three or four weeks and should be completed by the end of the week, certainly by the end of the month along with installation of other Christmas decorations. Regarding the letter of intent to the Army Corps of Engineers, there had been a conference call with Corps personnel who said they would send an email to the Town with comments and key points to include in the letter of intent. The email had not yet been received and a follow up call to the Corps resulted in a promise to send the email to the Town this week. Mr. East asked if there was action concerning obvious damage to the creek wall. Mr. Utt reported that the Town was attempting to work on parts of the top tier of rock that could be easily replaced. He added that the Town was looking a two letters of intent: one focusing on the upstream flood mitigation efforts and the other one on the Downtown area. Concerning Gatewood, Mr. Utt reported that Mr. Hart had been working on a Request for Proposals using the Explore Park's RFP as a template. The goal was to have the RFP's before Council on December 511 In addition, work on the FY 2018-2019 budget had started with Ms. Hair and Mrs. Reece working on the CIP portion with Department Heads. Work on the zoning ordinance was proceeding with the goal to have the document submitted to Council by February. Mr. Utt asked for questions and feedback from Council if the report was close to the 30/60/90 concept they desired. Page 7 of 11 /November 8, 2017 Mr. Radcliffe said that to him a short term project would be on the order of 30-40 days. Most projects given the time required he felt would be long term, greater than 60 days. Vice -Mayor East said his intent was to challenge the Town to achieve project goals and bring projects into the "spotlight" for higher priority. Mr. Goodman added the way he envisioned the document was that there were projects that Council was very interested in and they wished to stay informed on the status of the project. Vice -Mayor East asked if there were any other comments from Council. There being none, he turned the meeting back over to Mayor Glenn at 7:59 p.m. Mayor Glenn moved on to agenda Item 12a, Resolution 2017-26 regarding the VDOT Transportation Alternatives Project grant application. Mr. Utt informed Council that the resolution was similar to the one approved last month, but VDOT said additional language was needed authorizing the Town Manager to execute the agreements. The new resolution, 2017-26 included the additional language, while Resolution 2017-27 repealed Resolution 2017-25 (which did not contain the language required by VDOT). Mr. Goodman moved to adopt Resolution 2017-26 as written. Mr. Clark seconded the motion which was approved by the following roll call vote: The next item on the agenda (Item 12c) was a report from Ms. Hair concerning the Planning Commission's recommendation on the zoning amendment for urban agriculture. Ms. Hair reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the urban agriculture amendment and associated terms to Section 507 of the Pulaski Zoning Ordinance with two amendments. Those amendments were: (1) deletion of the requirement for a one acre lot; and, (2) amending section 507.4-5 the second sentence amended to read "No pens or beehive stands shall be located in the front yard, required street side yard, and the side yard required ... etc." The vote of the Commission was 3-1 in favor of the amendments. Mr. Goodman asked what the thoughts of the Commission were on the one year penalty. Ms. Hair responded that the Zoning Ordinance has provisions for violations that can be prosecuted through the court system more easily than having to maintain watching sites for one year. Page 8 of 11 /November 8, 2017 Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Penn -Aye Following a call for a motion from Mayor Glenn concerning Resolution 2017-27 (Item 12b), Mr. Goodman moved to adopt Resolution 2017-27. His motion was seconded by Mr. East and approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye The next item on the agenda (Item 12c) was a report from Ms. Hair concerning the Planning Commission's recommendation on the zoning amendment for urban agriculture. Ms. Hair reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the urban agriculture amendment and associated terms to Section 507 of the Pulaski Zoning Ordinance with two amendments. Those amendments were: (1) deletion of the requirement for a one acre lot; and, (2) amending section 507.4-5 the second sentence amended to read "No pens or beehive stands shall be located in the front yard, required street side yard, and the side yard required ... etc." The vote of the Commission was 3-1 in favor of the amendments. Mr. Goodman asked what the thoughts of the Commission were on the one year penalty. Ms. Hair responded that the Zoning Ordinance has provisions for violations that can be prosecuted through the court system more easily than having to maintain watching sites for one year. Page 8 of 11 /November 8, 2017 Mr. East then moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding application no. 2017-06ZA "Urban Chickens". The motion was seconded by Mr. Radcliffe. On a call from Mayor Glenn for further comments, Mr. Penn said Mr. Jeanes had mentioned bantam chickens, which could fly. Ms. Hair replied that a fully enclosed coop was required by the ordinance. There being no further comment, Mr. East's motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Goodman - No Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Penn -Aye Following the vote, Mr. Goodman said his concern was the lot size restriction. Mayor Glenn then moved to the Smith Lane Proffer (Item 12d). Ms. Hair reported that during the Commission meeting the applicant amended their request. Instead of removing the proffer in its entirety they removed the cluster subdivision and duplex only provision and added to not build multi -family residential units on the property. The Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the proffer amendment to disallow multi -family residential on that property (072-140-0000-0006). The recommendation was approved 4-0 in favor of the proffer amendment. Mr. Goodman asked about the changes. Ms. Hair said the applicant requested single-family duplex and townhomes only, no apartments. Mr. Goodman then moved to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the SHAH Development proffer request. His motion was seconded by Mr. Penn and approved on the following roll call vote.- Mr. ote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Penn -Aye Next item on the agenda was Item 13A, an ordinance amending the Town Code regarding tax collection. Mr. Utt said the Town had engaged Sands Anderson to begin real estate tax collections on behalf of the Town. One legal provision needed was the collection of administrative fees, which were allowed by the Va. Code. Ordinance 2017-11 was developed by Sands Anderson with the appropriate language. He requested that Council adopt the ordinance as written. Mr. Goodman moved that Town Council adopt Ordinance 2017-11 as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote: Page 9 of 11 /November 8, 2017 Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Penn -Aye Mayor Glenn then moved on to Item 13b "Code Enforcement Equipment". Mr. Utt reported that Councilman Radcliffe had requested this item be added as a discussion topic for the meeting. Mr. Radcliffe said he had an opportunity to go out on a call with the Code Compliance Officer and Norfolk Southern P.D. which led to some concerns. His first concern was that he wanted to make sure that the employee was offered a bullet-proof vest. The other concern he brought up was to allow the employee to attend the VCIN class to allow them to find out who owns a vehicle. He asked Ms. Hair to get the employee enrolled in the class. Chief Roche said they would have to wait until the employee was sworn in as a Conservator of the Peace. Ms. Hair said the documentation for conservator had been filed with the courts. Mr. East asked about the time frame for completion of the process. Ms. Hair replied that the documentation was submitted that day to the courts and that the judge would have to sign the order. Next item on the agenda was the Closed Session (Item 14). Mayor Glenn called for a motion under (1) Va. Code 2.2-3711 a (1) discussion for consideration of employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of public officers, appointees or employees for one item regarding the Town Manager's Evaluation and (2) Virginia Code 2.2-3711, a (7), Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body for two (2) matters involving: sewer non-compliance and a West Main Street Property Maintenance Violation. Mr. Goodman moved to go into Closed Session. His motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Council entered Closed Session at 8:15 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 10:22 p.m. Mayor Glenn called for a motion that Council only discussed those three items for which they went into Closed Session, regarding one item under Virginia Code 2.2-3711 a (1) and two items under Virginia Code 2.2-3711 a (7). Mr. Goodman made the motion which was seconded by Mr. Clark and carried on the following roll call vote: Page 10 of 11/November 8, 2017 Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Following a review of future meeting dates, Mayor Glenn asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion was made by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. Clark and approved by unanimous voice vote at 10:30 p.m. Approved: Robe'rt N. Glenn Mayor ATTEST: David N. Quesenberry. Clerk of Council Page 11 of 11 /November 8, 2017