Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/25 Planning Commission Minutes/ Town of Pulaski Planning Commission Meeting Municipal Building, Council Chambers November 10, 2025 Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and asked for a roll call. Jeremy Clark- Aye Terry Hale- Aye Conner Compton- Aye Brandon Turcotte- Aye A.J. Schrantz- Aye Kevin Meyer- Aye Review and Approval of Minutes October 14, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes The motion was made by Mr. Hale and seconded by Mr. Clark to adopt the minutes as written. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing- No public hearings were scheduled. New Business/ Discussions Review and Approval of Proposed Private Drive/ Name Designation The board examined a map showing property located up the hill behind the Ollie’s store on Peppers Ferry Road. Mr. Smythers explained that the area in question featured a 50-foot private drive at its center. The town had initially questioned whether it was a public right-of-way, but it was confirmed to be private. The property owner had already completed one single-family home on parcel 072-165 and was constructing another on parcel 5. The owner requested that the private drive be formally named since the addresses currently used Peppers Ferry Road. His initial proposal was “Peppers Ferry Heights.” Mr. Smythers confirmed that if the Planning Commission approved a name, it would then be sent to EMS, the county, and the postmaster for final review. When asked, he noted he had checked to ensure the name was not already in use. The road was described as running between 1309 and 1311 Peppers Ferry Road, accessible from Peppers Ferry itself, with five lots on one side and four on the other. Only one adjacent property, 1313 Peppers Ferry, was not owned by the developer. It was clarified that the town would install a brown street sign, which designates a private drive. Members discussed whether the road would be labeled a “drive,” “heights,” “lane,” or other designation. The road is partly paved up to one of the new structures but remains unpaved beyond that. Because the road is private and not built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards, it will not be maintained by the town. The developer preferred to keep it private, with maintenance agreements among the property owners, rather than incur the cost of upgrading to VDOT specifications. Vice Chairman Schrantz expressed concern about confusion if the road name was too similar to others in town. Since there is already a Pepper Street, names like “Peppers Ferry Heights” could cause confusion for emergency responders. Alternatives such as “Ferry Lane” and “Court” were suggested; he noted that a distinct name would help ensure clarity for 911 calls and mail delivery. After considering options such as “Peppers Ferry Heights,” “Ferry Lane,” and “Ferry Court,” the commission agreed on “Ferry Court” as the clearest and most appropriate choice. Vice Chairman Schrantz remarked that “Peppers Ferry” was already somewhat confusing due to road splits and existing naming overlaps. He emphasized minimizing potential mix-ups for mail carriers and emergency responders. The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Vice Chairman Schrantz to recommend the name, Ferry’s Court, for the private driveway. The motion passed unanimously. It was confirmed that while the Planning Commission could make the designation, EMS and other agencies would still review it. The property owner’s original suggestion, “Peppers Ferry Heights,” had been just a proposal, not a fixed preference. Commissioner Comments Vice Chairman Schrantz raised a concern about the poor visibility of certain town street signs, particularly at night. He explained that fading and low reflectivity make it difficult for first responders to read signs while driving emergency vehicles with bright or flashing lights. He suggested the town consider replacing or upgrading older signs. Mr. Smythers noted that the town produces its own street signs and that the issue extended across all town limits, not just downtown. He proposed that the town staff survey and log locations where signs are missing or degraded. Examples were given, such as the missing Newbern Road sign near Memorial Drive, which had not been replaced after sidewalk work. Chairman Meyer mentioned that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) had recently met to review proposed signage for the new Tire Discounters business, located at the former Thompson & Thompson Tire site. He explained that one issue addressed at the ARB meeting concerned Tire Discounters’ plan to repaint part of the building. The side facing the parking lot had already been painted, meaning the company was permitted to repaint it according to existing guidelines. However, the business also proposed painting a large, bright red band across the top front of the building and installing a new sign there. There was some discussion about the color choice, described as an extremely bright red, possibly “fire engine red.” While some found it fitting for a tire shop, Chairman Meyer noted that there are no specific codes or town guidelines governing color selection. Unlike other localities such as Williamsburg, Pulaski does not maintain a defined “color palette” for use in the historic district. The discussion expanded to consider how the town’s current signage regulations are applied. Chairman Meyer pointed out that the ARB and Planning Commission have approved several signs, such as those for Tire Discounters and Wilderness Brewing, that technically exceed the size or lighting limits outlined in existing guidelines. The guidelines generally prefer signs that are externally illuminated by spotlights or backlit, rather than internally lit. However, allowances are made depending on the surrounding environment, building type, and overall context. He observed that the town’s historic signage guidelines were originally written with downtown Pulaski in mind, specifically the Main Street and courthouse areas, where small storefront signs are appropriate. In contrast, businesses like the brewery and tire shop are located in a more open, mixed-use area with few nearby structures. Because of this, Chairman Meyer argued that their proposed signage and colors are appropriate for their setting. The conversation then turned toward the broader issue of exterior paint and preservation of historic materials. Chairman Meyer recalled an older building near the town’s welcome sign that was once painted white with speckles of color, an example that had drawn criticism for being overly bright and inconsistent with local aesthetics. He noted that zoning regulations technically allow the ARB to require corrective action for paint schemes deemed inappropriate. Vice Chairman Schrantz reiterated that painting over brickwork, especially historic brick, is strongly discouraged. Paint can damage the surface over time, trapping moisture and leading to deterioration. Exceptions are occasionally made for structural preservation, such as buildings along the creek that required waterproof coatings to prevent collapse. These cases are evaluated individually, often involving both engineering and design review to balance safety with historical integrity. Mr. Smythers clarified the boundaries of the town’s historic district, which falls under ARB jurisdiction. The district extends roughly from the middle of Randolph Avenue through to North Madison Avenue, encompassing the old high school or middle school building. The Wilderness Brewing property lies near the outer edge of this area, just within the district boundary. However, the Duncan intersection and nearby buildings, such as Old Main Street Grill, are outside the district. Members joked that this distinction allows certain features, like the “green wall” on one property, to remain brightly painted because they fall outside ARB control. Chairman Meyer then discussed an upcoming mural project planned for the side of the Fine Arts Center. A presentation on the mural is forthcoming, and artists are being invited to submit proposals. They confirmed that the mural would be located on the side of the building facing the creek, visible from the bridge. Three finalists will be chosen, each paid to develop more detailed proposals, and the town will seek public input on the mural’s final design. Mr. Smythers provided an update on research into several junkyard and salvage properties previously discussed. He explained that he had requested access to archived emails from the past five or six individuals who held his position in order to review prior communications and decisions. The goal is to determine what correspondence or approvals exist regarding those properties. Chairman Meyer voiced concerns about ongoing issues with certain properties, including one near Madison where vehicles have remained far longer than permitted despite screening requirements. He noted that what was intended as a short-term arrangement has extended for more than two years. Mr. Smythers discussed the regulatory requirements for salvage or junkyards, noting that such operations typically require special inspections. Chairman Meyer recalled that a smaller lot near the old depot had previously been used for storage without official approval. There was concern that vehicle storage and auction activities may have expanded beyond what was originally allowed, leading Chairman Meyer to comment that the situation appeared to be “a little out of control.” Reminder of Next Meeting Monday, December 8, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. With no further business, the motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Vice-Chairman Schrantz to adjourn the meeting at 6:35 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.