Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/24 Planning Commission MinutesCommissioners Present: Kevin Meyer, Rachel Arthur, Terry Hale, AJ Schrantz Commissioners Absent: Van Taylor, Rachel Nelson, Dustin Davis Staff Present: Summer Bork 1. Call to Order Mr. Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM. 2. Roll Call A roll call was performed, and a quorum was determined with four members present. 3. Review and Approval of Minutes The commissioners reviewed the minutes and noted some typographical errors for correction. Mr. Schrantz moved that the commission accept the minutes with corrections. Mr. Hale seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. 4. Public Hearing a. SE-24-1: Special Exception for a “Children’s Therapy Concepts” location within a B-2 zone. Ms. Bork explained that the applicants, Dennis and Kim Mallon, were interested in opening a medical office at 627 W Main St. The structure had previously been used for a carpet and vinyl store. Meanwhile, B-2 zoning did not specifically allow medical offices to be a special exception within the town’s zoning. However, Section 4.9.2-2(j) specifics that “any legitimate retail use or services not prohibited in this zoning but not falling within the permitted uses and which by a preponderance of the evidence is shown to further the interests of the Town of Pulaski. Significant consideration shall be given to the health, comfort, well-being, and quality of life of the citizens and must be found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” under this point, the town may consider this business for the specified location. Mr. Mallon briefly described the business that they planned to open in the town: a pediatric physical, occupational, and speech therapy company that provides outpatient and early intervention services for children. The Commission asked several questions concerning the intended activities in the space, particularly outdoor or play therapy, and whether they would be working with the public school system. The Mallons explained that they would not require outdoor facilities presently if they believed that an outdoor intervention would benefit the child. They would utilize local recreation space rather than building on-premise. They also said that they do work with public schools but do not presently work with Pulaski County’s, but they would love the opportunity to do so in the future. Mr. Meyer opened the public hearing. With no members of the public present, he closed it and asked for a motion. Ms. Arthur moved that the commission recommends that the special exception be accepted without conditions by the council. Mr. Schrantz seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously. b. 24-ZA-1: Amending Section 11.2 definition of “Hospital or Health Center” Ms. Bork reviewed the work that the commission had done in updating the definition of a hospital or Health Center throughout previous months. Mr. Meyer opened the public hearing, but no members of the public were present. He closed the public hearing. Mr. Schrantz moved to recommend to the council that section 11.2 definition of “Hospital or Health Center” be amended to the following: Hospital or health Center—A facility licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia primarily provides in-patient diagnosis treatment, psychiatric, and surgical care to two or more unrelated individuals. The following are acceptable accessory uses: outpatient diagnostic and treatment centers, substance abuse disorder clinics, rehabilitation facilities, medical office es, laboratories, teaching facilities, meeting areas, cafeterias, maintenance, heliport, EMS Vehicle storage, and parking facilities. Ms. Arthur seconded the motion, and the commission passed the motion unanimously with a roll call vote. c. 24-ZA-2: Deleting the use of Hospital from section 4.1.2-2,4.2.2-2, 4.3.2-2,4.4.2-2, 4.10.2-2 As good zoning practice dictates, the Commission evaluated the locations where it would make sense to have hospitals in the future, exploring ease of access, land availability, parcel size, and risk of operations impact due to disasters. Ms. Bork raised the issue that if the Commission were to eliminate the use of Hospital from an R-1 zone. It would cause the current hospital in the town to become a non-conforming use. This status would consequently no longer enable them to expand their building or scope of services should they wish. Commissioners agreed that these presented issues for the well-being of citizens. Discussion occurred regarding how to address this issue. Mr. Meyer expressed concern regarding the RO parcels near the hospital; he was interested in knowing when they were rezoned and the circumstances because he did not remember them. Ms. Bork explained that the parcels in question were rezoned in the 1980s or 1990s with the intent of creating an assisted living facility. However, the project was never realized. It was decided that R-1 should continue to be an allowable location for a hospital so that the town’s existing hospital remains in conformity with zoning. With no further questions from the commission, Mr. Meyer opened the public hearing. No members of the public were present. Mr. Meyer closed the hearing. Mr. Schrantz motioned that the commission recommends removing the use of “hospital or health center” from the following sections of the town’s zoning ordinance: 4.1.2-2, 4.3.2-2,4.4.2-2, 4.10.2-2. Mr. Arthur seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Old Business a. Modular and Manufactured Housing Zoning Update Mr. Schrantz moved to resume the discussion of the issues. Ms. Bork explained that the town attorney had reviewed it. The town attorney’s concern is that the town intends to increase affordable housing options. We should ensure that undue hardship on purchases of manufactured and modular homes that require conversion from personal property to real property. He suggested ensuring that no issues would be created with banks and mortgage lenders, which would be costly to property owners. Ms. Bork stated that, given the attorney’s comments, she called Randy Grumbine again to ensure that, as a general rule, citizens would not be burdened by the parameters of the proposed ordinance amendment. According to Mr. Grumbine, the only concern is that the DMV will require a Certificate of Occupancy to convert a manufactured home from personal property to real property. As the town’s stipulations stand, we will not grant a certificate of occupancy without proof of conversion to real property. Ms. Bork continued that, in her opinion, there needed to be some mechanism to ensure that citizens converted their manufactured housing to real property. She suggested requiring people to show proof of real property within a certain period, or there would be a fine. Ms. Arthur commented that she thought the town might revoke the ability to live in the house if proof was not submitted. She also said that she thought 30 days would be sufficient to give people time to get it done but not so much time that they forget to do it. Mr. Schrantz agreed that he thought 30 days would be an adequate amount of time. Ms. Bork said that she would double-check that was something that could be done with the building official but would make the change if that could be done under the Virginia Building Code. Mr. Meyer said he was still confused about the difference between a modular and a manufactured house and needed more time to understand. Mr. Schrantz added that he was sorry that Mr. Meyer missed Mr. Grumbine’s presentation because he thought it was very helpful in understanding the information and issues the commission was attempting to sort through. Ms. Arthur mentioned that if there was still confusion within the commission, there would likely be questions and concerns from the Council and the Public when we went to public hearings. Ms. Bork asked if it would be helpful to hold a public information session and ask Mr. Grumbine to speak again and invite the Council, Commission, and members of the public to educate regarding the advances and regulatory changes which have occurred with manufactured and modular housing, and enable an education opportunity which may smooth the way for passing the changes that the town has been working on. The commissioners generally agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Hale moved to table the agenda item, which passed without objections. 6. New Business a. Evaluation of where “medical office” and “Substance abuse disorder clinics” belong in town With the redefining of the medical office a few months prior and the creation of the substance abuse disorder clinic definition, Ms. Bork stated that it was good practice to evaluate that the changes still fit the zones they were in. Currently, the Medical Office is allowed for by-right use in B-1, RO, and PUD zones and, as a special exception, in RMH-1 zones. After evaluating the type of other uses within zones, neighborhood character, land availability/ lot sizes, parking requirement for medical offices, and several other factors, the Commission decided that Medical offices should be by-right in B-1 and B-2 zones and allowed by special exception in RO and B-3 zones. The commission determined that allowing substance abuse disorder clinics as an accessory use to a hospital made the most sense presently. Mr. Meyer asked Ms. Bork to schedule a public hearing. 7. Staff Report Ms. Bork reminded commissioners of the regional commissioner’s upcoming training and asked who was interested in going as she planned to register that week. She also explained that, per the zoning ordinance, she was required to provide Commissioners with a copy of variance applications and that they may appear as a party in the hearing should they wish. Mr. Meyer confirmed that the Planning Commission could let the BZA handle the matter if they wanted. Ms. Bork said she confirmed this. With no further business to discuss, Mr. Hale moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Schrantz seconded, and with no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 8:27 PM.