HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-23 Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioners Present: AJ Schrantz, Vice-Chair; Frank Neice; Kevin Meyer, Chairman; Terry Hale
Commissioners Absent: Van Taylor; Rachel Arthur (arrived at 6:30 PM)
Town Staff: Summer Bork, Town Planner.
Call to Order
Chairman Meyer called the Planning Commission to order at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call of Commission
A quorum was determined with four commissioners present.
Review and Approval of Minutes
As some members present were not at the last meeting, the Chairman motioned to table the approval of the minutes until the next meeting to allow absent members to review them thoroughly.
No objections were made to tabling minutes approval.
Public Hearing
a. Recommendation: Zoning Text Amendment for Medical Office(s) definition.
Ms. Bork reviewed the circumstances around the lack of a medical clinic definition in the ordinances and that the Medical office definition has only been adopted by the council as a
condition of the recent 2460 Lee Hwy rezoning. Still, the definition must be submitted to Council for adoption into the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioners agreed upon the following definition
to move to a public hearing and make a recommendation to Council.
Medical Office(s): An establishment in which doctors, dentists, or other practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia provide healthcare services to clients, including medical
or health-related physical or massage therapy, exclusively on an outpatient basis, and may offer minor surgical care, but do not provide, substance abuse disorder services, overnight
care, or serve as a base for an ambulance service.
Mr. Meyer commented that he wondered if, by removing mental health care, the Commission was not overly restrictive toward mental health care and opened the public hearing.
No members of the public were present to comment.
Mr. Meyer closed the public hearing.
Mr. Schrantz moved that the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for adding Medical Office(s): An establishment in which doctors, dentists, or other practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth
of Virginia provide healthcare services to clients, including medical or health-related physical or massage therapy, exclusively on an outpatient basis, and may offer minor surgical
care, but do not provide, substance abuse disorder services, overnight care, or serve as a base for an ambulance service. as a definition, be recommended to Council for adoption. Mr.
Hale seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
b. Recommendation: zoning text amendment, changing “Utility Services, Major” from a by-right use in I-2 zones to a Special Exception.
Ms. Bork explained that several alternative energy production and storage companies approached the town, interested in establishing businesses there. After examination of the zoning
ordinance, the town staff found the definition of “Utility Services, Major” to be broad enough to allow companies to establish in town.
Commissioners had expressed interest in alternative energy companies as a possible avenue for economic development within the town; however, concerns about public health, safety, and
well-being still existed. The commission believes that moving this use to a special exception would allow public bodies more oversight and ensure that general welfare is maintained.
In contrast, the commission develops more comprehensive legislation around alternative energy. Ms. Bork stressed that this would likely be a temporary measure.
Mr. Meyer commented that he didn’t understand why it needed to be temporary and opened the public hearing.
No members of the public were present to comment. Mr. Meyer closed the hearing.
Mr. Schrantz made a motion to recommend to Council that they accept the zoning text amendment to change “Utility Services, Major” from a by-right use to a special exception in an I-2
zone. Was seconded by Mr. Neice, the motion passed unanimously.
c. Recommendation: Adoption of the 2022 Zoning Map
Ms. Bork explained that the town’s staff is uncertain about the correctly adopted zoning map due to high staff turnover rates and inconclusive records. There is no proof that the Commission
and Council were privy to or adopted the zoning map created in 2017 to accompany the zoning ordinance update.
To that end, the staff is requesting that the 2022 zoning map be adopted as the town zoning map with the condition that zoning occurred after the map’s creation be upheld as the proper
zoning of the parcel.
Mr. Meyer commented that he believed this documentation of rezoning could be produced, then the town should consider the rezoning. He mentioned that he believes specific changes were
made to the future land-use map that he was reasonably confident the Commission never approved. He was unsure why McGill Park’s land-use category was designated residential when it
was the only park in that area of town, and repurposing the land would cause “hardship” in surrounding neighborhoods.
Ms. Arthur expressed her concern that we should strive to inform the public beyond newspaper notices that Pulaski had adopted a new zoning map and property owners’ parcel designation
may have changed. Suggestions regarding how to do this include inserts into water bills, information on the town’s website, or Facebook posts, among other possible ways of getting the
word out.
Ms. Arthur thought it would be best to do this after the town’s new zoning map was drafted as part of the RFP, which had been advertised for planning services. Making citizens aware
of changes during this time may be more prudent timing.
Mr. Meyer opened the public hearing. No members of the public were present to comment. Mr. Meyer closed the public hearing.
Ms. Arthur made a motion to recommend to the council the adoption of the 2022 zoning map with conditions that mass notification occurs when the consultants finish with the new zoning
map. Any previous rezoning approved by the town not represented on the 2022 map must be upheld and edited to include them. Mr. Schrantz seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
d. Special Exception: 67,69,73 W Main St. for mixed-use development in a B-3 zone.
Mr. Meyer commended Mr. Cochran and Peak Creek Partner LLC’s completeness of plans.
Ms. Bork explained that upon a zoning review associated with Peak Creek Partners, LLC building permit application. She found that in B-3 zones, mixed-use development required approval
via a special exception, so Mr. Cochran was here to answer your questions and explain a bit more about the project.
Mr. Meyer opened the floor to Mr. Cochran. Mr. Cochran explained the plans for the buildings. They were to be mixed development containing three commercial spaces on the ground floor
and eight apartments above. The parcels will have the subdivisions dissolved to make the property sit on one parcel. The developers intended to convert the buildings into one structure.
Mr. Cochran also gave an overview of the other projects that Peak Creek Partners LLC had in town.
Mr. Meyer asked where the missing the
Ms. Arthur raised the concern of parking for residents in the downtown area.
Ms. Bork commented that residents could use public lots in the downtown.
Mr. Meyer commented that it would be a bit of a walk.
Ms. Arthur raised the question regarding the additional traffic and people that will be present in the downtown due to this development and wanted to ensure that the town could support
the extra capacity generated by the additional businesses and residents.
Ms. Bork replied that several lots were available in the downtown area, which was available for parking. The courthouse’s parking lot was open for parking as well after business hours.
Rarely are these lots full, except during special events.
Mr. Schrantz agreed that the Jefferson and Main St. lot is a couple hundred feet away, and he has yet to see it full except for big events and voting day.
Ms. Arthur wanted to ensure the parking would be available to clientele because it wouldn’t serve the downtown if foot traffic to businesses were curtailed by lack of access.
Mr. Cochran added that he did develop all over Virginia, and he often works in a city or town busier than Pulaski with much less parking. It has not been an issue.
Mr. Cochran said Pulaski might want to consider adopting parking proffers as part of their downtown development so the commission can get ahead of this question before it is an issue.
Developers are well aware of the additional condition and can develop site plans accordingly.
Mr. Meyer added that multiple issues in the town had been raised with past developers. If you want these buildings on Main St. functional and occupied, telling the developer that “you
have to provide two spaces per bedroom” is impossible.
Mr. Cochran stated that if the town were willing to contribute to public parking, that would be accessible. It would assist in offsetting the issue.
Mr. Meyer said that Pulaski has publicly accessible parking. It may get you more exercise than you want, but if you want to live there, that is the trade-off.
Mr. Cochran agreed that businesses should primarily use public parking/Main St. parking, and the developer and tenets are responsible for residential parking, typically, which may be
further away. In busier areas, hourly parking often needs to be improved to address the issue of limited downtown parking availability.
Mr. Meyer stated that the town does not have paid parking.
Ms. Arthur added now.
Mr. Meyer continued that someone may want to buy a property and put up a parking deck.
Ms. Arthur reiterated that the planning commission wanted to support having residents and businesses in the downtown area. She said that this parking question is something she believes
the town/commission should discuss to assist in support of downtown businesses and negotiate designated parking in larger lots for residents to have accessible parking. She added that
this isn’t even addressing the issues of ADA-compliant parking for residents.
Ms. Arthur asked Mr. Cochran if he had a demographic he targeted for his apartments. Are they apartments for rent or purchase?
Mr. Cochran replied that these would be rentals. He added that based on market research, there is a significant demand for high-quality rental properties. He said Pulaski is already
getting spillover from Blacksburg, which is too costly for most people. Pulaski is rapidly becoming the bedroom community for the Blacksburg-Christiansburg metro area, and Wytheville
is expanding too. The town needs to have more supply of rental properties to accommodate the growth.
He added that they don’t have a demographic. He said it tends to be younger, but primarily, residents are people with stable incomes who are not quite making enough to afford a house
but want something nicer to live in, such as teachers or fighter fighters. He stated that the average is 20-40 years old.
Mr. Schrantz added that when you have a one- to two-bedroom apartment, that is the demographic you would expect because it wouldn’t as easily accommodate families with children.
Mr. Cochran states in his professional opinion that we will see interest in Pulaski start to pick up over the next couple of years. Getting ahead of the parking issues would help developers
and forestall a problem before it becomes one. He cited the city of Danville as an example. He explained that dedicated parking gives residents in downtown apartments places to park,
keeps them off the main street, and prevents over-limitation of parking on Main St.
Ms. Arthur asked if Mr. Cochran has thought about working with folks wanting to live and run their business in the same building.
Mr. Cochran replied, yes, another development he was working on in town is live-work studios, so it has been done in his other properties and works well.
Mr. Schrantz wasn’t sure if parking minimums was the best idea.
Mr. Cochran replied that you can’t just slap it on there and say figure it out.
Mr. Schrantz continued that some cities and towns have done that, and it causes issues with developers.
Mr. Cochran stated that Roanoke does that it does make it hard.
Mr. Meyer asked when the town had adopted mixed-use development and commented that he thought it was with this comprehensive plan.
Ms. Bork responded that the town had adopted a mixed-use zone as a part of their future land use map and goals in the comprehensive plan. However, the town presently had “mixed-use”
for individual properties in various commercial zones within the zoning ordinances, including B-1, B-2, and others as a by-right use. In B-3, it’s a special exception.
Mr. Neice asked why it was a special exception in B-3.
Ms. Bork stated she didn’t know.
Mr. Meyer said it probably is still a special exception because we haven’t dealt with many mixed-use developments in the past, so it has been addressed since we created the zone very
recently.
Mr. Cochran asked where the zone was.
Mr. Meyer replied that it encompasses most of the downtown. He continued that it should make it a by-right if it is in the mixed-use zone.
Ms. Bork stated that when the zoning was drafted for the mixed-use zone, then it would be something that would be included.
Ms. Arthur mentioned that she believed it was stipulated that likely dwellings were only allowable on the ground floor, which may be part of Mr. Cochran’s issue.
Mr. Cochran said that because of the flood plain and FEMA regulations, dwellings would require floors to be raised 12” above base flood elevation, which was not practicable in the space.
He also stated that specific units could be developed before ADA-compliant units must be constructed.
Mr. Schrantz asked if the town had a floodplain map and said he wanted to see it.
Ms. Bork replied that the floodplain map of the town is the town.
Mr. Meyer mentioned that Peak Creek was created to redirect water and drain the surrounding land so there aren’t swamps.
Mr. Schrantz said he didn’t ever remember it flooding as long as he has lived here.
Mr. Meyer stated that they do get street flooding. The code does allow business operators to have a single apartment on the ground floor, but generally, apartments are permitted upstairs.
Mr. Schrantz asked if the apartments will be fully finished alongside those on the bottom floor.
Mr. Cochran stated that the apartments would be finished first, as they always work top to bottom. The first floor will be fully completed, and the ground floor will be a “vanilla shell,”
which allows the developers to get their CO and business owners to customize the space for their needs.
Mr. Meyer opened the public hearing. No members of the public were present. He closed the public hearing. Mr. Meyer then thanked Mr. Cochran for being present that evening and for the
completeness of the documentation.
Mr. Arthur recommended that the town council accept the Special Exception as written. Seconded by Mr. Hale, and passed unanimously.
5. Old Business –NA
6. New Business –-NA
7. Other Business—NA
8. Staff Report
a. Update Zoning Map RFP
Ms. Bork reported that NRVRC's analysis as part of the Comprehensive Plan demonstrated that several parcels in the town do not have consistent zoning and land use designations. The idea
is to get a firm in to review and, where needed, rezone.
Nobody responded to the RFP, so the town is exploring options, including advertising again.
She continued explaining how the town published and distributed the zoning map.
Ms. Arthur requested the link to the RFP.
Ms. Bork said she would and also commented that it ought to be on the town’s RFP and Bid page of the website.
Ms. Arthur asked if this would make a good project for university students.
Ms. Bork mentioned that she had suggested that because this is an excellent project for that or an intern. Because it’s a good experience and needs to be done, but it is not highly technical.
It may be part of why we didn’t get a response for the RFP. However, the suggestion was not well received.
Mr. Schrantz said we might need to if we don’t receive a bid.
Mr. Meyer asked what our price point was.
Ms. Bork responded that because we are a public agency, we are not allowed to specify a price we must ask for a budget or estimate.
Ms. Arthur said, Let's hope we can revisit that idea. It would be a good experience for a college student or course credits.
Ms. Bork added that it is also industry job experience, which looks good on a resume.
b. Update on Green Energy Zoning Development
Ms. Bork summarized some of the conclusions that the town is interested in developing a Green energy zoning package that encompasses alternative fuels. She reported that she had spoken
to the town’s engineering project manager, Scot Aust, because of some of his previous work experience. He thought we don’t want to conflate “gas station” with alternative fuels within
the zoning ordinance. So, to create additional alternative fuel definitions within the zoning ordinances that are separate from a definition for “gas station.”
Ms. Bork continued by explaining that she had reached out to Dr. John Ignoch, who works for Virginia Tech in Extension, and that his field of study is alternative energy. He had sent
over resources, and she was reading through these materials and hoped to have a summary of options and considerations developed before too long, maybe Sept.’s meeting. She would like
to get a presentation together and have others more knowledgeable on the topic review her findings.
Mr. Meyer asked if there was any further business. As there was none, Mr. Hale made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Schrantz seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously, and the
meeting was closed at 7:35 PM.
Kevin Meyer, Chair
ATTEST:
__________________
Summer Bork, Town Planner