Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-21 Planning Commission Minutesi PULASKI MINUTES Town of Pulaski Planning Commission June 14, 2021 Commissioners Present: Kevin Meyer, Chair; Janet Jonas, Vice Chair; Terry Hale; Luke Seigfried Commissioners Absent: Tracy Belcher; Chris Conner Town Staff: Brady Deal, Planner/Economic Developer/Zoning Administrator 1. Call to Order Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call of Commission A quorum was determined since four of the six Commissioners were present. 3. Review and Approval of Minutes a. May 10, 2021 Minutes The minutes were unanimously approved as amended noting a grammatical change identified by Luke Seigfried and completed prior to the meeting on a motion by Luke Seigfried and a second by Terry Hale. 4. Public Hearing 5. Old Business a. Comprehensive Pian Update i. Working Group Meeting Update ii. Finalize Survey Questions Chairman Meyer asked Aphi to provide an update on the Comprehensive Plan. Aphi stated that she had finalized the survey but would allow Mr. Deal to first provide an update on the Working Group Meeting. Mr. Deal stated that the first working group meeting had been held. He said only four of the nine members attended but that the meeting was a success and there was a significant amount of positive dialogue and feedback, Mr. Deal identified each of the members of the Working Group that were present and those that were absent and then described their backgrounds. Ms. Jonas asked if one of the members, Braxton Cox, had been asked to be on the ARB because he is a licensed architect. Mr. Deal stated that he had not mentioned it to him but would follow up with him about it. Mr. Deal further elaborated on the process of the working group meeting and the information that was covered. He stated that it lasted for an hour and a half and that the next two meetings had not yet been scheduled. Mr. Deal stated he would like to schedule the next two meetings soon to ensure all of the individuals can mark their calendars and attend. Aphi stated that she enjoyedthe process and that there was really strong feedback from the members. She said it was more like a conversation than a presentation. She reminded the Planning Commission that the Working Group was a key way to complete the Community Outreach component of the Comprehensive Plan process. Aphi then moved on to the survey questions. She stated that staff was ready to launch the survey and that the draft before the Commissioners was the final. Aphi pulled up the electronic version of the survey on the EngageNRV website for a demo for the Commissioners. Ms. Jonas and Mr. Seigfried stated that they had not received any updates since registering on the Pulaski Comp. Plan project page and asked if there had been any. Aphi stated that their had not been any updates but that she would follow up with them on this matter to ensure when there is an update they receive it. Aphi then reviewed the final draft of the survey questions and highlighted the branching questions and options that are present on the online version of the survey. She reviewed multiple branching questions including the housing question which provides a branch question if you select new construction and allows you to select which type of new construction you would be interested in purchasing/renting. Aphi asked if the commissioners wanted her to go over the paper version of the survey and the amendments she had made since the previous meeting based on the commissioners' comments. The Commissioners agreed the survey looked fine. Page 2 of 91 June 14, 2021 Aphi stated that registration on the online site would not be required to take the survey to hopefully incentivize more people to complete it. She also mentioned that flyers and signs with QR codes will be distributed to various establishments to encourage people to take the survey. Mr. Seigfried stated that the Marketplace would be a great place for the QR code sign. He added that the concession stand at Calfee Park would also be a good location because of the number of people that stand in line there waiting for food. A brief discussion ensued on they type of signage that would be best to include the QR code signs for the survey. Ms. Jonas stated that the library, the YMCA, and Social Services would also be great locations for this information to be posted. Aphi stated that she would like to bring back the Land Use analysis and information for the meeting in August. She said that she will be out of town for the July 12th meeting and that wrap-up for the working group should also be completed in August. 6. New Business a. Parking Requirements Discussion b. Temporary Sign Appendix Mr. Deal stated that it is custom to review the Zoning Ordinance during the Comp. Plan update process. He said that since he has been on staff, one of the main concerns brought up repeatedly in development conversations was the parking requirements for multi -family land use. Mr. Deal provided the parking requirements for several localities to use as comparison. He said that a common theme in parking requirements for multi -family land use in other localities is 2 spaces per unit. He stated that the current requirement of the Zoning Ordinance is 2.5 spaces per unit and that even though 2 spaces per unit is only .5 spaces less, the amount of impervious surface needed for that extra .5 spaces for large developments can be significant. Ms. Jonas stated that Mr. Deal and herself had been working with a couple of developers on adaptive reuse of school buildings and that they have communicated that the 2.5 space requirement is a burden on the project. Mr. Deal stated that Landmark Development, the developer completing the project at Claremont Elementary, had applied for a variance through the BZA which failed on a 2- 2 vote. He cautioned that these variance requests will likely continue with the ordinance as is. Chairman Meyer stated that he went by Claremont and was surprised by how much asphalt is currently there. He stated that it appears there should be sufficient space for a large number of parking spaces. He asked if they planned to remove some of that Page 3 of 9 / June 14, 2021 surface and build new surface in the bottom to balance the total amount of impervious surface. Mr. Deal stated that nothing concrete had been submitted to the Town but that a current issue present in the project is that the school parking lot is used as a throughway road. Chairman Meyer asked if they had the ability to "trade-off" and reduce surface in the top lot to create room for the bottom lot. Mr. Deal responded yes and stated that their goal is to limit new impervious surface and there are multiple ways they can achieve that. He said they would like to either close the roadway or remove some of the surface to increase the amount they can construct in the bottom of the parcel. Mr. Deal brought the GIS map up on the computer and showed the Claremont School property. He stated that the throughway is not a platted street nor is there a recorded easement to his knowledge. After a brief discussion regarding the Claremont School property, Mr. Deal reviewed and described the three parking alternatives he had developed based on the information from comprapable localities. Chairman Meyer stated that he was drawn to Floyd's language where they had the Townhouses separated from Multi -family. He asked if we had language addressing how many unrelated families can be in a dwelling. Mr. Deal stated that a family and two unrelated individuals are permitted in a dwelling Chairman Meyer described some of his questions/concerns with the different living situations in apartments and how that affects the parking requirements. He stated that it is difficult to truly determine how many parking spaces will be needed. He stated that he understands the concerns on asphalt/impervious surface but that he also doesn't want there to be a deficient number of parking spaces for residents. He iterated that we do not have a strong public transportation system and are still an automobile dependent community. Ms. Jonas stated that she agrees with his statement and that some of the examples the developer provided were in areas with significant public transportation systems. Chairman Meyer stated that he would not think about this on behalf of the developer. He stated that they do not care about the population nor the area and that the commission needed to consider this in a long-term perspective because the apartments will change hands overtime and the needs of the residents may also change. A discussion ensued regarding the parking requirements for the various localities selected as comparable. Page 4 of 91 June 14, 2021 Mr. Deal stated that the Town of Pulaski's requirements were at least a half a space higher than all the localities in question and a full space higher than Wytheville's. He asked the commissioners if any of the three options presented looked suitable or if they would suggest another option to be drafted. Mr. Seigfried stated that we need to be more competitive for developers and also ensure that we have firm requirements so that there are not apartments and residences without any off-street parking. He further stated that he was generally in support of option #2 which was 1.75 spaces per unit and add a component that for every 10 units, 1 additional guest space must be added. Chairman Meyer responded that he favored a form of option #3 which identified spaces per unit contingent on apartment size (number of bedrooms). He mentioned that he believed it had been stated that the developer's liked the profitability of one bedrooms/efficiency and he felt one space would likely be sufficient for such unit. He stated that there would likely not be many units that are larger than 3 bedrooms in the Town. He also stated that he would like to possibly focus more on the additional parking per number of units. Mr. Seigfried asked if guest parking spaces would be limited for just guests or if they would be available for use by all residents of a apartment complex. Aphi stated that it could be written for residents and/or guests. Chairman Meyer stated that it is up to property manager to regulate who parks in the lot but he did agree with just labeling it additional parking. Ms. Jonas said that if there isn't enough parking the market for those apartments will likely be limited because of people not desiring to rent units without parking. Mr. Hale stated that he was kind of leaning towards option #3 as well. Ms. Jonas stated that she really liked option #3 as well and that it was a lot easier to interpret. Mr. Deal stated that he initially liked option #2 but then liked the rationale for #3 because it dictates requirements based on bedrooms which is more concrete than just floating a number out there without a rationale. Chairman Meyer stated that he just doesn't know what the requirements should be and that if you undercut the initial requirement you need to make up for it with the requirements for additional spaces. Mr. Deal asked what exactly the commissioners would like him to include for the guest parking. Page 5 of 91 June 14, 2021 A discussion ensued regarding the guest/additional parking requirements and how that should be written. Ms. Jonas stated that something like Floyd's seems appropriate. She also stated that this approach may encourage creating permeable surface parking. Aphi stated that she has seen where localities incentivize permeable surface parking by reducing requirements if developers will construct such parking versus impervious surface. Ms. Jonas stated that the future definitely seems to be changing due to telework and that her sister and brother-in-law are now a one car family. She stated that trends like these are reasons to limit impervious surface Mr. Seigfried confirmed the commission would like additional language on permeable surface and additional space numbers in the parking space requirements revision. Ms. Jonas stated the current person looking at the middle school will also have to have public spaces for the public/commercial use of facilities on the property. Chairman Meyer stated that he did not mind the numbers in option #3 as long as there are additional spaces required. He suggested an additional number of spaces contingent on the number of bedrooms in the building. Mr. Seigfried stated that he wanted to make sure that Mr. Hale and Ms. Jonas agreed with the number of spaces listed in option #3 for the apartments based on the number of bedrooms. Mr. Hale and Ms. Jonas stated they did support that option as written. Further discussion regarding the additional parking requirements continued with various ideas been mentioned by Chairman Meyer, Mr. Seigfried, and Ms. Jonas. Chairman Meyer stated that he liked the idea of permeable surface parking. Mr. Deal responded that he would like to check with the Town Engineer on how that impacts stormwater requirements. Aphi stated that based on her experience, if these permeable surfaces are not well- maintained they can become impervious. She stated that she has seen where stormwater requirements still impact permeable spaces and that sometimes a discount is provided however. Mr. Deal stated that he would talk with the Town Engineer about a possible permeable surface incentives and would write-up a few options for the additional parking requirements for the commissioners to consider. Page 6 of 9/.lune 14, 2021 Ms. Jonas stated she would really like to hear where the research is going with permeable parking surfaces because she loves that idea as an effort to limit asphalt. She stated it may be a good idea to contact the APA. Chairman Meyer stated that most properties have retention ponds and asked if that decreased the stormwater run-off. He further explained his question by saying if you can create permeable parking that is sloped towards a retention pond, how does that affect the stormwater run-off? The commissioners agreed that Mr. Deal should write up some options for them consider at the next meeting. Mr. Deal then moved on to discuss the Temporary Sign Appendix because it was never adopted in the Zoning Ordinance rewrite during 2019. He specifically asked the commission to review the appendix and determine whether they liked the more restrictive or least restrictive setback requirements. Ms. Jonas asked if this impacted signs in yards like for sale signs. Aphi stated that those would be permitted without need of a permit. She also added that she had worked with Floyd on their ordinance and that the minimum setback of 5 feet can be not enough in areas of intersection because of the interference in sight triangles. She stated that she would lean towards 10 feet setbacks. Chairman Meyer asked if the setback would be in addition to the right of way. He said for example if the right of way is 20 feet deep, then his temporary sign would be on his porch. Aphi stated that people should know their property line and that they should reference their property line versus the right of way and that you should reference the setback from the property line. Chairman Meyer asked what does and doesn't count as a temporary sign. Mr. Deal listed a variety of signs that do and do not constitute as a temporary sign. Ms. Jonas asked how this would impact signage on main street or key corridors in the Downtown. Chairman Meyer stated that there is no physical way to adhere to the setbacks for signs in these areas. Ms. Jonas stated that a small business she works at in Blacksburg has a sandwich board and it makes a tremendous difference in business. She said we need to ensure we are promoting establishments and therefore need to consider these areas when structuring the temporary sign requirements. Page 7 of 91 June 14, 2021 Chairman Meyer stated that there should be differences in the Business/Commercial District. Mr. Deal stated that there are different provisions and permitted uses in these different areas but that there are still setbacks required. Mr. Seigfried asked if you could add a provision to these districts that prohibits blocking the view of intersections. Aphi stated that the Town could allow a provision to permit a sign on a public street based on the circumstances. She stated that she would add some verbiage to the appendix for this purpose. A discussion ensued regarding the types of temporary signs. Mr. Deal read from the various types of temporary signs and their size requirements from the Zoning Ordinance to the commissioners. Ms. Jonas stated that as we discuss signs she wanted to note that there are a lot of signs that are outdated, in disrepair, lead to places that no longer exist, and advertise businesses not currently in operation. Chairman Meyer asked if there was any other business. Mr. Deal stated that there would also be a comprehensive edit to the Zoning Ordinance that the commission would need to approve to correct grammatical errors and mistakes that have been found since it was adopted. 7. Staff 'Report 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment With there being no further business to discuss, Chairman Meyer adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m. KevinVeyer, Chair Page 8 of 91 June 14, 2021 Page 9 of 91 June 14, 2021