Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-21 Planning Commission Minutes01 PULASKI MINUTES Town of Pulaski Planning Commission August 9, 2021 Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Town Staff: 1. Call to Order Janet Jonas, Vice Chair; Terry Hale, Tracy Belcher; Luke Seigfried Kevin Meyer, Chair; Chris Conner Brady Deal, Planner/Economic Developer/Zoning Administrator Vice -Chair Jonas 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. June 14, 2021 Minutes The minutes were unanimously approved by voice vote on a motion by Terry Hale and a second by Luke Seigfried. 4. Public Hearing a. Case 2021-04ZA -r A proposed amendment to Section 5.4, Signs of the Zoning Ordinance, adding Section 5.4.10-2, Temporary Signage Requirements Vice -Chair Jonas introduced Case 2021-04ZA and asked Mr. Deal for the Staff Report. Mr. Deal stated that this amendment was a staff proposed change since the Zoning Ordinance was absent of an appendix for Temporary Signage Requirements. He stated that it is a tremendous issue when deciding how to regulation temporary signage. Mr. Deal stated that he believed an appendix was drafted but that it was not included in the adoption of the updated Zoning Ordinance in 2019. He stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed these proposed requirements at the June meeting and that in that discussion the biggest concern from the Commissioners was the setback requirements for signs placed in intersections. He stated that the originally proposed setback of 10 feet was deemed unfeasible and that the staff responded by amending it to include a statement to indicate the setback would simply ensure adequate sight distance.. The Planning Commission did not have any further questions. Vice -Chair Jonas called the public hearing open for public comment. Without any comment, the public hearing was closed. Vice -Chair Jonas asked for a motion. Mr. Seigfried motioned to recommend approval of the Zoning Amendment to Town Council. The motion passed 4-0 on the following roll call vote. Chairman Meyer —Absent Mr. Hale — Aye Ms. Jonas — Aye Ms. Belcher —Aye Mr. Conner —Absent Mr. Seigfried — Aye b. Case 2021-05SE — A request for Special Exception for a junkyard and automobile graveyard for property at 34 First Street, NE Vice -Chair Jonas introduced Case 2021-05SE and asked Mr. Deal for the staff report. Mr. Deal stated that the Town of Pulaski had received a request from Good OI Boy's Recovery, Agent: Kelly Dalton for a Special Exception for a junkyard and automobile graveyard for property at 34 First Street, NE. He stated that according to the Town Code, any lot with five or more inoperable vehicles is considered a junkyard and/or automobile graveyard. He stated that an inoperable vehicle is one that does not have current registration and/or inspection. Mr. Deal stated that they have been operating their business for several months but can only respond to calls that require point a to point b towing. Mr. Deal stated that Kelly Dalton had figured the lot would likely not hold more than 15 vehicles in total. He stated that they did not use the lot in violation and had gone through all the correct channels to try and receive legal permission for this use. Mr. Hale asked how the applicants would handle fluid run off from the vehicles. Mr. Deal stated that since it is already impervious surface and that they are not adding any impervious surface they would not be required to complete an Erosion and Sediment Plan but that he would check with Town Engineer to determine if this number of vehicles would trigger any additional stormwater mitigation measures. Vice -Chair Jonas stated that she shared the concern with Mr. Hale and would not want to see contaminants leaking into the stormwater drains on the street and that some prevention such as a berm may be necessary. Page 2 of 7 / August 9, 2021 Vice -Chair Jonas asked what the Future Land Use map indicated for this property. Mr. Deal stated that is was identified as commercial in the Future Land Use map. Vice -Chair Jonas followed up and asked if the zoning changed to commercial would this use be permitted. Mr. Deal stated that it would not be permitted in a business/commercial district. Vice -Chair Jonas asked if the lot would need to be screened from the rear. Mr. Deal stated that the state code only requires the lot be screened from the nearest roadway. However, he would check the distance to the train station and determine if screening would be required. He mentioned that other storage lots are screened throughout Town including DCT and Reynold's Performance and that it depends on distance and visibility from the roadway. Mr. Dalton stated that he did not have a problem screening in the rear lot as well. Vice -Chair Jonas asked if the applicants had any questions. Mr. Dalton asked what the process would look like after the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Deal responded with an overview of what the process would entail as they go before the Town Council. Vice -Chair Jonas stated that Town Council uses the knowledge and recommendation from the Planning Commission along with their own deliberations to decide to approve or deny at a subsequent public hearing. Mr. Dalton stated that they had started working on cleaning up the lot and that they would keep the lot clean and also work to clean up the building. Mr. Dalton stated that if there are any concerns the Planning Commission has for the lot they would work to address those. He asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for them. Mr. Hale restated his question from earlier since Mr. Dalton was not present at that time and asked about stormwater management issues. Mr. Gibas provided a detailed overview of the lot dimensions and topography and described the various natural barriers to preventing run-off. Vice -Chair Jonas asked the average storage time for a vehicle. Mr. Gibas responded no longer than 14 days. Mr. Dalton stated that it is for insurance purposes so they often do not remain in the lot long. Vice -Chair Jonas asked if this was only for passenger vehicles. Mr. Dalton responded yes. Page 3 of 71 August 9, 2021 Vice -Chair Jonas asked if the lot would be accessed from the front or rear. Mr. Dalton responded that they would prefer to access from rear but may have to access from the front at certain points. Vice -Chair Jonas responded that she had concerns due to the high traffic that flows through that area. Vice -Chair Jonas opened the public hearing for public comment. With no public comment, she closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Hale motioned to recommend approval for Case 2021-05SE for a Special Exception for a junkyard and automobile graveyard at 34 First Street NE. The motion passed on a 4-0 roll call vote: Chairman Meyer — Absent Mr. Hale — Aye Ms. Jonas —Aye Ms. Belcher —Aye Mr. Conner —Absent Mr. Seigfried Aye Mr. Deal told the applicants that the Town Council Public Hearing would be on September 7th at 7:00 p.m. 5. Old Business a. Comprehensive Pian Update i. Working Group Meeting Update ii. Survey Response Totals Mr. Deal provided an update on the 2nd Working Group meeting. He stated that a new member attended, the owner of Boss Lady Boutique. He stated that the third meeting would be held in August and then a report will be drafted and provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. Deal stated that the survey had generated over 200 responses so far. He provided the address to the website again to the Planning Commission and asked them to distribute it once more if they were willing. Vice -Chair Jonas asked about the thumbnail photo and Mr. Deal responded that it had been updated to a photo of downtown. Mr. Seigfried asked when we would have the presentation of the data from the working group meetings. Mr. Deal stated that it would likely occur at the September 13th meeting. Vice -Chair Jonas stated that she had seen the QR code signs. She also asked if an announcement was distributed with the water bill. Mr. Deal stated that would send another notification in the water bill. Mr. Seigfried asked if the breakdown of how people are accessing the survey could be provided to the Planning Commission. Page 4 of 71 August 9, 2021 b. Parking Requirements Review #2 Mr. Deal provided an overview of the updated draft of the parking requirements for R-3 multi -family land use. He stated that the Planning Commission had requested that he move forward with further exploring the option that required spaces based on unit make- up, specifically bedroom count. Mr. Deal then stated that he had provided 3 further options to determine the additional parking space requirement. He described each of the options. Mr. Deal then further elaborated on the methodology behind determining the parking requirement options and the options for additional parking requirements for guest and overflow spaces. Vice -Chair Jonas stated that at the previous discussion, the Planning Commission talked extensively regarding guest parking spaces. She stated that our transportation system isn't robust and that we need to focus on improving that system as we update our parking requirements. She stated she was less inclined to include any additional parking space requirement. Ms. Belcher asked how many spaces the Vice -Chair would propose. Vice -Chair Jonas stated that she would include the proposed number of spaces per unit including unit type without any additional space requirement. Mr. Deal stated that a bike rack requirement could be added to the ordinance to incentivize alternative transportation. He stated that there is a strong focus on bettering the sidewalks and walkability of the town which could benefit from having more bike riders as well. Vice -Chair Jonas stated that in one project they have a plan to have a separate business at the same location which would have additional parking requirements. Mr. Deal responded that she was correct but that number would depend on the actual use of the space.: Ms. Belcher stated that for that project or similar projects the additional space requirements could be gained through that space after-hours. Mr. Seigfried asked if Mr. Deal spoke with the Town Engineer about having permeable parking surface. Mr. Deal stated the Town Engineer stated that the main benefit from that would possibly be a reduction in the area counted towards stormwater management plans. He further elaborated that he did not feel after those conversations that any parking reduction incentive would be appropriate to include in this update with the limited understanding of how even permeable surface would withstand long-term use. Page 5 of 7 / August 9, 2021 A brief conversation ensued between the Planning Commissioners regarding the redevelopment of the Claremont School and how the parking would be affected by this potential Zoning Amendment. Mr. Deal asked if there were any further comments on the additional parking space requirement options that he had presented. Mr. Seigfried stated that he was generally in favor of leaving out additional parking space requirements and referenced his previous support of a flat requirement of 1.75 spaces per unit which is approximately what this update would equal. Mr. Deal stated that Mr. Seigfried is correct and that dependent on the unit breakdown the math nearly equivalates to 1.75 — 2 spaces per unit. Vice -Chair Jonas stated that with the lack of undeveloped land she has a strong desire to limit impervious surface and preserve greenspaces. Ms. Belcher stated that she was also generally in favor of not having an additional parking space requirement and referenced the potential commercial spaces large scale projects would have associated with their structures which would inherently add more parking. Mr. Deal reminded the Planning Commissioners that in the last discussion regarding this topic, the Chairman was strongly in favor of additional parking space requirements to accommodate guest and overflow parking. Mr. Deal stated that a 10% additional parking space requirement per total units does not add a ton of extra spaces when considering it is only 5 extra spaces for a 50 -unit apartment complex. A brief discussion ensued regarding overflow parking and the Commissioners' experience in the past with areas that have parking limitations. Mr. Seigfried stated that he feels the 10% requirement for additional parking space requirement would be a suitable compromise. Ms. Belcher and Mr. Hale stated that they agreed with that notion. 6. New Business a. Distribute Strikethrough/Edit of Zoning Ordinance i. Includes grammatical changes and other potential recommendations Mr. Deal provided an overview of the strikethrough/edit version of the Zoning Ordinance and some of the issues and inconsistencies he has seen while working through ordinance. He provided one example that described the site development regulations Page 6 of 7 1 August 9, 2021 for R-1 and R-3 which are two completely different zoning districts intended for much different density and intensity of development. Mr. Deal stated that he had not printed a copy of this version for each Commissioner but had sent one electronically to each of them for their review and for future discussion at another Planning Commission meeting. 7. Staff Report 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment With there being no further business to discuss, Vice -Chair Jonas adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. Page 7 of 71 August 9, 2021 J net J* , Vice -Chair ..J