Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/15/2020 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularPlanni ng Commi ssi on Meeti ng M INUTES Wednesday, January 15, 2020, 7:00 P M City Hall, Council Chambers, 114 N. Broad Street, Salem, VA 24153 1.C all to Order A regular meeting of the Planning C ommission of the C ity of Salem, Virginia, was called to order at 7:00 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice C hair (absent); Reid A. Garst II, N. J ackson Beamer, and Neil L. C onner (absent); with Vicki G. Daulton, C hair, presiding; together with C harles E. VanAllman, J r., C ommunity Development Director; Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; Benjamin W. Tripp, City Planner; and Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney. Reid Garst motioned to appoint Mary Ellen Wines as Executive Secretary Pro Tem for this meeting of the Planning Commission. N. J ackson Beamer seconded the motion. Aye: Beamer, Garst, Daulton Absent: King, C onner 2.C onsent Agenda A.Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the December 11, 2019, work session and regular meeting. Accepted as presented 3.Old Business A.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider the request of Stephen V. Wallace, II, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 101 Front Avenue (Tax Map # 234-1-7) from C BD C ommunity Business District to RMF Residential Multi-family District. (C ontinued from the December 11, 2019, meeting.) T he Executive Secretary Pro Tem reported that notice of said hearing had been published in the November 28, and December 5, 2019, issues of the Salem Times Register, and all property owners were notified by letter mailed December 19, 2019. Staff noted the following regarding the request: the subject property consists of a single parcel of approximately 0.149 acres, located on the northeast corner of Front Avenue and King Street. T he property is occupied by a single-family dwelling and a grandfathered 2nd single-family dwelling. T his request is to rezone the property to Residential Multi-Family to allow for the application of a special exception permit for a two-family dwelling. T he current zoning, Community Business District, does not allow for a two-family dwelling. T he subject property is located within the 100- year floodplain. T his request is related to the request for a Special Exception Permit to allow a Two-Family Dwelling in Residential Multi-Family District. T hat request requires a separate public hearing, and would be contingent on this rezoning being granted. C hair Daulton asked if they would be discussing both items at the same time, but they would be voting on them separately. Mr. Yost noted it would be one public hearing and two votes because it is two separate petitions. C hair Daulton opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone to speak regarding the requests. Paul Dotson with Wainwright Realtors, representing the property owner, appeared before the C ommission. He noted that Dr. Wallace is out of the country at this time. Dr. Wallace has been buying distressed properties and fixing them up. When he purchased this property, he thought this property would have three income producing units as the one dwelling has been used as a two-family dwelling. It is his fault that the did not check with Zoning Office to make sure that it was already zoned for a duplex. He thought the Community Business District would include the duplex that was already there. He presented some pictures to the Commission showing the work that has been done to get the structures back up to where they could be livable, and he noted that Dr. Wallace had spent in excess of $40,000 on the structures. His intention to buy some more properties in Salem as he likes the City and Roanoke C ollege. Dr. Wallace currently resides in Taiwan and comes to the United States to check on his properties. He noted that he will be glad to answer any questions the C ommission might have. C hair Daulton noted that he said Dr. Wallace has already spent in excess of $40,000. She asked if he has already turned the property into a duplex. Mr. Dotson noted that he has not turned it into a duplex yet. He noted that he spent $40,000 having the property remodeled. T hey both thought it was a duplex when they checked the property out because it is set up as as an up and down duplex. T hen the cottage they thought with the business zoning he might be able to rent it to an insurance agency or something like that. He noted that the house has already been leased. He noted that if the zoning does not go through, then Dr. Wallace has said it is not a big problem for him. C ommissioner Beamer asked if he has rented the house and the cottage, and Mr. Dotson noted that was correct. Mr. Beamer asked if he has rented the house as two units, and Mr. Dotson noted that he had not. Also, Mr. Beamer asked him if the property was built as a duplex, and Mr. Dotson noted that it is set up as a duplex. C hair Daulton asked if one part of the structure has no one living there, and Mr. Dotson noted that there are two ladies living in the entire structure, but it is not being used as a duplex. C ommissioner Garst asked Mr. Dotson if he knew what the parking requirements would be if the C ommission recommended to approve the use of the main structure as a two-family dwelling. Mr. Dotson noted that there is parking on the side and in front of the property. Also, there is parking in the back off the alley. Mr. Garst noted he thought that all the parking is street parking. Is that correct? Mr. Dotson noted that was correct - there are no garages or off-street parking. C hair Daulton noted that she thought on-site parking would have to be provided if the request for the two-family dwelling is approved. Mr. Dotson noted that he was not sure he understood. Mrs. Wines noted that there are parking requirements per the C ity Code, and if the Special Exception Permit for the two-family dwelling is approved, the property owner would have to supply six on-property parking spaces for the three units. She noted the existing parking spaces are on the C ity's right of way so the six spaces would have to be on the property. Mr. Dotson asked if it is illegal for the tenants to park in the right of way, and Mrs. Wines noted it is not illegal; however, those spaces cannot be used for the required spaces on site. Mr. Yost noted that the tenants can still use the street parking, but the ordinance requires that two parking spaces be provided per unit on the property. Mrs. Wines noted that every single family and two-family home requires off street parking. T he property is grandfathered as it is currently. Because of the proposed increase in units, the owner would be required to bring this up to code. Mrs. Wines noted that they would work with him and the property owner on this. She noted that this would be handled administratively if the requests are approved. C ommissioner Garst noted that the C ity has this property as two units, is that correct? Mrs. Wines noted that is correct. He asked if this property went forward as just the two units, what would the parking requirements be. Would it be grandfathered in as it is currently? Mrs. Wines noted that this was correct. Mr. Dotson noted that Dr. Wallace would probably convert the front yard into a parking lot as there is no room on the side. Mrs. Wines noted that staff would work with them on this. J essica Brim of 104 Front Avenue appeared before the C ommission. She noted that when the property was up for sale, she went into the cottage, which was actually unlivable, and into the main house which was set up as a duplex. She explained that the two units were separated by a retaining wall. T here were tenants living in both units when she moved in, but there was no one living in the cottage. Commissioner Garst asked if she had any feelings about the requests. She said the tenants who are living there now have been there about a month or less, and she has not had any problems. So she thinks that she is okay with the requests. She said there were problems with the previous tenants. Mr. Dotson asked what Ms. Brim thought of the improvements to the property. Ms. Brim noted that she has not been inside the buildings, but the outside does look better was far as the upgrades that have been made. She noted that the owners had also put a layer of gravel down on the property for parking. Mrs. Wines noted that the property at some point must have been converted to a two-family dwelling without the C ity's knowledge. She has no record of it being approved for this use. She noted that we have had similar situations before where new property owners have come in to either add units or get separate utilities for units that we were not aware of. She further discussed two-family dwellings. C ommissioner Beamer asked if there are two meters or just one. Mrs. Wines noted to her knowledge there is just one meter on the house. Mr. VanAllman noted to add to what Mrs. Wines alluded to they could not find any permits that were issued in regards to the structure of the building showing any improvements. Granted not all the improvements that had been made may have required a permit. At this point in time, the Building Official's office does not have a record of it being a duplex meeting those requirements nor of any of the improvements that have been made to the building. He further noted even with the approval of a two-family dwelling, it will have to be certified by the Building Official's office that it meets the standards of being a duplex, such as fire wall, etc. It does not have to meet today's standards, it would just have to meet the standards required for a building of that time. C hair Daulton asked if they would continue on with the requests. Mrs. Wines noted yes they would continue that the Commission is just here to decide the use of the property. Mr. Yost noted that this is important information, but it is really irrelevant to what they are deciding this evening. Mr. VanAllman noted that the property is grandfathered which could have some reflections on what requirements are made. If it is approved for the rezoning and Special Exception Permit, then the building would no longer be grandfathered. He asked Mrs. Wines if this was correct. Mrs. Wines noted from a zoning standpoint that this is correct. He noted that there is no going back with regards to parking requirements, etc., it would have to be brought up to code. Mrs. Wines noted that this is correct. Mr. VanAllman noted that the reason he brings this up is that the property owner may not want the expense with regards to providing parking etc. Mrs. Wines noted that even if it is approved, the property owner can choose to not move forward with making any changes so it could remain as it is now. Mr. Yost noted that even if approved the use would still be grandfathered. Mr. Tripp noted that the use would be legitimatized if it was approved. Mr. VanAllman noted that the design standards would have to be by today's code requirements. Mrs. Wines noted if they proceeded with the two-family dwelling, then yes that is correct. T here was additional discussion regarding the proposed two-family dwelling use. Mr. Tripp asked Mr. Dotson if he could clarify with regards to the two tenants who are currently living there. Mr. Dotson noted that the two teachers have the entire house. Mr. Yost asked if it is one lease, and Mr. Dotson noted that it is one lease. Mr. Yost noted so they are treating the dwelling as one unit. T here may be a wall there but each would have the right to come and go on both sides of the dwelling. So to him it is one single living unit now even if it had been used as a duplex in the past. C ommissioner Garst inquired as to who managed the construction contracting. Mr. Dotson replied that Buck Whitlow was the contractor. C ommissioner Garst asked how Mr. Whitlow could perform the work without a permit. Mr. Dotson stated that he is a licensed contractor and the work included new windows and floors, upgraded the bathrooms, the roof and the exterior. Mr. Dotson further stated that it was the responsibility of the contractor to obtain any required permits. C hair Daulton asked if there was anyone else to speak on this matter. T here was no response, and the public hearing was closed. Reid Garst motioned to recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of Stephen V. Wallace, II, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 101 Front Avenue (Tax Map #237-1-7) from C BD Community Business District to RMF Residential Multi-Family District be approved. J ackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst Absent: Conner, King B.Special Exception P ermit Hold public hearing to consider the request of Stephen V. Wallace, II, property owner, to allow a two-family dwelling on the property located at 101 Front Avenue (Tax Map # 234-1-7). (C ontinued from the December 11, 2019, meeting.) T he Executive Secretary Pro Tem reported that notice of said hearing had been published in the November 28, and December 5, 2019, issues of the Salem Times Register and all property owners were notified by letter mailed December 19, 2019. Staff noted the following regarding the Special Exception Permit request: the applicant is also requesting a Special Exception permit to allow the conversion of the single-family dwelling facing Front Avenue to a two-family dwelling. T he single-family dwelling fronting King Street will remain. T his request cannot be considered unless the rezoning has been approved. Mr. Dotson asked that the requests be continued to the first February meeting of C ouncil due to the items which will be on the J anuary 27, 2020, Council meeting. Reid Garst motioned to recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of Stephen V. Wallace, II, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a two-family dwelling on the property located at 101 Front Avenue be approved with the condition that it must meet all C ity ordinance requirements. J ackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Garst Nays: Daulton Absent: Conner, King 4.Adjournment T he meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Absent: C onner, King