Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9/2017 - City Council - Minutes - Regular City Council Meeting MINUTES Monday, January 9, 2017, 7:30 PM Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, William D. Jones, Vice-Mayor (absent), Councilmembers: Jane W. Johnson, James A. Martin, and James L. Chisom; along with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager; James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council (absent); Melinda J. Payne, Director of Economic Development; Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance (absent); Charles E. VanAllman, Jr., Director of Community Development; Mike Stevens, Communications Director; Crystal L. LaBrie, Executive Secretary to the City Manager; and Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Bid Openings, Awards, Recognitions 4. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider approval of the minutes from the December 12, 2016 Work Session and regular meeting. Received as presented B. Financial Report Consider acceptance of the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for five months ending November 30, 2016. Received as presented 5. Old Business A. Fire Prevention and Protection Ordinance Consider ordinance on second reading to amend Chapter 34, Article I, Section 34-6, Article II, Sections 34-40, 34-41, 34-42 and Section 34-43-34-60, Article III, Section 34-63, Subsections 106.9, 106.10, 107.2, Table, 302.1, 307.1, 307.1.1, 307.2, 307.2.2, 307.2.3, 307.3, 307.3.1.1, 307.4, 307.4.1.1, 307.4.2.1, 307.4.3, 307.5 and appendices pertaining to fire prevention and protection. Jane Johnson motioned to approve the ordinance on second reading amending Chapter 34, Article I, Section 34-6, Article II, Sections 34-40, 34-41, 34-42 and Section 34-43-34-60, Article III, Section 34-63, Subsections 106.9, 106.10, 107.2, Table, 302.1, 307.1, 307.1.1, 307.2, 307.2.2, 307.2.3, 307.3, 307.3.1.1, 307.4, 307.4.1.1, 307.4.2.1, 307.4.3, 307.5 and appendices pertaining to fire prevention and protection. James Chisom seconded the motion. Ayes: Chisom, Foley, Johnson, Martin Absent: Jones B. Vacation of Right of Way Receive Viewers report and consider ordinance on first reading to permanently vacate a right-of way for the area behind Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 from Plat Book 5, page 21. Beginning at the point of curvature for curve C2, heading N75° 56’ 30” E for 154.36 feet to the unopened right of way lane, then S42° 11’ 47” E for 290.28 feet, then S47° 48’ 13” W for 50.00 feel, then N42° 11’ 47” W for 219.34 feet, and around curve C2 back to the point of curvature, as shown in the attached drawing. (As advertised in November 28, and December 5, 2016 issues of The Roanoke Times.) Mr. Boggess noted included in Council's packet is the amended request from the petitioner which shows closing only a section of Penguin Lane behind the four properties on Mountainview Avenue, and not the entire length of the unopened portion of Penguin Lane. This will leave the remaining right of way for the road should there be a request to develop the remaining acreage in the future. He further noted, as the Mayor had noted, a public hearing was held at the previous meeting but if there are any questions from the adjacent property owners we can try and address those. Mayor Foley noted there have been some changes to the request; if there are any property owners in the audience who have questions or concerns, then they could come forward and speak. Mr. Ray Penney of 1100 Mountainview Drive appeared before Council. He asked how would the tax implications be handled on this request. In a normal property conveyance, there are recording deed fees, fees for tax stamps, as well as the additional property he assumes would be taxed at the current real estate tax rate. He asked if this could be addressed this evening. Mr. Yost noted that there would not be any recording fees. If this is approved this evening, then a certified copy of the ordinance and the plat would be recorded, and this would have the effect of closing the street and transferring title. So there would be no fees to Mr. Penney for this. Mr. Penney asked if the portion of the road that would go to the adjacent property owners would affect a real estate tax assessment; Mr. Yost said he is not a expert on this, but he believes that potentially it could affect the assessment. But this is not his expertise so he really cannot tell him how much it would affect his taxes. Mr. Penney noted that according to the information he had received his lot would get about only 200 square feet so it is really not a very large piece. He noted that he did have another question about the lines drawn on the map. The surveying lines show a rectangular end to the easement at Penguin Lane and this is parallel to the side of his property. He further explained there appeared to be a discrepancy in the lines, which he believes is going to affect whether he gets a rectangular piece or a pie shaped piece of property. He thought this might need to be investigated. Mr. Yost noted that this could be looked into since it will have to come back for a second reading. Mayor Foley asked Mr. Boggess if staff could look into this. There was further discussion regarding the survey, and Chuck VanAllman, Director of Community Development, noted that his office would look into this. Mr. Boggess noted that the City would make sure that it is correct before the second reading of the item. Mayor Foley asked if there were any other property owners present who are potentially affected by this decision. There was no response, and the comment session was closed. Mayor Foley asked if Mr. Boggess had anything else to add. Mr. Boggess noted for the record that the viewers did concur with the recommendation for vacating the right of way. James Martin motioned to approve the ordinance on first reading to permanently vacate a right-of way for the area behind Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 from Plat Book 5, page 21. Beginning at the point of curvature for curve C2, heading N75° 56’ 30” E for 154.36 feet to the unopened right of way lane, then S42° 11’ 47” E for 290.28 feet, then S47° 48’ 13” W for 50.00 feel, then N42° 11’ 47” W for 219.34 feet, and around curve C2 back to the point of curvature, as recommended by the viewers and as shown in the attached drawing. (As advertised in November 28, and December 5, 2016 issues of The Roanoke Times). James Chisom seconded the motion. Ayes: Chisom, Foley, Johnson, Martin Absent: Jones 6. New Business A. Conveyance of Property Hold a public hearing to consider the sale of the property located at 8 West Main Street, Salem, Virginia, Tax Map # 122-6-8, consisting of .36 acres. (As advertised in the December 29, 2016 issue of the Salem Times Register.) Mr. Boggess noted as City Council is aware the City is now the owner of what we all refer to as the West Salem Body Shop. By statue, we are required to hold a public hearing before we can consider selling any publicly held real estate or real property. This is what Council is being asked to do this evening. The plan would be to hold the public hearing and in the mean time Mrs. Jordan and our procurement staff are working on a request for proposal to put out on the street for developers to give us some ideas as to what they would do to further the downtown plan, economic development, and our tax base in downtown. So we would ask developers and others if they have an idea of something they would partner with the city to do with the building or purchase the building from the city that would further those ideas. He noted that staff hopes to have the RFP out within two weeks and be reviewing the proposals within 30 days after that. Mayor Foley opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to come forward and speak on the issue. There was no response, and the public hearing was closed. Mayor Foley asked if Mr. Yost had any comments. Mr. Yost noted that the action would be for the City Manager to proceed to prepare a Request for Proposals and receive proposals on this particular parcel. James Chisom motioned to direct the City Manager to prepare a request for proposals, receive proposals, and to bring any such proposals back to City Council for action related to the sale of the property located at 8 West Main Street, Salem, Virginia, Tax Map # 122-6-8, consisting of .36 acres. (As advertised in the December 29, 2016 issue of the Salem Times Register). James Martin seconded the motion. Ayes: Chisom, Foley, Johnson, Martin Absent: Jones B. 231 Chestnut Street Consider approval of a Performance Agreement between 231 Chestnut Street, LLC, the Economic Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia and the City of Salem. Mr. Boggess noted that this is the performance agreement related to the redevelopment of the Chestnut Manor Apartments on Chestnut Street. The property was developed in the 1940s and has served this community very well until somewhat recently when the property has deteriorated to poor condition, and there has been some crime issues, including a shooting this past summer. Several developers have looked at the project to try to find a way to rehab it and bring it back to a better living opportunity for renters. In our performance agreement with 231 Chestnut Street, LLC, the city has reached performance terms to allow them to be able to go in and rehab this property with some incentives provided by the City. There are three parts to the agreement: one, is a grant based on the amount of money they invest in the property and ultimately, they need to invest at least 1.9 million dollars in the property after they purchase it in order to qualify for the full grant paid by the City. The second part of it is a five-year term where the City would rebate the new tax revenue generated from the improved value. So we take the baseline current value and once they spend 2 million on this building it will be assessed at the new value. In over a five-year period, we would rebate them the difference they would pay in real estate taxes between those two values. The final part of the incentive is the waiver of building permit fees, site plan fee, and other fees they would incur as a redeveloper for this property. From staff's perspective, including the Fire Department and Police Department, we are all very happy to see the potential this property has to be redeveloped, and we are very fortunate to have a good developer, an experienced group, to come in and rehab it from the concrete walls out. It will all be new in about a year from now. Mayor Foley thanked Mr. Boggess and asked if there were any questions for staff or for the representatives from 231 Chestnut Street, LLC. Mr. Martin noted it sounds like from the discussions that we have firm stage gates set up for the builder/developer to prove or document what improvements have been made before the release of our incentive dollars. Mr. Boggess noted that this is correct. He noted the performance agreement included has a budget estimate that shows approximately 2.2 million dollars of needed improvements in order to bring the apartments up to new quality. Further, the grant is broken into three parts which hits three different physical years for the city, but each opportunity where the developer can apply for a portion of the $350,000 grant is defined by an amount they have invested in the property at that point. So they would have to do that and we will see those receipts from the contractor working for the developer to show proof they have in fact invested these dollars in the project before we would consider making the payment. Mr. Martin asked about the the incentive package, if we have room in the budget to cover this. Mr. Boggess noted that Mrs. Jordan was able to secure $100,000 in the current physical year which has already been set aside and then we will be budgeting the remaining two payments in the new two physical years which again, we believe, we will have revenue growth and certainly can make room and change some things to make this work. But he thinks what we will see is this development will pay dividends throughout the community and ultimately we will see a rise in real estate taxes and others just because of this investment. Mrs. Johnson asked if they would be rental apartments, and Mr. Boggess noted that this was correct; mostly one-bedroom units and a few two-bedroom ones. Mr. Martin asked if it would be 30 units and it was noted that it would be 40 units. Mr. Martin further noted that we will have 40 units with new people and families living in an area which will add a great deal to the surrounding business, and Mr. Boggess noted certainly this would help the downtown area, too. Mr. Chisom noted he understood there would be new parking created in the rear which should alleviate the on-street parking, and Mr. Boggess noted that it should help with that. Further, they are planning to clean out the creek in back, and add playground equipment and additional parking. Mr. Chisom noted it sounds like this will make it more family friendly not only for the apartments but for the surrounding neighborhood. Mayor Foley noted the Economic Development Authority technically will issue the grants, and Mr. Boggess stated that this is correct. Once Council approves it tonight, then the EDA will hold a meeting to approve and the grants will actually be paid through the EDA. Mayor Foley thanked 231 Chestnut Street LLC and commended others that may come forward in the coming months and years to begin to redevelop many of the properties in the downtown area which have a lot of potential. He noted that he looks forward to seeing the final results. Jane Johnson motioned to approve the Performance Agreement between 231 Chestnut Street, LLC, the Economic Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia and the City of Salem. James Chisom seconded the motion. Ayes: Chisom, Foley, Johnson, Martin Absent: Jones C. Amendment to City Code Hold a public hearing and consider ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 106, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia. (As advertised in the December 22 and 29, issues of the Salem Times Register.) Recommend approval; see page 1 of Planning Commission minutes. STAFF REPORT Benjamin Tripp, City Planner, appeared before Council. There are two issues on your agenda tonight: #1 is a set of changes to the text of the zoning ordinance, and #2 is the proposed zoning map. As we were moving through this process we wanted to be transparent and to keep the public informed. Staff sent a letter to every property owner in the city notifying them that these issues would be considered, and directing them to the information online and to staff resources for questions. We also held an open house on December 8th to provide the opportunity for citizens to ask questions about their property. Of the 10,500 some parcels of land in the city, only around 214 are actually proposed to change, most of which are currently zoned Transitional Business District (TBD). The zoning for the vast majority of property owners will remain the same. The first item for consideration is a set of changes to the zoning ordinance. From time to time the ordinance needs to be updated to stay current, so staff added a few new uses which didn’t exist before, such as microdistillery and agritourism. These changes are mostly housekeeping. The most significant addition to the ordinance is the creation of the Community Business District (CBD) zoning. The Statement of Intent for CBD lays out its intention pretty well: “CBD has been created to allow a variety of commercial and service uses to coexist with residences in a transitional, mixed-use environment. CBD districts are typically transitional areas, often corridors, on the edges between commercial and residential zones.” So, the purpose of CBD is to provide a lighter commercial district than Highway Business District (HBD), but more intensive than Residential Business District (RB). The uses in CBD are similar to what was found in TBD, but with the addition of mixed-use, which can allow someone to live and operate a business in the same structure for example. How all this works on the ground will be controlled through the site plan review process, which addresses parking, landscaping, stormwater, and other issues. Since this has been an ongoing process, we have a couple of minor wording changes which Planning Commission included in their recommendation. He noted those relate to Section 106-306.5 Educational facilities, college/university in the Downtown Business District, Section 106-314.2 Mixed Use Structure in Use and Design Standards, and Section 106-404.17 Minimum parking required in Development Standards, and he further explained the changes in the wording. The second item for consideration are the changes to the official zoning map. Localities are given the authority to implement zoning under section 15.2-2280 of the Code of Virginia, and this item is considered under that authority. The proposed zoning would change approximately 214 properties, primarily to address TBD zoned properties that are not near the downtown. Most of those properties are along Colorado Street, College Avenue, and Fourth Street, with a few others in more far flung places such as Eddy Avenue, South Colorado Street, and near the Veterans Affairs Medical Center. There were two citizen requested changes to the original map that was presented and these were also included in the Planning Commission's recommendation. These are Tax Map 160-8-1 which is currently TBD, was proposed to be HBD but has been changed to CBD, and Tax Map 120-8-4, which is currently RMF, was proposed to be TBD, but will be staying RMF. Mayor Foley noted for the public's information this is not the first time that Council has heard this information as they have had several work sessions and joint work sessions with the Planning Commission prior to this meeting. Mr. Martin noted for properties where the zoning is changing maybe from TBD Transitional Business District to CBD Community Business District for existing properties with existing businesses, will they be able to continue to do the same type of business they are doing today. Would this be kind of like a grandfather situation? Mr. Tripp noted that this would be correct, but it was probably a better question for the Zoning Administrator, Mary Ellen Wines. But generally something that has been grandfathered would continue to operate as long as the use was not discontinued for the required period of time. However, when staff made the changes to the map, they looked at each property and tried to make an educated guess of how it was being used so we could avoid any issues of grandfathering. Usually if it was a commercial structure it was changed to CBD and if it was a residential structure then it became RB Residential Business, in other words they tried to put in the zoning where the use would be a by-right use. Mayor Foley opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak on the matter. K. C. Jones of 146 Bogey Lane appeared before the Council; he noted they have a piece of property located on King Street that is currently zoned Light Manufacturing. Should everything pass this evening and say in five years they elect to sell the property to someone who wants to use the property for light manufacturing, will the grandfather right cease when they sell or will it go with the property? Mayor Foley noted he thought he knew the answer but would prefer Mrs. Wines, Zoning Administrator, to respond. Mrs. Wines noted that Mr. Jones' property will remain Light Manufacturing zoning. So whenever they decide to sell in the future whatever use the new owners would like to do that is allowed by the LM zoning would be permitted. Mr. Jones asked about the new zoning designation, CBD, and asked if it would affect his property. Mrs. Wines noted that his property was not on the list of changes so any use in Light Manufacturing zoning would be allowed. Mr. Jones noted that he had received two letters, and one letter said it was going to change. Mrs. Wines stated that staff would take a look at this. Mayor Foley asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak related to this matter. There was no response, and the public hearing was closed. There was additional discussion regarding grandfather rights, etc. Mrs. Wines apologized and stated Mr. Jones' property was on the list of changes. His property is being changed to CBD Community Business District from LM Light Manufacturing. The current use would be grandfathered and could continue to be used that way even if the property is sold. The grandfather rights stay with the property unless it ceases to be used that way for two years or more. Then it would revert to the current zoning. Mayor Foley asked what the property is currently being used for, and Mrs. Wines noted it is a septic system business. Mayor Foley asked Mr. Jones if this was satisfactory, and Mr. Jones noted that it was okay with him. James Martin motioned to adopt the ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 106, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia. (As advertised in the December 22 and 29, issues of the Salem Times Register). Jane Johnson seconded the motion. Ayes: Chisom, Foley, Johnson, Martin Absent: Jones D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Hold a public hearing and consider ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 106, of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia pertaining to a new official Zoning Map dated December 2016 and Zoning District. (As advertised in the December 22 and 29, 2016 issues of the Salem Times Register.) Recommend approval of Alternative #2; See page 25 of Planning Commission minutes. STAFF REPORT Mr. Tripp noted that he would just clarify the item for the audience's benefit. This item is the actual adoption of the zoning map which changes the zoning. Mayor Foley noted the previous item was changing the language in the code and this is the zoning map which goes along with what was just adopted. He noted that this is a public hearing if anyone would like to speak on this item. There was no response, and the public hearing was closed. James Chisom motioned to adopt the ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 106, of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia pertaining to a new official Zoning Map dated December 2016 (Alternative #2). (As advertised in the December 22 and 29, 2016 issues of the Salem Times Register). James Martin seconded the motion. Ayes: Chisom, Foley, Johnson, Martin Absent: Jones E. Marketplace Fairness Act Consider adoption of Resolution 1308 in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act. Mrs. Johnson noted that this came before the U. S. Senate in 2011. This is not creating a new tax but basically what is happening to retailers is that there seems to be an unfair or unlevel playing field between internet retailers that do not have to collect sales tax and remit it to the states and localities and those retailers like herself who own bricks and mortar businesses who do collect sales tax and remit it to the state and the localities. The bill passed in the Senate but by the time it got to the House it was stalled. She believes that it was rewritten and reintroduced in 2015; but there has not been any action taken on it. Our friends in Roanoke City contacted her and said that they were going to submit a resolution to our legislators to bring the item back in the next session of the General Assembly to revisit it and hopefully pass it. Big internet retail companies like Amazon have already started to collect sales tax and remit it to the states. There is certainly no desire on any of their parts to make it a hardship for smaller businesses to do this as there are plenty of software packages to make it relatively easy. Again, she noted this is not a new tax but taxes that our states and localities are not getting and they really need them do to the work we need to do. She stated that she is in full favor of passing this resolution. Mayor Foley noted that not only are the localities not getting their due revenue, but it is costing the bricks and mortar businesses when the internet businesses are not charging the sales tax. Mrs. Johnson noted that she has a lot of requests to waive sales tax. She is still going to collect and pay it, but it does make an impact on their businesses. She noted that there are a lot of smaller businesses that have decided they do not want to try to compete any more. It is tough enough without this unfair field and hopefully it will make a difference. Jane Johnson motioned to adopt Resolution 1308 in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act. James Martin seconded the motion. Ayes: Chisom, Foley, Johnson, Martin Absent: Jones F. Boards and Commissions Consider appointments to various boards and commissions. Mayor Foley noted that a list of candidates and openings that are available was in the meeting packet. There was a discussion held regarding the appointment of Reid Garst to the Planning Commission. Mayor Foley asked if Council members were comfortable on voting on this appointment, and it was noted that Council was ready to vote on this item. Mr. Yost noted the appointment of Mr. Prosser for the Board of Equalization is actually a recommendation to the Circuit Court Judges and he will take care of this. Jane Johnson motioned Jane Johnson motioned to reappoint John R. Hildebrand to the Board of Appeals for a five-year term (current term ended January 1, 2017); to reappoint David A. Prosser to the Board of Equalization of Real Estate Assessment for a three-year term (current term expired on November 30, 2016); to reappoint William D. Jones with Byron R. Foley as alternate, James E. Taliaferro, II, with Rosemarie Jordan as alternate, and Eric A. Atkins with April M. Staton as alternate with terms ending as the members are replaced (current terms expired December 31, 2016); and additionally, to appoint Reid Garst to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Jimmy W. Robertson effective February 1, 2017. James Martin seconded the motion. Ayes: Chisom, Foley, Johnson, Martin Absent: Jones 7. Closed Session 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:02.