Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/11/2013 - City Council - Minutes - RegularUNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 11, 2013 A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the City Council’s Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, on March 11, 2013, at 6:30 p.m., there being present all the members of said Council, to wit: Byron Randolph Foley, John C. Givens, Jane W. Johnson, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst; with Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager; James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Diane Hyatt, Interim Director of Finance; and Krystal M. Coleman, Deputy Clerk of Council; and the following business was transacted: Mayor Foley reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the Council to hold a work session; and WHEREAS, a presentation was given by Jake Gilmer, Partnership for a Libable Roanoke plan; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the Regional Storm water Committee appointment; and WHEREAS, it was noted that an Open House at South Salem Elementary School will be held on March 24, 2013, from 2 to 4 p.m.; and WHEREAS, it was noted that a business breakfast plans to be held in May; and WHEREAS, there were no other topics for discussion. There being no further business to come before the Council, the work session was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Mayor Clerk of Council UNAPPROVED MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING March 11, 2013 A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, on March 11, 2013, at 7:30 p.m., there being present all the members of said Council, to wit: Byron Randolph Foley, John C. Givens, Jane W. Johnson, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst; with Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager; James E. Taliaferro, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Economic Development; William L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant City Engineer; Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney; Diane Hyatt, Interim Director of Finance; and Mike Stevens, Communications Director; and the following business was transacted: The February 25, 2013, work session and regular meeting minutes were approved as written. Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 98-94 of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, and consider the issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for the next twelve (12) months, beginning April 1, 2013; date for public hearing set at the February 25, 2013, meeting; notice of such hearing was published in the March 4, 2013, issue of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, it was noted that four companies submitted applications: Salem Taxi, Inc., to operate five (5) vehicles; Delivery Boys, Inc., to operate two (2) vehicles; B. Early Cab Service, LLC, to operate nine (9) vehicles; and Yellow Cab Services of Roanoke, Inc., to operate forty (40) vehicles; and WHEREAS, Dave Robbins, 620 High Street, appeared before the Council and relayed an issue he had regarding Salem Taxi, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned why certificates of public convenience and necessity come before Council each year when it seems more of a business license issue; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that it is done primarily for safety reasons, which is why there is a report from the Chief of Police; the vehicles are inspected and examined to make sure the business is properly insured, and appropriate people drive the vehicles; and ITEM 1 CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (TAXICABS) ISSUED FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS BEGINNING APRIL 1, 2013 2 WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if this has to come before Council each year or if the Chief of Police can sign off on the documents; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that state code gives Council the authority to approve the certificates of convenience and necessity, and by ordinance, Council has taken the authority to issue the certificates; he stated that he could determine if this is something that Council would need to do each year if Council so desired; and WHEREAS, no person(s) appeared related to the request; ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, AND DULY CARRIED, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity were hereby issued for the next twelve (12) months beginning April 1, 2012, to Salem Taxi, Inc. to operate five (5) vehicles; Delivery Boys, Inc., to operate two (2) vehicles; B. Early Cab Service, LLC, to operate nine (9) vehicles; and Yellow Cab Services of Roanoke, Inc., to operate forty (40) – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the sale of a 5.0117 acre tract located at 1101 Texas Street, being a portion of Tax Map 148-1-2; notice of such hearing was published in the March 4, 2013, issue of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that the City has received a proposal to purchase five (5) acres on the former Lutheran Home property ; the proposal is from Capital Development Group and Elizabeth Medical Park; the proposal is for $500,000 to develop a medical park and an office park; the uses proposed are medical offices type uses, not hospital type uses; in addition, general offices (i.e. attorneys, architects, accountants, engineers, and malpractice insurance agents, as well as computer software/information systems type offices); at least one building will be 17,600 square feet or greater and any additional building would bring the total of the two to at least 35,200 square feet; any construction would be brick with a gray slate hip-roof, no buildings will be greater than three and one half stories, air conditioning units would be placed on the roof or on the north side of the buildings away from Texas Street, any fencing would be black wrought iron, and all utilities would be placed underground; and ITEM 2 PUBLIC HEARING FOR SALE OF 5.0117 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT 1101 TEXAS STREET (P/O TAX MAP #148-1-2) TO CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., AND ELIZABETH MEDICAL PARK, LLC, FOR A PRICE OF $500,000 3 WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that the site plan would not be presented until a later date; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that if the development and sale were approved by Council, the developer would then begin plans to develop the site; a developer typically does not invest that much money into a site plan if it is unknown if they can develop the site; and WHEREAS, Frank Munley, 425 Roanoke Boulevard appeared before the Council; and WHEREAS, Mr. Munley submitted the following comments to be placed in the minutes: COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL Frank Munley 11 March 2013 Salem is a great place to live, and I wouldn’t be here if that weren’t true. Despite the tough economic times the nation is going through, we have much to be thankful for. While cities such as Scranton, Harrisburg, Detroit, San Bernardino, and many others are experiencing great distress, Salem is relatively healthy, thanks in part to the efforts of the city government. Special thanks go to the (economic) Development and Planning Department for its efforts, which help keep the city financially sound and provide jobs for area residents. Development efforts now involve the proposed sale of city land, specifically the sale of a 5-acre plot on the Elizabeth Campus. The proposed sale would be to a Florida realty company and a local health services company that appears to be headquartered on residentially-zoned Tennessee St. But to paraphrase Robert Frost’s famous poem, “You have promises to keep.” The promises I refer to are those made 13 and more years ago by the city to the many citizens concerned about the future of the Elizabeth Campus. A full 20 acres were promised to be set aside for public use. But since then, about 21 of the 35 commercially zoned acres have been sold off. That’s bad enough, and an additional 5 acre sale you are considering tonight would further compound the breach of promise. A review of the current situation on the campus should help explain my concern about this proposed sale. The Elizabeth Campus is not just another piece of city property to be chopped up and sold. Given its history and its important location right between Roanoke College’s beautiful campus and our civic facilities, consideration of its use has been and continues to be of prime concern. In my opinion, the “Jewel” in the Elizabeth Campus Crown has always been that 15 or so acres bounded by Idaho St., Texas St., Kime Lane, and on the East by Virginia Orthopedics. The orthopedic building is nicely designed with 4 parking spots properly sited. But right in the heart of the Jewel we have the large flat-roofed ACE insurance building with an obnoxious “in your face” parking lot. This is the kind of design blunder that concerns me when you talk about selling off another 5 acres. It’s bad enough that this very special area was developed, but the ACE parking lot is about as inappropriately placed as it could possibly be. And it isn’t necessary. The ACE building could have been built where the parking lot is, with the bulk of the parking behind the building and a smaller lot for visiting business associates and prospects in front. Worse, the sale under consideration appears to be going to realty operators who will then sell the development to someone else, leaving the ultimate use of the property murky. This is reason enough to step back from the sale. I hope you will seriously reflect on how the ACE parking lot blunder could have been avoided, and consider how to avoid this kind of blunder in the future. Well, the future is nigh, and proper consideration requires a postponement of any decision on this proposed sale. Please consider selling some other piece of city property, not this one. And include in your considerations the attractiveness of any beautiful public facility to businesses willing to locate here, an all-too-often- neglected consideration. Whatever sale is made, please do not repeat the mistakes of the recent past. WHEREAS, Nora Smith, 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the Council and stated that the current Council is different from back at the time the lawsuit was filed against the City; she stated that her main concern with the development is parking; is there enough room for parking for the proposed use of the property; she stated that she agrees with Mr. Munley’s sentiments; another building with the parking in front of the building like the ACE Insurance building should not happen again; she requested to see a sketch of the proposed development; she also asked for due consideration to place the parking behind the buildings; and WHEREAS, William “Eddie” Mullins, 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the Council and stated that he was not notified of the public hearing and he has the only property that is still next to the Elizabeth Campus; he stated that the residents have had so many broken promises from Council —the walking trail, the water tank, the Montessori school that was built next to his property; he feels that Council should have a site plan before Council votes to sell the property; he stated that the playground on the Montessori school was supposed to be on the other end of the development, but it was placed next to his house; he gets trash in his yard from the school and hears children screaming during the day; and 5 WHEREAS, Stella Reinhard, 213 North Broad Street, appeared before the Council and stated that she was one of the people who attended the meetings back in 1998 or thereabouts; she stated that her family moved to Salem in 1994 and she is an artist/designer who became interested in the 52 acres of property surrounding the YMCA; she stated that she feels more information is needed about the developer and the proposed development of the property; she is concerned about the 1998 compromise agreement that as she recalls went through the Planning Commission and Council, and shows walking trails and open space where the property is to be sold; she stated that the walking trails are still a possibility through the different developments, but some of the areas are wetlands in the corners; one of the promises made was that the green space would be along Texas and Idaho; she stated that there is a lot of property in Salem that needs to be redeveloped instead of developing open space; she feels the decision to sell the property needs to be delayed and the compromise agreement from 1998 needs to be honored; she understands the current economy and that times are tight, but asked that Council consider letting the residents know what they are going to get out of it before any more property is sold; and WHEREAS, Bill Modica, 1546 Creek Lane, appeared before the Council and stated that he does not believe that selling off another piece of the former Elizabeth Campus site at this time is justified; as has been mentioned, the commercial development of this property was never a necessity; Salem has many underused sites, vacant sites, and alternative locations for new office buildings and for other retail and industrial uses; this land was set aside by Council for recreational use and promised to the citizens for walking trails and open green space; the promises ought to be kept by the current council members; furthermore, as a real estate broker, who is a former chairman of the Commercial Multiple Listing Association for the Roanoke Valley, it is not the best time to engage in speculative sales of highly desirable property to some speculator who wants to hold the land and develop it later when the price of real estate rises; there does not need to be a middle-man straw buyer who will turn around and resell the land to someone else; these transfers will then be outside of citizen visibility and comment; it is better for Council, as stewards, to sell only to the end users that have been fully vetted and have met rigorous standards, and even then only with proper controls that are in place—proffers and other conditions—that will assure only the best result for this land; the proposed sale does not come close to those standards; no one knows the intentions of the proposed buyer—what is to be built on the property or when it is to be built; he questioned why there is a rush to approve the sale of the property at this time; he asked Council to wait until it knows more about the real needs and have considered other locations that are already more fitted with infrastructure 6 improvements that have access and are in areas that need mixed use development; he stated that too much land in Salem is already sitting vacant so why turn the last piece of a former forested campus space into more parking lots and buildings; he urged Council to cancel the sale or at least postpone the sale until there is really a need as the site is like a nest egg or a rainy day fund and should be saved until there is an emergency or a dire situation; he asked Council to make plans to give the citizens of Salem a better place for outdoor recreation and outdoor activities; one not limited to narrow walkways or a fish pond; this property is Salem’s heritage and should not be lost to some developer who can make a quick profit at the citizens’ expense when real estate values bounce back; there is no justifiable reason to approve the sale at this time, so don’t; and WHEREAS, Cynthia Munley, 425 Roanoke Boulevard, appeared before Council and commented that Ms. Smith stated that there has been a complete turn over on Council, but Vice Mayor Givens was on Council at the time the rezoning took place; she stated that she loves the greenways in Salem; she utilizes the greenways and has met people coming from Roanoke who say they drive especially to the Salem greenway; she feels that is an indication of how valuable green space is because there is a multiplier effect to using Salem’s green spaces to also enhance business coming into town; she noted that she sent Council a copy of the leaflet she put together; she urged Council to stop selling commercial property on the Elizabeth Campus because promises were made by Alex Brown and Howard Packett to set aside either 20 acres or half the space as a compromise; she noted that is important in keeping the trust with citizens; she stated that she asked the Assistant City Manager for an exact amount of acreage left on the property in order to compare to the amount promised; she was told that 21 acres has been sold, but she is not sure how much land is still available to be sold; she stated that she is not against development and discussed East Main Street and how it’s a prime location for redevelopment; she also urged Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan and designate the East Main Street corridor as Downtown Business District (DBD) so that it can be redeveloped properly instead of having to try to entice potential businesses to bring the buildings up close to the sidewalk when they are not required to do so under current zoning; she feels if high standards are used to redevelop East Main Street in the beginning, it will avoid potential problems; she urged Council to direct commercial developers to East Main Street and Fourth Street in order to fill the vacant areas in those locations instead of developing green space that was promised to the citizens for recreational use; she stated that what was done on Elizabeth Campus with the elevated parking lot along Idaho fronting an oversized building, with a flat roof is a design failure; there are other design failures on some of Salem’s best open spaces (i.e. big boxes up to the road along the formally gentile, beautiful tree-lined Apperson Drive); Council 7 thought it did a model job on Apperson Drive and thought it covered its design basis on the Elizabeth Campus by just requiring everything be built in brick, but city planning is a lot more complicated than that; to get a first class planned city, you need the help of professional planners and architects, and you need to partner with citizens who, looking back, have tried to help the city make better decisions on every issue--block zoning on the Boulevard, getting rid of the barbed wire 18-wheeler cage at the City’s historic East Main Street entrance, saving the Elizabeth Campus and large open space along Apperson Drive, and preventing the division of the children’s playing field at Oakey Field; citizens have been requesting repeatedly since 1998, when Salem had many more possibilities to use its limited open space, to use professional planners to work with the city to attract high quality businesses that appreciate well-planned cities and generous open space; it’s more complicated than the city just being able to sell off land because it needs money; cities always need money, but if cities do things right, the money will come; she stated that her concern is not to prevent business opportunities for Salem, but as a stakeholder, a green space activist and tax payer, she wants to see Salem use the smartest planning ideas to save the quality of life, put the businesses where they rightfully belong (along Fourth Street, and East Main Street), and protect the current businesses by not leaving empty buildings along the East Main Street and Fourth Street corridors; her worst concern is that Council will break the city’s promises that were made after a long-fought battle; her second concern is that Council will actually sell the property, it will be built on and will become part of the over-built commercial real estate glut; she asked Council to nix the sale of the property and keep the citizens’ trust and fulfill promises made; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked the Clerk of Council to discuss the timeframe for what happens after the sale, if the sale is approved; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that the proposed purchaser is proposing a purchase agreement that has an option for six months to do feasibility studies on the site, as well as the market; in the event that the development does not work out, they would like one-half of the option payments to be repaid to them; the option payments are $2,000 monthly payments up to six months; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned what would happen after the six month period; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that the developer would either execute a contract to purchase the property, or the developer would release the option to purchase the property; and 8 WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that if the property is purchased, historically Council has placed a provision in the contract that the developer has 24 months to submit and get approval of a site plan, building permits, and have broken ground on the development; if that has not been done within the 24 - month period, Council retains an option to repurchase the property within a certain period of time after the 24 months has elapsed where Council would simply pay back the original purchase price; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the option payments, repurchase option, timeframe for development, etc.; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst noted that it is not unprecedented for the city to repurchase property previously sold, as the city repurchased the property from Patrick Wilkinson to maintain the integrity of the commercial park and to have control over the development of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that the City did repurchase one parcel sold because the owner was not able to meet the requirements of building within the timeframe that had been agreed upon; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley confirmed that the ingress/egress to the property would be via the existing road; there would not be a new road onto Texas Street; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that the ingress/egress would be through the Waldrop Development—Knotbreak Road; Texas Street was discussed, but it would be better to have all the ingress/egress from one point within the development; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst addressed the concerns about the walking trails; there has been on-going conversations between Roanoke College and the potential buyer about opportunities to make the trails a reality; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that there are some partnership opportunities with Roanoke College and the private sector to possibly build the walking trails; staff has also discussed ways to build the trails cost effectively; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if parking on the proposed development had been discussed; and 9 WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that the developer has discussed in their initial studies about building one-story buildings with the parking surrounding the buildings so that there would not be one large parking lot; potentially it would be one row of parking surrounding the buildings; he clarified that by one row, it means one isle—parking, an isle, and then parking; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked that the proffers or conditions of the proposed development be listed for the record; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that it has been discussed that all buildings and structures on the premises will be in substantial compliance with the conceptual area plan that was presented on July 5, 2012; the color of the roof on any building or structure shall be gray slate and shall be a hip roof; no corrugated metal may be utilized in any roofing materials; all buildings or structures shall be no greater than three and one-half stories in height; the exterior air conditioning units on the premises shall be located on the roof or on the north side of any structure or building, and screened and in an enclosure, and landscaping shall be placed around such units; all fencing shall be black, wrought-iron type; all electric utilities shall be buried; and then the lengthy conditions pertaining to the exact uses, which is proposed to be as much as possible medical offices and clinics, as well as attorneys, architects, accounting, engineering, medical malpractice, etc.; the same uses previously stated by the Clerk of Council; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the hearing; ON A MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the sale of a 5.0117 acre tract located at 1101 Texas Street, being a portion of Tax Map 148 -1-2 to Capital Development Group, Inc. and Elizabeth Medical Park, LLC, for a price of $500,000 subject to an appropriate contract being negotiated was hereby approved – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council consider setting bond for erosion and sediment control for the Family Dollar project; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens, Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance Committee, reported that the Committee reviewed the estimate for erosion and sediment control for the Family Dollar project and recommends setting bond in ITEM 3 BOND SET FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR FAMILY DOLLAR PROJECT 10 the amount of $29,590 with a time limit of twelve (12) months for completion; and ON A MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, bond for erosion and sediment control for the Family Dollar project was hereby set at $29,590 with a time limit of twelve (12) months for completion – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council consider an ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 82, Article I, Section 82-5(d) pertaining to personal property tax and motor vehicle decals and Chapter 86, Article IX, Sections 86 -416 through 86-419 and 86-421 through 86-432 pertaining to License Tax for Motor Vehicles and Carriers; and WHEREAS, the City Manager referred to the City Attorney and the Interim Director of Finance for further review; he noted that the proposed ordinance amendment will eliminate the vehicle decals this year in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the state code changed in 2006 that gave localities the option to do away with the decal on the windshield; he stated that almost all localities have done away with vehicle decals; Roanoke City and Roanoke County made the change a number of years ago to eliminate the vehicle decals; he stated that the proposed amendments do not change what a person would pay; the decal fee would now be a vehicle license fee; some provisions were clarified and updated to conform with actual practice; he noted that the state code allows for certain optional persons and vehicles to be exempt from the motor vehicle fee, it also has certain vehicles that are mandatory to be exempt from the fee; he reiterated that the only real change before Council is that there will no longer be a decal; and WHEREAS, the Interim Director of Finance noted that there may be a slight revision between the first and second reading of the ordinance to make sure the software can accommodate the changes; the area that may be revised is the transfer during the year, and if someone moves into the city during the year; the revision would take place in order to avoid $8,000 in software changes; she stated that the proposed amendments parallel what has been done in Roanoke County; and ITEM 4 ORDINANCE PASSED AMENDING CHAPTER 82, ARTICLE I, SECTION 82-5(D) PERTAINING TO PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX AND MOTOR VEHICLE DECALS AND CHAPTER 86, ARTICLE IX, SECTIONS 86-416 THROUGH 86-419 AND 86-421 THROUGH 86-432 PERTAINING TO LICENSE TAX FOR MOTOR VEHICLES AND CARRIERS 11 WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that Roanoke City and Roanoke County’s ordinance were extensively looked at, and the ordinances are very similar; and ON A MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance amending Chapter 82, Article I, Section 82-5(d) pertaining to personal property tax and motor vehicle decals and Chapter 86, Article IX, Sections 86 -416 through 86-419 and 86- 421 through 86-432 pertaining to License Tax for Motor Vehicles and Carriers was hereby passed on first reading – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. There being no further business to come before the Council, the same on motion adjourned at 8:25 p.m.