Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/29/2023 - Planning Commission - Minutes - SpecialSpecial Meeting of the Salem Planning Commission in joint session with Salem City Council MINUTES Friday, September 29, 2023, 8:30 AM Salem Police Department, 1st Floor Conference Room, 36 E. Calhoun St: JOINT SESSION 1. Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the 1st Floor Conference Room of the Salem Police Department, 36 East Calhoun Street, Salem, Virginia, at 8:30 a.m. on September 29, 2023; there being the members of said Commission, to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid Garst, Neil L. Conner, and Jackson Beamer; together with Salem City Council, James E. Taliaferro, II, City Manager and Executive Secretary, H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council, Charles Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development, Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Crystal L. Williams, Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner I; and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Mayor Turk and Chair Daulton called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and reported that this date, place and time had been set for the Commission to hold a work session. 2. New Business A. Presentation of Proposed Code Changes Ms. Wines presented a PowerPoint presentation that contained the following topics: 1. Chapter 40, Hotels and similar establishments: Ms. Wines stated that as discussed in a previous work session, creating a city code chapter that is specifically dedicated to the regulation of hotels, motels, and similar establishments has become more prevalent in the last couple of years due to ongoing issues with vagrancy and crime. Over the course of the past several years, the delineation between transient occupancy and residential living has become almost non-existent. In an effort to reinstall the separation between those two concepts, the Community Development Department has worked closely with the Police Department and the Commonwealth's Attorney Office to create a new chapter for the City Code. These new guidelines will introduce measures that require hotels within the City of Salem to do things like provide a guest register to City Officials upon request and allow a maximum stay of twenty-nine (29) consecutive nights (unless a guest falls into one of the listed exceptions), and a discussion was held. 2. Chapter 66, Signs: Ms. Wines stated that Signs perform an important function in identifying and promoting properties, businesses, services, residences, events, and other matters of interest to the public; however, signs also obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. As a result, it is incredibly important to ensure that signs are properly managed, maintained, and even improved (when necessary) - especially those which do not meet current standards and those that advertise businesses no longer in operation. The following guidelines are mechanisms by which nonconforming signs and signs no longer advertising a bona fide business will be regulated moving forward. Regarding nonconforming signs: The City shall give the owner twelve (12) months to utilize the sign, make it conform with the requirements of this chapter, or remove the sign and all parts of the sign structure. During this time, no other sign permits will be issued for the parcel on which the nonconforming sign is located. Failure to meet the required 10’ setback will not be enforced as a nonconforming sign due to historic right of way expansion. For signs no longer advertising an existing bona fide business: A sign no longer advertising an existing business shall have the sign face replaced with a white blank face a maximum of sixty (60) days after the closing or moving of the business, and a discussion was held. 3. Chapter 74, Streets, and 106, Zoning, Addressing properties: Ms. Wines explained that historically in the City of Salem, a property could be addressed to any street frontage available to that particular parcel regardless of access or to which street the primary structure was oriented. For example, corner lots or lots with two street frontages could "choose" which street to be addressed. This, in turn, can affect the zoning setback requirements for front yards, side yards, and rear yards. Moving forward, this proposed code change verifies that all buildings shall be addressed according to the street to which the lot (and corresponding primary structure) faces. This is further defined in the zoning ordinance by Building, front which is defined as that portion of a building facing the street of address. The goal of this change is to ensure the front door shall be provided with orientation to the street on which it is addressed. She further explained that updating section 74-103 of the city code to match the corresponding state code would be included, and a discussion was held. 4. Chapter 94, Nuisances: Ms. Wines stated that since the introduction of trees into the nuisance ordinance in June of 2021, there have been numerous complaints regarding trees, their limbs, and their potential to possibly impact another property. From the inception of the nuisance ordinance, the incorporation of trees was ultimately intended to assist property owners when a danger to life and property was either probable or had already occurred due to the falling of trees and/or branches. She further explained that throughout the implementation of the nuisance ordinance, the code enforcement team has learned and concluded that once the damage has occurred, it is simply a private property issue that should be handled between property owners. As a result, the phrase "have fallen" should be removed from the nuisance ordinance. Furthermore, in addition to the removal of damage which has already occurred, it is proposed that the term "imminent" be added to the “trees or parts thereof in danger of falling” phrase to mitigate the flooding of calls received for what are actually benign organisms. Certainly, an act of God can render any tree a significant danger, but these changes are crafted in a way which establishes a credible threat to life/property under normal circumstances must be present for the City to get involved, and a discussion was held. 5. Chapter 106, Zoning a. Allowed Uses i. Ms. Wines stated that administrative services is defined as governmental offices providing administrative, clerical or public contact services that deal directly with the citizen. Typical uses include federal, state, county, and city offices. She further explained that currently, administrative services are not allowed by right in any zoning district. As it is appropriate to have such offices in certain districts, it is proposed to add the use by right in the following districts: RB – Residential Business District, HBD – Highway Business District, LM – Light Manufacturing District ii. Ms. Wines explained that BCD, Business Commerce District was designed as a flexible zoning district to include commercial and industrial uses. Development standards would be established during the rezoning process. However, several parcels have been rezoned to BCD without the establishment of site development regulations. The included map delineated multiple locations within the city. She further explained that it is appropriate that retail and restaurant be added, and development regulations be the same as HBD if not already established, and a discussion was held. b. Short-term rentals Ms. Wines detailed that for the last two years, legislation was introduced to, but not passed by, the Virginia General Assembly which would authorize the state to regulate short term rentals in localities that had not already adopted corresponding regulations. Many leaders expect that the bill will be re-introduced and passed at some point in the near future. At this point, it is proposed to install the regulations for short term rentals (along with the use and design standards) without actually permitting the use in any zoning district. This will shield the City of Salem from being forced to adopt the state's standards, while also providing the flexibility to permit short term rentals if it is deemed appropriate at some point in the future. She continued by detailing the specific regulations that could be considered, and a discussion was held. c. Parking Ms. Wines explained that over the last several years it has been discussed to revise the parking requirements. As the comprehensive plan revision moves forward and subsequently the zoning ordinance update will follow then there will be time to test the effectiveness of these changes. She further explained that removing a section of the code that was added in the wrong location and adding a graphic to code would be included in these changes. She continued by stating that changes to the criteria for determining required parking spaces is suggested in an effort to reduce the minimum required parking and introduce maximum allowed parking. The changes would be as follows: change the basis from gross square feet to net square feet. Net square fee is 75% of the gross floor area. Where the number of parking spaces is based on the square footage of the building this will reduce the minimum requirements by 25%. Maximum allowed parking shall be 140% of the minimum. There will be allowances added for reductions regarding alternative transportation modes and green infrastructure, and a discussion was held. d. Storage Containers Ms. Wines stated that the Planning and Zoning Division was directed at a previous work session to count the number of storage containers being utilized in the city. As the counting began it became very evident very quickly that the numbers would be in the thousands. The containers are a very economical way for businesses to store merchandise and materials so instead of recommending to not allow their use, staff recommends the following: i. Containers on residential property must be temporary, require a permit, and cannot be any longer than 20; in length. ii. Commercial and industrial property may use containers on a permanent basis as long as they are in suitable condition, do not take up existing parking spaces, are placed in the rear of property and shielded from public view, and cannot be seen from the public way of the following streets, screening is not allowed: a. Main Street b. Wildwood Road c. 4th Street d. Thompson Memorial Drive e. College Avenue f. Electric Road g. Texas Street h. Roanoke Boulevard i. Apperson Drive j. South Colorado Street And a discussion was held. 6. Further Discussion Council and the Planning Commission highlighted the need to engage small business for feedback on any issues and feedback on such business types being established and operating in the City. Both bodies agreed that recurring joint meetings would be appropriate every six months. 3. Adjournment Mayor Turk inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none, adjourned the joint session at 10:05 a.m.