HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/2023 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularPlanning Commission Meeting
MINUTES Wednesday, November 15, 2023, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street:
WORK SESSION
1. Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in
Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at
6:00 p.m. on November 15, 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 Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator;
Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development; Maxwell S. Dillon,
Planner; and Christopher Dadak, City Attorney; and the following business was transacted:
Chair Daulton called the meeting to order at 5:58 p.m. and reported that this date, place and
time had been set for the Commission to hold a work session.
2. New Business
A. Discussion of items on the November agenda 1. 800-802 Maryland 2. Sign code changes 3. Zoning ordinance changes
A discussion was held regarding the item on the November agenda.
B. Introduction of items on the December agenda 1. 68 St. John Road Rezoning HBD to HM 2. 2105-2121 Apperson Drive BCD to HBD
Items for the December agenda were introduced, and a discussion was held.
3. Adjournment Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none,
adjourned the work session at 6:53 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was
held after due and proper notice in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad
Street, Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on November 15, 2023. Notice of such hearing
was published in the November 2 and 9, 2023, issues of the "Salem Times Register," a
newspaper published and having general circulation in the City of Salem. All adjacent
property owners were notified via the U. S. Postal Service.
The Commission, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with H. Robert Light,
interim City Manager; Christopher Dadak on behalf of Jim Guynn, City Attorney; Mary
Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell S. Dillon, City Planner; and
Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development, and the following
business was transacted:
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Consent Agenda
A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the October 11, 2023, work session
and regular meeting.
Jackson Beamer motioned Consider acceptance of the minutes from the September 13,
2023, work session and regular meeting and the September 29, 2023, joint work
session with City Council. Neil Conner seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King
3. New Business
A. Special Exception Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of GKM Properties, LLC, property
owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a two-family
dwelling on the property located at 800-802 Maryland Avenue (Tax Map # 147 – 2 - 1).
Staff noted the following: The subject property (800-802 Maryland Avenue, Tax Map #
147-2-1) consists of a 0.226-acre tract which possesses the RSF Residential Single-
Family designation. 800-802 Maryland Avenue was originally built as an up/down
duplex (two family dwelling) in 1966; however, in 2013 a building permit was issued to
demo the lower unit due to a sewer back up. The unit sat vacant, and the property sold
in 2015. The owner at that time discussed putting the lower unit back; however, it was
never completed. The property then sold in 2023 and the current owner wishes to
reestablish the lower unit. The zoning ordinance requires that two family dwellings
receive a Special Exception Permit in order to be constructed in the RSF Residential
Single-Family District.
On October 26, 2023, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance for the
minimum lot frontage and width in order for the lot to meet the minimum
requirements of the RSF Residential Single-Family District. As a result, the property
now satisfies those standards.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential, consistent with the
proposed utilization of the property should the Special Exception Permit be granted.
Don Hadden, Balzer & Associates, agent for GKM Properties, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the request is to reinitiate the property as a duplex. The
property sat vacant for over two years; therefore, it lost its "grandfathered" status. The property was built in 1966 as a duplex, but had some unfortunate circumstances happen that ruined the bottom unit. The current owners are local and are invested in the property and the community. Some landscaping and cleaning up of the exterior of the property has already started. Currently the house fronts facing Maryland Avenue and has access from Pine Street to both units, and street parking is also available.
Member Garst questioned what year the property was last occupied as multi-family.
Mr. Hadden stated that it was in 2015 and noted that the top unit is the only one that had
been in use until the property became vacant.
Vice Chair King questioned what measurers had been taken to correct the sewer issue.
Greg Matthews, property owner, 5364 Paragren Crest Circle, Roanoke, appeared before the
Commission and stated that they currently have contractors evaluating the property. He
plans to update the unit, but the project has been on hold until the outcome of the Special
Exception Permit request is known.
Member Conner questioned the projected rent of the units.
Mr. Matthews stated that MKB Realtors would manage the property and handle the
vetting of the renters. The projected rent would be just under $1,500 a month for each
unit. A landscaping company would mow the grass.
A discussion was held regarding the sewer issues of the property, landscaping,
upgrades, etc.
It was again noted that the structure was originally built as a duplex and was also noted
that the Special Exception Permit can be revoked.
Mark Jones, 808 Maryland Avenue, appeared before the Commission, and stated that he
lives the closest to the residence and will be the most affected by the decision. He and his
wife have lived there for almost 35 years and have raised a family in their home. He
further stated that there have been some bad tenants over the years, and he is concerned
about future tenants.
Member Conner questioned who owned the property during that time.
Mr. Jones stated that Luke Waldrop owned the property. He stated that there have been
some good tenants, but mostly bad tenants over the years. He noted that his sewer goes
out the rear of his property and assumes it goes out the rear of the property in question as
well.
A discussion was held regarding previous tenants, previous owners, the request is
revocable, etc.
Vicki Jones, 808 Maryland Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that
their master bedroom backs up to the right to the bottom unit of the subject property. She
also noted the issues and struggles with the property over the years.
Marie Tourville, 812 Maryland Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that
she has a disabled daughter that stays home alone during the day, and she is concerned
about the potential nature of the tenants.
It was noted that only one person came into the office to ask about the request and did not
address any concerns. Just inquired about the request.
Mr. Matthews reappeared before the Commission and discussed the applicant
screening process done by MKB Realty.
Mr. Dadak noted that it is inappropriate for Planning Commission to assume illegal
actions by the applicant.
No other person(s) appeared related to the request.
Neil Conner motioned approve the request of GKM Properties, LLC, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a two-family dwelling on the property
located at 800-802 Maryland Avenue (Tax Map # 147 – 2 - 1). Denise King seconded the
motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King
B. Amendment to the City Code - Chapter 66 Signs Hold public hearing to consider amending Chapter 66, Article I, In General,
Section 66-7, Nonconforming signs and 66-9, Removal of signs no longer
advertising existing bona fide business, of the CODE OF THE CITY OF
SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to signs.
Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator, appeared before the Commission and stated that
signs perform an important function in identifying and promoting properties, businesses,
services, residence, events, and other matters of interest to the public. However, signs can
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 the current standards and those that advertise businesses
that are no longer in operation. The following guidelines are mechanisms by which non-
conforming signs and signs no longer advertising a bona fide business will be regulated
moving forward.
For non-conforming signs, the City shall give the owner twelve (12) months to utilize the
sign, to make it conform to the current regulations of this chapter, or to remove the sign and
all parts of the sign structure. By giving them the additional twelve months, no other sign
permits can be pulled for the property. Failure to meet the required ten-foot setback will not
be enforced as a non-conforming violation due to the historic right-of-way expansion over
the years. The size and height of the sign will come into play for non-conforming signs.
Signs that no longer advertise an existing bona fide business--instead of having the sign
covered or replaced, the face only of the sign will be required to be replaced by a blank
white face within 60 days after the closing of the business.
No other person(s) appeared related to the item.
Neil Conner motioned approve amending Chapter 66, Article I, In General, Section 66-7,
Nonconforming signs and 66-9, Removal of signs no longer advertising existing bona fide
business, of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to signs.
Jackson Beamer seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King
C. Amendment to the City Code - Chapter 106 Zoning Hold public hearing to consider amending Chapter 106, Zoning, Article II District
Regulations, Sections 106-208.2, 106-214.2, 106-216.2, and 106-218.2, pertaining
to permitted uses; Section 106-216.3 pertaining to site development regulations;
Article III Use & Design Standards, section 106-304.21 pertaining to short term
rentals; section 106-316.3 pertaining to accessory uses, residential; Article IV
Development Standards, section 106-404 pertaining to parking requirements;
section 106-406 miscellaneous provisions pertaining to storage containers; and
Article VI Definitions and use types, section 106-600 pertaining to definitions of
the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA.
Staff noted the following:
As staff has worked through the enforcement of the current zoning ordinance, it has
become apparent that a few use types (administrative services, restaurant, retail sales) are
either missing, or not appropriate in certain zoning districts. The changes in bold below
reflect those adjustments. Additionally, the establishment of previously absent site
development regulations for BCD Business Commerce District have been introduced.
Staff would also like to introduce Short-Term Rental as a use type, correspondingly
identifying its parameters, while not currently allowing it in any zoning district. This is
designed to prevent the City of Salem from potentially being forced to adopt state-
mandated short-term rental regulations.
Adjustments to the ordinance to promote uniformity with the yard sale policy have been
included.
Off-street parking requirements have been modified in an effort to reduce the minimum
requirements for several use types. The objective of these changes is to maximize usable
space while also removing unnecessary impervious surfaces that introduce negative
environmental benefits.
Changes to the regulation of storage containers have been proposed to improve the
character of major commercial corridors (i.e., Main Street, Wildwood Road, 4th Street,
etc.) by not allowing them to be viewed from the public way. Residential
storage containers which facilitate relocation and renovation will still be permitted
temporarily through the Community Development Office.
Finally, staff has proposed additional language which will require the front door of
any residential structure to face the street to which it is addressed. This change will
remove ambiguity in the current code which potentially allows for the manipulation
of front, side, and rear yards for lots which possess more than one street frontage.
Duane Smith, 462 Patricia Drive and 1020 S. College Avenue, appeared before the
Commission regarding the proposed amendment regarding storage containers. He
stated that he understands the restriction in certain corridors but does not agree with
College Avenue. He knows certain properties are being targeted, two of which he
owns. The storage containers on his property are well-maintained and mostly out of
sight from the street. He listed a few properties he knew that currently had storage
containers on their property. He feels that the storage containers are better suited for
businesses as they are made of steel, last longer, have less repair, more economical,
etc. He feels that the proposed amendment needs to be fine-tuned.
A discussion was held regarding the proposed amendment(s) to Section 106-406
miscellaneous provisions pertaining to storage containers and it was continued to the
March 13, 2024, meeting.
No other person(s) appeared related to the item.
Jackson Beamer motioned approve amending Chapter 106, Zoning, Article II District
Regulations, Sections 106-208.2, 106-214.2, 106-216.2, and 106-218.2, pertaining to
permitted uses; Section 106-216.3 pertaining to site development regulations; Article
III Use & Design Standards, section 106-304.21 pertaining to short term rentals;
section 106-316.3 pertaining to accessory uses, residential; Article IV Development
Standards, section 106-404 pertaining to parking requirements; and Article VI
Definitions and use types, section 106-600 pertaining to definitions of the CODE OF
THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA. Denise King seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King
4. Adjournment On motion by Member Conner, seconded by Vice Chair, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:08 pm.
City Council meeting, November 27, 2023, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers,
City Hall, 114 North Broad Street