Planning Commission

City of Petersburg Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2024 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, September 5, 2024, was called to order by Chair Alexander, at 6:30 p.m. A roll call was completed by Ms. Michelle Murrills. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 2. Roll Call Members Present: Ms. Tammy Alexander, Chair Mr. Michael Edwards, Vice-Chair Ms. Marie Vargo Mr. Al Cannon Dr. James Norman Members Absent: Mr. Thomas Hairston Dr. William Irvin A quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Others Present: Mr. Jared Crews, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Michael Packard, Mr. Joe Battison, Mr. Jared Anderson, Mr. Richard Burgess, and Mr. Rae Ferguson. 3. Adoption of the Agenda: Chair Alexander called for any changes to the agenda. Since there were none, Vice Chair Edwards moved to approve the agenda and Commissioner Bland seconded it. It passed unanimously. 1 4. Consent Agenda: The minutes from July 2024, were then up for adoption. Chair Alexander asked to adopt the agenda. Vice Chair Edwards moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Vargo seconded it. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Public Comment: Comments and Correspondence from citizens, visitors, and delegations in the audience on items not on the agenda. Please limit comments to no more than three minutes. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone from the audience wanted to speak. When no one did, she closed the public comment portion of the meeting. 6. Public Hearings: 6a. 2024-ZTA-06: 2024-ZTA-06: Consideration of a resolution recommending amendment and readoption of Article 25, Supplementary Height, Area, Bulk, and Design Regulations, and Article 28, Changes and Amendments, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to administrative clarifications on development of contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership and requirements for public notice. Mr. Crews then gave the presentation. It went a bit slowly because the room was missing the ability to project the computer onto the screen. Mr. Crews read off the paper agenda, instead… So, like we discussed at the last meeting, the city has sections of the zoning ordinance that are either outdated or slightly out of line with state code. There is also some language that is either unclear or unenforceable. So, the Planning Department was looking at a sort of administrative clean-up. We will first look at article 28, which covers changes in amendments, simplify our public hearing advertising and notification procedures to match the State Code. And then secondly, Article 25 which has supplementary height, area, bulk, for lot design requirements. This will also clarify the buildability of non-conforming lots which abut each other when owned by a single owner. Article 28 - Existing • Sets process and requirements for changes to zoning ordinance, including rezonings. • Specifies that public hearings must be advertised, notice must be sent to affected property owners, and signs with information on the request should be posted to properties under petition. • Petitioner is required to provide adjoining owner information and maintain sign postings throughout the process. • Text aligns roughly, but not exactly, with State Code requirements. 2 Article 28 – Proposed • Advertising/Notice to Adjoining Properties: o Explicitly tie our standards to Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2204, as amended. o Public hearings will be advertised twice prior to a hearing; notices sent to adjoining property owners via certified or first-class mail depending on number of parcels involved. o Covers notices required to adjoining localities and military installations. • Sign Postings: Information on request to be posted at involved properties at least 10 days prior to first hearing, remain until case closed. Article 25 – Existing • Section 3.6: o Allows for the development of a single-family detached dwelling and accessory improvements on a lot that does not meet minimum width or area requirements if that lot is in a zoning district which allows residential uses. o Final sentence reads “However, this section will not apply if the lot or lots in question were contiguous to another lot or lots of record owned by the same person at the time the more restrictive regulations became in force.” o Intent is unclear; strict regulation would be difficult to determine/enforce. Article 25 – Proposed • Delete sentence with unclear language, allowing to be built on non-conforming lots in districts that allow residential regardless present or former ownership. Key Changes • Article 28: o Notice requirements in line with State Code, update automatically to remain so. o City allowed to send first-class mailings for larger requests, cost savings. o City is responsible for adjoining property owner information and for posting signs; signs are posted when notices go out, remain until Council votes. • Article 25: o Unclear language and potential hurdle to increasing housing stock is removed. With that, staff recommends approval of these text amendments as drafted. Thanks Chair Alexander then asked of the commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Vargo then asked if Article 25 was just trying to have it that people could own an accessory dwelling. Mr. Crews said that no, it was in response to the rule in the city that says that if you have a lot that does not meet the legal minimum requirements, you could still build a dwelling on a single- 3 family lot, even if you own the lot next to it. Commissioner Taylor then asked what the minimum size was for a residential lot to have a new build. Mr. Crews then said that it varies by district. Most common number is 5000 sq ft as the smallest that it could be. Mr. Crews then mentioned that there are a surprising amount of lots that are smaller than that. With that, Chair Alexander then opened up the public hearing and asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak on this. (Since the meeting did not have a computer hooked up yet, the first speaker did not get to show his power point presentation, but he was allowed to after he made his presentation orally and the public was done speaking. This is the telling of the oral part of his presentation) Michael Packard, 1245 Woodland Rd, I am here speaking in opposition to the change in the zoning ordinance Article 25 that would take off the last sentence of that particular section. The purpose of this section of the zoning ordinance is regulations and districts that are established in accordance with the comprehensive plan to promote, in accordance with present and future needs, the safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Petersburg, Virginia, and to provide for efficiency and economy in the process of development, for the appropriate and best use of land, for convenience of traffic and circulation of people and goods, for the use and occupancy of buildings, for healthful and convenience distribution of population, for good civic design and arrangement, and for adequate Public Utilities and facilities, by regulating the location and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, and residence, by regulating and limiting or determining the height and bulk of buildings and structures, the area of yards and other open spaces and density of use. They have been made with reasonable consideration, naming other things, to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of building and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the city of Petersburg, Virginia. R1 is the biggest district in the city. For those who asked about the size of a lot, that would be slide three. For R1A is 100 ft width with 15,000 sq ft minimum. R1 is 75 ft width with 8000 sq ft minimum. R2 is 50 ft width with 5000 sq ft minimum. And those are the single-family zones. There is an exception to all of this and that is section 3.6 which states... Where an unimproved lot in a zoning district that allows residential use was of record prior to the application of zoning regulations and restrictions to the premises, and if such lot does not conform to the requirements of such regulations and restrictions as to the width of lots or lot area per family, the provisions of such lot area per family and lot width regulations and restrictions shall not prevent the owner of such lot from erecting A1 family dwelling or making other accessory improvements on the lot; Provided such improvements conformed to all other respects to the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions. However, this section will not apply if the lot or lots in questions were contiguous to another lot or lots of record owned by the same person at the time the more restrictive regulations became in force. A lot of record is a lot which has been recorded in the office of the clerk of the Hustings Court of the City of Petersburg or the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie or Prince George County. The next slide is the most important…that slide is a piece of the Walnut Hill Subdivision (Arch Street, Sherwood, Sycamore St, etc.). As you can see, the recorded lots are 25 ft each. He then showed pictures of houses that are sitting on 8 or more lots where everyone could see the different lots. These houses because of that one 4 person can’t put anymore houses on their property right now because of the requirements for building on lots. If you take the sentence out, then the home owner would legally be able to put three more houses on that lot. The next house is another house (his mother’s house) in Walnut Hill and it too sits on 8 lots. The owner, who is 99, has lived there since 1950. When she passes, if that sentence is taken out, the heirs could then build four more housing units on that lot. The next house he showed, also in Walnut Hill, was one of the old Seward mansions on Sherwood Road. It is a very large house that sits on a very large lot. But that large lot is actually 10 very strange, odd-shaped lots. If this goes through, and you tore the house down, you could build 10 houses on the 10 lots. If you did not tear the house down, then you would have to put up some smaller more modular looking houses and figure out how to put them on the lots. He then said that he looked for the nastiest houses that he could find online to show the commissioners the picture. Yes, they look like trailers, but in fact that are modular housing on permanent foundations so that they would skirt the non-mobile home requirement and yet be small enough to fit on such tiny lots. The next house is also in Walnut Hill and it would be allowed to have four houses on the extra lots too. Only this commission and the city council has the ability to make these text amendment changes. I would have a suggestion to you that this would have a much greater effect on our community, and it could affect many lots, especially those in some neighborhoods that are broken up in 25 ft frontage lots. This was done in the 30s simply to make it easier to divide up the neighborhood, when the houses were being built, not to build a house on each 25 ft lot. If you take that language out of this, there is no restriction because the continuity of lots is no longer an issue. Because when my mother bought her house and lot, this zoning was already in place and therefore she cannot sell her lots off one at a time. It can only be sold as one continuous lot. You need to think this out. And let me just say because you have been so kind to talk this out, this ordinance was written in 1972, by an engineering firm in Lynchburg. And it was in response to annexation of parts of Dinwiddie County. It has not been rewritten since. If city council is interested in doing something in those district that this will not have this negative effect that he’s talking about tonight, then it needs to be done in a comprehensive way without the unintentional negative results that comes from taking one sentence out. Funny, you take one sentence out and it destroys everything that the ordinance stands for. So, I would suggest that you vote not to initiate, and you vote not to send this to city council, that way you won’t do something that shouldn’t be done. Thank you. Michelle Murrills, 131 S Market St, my house used to sit on an acre of land. It now sits on about 3000 square feet. It started out in 1785 as a lot that was sold, and my house was built on it in 1795. It used to take up that whole area all the way to Halifax Road. The roads were put in in the 1760s and the area was set up in one acre lots. Since then, obviously, in the last 200 plus years it has been cut up and different buildings have been added over time, because that was what was needed in the neighborhood back when it was busy. Unfortunately the lots along Halifax have all been torn down (which they never should have been but they are) so now we have empty lots and parking lots, but I do believe that smaller blocks like that, is something that we are going to find will help for having lower cost housing alternatives because we already have low income housing that is new housing being brought in on infill lot that's $250,000 to $295,000 and that is not low income housing. I think it would definitely help if we had the 5 ability to bring in smaller houses. There's already rules and regulations on how modular housing can look. I understand we don’t allow trailers, but there are a lot of things that I think could be helped if we were allowed to bring in smaller houses and put them on these smaller lots. I just think it would definitely help to be able to have low-income housing as individual houses scattered throughout the area. I mean, we already have these empty lots that can’t really be built on. And I know that there are hoops to jump through for that. But I think that this would just help to regulate that better and give all of us more options. Thank you. Michael Packard came back and made his presentation with the slides. He said that it should be up to the owner of the property to prove that it was not owned by the same person to show that it does get exemption status. He also said that a 25 ft lot is too narrow because statue says that there has to be at least 3 feet on each side of the property. That only leaves 2.5 feet on each side of the property. Running though his slides, he said that no matter what, it is inappropriate for houses to be that close and for the city to allow it to happen. Chair Alexander then asked if there was anyone else that wanted to speak. Commissioner Taylor said that she cannot believe that anyone with a nice big lot won’t be upset when they look across the street and see their neighbors close enough to hand a coffee cup back and forth and especially what is it going to do to their property values. She also said that there is no way that if you have a lot that small that you are going to be able to put a house on it that is comparable to the other houses in the neighborhood, affordable or not. Commissioner Vargo said, as one who has joined two lots together to build a house and a garage. It was incredible who difficult that was. It came down to the house was one address and the garage was another. But when you put something in the middle of two (or more lots) I think my concern is that you are not going to have that space to be able to do that. And it is going to be very hard to say we are going to divide this up like Colonial Heights has done to a number of properties there. It was so hard to join them and that much harder to unjoin them, because it sits in the middle of the property. It is not easy to build in the city. With that, Chair Alexander closed the public hearing and asked if any of the commissioners had anything to say. Commissioner Vargo then asked if the intent of this is more towards being able to put things on lots that are not big enough. Is the intent of this change to ability to subdivide lots? Mr. Crews said certainly not to subdivide lots, there is no instance where you are going to be able to create a new lot that doesn’t conform. These are existing lots. If the house sitting in the middle of several lots is demolished hypothetically if you could reach all the other zoning criteria then yes you could, but that would be very hard. Definitely that is the exception to the rule. The important part of that portion of the code section is “so long as you are meeting all other zoning requirements”. Chair Alexander then asked about her house. What happens if my house burns to the ground? What keeps someone from building three houses on the lot then? Yes, it is on three lots. Mr. Crews said that there are other rules that should be considered. For instance, if you are less than five feet from the neighboring house, then you have to fire insulate your walls (which can add to the cost of building the house). So that in this purely hypothetical scenario, yes there could be three houses built here, but there is still the rest of 6 the zoning ordinances as well as the rest of the building codes as well as just market conditions to contend with. Commissioner Taylor said that she saw this happen in Raleigh (N.C.) in an old neighborhood called Hayes Barton. Contractors came in and bought these magnificent older homes, leveled them, and then put-up condos, smaller homes, and apartments. The city council got real upset about it, but the houses were already destroyed. It really started to change the neighborhood there, the whole feel of the neighborhood. It was a very sought-after neighborhood. Mr. Crews then said that with the historic districts, it would be hard to sell such plans to the Architecture Review Board. Especially as you are not allowed to just destroy a historic house. Commissioner Taylor then said that none of the houses that were talked about tonight were in a historic district (except Chair Alexander’s). She said that her house was built in 1904 and is not a historic house. Just a big old house and that they would be upset is someone could come in and tear it down and build three new houses on it. Mr. Packard then said that his biggest fear is that people would be able to sell their side yards. This is one right now in Walnut Hill that someone was able to sell their side yard and now they are building a house that does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. It is too small; it has a cinder block basement and just does not look right. Now that is with the sentence in the ordinance. You at least have to have 75 feet in that neighborhood. Take that sentence out and they would be allowed to build three houses in the place that they put that one house. Vice Chair Edwards then asked if he could ask someone from the audience a question. He then asked Mr. Joe Battison about 401 Grove Ave. He said that that property had been brought before the ARB for a new build on the property. Can you remember what the square footage is? I read that the ARB had approved the building. I know that the lot is small, and I was wondering how small. I kind of agree with Ms. Murrills, that we don’t really have a lot of options in the city. We are moving forward, and we can’t stay in the past. I understand that people don’t want a house that you can reach out and touch someone, but at the same time we cannot stay in the past. So is just my comment on it. Where I live on Grove Ave, I can come out my steps and I am barely 5 feet between my neighbors. He also said back to what Mrs. Vargo said, if this were to pass, the historical districts are still covered by the ARB. Is that correct? Yes…thank you. Commissioner Taylor then made the motion to deny the changes to Article 25 Commissioner Norman seconded the motion. Mr. Crews then asked for clarification as to what the commissioners wanted to do with Article 28. Chair Alexander then clarified that no this was to deny all changes with both Article 25 and Article 28. The vote was then taken. Cannon, Taylor, Bland, Norman, and Alexander were for keeping it the same. Vargo and Edwards for against. 7 6b. 2024-2232REV-01: Review of the general location, character, and extent thereof of a public utility facility or public service corporation facility, specifically an electric substation, on property located at 2255 Jamestown Drive for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Virginia State Code Section 15.2-2232. Mr. Crews made the presentation. This public hearing is going to be a bit different than what we usually look at…rezoning, SUPs, text amendments. Instead, we are looking at what is commonly called substantial accord review or a 2232 review and that is based on a state code requirement that is for new public improvements and utilities. Code of Virginia § 15.2-2232 “Whenever a local planning commission recommends a comprehensive plan or part thereof for the locality and such plan has been approved and adopted by the governing body, it shall control the general or approximate location, character and extent of each feature shown on the plan. Thereafter, unless a feature is already shown on the adopted master plan or part thereof ... no street or connection to an existing street, park or other public area, public building or public structure, public utility facility or public service corporation facility…shall be constructed, established or authorized, unless and until the general location or approximate location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof.” Tonight, we are looking for a request for 2255 Jamestown Drive, located off of County Drive. This property was rezoned about a year ago from agricultural to M-1 to allow for a large warehouse. At the time there was not a specific use that it was originally changed to M-1. There were plans that were approved back in March that it was to be the warehouse, but in July the developer came back with an idea for a data center. So, part of the revised plans are to use 6.49 acres for the substation to meet the energy needs of the data center. Because this is not something that is shown specifically on the Comprehensive Plan, it is up to the Commission to review this tonight. Considerations – Economic Development • “To realize sustainable growth in economic development … the City must have the infrastructure to meet the demands of industry” • “The lack of infrastructure in areas targeted for future economic growth becomes an impediment to development and a headwind to Petersburg realizing its full potential” • “Require developers to provide utility connections where utilities are not available. o The developers will be providing their own utility connections. Considerations – Research and Development Area 8  • Principle uses include clinics, logistics and distribution uses, offices, research and development, and small-scale, specialized manufacturing. • “Uses are less likely to have adverse impacts such as odor, noise, and waste disposal on surrounding properties than moderate to heavy industrial uses”. • “Provide appropriate setbacks and screening along property lines adjacent to residential development. o The developer will be making even more of a buffer between the data center and the nearby residential center. Considerations - Other • Integrate environmentally friendly development practices whenever possible, including low-impact development and energy-efficient building design. • Ensure consistency with economic incentive zones to provide maximum benefits for employers, the City, and the community. • Development should provide a campus-like setting with adequate landscaping, buffering or screening, lighting, and transportation access. Green spaces should be incorporated to provide health and environmental benefits. So overall, Staff approves the appropriateness of the substation in this area. The next to speak was the legal representatives of the land owner, Onward and Upward Land LLC. Jared Anderson, an attorney with Roth Jackson, legal council for Onward and Upward Land LLC in this substantial land determination pursuant to the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2232 for a proposed substation at 2255 Jamestown Drive. First and foremost, we agree most heartily with the city’s planning staff that the proposed substation is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the city in 2024. The Substation will be an accessory use and will not generate any power, but rather it will relay power and transforms power from the existing electrical grid. The substation is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways. 1. When it was first changed to M1 it was by an overwhelming majority, 6-1 at the Planning Commission and 7-0 at City Council. 2. Comprehensive Plan specifically cites the need for utility service and to have the developers install utilities where they are not available. This is exactly what is happening in this case. 3. Section three of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the need to promote economic vitality in the city by maximizing the economic benefits and potential of its land. The substation enables the property to produce significantly greater tax revenue, which is a stated objective of the Comprehensive Plan. We estimate that the city will receive around $7 million dollars a year in revenue from the substation as opposed to around $1 million with nothing on it. 9  4. Section six and seven of the Comprehensive Plan highlight the benefits of investing in the city’s infrastructure and public services. A substation on this property will again produce significantly more tax revenue which could be directed towards infrastructure, activities, recreation, schools, etc., all the goals and directives that are in the comprehensive plan. 5. The Comprehensive Plan also looks to avoid traffic congestion. The conversion of this property to an accessory sub-station from its original distribution center will significantly lesson the traffic impacts of this property. Mr. Anderson then asked that the Commissioners vote yes for the electric substation. Dr. Sarah Wittiak emailed some questions and Vice Chair Edwards asked if they had all been addressed. Mr. Crews said yes and then asked Mr. Anderson to address them. 1. Generators with fuel storage tanks…there will not be any generators or fuel tanks of any kind. It simply relays and transforms electrical power. 2. Substation emissions…the substation does not generate any power and therefore does not produce any emissions. 3. Green space…between the buffering and the rest of the property we are trying to minimize the impacts to the landscape. Chair Alexander then asked well what about the noise and heat that will come off of this? Mr. Anderson then said that he believed that industrial is exempt from the noise ordinance. Mr. Crews said that yes that is true. Chair Alexander then said that she was more interested in just how much noise and heat that was going to be generated. And what happens when the noise and heat seeps out to the neighbors. Mr. Anderson said that it was all taken into account with all the trees and buffers and where the substation was being placed as well. Commissioner Vargo then asked more about the noise even with the berm and the vegetation. She wanted to know just how loud it is. She was told that the equipment runs at about 75 decibels when one is close. But at 100 yards away it becomes 30 decibels which is the sound of a normal conversation. So more of a hum. Vice Chair Edwards said that there is one out his back door and while he can hear it, it is not bad at all. With that Chair Alexander opened up the public comment portion of the hearing. Richard Burgess, representing Shirley H. and Herman T. Burgess, the owner of 2490 Poe Lane. And I want to make it absolutely clear that I am here only representing my parents that live at that address as I have stated from the start of any of these meetings that have been associated with the rezoning of this area. I believe that last time I gave a letter to the Planning Commission that I want to be in the record this time as well. With that I want to say that I am neither for nor against this idea. I do think that this is a much better use of the property compared to the actual facility that was being proposed before. I think that the traffic was a concern for all of us. With that being said it was also the jobs that were a concern as well. I think that this is a much better situation with the city in terms of the jobs that will be created. 10 Especially with the technology that will be associated with this type of development. The substation is truly what we are here about. Now, from what I understand this is a 6 ½ acre substation. That is a pretty big substation. From what I understand this is a data management center that is going in here and it seems like a very large substation just for a data center. I guess that it is planning ahead for a lot of other uses within the city of Petersburg at a future date. Mr. Crews said that he does not have an answer to that. And Mr. Burgess said that it was a mighty big substation to put in the area and is it really necessary to be that large? And I understand that the revenue being generated is $7 million in tax revenue. I think that is great. I also want to state one thing before I go too far. I have been planning commissioner with the city of Petersburg, it’s been about 11 years now. But I was a planning Commissioner for about 13 years, and I am going to make sure that anytime I come before this planning commission now and in the past as well, I have not tried to contact any of y’all and tried influence you in any way in regard to my position, have I? (Answers of no all-around) OK, I just wanted there to be a public record of that. So, with that being said, our biggest concern is that first of all this is something that is necessary and at the same time it is not going to have a negative impact on the future development of plans associated with my parents’ property. They own 20 acres here in Petersburg. They have been long-term residents here in Petersburg and long-term tax payers, business owners, rocks of the community I can promise you. My parents have done nothing but promote Petersburg and we have done everything that we know how to do to promote Petersburg as a family. Myself, I now live in Chesterfield and have for the past 11 years. I do not have a vested interest in what happens here myself, but I do have a vested interest with my parents’ property. Also, I care about Petersburg. I have spent years of my life here and I want to make sure that whatever does happen here in Petersburg, it happens in a positive way. That it truly will be able to carry this city forward, not keep it trapped and not keep it in the situation where people are still living in poverty and struggling between every little paycheck that they can make. We need people who are viable and educated and one of the things that we need (and I have said this through out all the years of service as a planning commissioner) we need accredited schools. This type of situation of putting a data center here in Petersburg. It still needs educated individuals to take those positions. Those positions still need to be filled by people who live here in this city and who have been educated here. So, with that being said, with the substations itself I really don’t have a problem, I would just like to know the height of the berm that would be related to the substation. Do we know that? I think it’s a ten-foot berm. That is important because I know that my brother plans on building back there and he will be impacted by this in the future. But no matter what we want to be sure that there is not some excessive noise that is related to this. I know what a substation does, it does transfer energy itself and it steps it up or steps it down based upon the needs. My understanding from a staffer is that the actual transfer lines are coming in from the railroad is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay so that there will be no over head lines that run parallel down the actual property line along Poe Lane. Is that correct? Yes. Okay are the power lines to the facility are they going to underground? On the onsite portion they would be overhead. Okay, well as I said, I am not really for or against this idea. I do not want any negative impact on our property. We do look forward to the situation when this will bring some sort of tax revenue for the city of Petersburg. I know that the city needs this, and I appreciate that. But I wanted to make sure that some of 11 this had been stated in the past and I just wanted clarification, understanding and to have it in the public record. Thank you very much. Ray Ferguson, 2476 and 2482 Poe Lane, the last time that I was here if you remember we had a lady that was crying in the back very upset. There was a lot of bad blood that was build behind this transformation. From that there has been a lot of synergy on Poe Lane and on 460. And I really do think that the revised version of this is much better than what was being pushed last year. I say that because I do think that this is much better, the traffic flow will be much better, I will tell you that driving here tonight I hit my brakes because there was a family of four crossing 460 going to the Dollar General store out there. I say that because last time we were talking about what are we going to do about traffic, and we need to have some crossings. I know that this has nothing to do with what is going on with the substation, but it’s dealing with what is going on with this property. Safety of the people in the area is utmost. And that has to be tied into all of this. I do think having some visuals of what this is going to look like would be very helpful. We did not know about the power lines overhead because we did not see it. We kind of figured that all of them would be underground and now we are a bit concerned about the ones overhead, and so we would like to see some diagrams of that. But I think that this is a much better use of the space. I do think it will generate better jobs for the community. I am happy about that. I will leave it on this note…the reason why we are being cautious about what we say is because there was a lawsuit that happened by this last bad blood that happened. I am saying this out loud because I do think that that has impacted everyone who is in this area. And I put it out there for you to consider it, because even though I think that it is a better idea I do think that the bad blood and potential lawsuits and stuff like that are being taken care of in the right way before this moves forward. Yes, I know that those are two separate issues, but I will say that out loud because there are people who actually put their neck on the line to speak out about this and I do think that that is super important. I do think also that things can be wrecked by things that have been done to get us to this point. And I am just putting it out there to everyone so that you understand that. But I do think that this is a good idea. It is a much better idea. I am that the Army Corp of Engineers stepped in. Very happy about that, but at the same time I think that there are some underlying factors that need to be dealt with as we move forward. Thank you. Chair Alexander then closed the public hearing portion since no one else stepped forward to speak. She then asked the commissioners if they had any questions now and Vice Chair Edwards then spoke. So, I read this all quite extensively prior to this. With the work that the Army Corp of Engineers has done. Once the data center goes up, they cannot build anything else on this property is that correct. Yes, that is correct. To do so would take more work from the Army Corp of Engineers and they have said that they have no interest in doing so. Chair Alexander then asked if there were any other questions and Vice Chair Edwards then said that he moved to approve Staff’s recommendation with the resolution. It was seconded by Commissioner Cannon. It passed unanimously. 12 7. OLD BUSINESS 7a. Discussion on potential text amendment relating to the definition and use standards for nightclubs and other event or gathering facilities in the city. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. In the interest of time, he said that he was going to just touch on what has changed since the last time the commissioners spoke on this. The proposed amendment would make new definitions and clarify where nightclubs and events uses are permitted along with standards. New/Amended Definitions Banquet hall/Event Facility. • A facility with or without a kitchen, leased for the purpose of hosting private social events that are not open to the general public for gatherings like wedding receptions, meetings, and banquets, with or without live entertainment, where food and/or drink may be consumed on site. Restaurant. • An establishment primarily engaged in the preparation and service of food and beverages to patrons for on-site consumption in a permanent, seated dining area. Lounge or bar. • An area, or room, utilized primarily for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption by patrons on the premises and in which the sale of food is merely incidental to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Club, community. • Buildings and facilities owned or operated by a corporation, association, person or persons, for a social, educational or recreational purpose, but not primarily for profit which insures to any individual, and not primarily to render a service which is customarily carried on as a business. Club, private. • A use that provides meeting areas or social facilities for civic or social clubs, and similar organizations and associations, that hold regular meetings or events for dues-paying members and their guests, only. Such establishment shall not be operated for the purpose of carrying on a trade or business, and no part of the net earnings shall inure to the benefit of any member of such organization or any other individuals, although 13  regular employees may be paid reasonable compensation for services rendered. Private clubs shall maintain a current membership log, which is available for view upon request by the City Commissioner of the Revenue. Changes from former proposal: • Clarification on hours of operation. o Yes, bars can serve food between 2-6 am just not alcohol. • Dance floor maximum removed; each request includes management program. o Instead, each application would come with a management plan that includes information on a floor plan and layout. It would be more of a case-by-case basis. • No requirement for loudspeakers/instruments to cease prior to closing of establishment. • Remaining event uses to remain by-right in B-1, B-2, B 3, and M-1 Districts. So, from changes and clarifications. I am hoping that I have managed to capture the items that you all have been talking about. I am willing to take any questions, but since we have worked this for how many months, I would ask the Commission to send this forward for a public hearing. So, we can keep the process moving along. Vice Chair Edwards then made a motion to move this to a public hearing. It was seconded by Commissioner Vargo. It passed unanimously. 7b. Discussion on potential text amendment addressing short-term rental uses within the city. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. Last time we had a discussion about short-term rental uses. And we had introduced some standards, but we had several specific questions. Quick recap from the July meeting… Short term rental is the rental of dwelling unit or a portion of it for less than 30 days in exchange for payment. Examples of this are Airbnb, Flipkey, Homestay. The traditional Bread and Breakfast only allow transient guests, they have eating accommodations, and they have a resident manager. We currently have existing short-term rental uses through out the city, but they are not spoken to by our zoning ordinance. Components of the proposed amendment are: A. Define short term rental and associated terms. B. Stipulate where use is permitted; special use or by-right. C. Specify standards for short-term rental uses. The State Code allows the city to: • Regulate short-term rental through general land use and zoning authority. • Establish short-term rental registry with operators registering annually. 14  • The city cannot require Special Use Permits for short-term rental use if property is occupied by owner as primary residence. Definitions: Short-term rental – the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. Short-term rental operator - prior to any dwelling, lodging, or sleeping accommodations offered as a short-term rental, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgage in possession, licensee, or any other possessory capacity. Short-term renter - any person who contracts with a short-term rental operator to occupy a short-term rental in exchange for a charge for such occupancy, and any companions or guests of such person. Where and How Permitted: • To be allowed by-right in higher-density residential districts; R-3,4,5, and 6, RB, B-2, B-3. • SUP will be required where properties aren't owner-occupied. Only required if not owner occupied. • Registry to be created with deadline to register; operators to apply to Zoning Administrator annually and verify compliance with standards. If not registered by deadline there would be a penalty. At this point it looks like the deadline would be mid-year next year or something like that. • Occupancy standards for rentals will match underlying district. How many people are allowed in a residence depends on the district the building is in. For instance, if you are in an R-3 District you are only allowed family and two unrelated individuals. That is the max that you are allowed to have. This will be the same with short-term rentals as well. Someone in the R-3 District would only be allowed to rent out up to two bedrooms in a house or apartment. • Rental of multifamily units allowed but limited to no more than 1/3 of total units. Apartment buildings were also looked at. The consensus was that rental apartments would be allowed, but only up to 1/3 of the total units, per development. Standards for Short-Term Rentals 15  • Must be located within operator’s primary residence. • Floor plans must be submitted specifying number/use of rooms, maximum occupancy, means of egress, etc. • Must name responsible party – individual designated by operator to be available to City or renters during any rental to respond to any issues, complaints, or emergencies that arise. • Operator contact information must be posted. • Cannot be double-booked or divided into additional units – must be rented wholly. • At least one renter must be 18 years or older. • Must be in conformance with Building Code; Functioning smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors required; inspections required prior to approval to verify. • Must present proof of commercial general liability insurance. • No food or drink to be prepared or served to guests by operator. • No RV’s, buses, trailers parked on street or visible on property in conjunction with rental. • No commercial use in association with short-term rental. • Permit may be revoked with three or more substantiated complaints in calendar year; City can require inspections based on complaints. Parking Consideration: Mr. Crews said that he was just putting this out there for consideration. There was a question of whether or not there should be a requirement for additional parking spaces for short-term rental uses above what the city requires for the various districts. The majority of the commissioners said that yes there should be additional parking required, but he wanted to compare that to the question of occupancy, where if the city is requiring them to not exceed the occupancy requirement, does the city really then need to require more parking. After all, if the rooms were not being rented, the city would not require more parking for the property. Staff would like to move this to public hearing at the next meeting since we have these short- term rentals throughout the city, and we don’t currently have anything in place to track or address those uses. With that Vice Chair Edwards then moved to send the text amendment to a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. With that, a point of clarification was made…the number of bedrooms allowed to be rented out short-term was based upon the zoning district that the property was in. Since most properties are in R-3 zone, Mr. Crews continued to use that as his example. So, even if you had a 4000 sq ft house with 8 bedrooms and your family (of two parents and two kids) are only using 3 bedrooms, the most that you would be able to rent out is two more bedrooms in the R-3 district. 16 With the vote, the amendment was sent to the October meeting as a public hearing. 8. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion on potential text amendment relating to data centers. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. We discussed earlier this evening about a specific site for a data center, but we did not discuss data centers as a use in general. Background • Data Center - a physical location that stores computing machines and their related hardware equipment. It contains the computing infrastructure that IT systems require, such as servers, data storage drives, and network equipment. • Prevalent in Northern Virginia, increasingly common in rural areas and small towns/cities. • Interest in several sites in Petersburg. • Not a listed use in Zoning Ordinance. Overview Components of the proposed amendment: A. Define data center use. B. Stipulate when and where use is permitted by-right and with special use permit. C. Specify design standards for data center uses. Benefits of Data Centers Economic Development • Attract business • Diversify industrial economy • Increase in property value • Tax Generation (property, real estate, machine) • Job creation throughout process • Skill and career training •Investment in Infrastructure •Lower impact on existing streets Data Center Impacts • Noise • Energy Demands • Heat generation • Water Consumption • Aesthetic- They are not the prettiest with no architecture features. 17  Proposed Definition An establishment engaging in the storage, management, processing, and/or transmission of digital data, and housing computer and/or network equipment, systems, servers, appliances and other associated components related to digital data operations. Such facility or use may include, but is not limited to, air handlers, water cooling and storage facilities, utility substations and infrastructure, back-up power generation, fire suppression systems, and/or enhanced security systems. Where /How Permitted • Development standards are proposed to offset potential adverse impacts. • Data centers to be allowed by-right in the M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial Districts if all development standards can be met. • If all standards can’t be met, a Special Use Permit to be required for a data center in the M-1 or M-2 Districts. Development Standards • If data center abuts residential property: o Increased setbacks of 100 feet for primary structures. o Vegetated buffer consisting of berm and mixed plantings required along shared boundary. o Pre- and Post-construction noise studies required, possibly additional noise mitigation. o Sound mitigation to be used for mechanical equipment.* o Barbed wire/anti-intrusion fencing to be setback from public street.* o Closed-loop water reuse systems to be employed for water-based cooling.* *Standard only applies in M-1, Light Industrial Districts. Key Considerations Comprehensive Plan supports attracting industry but emphasizes adequate infrastructure and mitigation of environmental impacts. Industrial zoning districts in the City are not concentrated; primary focus of use standards is impact to residential properties. Special use permit process allows for case-by-case review of sites with unique characteristics. So, with that, Staff would ask the Planning Commission to consider moving the proposed text amendment forward for public hearing. Again, we have lots of interest in several sites within 18 the city and so Staff wanted to make sure that we are working to get this codified while we have the opportunity to do so. After all, we want to be on the right side of these developments. We need standards in place to allow us to fill them as they come in, rather than after the fact. So, I am happy to field any questions that you all might have. With that, the motion was made to move the amendment forward by Commissioner Bland and seconded by Commissioner Norman. It passed unanimously. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMISSIONER REPORTS Mr. Crews reminded everyone that on September 25 was the joint work session which will be the first chance to view the zoning overhaul. It starts at 6:00. And don’t forget that anyone that wants to be reappointed onto the Planning Commission needs to get their applications in because City Council will be voting on this September 17. 10. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Vargo then asked for adjournment at 8:25 seconded by Vice Chair Edwards. 19