Planning Commission

. City of Petersburg Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2024 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, October 3, 2024, was called to order by Chair Alexander, at 6:30 p.m. A roll call was completed by Ms. Michelle Murrills. Members Present: Ms. Tammy Alexander, Chair Mr. Michael Edwards, Vice Chair Mr. Al Cannon Mr. Fenton Bland Mr. Thomas Hairston Ms. Marie Vargo Dr. James Norman Members Absent: Mrs. Candace Taylor Dr. Bill Irvin 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call A Quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Others Present: Mr. Jared Crews Planning Department Manager, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Max Gorman, Mr. Timothy Banks, Mr. Dave Alexander, Mr. Darius Wyatt, and Ms. Pamela Bingham. 1 3. Adoption of the Agenda: Chair Alexander called for any changes to the agenda. Commissioner Hairston moved to approve the agenda. Vice Chair seconded it. It passed unanimously. 4. Consent Agenda: September 2024 minutes. Vice Chair Edwards moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Hairston seconded it. It 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 asked if there was anyone interested in speaking and no one did, so she closed the public comment period. 6. Public Hearings: a. 2024-REZ-02: Consideration of a resolution recommending rezoning of property at 1425 and 1525 Youngs Road and 1819 and 1827 Boydton Plank Road, Parcel IDs 051070002, 051070001, 051070802, and 051070023, from the R-1 Single-Family Residence and B-2 General Commercial Districts to the RTH Residential Townhouse District. Mr. Jared Crews gave the presentation. The City has received a request to rezone four vacant parcels located at 1425 and 1525 Youngs Road and 1819 and 1827 Boydton Plank Road to the RTH, Residential Townhouse District. Three of the parcels are currently in the R-1, Single-Family Residence District (1425 and 1525 Youngs Road and 1819 Boydton Plank Road) and one of the parcels is within the B-2, General Commercial District (1827 Boydton Plank Road). The property is designated as Community Residential on the Future Land Use Map of the Petersburg NEXT Comprehensive Plan. No proffers were included with the proposed rezoning. The 11.39-acre property is located at the intersection of Youngs Road and Lincoln Street and comprises four largely wooded parcels. Two of the parcels involved have Boydton Plank Road addresses but do not have street frontage. No proffers were submitted with the application, meaning the rezoning would not be subject to any conditions if approved and the property could be developed with any by-right use allowed in the RTH District. which primarily allows for the development of townhouse units for sale. Uses permitted in the R-1A, Single-family residence district are also allowed. Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the regulations for townhouse developments in the RTH District, including requirements for height, area, and bulk as well as for architectural treatment and parking. Developments are allowed at a density of up to 12 units per acre. 2 While no legally binding proffers were submitted, the application did include a conceptual layout plan that shows the property developed with 99 townhouse units. The units shown would be served by an extension of North Halcun Drive as well as two new public streets. The proposed units are shown with rear-access parking from private alleys. The plan shows two open spaces areas and two stormwater management areas. Before this was to go to public hearing, the Planning Staff identified some concerns that were shared with the applicant. Planning Items: • The plans do not adequately demonstrate the development complies with setback or parking standards. • The plans do not include sidewalk or street lighting as required by City Code. • The development results in a loss of approximately 11 acres of trees and greenspace and the developed site is shown as almost completely impervious apart from common areas. No trees are shown on the plan. • The site entrance directly abutting a residence on Lincoln Street should be reconsidered. • The comprehensive plan calls for considering the scale and character of the surrounding properties. • No amenities for residents are shown. • A planned unit development could allow flexibility in the layout and a development better matching the surroundings and serving future residents. Public Works Items: • The City would not be willing to maintain new public streets as shown on the plan. • The site entrance from Lincoln Street is not acceptable except for emergency traffic. • Staff concerns were shared with the applicant in case they wanted to update their plans accordingly, but they made the decision to continue on with the request as is. • Street improvements are required on both Youngs Road and Lincoln Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is designated as Community Residential on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Community Residential areas tend to be more suburban than urban with both single-family attached and detached dwellings present as well as infill lots and larger greenfield lots like the subject property. Primary land uses in the Community Residential areas include single-family detached dwellings, townhouses, multi-family dwellings, and institutional uses. Based upon the Comprehensive Plan, this this development would not be supported. That coupled with Staff concern about not being able to meet current zoning standards as well as future land use guidance staff is denying the rezoning of this property. Chair Alexander then asked if there were any questions from members of the Commission. Commissioner Vargo then asked if there were any concerns with all the single-family homes 3 over there. Mr. Crews said that the planning department had gotten a few people questioning what was going on over there, but no there was nothing in writing and no one formally bringing their concerns to the table. Commissioner Vargo also mentioned that this property is a buffer between the single-family homes and the apartments. Therefore, a lot of thought needed to go into what was going to happen with this portion of the property. Chair Alexander mentioned the fact that she thought there was a creek running through that area, but Mr. Crews said he didn't think so he did look into it but didn't find anything to support that. There was then a discussion as to how it could be made to make everything work and yet still be safe for everyone. Mr. Crews then said that he just did not see how, because there was not enough information from the developer. The commissioners just needed more information as to how everything should work or how it could be changed. Since it was just so vague, Staff was not able to demonstrate how meet current or future standards since there is not enough information. Mr. Crews again wanted to make a point that because there are no actual proffers, that anything decided tonight would be allowed to happen and they would not be able to change it later down the road. Chair Alexander then asked if the developers were there for discussion. She was told yes and invited them to come and speak. Mr. Timothy Banks then came forward. He admitted that the plans were a bit vague, but they were only there to get the rezoning of the property so that it could be properly marketed. After that it would be up to the city as to what it would allow and what it would not allow. Commissioner Hairston then asked could then the city say what the details for the buildings being built are. Mr. Crews then said that once the zoning is approved, as long as the building met code for that zoning, by right the buildings could be built however the builder wanted it and the city would not have much to do about it with this blanket rezoning. Vice Chair Edwards said that the safety of the roads is what is important to him. Mr. Crews said that with the blanket rezoning the developers can come in and do whatever works under that zoning and the city has nothing to say about it. Commissioner Hairston said that he rides past these woods a lot and he is worried about the number of cars being added to Youngs Road with this development. Vice Chair Edwards then asked what the ballpark figure of the cost of buying one of these condos and was told $350,000. Chair Alexander then asked if this was the first time he had done a project like this or if he had done one before. Mr. Banks then answered that there was a group of people that was putting this together, but he personally has done this before in Virginia Beach. Chair Alexander then told the commissioners that they could either not go to public comment and allow the developers to come back with a more definitive plan or they could have public comment and see what the public has to say. The commissioners decided that they wanted to hear public comment, so Chair Alexander opened up the public comment period. Mr. Dave Alexander, 110 Liberty Street, was the first to speak, whenever you bring more people into Petersburg, you also need to bring in more jobs. It is like musical chairs, which is fun when you are playing for chairs but not you are playing for jobs, so keep that in mind. No one else wanted to speak, and Chair Alexander then closed the public comment period. 4 Commissioner Hairston then said that he thought that the townhouses would be a good fit for the area because right now that land is really doing nothing. But Chair Alexander reminded him that it is a nice green space. If we develop it, we will lose that green space. Right now, the city is cutting down trees in Old Town and the city is losing green space. Does Petersburg actually want to lose more green space? He said that is something to think about but that everywhere the city grows we lose green space and that is just a fact. Commissioner Vargo said that she was all for development, but there was not enough space for what the developer wants to put in there. She said that there is just not enough space to meet the needs of the residents that are there now and the future residents. Commissioner Hairston then asked again if there was any way to put restrictions on it but was told that without proffers there is nothing anyone can do. Commissioner Bland said that he has known this area his whole life and really wants this to be developed. He thought it would be a good idea for the City of Petersburg. Vice Chair Edwards then said that he wanted to add that if the zone was changed this would allow for more tax money to be generated for the City of Petersburg. And with that, Vice Chair Edwards moved that the Commission approves the rezoning request, and it was seconded by Commissioner Hairston. The vote was 6-1 with Chair Alexander giving the one dissention vote. 6b. 2024-SUP-01: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a special use permit for a vehicle removal operator and associated vehicle storage and tow lot on property at 1700 Midway Avenue, Parcel ID 028310001, in the M-1, Light Industrial District. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. A petition from the owner of Grand Generation, LLC., D. Wyatt, leasee, of 1700 Midway Avenue, further identified as Tax Parcel 028310001 for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article 23, Section 4 (20) of the Zoning Ordinance to operate as a Vehicle removal operator, vehicle storage lot, or vehicle tow in the M-1, Light Industrial District. FUNK LLC is the owner of said property. The applicant desires to be allowed to operate his tow service company at the subject property on a 0.865-acre parcel located off W. Washington St and within the “Anchor Industrial Park” addressed as 1700 Midway Avenue. A Special Use Permit is required to operate a towing service per Article 23, Section 4 (20) of the Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is zoned M- 1, Light Industrial District and designated as Corridor Commercial on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use, if permitted, will be controlled by the Zoning Ordinance as well as any conditions recommended by Planning Commission and accepted by City Council. If you all recall this same request came to you back in January and at that time the Commission voted their approval for the permit and City Council denied the request. That was based upon aesthetics along the Washington St. corridor. Since that time the applicant has spoken to several City Council members and has come up with some new ideas based upon the feedback he received. Because of this, he is bringing this back for a second request. Because this has been brought back again after the approval of the new Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Crews said that he just wanted to touch on a few things. Back when this application was first brought to the Commission, the subject parcels were designated as commercial/industrial in the old Comprehensive Plan. Today it is identified as Corridor Commercial on the Future 5 Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan defines these areas as providing goods and services for the community, allowing residents to access amenities without leaving and keeping tax dollars within Petersburg. Typical existing uses include restaurants, indoor entertainment and recreation, and general retail and services and appropriate future development includes hospitality-oriented uses, infill development, large and small commercial, medical clinics, multi-family dwellings, offices, personal services, places of worship, and small- scale manufacturing (e.g. makers’ spaces, studios, microbreweries.) The Comprehensive Plan states “While corridor commercial uses are often automobile oriented, they should be sited so that the principal façade faces the street and should integrate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to create a more walkable, vibrant, and connected “Main Street” development pattern. Increased landscaping and adequate lighting should be encouraged, along with infill development within existing surface parking lots.” The proposed use does not align with the parcel’s future land use designation as the Comprehensive Plan, but it should be noted that the request appears to be in line with the existing zoning as well as the surrounding uses in the industrial park. The Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations regarding Corridor Commercial areas speak largely to properties immediately abutting the street corridor and it’s noteworthy that the subject property is located about 200 feet from West Washington Street meaning visibility of the facilities from the main corridor would be limited. Because of recommendations from City Council, there are added conditions from the last time this came in front of Planning Commission. This is a list of staff recommends for the approval of the Special Use Permit: 1. All vehicles are to be stored within the confines of the property’s fence which shall be enhanced with an opaque cover; no more than 25 vehicles shall be stored on the site at one time. 2. The property shall be kept and maintained in a clean, orderly manner and beyond vehicles, no open, outdoor storage is permitted. 3. A continuous row of evergreen trees at least six feet in height shall be installed along the portion of the southern property boundary which is visible from West Washington Street. 4. The site shall be properly lit with lighting directed in a downward and inward position to not spillover onto adjacent properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a Business License 5. Parking spaces for recovered vehicles shall be delineated with painted or plastic striping and paved in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 6. No general vehicle repair business shall be operated at the subject premises. There shall be no engine parts, scrap metal, plastic materials, glass/windshields or wasted tires left on the premises of the site. Recovered vehicles shall be removed within a timely manner and not exceed DMV guidelines. 7. Any new owner of the property must certify with the Zoning Administrator that the party will be undertaking the same or like endeavor and that their operation will remain in compliance with the approved Special Use Permit. 6  8. A permit may be revoked by the City of Petersburg City Council or its designated agent for failure by the applicant(s) to comply with any of the listed conditions or any provision of Federal, State, or local regulations. Chair Alexander then asked the applicant to come up and speak. Mr. Darious Wyatt, 17200 Eppes Rd, Dewitt, VA, he wanted to let everyone know that basically nothing has changed on his end other than he plans on following the recommendations which would have been things he was doing anyways. He said that he is not a junky person and his tow trucks show that. He simply wants to be another option in the City of Petersburg. Commissioner Hairston asked him what types of cars he will be towing…where would they be coming from. Mr. Wyatt said that he will be towing for the police. So, most cars would be accident cars that once the person comes and get their personal effects, the insurance would be the one picking it up and probably eventually junking it. He said that he would not be dealing with repos or impounds. Commissioner Hairston then clarified that Mr. Wyatt would make his money by quick turnover and that the cars would not be left there indefinitely. Mr. Wyatt agreed, there may be an anomaly, but sitting cars do not make money. Commissioner Bland then mentioned that there is another towing company right on Washington that looks terrible, and he wanted to make sure that this one would be kept in much better condition. Mr. Wyatt agreed that his place would be much cleaner and nicer looking. He said that if your place of business looks bad then your business does not look professional, and he does not like that. With that, Chair Alexander then opened up the public comment portion of the hearing. With no comments, she closed the public comment portion of the hearing. With that, Vice-chair Edwards made a motion to accept the approval of Staff for the Special Use Permit for the towing company. It was seconded by Commissioner Hairston. It passed unanimously. 6c. 2024-ZTA-07: Consideration of a resolution recommending amendment and readoption of Article 3, Definitions, Article 17, M-1 Light Industrial District Regulations, Article 18, M-2 Heavy Industrial District Regulations, Article 23, Supplementary Use Regulations – Special Uses, and Article 31, Permits, Plats, and Filing Fees, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to data center uses. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. The easiest way to describe what data centers are, they are physical locations that store computing machines and their related hardware equipment. They contain the computing infrastructure that IT systems require, such as servers, data storage drives, and network equipment. Data center developments commonly include water cooling and storage facilities, substations, generators, and fire suppression and security. Due to increased interest in constructing data centers in the City, Staff is proposing a text amendment to ensure the use can be accommodated without adverse impacts to surrounding properties. The proposed amendment will include definitions, clarification of where data centers are allowed, and development standards specific to data center uses and introduce a fee for when public hearings are required. 7 Data centers can be beneficial for localities, particularly in the way of economic development as they attract business, diversify the economy, and increase government revenue through property, real estate, and machine and equipment taxes. Property values in areas surrounding data centers generally increase and data centers provide specialized career opportunities. Data centers can also result in infrastructure investment and have a lower impact on existing streets relative to other industrial uses. They can also expand existing infrastructure which helps the neighboring communities as well. In addition to the local benefits associated with data centers, there are also some adverse impacts that are worth talking through. These include high noise levels from servers, cooling systems, ventilation systems, and generators. Data centers also create large demands for energy and can require new electrical infrastructure such as substations to support the uses. Data centers produce high levels of heat due to the amount of energy required to store and process the information inside the facility, which leads to a need for cooling systems. The cooling systems are often water-based, which can be a burden on existing utilities and services if potable water is being used. Data centers have certain visual impacts due to their scale and often feature bulky, flat walls as well as security fencing with anti-intrusion features which can detract from the street scape. Staff is proposing that data centers be allowed by-right in both the M-1, Light Industrial District and M-2, Heavy Industrial District subject to certain conditions aimed at minimizing impacts to surrounding properties, particularly residential properties. The proposed regulations were drafted based on guidance from other localities in the State as well as feedback from potential developers of data centers within the City. The following provisions are proposed for data centers in both districts: • If a data center use adjoins residential property or a public park: o Primary structures would have to be set at least 100 feet from the shared boundary with the residence or park. o A vegetated buffer including a berm, trees, and shrubs is required along the shared boundary with the residence or park; the width of the buffer will vary based on overall greenspace on the site. o Pre-construction and post-construction noise studies would be required; if noise levels exceed permitted noise in the residential district/park, mitigation measures would be required. • Cooling systems would be required to use recycled water rather than potable water. The following provisions would only apply in the M-1, Light Industrial District: • Ground and roof-mounted mechanical equipment would need to include sound muffling materials. • Fencing that includes barbed wire or other visible anti-intrusion devices must be 35 feet from public street. 8 The proposed text amendment would also allow a developer to request a Special Use Permit to for the construction of a data center on M-1 or M-2 zoned property unable to accommodate the requirements listed above. This would allow for case-by-case review of sites that still may be able to effectively mitigate negative impacts, but not meet all of the development standards. Additionally, the proposed text amendment would introduce a fee for reviews required by Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2232 pertaining to new public infrastructure when those reviews require a public hearing. As the City sees more requests for data centers, it is likely that there will also be more requests to review proposed substation locations. If there is a need for a public hearing, there will be a $500 fee attached. Just one final word about the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive plan is supportive of attracting new and desirable industry and points to benefits like a diversified economy and job creation. Strategies include identifying and targeting prospective businesses and finding opportunities for future investment. It goes on to recommend working with developers to provide utility and infrastructure improvements where needed, which can be an effect of allowing data centers. The plan also calls for siting industry in appropriate areas and integrating environmentally friendly development practices when possible. There is emphasis on providing appropriate setbacks and screening along property lines adjacent to residential development. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Chair Alexander then asked if the commissioners had any questions for staff. When there were none, she opened up the public comment portion of the public hearing. First was Ms. Pamela Bingham, 1717 West Princeton Road. She said that she is an environmental engineer. She is on the board of Virginia Conservation Network. She said that this is actually one of the most important issues you will address tonight. Data centers are the biggest fight right now in Northern Virginia. She thought it was interesting that (Mr. Crews) positioned it as benefits and impacts but she would call some of those impacts definite disadvantages. She said she wants the commissioners to think long and hard and possibly not do anything until the public has had its say. These data centers are massive. The noise is extensive. The energy impacts will go against everything that we are trying to do to mitigate climate change. She said it is unknown if we have the capacity to even service them. The heat produced increases the urban heat island effect. The water consumption is a huge issue. She said she's always concerned about our water here in Petersburg. Our drinking water, the storm last week, I hear stories about our water all the time. Aesthetically they are ugly. They are massive facilities, and they will tear down acres of trees. I don't know if you all have seen these places. They are massive. And even if there are benefits economically there are disadvantages ecologically. There could be big disadvantages to communities close to them. If they were in an area that was completely away from any residential area she would not be as concerned. She said she did not understand exactly what M1 and M2 areas were, but the thought of one of these being In a residential area frightens her. What concerns her the most is that you need to get extensive public comment before a decision is made. People don't even know that you are considering this. Petersburg will never be able to do this in a downtown or residential area. She 9 said she could see this off of the Interstate away from all residential areas, but there is still the ecological damage. These things take acres of trees... they are massive. She said you need to visit one before you vote on one. And you need to have multiple hearings about this. People need to know that you are considering this. The public needs to know that Petersburg is in consideration of data centers. She said again I am not against technology; I am an engineer, but these things are massive, the public has to know, and the public has to weigh in especially if they are going to be living here. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone else wanted to speak, when no one did, she closed the public hearing portion. She then asked if any of the Commissioners had anything more to say. Commissioner Hairston then said that the was completely against these, because he said that he believes that these cause cancer. If you are not even supposed to put your phone to your ears because it can cause cancer, what would these do? He said that he was completely against them. Vice Chair Edwards then explained to him that last month (which he missed) the Planning Commission had already approved one and Commissioner Vargo added that tonight the idea was to solidify the language for anyone else wanting to do it going forward. Commissioner Hairston then said that, while he had not been at the last meeting, he had just watched a television special all about these so just for the record, there are health concerns that are associated with the data centers, but that the public is just not aware of it yet and he is worried about what it is that we are doing to the next generation. Commissioner Vargo then said that she wanted to make a motion to recommend approval as drafted. It was seconded by Commissioner Norman. A vote was then called it was 6-1 with Commissioner Hairston being the dissenting vote. 6d. 2024-ZTA-08: Consideration of a resolution recommending amendment and readoption of Article 3, Definitions, Article 14, B-1 Shopping Center District Regulations, and Article 23, Supplementary Use Regulations – Special Uses, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to gathering and event uses, including nightclubs. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. Over the last several years, complaints and issues have been raised about certain uses in the City that involve the gathering of large volumes of people, particularly those uses that involve live entertainment. Concerns are shared across City departments and include noise, safety, and proper licensing. While there are similarities between some of the activities involved in these uses, the uses themselves are distinct in nature; uses like restaurants may occasionally feature music or entertainment, but they are unique from nightclubs or social clubs. Despite the distinctions among these uses, the Zoning Ordinance does not currently include definitions of each use and some of the existing definitions are inadequate. Without the ability to clearly classify and distinguish between the uses, staff is challenged to determine where particular uses and activities are allowed, and which standards apply in any given case making it difficult to issue violations or penalties where they may be appropriate. Additionally, concerns have been raised over some existing nightclubs, particularly with noise and safety. Through review 10 and discussion with the Planning Commission, it was determined that some of the existing standards for nightclubs are inadequate while others may be arbitrary or unnecessary. There are existing nightclubs that are allowed to remain either because they were granted a Special Use Permit or because they have legal nonconforming status, but standards could be updated to ensure that future requests for nightclubs are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and appropriate regulations are applied. Proposed Changes: The proposed amendment comprises three main components: 1) Introduce and update definitions to distinguish between gathering, entertainment and event-oriented uses. 2) Specify where each use is permitted by-right or by Special Use Permit. 3) Update standards specific to nightclub uses. The following definitions are proposed to be either introduced or updated for clarification: • Banquet hall/event facility (new) - 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. • Community club (updated) - 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. • Private club (updated) - 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 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. • Lounge or bar (new) - An area, or room, utilized primarily for the sale of alcoholic beverages for the consumption by patrons on the premises and in which the sale of food is merely incidental to the sale of alcoholic beverages. • Restaurant (updated) – 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. The adoption of the new and updated definitions. 11 The following are proposed updates to existing standards: • A regulation that stated nightclubs cannot serve food or beverages between 2:00 and 6:00 a.m. is updated to state that alcoholic beverages cannot be served during those hours which will allow food and non-alcoholic beverages to still be served • A regulation that set the maximum area of a dancefloor is updated to instead require a management plan to be submitted along with any request for a nightclub. The management plan will include staffing levels, floorplans and occupant load. The following are new standards proposed: • A new application for a nightclub must be accompanied by a security plan that includes provisions for the employment of licensed security personnel as well as procedures for crowd management during and immediately following hours of operation • Soundproofing measures are to be incorporated to minimize noise in the nightclub and in surrounding areas • A Special Use Permit for a nightclub is subject to automatic review after two years to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. With all of that, Staff recommends the approval of the text amendment. Chair Alexander then opened up the public portion of the hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak. When no one did, she closed it. With that Vice Chair Edwards then moved to accept Staff’s recommendation. It was seconded by Commissioner Cannon. The role was called, and it passed unanimously. 6e. 2024-ZTA-09: Consideration of a resolution recommending adoption of Article 39, Short Term Rental Regulations, and amendment and readoption of Article 3, Definitions, Article 8, R-3 Two-Family Residence District Regulations, Article 9, R-4 Multiple Dwelling District Regulations, and Article 23, Supplementary Use Regulations – Special Uses, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to short-term rental uses. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. There are a number of residential properties in the City that are utilized for short-term rental, but the City currently has no registry of these properties, and the use is currently unregulated by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed text amendment would introduce short-term rental as a use in the Ordinance, allowing the City to create a registry of properties conducting short-term rentals and to introduce standards to regulate the use. Short-term rental refers to the rental of a dwelling unit or room for fewer than 30 days in exchange for payment. Short-term rental uses are commonly associated with entities like Airbnb, Homestay, or Flipkey. Short-term rental uses typically occur within the residence of the operator and distinguishing them from traditional bed-and-breakfast inns, which are built 12 specifically for transient guests and include eating accommodations and a resident-manager on site. An unknown number of dwellings within the City are currently used for short-term rental, but the properties are not tracked or governed by any specific regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. Without being listed in the Ordinance, this use is technically prohibited. The text amendment would create a registration process for short term rentals where people who want to operate such a short-term rental would need to register with the Zoning Administrator. They would need to provide information about the rental and make sure that it meets all the requirements of the ordinance. Registration would be free of charge, with a grace period for existing rentals until July 1st, 2025. If an existing rental does not register by the deadline or if a new facility opens and operates without registration, there will be a $500 penalty fee. Proposed Changes: The proposed text amendment would introduce short-term rental as a permitted use in the R-3 Two-Family Residence, R-4 Multiple-Dwelling, R-5 Multiple-Dwelling, R-6 High Rise, RB Office Apartment, B-2 General Commercial, and B-3 Central Commercial District. The use would generally be by-right subject to certain development standards, but a Special Use Permit would be required to operate a short-term rental in a property not occupied by the owner as their primary residence. Short-term rental of apartment units would be permitted but limited to no more than ten units or one-third of total units in a development, whichever is less. The proposed amendment would stipulate that properties used for short-term rental would need to register annually with the Zoning Administrator to certify the property meets regulations. A penalty fee would apply to any properties who fail to register. Existing short-term rental properties would be given a grace period through July 1, 2025, to register and obtain a Special Use Permit if needed. Approval to operate as a short-term rental would be revocable based on violations of any regulations and operators would not be able to re-register for the remaining portion of the year in which they lose a license. Prior to a revocation, a rental operator would be made aware of the applicable violations and would be given a chance to appeal the revocation to the Board of Zoning Appeals within 30 days. The proposed text amendment would also introduce Article 39 of the Zoning Ordinance which would introduce specific regulations of the use which would include: • Operators must provide floor plans and emergency contact information to the City and renters and the provide smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, and fire extinguishers in accordance with the Building Code. • Lodging accommodations are limited to primary structures. • The primary renter must be at least 18 and the total number of renters cannot exceed the maximum occupancy of the dwelling unit being based on its underlying zoning. • Rental units cannot be double-booked or split to accommodate multiple parties. 13  • No recreational vehicles, buses, or trailers associated with a short-term rental use can be visible on the property or an adjoining street. • No signs are permitted associated with the short-term rental use. • The dates for trash and recycling collection for a property shall be posted for renters. • A short-term rental operator cannot prepare or serve food or beverages to guests. • A property used for short-term rental cannot include commercial use unless that use is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance Inspection of properties for compliance with these regulations would be required prior to approval of a registration as well as in the case of any complaints against the property. Failure of an operator to allow an inspection could result in revocation of a registration. One thing to note almost all, if not all multi-unit buildings are going to need an SUP, because they are not owner occupied. Because of this, the Planning Commission has the ability to look at each one of these on a case-by-case basis rather than just a blanket rule for just how many units can be rented out short term rental. Chair Alexander then mentioned that it was very late in the evening and the Commission would not be able to give this the time that it deserves. She said that they could go ahead and do a public hearing, but it would have to be truncated or it can be postponed and give it a full public hearing at a future date. Mr. Crews then mentioned that there was a small issue in the way this public hearing was advertised. They did not include the MXD districts and there could be an issue with that later on if the commissioners decided to go ahead with the public hearing that was scheduled for this evening. After all, if there is support for the MXD districts, there would have to be another public hearing anyways. Vice-Chair Edwards then made a motion to table this until the December meeting so that it would include the MXD districts as well. It was seconded by Commissioner Norman. The vote was called and it passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Happy Birthday Commissioner Vargo. 10. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Vargo then asked for adjournment at 8:25 p.m. seconded by Hairston. 14