Planning Commission

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall, Council Chambers, 201 James Avenue Tuesday, October 1, 2024 6:00 p.m. AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes for the August 7, 2024 meeting V. Manner of Addressing the Commission Each speaker at Commission meetings shall, in an audible voice for the record, give his name and address and who he is representing if other than himself; and unless the Commission grants further time, shall limit his remarks to 5 minutes per issue. Provided, however, that the main proponent of any application, petition, or plan that is the subject of a Public Hearing shall be allowed to address the Commission for a maximum of 10 minutes, and later in rebuttal for a maximum of 3 minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the Chairman and the Commission as a body and not to any member or staff person. VI. Hearing of Citizens Generally VII. Existing Conditions Analysis Report – Lot Width Requirement of RL & RM Districts VIII. Old Business IX. Reports 1. Chairman – Mr. Kwiek 2. Director of Planning and Community Development– Mr. Carter 3. City Engineer or his designee – Asst. Director of Public Works – Mr. Ryan 4. City Manager – Mr. Smith 5. City Attorney – Mr. Fisher X. Adjournment  CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall, Council Chambers, 201 James Avenue Wednesday, August 7, 2024 6:00 p.m. MINUTES I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. II. Roll Call Present: Mr. Hartson Mr. Kohan Mrs. Hamilton Mrs. Schiff Mrs. Levenson- Melvin Mr. Wade (Remote) Mr. Kwiek (Remote) III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Hartson asked if the survey provided as a part of the PC Packet would be discussed in the meeting as it was not included in the agenda. Mr. Carter, Director of Planning & Development, responded that the survey did not require action from the Commissioners and was shared as an informational item. Staff would be happy to receive any feedback from the Commissioners. Mr. Carter added that staff will share the survey with the City Council to get their consensus and send it out to residents later this year. Mr. Fisher, City Attorney, suggested it would be a good idea to include it as an agenda item so any interested members of the public will have notice of it. As per Mr. Carter’s suggestion, the Commissioners agreed to include the survey as an Old Business item on the agenda. Mr. Hartson made a motion to approve the agenda with the verbal addition of the survey as an Old Business agenda item, Mrs. Schiff seconded the motion, and all Commissioners voted to approve the motion. 1  Approved 7-0 IV. Approval of Minutes for the July 2, 2024, meeting Mrs. Schiff made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Wade seconded the motion, and all Commissioners voted to approve the motion. Approved 7-0 V. Manner of Addressing the Commission Mr. Fisher read aloud the manner for addressing the Planning Commission. VI. Hearing of Citizens Generally No citizens spoke. VII. Public Hearings a. PC Resolution No. 24-03; Ordinance No. 24-20 Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (the “Tenant”) with authorization from Southpark Mall CMBS, LLC (the “Owner”) requests a special use permit to allow a temporary warehousing and distribution use of the approx. 113,545 sq. ft. building at 114 Southpark Circle, known as the former Sears building on Southpark Circle at the southern end of the Southpark Mall. The property, also known as parcel identification number 68204700013, is comprised of approx. 8.482 acres and is zoned GB – General Business. Mr. Bond, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development, presented the facts of the application to the Commissioners and the conditions of approval. Mr. Carlton Stevens, the representative of the applicant, answered questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Wade asked if there were any ideas for relocating the business in the next five years. Mr. Stevens responded that he had no knowledge of such plans now and that he would find out and provide that information to the Commissioners later. Mr. Wade asked if Mr. Stevens was aware of the lease terms with the property owner, particularly the inception and exit dates. Mr. Stevens said that he was not fully aware of the lease terms; however, per his understanding, their exit date was November, 2025. Mr. Wade asked if any other business would utilize the warehouse space besides Dick’s Sporting Goods. Mr. Stevens said that there are several brands under the Dick’s Sporting Goods umbrella. The facility will be used only for these brands and nothing outside of it. Mr. Wade asked if there would be any signage at the facility. Mr. Stevens responded that he had no knowledge and hence would not be able to answer that question. Mr. Wade asked what the daily operating hours of the facility would be. Mr. Stevens responded that the hours of operation would be based on truck deliveries and fulfillments; 2 but, it would most often be 7 am to 4 pm. Mr. Hartson asked Mr. Stevens to explain the nature of the activity at the facility. Mr. Stevens responded that the Dick’s sporting goods outlets at several locations are refurbished from time to time. The display racks and other display materials from the various locations will be brought into this facility and repurposed and used back in refurbishing other stores. Mr. Hartson asked the reason for restricting the warehouse use to storage and transport of fixtures and not to use the property for storage or distribution of Dick’s Sporting Goods products in the conditions of approval. Mr. Bond responded that the applicant had not asked for storage of goods in their application. Mr. Carter explained that the activity description in the application states that the facility will be used as a warehouse and distribution center of display boxes, racks, and other items used to display the products of Dick’s Sporting Goods; not just for this one store but for all stores along the east coast. Per the description, this is an allowed use in the Industrial zoning district per the City Code and not in the General Business district. Staff worked with the applicant to understand the specific use of the facility and came up with this Special Use permit application. As a follow-up question, Mr. Kwiek asked Mr. Carter whether the Special Use Permit approval would be impacted if the applicant chose to store their products at the new location at a later date. Mr. Fisher clarified that per the conditions of approval, should the applicant choose to store their products for retail sale, the permit will have to be modified. Mr. Bond added that the engineer’s report states that the fire suppression system currently in place is adequate for storing fixtures and does not account for the storage of products for retail sale. Should the applicant decide to store products for retail sale, they would have to request a modification to the special use permit that, in turn, would require the fire suppression system to be reassessed. Mrs. Schiff asked if Dick’s Sporting Goods owns the property. Mr. Stevens responded that they rent the property. Mrs. Schiff asked if the application would change the zoning of the former Sears building from General Business to Mixed Use. Mr. Fisher clarified that the application does not seek to rezone the property. He added that, while the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as mixed-use, it is not currently zoned for mixed-use and would not be zoned mixed-use if the application is approved. Mrs. Levenson-Melvin expressed her concern about the coordination between the applicant, the owner of the property, and staff when it is time to renew the permit. Mr. Bond clarified that the applicant has made the application in conjunction with the property owner and the permit renewal date has been agreed upon by Dick’s Sporting Goods and the property owner. Mr. Carter clarified that the Staff has informed the applicant that an extension of the permit will have to follow the same process of special use permit approval including the recommendation by the Planning Commission and 3  approval from the City Council. Mr. Carter added that staff will closely monitor the compliance by the applicant. Mr. Hartson shared his happiness that the former Sears building will be put to good use with this application and the City will earn some revenue from the business. Mrs. Levenson-Melvin added that she would like to see the extension of the permit and see the future addition of long-term employment opportunities for residents at the Dicks Sporting Goods facility. Mr. Kwiek asked if the delivery time would be 12-2 pm as shared in the staff presentation or 7 am to 4 pm as stated by the applicant’s representative earlier while addressing the Commissioners. Mr. Stevens clarified that the working hours he shared earlier (7 am to 4 pm) are for the labor workforce in the building engaged in recycling the metal and not for truck delivery. Mr. Carter inquired with Mr. Fisher that should the applicant decide to change the hours of delivery in their application, could they do so before the public hearing before the City Council. Mr. Fisher stated that so long as it did not substantially change the application. Mr. Kwiek opened the floor for the public hearing. No citizens spoke. Mr. Hartson made a motion to approve PC Resolution No. 24-03 recommending the approval of Ordinance No. 24-20. Mr. Wade seconded the motion and all Commissioners voted to approve the motion. Approved 7-0 VIII. Old Business Mr. Carter discussed the draft survey shared with the Commissioners in the PC Packet and welcomed their feedback and questions. Mr. Carter shared that the survey will be made available to residents in multiple ways; residents can scan a QR code and submit the survey online, click a link to access the survey online, or fill out a paper copy of the survey that will be mailed to their address. Staff will also go out to community events or open houses to help interested residents fill out the survey in person. He shared that the draft includes the extent of questions that staff intends to include in the survey; however, the length of the survey and the actual number of questions that will be included in the survey will be determined once the survey is converted into a digital format. Planning Commissioners provided the following feedback: - Q3. Mr. Kohan asked if the question related to the respondent alone or other members of the family as well. Mr. Carter – Respondent alone 4  – Q9 – Mr. Kohan stated that ‘Retiree’ should be included as an optional response. - Q10 – Mr. Kohan stated that a box under ‘other (specify)’ should be included so respondents can have a place to put their responses. Mr. Carter – The fully formatted survey will show either a line or a box where respondents can key their responses. - Mr. Kohan suggested that ‘N/A’ be included as a response for Q17 and Q59 for those that are not concerned with the issue. Mr. Carter –By giving an N/A to questions, the data received from the survey may not be very useful. Mr. Hartson remarked that the survey was very long and that the length increased the likelihood of only educated residents taking the survey. He asked if the survey would be available on the City’s website. Mr. Carter confirmed that the survey will be posted on the City’s webpage. Mr. Hartson asked if the responses received would be representative of the city. Mr. Carter shared that all respondents will be residents of the city and hence they will be representative, and a sample of a little less than 400 is statistically significant to represent the city. Mr. Bond added that the demographic data coming from the survey will help better understand the needs and aspirations of different sections of the city’s population in terms of age, gender, etc. Mr. Kwiek asked Mr. Carter to share the different methods of outreach planned by staff to get responses from residents. Mr. Carter explained that an article about the survey will be published in the City Focus. Paper copies of the survey will be mailed out to every address in the city. Staff will reach out to community organizations and participate in community events and open houses. Mrs. Hamilton complimented the staff's efforts in putting the survey questions together. She shared that the questions were good, and that she could tell much thought has gone into preparing the survey. She hoped that the residents will come forward to take the survey and give their feedback. She mentioned that it was a worthwhile effort. Mr. Carter thanked Mrs. Hamilton for her compliments and shared that the staff has worked hard to address and incorporate all the feedback received from the Commissioners and Council members in preparing the survey. He thanked Ms. Wallace, the Economic Development Specialist, for her input on questions related to business and economic development in the survey. IX. Reports 1. Chairman – Mr. Kwiek Mr. Kwiek deferred his time to Mr. Hartson to discuss the Eastern Route 60 Corridor Plan. Mr. Hartson remarked that Chesterfield County near Johnston Willis has a lot of issues like the ones on Boulevard. He pointed to the Post Office on the Boulevard as an example of a building that needs to be cleaned. He said that we must take one building at a time 5  and improve the looks of the Boulevard. He asked if the Commission could consider an ordinance prohibiting the display of merchandise outside a building. Mr. Carter offered to look at the code to check if there was any provision regarding the display of merchandise outside the building. Mr. Fisher said that certain businesses displaying merchandise outside (e.g. the junkyard on the Boulevard) are grandfathered; and hence, there may not be any provision to prohibit the display in the State Code. Mr. Hartson expressed that the Commission would like to invite a staff member from Chesterfield County to speak about their Route 60 corridor plan. Mrs. Schiff seconded the proposal and said that it was a wonderful idea. Mr. Carter offered to reach out to the Chesterfield County Planning office. He asked if there were specific topics that the Commissioners wanted the staff member to cover in their presentation. Mr. Hartson listed the following: - Nature of the plan - Goals and Objectives - Public Involvement Mrs. Schiff shared an incident in her neighborhood, Gills Point. She said that one of the homes in the neighborhood that recently had a change of owner was renting their pool on an hourly basis. During a recent rental, nearly 150 people were partying at the pool using alcohol, marijuana, and other substances. This, she stated, was unacceptable and needs to be checked. She requested the Commission’s support to amend the ordinance to be able to regulate this type of activity if the ordinance does not already have anything to address it. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Kwiek shared that it has come to his attention that many homeowners, north of Ellerslie, who have been living in the neighborhoods for 30-plus years have decided to move out, some of whom are already moving, because of the different issues cropping up in the city like homeless people staying in the backyards, etc. 2. Director of Planning and Community Development – Mr. Carter Mr. Carter updated the Commissioners about the three vacancies in the department – part-time Code Inspector, Code Enforcement Supervisor, and Permit Technician. He shared that the interviews for shortlisted candidates were scheduled during the week. Mrs. Hamilton asked if the Planning staff was inspecting the properties that had code enforcement complaints. Mr. Carter responded that the department has one Code Inspector currently working part-time but that properties are stilling being inspected. The Building Official is currently performing the supervisory duties for code enforcement. Both staff members and the Director of Planning are currently working on all code enforcement complaints received by the department. Mr. Kwiek asked Mr. Carter about the number of City-assigned code enforcement staff positions available. Mr. Carter said, 3 positions, one full-time Code Enforcement 6  Supervisor and two part-time Code Inspectors. 3. Asst. Director of Public Works – Mr. Ryan Mr. Ryan shared that the survey the Planning Department is administering will not only help in understanding what the residents want, but also help in obtaining grant funding for various projects as many grant funds request that localities share any public input. He updated the Commissioners on the status of the ongoing projects in the city. - Roanoke Ave reconstruction project: The Department is exploring the cost of consultancy services for the reconstruction of Roanoke Ave. - The High School Sidewalks project: Utilities have been relocated. Bids are to be put out in early Fall. Mr. Kohan asked Mr. Ryan if there was any plan to pave the Charles H Dimmock Parkway. Mr. Ryan responded that there was no plan now. Mr. Kwiek appreciated the paving of the existing ramps by VDOT. He asked for an update on the landscaping of the roundabout. Mr. Ryan shared that VDOT has approved the City's special permit request to install a flagpole and landscape the roundabout. The City is in contact with the geotechnical firm for designing the foundation. Mr. Wade shared that it has been a long process to get the approval from VDOT due to various reasons including lack of VDOT staff. 4. Others, as necessary or appropriate a. City Manager – Mr. Smith Mr. Smith shared that the City has issued the Purchase Order to the Architectural firm for Phase II of the Violet Bank project. Mr. Smith thanked Mrs. Levenson-Melvin for sharing the details of a grant opportunity from the Historical Resources Commission. The City is preparing a grant application and if selected may be able to use the grant funding for Phase II of the Violet Bank project. Mr. Spruill is recognized as the new Director of Recreation and Parks. The City has received a grant from the State to conduct a brief survey on the allocation of the Opioid Settlement Funds. Mr. Kohan asked for details about the monitors located on the bridges. Mr. Ryan explained that these were water-level flood monitors used by the City’s EMS team to monitor floods. He said that the City received grants from the State Emergency Management to put out these surface monitors. Mr. Hartson recollected the traffic study conducted earlier and asked Mr. Ryan if there were any plans to repair the bridge at Sherwood Hills. Mr. Ryan shared that their request application was not selected for current-year funding. 7  b. City Attorney – Mr. Fisher Mr. Fisher shared that details of a surety agreement have been worked out with Go Carwash on the Boulevard, and the deed of easement has been recorded at the Circuit Court. Mr. Carter added that Go Carwash has a ribbon cutting scheduled at 11 am on August 29th. Mr. Fisher shared that the City has been able to agree on compensation terms for easements with one of the two remaining property owners involved in the Boulevard/Temple Avenue turn lane project. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 P.M. Noah Kwiek. Joseph Carter Jr. Chairman Secretary 8  Existing Conditions Analysis Report - Lot Width Requirement of RL & RM Districts Planning Commission October 1, 2024 Request Staff seeks Planning Commission’s feedback and support to proceed with developing recommendations to revise the zoning ordinance to address issues identified regarding single family lot widths found in the City, specifically those found in the RL and RM zoning districts. Background During the most extreme circumstances, such as destruction of a dwelling due to weather or natural disaster or necessary reconstruction due to owner neglect or even desire, an issue arises on occasion that a property owner must seek a variance from the BZA to reconstruct a dwelling, or portion thereof, because the lot itself is nonconforming. Each variance application has a $1000 application fee for processing by staff and consideration by the BZA, and the decision is discretionary by the BZA. The timing of an additional $1000 cost for an application to gain approval for construction is usually not welcomed, the fee itself comes at one of the lowest points of person’s experience with home ownership, and the fee adds an additional cost to the project. Pursuant to § 15.2-2309 (Powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals) of Virginia State Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) has certain criteria in which to consider approval of a variance application. Under such criteria, there is a specific section which references the following: (iii) the condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance; In short, this section of State Code is stating that if such a particular occurrence that gives rise to the variance application is routinely presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval, the locality has a duty to revise the zoning regulation to remedy the situation uniformly. As previously mentioned last month, the Planning Commission has the duty and authority to review and recommend the adoption of comprehensive City zoning regulations, restrictions, district boundaries, etc. in accordance with City Code § 17.10. Therefore, Staff has preformed an analysis of existing conditions regarding lot widths in the RL and RM zoning districts and the past variance applications to the BZA. This document is a report of that analysis with findings. Existing Conditions Analysis Report Lot Requirements of RL & RM Districts Planning Commission October 1, 2024 Page 2 of 6 Analysis Staff reviewed past Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) applications back to 2017 to determine if there is a recurrence of specific variance applications to the BZA. Since 2017, there have been a total of 14 variance cases presented to the BZA with 11 of them directly related to seeking relief to the 75’ minimum lot width requirement to construct or reconstruct single family residential dwellings. This equals approximately 79% of the applications being reviewed and processed. With each of these cases City Staff has recommended approval due to the nature of the request involving the loss of use of a structure or the reconstruction of a structure that has lost its legal non-conforming status. These observations have prompted staff to perform an analysis of actual lot widths for single family residential lots in the City, and research past code sections to determine a cause for the applications. Using the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS), staff is able to determine that of the approximately 7000 residential lots in the City within the RL (Residential, Low Density) and RM ( Residential, Medium Density) zoning district designations, nearly half of the total number of parcels (47.4% or 3,318) do not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 75’ (75 feet) prescribed by Chapter 286 of City Code (a map reflecting the general location of lot frontages that are not at least 75 feet and those that are at least 75 is attached as Map#1): Residential parcels 3679 Parcels meeting Lot Width Requirement (75’ Lot width or greater) = 52.6% 3318 Parcels NOT meeting Lot Width Requirement (75’ Lot width or greater) = 47.4% Potential Cause Other than many of the lots in the City being originally platted significantly narrower than current standards prior to the City even having a zoning ordinance, Staff research reveals that the previous zoning chapter of City Code, for ease of reference we can refer to it as the “Previous Zoning Ordinance”, presribed a slightly different requirement for determining minimum lot widths and that many of the residential lots were developed with the previously approved zoning districts such as R1, R2, R3, and R4. Previous language of lot width requirement: All lots or building sites in an R[#] Single-Dwelling District shall have a minimum width of 75 feet on the building line and the twenty-five-foot setback at the center of curve as applicable, a rear width of not less than 50 feet and minimum average depth of 100 feet, unless a lot of lesser dimensions has been recorded prior to August 31, 1971. Current language of lot width requirement: Minimum lot requirements: Area: 7,500 square feet Frontage: 75 feet Depth: 100 feet Page 2 of 6 Existing Conditions Analysis Report Lot Requirements of RL & RM Districts Planning Commission October 1, 2024 Page 3 of 6 The current standard enforces the measurement strictly at the right-of-way line, which is simpler and easier to administer, the preferred option. However, the difference in the language is that the previous language took into account the lot width at the building line at the front yard setback. For lots within a curve of the road or at the end of a cul-de-sac, a “pie shaped” lot is created and the lot width would be wider measured at the front building line than at the right-of-way line. This circumstance is typical of curvilinear lots. Curvilinear lot lines are much more prevalent in the most recent subdivision developments with curved roads and cul-de-sacs, whereas older portions of the City have more of a street grid pattern. Examples of each development pattern, street grid and curvilinear, are attached to staff report. Conclusion The analysis and observations present clear evidence on the need to revise zoning regulations regarding minimum lot requirements. The impact is substantial to the residential market as RL is the predominant zoning district in the City, and single family dwellings is the predominant land use. Revisions to the zoning ordinance will alleviate a barrier and cost for the construction and reconstruction of single family uses for certain areas of the City. The street pattern contributes to the neighborhood character and must be carefully considered with any recommendation to address this issue. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends this issue be addressed to alleviate the requirement for existing residential lots that are less than 75’ from pursuing a variance. Staff recommends additional analysis be performed to develop a recommendation to address the issue presented herein. Draft Motion Below is a draft motion the Planning Commission may consider if in agreement with Staff’s Recommendation: • I move that the Planning Commission request Staff perform additional analysis as necessary to develop a recommendation to address the lot width issue and present the findings at a future Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: Map #1: Lot Width Map – Residential Lots 75’ or not Street Grid Pattern Neighborhood Samples Curvilinear Street Pattern Neighborhood Samples Page 3 of 6 Existing Conditions Analysis Report Lot Requirements of RL & RM Districts Planning Commission October 1, 2024 Page 4 of 6 Street Grid Pattern Page 4 of 6 Existing Conditions Analysis Report Lot Requirements of RL & RM Districts Planning Commission October 1, 2024 Page 5 of 6 Curvilinear Street Pattern Page 5 of 6 Existing Conditions Analysis Report Lot Requirements of RL & RM Districts Planning Commission October 1, 2024 Page 6 of 6 Page 6 of 6  Lot Widths for RL and RM Districts . Legend ResidentialParcelRoadFrontage Lot Widths < than 75 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles >= 75  City of Colonial Heights Planning Commission Public Meeting Schedule for the Year 2024 and 2025 Annual Meeting All Meetings Begin at 6:00 P.M. Meeting Date Agenda Materials Deadline Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Wednesday, January 3, 2024 Wednesday, March 6, 2024 Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Wednesday, May 8, 2024 Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Tuesday, July 2, 2024 Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Wednesday, August 7, 2024 Tuesday, July 2, 2024 Wednesday, September 4, 2024 Wednesday, August 7, 2024 Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Wednesday, September 4, 2024 Wednesday, November 6, 2024 Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Wednesday, December 4, 2024 Wednesday, November 6, 2024 Tuesday, January 7, 2025 Wednesday, December 4, 2024