Planning Commission

Name: Planning Commission — Petersburg, VA
Start: 2023-08-17
End: 2023-08-17
Location: Petersburg, VA

Regular Meeting

Petersburg, VA · August 17, 2023

Minutes

City of Petersburg Planning Commission Special Meeting August 17, 2023 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, August 17, 2023, was called to order by the Chair, Mrs. Tammy Alexander, at 6:30 p.m. A roll call was completed by Ms. Michelle Murrills. Members Present: Ms. Tammy Alexander, Chair Mr. Fenton Bland, Vice Chair Mr. Thomas Hairston Mr. Michael Edwards Dr. James Norman Dr. William Irving Members Absent: Dr. Chioma Adaku Ms. Marie Vargo Mrs. Candace Taylor A Quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Others Present: Ms. Naomi Siodmok Planning Director, Ms. Sandra Robinson, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Andrew Conlin, Mr. Alexander Snowdon, Mr. Alexander “Sandy” Graham, Mr. Jim Whelan, Mr. Peter Gerges, Mr. Johnny Ingargiola, Mr. Ray Ferguson, Mr. Richard Burgess, Mr. Carl Vandeburg, Mrs. Debbie Ferguson, and Mr. Brian Moore, Director of Economic Development. Adoption of the Agenda: 1 Chair Alexander called for any changes to the agenda. Since there were none, Commissioner Edwards moved for the approval of the agenda; Commissioner Bland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Public Hearings: Chair Alexander read the notice of a public hearing as follows: 2023-REZ-05: A Public Hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a Petition to rezone the property located at 2255 Jamestown Road from A, Agricultural Zoning District to M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District, and 2262 County Drive from B-2, General Commercial Zoning District to M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District. Director Siodmok made the presentation. First introducing herself to everyone since not all commissioners had met the new Planning & Community Development Director. These two properties are up again for consideration to have them both rezoned to a Light Industrial Zoning District. The proposed use is 950,000 square feet of warehouse distribution center with parking and other site related improvements which are permitted under the M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. The department did want to tell everyone why it was being brought back up to the commission. With proper notices, that previously had an issue, this is now being brought back to you all. There are two properties we are discussing. The larger of the two, 2255 Jamestown Road, is almost 74 acres while the smaller of the two on County Drive is a little over two acres. However, it is the one that has a majority of the frontage on the roadway. Development regulations in terms of setbacks, they are required to have setbacks of 10’ especially in the rear. When you are along residential there is an adjustment to those setbacks if they are going to build above 35’. Since they are building along residential there is 35’ and two stories max. The area is designated at Light Industrial per the Comprehensive Plan. There is a revised site plan that takes into consideration what was proposed at the last meeting about this parcel of land. So, there is a new 150’ buffer adjacent to the residential and the road is separated by the buffer from residential. Staff recommends approval WITH ONE CONDITION due to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan in land use as well as economic development goals to assemble smaller tracts of land for industrial development. The one condition being that the development be in substantial conformance with the Updated Conceptual Plan (Including the tree buffer) as presented in exhibit E in the letter to City Council on July 10, 2023. Chair Alexander then asked the applicant to come speak. Mr. Andrew Condlin with Onward and Upward LLC and Alexander Snowden and Alexander “Sandy” Graham came to the podium. Mr. Condlin then said that this property is in an opportunity zone from a federal standpoint but also designated from the city’s standpoint as Light Industrial. These properties are perfect for what is needed here. As you know the concept of supply chain has been changing and this would allow not only the person using the space to keep up with it, but also the city of Petersburg 2 as well. There is obviously limited land in the city and not enough to be able to accumulate enough land to be able to do something like this on this scale, which is exactly what is needed for both the businesses coming in, but also the city as well. So not only is this in line with the Comprehensive Plan but also with the Strategic Plan. Including their goals for fostering retail, industrial and logistical development and diversifying the city’s tax base which is exactly what this project is doing. The one thing that anywhere needs is readily available sites and that is one thing that Petersburg is lagging behind the surrounding communities with. This project has great potential. Our analysis shows that this site has potential. Our analysis shows that it could be worth as much as 650 jobs and in excess of a million dollars in tax revenue. Light Industrial is a very limited user of the water and sewer system. With the issues of Poor Creek and the wastewater out there, this project is a great opportunity to bring in revenue without adding to the problems in the area. Furthermore, light industrial brings in the least amount of traffic of any potential uses of the land. We have also included a traffic analysis of County Drive and it shows that the way that we have set up the trucks coming on and off the property would impact the traffic in the area much less than any other land usage. With this, we ask that you please follow the recommendation of the staff and allow this project. Chair Alexander then asked if they happened to bring a diagram of the turn lane that they want to put off of County Drive. Mr. Condlin said that he did not for the big screen, but he did have one in the letter that the law firm wrote up. Commissioner Edwards then said that he had some questions. He said that the biggest one was a question about the traffic study. I understand that this was conducted on June 26 is that correct? That is when the analysis was conducted. The study was actually done during the school year. Commissioner Edwards then quoted the study that said that school buses represent approximately 0.3% of the traffic volume on County Drive, and there are no school bus stops in close proximity to the property frontage. Petersburg Area Transit operates one bus route on County Drive with one-hour headways. The nearest stop to the west is at Hardee’s, which is approximately 0.3 miles away. The nearest stop to the east is at Pinetree Drive, which is approximately 1.3 miles to the east. So, to address the first section of this report, I have given to my fellow planning commissioners a printout from the Petersburg School System Website that shows that there are indeed numerous school bus stops within close proximity of your proposed development. For Westview Early Childhood Education center there is a stop at the Flagship Inn. For Lakemont Elementary, there is a stop at Jamestown Dr and County Drive, one at County Drive and Poe Lane, one at Aqua Apartments and one at American Inn. For Petersburg High School there is a stop at Aqua Apartments and a stop at the American Inn. For Vernon Johns Middle School there is one at Sunset Mobile Home Park, one at Fords Mobile Home Park, on at Garden Mobile Home Park, one on Poe Lane, one at Aqua Apartments and one at American Inn. So, to me this shows that there a numerous school bus stops throughout this area. In addition, Petersburg Area Transit (PAT)…it is correct that these bus stops do exist, but there is also a bus stop that is very active at the following locations: California Inn, American Inn, Aqua Apartments and AAAA Self Storage. I do not believe that this traffic report is telling the full story. With all these bus stops we say that it will not cause traffic issues. We all know that when traffic gets backed up on 95 County Road gets backed up. You have proposed a right turn 3 option. With that right turn lane that you have also proposed. When everything gets backed up this is all going to be a nightmare. But I do want to go on the record and say that I am not against this project, but I do want everyone to know how things are going to look with this project done. So, can you tell us why these things are not in the traffic report? Mr. Condlin answered that the traffic counts were taken March 7th and therefore were taken during the school year. I certainly was not able to do all the research like you did and did not know that. I am afraid that I do not know where the information was originally found, but I can definitely talk with our people and let them know that information. We take time to look at the background traffic and the other trucks coming and going. One thing that the traffic study did find is that yes there are going to be back ups on 460. There will be situations where we will have no control over the situation, but since we are aware that things can happen perhaps, we will be able to mitigate them. As to the information that you provided, I do not have access to that information and have no more to add. But I can say that it is not normal for a traffic study to observe buses and it was only the fact that the issue was brought up by the Planning Department that it was added to the study. There is a lot of traffic at any given time along the 460 corridor. Also, I don’t know if you have been on County Drive during the evening time, but you have Fort Gregg-Adams that adds to the traffic there as well. Everyone that I have talked to about this matter has spoken about the added traffic. I really must say that our citizens matter and everything that we do up here matters and their voices matter. If everyone is talking about the traffic, then obviously it matters. Even though we are appointed by City Council we are representatives of the city. At the June 1st meeting I asked the representatives that were here if there was an occupant already proposed for the development. The response that I received was that no there was not. But now we have paperwork in front of us stating that there will be 650 jobs. What has changed that this number is now being quoted? Do you have a tenant now for this project? The answer was that no they do not and the numbers that they are quoting are the average for this type of facility. Tenants would not start negotiations until the building has at least been approved. At any time will you ever put any restrictions on the type of materials that will be allowed at the site? Will there ever be anything like biohazard materials or something like that? The answer is an easy no because the M-1 Zone would not allow it. Also, this is a very large size development. Will this be something along the size of Philip-Morris up I-95. The answer was that Mr. Condlin does not know the size of Philip-Morris and could not say. At anytime have you spoke with the surrounding businesses and residents who live there? The answer was yes because they were looking at possibly buying up more acreage and so were in talks with several different people. Commissioner Hairston then asked a question about jobs. These 650 jobs that were discussed, are they actual jobs? Since we do not have a company signed up yet, no these are not actual jobs that is the projections based upon the average that a site like this can handle. As soon as we get this area zoned, then we can start marketing to different companies and have someone in there then who would then solidify the number of jobs exactly. There will be construction jobs that this will bring, but I am not including those, instead I am only including the jobs that the tenant will bring in. 4 Commissioner Norman then asked who actually developing the building? Alexander Snowden said that it will be part of the actual LLC that we have that will be building upon the site. Mr. Snowden then came forward and said that they will have a specialized company come and design and build the buildings once the zoning has been changed and they have been able to then present themselves to different companies who might be interested in the property. Right now, we are in between a rock and a hard place. The city, who has not changed the zoning, is marketing the land a certain way, but until the zoning is changed no one will even come and look at it. Until the zoning is changed, we can’t begin to properly market it. So right now, we are just waiting for the zoning to get changed so that we can continue on with the project. Chair Alexander then asked if the commissioners had any other questions. When no one spoke, she then opened up the public portion of the hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the project. Mr. Jim Whelan, 2156 County Drive, said that he was in favor of the project. I own six different businesses throughout the corridor there on County Drive. I am lucky enough to spend every morning, every afternoon, and every evening 200 yards from that intersection. I can’t say that I have seen tractor trailers backed up into that area more than five times in the past 20 years. We have been there since 1984 and as far as any other traffic around in that area, yes currently, it does get backed up because currently you are working on the bridge over there. Take that out and it will not be an issue and even then, typically it is only an issue during about 2 hours a day. This area needs tax revenue. We need jobs. I understand that you would like to know exactly how many jobs this is going to bring to the area, but we are not going to know that until the final contracts are made. Quite honestly, it doesn't matter because this area needs all the jobs it can get. Are there bus stops throughout the area? Yes! Did VDOT come in there when Fort Gregg- Adam made the Mahone Gate bigger, with a study? Yes. They came in and made that area bigger. Believe me, they took part of my property to do it. This is not just a project that will be done by the city, it will be a lot bigger than that. Yes, Petersburg has one major asset, and it is where we are. We are located in a close region to where 85, 95, 295, 301, rt 1, and 460 all come together and there are not many places in Petersburg that all of those come together and this area is one of them. If you decide not to do this, don’t think that they won’t go down the street to Prince George or Dinwiddie, it is the region that they want. They want this area with easy access to multiple roads. So, we can either be for them and do something good for the city that will bring these jobs that we desperately need or not. I am in support of this project, and I think we need businesses in the area. I realize that there are going to be issues with people wanting their properties not being taken over and everything else. I recently built a business in the City of Petersburg and trust me, the Planning Department, they are going to comb over you from one end to the other until it’s right. They are going to make sure everything is all right; they sure did that with my business. It was a lengthy process, but they did a thorough job of it. Thank you. Mr. Brian Moore, Director of Economic Development, this evening I am here in support of this project. I was asked to be here to show my support and absolutely I do. This is a fantastic opportunity. This is all the perfect storm coming together and it is a win win for the city. Within the past ten days my office has received requests for almost 5 million sq feet of warehouse space. We are trying to find places just to keep it in the region—Petersburg does not have any footage—but even in Prince George we are having a hard time finding the space. We need to get 5 these projects in Petersburg. It’s the jobs; with more jobs we got, we can build that median income. Council has been doing a great job getting that bond rating up. Well to get that bond rating up part of the criteria is the median income. As Mr. Edwards has said we definitely want to listen to our citizens, but we also need to find that balance as we want to lead the city forward and I trust that we will all work together to do so. Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Peter Gerges, 2156 County Drive, Hello I am here to speak on behalf of a small little mom and pop shop, I know for a fact that this project would have a huge impact on even small little mom and pop shops. We have two little gas stations, and you are talking about the amount of traffic that comes through this area. I wish that traffic would come through here. Do you know what a positive impact that would have on this area? I do not think that I have ever seen the road backed up for more than a few minutes. I am hoping that we do have that amount of traffic coming along 460. That would mean that we are having jobs and we are having people come in. I know for a fact that it would have a positive impact no matter what. Yes, we will have to find the balance and deal with issues as they arise. But telling them that they can’t have it at all, and they will just move somewhere else, and we will lose out on the income and the jobs that they will bring in and the positive impact on the people who are here. I can’t tell you how many people come up to my dad and ask him for a job and he can’t because he just can’t afford it. The amount of positive impact that it would have on the community, the standard of living that it would increase. I really do hope that you guys make the correct decision today and help the community. Thank you. Mr. Johnny Ingargiola, owner of Romas 2447 County Drive, we have been on 460 for over 35 years and to have something like this come to the 460 corridor is it will be a blessing. I have a son and I want to keep the next generation going so that they can inherit the restaurant. What we have right now is nothing. Those hotels…I have people dine and dash all the time. The people on that part of 460, it’s not that great and so to have these new warehouses come it would be a blessing. So hopefully you guys will see that obviously it will be more business for you guys. It be good for the city and will bring in more business. It is a win win. It is a no brainer. Hopefully you guys can see and understand that. Thank you. Chair Alexander then asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition. Mr. Ray Ferguson, 2476 Poe Lane, I have heard a lot about how this is good for the city and how this will be good for the city as a whole, but I think that is coming from a lot of people who do not live there. There are hundreds of families that live around this property. There are the trailer parks, Poe Lane, and oh by the way there are transients right there at the hotels. I watch kids run across the road trying to get candy. Just today on the way home as I was driving home a guy got stuck right in the middle of both lanes as he was trying to go across the street. That happened today and I see it all the time. So do a lot of these business owners. I get it, it’s good for business absolutely but you know what, people live there for public safety and you guys are the first line of defense. This is a round peg in a square hole. They should not go here at all. They should have built apartments and houses like they had promised that they were going to build. And now they want to bring in industrial. That is not what you talk about when we talk about the school buses, the bus stops, we see people running across the road all the time. This is not the right place for this to happen. Again, there are hundreds of families that live around here. If you look 6 at their request that they did for the special use permit, just a couple of things here. They talk about very limited residential properties. That is 100% not true with the hundreds of families that live here. There are three trailer parks and three hotels that are all around this project area. If you look at what the City of Petersburg wrote up, signed by Mr. Tabor, they talk about Tae’s Barbour Shop. Well, you notice that they are not here. If you remember at the last planning commission meeting, she was crying…she was very upset because they were threatened with lawsuits, and at the same time they were told that houses were going to go there and so were apartments…but none of that is happening. Onward and Upward has lied to them and that is on camera by the husband who was sitting up there telling you guys that is what happened. Nothing has changed from June 1st until now. All of that is still the same. We have found out more information, more information about school buses, but nothing has changed from then until now. If you look, only two people have called that were upset about this. At the time the phones were not working properly. Well, I am glad that they have fixed that and put up the signs and have done the right thing. But there is a lot of stuff that I think that a lot of people are upset about, some of which are here tonight, but not all of them. When it comes to the findings and the staff analysis and talking about VDOT entrance way. I have not seen anything that says what they are going to do with this third lane and how it’s going to look. Well, we are coming out of Poe Lane, and we have two lanes of traffic to cross at a minimum and now they are going to put a third lane in right in front of our street that is going to be an acceleration for trucks. How do you think that’s going to play out? The last thing I am going to say is if you look at VDOT, if you look at their traffic study 100% of their trucks are supposed to be turning in from the right. What happens when they are coming toward 95 and they need to turn in there? Where are they going to turn around? It’s going to be very problematic. And the last thing done on this study. Peak hours are 7:15 in the morning until 8:15 at night…the traffic is going to increase by 22% in the morning and 29% at night. And that is on the traffic study that they show. So, there are problems all along there with the school buses. Thank you. Mr. Richard Burgess, I represent Herman and Shirley Burgess who live at 2490 Poe Lane, they have been long term investors out on Poe Lane and have asked me to speak with y’all about their concerns which are related to the noise that will probably occur from the truck traffic that will be associated with this type of investment. Also, the intrusion of light that will most likely be there 24 hours. We have worked very hard to be cooperative with the actual Planning Department and the city in general. We have the Aqua Apartments that were developed right next to my parents’ property and that development has been very positive. We have not had any issues; it has been a positive experience. It is housing for a lot of the Fort Gregg personnel that are stationed there, so we do feel that something of that nature would be a much more positive development when related to this piece of property. We do not feel that we would have nearly the traffic issues that this with the truck traffic and the warehouse that this will create. It seems like much better use of this property and also still provide a good tax base for the city of Petersburg. You have to understand, all this truck traffic is going to be impacting the pavement itself. There are already issues with that pavement out there. And also, this traffic that is going to be making that right hand turn, out of the actual development the actual warehouse development, and then proceeding down to either Wagner Road or going south. With that you will have an impact on the pavement itself for 460 but also Wagner Road as well. Wagner Road has not been overlayed since it was built, and it was built over 33 years ago. So, there is going to have to be some investment into 7 infrastructure that has truly been neglected over many years. We just really ask that you take all this into consideration, and we appreciate you addressing the concerns that we have. Thank you! Mr. Carl Vandeburg, 2408 County Drive, my property includes the first section of Poe Lane. I have eight rentals on my property: three driveways right across from Jamestown Drive. Since I have lived there for sixty years, I have seen numerous truck wrecks right in front of my property. Especially from vehicles coming east from Norfolk trying to make that right turn onto Jamestown Drive. If it’s a large vehicle they can’t do it and get stuck. If they have to redo the Jamestown Drive, I have three driveways right in front of it. It is going to be a nightmare. The acceleration lane is going to be taking frontage from my property. If they do put the turn lane it, my house and my shop will be worthless. I cannot pull into the shop if they put that turn lane in right there. There will not be enough lane, so I will lose that property. Now if you go down to Wagner Road, from County Drive there is a large piece of land that would affect no residents in the City of Petersburg. But this project here is going to be a nightmare for my properties. I have three driveways this is going to affect. If they redo the Jamestown Drive, it is going to be dangerous and I have seen numerous people almost get hit down here. I have seen two boys get off the school bus and get hit and killed down here. It is dangerous out there. I would love to see businesses come to Petersburg; Petersburg needs the boom. I have been here sixty years. I remember when people would come from North Carolina to Petersburg to get a job and I would like to see it return to that, but you can’t affect the citizens that have been there all of their lives. And this is going to be a dangerous situation. Thank you Debbie Ferguson, 2476 Poe Lane, I am completely for the business in Petersburg, I think it is going to absolutely be wonderful, but I chose my home for a reason. And the reason that I chose this home is that it is quiet. It was peaceful, it was like I was living in the country. And I picked that house because of that reason. And now I have a great concern that my home is no longer going to be a quiet area. This is not a small thing for me, this is my home. Thank you Chair Alexander then asked if there were any other people wanting to speak. When no one came forward, she closed the public hearing. She then asked if the commissioners had any questions or comments. Commissioner Hairston then asked about the different offers for buffers around people’s houses and how do we know that the buffers will be done? Director Siodmok then said that the recommendation from staff was that this was approved but with conditions. And that condition was that the buffer would be done. Of course, they can modify things if they figure out that it works better one way or another, but they still have to have that 150’ buffer. The 150’ buffer is what is to be on the development side of the property and if someone wants to have landscaping done on their property there is money to do so, but the company cannot just come onto someone else's property to ensure the 150’ buffer and instead will put it completely on their property. Commissioner Edwards said that he has heard both sides of the argument. So, three questions. This is a build it and they will come project. You talk about the city forcing you to do things like build the buffer and that if the city does it will cost the city jobs and tax revenue. But, just as the jobs were earlier, this is a all an unknown entity and there is no proof at all that that is true. Secondly, we are talking about a guestimate of 650 jobs. I am all for job growth in this city 8 because we do not have enough of them as it is. But we talk about 33 jobs that is an insignificant number and especially right now because none of those jobs actually exist. Also, this taking of people’s property, is there the ability for you to legally take someone’s property? Mr. Condlin then said that again, we cannot take anyone's property. If anyone is wanting us to put landscaping on their property we can, but that we are not going to be coming to “take” someone’s property. The job number that we are using is based upon average numbers. It is not an exact science, and it could be less, or it could be more. Commissioner Edward’s final question was for the Director. It has been said that people criss cross Country Drive all the time and I was wondering if it was possible to get with the city and put something out there to make the drivers aware that there are people who are crossing back and forth along this road. That is a heavy foot traffic area when it comes to the hotels and the children and even impaired citizens going back and forth. Director Siodmok then said that right now we are working on the transportation portion of the Comprehensive Plan right now and we do have the ability to put that into the Comprehensive Plan. I am sure that it will take multiple conversations with multiple people, but I have heard many people voice those concerns and I do think that this can be done. Commissioner Hairston said that we should concentrate more on tax base rather than jobs because it is possible that someone like Amazon could come in and set up a basically completely automated warehouse and there would not be many jobs. Chair Alexander said that she had a problem with this project upping the median income of Petersburg, because who says that the jobs created would go to people from Petersburg. It is possible that all the jobs go to someone who lives out in the counties or other surrounding areas and then the income raised by the jobs would have nothing to do with raising the median income of Petersburg. Wouldn’t it be better if we had residents living back there and their incomes would then raise it? She then asked Mr. Moore to address that.. Mr. Moore then said not necessarily. He said that with those houses, there are other costs like schools, water/wastewater, etc. Chair Alexander interrupted him and said that those costs don’t have anything to do with raising the median income. He did agree with her but with this many jobs it would be very unlikely that none of them would go to Petersburg residents and that would raise the median income more and with no real cost to the city. Another thing to respond to Commissioner Hairston’s thing about the automation…that too would be a good thing because we have a technology tax so that even if there were no employees working for the company the city would still get taxes from the company running the warehouse. I think that this would be a great project for the city. And you talk about if you build it, they will come, well I am already getting people asking for it. So yes, if you build it, they WILL come! Chair Alexander then asked the Director who has control over 460—the state or the city? She did not know, but there was a gentleman in the audience who worked for VDOT who said that the upkeep of the road was the responsibility of the City of Petersburg. Commissioner Hairston then asked what kind of jobs these 650 jobs would be…the answer was that these would be better paying jobs like managers and truck drivers. Commissioner Edwards then spoke and said that there is a fine line between living in quiet and peaceful areas and moving the city forward. So, with that he made a motion that the commission 9 approve the rezoning under option one. Commissioner Harriston seconded the motion. The motion was then changed to include the resolution as well. Chair asked if there was any discussion and Commissioner Irvin called for the vote. Five voted yes Chair Alexander voted no. Motion passed. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Edwards said that he would like to see the Fire Chief, the Police Chief and the Transit Director at the next meeting for the Comprehensive Plan. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS Director Siodmok announced that Mr. Tabor resigned and that his job is open and available. 10. ADJOURNMENT Since Commissioner Irvin was back, as the lights were being turned off, he asked for adjournment. 10

Agenda

Public Notice City of Petersburg Planning Commission Petersburg Public Library 201 W Washington Street Petersburg, VA 23803 Thursday, August 17, 2023 6:30 p.m. If you would like to make a comment during the public comment period, please mail your comments in writing to the Department of Planning and Community Development, 135 N Union Street, Petersburg, VA 23803 or email them to pcd@petersburg-va.org. Should you have questions or concerns, please contact the Department of Planning and Community Development at (804) 733-2308, or via email at pcd@petersburg-va.org. City of Petersburg Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Thursday, August 17, 2023 6:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adoption of the Agenda 4. Public Hearings 2023-REZ-05: A Public Hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a Petition to rezone the property located at 2255 Jamestown Road from A, Agricultural Zoning District to M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District, and 2262 County Drive from B-2, General Commercial Zoning District to M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District. 5. Old Business 6. New Business 7. Announcements 8. Adjournment City of Petersburg Department of Planning and 135 N. Union Street, Room 304 Community Development Petersburg, Virginia 23803 804-733-2308 srobinson@petersburg-va.org TO: Chairman Alexander and Members of the Petersburg Planning Commission FROM: Reginald Tabor, Planning Manager Sandra A Robinson, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Case 2023-REZ-05 2255 Jamestown Road and 2262 County Drive Tax Parcel: 040030005 and 040030006 DATE: August 17, 2023 A petition from Onward and Upward Land LLC c/o Andrew M. Condlin, Power of Attorney, Roth Jackson Gibbons Condlin, PLC to rezone 2255 Jamestown Road further identified as Tax Parcel # 040030005 and containing approximately 73.87 acres of land which is zoned A, Agricultural District and having no road frontage; and 2262 County Drive further identified as Tax Parcel # 040030006, zoned B-2, General Commercial District, having approximately 2.272 acres of land fronting along the south side of County Drive to M-l, Light Industrial District to permit Industrial Development and Distribution uses. The project covers a total acreage of approximately 76.142 acres. This project is located on the south side of the intersection of U.S. Route 460E (County Dr.) at the unimproved portion of Jamestown Road. This parcel of land has approximately 600' of public road frontage along County Drive. The city's 2014 Comprehensive Plan suggests that the area is suitable for commercial and/or industrial uses. DATE: Delivery to the Planning Department on May 4, 2023, for consideration of the rezoning of properties located at 2255 Jamestown Road and 2262 County Drive. Reconsidering on August 17, 2023 due to a need to readvertise. I. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting to rezone said property, fronting along County Drive (2262 County Drive, a residentia lly built structure presently utilized as a Barber Shop) from B-2, General Commercial District to M-l, Light Industrial District. The applicant proposes to develop a 950,000 square foot warehouse distribution center accompanied by parking and other site related improvements. Please see the submitted conceptual plan provided by the applicant and titled "sekivsolutions" Sheet No Cl. Per the site plan, it is the applicants desire to construct in phases three (3) warehouse buildings ranging in size from Warehouse Building #1- 391,000 sq ft with 96 loading spaces; Warehouse Building # 2 - 308,800 sq ft with 85 loading spaces and lastly, Warehouse Building #3 - 250,660 sq ft, with 54 loading spaces; Although, Article 22. Height, Area, and Bulk Requirements Direct Dial: 804.420.6458 sgraham@williamsmullen.com July 10, 2023 The Honorable Members of City Council 135 N. Union Street Petersburg, VA 23803 Re: Rezoning Application 2023-REZ-05 to Rezone 2255 Jamestown Road (Currently Zoned A, Agricultural District) and 2262 Country Drive (Currently Zoned B-2, General Commercial District) to M-1, Light Industrial District Members of the City Council, I write today to encourage your support for rezoning application 2023-REZ-05, which requests the rezoning of 2255 Jamestown Drive and 2262 County Drive to M-1. The applicant’s proposed development offers an extraordinary economic development opportunity for the City, which will benefit both its economy and, most importantly, its citizens for decades to come. Moreover, due to the property’s unique physical features and site design, it can support over 650 new jobs and $1 million per year in annual property tax revenue, all with minimal impact on surrounding citizens. Stated simply, the cost-benefit tradeoff of this project is extremely favorable for the City, as detailed thoroughly below. I thank you for your consideration of this issue, and I ask that you support the application. Summary 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan • The comprehensive plan has specifically designated this property for future light industrial use, and the rezoning application is exactly consistent with that designation. • The City has asked for light industrial use at this site, and that is precisely what the applicant is asking to provide. • The comprehensive plan was approved after rigorous analysis of each parcel’s highest and best use, and with an eye toward achieving the City’s land use and economic development goals. • If the City hopes to achieve those land use and economic development goals, it is inevitable that this site must be repurposed to light industrial use. Williams Mullen Center | 200 South 10th Street, Suite 1600 Richmond, VA 23219 | P.O. Box 1320 Richmond, VA 23218 T 804.420.6000 F 804.420.6507 | williamsmullen.com | A Professional Corporation Page 2 2. Planning Department Has Recommended in Favor of Rezoning • After thorough study and discussion with the applicant, the Department of Planning and Community Development (the “Planning Department”) unambiguously recommended in favor of this rezoning. • The Planning Department specifically noted the site’s suitability to the applicant’s proposed use, the proposal’s consistency with the comprehensive plan, the site’s minimal disturbance to surrounding properties, and its enormous economic development potential for the City. • The Planning Department’s report recommending the rezoning is attached as Exhibit A for further review. 3. Petersburg Economic Development Authority and Virginia Gateway Region Have Both Recommended in Favor of Rezoning • Consistent with the Planning Department’s recommendation, the Petersburg Economic Development Authority and Virginia Gateway Region also recommended in favor of rezoning. • This recommendation (detailed in the attached Exhibit A) was based on the site’s potential to: a. Create over 650 jobs in the City, b. Pay residents approximately $34 million per year in newly created salaries, which those residents can then reinvest in the local community, c. Attract national-caliber employers to invest in the City, and d. Bolster the City’s tax base by creating over $1 million per year in additional property tax revenue. • As this data clearly reflects, this development would offer substantial economic benefits to the City itself, and to the hundreds of citizens employed there. • Accordingly, the applicant’s proposal is both extremely supportive of the City’s economic development goals, and entirely consistent with the future land use designation of this site. 4. Scarcity of Economic Development Sites • Given the City’s small land area, and significant existing development, very few remaining sites are large enough to support sizable corporate investment. • There are even fewer such sites well suited to e-commerce and logistics uses (which require close highway proximity and frontage on major roads). • Given the scarcity of land suitable for large corporate investment, this rezoning offers an extremely rare opportunity for the City to attract a substantial, institutional-grade employment center inside the City limits. Page 3 5. Current Land Use is Undesirable • The property in question is currently used as a farm, which is an extremely under-productive use of the City’s scarce developable land. • While rural land is well suited to farming, large properties within the City limits should be used for more productive purposes, and in ways that create jobs and income for its citizens. 6. Alternative Uses Are Unfeasible • This land is located in the Poor Creek Sewer Service Area, which suffers from extremely limited water and sewer capacity. • Accordingly, water-intensive uses in this area are unfeasible due to limited utility capacity, which makes any reasonably dense residential use impossible. • Accordingly, if this rezoning application is rejected, it is extremely unlikely that this property could be developed for any other commercially viable purpose. • On the contrary, the applicant’s proposed light industrial use is the single lightest user of water and sewer capacity of any potential use of this site (see the “Density Matrix” attached as Exhibit B, and a summary of its findings, attached as Exhibit C). • Accordingly, light industrial is both an extremely attractive use of this site from a utility capacity perspective, and likely the only feasible use for which this property could be developed. 7. Light Industrial Offers the Least Traffic of Any Potential Use • The applicant’s traffic study verifies that the proposed light industrial use would generate significantly less traffic than any potential alternative use. • Accordingly, if opponents express concerns about traffic, they should actually find light industrial use extremely attractive relative to any potential residential use. • In addition to generating the lowest possible traffic count, this site is exclusively accessible from major arterial roads, such that none of its vehicles will ever travel through residential neighborhoods. • Moreover, applicant purposefully elected a “right-in, right-out” ingress/egress configuration, so that vehicles will never cross County Drive to either enter or exit the site, and can do so seamlessly without creating any meaningful traffic interruptions. • This was a very intentional choice, and a concerted effort to minimize any traffic impact. • In summary, not only does applicant’s proposal offer the single lowest traffic count of any potential use for the site, it also configures traffic flow in a uniquely seamless manner that eliminates the risk of congestion. • See the attached Exhibits B and C (“Density Matrix” and accompanying summary letter) for details. • Also attached (as Exhibit D) is an analysis by Gorove Slade (Virginia’s leading traffic engineers), confirming that the proposed development would have extremely minimal traffic effects on either PAT transit buses, or school buses using County Drive. Page 4 8. Minimal Residential Impact • First, the site is surrounded on three sides by (i) railroad tracks and dense woods, (ii) a 30-acre densely wooded parcel, and (iii) Route 460 (a major arterial road). • Accordingly, the property creates zero disturbance to residents on three of its four sides. • On the fourth side, the property is adjoined by two single family homes (on Poe Lane). • In response to the Planning Commission’s concerns about noise on Poe Lane from the proposed development, the applicant has offered either: a. To plant a 150-foot tree buffer on its eastern boundary adjoining Poe Lane (in an area otherwise used for the proposed development), or preferably b. To pay the Poe Lane neighbors an ample budget to plant a tree buffer on their properties (at applicant’s expense). • Under either of the above options, the contemplated buffer (notably half the length of a football field) will shield the two Poe Lane homes from any views of the site, and will dramatically dampen any sound. • Accordingly, this tree buffer will allow all four sides of the property to be shielded from residential homes, thereby allowing it to be built without any meaningful negative impact on surrounding properties. Mitigation Option 1 (Buffer on Applicant’s Site) • This proposed option would entail the applicant planting a 150-foot buffer of dense evergreen trees along the boundary line of the development site, bordering the two Poe Lane homes. • Please see the attached Exhibits E and F, for a conceptual plan showing this newly added buffer, along with a cross-section demonstrating the buffer’s total visual screening of the site. • This significant concession by the applicant would cost them over $1 million (in both lost square footage value and tree planting costs). • More importantly, this option would destroy over $3.5 million worth of developable space on the subject property, which would reduce city-taxable property value and, most negatively, eliminate approximately 33 jobs that the site could otherwise offer to citizens of the city. • As the applicant aims to create as many jobs as possible for the city’s residents, we believe that the greatest total benefits to those citizens could be achieved by planting the buffer on the neighboring properties (as described below). Mitigation Option 2 (Buffer on Neighbors’ Site) • As a potential alternative, the applicant would gladly offer to work with the two adjoining landowners to provide an appropriate budget for the planning of trees on their own parcels, at the applicant’s sole expense. • Both of the Poe Lane properties have large, cleared fields bordering the proposed development site, and could thus accommodate this buffer area easily. • By paying for this tree buffer on the neighboring parcels, the applicant could achieve the same buffering effect for the benefit of those neighbors, but without destroying $3.5 million of taxable value, and depriving 33 Petersburg residents of new jobs. Page 5 9. Private Interests Should Not Block Public Benefits • Long before the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant proactively offered to buy the two Poe Lane homes at their full market value, so that those homeowners would not experience any disturbance or financial impact from the development of this site. • Both of those homeowners summarily rejected the applicant’s full-price purchase offers, and instead elected to oppose the creation of 650+ jobs and $34 million in salaries payable to their fellow Petersburg residents. • In offering over $1 million in potential mitigation costs, the applicant has expressed its willingness to incur significant expense and effort to mitigate any concerns about noise or views from the two Poe Lane homes, while preserving as many of the site’s 650 jobs as possible. Conclusion The applicant’s proposed rezoning is: 1. Perfectly consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, 2. Highly supportive of the City’s economic development goals, 3. A unique opportunity to attract large-scale investment and over 650 jobs inside the City limits, 4. From an engineering perspective, the only feasible use of this utility-constrained property, 5. Among alternative potential uses, the single least impactful option from a traffic perspective, and 6. Minimally impactful to any residential properties, and with highly mitigated impacts on the only two affected homes. For these many reasons, we ask that the City Council vote in favor of the proposed rezoning to M-1 use, and thank the members for their thoughtful consideration of these issues. Very truly yours, Alexander C. Graham, Jr. cc: Reginald R. Tabor Director, Department of Planning and Community Development Page 6 Exhibit A Rezoning Report of the Department of Planning and Community Development Page 7 Exhibit B Density Matrix (Traffic Counts and Water/Sewer Usage) RATIO OF LAYOUT EFFICIENCY MINIMUM APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF OVERALL AVERAGE SANITARY AVERAGE AVERAGE NO. OF LOTS OTHER FACTOR (BASED ON POSSIBLE AVERAGE DAILY LOT AREA AREA OF THE TWO AREA DEVOTED TO NET DENSITY FAMILY GROSS SEWAGE FLOW DAILY FLOW CONCEPTUALLY RESIDENTIAL 123 LOTS ON THE NUMBER OF TRIP GENERATION DAILY DAILY ZONING DISTRICT OR TOTAL SUBJECT PARCELS SWM, FLOOD PLAIN NET ACREAGE PROPOSED WITH TWO (UNITS PER NET USES MIN. LOT PARCELS UNDER DWELLINGS LOTS OR DENSITY (VPD/UNIT OR VPD TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS SEWAGE GPD/PERSON BUILDING (ACRES) & WETLANDS ACRE) PERMITTED (UNITS PER PER 1,000 SF (GPD/UNIT OR OR GPD/ POINTS OF ACCESS AREA TO R-1 R-1A (15,000 SF MIN. UNITS (TRIPS/DAY) FLOW (GPD) EMPLOYEE AREA (SF) (ACRES) ON LOT ACRE) GPD/SF) MIN. LOT AREA LOT AREA) WAREHOUSES (NEW LAYOUT WITH BUFFER) 952,220 77.401 11.23 66.171 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.70 1,619 0.03 28,567 8.8 R-1 Single-Family Residence District 8,000 77.401 11.23 66.171 205 3.10 1.00 N/A 1 205 2.6 9.43 1,933 350 71,750 100 R-2 Single-Family Residence District 5,000 77.401 11.23 66.171 - - 1.60 0.88 1 289 3.7 9.43 2,722 350 101,024 100 RMH Residential Mobile Homes District 5,000 77.401 11.23 66.171 - - 1.60 0.88 1 289 3.7 9.43 2,722 300 86,592 100 R-3 Two-Family Residence District (1 Family) 5,000 77.401 11.23 66.171 - - 1.60 0.88 1 289 3.7 9.43 2,722 350 101,024 100 R-3 Two-Family Residence District (2 Family) 6,000 77.401 11.23 66.171 - - 1.33 0.88 2 481 6.2 9.43 4,536 350 168,373 100 R-4 Multiple Dwelling District (3+ Family) 9,000 77.401 11.23 66.171 - - - - - 1,084 14.0 7.20 7,802 325 352,175 100 R-5 Multiple Dwelling District 5,000 77.401 11.23 66.171 - - - - - 1,084 14.0 7.20 7,802 325 352,175 100 RTH Residential Townhouse District - 77.401 11.23 66.171 - - - - - 929 12.0 6.74 6,260 350 325,084 100 Page 8 Exhibit C Summary of Density Matrix Findings June 7, 2023 Re: Jamestown Drive Warehouses - City of Petersburg, VA Warehouse vs. Residential Matrix sēkivsolutions has completed an analysis of average daily trafﬁc and sewage ﬂow projections between the proposed warehouse use and potential residential uses for the two parcels (equating to 77.401 acres) along U.S. Route 460 near the intersection of Jamestown Drive (see attached spreadsheet). Based on various residential uses outlined in the City of Petersburg’s Zoning Ordinance and established design criteria for the number of trips per day per use and average daily sewage ﬂow projections, the attached matrix reveals that the proposed warehouse use yields the least number of vehicle Trips Per Day (1,619 trips per day compared to a range of 1,933 to 6,260 trips per day for Zoning Districts R-1 through R-5, as well as the RTH Residential District). The analysis also reveals that the proposed warehouse use projects the least Average Daily Sewage Flow with a result of 28,567 GPD compared to a range of 71,750 GPD to 325,084 GPD for Zoning Districts R-1 through R-5, as well as the RTH Residential District). This information is based on the preparation of a conceptual level R-1 subdivision plan (that is shown in the attached spreadsheet) and adjusting for increases in potential density for Zoning Districts R-2 through R-5, as well as RTH Residential District. Sincerely, sēkivsolutions Stig Owens, P.E. Sekiv Solutions, LLC ❘ 14207 Pond Chase Place, Midlothian, VA ❘ Phone: 804.938.8864 ❘ Email: sowens@sekivsolutions.com Page 9 Exhibit D Gorove Slade Analysis of Minimal Bus Interference Jamestown Commerce Park – Traffic Impact Analysis Supplement Page 2 June 2023 Following is a summary of conclusions related to bus traffic on County Drive: The traffic generated by the Jamestown Commerce Park will not interfere with school buses or PAT bus operations. The applicant is also proposing to build an eastbound right-turn lane on County Drive into the site, which will completely separate site traffic from the existing traffic flow on County Drive. Note that there are many distribution centers and industrial sites on the County Drive corridor, so this project will not create an unusual condition on the surrounding roadway network. County Drive is posted 35 mph, which is slow enough for school bus and PAT stops, which reduces risk of interference between trucks and buses. School buses only operate in the morning and mid-afternoon to transport students, so there is a very limited amount of time when they would be in the vicinity of trucks turning in and out of the Jamestown Commerce Park. Trucks entering and existing the Jamestown Commerce Park will either be decelerating to enter the site, or turning right out and merging onto County Drive eastbound. Therefore, trucks will be traveling below the posted speed limit of 35 mph along the property frontage. County Drive is a flat, tangent roadway, so drivers entering and exiting the proposed site driveway will have plenty of sight distance in both directions. There is no risk of blind spots when vehicles are either entering or exiting the proposed driveway. 4951 Lake Brook Drive / Suite 250 / Glen Allen, VA 23060 / T 804.362.0578 goroveslade.com Page 10 Exhibit E Updated Conceptual Plan (Including Tree Buffer) TRAILER DROP 22 SPACES 12' X 55' 140 SECONDARY FIRE DEPT.ACCESS 80' ACCESS TO EXIST. WATER TOWER ACCESS #1 P M 150 /B 14 0 M SWM 0 (3 5') SW P ' 15 BMP #6 150 O X5 65 0 74 DR 12' R @ ES LE 150' 14 5 AI ES SP AC TR AC G BUFFER SP ' IN 75 PA RK 0' 'X 2.0 12 25 @ ES AC SP NE G LA IN AD FIR E 6 O P (3 5') 4 3L O X5 0P DR 12' NE 10 LE AI ES R @ E LA #1 ES TR AC FIR 155 N G SP AC 155 SP ' DI .00 UIL . KIN G 155 S CE 85 F AR ' 5 B . 00 SE 0 S A 2 1, 0. # 31 16 U O ,4 2 SP G 5 EH 399 ING IN A R D ' .00 ' ILD S 75 ' ' W LO A 85 .00 00 BU .F. CE 'X 65 1,5 0 1,2 SE 00 S SPA 75' @12 #2 ' 94 15 U O ,3 X ES 75 M P 'X ES EH 289 ING@12' PAC 0' /B @ 12 SP AC AR AD ES G S 530.0 M ES W LO PAC DIN NG SW 86 G S LOA I AC RK ' SP PA 65 G 6 IN 3 162 IN 32 AD 3 UT E AD L O ' RO LO 40 60 .00 C K 51 T RU ' E/ 00 AN TRAILER 0. EL E FIR E 50 DROP AN 145 FIR LA N 2.0 L 25 SPACES 25 7' NG .6 E DI E C 0' 24 FIR 0.0 UIL 12' X 55' RU 25 B /T R O LE 0' 'T F/ C AI 25 TR OP K ' TO UT RO DR ES @ 20 20 AC 5') 2' 13 E SP ' X 5 2 ' 145 1 5' 5 57 SWM / BMP #5 15 O 55' ' 'T T 5 30 22 C ER TR A SW ' F/ LV FIR ILER 80 CU E D LA ROP M F/ C NE (51 /B TO 65' SPAC 50 M 22 ' FIR AC ES 1 P E CE @ 1 #3 LA SS 2 DR ' X 5 14 0 310 NE IVE 5') .00 145 ' WA LO 75' 155 AD REH ING 155 150 15' OU SPA 263 E BUS CE 54 IL S (1 LO , 2' X AD 500 S DING 75' TYP 179 ING .F. #3 .) PA S RK ING PAC 850 SPA ES 880' .00 CE S FIR ' 5 E 310 15 LA .00 SW NE ' MB MP #4 145 30' BUFFER 140 Page 11 Exhibit F Cross Section of Tree Buffer (Total Visual Screening)

Get email alerts for Petersburg

A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.

Report an issue with this meeting