Planning Commission

City of Petersburg Planning Commission Special Meeting December 7, 2023 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, December 7, 2023, was called to order by the Vice Chair, Mr. Fenton Bland, at 6:29 p.m. A roll call was completed by Ms. Michelle Murrills. Members Present: Mr. Fenton Bland, Vice Chair Mr. Thomas Hairston Mr. Michael Edwards Dr. Bill Irvin Dr. Chioma Adaku Dr. James Norman Members Absent: Mrs. Candace Taylor Ms. Marie Vargo Chair Tammy Alexander A Quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Others Present: Ms. Naomi Siodmok-Planning Director, Ms. Sandra Robinson, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Sayed Shah, Mr. Brian Rogers, Mr. Greg Sangregorio, Ms. Kate Sangregorio, and Mr. Jacob Simmon. 3. Adoption of the Agenda: Vice Chair Bland called for any changes to the agenda. Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Norman seconded it. It passed unanimously. 1 4. Adoption of the Minutes: Before the adoption of the minutes, Commissioner Edwards asked that the minutes from the November meeting reflect that he was at the meeting just electronically. With that modification, Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Irvin seconded them. 5. Public Hearings: Director Siodmok made the presentation: So first let me make a clarification really quick. The first case that is being presented is related to the Special Use Permit. There was a discussion that we should have a Comprehensive Plan amendment associated with the case at 235 Medical Park Boulevard, so will hear two cases associated with that address. One is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the other to look at the Special Use Permit that we have been discussing. 2023-CPA-01: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the future land use map from the proposed land use of Low Density Residential to Medium/High Density Residential at 235 Medical Park Boulevard. This is to designate property as Medium/High Density Residential Property in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan rather than its current recognition of low density in our current plan. And just to give a small bit of background… Pedcor Investments, represented by Brian Rodgers, is looking to build apartments on this property, at 235 Medical Park Boulevard (Tax Parcel ID 087030811). These would be about 234 units with a mix of 1,2, and 3 bedrooms. The Comprehensive Plan designates this land as low density residential. In order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to show the site as Medium/High Density Residential. The rationale behind the amendment is that this site is adjacent to Southside Regional Medical Center and this area has been a great draw for growth. There is a need to accommodate that need in the area. The Medical Center and Walmart are recognized as two of the largest employers in the City of Petersburg. So, locating housing here, next to these jobs, will take vehicles off the road, it will save workers money, help the environment, etc. Plus, multi-family housing is the perfect transition from commercial property to single-family homes. There are no public comments allowed on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but we will allow them on the next case. Recommendations: Staff does recommend approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Edwards then asked two questions. One, with the change in designation…how will the change affect the residents of Seyler Drive and will the changes affect their properties? 2 Director Siodmok said that the changes were just bringing the land into the same designation as the surrounding area. There is so much growth, so much development that this amendment just changes the vision for the area to support growth, but it is the Special Use Permit that is needed to allow the apartments to be built. He then asked about if the surrounding properties would be changed and the director said that no changes would be made to the surrounding private properties designation. Commissioner Hairston then asked for clarification on what is low vs. high density. Low density means you have less houses and med/high means you have more housing. He also asked for clarification on what type of housing Pedcor wanted to do. Vice Chair Bland then asked if the dead-end street would be opened for easier access to everything. The director said that this was not a question for the amendment, but that she was not aware of them opening up Seyler Drive. Mr. Rogers then said that no they were not considering opening up the dead-end of Seyler Drive, but that if a site plan showed that opening it up would be more safe than yes, they would open it up. It just depends on the site plan. At this point everything is very conceptual. Commissioner Edwards then said that he did not think that he would be in favor of opening up Seyler Drive because the citizens that live there would not be. Commissioner Edwards then said that he makes a motion to approve Staff’s recommendation that the change in the Comprehensive Plan be approved. Director Siodmok then said that we needed to have a public hearing on it. Vice Chair Bland then asked if anyone from the public was for the proposal and hearing no one, asked if anyone was against the proposal. Mr. Greg Sangregorio, 164 Seyler Drive, I bought my house in 1991 so I have lived on Seyler Drive for a long time. Back then it was all farmland. Most of us that moved there did so because it was a dead-end road. Back when we were building our houses, we asked if we wanted the road to be connected and we all came together and everyone in the neighborhood said that we did not want it connected. I know that is not what this is, but we are a single-family district. There are no apartments around there. And now they are going to put all these apartments with people moving in and out and we are afraid are going to be cutting through Seyler Drive and our houses and yards to get to Taco Bell or whatever. That’s very dense for that little area right there. That is going to affect our quality of life. There are no other congestive apartments right along there. It is going to change the whole atmosphere there. We were told that it was zoned for commercial use, but I guess I’m wrong or single-family homes maybe. But yeah, we are worried about the traffic and people cutting though every day. People moving in and out, it is going to change the whole atmosphere there. And I know a lot of us might move out if they do this. But I know that this is good for the taxes, but there are a lot of areas in Petersburg with open land close by and you are not infringing on a small neighborhood. There is land that can be developed on South Crater Road as you are heading down to Rives Road. All that area there, they were talking about developing. And also, this was brought up for the first-time months ago and the first couple of meetings we had a lot of people from the neighborhood. And then they would propose a meeting the next month, we all discussed it, and then it got cancelled. And then it got rescheduled and so we all discussed it and then the meeting got cancelled. And then it got scheduled again and then it got cancelled again and again and again. And we had a lot of people here when this was first brough up. It has now been delayed and delayed. So, it’s not really fair that we don’t have the neighborhood support that we used to have when they first started talking 3 about this. I don’t know why it kept being put off. That is all I have to say. It is going to change Seyler Drive, especially property like mine that borders on this. I mean I am going to have apartments looking down on me instead of woods or businesses. If it was businesses or single family- that would not be bad. I mean these are going to be three stories high. We’re against it. That’s all I have to say. Mr. Jacob Simmon – Seyler Drive, I also live on Seyler Drive and my back yard also backs up to the tree line of the apartments. You can see my back yard on the map. So, your zoning. What is the point of changing the zoning if it touches my back yard? What is supposed to be the separation between the zones at that point? There has been talk of what can be changed to make this more appealing to us, but there is nothing. It has also been mentioned that housing for the medical park. Well right across the street on Crater Road there is another large apartment that does not encroach on single-family houses. So that is still a market that is already being served. Ms. Kate Sangregorio, 164 Seyler Drive, so this is just for the Comprehensive Plan part? Is that Right? (Yes) This is the first time I have ever heard of this happening. It sounds a little like spot rezoning and it kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Commissioner Hairston then asked for clarification on what exact area was being discussed. Director Siodmok then said that it was just the property that was associated with the project, but that it wasn’t changing the zoning, but changing the Comprehensive Plan looking toward the future. She also stated that the Medical Center also shows as low density on the Comprehensive Plan and that, that will be updated right shortly (as the Medical Center is not low density). But right now, this is to address this project. Mr. Rogers then spoke: From our perspective, when this was rezoned way back when, currently it’s zoned B-2, so it’s General Commercial. Even though the Future Land Use Plan would typically at the time of the rezone should have been changed and it wasn’t. It should have been changed and we are just looking to fix that. By rights, today, someone could come in and put a Walmart right now without having to change that. Since we are going to do multifamily, and prior to this year, the apartments would have been by right as well. It is only this year that your city council passed a new ordinance that if you have any B-2s and want to do multifamily, you have to do this Special Use Permit Process. As part of us doing this process, we said, look your Future Land Use map is out of alignment and should have been brought up to date to show the current land use, especially next to the Medical Center, and so we are going to do that, along with your Special Use Permit process. So technically all we are doing here is bringing that Future Land Use Map up to date and in line with its current zoning. At least for this first issue. The second issue will be more regarding the development and the Special Use Permit. So, for this first point all we are doing is bringing it up to speed. As it should be, because as you can see, you have a Medical Center that shows its Future Land Use of single-family residential. So that is why we are asking for this rezoning. Commissioner Irvin then asked Vice Chair Bland if there was a motion on the floor. Once Vice Chair Bland closed the public hearing portion, the answer was yes, but Commissioner Edwards then reiterated that he moved that the Commission accepts Staff’s recommendation to approve 4 2023-CPA-01to designate Medical Park Blvd as medium high/high residential rather than low residential. Commissioner Hairston seconded the motion. Ms. Murrills then called the role. The vote was 5 yes with one dissenting vote by Commissioner Irvin. Motion passed. 2023-SUP-06: A Public Hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a Petition for a Special Use Permit to allow a proposed Multi-Family Residential Development on the property located at 235 Medical Park Boulevard, further identified as TP # 087030811. The parcel is zoned B-2, General Commercial District. Readvertised. Case continued. Director Siodmok then gave the presentation. So, this is a request by Pedcor for a Special Use Permit for the property that we were just discussing, 235 Medical Park. The property is zoned B-2 General Commercial, and a Special Use Permit is required in order to have multifamily on the site. So again, the applicant who is here is requesting to be allowed to build 234 units with a mix of one, two and three bedroom units. This is the preferred concept plan of what they wish to build with a pool, dog park, and many amenities. Because of the amenities, the buffer zone, and the fencing, this is the plan that was liked best. There has been public comment on this project. One of the biggest events that comments were heard was at a meeting with a developer on August 24, 2023, and multiple comments were made. There were concerns about the affordable nature of the project, impact on property values, the desire to have commercial services in the area instead, what is demand for the project, what about the privacy fence, statistics of crime and traffic, some online reviews of the development and thoughts on relocating the project. With all that Staff still does make a recommendation for approval of the Special Use Permit and that is with the consideration of the feedback through the following proposed conditions. 1.) This project will use native species in landscaping the development as well as creating the project buffer. Any deviations from native species are subject to the Director of Planning and Community Development’s approval. 2.) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, camera surveillance will be installed in the outdoor common areas of the project (parking areas and community space) to ensure safety for residents and neighbors. Should the development be a site of regular activity that draws the police, the development will provide, at its own cost, onsite security patrol until the demand for the police declines. 3.) The development will be in substantial conformance with concept Option 1.1 subject to engineering. 4.) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a privacy fence of 6’ and landscape buffer of 25’ shall be installed along the northwest length of the project. Commissioner Hairston then asked a question about the conditions. He asked about the details of condition #2 and how would the city be able to enforce it, especially after the building was 5 done. Director Siodmok then said that there would be conversations with the development to address the concern. Commissioner Hairston then said but what would/could be done to enforce the rule, by the city? He said that he has seen many projects, over the years, that say that they are going to do something, but once the project was up and running, everything was ignored, and nothing happened. So, he wanted to know what the actual recourse would be. Director Siodmok said that they would not be able to operate with their business license and if it came down to it the city could shut them down. She said that they have to renew their business license every year and they can lose it. Commissioner Hairston then said that that would then throw 300 people out on the street and leave a vacant building. Commissioner Adaku then asked about apartments that had been denied outside of Acqua apartments and that they had been denied for water issues with Poor Creek service area. This project is similar to that one, so what is the difference? Director Siodmok said that because the apartments are in the planning state and the Poor Creek expansion is in the beginning phase, the expansion will be done before the apartments, and it will not make a difference. This project is looking at getting all their permitting this year and break ground next year and so by the time the project is done, the infrastructure will be in place. Ms. Robinson then explained that at the time that the Acqua Apartment expansion was up for consideration, the Poor Creek expansion was still in the early stages, and no one was sure when it was going to be done. It was explained to them that they would have to wait until it got further in the development before the city would be able to approve the Acqua expansion. She also explained that there was more to the denial than just the water issues. They wanted different style apartments that the city did not agree with, as well as the fact that they wanted to get rid of completely the commercial aspect of the complex and only have residential and the city did not agree with that either. Commissioner Hairston then asked what the cost was going to be for these apartments and who was going to be allowed to rent them. Director Siodmok said that they were going to be lower cost apartments and would be rented out to people with 60% area median income. So that would be serving a population of people who make $40,000-$70,000. Mr. Rogers then said that the numbers would actually be $44,000 and $74,000. That is the income range that they would be accepting. He also said that one of the reasons for affordable housing is so that people, just starting out, would be able to pay a lower rent and be able to save for a house in the future. Just to reiterate, if you made less than $44,000 or over $74,000 you would not qualify to live in the apartments. Commissioner Hairston then clarified that that was a household which meant that if it were two people that they could both be making $22,000 to qualify to live there. Mr. Rogers said yes. Commissioner Hairston then clarified further that he and his wife both making $22,000 could move into a one-bedroom apartment. $22,000 a year is basically $10 an hour. Mr. Rogers reminded everyone that only two people would be allowed to be in that one-bedroom apartment. Vice Chair Bland then asked how would the company make sure that only the two people are living there? Mr. Rogers explained that essentially the company has a lot of oversight. If someone first comes and applies, they can only rent if they qualify. They have to prove their income. They have to have full documentation in order to show Virginia Housing and HUD that the person is qualified to live there. Commissioner Hairston then asked if the company owned any other apartments close to Petersburg. He was told that the closest one that they have is in Lynchburg. Commissioner Norman then asked if the people from the hospital were involved in 6 the discussions. Yes, the people who worked at the hospital were included in the discussions about these apartments. Mr. Rogers also wanted to mention that the company had met with the utility department to discuss the water usage of the apartments. They did meet with them several times, but at recently as a couple of months ago. Because that was an issue that they were aware of. The company was assured that the timeline worked, and that Poor Creek would be done before the apartments would be done and the timeline would line up perfectly. Commissioner Edwards then said that he had one more question. It seemed to him that the biggest issue about the apartments was the idea of the three stories. So, he asked if Mr. Roger’s firm would be willing to consider going to two stories instead of three. Mr. Rogers said that no, the project was not feasible if only two stories. He then explained that this project was to be $45 million. He would need as many apartments as possible to make back his money. Commissioner Norman then asked if this was the only project that the company was working on in Petersburg and Mr. Rogers said that yes for the moment this was the only one here. Vice Chair Bland then asked for anyone who was for the project, and wanted to speak to please step forward, when no one did, he asked anyone who is against the project to then step forward. Ms. Kate Sangregorio, 164 Seyler Drive, I know that Petersburg needs investment and I feel a little selfish, but I really like having the woods back there behind my house. I have lived there pretty much my whole life. If it was a commercial property at least the residents could take advantage of it. If it was another fast-food restaurant or something, I mean I walk to the Taco Bell sometimes. And I am not putting any blame on anyone, but I know that we did not get our adjacent property notice in the mail, so I don’t know if the other adjacent property owners did or not, but you guys might remember at that first meeting this was discussed we had a pretty big turnout. And I know that a good handful of neighbors were very very concerned with the, not low income, but the restrictive nature of the (I forget the term now) (rent) and the type of people that might go to a unit like that. And security issues. I don’t personally have any preference on income or how much they cost, but those were concerns that so many had. Mr. Greg Sangregorio, 164 Seyler Drive, again I understand because my daughter is on the Planning Committee, that it was that they sent out notices, but they didn’t. We have not gotten them. I only knew what was going on because my daughter is on the Planning Committee. And that is why I am here, but they did not mail out notices that border on this property. I don’t think that’s right. I don’t know, perhaps they mailed them out late, but no one has gotten them. But again, just like what my daughter was saying, we all live there because it’s a quiet neighborhood. And then it’s going to have this maybe development right behind our house. And again, it’s not in my backyard I understand that it’s in Petersburg. I retired from the City of Petersburg so I understand that we need development, but I think it should be the right development in the right place. Because there are a lot of other places where you could make dense housing that is not right next to single family homes in Petersburg. That’s all I have to say. Mr. Jacob Simmon, Seyler Drive, I know that it has already been touched on, but there are not nearly as many people showing up tonight as there has been before. But I do have some 7 concerns. I am interested in that if they don’t follow the rules from that hearing thing before, the city can revoke their business license. Does that mean that 234 people are out of a home? Another thing that I am concerned about is that they promised to build a 6-foot privacy fence, but next to a 3-story building that goes right up to my backyard that is not going to stop anyone from seeing into what I am doing. Anybody on those balconies will just be able to watch me sitting in my backyard and be able to see right into my back windows. We had a meeting with them to address some of these concerns and they brought their site plans. They also mentioned sending some sort of maintenance plan to show that they did keep up with the maintenance. I have never heard that from them since that meeting. I just think that this is an unfair ask from the citizens that have lived on that street for so long when there are other places that aren’t next to buildings and other apartments that are serving the community in that area. They don’t need to be in my backyard. Ms. Robinson then gave some clarification. The information that Commissioner Hairston brough up…The Planning Commission back in March of this year and the City Council approved it and I think it came from City Council to address issues dealing with housing of multi-family. That they are required to go through this process of obtaining a Special Use Permit. If the Planning Commission had not sent the recommendation to approve that amendment to the ordinance to require a Special Use Permit, the applicants would have been able to build the apartments without coming to this. So, this was a measure so that council could, I would assume, control what people do in B-2 General Commercial Districts. I just wanted to make that clear. Commissioner Edwards then asked if any of this could be adjusted, and Director Siodmok said that any and all could be adjusted as needed. He then said that he wanted (if the commission is in agreement) to change some of the conditions. He said that he wanted to say that from coming out of the gate with this thing that they provide security fencing and from day one that they have on site security. From day one. Commissioner Irvin then asked what exactly security fencing and Commissioner Hairston said that it is fencing that makes it so that one cannot just leave out any part of the area except where allowed. Director Siodmok said that the security fencing was offered but that she had actually recommended against it from a planning point of view. A lot of times, gated communities can be more insular and so being more connected and part of the community is more important, so she did recommend not to include the fencing. But that the applicant is in agreement with providing that fencing. Commissioner Edwards went on to say that he remembers when this project came before the commission and that they voted to table the discussion under the circumstances that there would be meetings and come to a mutual understanding with the long-standing residents of Seyler Drive on how best to move the project forward. But now I am getting mixed emotions, mixed signals, missed communications, non-satisfaction amongst the developer and the residents. I am leaning, because I am looking down the road and looking for more options, to looking for a gated community and on-site security from day one. Commissioner Hairston said that the wall needed to be even higher, like the walls along the freeway with the sound barriers. Commissioner Adaku then asked what the reason was as to why the meetings were cancelled and why the community wasn’t notified. Director Siodmok said that the reason for the changes was 8 that initially there were many alternatives for this project based upon the community meetings. And since they were working on that, they needed extra time after the community meeting. The next reason there was a delay was on my account because I jumped into these projects after they had already been started. I like to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan needed to be updated. So, I requested that they work with us to get everything started properly. Commissioner Adaku then asked if the community had been notified since it sounded like they had not. Mr. Sangregorio said that the cancellation was announced but no reason why. He said that another meeting was scheduled but that it was cancelled and rescheduled and cancelled and so they felt that everyone just kind of gave up. Ms. Robinson said that everyone’s statements are on the record from every meeting that has taken place. The approval of the minutes from meetings then puts their statements on the record. Mr. Rogers then said that in terms of screening using bushes or the security fence things like that they would be willing to look into it. In terms of the sound barrier fence with concrete barriers, I don’t know anything about them. I am not assuming that that is something that can be easily put up. I don’t know what that costs or how to make it happen. Commissioner Edwards said that in Hopewell there is a new development with those noise barriers in their back yard since it abuts up to 295. If you want a reference point you can find it in that new development. Now, the esthetics of it might not be appeasing, but it might be something that could work. It is higher than a six-foot fence and it is a noise barrier. Mr. Rogers then said that one thing to remember is that there is a 25 ft tree separation from the apartments to the neighborhood. So, you have 25 feet of trees and then the 6 ft fence. These are full grown trees and out there it is pretty heavily wooded and then you have the fence. So, what we heard from the neighbors (and you are never going to block all sight lines, it’s just not going to happen) is the same. So not only are you going to have these trees, but we are also planning on filling in the already full-grown trees with other native trees that will fill in nicely which will bring in the screening down lower. So, you will still have your trees. And then you will have the fence. And the fence is to keep out individuals from going through the neighborhood. Although I do believe that if you look at the area, most individuals would have not a whole lot of reason in order to go through that way. In a sense we are trying to provide that natural screening that would be there all year round. To do some of those other things would likely destroy those trees that are there now. Commissioner Hairston said that he liked the idea of the 8-foot fence on a dirt mound and that those have worked well in the past that he has seen. Mr. Rogers also wanted to say that he does not think that a 24-security guard is needed because they have a camara monitoring system in place that has actually worked very well in the past. We do want to be good neighbors and if there seems to be a reason for it, we certainly can bring a guard on campus but to begin with I don’t think that it would be needed. He also said as far as not sending out the notices letting notices know about changes of the dates, that typically is not our responsibility. Those cards go out and they tell you the date. Commissioner Hairston then asked who is supposed to send out the notifications to which Director Siodmok said that the city did. 9 Commissioner Edwards said that he wanted to make a motion. He said that he wanted to table this again, until our January meeting. At such time, the developer needs to meet with the residents and the surrounding people and sit and have a conversation about this project. So that at our January meeting I want a solid plan in front of us so that we can move forward. That is my motion. I think the best thing to do is to table this one more time and get through the holidays and actually February because January is a busy time, so our February meeting bring this back to us with a solid plan, with results from the residents and our staff and we will be able to move forward with this. February 1st. I think based upon the concerns and the inconsistencies that we are hearing and the concerns of my fellow commissioners, it is my motion that we table this until February 1. At such time the developer will meet with the residents and also city staff to come up with a solid plan to address all concerns and have a plan of action to bring to us then. Commissioner Hairston seconded the motion. Vice Chair Bland then called a vote. There were five yes and one abstention, motion carried. 2023-SUP-06: A Public Hearing for a Special Use Permit to allow a proposed Multi-Family Residential Development on the property located at 235 Medical Park Boulevard, further identified as TP # 087030811. The parcel is zoned B-2, General Commercial District. The subject case was deferred from the September meeting. This is a request by Sayed Shah, owner, representative of S Shah Properties LLC., to obtain a Special Use Permit as provided for under Article 23, Supplementary Use Regulations-Special Uses. Section 4, Special Uses Enumerated. Item (22) of the Zoning Ordinance to establish Stand-alone used vehicle sales not associated with a new-vehicle dealership or not located upon the same parcel as such new-vehicle dealership, if located upon parcels of less than one acre in area, such to be permitted within the B-2 and M-1 zoning districts only. The subject property is located at 112 and 114 N Crater Road, and further identified as Tax Parcel #012110010 and 012110009. The Comprehensive Plan suggests this area is appropriate for commercial uses. The property is zoned B-2, General Commercial District. When we discussed this last month, Mr. Shaw was planning on getting us a site plan to show you the project. We had conversations about the parking spaces and how many could be on site. So here you can see that 30 total parking would be available. With that, Staff still recommends denial as there is still concerns about impacts on Crater Road at the site and the space and its usage at the site and so our recommendations have not changed. Mr. Sayed Shaw then spoke and said that really there is no problem with the lot as there is plenty of parking in the back lot. Commissioner Hairston then said that the lot has not been paved and Ms. Robinson said that it has to be paved by either asphalt or concrete and the spaces have to be delineated per the ordinance. Commissioner Hairston then said that the last time Mr. Shaw spoke, he said that he was wanting this space to grow his business. In order to be able to buy 100 cars at a time, he needs enough space to put them somewhere. When I look at the car lot that he has over on Washington, all those cars turn. It used to be older cars and now he has newer cars. His car lot is much better than any of the other car lots that have been on this lot since I moved here in 07. Since he has taken over the quality of cars has become better and having this extra lot would allow his business to grow. We should not be denying him the ability to grow. 10 Commissioner Edwards then clarified that Mr. Shaw could operate that lot on Crater Road with only 30 parking spots (30 cars) and the answer was yes. He said that it only took ten car spaces to be a car lot. Commissioner Irvin said that although he knows that the other car lot on Washington has been grandfathered in and it seems to be allowed to have cars packed in there as tight as possible. But that he would be disturbed if Mr. Shaw were to ignore the designated parking spots and have cars packed even tighter than the 30 cars allowed. Mr. Shaw said that it was fine because his turnaround time was pretty quick. The public hearing was then opened up and no one spoke for or against the proposal. Ms. Robinson said that no one contacted the office either. So, Commissioner Edwards put forth a motion that the Commission should go against Staff recommendation and approve the lot with the stipulation that the lot should be maintained in an appropriate manner, be paved, spaces delineated, and no more than the thirty proposed parking spots. Commissioner Irvin seconded the motion. Vice Chair Bland called for a vote which passed unanimously. Mr. Shaw was then told to head to City Council. 2023-REZ-06: A request by Barry Jones, owner, Capital City Homes, RVA, to rezone properties from M-1, Light Industrial District to B-2, General Commercial District. The properties are contiguous to one another and are vacant lots, addressed as follows: 901 905, 909, 915, 921, 925, 929, 933 Commerce St and 208 N Dunlop Street and further identified respectively as 024140003, 024140005, 024140006, 024140007, 024140008, 024140009, 024140010, 024140011, 024140012, and 024140013. The property has a public street frontage of approximately 400 ft and has approximately 40,000 sq ft lot area. If approved, the applicant will resubdivide ten (10) lots into eight (8) buildable, single-family residential lots. The applicants request to rezone these vacant lots from M-1 to B-2 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Edwards said that he is very happy that someone wants to build single-family homes and not apartments. Mr. Jones was then asked what he was looking to charge for his homes, and he said right around 200 to $225,000 and probably around 1200-1300 sq feet. Director Siodmok then asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak either for or against the project and no one spoke. Commissioner Edwards moved that the Commission accepted the Staff’s recommendation and was seconded by Commissioner Norman. Vice Chair Bland then called for a vote which passed unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS 2023-ZTA-01 Amendments to Article 24 and 25 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the rehabilitation and continuation of residential structures with five-units or less, development of nonconforming lots, and existing neighborhood commercial structures with a certificate of nonconforming use/structure. 11 Director Siodmok said that this ordinance has come in front of council twice and twice it has been taken off of council’s agenda. It is not on the agenda now and that the Planning Department has made the public aware that this has gone on so that they can come and speak in public comments period. Commissioner Edwards said that he had been a housing inspector and that his area covered Ward 4 and parts of Ward 1. In his area alone there are 27 properties that are sitting because they are duplexes that someone had not lived in for over 2 years. And no one can move on them. On the one hand, the city is complaining about blight, blight, blight and on the other hand there is a long line of investors that want to invest in these duplexes but then we have everyone’s hands tied because we have this law that these are now single-family homes because they have not been lived in in over two years. The city wants the blight fixed and to bring these buildings back on the tax rolls, but no one wants to change the law about this. The ARB board has endorsed it, the Planning Commission has endorsed it, the Comprehensive Plan supports it, zoning supports it. Director Siodmok then said that she is doing what she can to get this in front of City Council. 7. NEW BUSINESS Director Siodmok said that she wanted to have a conversation about sandwich board signs. She started out with the fact that our current code says that sandwich board signs are not allowed. It says that you cannot have any signs on the sidewalk of the city, or store goods or merchandise. Also, movable signs are prohibited. So, any sign not affixed to a building is prohibited. But we have lots of sandwich board signs through out old town. So, she wanted to share codes that do allow them if there is interest in allowing them. Fredericksburg, for example, does allow one sign per business. They are not allowed in the public right of way and must have a four ft area around it on all sides. Sign holders must hold the city not liable if anything happens. They must have wood or metal no plastic signs. Specific size, 4ft X 5ft and you must fill out an application. Staunton is another municipality that allows signs. They do not require a permit, they just state that you must put your sign on the parcel of your land. And you must have three feet clearance all around it. Charlottesville, one per property and it must be on the property. The sign cannot exceed four feet in height and again the 3 ft clearance. It cannot be illuminated, cannot be in a driveway or fire lane. So, do you want a sandwich board law? Ms. Robinson said that when a business does have a sign over hanging the public right of way, they are required to submit their insurance to the city manager. Commissioner Hairston said that he was against sandwich board signs because we already don’t have anywhere to ride a bike in the city. When our city becomes booming these signs are going to be a nuisance. We should not even go down that road. I know where the businesses are, I need another sign. I don’t think we should have them on city property at all. Director Siodmok said that this was why she wanted to bring it to people’s attention. Now that we have enforcement staffing, do we want to enforce this? Or do we want to allow it but allow it with control. Commissioner Adaku said that she was against them. Ms. Robinson said that you can’t do for one area of the city and not do for another. Commissioner Edwards said that he is for them because he hears a lot from business owners about how they are needed downtown. If you get to Bollingbrook and Sycamore streets there are no signs that say you go here for this business and there for that one. If folks do not see those sandwich boards, then those businesses are not being exposed. You hear all the time in the streets and online that say that no one comes up Sycamore Street because there are no signs that direct people to do so. If we are going to 12 have a discussion saying that these are not needed, then I would like to see the city invest in businesses. If we are not going to have sandwich boards then we need to put out signs that have little arrows pointing to where places are. You are going to need to show people where to go. If you don’t have those signs now, you are going to have to direct their customers where to go. I get that they are everywhere, but I personally enjoy seeing Alibi’s and those cute little sayings every day. For years we have had these things on the streets. If the city invested in the signs with the little arrows pointing you to the business, then everything would look more uniform. It’s a small gesture on the city’s part to say okay, we are going to do this to not only bring you business but make our streets look better. Commissioner Hairston says that signs should not be in the right of way, but if they are going to be allowed then they should have to pay. Commissioner Edwards said that he is pro small business and that he just cannot see the city charging $150 to allow someone to have a sandwich board. Commissioner Edwards says that the city needs to put together a way finder sign. Director Siodmok said that the wayfarer signs would be nice, but this is a discussion of sandwich boards. Commissioner Irvin asked if there was something in the code that can be enforced to take sandwich boards off the sidewalk, and he was told yes there is. So, then y’all are good with one sandwich board per business and that they must be in the tree line area or the furniture zone so that they are not in the middle of the sidewalk. Director Siodmok said that she would put something together for the next meeting. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS Director Siodmok said that because everyone is usually busy with things the first week of January, our next meeting is going to be on January 11th. Tentatively the next joint meeting about the Comprehensive Plan with City Council will be on February 27th. 9. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Irvin then asked for adjournment at 7:31 seconded by Commissioner Edwards.. 13