Planning Commission

City of Petersburg Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2024 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, January 11 Members Present: Ms. Tammy Alexander, Chair Mr. Fenton Bland, Vice Chair Mr. Thomas Hairston Ms. Marie Vargo Mr. Michael Edwards Members Absent: Mrs. Candace Taylor Dr. Bill Irvin Dr. James Norman A Quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Others Present: Ms. Naomi Siodmok-Planning Director, Ms. Sandra Robinson, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Chase Gibrall, Mr. D. Wyatt, and Mr. Jaja Parham. 3. Adoption of the Agenda: Chair Alexander called for any changes to the agenda. Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Hairston seconded it. It passed unanimously. 4. Adoption of the Minutes: The minutes from September 7, 2023, were then up for adoption. Commissioner Vargo moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Hairston seconded them. It passed unanimously. 1 5. Public Hearings: 2023-SUP-09: A Public Hearing and consideration of a request from Chase Gibrall, applicant, and representative for Navarrete’s Auto Sales 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 a stand-alone used vehicle sales not associated with a new-vehicle dealership or not located on 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 2520 Deerfield Drive, and further identified as tax parcel number 065100007. The parcel of land contains 0.331 acres. The applicant’s goal is to operate a used car lot containing a minimum of 10 cars on the property. The comprehensive plan suggests this area is appropriate for commercial and residential uses. The property is zoned B-2, General Commercial District. Director Siodmok made the presentation: Mr. Chase Gibrall is the applicant and owner who is seeking the Special Use Permit. A car sales lot needs a Special Use Permit if it is a stand-alone lot and is under an acre. The lot is zoned B-2 and the Comprehensive Plan does recognize the site as commercial and uses such as used car lot are permitted with the Special Use Permit. Recommendations: Staff does recommend approval of this Special Use Permit with certain conditions. 1. The lot shall be maintained in an appropriate, clean, manner; paved; and vehicles for sale shall be parked only one per space. 2. Only 10 vehicles are to be for sale on the property at a given time due to parking requirements. A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Business License showing the delineation of such parking spaces. 3. A lighting plan should be submitted and approve by the Planning Department staff to ensure residentially used properties will not be impacted by glare or spillover. Mr. Gibrall then said that the only person who had sent in a complaint to the Planning Department was complaining about the last tenants of the property who were a car wash that didn’t work well with the neighborhood because the car wash was open 24/7. Whereas a car dealership would be closed by 5:00 and they would only be open a few days a week. He also said that a couple of the neighbors asked if he would leave the light on there since it was an empty lot and when the light was not left on, then people started congregating. Chair Alexander then asked if the commissioners had any questions for the applicants. Commissioner Hairston then asked what kind of cars would they be selling…new cars, used cars, combination? The answer was just used cars. Ms. Robinson then reiterated that this Special Use Permit would only allow the sale of used cars and nothing else. They could not repair cars or even have inoperable vehicles or abandoned vehicles on their lot. 2 Vice Chair Bland said that he knew several of the neighbors that had complained to him about the noise and disruption that the car wash had caused in the neighborhood. He wanted to know if anyone has spoken to the neighbors and specifically those closest to the property. The answer was no. Vice Chair Bland said that it might help to get the neighbors on their side if they went around and told what the plans were and to explain that this car lot will be good neighbors. Commissioner Edwards asked to bring up a picture of the property. He then asked how the cars would be parked since it is a small lot. The owner then explained how ten cars would fit on the inside end of the lot. Also, there is inside space as well. He also said that he had gone out to see the lot and while he was there several residents came out to speak with him and voice their concerns. The biggest one being the vehicle traffic. The neighborhood already has an issue with speeding and also with vehicles parked there for days or weeks with no one moving them. He wanted to know what the assurance was going to be that they were going to follow the rules set for them if this were allowed to happen. He said that he was cautiously going to approve this, but that he rides the city, and he sees how other car lots are and that many of them do not follow the rules that are given to them. Case in point, West Washington and South Street…that lot is a disaster and that is not something that he wants to see happening in this neighborhood. He said that those are the concerns that were shared with him when he visited the site this afternoon. So, what kind of assurances can you give? After all, the city has a lot going on and cannot police everyone that they approve. Mr. Gibrall then said that the city can put anything in the agreement with him if they approve of it. He said that he can put it in the lease agreement with the person that will own the car lot. He said that it seems like that the city wants his place to stay empty and that he not be able to use it though. He said that it will be better than when it was empty. He said that right now he is having a financial hardship. This is the first dealership of the owner of the business. Commissioner Hairston then asked if the new owner was a Petersburg resident—the answer was no. He then asked if there was something that the Planning Commission could put in the agreement to assure that if the dealership owner falls short that there is some sort of repercussion. So that if the dealership does not live up to the agreement, then the city does not have to wait years to get them out of there. Because he said that he has seen it too many times that once you let someone in, they no longer fulfill their obligations, and the property goes downhill quickly. And then it takes years for anything to be done about it. Director Siodmok said that the best way to do that is through conditions and then through zoning enforcement as well. He then asked about leakage and such from the various cars and Ms. Robinson said that anyone with this type of items for sale would have to meet local, state and federal guidelines for a place like this. They would have to be certified with DMV to sell a car. But the owner would not be able to work on a car for any reason. This lot is only for the sale of used vehicles. Anyone who does buy a car that needs work would then have to take the car to a third party to get it worked on. Chair Alexander then asked if there was anyone who was wanting to speak for or against the business and no one spoke. 3 Commissioner Vargo then moved to accept Staff recommendation with the conditions and the accompanying resolution. It was seconded by Commissioner Bland. It passed unanimously. 2023-SUP-10: A Public Hearing and consideration of a request from Grand Generation, LLC, owner, D. Wyatt for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article 23, Section 4(20) of the Zoning Ordinance to operate as a vehicle removal operator, vehicle storage lot, or vehicle tow lot, such to be permitted within the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts only. The subject property is located at 1700-1701 Midway Ave, Tax Parcel 028310001 and is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. The location of the subject property is within the Anchor Industrial Park, owned by Charles H. Funk III of Funk LLC. Director Siodmok gave the presentation. This Special Use Permit is for vehicle removal operator, vehicle storage lot, and vehicle tow lot. The lot is zoned for light industrial as well as its neighboring properties. It is also zoned as light industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. So, this is consistent with the community’s vision for the City of Petersburg. The Planning Department does recommend approval of this Special Use Permit with the following conditions. 1. All vehicles are to be stored within the confides of the property’s fence. 2. Beyond vehicles, no open, outdoor storage is permitted. 3. The site shall be properly lit with lighting directed in a downward and inward position to not spillover onto adjacent properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a Business License. Chair Alexander then asked if any commissioner had any questions. When the answer was no, she then spoke with the applicant, Mr. D. Wyatt. Mr. Wyatt then said that he was a tow operator and he wanted to expand his business to the city of Petersburg. He thought that it would be a good fit. He is wanting to put a fence cover on the fence around his yard. So that the view will be blocked off and it will not be offensive to anyone who sees it. He plans on keeping it very neat and clean. Commissioner Hairston asked how many cars the lot could hold, and Mr. Wyatt said twenty to twenty-five, he wasn’t sure. Chair Alexander asked what he was going to be bringing in and Mr. Wyatt said that he would be towing wrecked cars, impounds, police tows, etc., and even people who were broke down, but that he would not be towing repossessions and has no plans to ever start. Mr. Wyatt said that he plans on putting a shed on the property for an office and he plans on making it so that no one can see through his fence because he does not want anyone to know what he has on the property. Chair Alexander asked if any of the commissioners had any more questions of the applicant. When the answer was no, she opened up the public hearing. She asked if anyone wanted to speak for or against this application. When no one spoke, she then closed the public hearing and asked if there was any discussion to be had by the commissioners. Commissioner Edwards then said that he wanted to move that the commissioners accept Staff’s recommendations with the 4 recommendations and the resolution. Commissioner Hairston seconded it. Chair Alexander then asked if there was any more discussion. When there wasn’t, she asked to call the vote. It passed unanimously. 2023-ZTA-02: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval to amend and readopt Article 21, Sign Regulations, to regulate and allow for sandwich board/A- frame signs. Director Siodmok gave the presentation. According to the code of the City of Petersburg, sandwich boards are not permitted. But right now, if you go out you will find sandwich board signs throughout the city which can impact the walkability and accessibility of the sidewalks. But Staff does see the benefits of signs and therefore this is the perfect time to decide upon the regulation of them. So that this way we want to bring the chance to regulate them and allow them before we go forward with the prohibition of them. We do see that they help small businesses stand out and they create foot traffic for the business. They can be a type that the information could be changed quickly, for instance if a menu needs to be changed. Currently, Chapter 98 (Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Spaces) Article II. Section 98-124a. and Appendix B. Article 21. Section 6.7 prohibit the use of sandwich board signs per the excerpts below: Sec. 98-124: No person shall place, keep or store, or exhibit or display for sale, any goods, wares or merchandise, or maintain any advertising signs, on the sidewalks of the city. Section 6. - Prohibited signs: The following signs shall be prohibited in all districts: 6.7. All portable or nonstructural signs. The proposed text amendment seeks to allow sandwich board signs with limitations to include the following: 1. One (1) sandwich board sign may be located on a property occupied by a lawful use in any zoning district allowing commercial uses. Such sign shall be located immediately adjacent to the business it advertises. 2. The sign must be a maximum of four (4) feet in height and two (2) feet in width. 3. Signs are to be constructed of metal or wood (not grained plywood). Other materials, including plastic, are prohibited. 4. Signs shall not be lighted or flashing in any manner. No attachments such as pennants, balloons, etc. are allowed. 5  5. Sandwich board signs are only to be displayed during the business establishment’s hours of operation. 6. Signs are limited to the furniture zone (there is a new definition in the code for furniture zone—it is where you might have benches or trash cans, or light posts. It makes it so that a wheelchair or someone walking has the ability to pass through.) of the sidewalk and must not block the sidewalk clear zone. Signs shall not be in any required off-street parking space, driveway, alley, curb ramp, or fire lane. Right now, any business that has a sign hanging in the right of way has to have liability insurance and has to be signed off on by the City Manager. This would be subject to that as well, so that if anyone were to trip or anything because of the sign the city would not be held liable. The inspiration for these limitations were Williamsburg, Staunton, and Charlottesville. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the proposed text amendments. Chair Alexander asked what about the businesses that are down side alleys. Their only way to bring in business is their “illegal” signs. Those would not be able to be adjacent to their properties. Director Siodmok said that the details could be tweaked as needed. Commissioner Hairston said that his biggest problem is that he is looking toward Petersburg growing and becoming prosperous and he can see many people walking on the sidewalk and making it difficult for the signs to have enough room along with everyone else. He is also worried that then the city is going to have to go and hire someone just to deal with this. He said that he is pro-sign, but signs that go anywhere BUT the sidewalk. Commissioner Edwards said that he does not want to do anything that will hinder the businesses downtown. You have some businesses that are on main streets and some that are down side alleys. Those of us who live here know where to find these businesses, but people who do not live here may need help finding those businesses. Especially since a lot of the GPSs are wrong when it comes down to the exact coordinates of a certain business. He said that he does not think that another hinderance should be placed on our local businesses. These signs are vital to businesses to tell people “I’m here come visit me”. Yes, there is a need to make things look good, but these businesses rely on that sign that says, “Hey I’m open”. He also said that he thinks that there are many more details that need to be ironed out on this and that the Planning Commission needs to take a step back and figure out what exactly needs to be done for our local businesses. He believes that the best thing would be a Wayfinder Sign that would help direct people to different businesses. Director Siodmok said that Mainstreet Petersburg is going to put up Wayfinder signs through out Petersburg, but that they are going to more generic signs pointing the way to old town or to a museum and not necessarily to a specific business. Commissioner Vargo said that perhaps the city should set up a system that the businesses could then pay for their portion of the Wayfinder sign but that they would all look cohesively similar. She also said that the one thing about being downtown is that everything is so much closer than elsewhere. The Signage is not going to be the same as on Crater Road. Because of that, those sandwich boards can be a real business booster. It grabs your attention much quicker. Just have everything standardized by the city, but if you are going to do a Wayfinder sign then allow the 6 businesses to pay for the signs just like they are going to pay for their sandwich board signs. Just a thought. Commissioner Hairston then said that since he was the one that doesn’t want the signs, he said that he could live with the signs until Petersburg becomes too busy to have them on the sidewalk. After all, one can always change it later if they become too much of a burden on the people walking on the sidewalk. I can see how they are beneficial, but I am thinking of the future where they will not even be needed. After all, we need to keep our sidewalks clear. Ms. Robinson said to keep in mind that this proposed ordinance would not be just for the downtown area but for the whole city. But that with the historic overlay, over the downtown area, signage can be a problem that they don’t have out on Crater Road or out that way. Chair Alexander then opened up the public hearing for people who are in favor of the amendment. Mr. Jaja Parham, Owner of the Mad House 1945 S Sycamore Street was the first to speak. So, my wife and I are in favor of the signs. I spoke earlier with Michael Edwards and I anted to say that we were in favor. But I want to know why only metal or wood? Why isn’t plastic included in the rules and regulations? Also is there a way that we can make it slightly bigger from a 2-foot width to a 2 ½ feet width just in case for people who order signs. Now I will say that I walked around the city today and spoke with the various sign owners and they want this to go through so that they can have their signs out. As Mr. Edwards has said, these signs help these businesses survive, especially in a climate where some people are not getting enough foot traffic. Some people need that extra little bit of advertising. That little bit of advertising can make the difference and can keep the lights on in the place. At the end of the day, some of these people that I spoke with do not think that Petersburg is being very business friendly right now. We want to feel more support behind businesses right now and this is another option that would be good for business. This would help businesses think that this will help turn the tide and will let them believe that this city really is a city that they should stay and do business in. Thank you. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone else had anything they wanted to say. Seeing no hands, she closed the public hearing and asked the commissioners what they wanted to do. Director Siodmok then asked if she could make a couple of comments. She said that the city does not have to require certain dimensions, those can be eliminated if there is desire and there does not have to be requirements of certain materials either. We also do not have to require that the sign be adjacent or on the property itself. So, if you all see the benefit that it’s limited to one but that it has to be in an area that’s not blocking the clear area of the sidewalk but that it can be somewhere else, like say where you can find the different businesses in the alleys then we can also change that. You just can’t block the sidewalk, but it doesn’t have to be on your property. So, some changes can be made to that as well. Commissioner Edwards then said that what you are saying is that if we change it, the signs at the end of Sycamore would be permitted and they wouldn’t have to be at the business. Director Siodmok then said that yes that is true, but that they could only have one. Commissioner 7 Hairston then asked about what exactly was permitted on the sidewalk and different businesses have different things on the sidewalk near their businesses. Director Siodmok said that right now the concentration is on signs, but eventually she wants to look at the outdoor seating and other things that the business do as they are good for the city, the environment (making it welcoming and inviting) and for business. Commissioner Edwards put forth a motion to table this for more discussion. It was seconded by Commissioner Hairston. Chair Alexander then asked how long he wanted to table it and Commissioner Edwards said to table it until the February meeting so that it would give the commissioners time to go and talk with the business owners and assess more of what they want. He said that he also wants to know more about the furniture zone and where exactly that goes. He said that he also wants to know the pros and cons of changing sign size and materials. It passed unanimously. 2023-ZTA-03: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval to amend and readopt Article 3, Definitions, and Article 19, Off-Street Parking Regulations, to clarify the requirement of driveways for low-density housing. Director Siodmok gave the presentation. This is looking at parking regulations for low density housing. This is to clarify that there is a requirement for low density housing parking. So right now, our code does already state that parking is required for residential development, it just doesn’t state clearly that it is required in the form of a driveway. There seems to be a bit of confusion for developers working on a new property and not installing a driveway prior to requesting a certificate of occupancy. So, with this we are just going in and stating very clearly that driveways are required. First, we defined what a driveway is. “The paved area between the road and the required parking spaces, which provides an approach to those parking spaces.” We tried to keep it as simple as possible. We then added an additional bullet under the general section for off street parking. Residential parking requirements for single-family, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhomes, must be accommodated in the form of a driveway that meets the minimum parking space requirements and design standards of this article. Article 19. Off Street Parking Regulations This article already outlines the following: 1) That off-street parking is required for all land uses and structures unless otherwise stated. 2) Parking must be surfaced. 3) Dimensions of parking spaces (180 SF – 9’ x 20’ or 10’ x 18’). 4) Parking space requirements for residential. 8  a. SF and Townhouse: Two spaces per dwelling unit. b. Multi-family (including two-family): One space per each one-bedroom unit; two spaces per every two- or more bedroom dwelling units. This is really just clarifying everything that all of that culminates in the creation of the driveway. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the recommendation to amend and readopt Article 19. and Article 3. of the City Zoning Ordinance. Chair Alexander asked if there were any questions for staff and Commissioner Edwards asked what are we going to do about people parking in their front yard? The Director said that that is just an enforcement issue. Everyone is supposed to park on a paved surface and that parking in the front yard is not allowed. He then asked who was supposed to enforce this? Code compliance, the police, neighborhood services? You can have a gravel driveway, but it is supposed to be paved unless you have prior approval. If a driveway was established but was not paved prior to 1971, then the driveway does not have to be paved. But all new construction is to have established paved driveways. Chair Alexander opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak for or against the ordinance. Seeing no one, she then closed the public hearing. She then asked if the commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Vargo asked what prompted this ordinance. Chair Alexander said that the city gets a lot of people parking on their front lawns. Director Siodmok also said that with all these new houses being built, when the builders come in for their certificate of occupancy, we realize that they don’t have the parking that they need. So, this is just to clarify what is all needed in order to get their certificate of occupancy. The idea is that this hopefully will alleviate some of the parking issues in some of the older parts of town where there is not enough on-street parking. Commissioner Edwards then moved to accept Staff’s recommendations along with the resolution and Commissioner Hairston seconded it. It 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. Director Siodmok said she just wanted to give us an update and that this ordinance is council’s agenda for Tuesday, January 16, 2024. It is on their voting agenda. Commissioner Edwards asked if it would make it to a vote and the director said that she had not heard anything back that there were any concerns. She just wanted everyone to be aware that it was coming up. 7. NEW BUSINESS 9 1. Planning Commission Committees. Chair Alexander said that it was Commissioner Adaku who was interested in starting but she is no longer with us (as she moved out of her Ward). And I would like to say as someone who has been on this board way too long, the committee thing has always been more of a bureaucracy and a problem than it has ever solved. She asked what everyone else thought. Director Siodmok said that it was Commissioner Adaku that had asked to have it brought up and if there was no interest then she would move on. 2. Used Vehicle Lots, Vape Shops, Car Washes, and Tire Establishments (Tentative). Director Siodmok said that she had been noticing a lot of issues with used vehicle lots, vape shops, car washes and tire establishments. So, she wanted to see if anyone had any ideas to regulate them a little bit more so that there are not as many Special Use Permits. There are a few options to looking into regulating them. Whether it is saying that they are only permitted in an Industrial Zone (so that they don’t pop up in our commercial districts anymore), or potentially putting distance requirements on them. Chesterfield County just updated their code for vape shops and they made it so that there had to be a particular distance from schools and also that they could not be within two thousand feet of each other, so that kind of limits the clustering and it gives a bit of separation so that they are not focused in one location. So, if y’all are interested we can spend more time looking into this. The consensus was that yes, the Commissioners were very interested in looking into it. Director Siodmok asked if there were any other types of businesses that should be looked at as well. Commissioner Hairston said that another business to look at is Dollar Stores. Ms. Robinson said that there is some regulation of them already. If the store wants to come to Petersburg, they have to either build a store over 10,000 square ft or get a Special Use Permit. The City cannot sign off on a building permit unless it is at least over 10,000 sq feet store. Commissioner Edwards said that Councilman Cuthbert did put a moratorium on Dollar Stores, but Director Siodmok explained that a moratorium was for a finite period of time while the City looked at ways to address the issue. She also asked if there were any other issues that the Commission wanted looked at. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS Director Siodmok said that the next joint meeting about the Comprehensive Plan with City Council will be on February 27th to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Draft. There is also an open house tomorrow night at PAALS to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Draft as well from 5:30- 7:30. The joint meeting with City Council will have the Comprehensive Plan up for discussion. We also have the community meeting for 225 Medical Park Blvd to be held on the 18th here in the multipurpose room here at the library, for anyone who wants to attend. Commissioner Edwards asked if this was going to be the last meeting on the subject and Director Siodmok said that yes there needed to be a vote one way or the other on this. 9. ADJOURNMENT 10 Commissioner Hairston then asked for adjournment at 8:00 seconded by Commissioner Edwards. 11