Planning Commission

City of Petersburg Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2024 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, April 4, 2024, was called to order by Chair Alexander, at 6:30 p.m. A roll call was completed by Ms. Michelle Murrills. Members Present: Ms. Tammy Alexander, Chair Mr. Fenton Bland, Vice Chair Mr. Thomas Hairston Ms. Marie Vargo Mr. Michael Edwards Dr. James Norman Members Absent: Mrs. Candace Taylor Dr. William Irvin Mr. Thomas Hairston A quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Others Present: Ms. Naomi Siodmok-Planning Director, Mr. Jared Crews, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Ms. Tory Haynes, Mr. W Howard Myers, Ms. Josilyn Toppins and Dave Alexander. 3. Adoption of the Agenda: Chair Alexander called for any changes to the agenda. Since there were none, Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the agenda. Vice Chair Bland seconded it. It passed unanimously. 1 4. Consent Agenda: The minutes from February and March 2024, were then up for adoption. As there were no changes, Commissioner Vargo moved to approve the minutes and Vice Chair Bland seconded them. It passed unanimously. 5. Public Hearings: a. 24-CPA-01: A public hearing and consideration in accordance with Section 15.2.2225 of the Code of Virginia of a resolution recommending repealing the “City of Petersburg PTB2040” Comprehensive Plan and adopting the “PetersburgNEXT, Comprehensive Plan 2044” Comprehensive Plan. The presentation was made by Ms. Tory Haynes of the Berkley Group. She explained that the Berkley Group, the Planning Commission, city officials, and others have been working together on this comprehensive plan for the past two years and it has come down to this last presentation for the Planning Commission to vote on and then send on to the City Council so that it can become the overall Comprehensive Plan. She went through the history of the process of how The Plan got to this point and then an overview just to make sure there was nothing that needed to be changed before the final version went on to City Council. With that she then explained that the next steps tonight would be the public hearing and then the Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council. Chair Alexander then asked if any of the commissioners if they had any questions. Commissioner Edwards said that he did. He wanted to go back to chapter 10. And asked if Ms. Haynes would elaborate on how much residential was taken and made industrial. He was told that in the Squirrel Level Road area it was around 68 acres. Down on Rives Road, where there was close to 130 acres that was converted, she did not know for sure what the breakdown was as to how much was residential before it was converted. Commissioner Edwards then asked if the acreage out on Squirrel Level Road had any communities around it. He was told that yes there are communities, but that by City Council’s request they tried to change the zoning of as much land as possible and any neighborhoods that might have been affected were kept residential. Commissioner Edwards then clarified that he was asking if any of the land that has been rezoned industrial, does it back up to anyone’s back door. He was told that the answer was not immediately known, but that the information could be gotten to him. Ms. Haynes also reiterated that he should keep in mind that these are future land use designations and that the land is not automatically rezoned as such. He said that he is concerned that the sixty acres on Squirrel Level Road shouldn’t just be locked up. While he is all for development, the housing market is going strong, and he doesn’t want to see Petersburg run out of room for further housing development. You can ride the city today and you can see infill houses being built in neighborhoods that people have spoken unkindly about, you ride up many streets in 5 th Ward and you will see houses being built in what was once called the slums of the city, so when we 2 talk about chopping up what little we have left for new housing developments. He asked for information on the Squirrel Level Road land, and he wanted to know if anyone was contacted to tell them this was happening. Director Siodmok explained that this was not really being rezoned, it was just going into The Plan, and nothing can happen with the land until someone brings it to the Planning Commission. It doesn’t mean that it is automatically rezoned. And until it comes forward to be rezoned, no one would be notified about these changes. With that Chair Alexander said that she would then open up the public hearing. She asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition. When no one spoke up, she closed the public hearing. She then asked the commissioners what they would like to do. Commissioner Vargo then moved to accept the resolution as is. This was seconded by Commissioner Edwards. It passed unanimously. b. 2024-REZ-01: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a petition to rezone property located at 303, 309, 315, 323, 419, and 431 West Washington Street from B-2, General Commercial, and R-3, Two-Family Residence, to the RB, Office- Apartment District. Mr. Crews made the presentation. He mentioned the history of this resolution from previous meetings. There are six lots overall and it is the block between Davis and Lafayette Streets plus one more property along Washington Street. It appears to all be residential except for the one church there. As mentioned, the request is to rezone the lots to the RB office/apartment district. The request was initiated by City Council at their January 16 th meeting. The request’s broad term introduction was at the February Planning Commission meeting. The Commission asked for some additional clarification behind the zoning. Staff did reach out and the answer was that the zoning was appropriate because 1.) There were already apartments in some of those buildings which would then essentially bring the zoning into alignment with the usage of the properties. 2.) The buildings are pretty large and appropriately sized to accommodate all uses. This hearing was originally scheduled for last month’s meeting, but it was delayed due to advertising issues. But we did allow public comment at that meeting, since the notices had already been mailed, and one of the residents, 315 W Washington, spoke against the request noting the lack of reason and the loss of potential property value. The current Comprehensive Plan says that since this is a corridor that is a gateway to the city and should have vibrant mixed-use components. Which would fit just fine. So again, this is brought to the commission at the request of Council, and they’ve asked that you consider and make a recommendation about the appropriateness of the rezoning. Chair Alexander asked if the commissioners had any questions for staff. Commissioner Vargo said yes. She said that she thought that the Comprehensive Plan was supposed to help with continuity. Carving out a block or so in the middle of a sea of B-2 and R-3 does not keep us moving forward to get some continuity with the zoning of these streets. Mr. Crews said that he wished he had some better information to share, but it’s more based upon the existing uses today than on the future uses. What was shared back with us was it was because the size of the buildings could accommodate both the apartments and the offices. And it is different than 3 the surrounding zoning and it does interact with the comprehensive plan in a couple of ways. Commissioner Vargo also asked what the definition of multifamily was and she was told anything over two family. She then asked if that meant that these large historic homes could then become apartments and she was told that yes that it is possible with this zoning. Chair Alexander asked which houses were nonconforming and Mr. Crews said that he didn’t know only that some of them are. It was then mentioned that 431 has apartments, as does 323. 303, 309, and 315 are group homes and could potentially become apartments. Commissioner Edwards then asked if this rezoning could be expanded beyond what is recommended. Mr. Crews said that it is possible but that it would be a whole new action item rather than just expanding the one that we have now. Chair Alexander then opened the hearing to the public. Mr. W Howard Myers, 431 W Washington Street, current 5 th Ward City Councilman. He said that he is opposed to the expansion of the zoning but is certainly supportive of the block plus one house more. He said that he is probably the one that is non-conforming, but that his house was made up of 10 apartments when he bought it and that he has removed those and now it is single family. But he does maintain three apartments, there is an English basement apartment plus two more in his carriage house. Unfortunately, at this time, he said that he has to carry the load of the electricity bill in the carriage house. Even if you don’t pay your rent, I still have to pay the electricity bill. With this zoning change, it would allow me to have the electricity meters for each apartment so that they could be billed separately. To be clear, at the time that I bought the house it was conforming. The reason why I don’t want the expansion, and I’ll explain myself, is not for my own general purposes. When you come down Washington Street you see a plethora of businesses and houses. Which creates a view as you enter the City of Petersburg. It already exists at this particular point the way that it is supposed to, based upon the sizes of the houses (which I think you alluded to). I live in a 7000 sq ft brick house. I have been a proponent and supportive of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes here in Petersburg, because basically when you have a house of this size it is hard to maintain this house without extra income coming in. And if someone wants to come and purchase a house or a duplex in Petersburg and you can have a second income renting out separate quarters to help pay the mortgage or any other monetary need. But I don’t think that the extension is needed, I think that it is just needed for these houses on this specific block. And just to reiterate, my house was not conforming here recently, but it was conforming when I bought it. Thank you Next was Ms. Michelle Murrills, 131 S Market St. She said that she is basically in complete agreement with Mr. Myers. That basically with the changes that were made last month with the R-3, which should have been approved by city council those apartments would now be allowed which would be great. Also, don’t know if you realize it or not, but the Family Dollar across the street is going out of business. So, I don’t know what will be coming in there. Also, the buildings that go west past Mr. Myers’ house, those are all just small single-family homes or duplexes which are much smaller anyways and I believe that the duplexes are all on R-3 properties which again are covered by the new changes. But those should be fine as well, they 4 don’t necessarily need the new zoning to be extended to them, because they are not super large houses. Thank you. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone else wanted to speak, when no one did, she closed the public portion of the hearing. She then asked if any commissioners had anything to say. Commissioner Edwards said that he didn’t want to be the one to table this (since he has been tabling things recently). Commissioner Vargo said that she has a concern. We are so close to the Comprehensive Plan and the new Zoning Plan that would take care of most of these issues all at the same time. She said that she wants to see more continuity instead of blocks that are different. It drives her crazy and it makes it difficult to keep up with, especially with zoning enforcement and stuff like that. She then made a motion to table this until after dealing with Comprehensive Plan and able to do the Comprehensive Zoning Plan as well. Because at that time then this can be considered part of that Zoning Plan. Vice Chair Bland then asked if there were any time constraints on this at all. To which Mr. Crews said probably not, but that the city-wide zoning updates would take another 18 months or so. Commissioner Edwards said that he wanted more time to deal with this one issue. After getting some clarification from Mr. Crews, he said that he wanted to go on record and say that he will not be pressured to make any type of decision because it’s coming from the elected. He then seconded Commissioner Vargo’s motion. The vote passed with one abstention from Commissioner Norman. Commissioner Edwards then asked for clarification as to how much time he had to bring it back for a vote before they would have to start all over again per Robert’s Rules of Order. So, he asked to bring it back to the next meeting to discuss again. c. 2024-ZTA-02: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of an amendment to Article 3, Definitions, Article 14, B-1 Shopping Center District Regulations, Article 16, B-3 Central Commercial District Regulations, and Article 23, Supplementary Use Regulations, Special Uses, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to recreational substance facilities. Mr. Crews made the presentation. At the last meeting there was a discussion item that was brought forward because of the increased number of requests that the city is getting to open vape shops here in Petersburg. There have been at least 6 requests in the last six months or so. Four of those are wanting to open in a quarter square mile area. So, staff shared concerns that this is something that should be looked into. Especially as this is something that correlates to higher smoking rates amongst teenagers. So, at the last Planning Commission meeting it was mentioned and you all made recommendations that you wanted to see in the code. The end goal of all is this is the lowering of teen smoking rates. And again, there is a proven correlation between the vape shops’ proximity to schools as well as how accessible they are period and higher teen smoking rates. There are three parts to the amendment. 5  1.) Defining recreational substances and recreational substance retail uses. 2.) Specifying where facilities conducting recreational substance retail use are permitted. 3.) Setting additional conditions and restrictions on recreational substance retail uses. New definitions: Recreational substances include the following: 1.) Any product made of tobacco, including cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and pipe tobacco. 2.) Any noncombustible product containing nicotine or vaping fluid that employs a heating element, power source, or other electronic, chemical, or mechanical means, regardless of shape or size, that can be used to produce vapor from a solution or other form. 3.) Any product, including any raw materials from hemp that are used for or added to a food or beverage product, that contains hemp and has completed all stages of processing needed for the product. 4.) Kratom, and any product including any raw materials from Kratom that are used for or added to a food or beverage product, that contains Kratom and has completed all stages of processing needed for the product. 5.) Any pipe, vaporizer, other type of device, wrappings, or accessories associated with the consumption or inhalation of the abovementioned substances and materials. Other new definitions: Recreational Substances, Retail, Off-Site Use: Any establishment, facility, or location whose business operation involves (i) the retail sale of Recreational Substances and (ii) includes Recreational Substances as 25% or more of its total inventory or 15% or more of its total display shelf area. Recreational Substances, Retail, On-Site Use. Any establishment, facility, or location whose business operation allows the on-site use of Recreational Substances. Conditions for recreational substance retail uses: Recreational substances retail (both off-site and on-site) would be allowed in the B-1, Shopping Center, B-2, General Commercial, and M-1, Light Industrial zoning districts subject to the following conditions: a. The use must be at least 2,000 feet from the property line of any school, public park, public playground, or public recreation/community building. b. The use must be at least 2,000 feet from any other facility with the same use; and c. Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 6  c. Recreational substances retail would be prohibited in the B-3, Central Commercial district. Other Considerations No person shall sell to, distribute to, purchase for, or knowingly permit the purchase by any person less than 21 years of age, knowing or having reason to believe that such person is less than 21 years of age, any tobacco product, nicotine vapor product, alternative nicotine product, or hemp product intended for smoking. Code of Virginia § 18.2-371.2. (United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates product packaging) With that he said that Staff recommends approval and asked if any of the commissioners had any questions. Chair Alexander then asked…If we were to go back to the houses we were talking about earlier, if someone wanted to open a vape shop in one of those three houses right now, they would be allowed because they are B-2. The answer was yes with the current zoning. She then said now if it changed to RB, it would not be allowed, and Mr. Crews said that is correct it would not be allowed. Commissioner Edwards then asked about the existing vape shops like Cloud Shop, that would not be allowed in the area it is in, are they grandfathered in, and he said that Director Siodmok said that they would be grandfathered in and that these changes would only be for any new shops coming in. Chair Alexander then opened up the public portion of the hearing. First to speak was Mr. David Alexander, 110 Liberty Street, spoke against it. First there were some comments…our number one concern should be the health of all of the citizens of Petersburg and things like this can be a slippery slope especially for young people. I want you all to consider that you are in the position to help rather than enabling people to push them down that slippery slope, you could be the ones to stop them. Also, some of these people are just concerned about making money. Is that really what we want? Thank you. Josilyn Toppins, she said that she is opposed to this because of all the things that are covered by this amendment. She said that people selling these things add things to these products all the time and there is no way to be sure what is or is not added. The city of Petersburg is not going to be able to regulate it, because it is regulated by the FDA. So, at the end of the day, we are here to educate not only our youth but our adults as well about their health in a community that as a whole is already declining. But with this the city is saying that while we are not going to allow it here, but we are going to allow it here. Yes, the hospitals and schools should be absolutely no smoking of any kind on the premises and such. Now, however, we are taking these things out into the public and now people like me who are allergic have to breathe in 7 these products which can cause all kinds of problems. And now we are all out breathing all of these things. And if the city is going to make things like hemp legal then we will have people smoking (or vaping) to get high on the streets of Petersburg. Is that really what we want for Petersburg? Thank you. Chair Alexander then closed the public portion of the hearing. Commissioner Edwards said that he understood the public concerns. He said that he deals with these things on a daily basis working for the city’s public transportation. It does not matter if we pass this, deny this, table this, marijuana is legal, and people get on the buses everyday and they light it up. We are never going to stop it. We are never going to stop people from going into the store and buying cigarettes or alcohol. If we don’t put it here, they are going to find a way to go somewhere else and buy it. When you get off 95 at exit 53 you have G-leaf right there at SouthPark in Colonial Heights, another city that has it. Marijuana is here to stay, and we need to get this figured out now. I would rather have somebody vaping then smoking because I grew up in a family of smokers and thank God, but my mother beat lung cancer after smoking for 54 years. And who are we to tell a grown person what you can and cannot do? He said that he wants to be on record that he understands the concerns of the public, but we cannot hold back the progress regardless of personal feelings and opinions. At the end of the day, the city is here as a business and so with that Commissioner Edwards made a motion to accept Staff’s recommendations with the attached resolution. It was seconded by Vice Chair Bland. Chair Alexander also added that while this is being voted upon, it is not the Planning Commission condoning the use of these products just the regulation of them. A vote was taken, and it was unanimous. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS Text Amendment Discussion Architectural Treatment. The presentation was made by Mr. Crews who said, Staff has been asked to present a potential code amendment for the Commission’s consideration. The goal of the amendment would be to encourage attractive and architecturally cohesive structures within the City by introducing “architectural treatment” standards for new construction. Components of the proposed amendment: A. Projects to Establish an Architectural Theme B. Sites to Obscure Junction and Accessories Boxes 8  C. Sites to Obscure of Mechanical Equipment D. Projects to meet minimum standards for exterior materials With this amendment, it would allow a more uniform, attractive historical looking standards that could be applied to all new construction buildings in the city of Petersburg. Planning Commission has the following options. 1. Motion to recommend the proposed amendment be brought for public hearing 2. Recommend changes to proposed amendment 3. Decline to bring proposed amendment to public hearing (hearing can still be initiated by Council or citizen request (for fee) He then asked if there were any questions and what would the commissioners like to do? Commissioner Edwards then said that (for instance) in the Historical Districts there are different guidelines. So, they would still have to follow the historic guidelines of the ARB. Mr. Crews said that the ARB would be even more restrictive so that would not be a problem, this is for those houses that are not covered by the historic districts and not subject to the ARB guidelines. This would not only affect houses, but also would force businesses to look a certain way so that they would be able to fit in with the overall idea of how the city of Petersburg should look. Commissioner Edwards said that he really liked this idea and made a motion to bring the proposed amendment for a public hearing and it was seconded by Vice Chair Bland. A vote was taken, and it passed unanimously. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Edwards reminded us that there is a Town Hall Meeting next Sunday to discuss the different casino ideas at the library from 2-4. Mr. Crews also announced that there is a new Ward 1 Planning Commissioner Alven Cannon that will be starting next month. 9. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Edwards then asked for adjournment at 8:00 seconded by Commissioner Norman. 9