Planning Commission

City of Petersburg Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 2024 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, May 2, 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 Mr. Al Cannon Mr. Thomas Hairston Members Absent: Mrs. Candace Taylor Dr. William Irvin Dr. James Norman A quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Others Present: Mr. Jared Crews, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Tyler Jackson, Mr. Dave Alexander, Mr. David Gerschick, Mrs. Mary Kate Gerschick, Ms. Kirsten Katzenbach, Mr. Hadley Katzenbach, and Mr. Jim Brouk. 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 April 2024, were then up for adoption. As there were no changes, Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes and Vice Chair Bland seconded them. It passed unanimously. 5. Public Comment: Comments and Correspondence from citizens, visitors, and delegations in the audience on items not on the agenda. Please limit comments to no more than three minutes. Mr. David Alexander, 110 Liberty Street, spoke. He said that he looked up all the historic zones in Petersburg and there seems to be a hole in the middle of Petersburg in the area of the Halifax Triangle. He wanted everyone to think about whether these places are old enough to be considered historic. Because time is getting on and things age and develop character. He said that he would like to fix this with enthusiasm. He thinks that if we all have our own enthusiasm and put that together then we could put together an enthusiastic team to tackle this problem. Thank you. Mr. Crews also wanted to say that because the Washington Street rezoning is under old business, there will not be a public hearing. So, if anyone wanted to speak about it, then this is the time to do so. The first person to speak was Mr. David Gerschick, 315 W Washington St., right in the middle of the rezoning request area. So, while we understand that we are right in the way, we are trying to do positive things for Petersburg. Unfortunately, this is a historic district that we are trying to rezone. It is not just a normal street, and these are not normal structures, these are historic structures. My house is on the National Register, so there are stakeholders from here and elsewhere. So, I looked at the numbers of the houses and we have spoken with our neighbor Bessie Mead, she is not advocating for this. She owns the first two buildings listen by number and she does not have any interest one way or another about it. I own 315 and I advocate that this not go forward. I have a national historic property with architectural significance. It will impact me if Folly Castle Historic District becomes Folly Castle flop house district. That unfortunately would impact the value of my house. I think that the Council is realizing that there is more interest across the street as Family Dollar closes and the glass shop is closing. Because this is a historic district it has to go under the Historic Preservation laws of Virginia 15.2.2306. It would be my position that if this were to go through that I would have to take action under 15.2.2316. There is also the appearance of conflict of interest as one of the parties affected by this is on the council. And this action is coming directly from the council. I question why it’s moving forward. The people in the area, the church, the residents like me (I 2 have lived here for 17 years) don’t want it. So, I ask you again please don’t move forward with any advice or recommendation to move forward with this rezoning. Next was Mrs. Mary Kate Gerschick, 315 W Washington St, I am married to (David Gerschick) have been for 25 years. We moved here and raised our kids here and fell in love with not just our house but with Petersburg. We made a promise to the owner, Col. Winn…It seemed like when we moved here everyone knew about our house and everyone had been in it (except for us) and they all knew about it. Our home is a Victorian home, but it’s brick. What that means is that it is one of a kind. There are notes about it in the Smithsonian. So, it is not just a something that has been on the Christmas tour or whatever. We have tried really hard to take care of it...and if you could find a roofer that will show up, please let me know. When we moved in Folly Castle was a bed and breakfast…had been for a while. And so there were people there. I talked to Bessie Mead, and she said that she doesn’t understand what it means and because she doesn’t understand she doesn’t know whether to support it or not. So, you have her properties, us, a church and then I think you have Howard. I thought that there were six houses, but I can’t figure out what the last house is, but anyways, we are trying really hard not to mess things up and just maintaining. But when you have the people splitting things up and doing all that, I don’t even know if they can do all this according to the Secretary of the Interior standards are. I don’t know, but it just seems unnecessary, and maybe it would help to know what we are zoned now and what this would actually do. Because it does not sound like it is the best thing for us. It sounds like we would be putting ourselves at risk for the amount of the property but also for this whole section (of the city). So, thank you for your time and I appreciate y’all for listening. I hope that y’all don’t support this. Last was Ms. Kirsten Katzenbach, 301 S Jefferson St., who said that she supports everything that the past two people have said, and she agrees with them. She also said, I think that we need to take into account the entire city and the integrity as a historic city. I was disappointed at the last meeting how y’all voted for split levels. We need to make up our minds and I think that the citizens as a whole should have a voice in how y’all vote for changing the integrity of our historic districts. I agree that this is a conflict of interest with a City Council member. If there were other neighbors that were interested, I would listen to it, but it seems to me to be one lone voice. I also question when you say office commercial district. We already have commercial down town buildings which are vacant. Do we really need to add to it within a quarter of a mile? So, if we cannot already fill what we have why do we want more of it? Thank you. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone else would like to speak. When there was no one, she closed the public comment portion. 6. Public Hearings: a. 2024-ZTA-03: A Public Hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of an amendment and readoption of Article 3, Definitions, Article 14, B-1 Shopping Center District 3 Regulations, and Article 16, B-3 Central Commercial District Regulations as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to recreational substance facilities. This is an alternative to 2024-ZTA-02. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. This is being presented as alternative language to 2024-ZTA-02. Last month, on April 4th, the Planning Commission recommended approval of 2024-ZTA-02, which included regulations on separation between facilities selling recreational substances from schools and public gathering places, separation between the facilities themselves, and hours of operation. On April 5th, Governor Youngkin signed into law HB 947 which states that localities can only regulate tobacco, nicotine, and hemp sale locations by prohibiting these uses within 1000 feet of day care centers and schools. Because Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, the City of Petersburg is limited to powers explicitly granted by the state. So that means that we can introduce a rule prohibiting the facilities near schools and day care centers. But the city is not able to go further with those additional regulations. So based on the advice of the city attorney, we have drafted this alternative amendment to align with the state code. Since the city is allowed to define exactly what recreational substances are, the already established definitions have been tweaked a little to match the state code and are as follows: (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 intended to be consumed by inhalation. The most noticeable change is that this focuses on just on products that are inhaled, which means that it eliminates edibles, CBD products, etc. Another set of definitions is used to define what is a retail establishment with off site use vs onsite use. 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. (So, something like a hookah bar or a cigar lounge). 4 The conditions for recreational substance retail uses have not changed in terms of the zoning, the major change is that the city can no longer require that the uses be the two thousand feet from schools, parks, community centers or other recreational substance facilities. And we are no longer allowed to regulate the hours of operation. Instead, the city is matching the state code language that says recreational substance retail use would be prohibited within 1,000 linear feet of any child day care or public, private or parochial school. Also, in line with the new law these changes will come into effect on July 1st, 2024. This was all based upon the city attorney’s advice and keeps us in line with the state code. While we are losing some of those regulations that were so attractive, we are still making improvements over the existing conditions. We are still able to quantify what these facilities are and where those uses are appropriate. So, with that, Staff’s recommendation is for approval for this alternative text amendment as drafted. With that, Chair Alexander then asked if any of the commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Vargo then said that with the state passing the law, this means that obviously the city had to back off with how far apart we could make them be. So, with that obviously we had to back off the separation of the facilities. Under this, the major change is that they can cluster together again. Mr. Crews said that yes, they can still be clustered. She then asked if they were going to be able to sell edibles and he explained that according to the state, the city of Petersburg cannot regulate what does or does not happen with edibles, it is up to the state and the state alone. Commissioner Hairston then asked if the city would be able to put a cap on how many stores were opened in Petersburg and Mr. Crews said that no, the city would not be able to regulate that. Commissioner Hairston then asked what the “get around” was going to be get this done, if anything can be done. Mr. Crews said that one option could be to do a special use permit for the stores so that each one that opens has to come to the Planning Commission and then to City Council on a case-by-case basis. But you would have to use fair metrics and would not be able to just arbitrarily tell everyone no. It can then become a challenge with that process to make sure that everyone who applied would get equal treatment. Commissioner Edwards then said that he was not happy with the language that the Commonwealth is forcing the city to use. So, you mentioned cigar shops and we all know the project that is going into Trailways. How is that going to be affected by this? Is that going to be allowed? Because he is not really operating yet. I ask that because one block over, less than 1000 feet, is St. Joseph’s school. Mr. Crews said that he would have to check on where the cigar shop is in terms of how far the owner is in terms of his shop. More than likely, it would become a permitted non-conforming use. It will probably have a protected status and would be allowed to remain but not to expand. Commissioner Edwards then asked if Mr. Crews could please email the commissioners to let them know the answer since he would hate to have this guy spend all this money just to be told that now he cannot open. Does he have his business license and is he able to be fully operational in short order? And if he doesn’t, would this stop him from going in and doing his project? Another question is that there was one of these recreational things going in down on Bolling Street, so is that going to be allowed to go forward or not? The answer to that was that it would depend upon where they are in the process of 5 things. If they are able to everything done before this code change is adopted, then they would just need a permit and would be grandfathered in…but it depends on where they are in the process. He also asked if any of these wanted to come into Petersburg after July 1st would they have to come in front of the Planning Commission and the answer was, not as it is drafted now. This is a by right allowed usage that would only be subjected to the 1000 linear feet rule. He said that he is not in favor of having 40 or 50 or even 60 of these scattered all over the city, the dollar stores are bad enough. He then asked if Mr. Crews would research and find out what the Planning Commission (or City Council) could do to put a moratorium on these types of places. Chair Alexander then asked if any of other commissioners had any other questions. When she was told no, she then opened up the public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor or against the resolution. Ms. Katzenbach, 301 S. Jefferson, said she was kind of opposed to all of this the way it is written. She said to look at what happened to Richmond’s Cary Street and how it has changed the whole character of the area with all these types of shops. And also, there seems to be no stopping what goes in their windows and so there are all types of advertising in their windows. We have an issue already in this city with zoning and code enforcement. We already have places where the city is not cracking down on signage, so we have flashing lights, the CBD signs on the corner of Sycamore and Washington (the main corridor into the city) and the city is not doing anything to stop that from happening. I understand that the state has written this law that we need to abide by, but I do wish that we could put the language in there so that they do have to come before this committee for approval each time and in addition to that if there could be signage. We have the power in the city to create signage laws that companies must abide by, and this certainly be done. And that in itself could be a deterrent to this type of business if we created some types of parameters as to what they could put on the outside and for signage as a whole. Thank you. Mr. Hadley Katzenbach, 301 S. Jefferson St., I just wanted to say that maybe the Cloud Factory downtown should be the gold standard as to what these places should look like. Their signage is nice. Their store is nice. They do not have a lot of mess in the window. That to me is what they should look like. We have control over what these places look and do not look like. And the Cloud Factory does a great job. Thanks Mr. Jim Brouk, he said that he and his wife are from the area, and they just recently started a new business here. He said, based upon what Mr. Katzenbach said, that there is a spirit of entrepreneurship here and that he is very happy to see people wanting to take a chance here and this is like a new avenue to do business. However, just because you can do it, doesn’t mean that you should do it and it doesn’t mean that you have to have everything. If you are in a nice area, then you should want to keep it nice. You want to remember where you are at. For instance, if you own a sports bar then you should want to keep it very nice and clean. Have a nice sign. But I do want to say that one should not be so quick to deny people who are doing business. Don’t be so quick to put them down and work with people. I get not wanting to have them close to schools and not have fifty of them. We don’t need a CBD store on every corner. A 6 lot of these guys are randomly popping them up and you should have enforcement, especially with things like lights and such. But my point is to not be discriminating against people who are just wanting to do business. If you work with people and tell them to clean it up and do it right and we could have a great business. But if you cannot do that then you do not need to be doing it at all. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone else wanted to speak and when no one came up, she then closed the public portion of the hearing and asked the commissioners if they had any other questions. Commissioner Edwards then said he wants to find out more about the special use permit. Mr. Crews then told him that rather than it be a by right use, there would have to be a public hearing for each time someone wanted to open up a recreational substances retail uses. So, what would happen is with a special use permit, you all on the Commission and on Council would be able to impose conditions on a particular request. He went on to say that the only thing to remember is that one would need a new public hearing advertisement every time. And that if intent is to use that process to just deny each of them, then that is probably not the route to go. But if you are looking more towards advertisement conditions and such then yes that is the way to go. Chair Alexander said that if that is the only way to control the conditions surrounding each time then yes that is what we want. There was a clarification that if there was a special use permit for each establishment that went in front of the Planning Commission and then City Council, City Council could deny any of them on a continual basis. And that if we don’t have special use permit then they don’t have to go in front of the commission or council. Mr. Crews said that as of right now, these stores are considered just like any other store and no they would not have to go in front of council. So as long as one opens up in a commercial district there is nothing to keep that from happening. If we made them all special use permits, then any new ones opening up would need to come before the commission and then council for final approval. Commissioner Edwards then said that he wanted to make a motion to table this as it is presented and to come back with a public hearing to address these as a special use operation. It was immediately seconded by Commissioner Hairston. Mr. Crews then said that that should be fine and that the new hearing would be advertised for the June meeting. Commissioner Edwards then said the reason he is doing this is because the public needs to be able to regulate things like the exterior of the buildings and the signage and what they look like. This is the main reason I am doing what I am doing. The poster child should be Cloud Factory. You do not hear of any issues or anything with them down there and so that is why I wanted to do this. The vote was taken, and it passed unanimously. b. 2024-ZTA-04: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of an amendment and readoption of Article 25, Supplementary Height, Area and Bulk Regulations as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to standards for architectural treatment of new construction within the City. 7 Mr. Crews made the presentation. Y’all remember last month we had a discussion about revising the code language and introducing standards for architectural treatment. With the goal of this code change being to guide new development and to make sure that they are cohesive with their environment. The Commission was supportive about moving forward with a public hearing and so here is where we are. These are the components of the proposed amendments: A. Projects to Establish an Architectural Theme B. Sites to Obscure Junction and Accessories Boxes C. Sites to Obscure of Mechanical Equipment D. Projects to meet minimum standards for exterior materials One of the main things that this does is that it covers both new and in fill projects and gives the whole city a more cohesive feel. Architectural Theme Applicants will have to establish an architectural theme. A. Before approving any site plan, special use permit for a project or a building permit for a new dwelling, the applicant shall submit documents defining the project's architectural theme. B. The architectural theme is a written and/or graphic description of the planned architectural treatment of all buildings within a project. Sites will be required to minimize view from all public right of ways junction boxes, accessory boxes, and all associated infrastructure from being seen from the public right of ways and from neighboring properties. This would be done by landscaping or architectural treatment integrated with the building. This does not apply to properties that are in industrial parks or on streets that aren’t designed for through traffic. The obscuring applies to mechanical equipment as well whether it is ground level or roof level. There will be a minimum standard for all exterior materials as well. A. No building exterior (whether front, side or rear) shall consist of architectural materials inferior in quality, appearance or detail to any other exterior of the same building. B. Nothing in this section shall preclude the use of different materials on different exteriors that are representative of good architectural design but rather, shall preclude the use of inferior materials on sides which face adjoining property. 8  C. Exposed cinderblock and corrugated sheet metal are prohibited. Architectural metal panels may be accepted, subject to consultation with and a determination by the Planning Director. D. New or remodeled buildings shall be consistent with the overall cohesive character of the area in which they are situated as reflected in existing structures. So, I would just keep in mind that this new language would not override construction standards. And properties with in the local historic districts would still be subject to the ARB reviews and those design materials and guidelines that are stricter than what we are proposing here. Also, our current and our soon to be voted on Comprehensive Plan says that one of the major components of our city is our architecture landscape and it supports the need for a text amendment like what is proposed. Our current plan identifies the city’s architecture as a central component of both the quality of life for the residents as well as a major drive for tourism. The new plan identifies our architecture as one of our greatest strengths. And it emphasizes that any new development should fit the character of the surrounding area. So, with all of that Staff recommends an approval of the language as drafted. Chair Alexander then asked if any of the commissioners had any questions for staff. When no one answered, she opened the hearing up for the public input. Mr. David Alexander, 110 Liberty Street, said that he was against this amendment. He said that this appears to be a great idea and it all sounds lovely, but when you legislate art …just think about that. If you are going to legislate art, you need to be very specific and if you are vague people are just going to be turned off. Who is going to want to play a guessing game? Otherwise, I love the enthusiasm that has made the city beautiful, and I think we need to keep at this. But to be philosophical…” There is a simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity.” To quote Oliver Wendle Holmes. So, to simplify this, you see this bunch of obstacles and it is going to be very difficult but as you climb up the intricacies of something, it gets very difficult, and it appears to be overwhelming. But as you keep going and you get down to the other side it becomes simple again. So that needs to be your job. You need to get deeper and then make it simpler for the people who are coming here. That is my suggestion. Thank you. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone else wanted to speak and when no one did she closed the public portion of the meeting. She also said that Mr. Alexander does come up with a good point in terms of the vagueness of it. She said that if we are forcing people to cover the infrastructure up, like electrical boxes, are we also going to tell people how to do so? And define exactly what it is that they are allowed in terms of proper materials for these structures? Mr. Crews then answered that this language is more about what they are not allowed and more about the cohesiveness of a neighborhood. It is meant to be fluid and vague because if a neighborhood is made up of homes not made out of brick, then we should not be forcing someone to build in brick. The overall idea is the context of the neighborhood and its cohesiveness. 9 Commissioner Hairston then said that he can see what it is that we are wanting to do, but he was worried about how one goes about building a home in the evolution of the city. At some point there is going to be a point of new buildings coming in around here and then are we going to stay historic or are we going to build new houses. 20 years from now is the idea that Petersburg will still look exactly like it does now, because it is not going to. But then we are going to put people in control of how it will look and who gets to say how it looks? Chair Alexander then asked but remember when Family Dollar showed up next to AutoZone. The Corrugated metal siding, is that the type of thing that we are trying to prevent here? Mr. Crews said that yes projects like that are what is the driving factor behind this. Commissioner Vargo said that she thought this would be a great way to keep the housing cohesive. She said that over in Colonial Heights they do lack that because she walks over there a lot, and it is crazy how much one block is nothing like another sometimes. It bugs her, and she sees that this is what happens when they have not control…they don’t want that control. Which is fine for them, but not what Petersburg needs with its very historic community. Commissioner Edwards says that he supports the work that Staff has done, and this gives them something for the inspectors to go on or Staff can go on and allow them to make decisions of what looks best in Petersburg; something they can enforce. Commissioner Hairston asked again who would be in charge of those decisions. Mr. Crews said that ultimately it would come down to fitting in with the rest of the already established neighborhood. Commissioner Cannon then said that not everyone likes old houses (ha ha—the other commissioners all own old houses) and that the value of houses changes on a constant basis. And there are going to be whole neighborhoods, that are going to be built up. Are they going to be held to the same standards as well? Mr. Crews explained that that scenario is different from in-fill houses that need to fit in with the neighborhood. If it was going to be a whole neighborhood, they already have to have a theme created with the complete neighborhood. But either way, outside of a few materials, you are able to use any other materials. It does not need to look exactly alike, but just with the cohesiveness of the neighborhood. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone wanted to make a motion. Commissioner Edwards said that he wanted to make a motion that we accept Staff’s recommendation of written text with the attached resolution. Commissioner Cannon seconded it. The motion passed with one abstention from Commissioner Hairston. 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion/Action on 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 said that this was just a continuation of the last meeting and if there was anything that anyone needed clarification about, he would be happy to do so. Or if anyone needed him 10 to run back through the presentation from last time, he would be happy to do that as well. Chair Alexander then asked what the commissioners wanted. There was a discussion about the fact that there was a new member, Commissioner Cannon, on the Planning Commission. So, they went back over some of the details of the discussion from the past two meetings. Commissioner Hairston also had a question about whether or not City Council would have the final say in this, and the answer was yes, they would and they have the ability to override anything the Planning Commission does. Commissioner Cannon thanked Mr. Crews for the mini presentation and that it helped immensely. Commissioner Hairston then asked if the people involved all got notices about the zoning changes and the answer was yes. The people with adjoining properties all get notice letters. Plus, there is also the sign posted out there. Vice Chair Bland then made a motion to deny the petition. Commissioner Vargo seconded it. The motion passed with two abstentions from both Hairston and Edwards. Commissioner Edwards said that he was abstaining because he wanted to expand it all the way up Washington. 8. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion on potential text amendment relating to the definition and use standards for nightclubs and other events or gathering facilities in the city. Mr. Crews said that the Planning Department wanted to bring to the consideration of the Planning Commission what is probably an overdue text amendment concerning night clubs in the City of Petersburg. The background is that the city has had issues with night club uses whether it was because of noise, safety, issues with proper permits, licenses, taxes, etc. Outside of the permitted night clubs, there are also a number of vague uses within the city. The standard of use is if something would be accepted or seen in a shopping center and within that things like event rental and banquet hall have been included and have been allowed to operate the way a night club would. This has led to additional issues. These concerns are shared across several departments including Planning, Police, Fire, Commissioner of Revenue, etc. Components of the proposed amendment: A. New and amended definitions for uses relating to events/gatherings. B. Clarification of where nightclubs and event uses are permitted along with use standards. The definition of nightclub is not proposed to change. It is an establishment where entertainment, live or otherwise, predominates over food service, becoming the principal use for at least during part of the business' operations, with or without dancing, and typically involving a cover or other charge for admission and event advertising. An establishment that serves alcoholic beverages, that provides live entertainment with live music, a disc jockey and a dance floor and that operates late in the evening later than 11:00 p.m. 11 Live Entertainment is defined as an accessory use allowing live performances but not limited to, music performances involving amplified music or more than one live instrument, a disc jockey, any form of dancing, karaoke, solo artists and comedians. Some of the new definitions will be: 1. Banquet hall/event facility, which would have the new definition of a facility with or without a kitchen, leased for the purpose of hosting private social events that are not open to the general public for gatherings like wedding receptions, meetings, and banquets, with or without live entertainment, where food and/or drink may be consumed on site. 2. A restaurant which will be establishment primarily engaged in the preparation and service of food and beverages to patrons for on-site consumption in a permanent, seated dining area. 3. A Club (community) which is a building, or a facility owned or operated by a corporation, association, person or persons, for a social, educational or recreational purpose, but not primarily for profit which insures to any individual, and not primarily to render a service which is customarily carried on as a business. 4. A Club, (private) which is a use that provides meeting areas or social facilities for civic or social clubs, and similar organizations and associations, that hold regular meetings or events for dues-paying members and their guests, only. Such establishment shall not be operated for the purpose of carrying on a trade or business, and no part of the net earnings shall inure to the benefit of any member of such organization or any other individuals, although regular employees may be paid reasonable compensation for services rendered. Private clubs shall maintain a current membership log, which is available for view upon request by the City Commissioner of the Revenue. 5. A lounge or bar, which is an area, or room, utilized primarily for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption by patrons on the premises and in which the sale of food is merely incidental to the sale of alcoholic beverages. 6. Lounge, smoking, which is an establishment where the principal activity is the recreational inhaling of smoke or other vapors. This may include cigar or pipe bars, hookah lounges, vapor bars, and other similar establishments. There would be new use (and some old use) standards for night clubs. 1. They would only be allowed in B-2, B-3, and M-1 Zoning Districts with a special use permit, subject to automatic conditions: 2. Operations to cease between 1:00 and 9:00 a.m. Use of loudspeakers/instruments to stop at 12:00 a.m. 3. Food menu to be available at all times establishment is open. 4. No door facing public right-of-way to be propped open. 5. Facility to remain current on business license and taxes. 6. Dance floor not to exceed 250 square feet or ten percent of floor area, whichever is greater. 12  7. Facility to employ licensed security personnel trained in crowd control, conflict resolution, and emergency response. 8. Soundproof measures must be used to minimize noise (noise is not audible beyond property line when doors are closed). 9. Any special use permit for nightclubs to be reviewed after two years for compliance. Special Use permits required if operating later then 11:00 p.m. in the B-1, B-2, B-3, and M-1 districts by: 1. Banquet hall/Event facility 2. Community Club 3. Private Club 4. Lounge or Bar 5. Restaurant with live entertainment As you know there has been an ongoing discussion about night clubs across all departments as well as Planning, City Council, City Administration. This draft is a summation of conversations that have taken place between these entities. It is based upon the City Attorney’s suggested course of action. This would all help to flesh out what is allowed where. This would not, however, include anything to do with a casino if one were to come into the city. That would be a different discussion at a different time. Commissioner Edwards wanted to let Mr. Crews know that the last time some thing like this came up there was a meeting at the train station that was standing room only and took hours to get through all the people who were passionate about the fact that they did not want the city to set the hours for their businesses. He said that if this went forward, he did want it to go to a public hearing because he wanted to hear from the public on this, but also, he wanted to be on the record that he would never vote yes for something like this. He also wants staff to reach out to the police department and get some statistics on number of calls for service (police, EMS, noise calls, etc.) because that is something that we need to know. Commissioner Hairston said that he dug deep into the whole night club/entertainment district discussion with the Comprehensive Plan people and made sure that there was an entertainment district and arts and cultural in our Comprehensive Plan. There are a couple of things that worry me about this. One, this does not look like the definitions that I started with when we first were discussing this. And two, we can’t close a club at 1:00 in the morning. That absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. But then, when the casino comes, we are going to allow it to stay open until 2:00, and local clubs who have events that sometimes don’t even start until midnight, but you are going to ask them to close (even though they stayed upon during Covid and paid their taxes) but not the casino. He also said that this just seems like someone trying to shut down Andrede’s and since they have not been able to do so, so far, they are trying new tactics to get it done. That is not good for the city, it is not good for crime, and he also says that he cannot support this at all. He wants something more realistic, and this plan is not it. 13 b. Discussion on potential text amendment codifying the City’s existing site plan review process. Mr. Crews said that The City is trying to codify what is existing practice as far as site plan review is concerned. Site plans are drawings used to represent improvements or construction on a property; used to ensure orderly and harmonious development in the interest of general public welfare. The city currently reviews site plans for new construction projects, including commercial, industrial, and multifamily development. Currently “de facto” enforcement of requirements – no written ordinance specifying when site plan is required or what it should include. Components of the proposed amendment: A. Stipulate when a site plan is required for new construction. B. Specify procedures for preparation and required information on site plans. C. Detail review and appeal process. D. Introduce standards for compliance. Projects that require site plans would be: 1. All commercial, industrial, and institutional developments. 2. Planned unit developments. 3. Any use requiring special use permit. 4. Any development requiring public improvements (streets, utilities, stormwater management.) 5. Parking facilities exceeding 10 spaces. 6. Additions exceeding 10 percent of existing floor area or parking expansion. 7. Developments requiring 10,000 s.f. or more land disturbance (2,500 s.f. in CBPA). Those that review site plans are: 1. Planning & Community Development 2. Public Works a. Engineering b. Utilities c. Stormwater 3. Neighborhood Services (Code Compliance) 4. Police 5. Fire Marshall 6. Outside agencies as needed (e.g. VDOT, DEQ, electric companies) Required information on Plans: 1. Overview (location, area, zoning, adjoining properties, owner/developer) 14  2. Existing conditions (boundaries, topography, streets and utilities, buildings/parking, easements, environmental considerations) 3. Proposed use and layout of property, including structures, access, parking, signs, and dumpsters 4. Height, square footage, setbacks, number of units for each building 5. Erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, utility, and grading plans 6. Plans for landscaping and lighting 7. Traffic impact analysis This is the Review and Approval Process: 1. Pre-development meeting encouraged. 2. Plans submitted to Planning Department, routed to Development Review Team. 3. Comments/corrections returned to applicant within timeline defined by State Code (60 days maximum). 4. Once outstanding comments are addressed, plans are submitted for approval. 5. If site plan is disapproved, applicant may appeal to City Circuit Court within 60 days. 6. Approved site plan valid for five years. To ensure compliance with approved plans: 1. Bonds required for public improvements and E&S control measures – released upon satisfactory completion. 2. Building permits issued in conformance with approved plan. 3. Responsible departments will inspect sites during and following construction to certify compliance with approved plan. 4. As-built plans required following construction. Considerations: Our Immediate goal is to codify current practice and make standards enforceable should they be challenged for any reason. And an introduction of more robust site plan review standards planned for Zoning Ordinance overhaul. There was then a discussion and a motion put forward by Commissioner Edwards (seconded by Commissioner Vargo) to have this put on the next agenda. It was passed unanimously. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS There was an announcement that Commissioner Irvin had open heart surgery which is why he has not been at the last few meetings. Commissioner Edwards said that he would like to delve into entertainment districts, and he had been given permission to ask the Planning Department to prepare a discussion piece for now. 15 Chair Alexander then welcomed Commissioner Cannon to the group. Mr. Crews also said that the first kick-off meeting of the new zoning overhaul was this week, and the city is now starting the process of a complete overhaul of all zoning laws in the City of Petersburg. The hope is that it will be done by February 2026. 10. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Cannon then asked for adjournment at 8:15 seconded by Commissioner Edwards. 16