Planning Commission

City of Petersburg Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2024 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, June 6, 2024, was called to order by Chair Alexander, at 6:30 p.m. A roll call was completed by Ms. Michelle Murrills. Ms. Tammy Alexander, Chair Members Present: Mr. Michael Edwards, Vice Chair Mr. Thomas Hairston Ms. Marie Vargo Mr. Fenton Bland * Mr. Al Cannon Mr. Thomas Hairston Dr. James Norman *Arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m. Members Absent: Dr. William Irvin A quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Others Present: Mr. Jared Crews, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Dave Alexander, Sargent Darrington-Petersburg Police, and Mr. Brian Moore-Petersburg Director of Economic Development. 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 and Commissioner Vargo seconded it. It passed unanimously. 1 4. Officer Elections The Planning Commission will hold elections for Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary, and with that Chair Alexander then dissolved the Planning Commission and handed everything over to Mr. Jared Crews, the Planning Manager, for him to facilitate the elections. Mr. Crews then said that the elections were supposed to happen in May, but had been pushed to the June meeting as he wasn't aware in time to schedule them for May. He then started with the position of Chairman. Ms. Alexander was nominated by Commissioner Edwards and was seconded by Commissioner Hairston. The motion was passed, and Ms. Alexander was re-elected Chair. Then Mr. Crews asked for nominations for Vice-Chair. Commissioner Hairston nominated Commissioner Edwards and Chair Alexander seconded it. The motion passed and Commissioner Edwards was elected Vice-Chair. Lastly…Ms. Murrills was nominated for secretary by Chair Alexander and was seconded by Vice-Chair Edwards. The motion passed unanimously, and Ms. Murrills was re-elected the Planning Commission Secretary. 5. Consent Agenda: The minutes from May 2024, were then up for adoption. Commissioner Cannon then pointed out that throughout the minutes he is both referred to as Commissioner Cannon as well as Mr. Cannon. Secretary Murrills said that she would fix it that night. Chair Alexander then asked it the minutes were acceptable, with the requested changes. Commissioner Vice Chair Edwards moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Norman seconded it. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 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. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone from the audience wanted to speak. Mr. David Alexander, 110 Liberty Street, spoke. He said that because it is a three-minute max, that he wanted the commissioners to take three minutes and put a little love in their hearts. So right in the middle of the Petersburg Courthouse Historic District, right in the middle, is actually not a district. He said that he thinks that this area has great potential because it holds all the other districts together. And it is right in the heart of Petersburg. If we see new visions for this area, I see it as the district of High Hopes. Yes, I am down now to two minutes, but I see this as a place that we could have a really wonderful vibe. Where we could have current things going on since it is not historic. You could modernize things and have something for everyone, and everyone could feel a good happy vibe. You know, old people like me could come back and 2 remember how things used to be because they are still like that, in some places. Anyway, I think that this is a resource that is very valuable to us. Thank you. Chair Alexander then asked if anyone else wanted to speak and when no one did, she closed the public comment portion of the meeting. 7. Public Hearings: 7a. 2024-ZTA-03: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of amendment and readoption of 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 retail uses. ALTERNATIVE TO 2024-ZTA-02. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. This is the third version of this text amendment, and it is being presented as alternative language to 2024-ZTA-02. The timeline for this is that a hearing was heard on this back at the April meeting. That version was based on the ordinance that Chesterfield County has. It had various regulations that would have applied to recreational substance retail establishments. Initially that included regulations on separation between facilities selling recreational substances from schools and public gathering places, separation between the facilities themselves, and hours of operation. But on the following day, Governor Youngkin signed into law HB 947 which stated 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 states At the May meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the first draft of 2024-ZTA-03 and requested the language to be amended because there were concerns about allowing uses “by right” without any additional oversight on the potential effects on neighboring properties. So, it was asked that the language be changed for requirement of a Special Use Permit for any recreational substance retail use. So that brings us to the current version of the text amendment. The overall components are unchanged. The definitions have remained largely unchanged except where some tweaking of the language made it in line with the wording of the State’s code. With that, the alternative amendment has been updated to comprise the following: Recreational substances would include the following: 3  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. Recreational substances retail would be defined with two variations: a. Off-site use: any facility whose operation involves the retail sales of recreational substances as 25 percent or more of its inventory or 15 percent or more of its display area. Recreational substances are meant to be consumed off-site. b. On-site use: any facility where substances can be consumed on-site (e.g. a cigar lounge). Approval of Recreational Substance Retail Uses a. A special use permit would be required for recreational substances retail (both off-site and on-site use) in the B-1, Shopping Center, B-2, General Commercial, and M-1, Light Industrial zoning districts. The use would be prohibited in the remaining zoning districts. b. Recreational substance retail uses would be prohibited within 1,000 linear feet of day care centers and public, private, and parochial schools. c. Recreational substances retail would be prohibited in the remaining zoning districts. Mr. Crews then said that there were a couple of things to remember. a. Special Use Permits should be utilized to ensure community welfare and, if appropriate, set conditions to ensure compatibility of uses b. Planning staff trending towards more by-right uses, but with additional form-based regulations. c. Existing ordinances may address certain issues. Also, there are several ordinances that are already on the books that would help to address many of the issues that are a concern today like the flashing signs or just too much signage or that type of things. The city is now fully staffed with inspectors, and we are able to follow up now with any issues and be able to capture violations. Staff does recommend approval of the amendment with the caveat that the Special Use process should be there to weigh and mitigate impacts rather than prohibit the uses. 4 Chair Alexander then asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak on the ordinance. Seeing no one wanting to speak, she then closed the public portion of the hearing and asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Vice Chair Edwards then said that he wanted to make a motion to accept Staff’s recommendation with the attached resolution. Commissioner Hairston seconded the motion. And with that a vote was taken and it passed unanimously. 7b. 2024-ZTA-05: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of Adoption of Article 38, Site Plan Review, and amendment and readoption of Article 31, Permits, Plats, and Filing Fees as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to site plan review standards and fees. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. Staff has been directed to present a potential code amendment for the Commission’s consideration. The goal of the amendment is to codify the City’s site plan review process and would stipulate when a site plan is required, what must be included on a site plan, and the procedures for site plan review and compliance. What are site plans? 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. Presently, City policy is to require site plans for certain projects such as new commercial, industrial, or multi-family construction or extension of utilities or public infrastructure. These projects are unable to be permitted and begin until a site plan has been reviewed and approved by the City’s Development Review Team. While site plan review has been the practice of the City for some time, there is currently no language in the City’s Zoning Ordinance that speaks to requirements for site plans or the process for review. The subject text amendment has been proposed to capture current practices in City Code and ensure that the City’s site plan review process is applicable and enforceable. Components of the proposed amendment would include: 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 Requiring Site Plan: A. Planned unit developments. B. Uses permitted by approval of a special use permit. 5  C. Commercial and industrial buildings and uses. D. Religious assembly and institutions, public and private schools, child-care centers, hospitals, nursing homes and government offices. E. Multiple-family dwelling developments. F. Any development where the area of land disturbance will be 10,000 square feet or greater, or 2,500 square feet or greater in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. G. Any development that involves the provision of public improvements, such as streets, curbs, water, sewer, or stormwater management facilities. H. Any parking lot or parking facility which is to contain more than ten spaces. I. Additions to existing multiple-family, commercial, or industrial buildings, if the addition exceeds ten percent of the existing floor area or results in the need for ten or more additional parking space. Required Information on Plan: A. Overview (location, area, zoning, adjoining properties, owner/developer). B. Existing conditions (boundaries, topography, streets and utilities, buildings/parking, easements, environmental considerations). C. Proposed use and layout of property, including structures, access, traffic flow, parking, signs, and dumpsters. D. Height, square footage, setbacks, number of units for each building. E. Erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, utility, and grading plans. F. Plans for landscaping and lighting. G. Traffic impact analysis. The review and approval process are as follows: A. Pre-development meeting encouraged (talk with Staff). B. Plans submitted to Planning Department, routed to Development Review Team. 6  C. Comments/corrections returned to applicant within timeline defined by State Code (60 days maximum). D. Once outstanding comments are addressed, plans are submitted for approval. E. Approved site plan valid for five years. F. If site plan is disapproved, applicant may appeal to City Circuit Court within 60 days. Compliance with Approved Plans: A. Bonds required for public improvements and E&S control measures – released upon satisfactory completion. B. Building permits issued in conformance with approved plan. C. Responsible departments will inspect sites during and following construction to certify compliance with approved plan. D. As-built plans required following construction. Staff recommends approval of the ordinances. Chair Alexander then asked if any of the commissioners had any questions. Everyone answered that no they did not have any questions and that Mr. Crew’s presentations were very thorough. She then asked if anyone in the public had anything to say. When no one came forward, she then closed the public portion of the hearing. Commissioner Vargo then moved that commission accepts this as recommended by Staff. It was seconded by Commissioner Cannon. It passed unanimously. 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion on potential text amendment relating to the definition and use standards for nightclubs and other event or gathering facilities in the City. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. He said that last month there was a discussion about an item that was a potential code amendment that included some new definitions for event and entertainment-oriented uses and some new regulations for these uses. A lot of that conversation centered around night clubs and how to distinguish between them and other similar uses. The Commissioners had had some questions about the concerns that Staff and mentioned such as noise and safety and things like that and y’all asked us to provide some data 7 from the police department, including how many police calls had been made. Sgt. Darrington from the Petersburg Police department was nice enough to come and speak, in person, and will talk us through the information that was put together. Sgt. Darrington, a supervisor on the Crime Suppression Unit, then spoke about the information that he had put together for the Planning Commission. He said that he had been here twelve years as a police officer and during that whole time night clubs have been a problem through out the city. He said that the three biggest problem clubs in the city are Liaison (with 145 incidents in a year), Paradise (with 90 incidents in a year), and Andrades (with 77 incidents in a year). The Civic Center, while it is not a problem itself, based upon its design, they have had some events that are BYOB and when you bring youngsters and alcohol together, it doesn’t end well. The real issue is that these places are run at different times and that means that when one closes everyone just goes to another and when the final one closes (usually Andrades) then everyone does not go home and instead they hang out in the street. And now you have 100- 200 people that need to be cleared out and sent home and this continues to be a problem. On nights like these you have 5-6 officers for just this, but then you have to pull the patrol officers as well. Which means that the rest of the city has no officers to handle any calls. While emergencies continue to happen, these calls are placed on hold while officers are dealing (sometimes for a couple of hours) with clearing the people out from the club areas. The Police force is limited as to what they can and cannot do as per Federal, State and City laws. Noise ordinances do make things easier, but the way the noise ordinances are written today, places like Andrades or Club 17, which do get a lot of noise complaints because of where they are at, there is not much we can do as noise is noise and it cannot easily be just stopped, especially with people leaving the area. These crowds of people tend to lead to more issues throughout the night. There are other ways to control these things as well. Several places like the Civic center use (off duty) police officers as part of their security, which does tend to help. Liaisons is an issue, because he continues to serve food even though his establishment has shut down for the night. Which means that you have a lot of people that are just hanging out in the parking lot waiting for their food, but they are not inside his establishment. Paradise recently had an issue with occupancy and so they have had their numbers reduced and they have a hearing coming up for that. So, he has been watching his numbers and those have been greatly reduced. His numbers are around 40, which includes staff. Just last month he had an after party that had over 200 people at it, so he was way over occupancy. So, I am here to help the police to get clarification so that we know what our authority is and how we can help to keep these things from happening. After all, we used to have plenty of shootings and such that started in Plaza Mexico and spilled over into the Taco Bell parking lot a lot until Plaza Mexico was shut down. Right now, every Friday and Saturday night the police run with perhaps 5-6 people because that is all that we have. I get a couple to help with issues with these clubs, but when it gets to be too big, as I said, it’s all hands-on deck and that means that there is little to no protection in the rest of Petersburg. One of the things that might help is their licensing. But that comes from the city and that is a totally different thing. But if they are not in compliance with their licensing, that gives us another tool to use to get them to comply with all regulations. 8 Vice Chair Edwards then said that he was the one that asked for all of this information. He said that the information is good, but that he had some concerns and some questions. When he asked about individual bars and their gun/violent issues, he was told that most of the places operate as a bar (not a nightclub) and they shut down before the nightclubs start shutting down and therefore avoid any real issues. Vice Chair Edwards then went on to say that while there are lots of incidents with Andrades, but yet the Chief is not forcing Andrades to hire off duty officers like he does with other night clubs that have even less problems than Andrades. Unfortunately, the answer is that the Sargent does not know. He did say it would help with the problems if everyone was required to hire off duty police officers. But not everyone is. Vice Chair Edwards then asked if there was something that the Planning Commission could put into the city code that would make it that all night clubs had to. Mr. Crews said that he would have to look into that. Commissioner Hairston had something to say as well. He wanted to let the Sargent know that there are plenty of times that things happen close to a place, and yet it has nothing to do with that place. As a band promoter (as well as other similar jobs) he had known many times that violence had happened that had nothing to do with the event that was near. He said that with the experience he has, and the popularity of events going up in Petersburg, the police and the city need to find more common ground and put a stop to the issues that seem to be cropping up. He also said that his idea was that anyone who wanted to run a night club needed to get an endorsement from the city for that night club. In order to get the endorsement from the city, the owner would need to come up with a security plan. We also need an entertainment district. We need to plan this out now as we are starting to grow. He also said that really it should not be an issue, it just needs a better plan than what we have now. He also said that every person that wants to open up a club or a bar needs to open as a restaurant, since that is what we have in Virginia. Once they are running as a restaurant, they can then apply for the night club endorsement once the owner gets everything else figured out. Because everyone has to get an ABC license for their restaurant…and then they can come before us to get the night club endorsement. In order to do that, they would need a security plan (that would involve off-duty officers) and then they would have to agree to the rules that we then set up. If you have too many noise complaints, you lose your endorsement. We could also have someone who is in charge of these complaints at night and whatever that person says is what goes. But they would be working over night and be available at that moment whenever there was a problem rather than following up on it during normal 9-5 office hours, which leads to even more problems. I mean if cities like New Orleans, which is always out of control, and yet they are never really out of control. There are many places that the crowds should be out of control and yet they are not…How come Petersburg can’t be that way? There was also a discussion about whether one should use a decibel meter to determine if the noise is too loud or if we should just use common sense. Mr. Crews mentioned the last city he worked for had a case that it lost because there was not a decibel reader to be able to quantify the sound level. Judges do like things quantified. Commissioner Hairston said that either way, there should still be a person or a department that is in charge of all that and would make the decisions one way or another. He said that the police should not be responding to calls about 9 noise, this person should. If the police needed to be called it should be this person, who does it because the establishment is not following the rules properly. The police have better things to respond to. Vice Chair Edwards then said that we are here tonight because of one complaint and a charge from city administration…so where do we go from here? Commissioner Hairston added that he got a call from Charlie Cuthberts son, Richard, who said that he did not know where this complaint come from. Commissioner Hairston told Richard that he was under the impression that it came from Charlie. Richard said that he spoke with his father and that Charlie said that just was not true. Charlie said that he only spoke about the noise ordinance and not about shutting down businesses or anything like that. I told him that in the noise ordinance that y’all brought to the last meeting was a line about stopping alcohol sales at midnight and Commissioner Hairston said that he took offense to stopping alcohol sales at midnight. Richard then assured him that that was a mistake. That there was no way that he, nor anyone in the city would support alcohol stop being served at midnight. Commissioner Hairston then said that he brought all that up because he was asked to put it one the record…and it is. Vice Chair Edwards then said that he wanted to go on the record and say that at our July meeting we need to have a public hearing about this. Mr. Crews came back quickly with perhaps there should be a public comment period instead? When there was no specific interest in that…Mr. Crews then explained that there was no specific directive from a specific person and that instead there were several conversations that had happened, and the Planning Department thought that this should be the way to go. It was a compilation of many different things that had come up and we thought that this would be a good idea, but now it seems that we may have missed the mark with that, and I don’t think that is the direction for us to head. So, I think that we should keep this as a discussion item for the moment and give the Planning Department another crack at it, perhaps we can figure something out. A consensus was then taken, and it was decided to put this discussion on hold and go on with the nightclub overlay discussion since time was running out. 9b. Discussion on Entertainment Overlay Districts Mr. Crews then said that last month Commissioner Edwards had asked the staff to provide some information on the Entertainment Overlay Districts. So, the Planning Department did some research over many different localities and their concept of a overlay district. As to what exactly is an Overlay District? Overlay districts are superimposed over existing zoning districts and include additional regulations or allowances for properties included within the overlay boundaries. It is a finite area of land. They don’t replace those districts, but they are superimposed over those districts. The most common of these may be a historic district or a flood plain district. Properties within that overlay may be subject to additional regulations in addition to what is required in the base zoning district. Although in some cases it is the opposite and those properties with in the overlay may be subject to less regulations. 10 Some are built around casinos and so it is centered around gaming establishments as well as hotels and conference centers. Some are built around outdoor arenas, so Baltimore is trying to get one passed with special parking regulations and temporary noise restrictions. Alexandria is trying to get one passed for a sports facility for a sports arena for the Capitals and the Wizards with the headquarters, training facilities, media facilities, etc. Some places are very strict in their districts with certain uses prohibited. They are strict in what they allow in their building materials, street furniture, tree species, pedestrian amenities, etc. Here in Petersburg, it will take multiple approaches to an entertainment overlay. It will take a coordination of city departments. Finally, if the proposed casino will likely seek rezoning to PUD to establish unique development standards. The site would end up being something totally different. Are there any questions? Vice Chair Edwards then asked if the Director of Economic Development, Mr. Brian Moore, wanted to say anything more. He then said different places do things differently. And they will do things differently here in Petersburg. If this does end up happening, the city will be bringing on consultants. There is just going to be so much work that will need to be done in a short amount of time. Commissioner Vargo said that this is something that we need to keep on the agenda, but we should not be quick about our decisions. It tends to get people excited so let’s be measured and cautious about our approach. Mr. Crews then said that while the Entertainment Overlay might work downtown, it would not work for the casino area and that will have to be a lot of work rezoning and working on it from there. Casino coming in would be a completely different beast. But we are working on updating zoning and with the casino possibly coming it will allow time to work on the zoning. Commissioner Hairston said that he spoke with all the restaurant owners in Old Town, since the City Manager had asked him to, and with the very broad idea of an entertainment district they showed interest in coming and finding out more about it. He said that he is interested in possibly closing the whole cobblestone area of Old Towne and wanted to make that the Entertainment district so that we could potentially open it up to foot traffic and get the buggies and pedal bars that they have elsewhere. Vice Chair Edwards said that as we progress along, can we have workshops or something so that the public is aware of what is being presented to us. Mr. Crews said that yes it could be a Planning Commission meeting that only has something like that on the docket. Which would allow lots of people to speak. He thought that that is a great opportunity for the public. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS We are going to be working on updating the zoning in Petersburg and we will be doing pop ups and what not, to be informing the public about the various things that we are going to be working on. 11 11. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Cannon then asked for adjournment at 8:15 seconded by Commissioner Edwards. 12