Planning Commission

City of Petersburg Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 2024 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, November 7, 2024, was called to order by Vice-Chair Edwards, at 6:35 p.m. A roll call was completed by Ms. Michelle Murrills. Members Present: Mr. Michael Edwards, Vice-Chair Mr. Al Cannon Mr. Fenton Bland Ms. Marie Vargo Dr. James Norman Members Absent: Ms. Tammy Alexander, Chair Mr. Thomas Hairston Mrs. Candace Taylor Dr. Bill Irvin 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call A Quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Others Present: Mr. Jared Crews Planning Department Manager, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Max Gorman, Mr. Kofi Annon, and Mr. Joe Battiston. 3. Adoption of the Agenda: 1 Vice Chair Edwards called for any changes to the agenda. Mr. Crews said that it would be his suggestion to change to move the A-frame sign discussion to the top of the public hearings since the people in the audience were there for that hearing. Vice chair Edwards said that he would accept a motion. Commissioner Norman moved to approve the agenda with the changes. Commissioner Cannon seconded it. It passed unanimously. 4. Consent Agenda: October 3, 2024, minutes. Vice Chair Edwards asked if anyone needed to change anything in the minutes. Commissioner Bland moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Norman seconded it. 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. Vice-Chair Edwards asked if there was anyone interested in speaking and no one did, so he closed the public comment period. 6. Public Hearings: 6c. 2024-ZTA-12: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to providing additional flexibility for placement of sandwich board signs in Downtown Petersburg. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. This text amendment was initiated by council's direction. They asked that it be brought to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. We're talking about sandwich boards or A-frame signs in the downtown area. If you remember we recommended approval for the ordinance that allowed sandwich board signs which worked well, but some of the business owners wanted to tweak the rules just a bit. Especially since it is not always feasible, nor helpful, to have one sign only in front of one’s own business. Because of this City Council wanted more flexibility and the rules of where and how many signs could be available for business owners. After discussing with council, to find out what they were actually wanting, the Planning Department came up with two different Amendments to be voted upon by the Planning Commission. The goal of this amendment would be to allow some flexibility with signage, specifically in the downtown area. The boundary of “Downtown” is the Appomattox River to the North, Wythe Street to the South, Market Street to the West and I95 corridor to the East. Within these boundaries are where these rules would apply and to these blocks only. OPTION 1 – Shared Sign a. If two or more businesses desire to have a collective sandwich board sign that provides directional information to their establishments from a parcel none of which own, those establishments may do so within the public right-of-way subject to a letter granting permission from the property owner of the establishment fronting said right-of-way. 2  b. At most, a property owner can have two (2) signs: 1) a sign for their establishment and 2) one (1) sign granted for other establishments. OPTION 2 – Off Site Sign a. If a business desires to locate a sandwich board sign to their establishment on a parcel they do not own, that establishment may do so within the public right-of way subject to a letter granting permission from the property owner of the establishment fronting said right-of-way. b. At most, a property owner can have two (2) signs: 1) a sign for their establishment and 2) one (1) sign granted for another establishment. The Planning Commission can decide on either of these two options or a combination of the two. Staff recommends choosing one of the two options. Of course, the Planning Commission could also choose a denial as well, Which would basically keep the ordinance exactly the way it is today, that your sign has to be in front of your business. Vice-chair Edwards then asked if any of the commissioners had any questions for Staff. When there were no questions, he opened the hearing up for public comment. First up was Mr. Kofi Annon, owner of Soul Rebel 106 W Old Street, I was one of the business owners that had a concern about the sign rules. I believe that my business has been negatively affected by the sign changes that were made. We are at the end of Old Street and there used to be signs at the other end of Old Street, not just for my business but other businesses that placed signs at the bottom of Sycamore and Old Street. Because the majority of the foot traffic tends to stop, park, and do business up and down Sycamore St., having the signs on that corner was really a great tool that allowed people to know that our business was down on the corner. So especially for myself who's business is relatively new, it was a great way to get the word out to people who came to the area and who parked over there. I worked hard to get my sign approved by the city and when we were told we needed to take those signs down we saw a drop in traffic at my restaurant. Because, unless people know that we are down all the way to the other end of the block, they don't really have a reason to come down that way. I also don't really quite understand the reason for the change because for one, it is my understanding that these signs have been there for years, and they were not creating a hazard because there was plenty of space. There were 3 or 4 signs there for years and it seemed like it was fine. I do not understand what they were trying to fix, by taking them down. I just don't understand. But it definitely hurt, we definitely noticed a drop in business when we took the signs down. So, I think if we are allowed to have a sign in a centralized location like it seemed to happen organically, I feel like if we could go back to some form of that I think it would be very helpful to the businesses that don't necessarily get the same amount of visibility as the ones primarily on the main streets. Thank you. Vice-chair Edwards asked if there was anybody else from the public that would like to speak on this issue. When he got no answer, he closed the public portion of the hearing. He then asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Commissioner Vargo then asked for more 3 clarification between option one and option 2. Mr. Crews Then said the difference is, take that intersection at Old and Sycamore for instance, whoever owns that property at the bottom of the hill could only have one sign in front of their business. He could either allow one business to have one sign or he could have one sign with multiple businesses on it. That is the difference between those two. Of course, the commissioners could also do a combination of these ideas as well and then that would be an either or for those signs. Mr. Crews also clarified that the city is trying to stop the proliferation of multiple signs at certain intersections. This would mean the most you could have at a single business is two signs. One for the business, and one with either one business on it or multiple businesses on it, advertising further down the street. Mr. Annon added that he thought that a single sign with multiple businesses would only work if it was one of those Ways Signs with multiple pointers pointing out different businesses. The commissioners mentioned that this was discussed last time but that that was a long-term solution, and the city needed a short-term solution as well. Commissioner Vargo said that even if we just had a pole that business owners would be allowed to buy a small sign to put on it, she would be OK with that. Mr. Crews said that signage like that is very expensive, and it would be up to the city to pay for it since it would be a permanent sign on city property. Vice Chair Edwards Said that the city could charge a fee and get the money from the business owners. Mr. Crews Said he would have to look into it. He also said, just as a side note, Mainstreet is looking to do those types of signs as well. Everyone agreed it would be a very long-term solution as the signage and the cost were worked out. Vice chair Edwards did clarify that as of right now it is illegal to put signs down in front of businesses that are not your own. Mr. Crews did agree. Commissioner Norman said that he understands both sides. He thinks that there are too many signs in certain areas... but Soul Rebel is the last business before Market all the way down at the other end from Sycamore and somebody needs to be able to direct foot traffic or even cars down to that end to keep them in business. Vice-chair Edwards then asked if the commissioners were to put this off for another month what would the businesses be able to do? Could they be able to put their signs back down at the bottom of the hill like they had before? Mr. Crews answered as it stands today, their signs are required to be only in front of their own business. He also added that the commissioners could certainly put additional suggestions in, for instance say that the city needs to look into Way Finding signage. Commissioner Bland said that with holidays coming up, the city needs to allow the signage to be up as soon as possible to capture those holiday customers. Mr. Crews said as it stands today the businesses would not be allowed to do anything but have the one sign in front of their business and until both the Planning Commission and City Council vote on it. Commissioner Vargo said that what she wanted to do was to get some signage on the corner and get that going until they can do something about the Wayfinder sign. She doesn't want businesses to lose business while they wait for the city to come up with a better plan. She also mentioned that if the city doesn't do something and instead just waits to get everything together in a perfect storm, everybody will be waiting forever. Commissioner cannon then asked the sales tax that is taken in locally that is supposed to go towards tourism... couldn't that be used for paying for the sign? Mr. Crews said there is a fine line as to what the planning department can recommend. Something like that would more than likely be up to city council. 4 Commissioner Vargo then made a motion to allow Businesses to have more than one sandwich board sign and to not limit them to just in front of their business, until City Council works out the Wayfinder sign and all of its details. Seconded by Commissioner Cannon. It passed unanimously. 6a. 2024-ZTA-10: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to the regulation of alternative financial institution/short-term loan establishment and small box discount store uses within the City. Mr. Crews made the presentation. He said that again this is an amendment that City Council directed the Planning Commission to make. Short term loan establishments typically deal in small dollar, short term loans with high interest as opposed to a more traditional bank institution. These places are often involved with check cashing, vehicle title lending, and payday lending. Small box discount stores refer to smaller retailers that offer shopping items that are typically less than $10.00 an item. These uses are found prominently in low-income areas with large minority populations. They tend to create or exacerbate negative impacts in those communities. Within the city of Petersburg small box discount stores outnumber our fresh food establishments and our short-term loan establishments almost outnumber our banking establishments. Some of this may be familiar to those of you who were back on the Commission back in 2021 but just to bring everybody up to speed, Mr. Crews said he would go over it again. With the casino coming in, city leaders are worried that the city will see more of a proliferation of these types of establishments. In March of 2021 City Council adopted a Zoning Ordinance amendment which defined these establishments as “alternative financial institutions”. The same amendment also introduced a definition of “small box discount stores,” retail uses with a floor area less than 12,000 square feet offering convenience shopping goods for less than $10.00 per item. Per Council’s vote, a Special Use Permit was intended to be required for both uses, but this portion of the amendment was never formally adopted into the Ordinance. The 2021 Ordinance amendment followed a report by the City’s Economic Development and Planning Departments that looked at the prevalence of small box discount stores and alternative financial institutions within the City and detailed some of the predatory practices and negative impacts generally associated with those uses. The report included several recommendations for definitions and regulations pertaining to these uses, but some of these items were not captured in Council’s vote. Staff’s intent with this proposed amendment is to clarify the 2021 policy by including some of the provisions that were not adopted in the Ordinance as well as expanding those provisions to equip the City to deal with any anticipated challenges that may come with future development. Which is why this is being brought up tonight. Tonight, our goals are to update and expand upon the definitions that were made back in 2021, to limit where those uses are allowed, to make it clear a Special Use Permit is required, and 5 finally to incorporate some additional regulations that will allow us to deal with some of the challenges the city will see as we grow. Proposed Changes: The draft Ordinance amendment comprises the following changes: Short-term loan establishments: • Redefine “alternative financial institution” as “short-term loan establishment” and include specific language about the types of activities that are covered by the term with references to the Code of Virginia. • Define “financial institution” and “pawnshop” to differentiate these uses from short- term loan establishments. • Clarify a Special Use Permit is required for a short-term loan establishment; the use will be limited to the B-2, General Commercial and M-1, Light Industrial Districts only. • Add requirements for short-term loan establishments to be at least 2,000 feet away from 1) any adult entertainment use, 2) residential use, 3) school, park, or religious assembly use, or 4) existing short-term loan establishment. Small box discount stores: • Clarify a Special Use Permit is required for a small box discount store; the use will be limited to the B-1 Shopping Center, B-2, General Commercial, B-3 Central Commercial, M1, Light Industrial, and MXD-1 and MXD-2, Mixed Use Districts only. • Add requirements for small box discount stores to 1) be at least two miles from any existing discount store and 2) to include at least 10 percent of floor space dedicated to the sale of fresh foods. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the plan underscores negative effects of predatory lending practices, particularly within the context of fair housing, workforce development, and building community wealth goals. The plan also highlights the lack of access to healthy food in low- income areas and the importance of attracting sustainable sources of healthy food for all residents in the City. So, with this text amendment, we are looking to limit both of these uses throughout the city and make sure that they are not able to proliferate. We are looking to restrict where short term loan establishments are allowed to go, as well as smaller discount stores. We are also trying to make it that those stores are obligated to at least have some of their space available for healthy food options. Again, y'all have the option to recommend the text amendment as drafted, recommend denial, or recommend the text amendment with any types of Modifications. Vice-chair Edwards then asked if any commissioners had any questions for staff. Commissioner Vargo then asked why the short-term loan establishments had to be 2000 feet from any adult entertainment use. Nobody could really answer that, and Mr. Crews said that that could be modified if they 6 wanted. Commissioner cannon then asked if there was any sort of a cap on a short-term loan. The answer was that there is one at the state level but not at the city level. Vice-chair Edwards then mentioned that there is a lending place over on East Washington and he would like to see Mr. Crews look at their lease agreement and whatnot and make sure that they are allowed to be there. He mentioned with the fact of the casino coming that this needs to be a high priority for the government of the city of Petersburg. Mr. Crews then said that he would be happy to do so and more to the point this is the reason why City Council wanted the Planning Commission to look at this again. Vice-chair Edwards then opened the hearing up for public comment. The first person to speak was Joe Battiston, 1 Sycamore St. He said the problem with the fact of religious assembly in the City of Petersburg, Petersburg has more churches per capita than any other town in Virginia, which is going to tremendously restrict these types of businesses from opening virtually anywhere in the city. I don’t if that is really what you are trying to do. But you are eliminating the possibility of them opening here. But if that is the intention then it is going to work. With no one else interested in stepping forward to speak, Vice-chair Edwards then closed the public portion of the hearing and asked the commissioners what they wanted to do. Commissioner Bland then said that he wanted to make a motion that do just as Staff had recommended including the resolution. It was seconded by Commissioner Vargo. It passed unanimously. b. 2024-ZTA-11: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg pertaining to the regulation of tire sale and service uses within the City. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. He said that this is another text amendment that City Council asked to be brought to the Planning Commission. He went on to say that there are quite a few tire shops in the city of Petersburg. Some are on highly visible corridors, and some are in the gateways to the city and a good number of these shops deal with used tires. For years there have been concerns about the impact of these uses. Particularly the visual impact of the tire storage. Currently the way the zoning ordinance reads tire sales and services is a by right use in the B-2 and B-3 and the M-1 and M-2 districts. These include many smaller operations which sell tires, which includes vulcanizing tires, beyond that the shredding or selling of old or used tires is only allowed in the industrial districts of M-1 and M-2 by right. If they are storing more than 200 tires at the shop, a Special Use Permit is required. No matter how big the shop is, the SUP is needed. Since council asked for us to bring this to Planning Commission then, we have brought two options. Option 1: 7  • All tire sale and service uses would be prohibited in the B-2, General Commercial and B- 3, Central Commercial Districts. Tire sale and services uses would be limited to the City’s industrially zoned districts. • A Special Use Permit would be required for all tire sale and service uses, including operations involving shredding, cutting, or processing of discarded tires in the M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial Districts. The Special use permit would be required regardless of the number of tires stored on the site. Option 2: • Sale and service of new tires would be allowed in the B-2, General Commercial and B-3, Central Commercial Districts. Sale and service of used tires would be limited to the City’s Industrially zoned districts. • A Special Use Permit would be required for used tire sale and service uses, including operations involving shredding, cutting, or processing of discarded tires in the M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial Districts. The Special use permit would be required regardless of the number of used tires stored on the site. In short, the first option would prohibit tire shops of any kind in the City’s commercial districts and require a Special Use Permit for tire shops in the industrial districts; the second option would allow new tire sales and service in the commercial districts while limiting used tire shops to the industrial districts with an approved Special Use Permit. The plan does not speak specifically to tire sale and service uses but does emphasize aesthetics and the importance of visually appealing streetscapes, particularly in areas designated as Community Mixed-Use or Corridor Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Automotive uses are not listed as desired primary land uses in these two designations which comprise many properties zoned B-2 and B-3 in the City. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages mitigation of visual impacts from certain uses through site design standards. New design standards to this effect will likely be adopted throughout the Zoning Ordinance rewrite, but they do not currently exist in the Ordinance. Until such standards are adopted, Special Use Permits can be utilized to make sure appropriate conditions are placed on impactful uses to mitigate any negative effects on neighboring properties or the general welfare. Staff’s recommends approval of option 2. This option would allow for additional oversight a used car shops which have been a source of most complaints while allowing for the sale and service of new tires remain to permitted use in the commercial districts. Just a couple of other thoughts…As you know we are working on the zoning ordinance overhaul, and we are looking to introduce thorough design standards into the new code. So, this would include standards for automotive uses like this and we would be looking at built-in rules and items that would have to be met for certain uses rather than having to make each automotive use a Special Use Permit. We would have the conditions built in and make sure that 8 none of those sites would result in negative impacts... but until we have those more robust standards, the SUP process is a useful way to make sure negative impacts are mitigated. The Commissioner then had a small list of businesses that they discussed with Mr. Crews as to whether certain tire shops had a Special Permit. Vice-chair Edwards then opened the public portion of the hearing. When no one stepped forward, he closed the public portion of the hearing. He then asked the commissioners what they wanted to do. Commissioner then made a motion to accept the staff's recommendation of option 2 along with the attached resolution. It was seconded by Commissioner Bland. It passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion on potential text amendment addressing short term rental uses within the city. Mr. Crews lead the discussion. He said that he just wanted to touch base with everyone and make sure everyone was all on the same page. If you remember, we are going to be holding a second public hearing on this item at the December meeting. It will be based upon the scope of changes that we spoke about last month. The two changes that were requested were: 1. To allow the short-term rental uses in mixed use districts. 2. To provide some exemptions for existing short-term rentals so that they are not forced out due to regulation changes. The first fix is pretty straightforward we just have to expand where they are allowed to exist. For the second one, there are a few ways we can allow them to transition into the new rules. We cannot exempt them from the need to register, some of those minimum safety requirements, but what we could do is exempt them from the need for a special use permit. As you recall the new rules that we looked at require a special use permit for any short-term rental where the owner of the property doesn't reside there. We would be looking to remove that requirement from facilities that were operating when the ordinance gets adopted. They would still have to register, but they wouldn't have to go through this special use permit process. It would not be an additional cost. The other rule that kind of jumped out was the rule about short term rental of multifamily dwelling units. As it was originally drafted no more than 1/3 of the units could be used in short term rentals or 10 total units whichever is less. There was some concern with the existing rental operators that this would cause them to lose units that they have been renting already, because they are operating now at a threshold that is higher than this. So again, we would be looking to exempt any existing operator as long as they were renting those units prior to the adoption of the ordinance. So again, they would have to still register, and they would not be able to start renting additional units, but they would be able to continue operating whatever they had when the ordinance came into effect. We will have the new public hearing scheduled at the regular December meeting. And Mr. Crews said that he wanted to bring a complete draft at that meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS 9 There was no New Business. 9. SECRETARY/CITY STAFF REPORTS There was no Secretary report. Mr. Crews gave a Staff report. He said that the first meeting of the zoning overhaul would be November 26th, 2024. He also wanted to bring it to the commissioners’ attention that the city has given the planning department money for training. He said that they were looking for partnering with other localities nearby to have a regional training. In the meantime, VCU offers a course that might interest the commissioners. The next session will begin in January if anyone would be interested. The bylaws here in Petersburg do not require any training to be on this Commission, we will probably be looking at changing those bylaws. 10.ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMISSIONER REPORTS 11. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Cannon then asked for adjournment at 7:48 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Vargo. 10