Planning Commission

City of Petersburg Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2024 Minutes The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, December 5, 2024, was called to order by Jared Crews 6:00 p.m. A roll call was completed by Ms. Michelle Murrills. Members Present: Mr. Marshall Ford, Chair Mr. Al Cannon, Vice-Chair Dr. Diane Harley Mr. Tony McDaniel Ms. Kirsten Katzenbach Mr. Thomas Hairston Mr. Aku Reinhardt Mr. Fenton Bland Members Absent: Dr. James Norman 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call New members roll call was called by Ms. Murrills and a quorum was established by Ms. Murrills. Since there were five new members on the Planning Commission, rather than just a roll call, everyone went around the room and introduced themselves. Others Present: Mr. Jared Crews Planning Department Manager, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Tyler Jackston, Ms. Naomi Siodmok Planning Director, Mr. Joe Battison, Mr. Derrick Johnson, Ms. Barbara Coleman, and Mr. Michael Stanley. 1 3. Adoption of the Agenda: 4. Meet and Greet/Planning Commission introduction 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Before the meeting started there was a pre-meeting to help the five new commissioners understand their role in the governing of city of Petersburg as well as what would be expected of them. During this time, Ms. Siodmok gave a presentation on what it meant to be on the Planning Commission. During the presentation the director explained what things like Roberts rules of order, the bylaws, the Comprehensive Plan, text amendments, Capital Improvement plan, how to look at zoning applications, what is the zoning ordinance, Special Use Permits, etc. were. She also went into great detail on how the commissioners were supposed to act, what was expected of them and how to accomplish during the meetings what they want to accomplish. It was greatly appreciated by all members of the commission. 5. Officer Elections: Mr. Crews then explained that there was not a Chair or a Vice-chair so now it was time for officer elections. These officers would be in their positions until May when the next elections would be held. Commissioner Bland then nominated Commissioner Ford for Chair person. Commissioner Hairston seconded the motion. Motion carried with 6 ayes and 2 abstentions Commissioner Katzenbach and Commissioner Reinhardt. With that Mr. Crews said that he would entertain a motion for Vice-Chair. Commissioner Hairston immediately said that he would like to nominate Commissioner Cannon, which was seconded by Commissioner Bland. The motion passed unanimously. 6. Consent Agenda a. September 2024 Joint Special Meeting Minutes b. November 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes. After a few moments, Commissioner Bland made a motion to accept the consent agenda (both dates) seconded by Commissioner Hairston. The four previous members approved the agenda, since the other Commissioners were not at either meeting. 7. 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 Ford asked if there was anyone interested in speaking and when no one did he closed the public comment period. 8. Public Hearings: 2 8a. 2024-REZ-03: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a request by Virginia Electric & Power Co. DBA Dominion Energy to rezone with proffers property at 3345, 3339, and 3311 West Washington Street, Parcel IDs 027010001, 027010003, and 027010004, from the R-2 Single-Family Residence and B-2 General Commercial Districts to the M-1 Light Industrial District. Mr. Crews made the presentation. He started out with saying that the applicant had actually asked for a deferral. They were wanting the commissioners, rather than take a vote on the resolution, to take a vote on deferral. They are working on some updates to the proffers and the concept plan. Because notices were properly sent out and posted it was decided that we are going to go ahead and hold the public hearing. So, looking at the properties in question, we have three parcels right along where Petersburg meets Dinwiddie County. To the North of these parcels is a Dominion Energy storage facility. There is another Dominion owned parcel in the center of these parcels. That parcel already has been zoned M-1. The applicant is wanting to rezone all parcels to the M-1 industrial district with a goal of expanding the already existing Dominion facilities on Rawlings lane. Currently 3311 and 3345 are zoned B-2 our general commercial district. 3339, the parcel to the rear is zoned R-2 Single family residential. At one time there was a dwelling that was demo’ed recently. This request was accompanied by three proffers. The proposed use of this land is as follows: • Expansion of existing Dominion Power facility at 33 Rawlings Lane. • Develop site would be gravel storage yard with security fencing; No new buildings proposed. • Entrance is along West Washington Street reduced to one; wetlands sectioned off from development. • Use proposed, but not proffered. Mr. Crews wanted to note that while this is the proposed use... there is no proffer for that use. If the Planning Commission changes the zoning to the asked for M-1, Dominion will be allowed to do whatever that zone allows. There is no proffer that legally ties them to this use. They do have three proffers for consideration. (Proffers are voluntary conditions that the applicant can offer the city to have them consider. If these proffers were accepted, they would then become legally binding.) 1) The applicant will provide a 30’ buffer along West Washington Street where no encroachments will be allowed except the site entrance, landscaping, lighting, and other non - development features. 2) Signage for the site shall be in conformance with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 3) Stormwater facilities on the site shall be developed in accordance with an approved stormwater management plan and shall be owned and maintained by the applicant. With these they would create a single parcel under Dominion ownership. It would mainly be used for equipment storage and no new buildings are proposed. 3 When you look at the Comprehensive Plan these are the considerations: • Corridor Commercial on Future Land Use Map. o Primary land uses include hospitality, large and small commercial/retail, multi- family housing, medical and office, places of worship. o Should be walkable with pedestrian amenities and increased landscaping and lighting. o Purpose to provide goods and services. Additionally, this area is a: • Gateway and Corridor Area on Future Land Use Map. o Investment should be made in pedestrian experiences. o Should welcome people in City and make them want to stay. So, this does not meet the criteria according to the Comprehensive Plan. The Staff recommends: • Planning Commission Options o Recommend approval of the rezoning with proffered conditions. o Recommend approval of the rezoning without one or more proffered conditions. o Recommend denial of the rezoning. But the Planning Department is well aware that these are Dominion’s properties, and they are adjoining Dominion facilities. So, this is all properties owned by Dominion, the Planning Department is not able to get around the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, which makes it plain that the storage and maintenance use would not be the highest use of these properties. Also, Staff has sat down with the applicant and have shared our concerns with them. So, because of this they are taking another look at their proffers. Again, they are looking for a deferral of a final vote. There was a question as to when they were wanting to come back to the Planning Commission, but Mr. Crews said that all that was talked about was the “next meeting” so presumably in January. Commissioner Hairston then asked how proffers worked and Mr. Crews said that proffers were voluntary, and the city could either accept or reject them. There were also questions about how the process works in notifying the public. Commissioner Ford then asked about proffers and how they might work with changing the zoning. Mr. Crews then explained that unless there was a proffer to only have the property used for on reason, anything that worked with M-1 zone would be allowed once the zone was changed. Commissioner Katzenbach asked for clarification of what land Dominion owns. It was explained to her that all of the land was owned by Dominion. 4 Mr. Derrick Johnson of the Timmons Group, the engineering firm that Dominion hired for the project, then spoke. He said that Mr. Crews had outlined the case succinctly. Dominion does own the property and are looking for using this land for added storage area. He said that Dominion had made some proffers and since that time have had a meeting with the Planning Department and are looking to expand those. He said that the main reason that they are looking for an extension is because Dominion is a large company and right now is the holiday season between Thanksgiving and Christmas and the people who are expected to sign off on the proffers have not been available when they were needed. So, Dominion needs this extra time to work out their logistics. They are wanting to add seven more proffers. Right now, they are working on the logistics of properly adding to the buffer that is already in development. They are going to take out the multiple entrances and exits and only have one exit that would only be used for emergencies. They will be adding lots of trees as well. Then there will be a larger sidewalk with lots of new lighting. There will also be a decorative security fence along the frontage of West Washington St. They are still working on trying to figure out what the City wants as well. The new proffers will also tell you exactly what Dominion wants to do with the property. He also said that he wanted to be clear that Dominion does own all the property and are not looking to build a whole new building and instead are wanting to have a gravel site and a storage facility. Commissioner Katzenbach then asked if there wasn’t a more rural area on their property that this storage facility could go rather than a gateway to a city. Mr. Johnson said that this is an expansion of what already exists. This was the best area that they found, and they purchased those lots to add to what they already have. Dominion is, however, cognizant of the fact that this is a gateway to the city, and they are looking to the city to figure out what they want along the West Washington St. side because it is a gateway. Chair Ford then opened the public portion of the hearing. He asked if anyone was for or against the motion. One person wanted to speak. Ms. Barbara Coleman, 928 Farmer St. She said that she had lived in Maryland and DC area for over 20 years and is familiar with Dominion Energy. A lot of their development in residential areas may have an industrial building but they also have architectural design where they can compliment their facility building and have it resemble a home. I think that once they show you their architectural blueprint of their landscape, it should be complimenting when you come into the city. She passes that area quite often and notices the things they have done the properties that they already own and how that complimented that area already. So, once they provide the architectural design that she thinks that it would be a complementing look from the street (West Washington). Thank you. When no one else spoke, he closed the public portion of the hearing. Commissioner Hairston then made a motion that the commission tables everything until their next meeting. It was seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt. It passed unanimously. b. 2024-SUP-02: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a request by Fortune Founders LLC for a special use permit for multiple-family dwellings as authorized and controlled 5 by the R-5 Multiple Dwelling District Standards at 25 South Crater Road, Parcel ID 012260023, in the B-2, General Commercial District. Mr. Crews then gave the presentation. This is 25 S. Crater road, the old Oyo Hotel. The hotel was originally built in the 1970s. It has not been operating for a few years now. The property is currently vacant. The applicant purchased the property in 2023. The operator is looking to convert the rooms up to 75 studio apartments. They will also be using the former check in area as a management office. 10-20 % of the rooms would be furnished. The current condition of the site is pretty poor. Weighing all of this against the Comprehensive Plan, this is located within a mixed-use area. This would be supported by the Comprehensive Plan. That being said, we wanted to make sure that if the permit is approved that the apartments were developed to provide the best quality of life for future residents of those apartments. So, we are proposing a number of conditions to make sure that the development aligns with these goals. So again, if voted on for approval, this would become conditional approval, things they would have to meet. Proposed Conditions 1) The development shall include on-call management and maintenance staff as well as on-site security surveillance. 2) Secure laundry facilities shall be provided for and remain accessible to residents. 3) At least twenty (20) percent of the apartment units shall be offered as furnished units. 4) The existing parking area shall be milled, repaved, and restriped prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the property. At least one parking space per unit shall be provided unless a waiver is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 5) At least two (2) electric vehicle charging stations shall be installed in the parking area. 6) The existing chain link fence along the street frontage shall be removed or replaced with an ornamental-style fence. 7) The development shall integrate additional greenspace in the form of a green roof, a conversion of a portion of the parking area, or in another form submitted to and approved as acceptable by the Planning Department. The greenspace shall be installed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the property. 8) The development shall include at least two of the following resident amenities: public art, a clubhouse, co-workspace, a dog park, or a fitness center. A floorplan identifying such amenities shall be provided to the Planning Department for approval prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development. 9) High quality construction materials shall be used for repairs and improvements to the existing structure; materials shall be submitted for approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development. 10) The development shall include improvements to the street frontage and existing landscaping strip along South Crater Road to include tree plantings of native species, street furniture, and pedestrian-scale lighting. A plan identifying these features shall be provided to the Planning Department for approval and the features installed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the property. 6  11) This permit may be revoked by the City of Petersburg City Council or its designated agent for failure by the applicant to comply with any of the listed conditions or any provision of Federal, State, or local regulations. Chair Ford then asked if there was anyone there on behalf of the applicant to speak and the answer was no. Commissioner Bland said that he was worried about vagrancy over there on that part of town and was wanting to know what the owners were planning on doing about that. Commissioner Hairston said that it looked to him like the new owners of the building were trying to do an end run around. He said that the city tried to do everything they could to get those people out of that hotel. They had whole families living in a single hotel room. And now the new owners are wanting to take all those shabby hotel rooms put a new bed, a new stove, a new AC unit, resurface the parking lot and tell y'all these are apartments. He said that he thought that this property was going from bad to worse. He said he remembers back in the day when that was a happening place with all the hotels right there. That was a good corner Right there. It was a very valuable piece of property. And now we are going to give them away to redo what we just fought to get rid of. We rezoned it in order to get them closed down. And now we're just going to open it up and let them do what we didn't want them to do in the beginning? Because if I get a studio apartment there no one is going to question if I have six of my kids living there. No one is going to make sure that it's safe, because that's what the problem was. You had three or four people living in one room. And now we're going to redesign that hotel room and call it an apartment. He then said that we are not about to fix a problem... we are about to make it worse. Mr. Crews then said one thing to keep in mind. Hotels that have more than 45 rooms are a buy right use in a commercial district. Which means that if someone bought that hotel and decided to fix it up as a hotel, they would be allowed to do that as long as they make site improvements and clean it up. The planning department does share your concerns and wanting to make sure this is a high-quality apartment building. We don't want it to be something bad by another name but again that's where we try to speak to it with these conditions to make sure things are provided for and we have the option of revisiting it if they are not able to comply with those conditions. These will fall under the building codes as an efficiency apartment with just a kitchenette. Commissioner Katzenbach then asked if we knew anything about the company building this and if they had any sort of history positive or negative in building this type of apartments. Mr. Crews said that they do have some other projects they are working on in Virginia. Commissioner Katzenbach then asked if there had been any consideration as to limiting the occupancy number in the room. Mr. Crews Said that they would have to abide by the rules of the zoning department when it comes to occupancy standards. He also said that there is federal law that keeps the city from getting too specific period like you cannot tell a family how many children can stay in the apartment at once as long as you are blood relatives. But the building code does have certain standards that must be followed. Mr. Crews also said that the Planning Commission is supposed to be looking at the land use and how that fits with the codes and with the Comprehensive Plan. The idea is that the commissioners are supposed to decide if this is an appropriate use of the land. There are impacts based on that use and that is where the commissioners have the ability to recommend conditions that will minimize those impacts. Commissioner Hairston then asked if the company already owned the property. When the answer was yes, he said then it was up to the 7 commissioners to guide them on what they could be permitted to do with this piece of property. Mr. Crews said that yes, in a sense. But the question tonight is whether or not multifamily would be an appropriate use for this property. Commissioner Katzenbach then said that she suggested that the other commissioners look at what Wilmington NC had done about their abysmal sex trafficking. She said that they did not allow places like this. This is essentially a hotel room that will be $45.00 a night. They did not allow this kind of development to continue because it encouraged that type of activities under a different name. She definitely wanted it knowing that she is not accusing this organization of being involved at all with any of that, but that she is just encouraging the commissioners to look at cities that have gone through similar growing pains that Petersburg is currently experiencing. And look at how they made their decisions and the successes that followed by making decisions against situations like this. Mr. Crews then said that he wanted to make some clarifications to that point. With it being a multifamily, they would not be allowed to rent for anything less than one month. It was then asked again if anybody knew why the owners did not come to clarify some of these points. Mr. Crews Said that he had been in contact with them several times and had tried to impress upon them how important it would be to come to the Planning Commission meeting tonight. Commissioner Hairston asked if we reject this tonight can they just open the hotel back up? They would have to go through it administrative process with the Planning Department, with a site plan or building permits or things like that. But a hotel would not require a Special Use Permit like they are applying for tonight. With that Chair Ford then opened the public portion of the meeting. The first to speak was Joe Battison, 1 South Sycamore St. He wanted to say that he was not speaking for or against this, but he wanted to address some questions for everyone. If you turn this into an apartment, it now needs a certificate of occupancy. Generally speaking, if you turn this into an apartment an apartment of this size can only have up to two occupants whereas a hotel can have four. If it gets turned into an apartment, then you have less occupants in the building. And of course, if the city puts more of these rules in place, then that gives the city more teeth to come back later if the rules are not being followed. The city is then able to pull back their special use permit. So, a certificate of occupancy can keep you down to two occupants to a room…a lot less than a hotel can hold. Plus, there are some state rules to answer your questions about children. Per statue, there are rules that say at a certain age boys and girls are not allowed to be sleeping in the same room period if you have mom and dad and a son and a daughter then that house must have at least three bedrooms. There is a lot of teeth once you have an apartment building. You have housing laws that come into play that you don't have in the hotels. Hotels have a lot more freedom than a residential property does. I hope that helps thank you. The laws are there to be used, so we have to enforce them. However, hotels have much more lenient rules. Barbara Coleman, 928 Farmers Street, we already have a problem with Flagship. They are a hotel. Housing is in mass shortage here in Petersburg. So, if you are going to take the Oyo hotel and have them turn it into an apartment building with green space, decorative iron gates, locked access, it changes the trajectory of the residence. When I travel north to New York or DC I don't stay in a hotel. I stay in an Airbnb or short-term lease in a hostel or something like that. 8 A space just like this. Small space for one person. I have a contract for six months I don't want to stay in a hotel, I don't want to rent an apartment, because it is not convenient, and it is not affordable. I have tried to quickly Google this company and I believe that it is actually a group of small entrepreneurs who have come together to put in an effort to take something that is dilapidated and change it into a green space. So, when we speak about housing or tiny homes, this is what they are changing it into. So, when you go into a foreign city and you see a gated community, a dog park or something like that. You are going to have a lease for a month or two months there will probably be maybe one child, but you are changing the trajectory of the area. But you have to have the whole package. You have to have the security, the green space, the higher quality products, etcetera. There are new businesses in that area that stay packed. Those businesses have changed the trajectory of that whole neighborhood which had been a sex trafficking area. Good if we took the time to get the fortune founders to come back to the table show us those examples show us what they have already done in other communities... give us the visual. I am not from this area, and I do not know the history of it. But when I go through there, I see the tall hotels, that are now abandoned, and we need to get that back. We need areas of new landscape, and we need new thinking. With the casino coming in we are going to be having people working at the casino and they need a place to stay. They are not going to be here permanently they're going to be here to train new staff. So, we're going to make the founders do the work, don't let it be another hotel, turn it into residential building. They have already stated that this is not going to be income based they will have paying residents. The people who work at Fort Gregg-Adams they all go to Chester, Colonial Heights, and Prince George. Those communities are building hotels faster than I can count. And they are always full. Everyone keeps forgetting about Petersburg. We do not have a decent hotel here as of yet. So, I am not for nor against this I just think that if this is going to be a use that gives them more responsibility, less people, and then make them do the work to make this residential and not a hotel I think it should be done. With that, Chair Ford closed the public portion of the hearing. Commissioner Reinhardt then said that perhaps this should be postponed because the owners are not here tonight, and he would like to hear from them on many questions he and others have mentioned tonight. He asked if that is something he can do. Mr. Crews said that one cannot postpone for the sake of postponement, but that yes if there is more information that is not available tonight that it can be postponed. If you all want to put together some conditions and we can request them to A. to be at the meeting but also B. to react to them and give us some sort of response. Commissioner Hairston said that if we cannot get them to show up then that is problematic. They don't want to speak but they want to tell us what they are and are not going to do. I mean, I don't want to just reject them because I know that there are some nice studio apartments out there in the world. But there is a whole lot of rules that have to be put in and they are not even here to speak for themselves. Commissioner Cannon said that the commissioners have a ton of questions, and this is very important. We are trying to make decisions on answers we don't have. Commissioner Hairston said that he likes the fact that the city would have more control if we turn it into an apartment. Because basically if we reject it and it becomes a hotel there's not a lot of control the city has. We need more leverage. He said that he has seen many businesses over the years that agree to the stipulations but that as soon as the business gets in there, they don't follow any of the rules and they do what they want and 9 there doesn't seem to be somebody who says hey do this. It seems like once we do our vote and pass it off it is what it is and no one seems to care. The one thing he likes is if it gets turned into apartments, the city has to constantly come back in and could take their occupancy certificate. An apartment building cannot function if it doesn't have an occupancy certificate. With that Chair Ford asked for a motion. Vice Chair Cannon made a motion to follow the Staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Reinhardt then made a substitute motion to table this because the commissioners need more information and then to request that the owners show up at the next meeting so that they can answer the questions. Commissioner Hairston seconded the substitute motion. Commissioner Hairston did ask a quick question about what happens if they do not come when the commissioners asked them to. Mr. Crews said the commissioners could put more stipulations on there or they could deny it because the owners are not doing as they are asked. Commissioner Hairston did say that if the commissioners do reject it, they give away any leverage that they have. Or that is how he sees it. A vote was taken with one dissention (Vice Chair Cannon) it passed. c. 2024-RSUP-01: Consideration of a resolution recommending revocation of special use permit granted to Michael and Nina Stanley to operate a stand-alone used vehicle sales lot at 1024 West Washington Street, Parcel ID 024270002 in the B-2, General Commercial District for failure to comply with conditions of approval. Mr. Crews gave the presentation. He said this is the inverse of the last case. This case they are asking to revoke a Special Use Permit because of failure to comply with the conditions of the permit. There are two of these cases tonight the properties are right next door to each other same owner. But they are actually subject to two separate special use permits. This lot, for this one is close to the corner of Washington and South West St. There was a duplex on this lot, but it had been torn down about 15 years ago. A Special Use Permit was given to the property owner back in 2012 to construct and operate a used car sales business. That approved permit was subject to the following eight conditions. A. The permit is non-transferable. B. No vehicles to be parked in or protrude into West Washington Street right-of-way. C. Site plan and building permits to be submitted and approved prior to any operations on site. D. No inoperable vehicles to be kept or stored on site. E. No outside storage of vehicle parts is permitted. F. The hours of operation are limited to Monday-Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. G. Should the use be abandoned for 24 months or more, the permit shall be null and void. H. Permit may be revoked by City Council for failure to comply with listed conditions or any federal, state, or local regulation. In the twelve years, since the SUP was issued the lot has remained undeveloped aside from a couple of broken-down buses that are parked on the land. As well as car parts which appeared 10 to be associated with the garage use. So this puts the property in violation of at least half of the 8 conditions of approval. Zoning administrators have been working with the applicant since July with repeated notices of violation and site visits as well as in person meetings there has been no action towards compliance. There is at least one bus on this property that has been there since at least 2016. The following violations of the approved permit are present on the property: 1) No site plan or permits were ever submitted to establish a stand-alone used vehicle sales lot on the property in violation of Condition C. 2) Inoperable vehicles are stored on the site in violation of Condition D. 3) The property has failed to operate under the approved use for a period well in excess of the two years stipulated in Condition G. 4) The property has failed to comply with the above-mentioned conditions and is not in compliance with other local regulations in violation of Condition H. The Planning Commission has the ability to vote to revoke the Special Use Permit, which is the recommendation of Staff. Or you could vote to recommend that the Special Use Permit remain active. Again, Mr. Crews wanted to emphasize that the SUP was for a used car lot which it has never been used as such. There is no indication in the last 12 years that the owner tried to establish one nor does there seem to be any interest in the owner establishing one now either. If down the road the property owner decides to pursue a used car lot, he can come and apply again. Staff does not see a reason to allow the permit to remain active for a used car lot. Chair Ford then asked if the applicant was in the audience and Mr. Michael Stanley said that he was. He said my name is Michael Stanley and I have had this property for some time now. Again since 2012. I own 2 parcels the parcel on the corner and the parcel in question. It has never been a problem for that bus to be where it is. I assume this is the real reason why this is being brought up now. A while back zoning came out and said you need to move this bus. Prior to that, years before, I've never had a problem. This happened in July. The problem is the parts for the bus, well buses, because they are used buses are kind of sort of a little outdated. He said he just needs the time in order to move them. Please keep in mind, I wasn't evading the city. I was trying to take care of my Momma. Because that is my Momma. I got a bit off track there because of trying to get the parts... I thought I was given the right part and when the parts came, they were wrong. I am not the person who puts the parts on so when the guy came out and said this is not right, I was at a loss and now when we order the parts I know they're right so then I have to wait and ask somebody to make sure they're right. He said that he does not want to lose his business or an opportunity to have a business because this is something he has 11 worked his whole life for. When he bought this building on the corner, 12 1/2 years ago, it was dilapidated. He killed 21 snakes in the building while he was doing the remodel. Commissioner Hairston, then asked... we are only voting on whether or not he should keep his special use permit, correct? Which was basically given to him to have a car lot on this property? He then asked Mr. Stanley do you have a car lot there? Mr. Stanley answered, no I do not. I am not trying to keep a special use permit for the car lot. I am trying to keep my permit for the garage building which is next door. Mr. Crews then interjected that's a separate case that we will be discussing next. Commissioner Hair what Hairston then asked how much time will you need to move your bus do you think? Mr. Stanley then said 30 days or so. Commissioner Hairston then said he completely understood because he too has been on a tour bus that someone stole parts of the engine and the tour bus had to sit there for a very long time waiting for the parts. Chair Ford then said that he was the chair of the Planning Commission when Mr. Stanley first came and asked for his SUP. He said I fought for you. I wanted you to do something great for the city of Petersburg. He said every time I drive down Washington, I cry looking at what was supposed to be more than it is now. He said everything that you presented to us as commissioners... you have done zero. Nothing has ever materialized. You talking about your mom, I feel bad for you mine passed earlier too. Professionally I went to bat for you. Because you are right across the street from the church and I was concerned about the fact that that might be a problem, and you said it wasn't. Because Bishop so and so owned the church over there kids were outside playing and I am not gonna have this and I'm not gonna have that. 12 years later and it has gotten worse. I am not trying to knock you down and I'm not trying to hurt your dreams, but it has been 12 years. Mr. Stanley then asked are you speaking about the whole property and Chair Ford said the whole property. I have been there, and I have vouched for you. The other commissioners didn't want to approve it, but I said no we got to give everybody a chance. When I got my first packet and realized this case was going to be on it, I got my notes together. I know this case. I am not trying to convince anybody of anything... But I've heard this story before. Mr. Stanley said do you remember the building when I first bought it? Chair Ford Said yes you sure started out the first 30 days cleaning everything up. Mr. Stanley said the building when I first bought it was dilapidated. The city wanted to tear it down. After I bought this building, I spent $100,000 repairing it. If you pull up 1036 W Washington St. and look at my building, that is a building that I built after you told me I could get the SUP. Prior to that, that same building was on Trey Songz top of the world video showing how dilapidated the city of Petersburg was. That building was uninhabitable. Mr. Crews Then said that we really did need to keep the two this is separate and the building that is being discussed is in the next case not the one that we are discussing at the moment. Mr. Stanley then said the 1024 property you are absolutely right I did nothing with it. Commissioner Katzenbach then said, to be clear July 2024 you were told that you were in violation and had 30 days to take care of this. At that point did you speak with code compliance about your difficulties and try to negotiate that time. Mr. Stanley answered yes ma'am the commissioner then asked do you have any proof of your conversation. Mr. Stanley answered that he came in person and spoke to Ms. Michelle Peters on the phone, and I came in and spoke to Max who said that you have to take care of it. 12 Chair Ford then asked if anyone wanted to speak for or against this and Ms. Michelle Murrills raised her hand. Michelle Murrills, 131 S Market Street. The gentlemen that just spoke said that there was no problem with the bus until the last year. That is not true I have called code compliance multiple times and used the app that they used to have starting in 2019 at least three or four times a year. I was ignored on all of it to my knowledge. Obviously, he didn't get anything about it either, because he said that there was no problem. I also know for a fact that a friend of mine was also doing the same thing. I think that that that both of these properties but specifically the one that we're talking about is one of the ugliest parts of this city and it needs to be worked on. I know that there have been multiple vehicles that have been taken out but I also say that it has been many years that those vehicles have been there and the fact that all of this is coming together right in the last six months and that he says he needs time but there should have been spoken to him before and that even now we are talking that he was talked to six months ago, and he still needs more time period it needs to be cleaned up! It is one of our major areas there are two different intersections on W Washington that look bad, this is one of those two. The other one is worse, but that one is bad. And it keeps Petersburg looking bad and keeps us down and that is not where we want to be. Thank you. Chair Ford then close the public hearing. The question then was if we all agree to revoke this, the bus is still there. What do we do about the bus? Mr. Crews Then said that the bus is a separate violation and that simply goes through coding. And that is regardless of whether the SUP is revoked or not. There is no use of this site, and it has been established that, this site is in complete violation of the stipulations of the SUP. But the violation of the bus is still a violation no matter what. Commissioner Katzenbach then made a motion to revoke Mr. Stanley’s SUP it was seconded by Vice-Chair Cannon. It passed unanimously. Mr. Crews then said that the Commissioners had run out of time and that he needed to have the Chair entertain a motion to end the meeting. The next two public hearings would have to continued until the next meeting in January. Commissioner Hairston then said that he would make a motion to do Staff’s recommendation to continue the hearings later. It was seconded by Commissioner McDaniel. It passed unanimously. Mr. Crews said that he wanted to check with the new commissioners and find out if perhaps a 6:00 start time would be better rather than 6:30. Everyone agreed that 6:00 would be a good start time so for now on. 7. OLD BUSINESS No old business 8. NEW BUSINESS No New Business. 13