On the agenda: Petersburg meeting — data center (Jul 2)

City of Petersburg
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Thursday, July 2, 2026
6:00 PM
Petersburg Public Library
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Consent Agenda
a. June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes (pages 3-13)
b. June 18, 2026 Special Meeting Minutes (pages 14-16)
c. 2026 Quarter 2 Attendance Report (page 17)
5. Public Comment
Comments and Correspondence from citizens, visitors, and delegations in the audience on
items not on the agenda. Individuals wishing to speak should sign up prior to the start of the
meeting. Please limit comments to no more than three minutes. Total Public Comment period
shall not exceed 15 minutes.
6. Public Hearings
a. 2025-SUP-04: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a request by Sheila
and Rashad Coleman, Greater Community Housing LLC, on behalf of Chanelle Welch,
Trustee of the Chanelle Welch Living Trust, for a special use permit for multiple-family
dwellings as authorized and controlled by the R-5 Multiple Dwelling District Standards at 30
Shore Street, Parcel ID 031310003, in the B-2 General Commercial District (Pages 18-53)

1

7. Old Business
8. New Business
a. Follow up on Comprehensive Plan Review (pages 54-74)
9. Secretary/City Staff Reports
a. Update on City Council public hearing actions
10. Announcements/Commissioner Reports
11. Adjournment

2

City of Petersburg
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2026
Members Present:

Alvin Cannon, Vice-Chair
Fenton Bland
Dianne Harley
James Norman (arrived at 6:11 p.m.)
Thomas Hairston
Aku Reinhardt

Members Absent:

Marshall Ford, Chair
Kirsten Katzenbach
Tony McDaniel

Others Present:

Jared Crews, City Planning Staff
Elaine Negasi, City Planning Staff

1. Call to Order:
The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, June 4, 2026,
was called to order by Chair Cannon at 6:01 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
A quorum was established by Ms. Negasi.
3. Adoption of the Agenda:
Vice-Chair Cannon called for any changes to the agenda. Mr. Crews stated he had no
proposed changes.
Commissioner Bland motioned to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Aku
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
4. Consent Agenda:
Commissioner Bland motioned to approve the consent agenda, which included the
minutes of the May 7, 2026 regular meeting. Commissioner Harley seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
5. Public Comment:

3

Vice-Chair Cannon opened the floor for public comments.
Amanda Morrison introduced herself as a Director of Public Affairs of Clark
Construction, a general contracting company based in Northern Virginia with 13 offices
across the country. Ms. Morrison stated the company has been in the Richmond market
officially for 25 years and is looking to expand into the Petersburg area. Ms. Morrison
stated she would like to introduce herself to the Planning Commission and staff and
discuss opportunities available for Clark Construction in the area. Ms. Morrison stated
she brought her business card and pamphlets with more information regarding Clark
Construction.
Commissioner Aku asked Ms. Morrison what Clark Construction is looking to do in
Petersburg specifically.
Morrison stated they are looking to start growing a presence in Petersburg, which could
be smaller construction projects growing into larger projects in the future. Ms. Morrison
stated Clark Construction is open to any options, and she will be available for
conversation after the hearing.
Mr. Crews stated there was one public comment received from Marcus Squires that was
included in the Agenda Packet. Mr. Crews stated Mr. Squires requested the comment to
be recorded and recognized that Squires is requesting the Planning Commission
consider supporting the creation of a Petersburg Historic District Pattern Book to guide
new construction and infill development in the City’s local historic districts (See
Attachment).
Hearing no additional comments, the public comment period was closed.
6. Public Hearings:
a. 2026-SUP-03: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a request by Joe
Tyler, Tyler Realty Group, on behalf of TAP LLC, for a special use permit for multiplefamily dwellings as authorized and controlled by the R-5 Multiple Dwelling District
Standards at 2719 South Crater Road, Parcel ID 065120007, in the B-2 General
Commercial District
Mr. Crews presented the overview of the application, stated the application is a request
for Special-Use Permit for multi-family dwellings at 2719 South Crater Road, which is in
the B2 Commercial District. Mr. Crews states the property is one-acre with an existing 68
square foot multi-tenant commercial space facing Crater Road on the property as well as
an approximate 1,000 square foot single family dwelling on the rear of the property. Mr.

4

Crews stated the applicant is seeking to convert the commercial space into ten
apartment units, including 2 two-bedroom apartment units and 8 one-bedroom units.
Mr. Crews stated the property’s corridor is designated Commercial in the
Comprehensive Plan Future Use Map, multi-family units are listed among the uses but
they should be located either in a vertical mixed-use structure or behind the commercial
use. Mr. Crews stated ground floor commercial use is not appropriate directly adjacent
to the South Crater corridor.
Mr. Crews stated the planning staff outlined some concerns regarding the property;
• Site greenspace: site is largely impervious and minimum parking lot planting
requirements are not met on plans; overall canopy coverage requirement doesn’t
apply to redevelopment, but lack of greenspace is of concern
• Site plan details: It is unclear from the plans how waste would be managed and
site lighting would be provided
• Lack of amenities: Amenity area accounts for approximately 3% of overall site
area
• Existing single-family dwelling: it is unclear how the existing single-family dwelling
would interact with the overall site
• Site location: Location along major commercial corridor and proximity to street
are not conducive for ground-floor residential per Comprehensive Plan and
anticipated development in the area
Mr. Crews noted the applicant submitted updates to the plan addressing some concerns
after the staff report was published. Mr. Crews stated there was some additional
plantings included in the parking area and how existing trees in the area were outlined.
Mr. Crew also noted the applicant shown a footprint of the dumpster area in the
updated plan.
Mr. Crews stated a public comment was received after the staff report was published
from Jow Whittle, owner of Quail Oaks LLC, with concerns about drainage, parking,
waste management, green space, and site lighting.
Eight conditions were provided for consideration to limit the use and specify restrictions
as follows:
1. The property shall be developed in substantial accordance with concept and
building plan titled “Crater Rd Apartments 2719 Crater Rd” dated February
26, 2026.
2. The site shall meet minimum landscaping requirements as provided in the
Zoning Ordinance, including parking lot plantings. Street trees shall be

5

3.
4.

5.
6.

7.

8.

provided the street frontage except where the site entrance and sight
distance visibility requirements may preclude plantings. A plan identifying
the landscaping features shall be provided to the City Arborist for approval at
the time of site plan review and the features shall be installed prior to the
issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the property.
The developer shall provide at least one (1), multi-loop bicycle parking rack
on the site.
The common area shall include outdoor seating areas, including benches and
tables, as well as at least one (1) of the following outdoor resident amenities:
gardening area(s), gazebo(s), or playground. A plan identifying such
amenities shall be provided to the Planning Department for review and
approval prior to approval of a site plan for the development
The development shall include on-call management and maintenance
staff as well as on-site security surveillance.
Off-street parking spaces shall be allocated to residents with two (2)
parking spaces assigned to each two-bedroom unit and one (1) parking
space to each one-bedroom unit
A dumpster shall be provided on-site screened from the view of the
private right-of-way. The property shall be kept and maintained in a
clean, orderly manner; the property owner shall be responsible for
regular trash collection to the extent necessary to avoid accumulation of
household waste on the property.
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

Mr. Crews stated. Planning staff recommended denial as presented due to lack of
conformance to the Comprehensive Plan, but noted the applicant had mentioned they
would like to request a deferral to coordinate with staff to address concerns.
The applicant, Joe Tyler, was present and provided background on his history as
property owner of 2719 Crater Road. Mr. Tyler stated he owned property for 24 years
and obtaining commercial rental was always a challenge for the property. Mr. Tyler
conducted a best use study for the property and potential impacts of casino to the
location and determined there may be an increased need for housing in the area. The
applicant stated there is a positive relationship between the owner and tenants.

6

Commissioner Hairston stated the City is in need of housing, but the project layout is
not a good fit for the corridor. Commissioner Hairston motioned to accept staff’s
recommendation and recommend denial of the application.
Commissioner Aku concurred but stated that if the applicant coordinates with staff, they
may be able to come up with a reasonable resolution to the concerns.
Commissioner Hairston offered an amended motion to defer action to the application to
allow the applicant to coordinate with City Planning staff on potential updates to the
request to address the concerns raised. Commissioner Bland seconded the motion. The
vote passed unanimously.
b. 2026-ZTA-01: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg for the purpose of clarifying the criteria
for approval of Certificates of Appropriateness and the processes for updates to the
Historic Districts Design Guidelines and appeals of Architectural Review Board decisions
Mr. Crews stated discussion item was brought to the Commission last month and
explained one of the tools the Architectural Review Board uses is the Historic District
Design Guidelines to identify what is appropriate for what structure when reviewing
requests for projects in the local historic districts, Mr. Crews stated there is not not
currently language in the ordinance referencing the guidelines and there are concerns
over how enforceable decisions made based on the guidelines are. Mr. Crews stated
that while the Architectural Review Board undergoes the process to update the Design
Guidelines, planning staff would like to formalize the existence of the guidelines through
the proposed amendment. Mr. Crews stated the goal Is to create a clear connection
between the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines.
Mr. Crews also noted there have been an increasing number of appeals to the
Architecture Review Board for decisions within the past year and restated concern over
enforceability of decisions with the current ordinance language. Lastly, Mr. Crews noted
there is no formal process written on how to update the Design Guidelines.
Mr. Crews stated the proposed amendment would add language to
clarify that the the Architectural Review will use the Secretary to Interior Standards and
Historic District guidelines when reviewing requests and that the guidelines may be
amended as deemed appropriate by City Council after recommendation from
Architectural Review Board with a copy being kept in the City Planning office. Mr. Crews
noted there was an additional request by City Council to add a $250 file an appeal from

7

an Architectural Review Board decision to cover the advertising cost of the public
hearing.
Mr. Crews stated that staff recommended approval of the text amendment as
presented.
Commissioner Bland questioned who would receive the funds from the $250 fee. Mr.
Crews stated the amount would go into the general fund to cover the cost of placing
advertisements for the hearings.
Commissioner Hairston stated his disapproval of the Architectural Review Board and
believed the guidelines disproportionally affect disenfranchised communities.
Commissioner Aku asked if there is any language that speaks to those who can get
grandfathered in.
Mr. Crews stated the guidelines do take financial hardship into consideration, and the
new guidelines are intended to be more user-friendly by providing clear written rules.
Mr. Crews stated this amendment was only intended to tie the guidelines to the zoning
ordinance and was recommended by City Council due to the cost and frequency of
appeals. Mr. Crews stated he views this amendment as providing consistency in zoning
language, and noted the Planning Commission can include a recommendation to change
appeal fee if concerned over the fee amount.
Vice-Chair Cannon recommended considering age waiver for appeal fee.
Commissioner Hairston commented on concern for senior citizens and supported the
idea of a senior citizen waiver.
Commissioner Hairston motioned to approve text amendment with a reduced appeal
fee for senior citizens (60 years old and above).
Commissioner Aku stated he would like a subcommittee to review the drafted design
guideline document, so they can make an appropriate recommendation. Mr. Crews
stated the staff is willing to bring a summation or presentation for the Commission, but
explained the document itself had been drafted and reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board.
Commissioner Cannon asked whether there was a second to Commissioner Hairston’s
motion. Commissioner Bland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

8

c. 2026-ZTA-02: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg for the purpose of clarifying the design
standards for residential off-street parking areas
Mr. Crews stated discussion item was brought to the Commission last month. Mr. Crews
stated that Planning Staff have encountered issues regarding parking standards in the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Crews explained sections of the parking standards article either
contradict or have ambiguous writing that prevent development projects from moving
forward with existing rules, including rules that residential driveways must be striped
and include curb and a rule saying a driveway cannot exceed thirty five percent of a
front yard while also meeting minimum area requirements. Mr. Crews noted
contradictions have led to projects needing to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for
approval, further delaying development. Mr. Crews stated the goal is to adopt an
amendment to avoid further delay to development and burden to the Board of Zoning
Appeals until the comprehensive rewrite of Zoning Ordinance is complete.
Mr. Crews stated the recommended changes to the text would include clarifying that all
parking lots, except individual driveways, should be bordered by curb with individually
striped spaced. Mr. Crews stated the amendment would include clarification that a
driveway cannot exceed 35 percent of a front yard unless minimum size requirement
cannot be met; in that case a driveway could be built larger than the thirty-five percent
up to the point to meet the minimum size requirements for the parking spaces.
Mr. Crews stated that staff recommended approval of the text amendment as
presented.
Commissioner Hairston motioned to recommend approval of text amendment as
presented; Commissioner Aku seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
7. Old Business:
There was no old business for discussion.
8. New Business:
a) Amendment to Comprehensive Plan: How to prepare City-owned property for
redevelopment
Commissioner Hairston presented a document on the topic of a proposed amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan to identify two key City-owned properties for environmental
review, redevelopment planning, and long-term economic value. Commissioner

9

Hairston stated the purpose of the initiative would be to determine what
environmental, development, and funding requirements are necessary to transform
each property into viable, development-ready assets capable of support long-term
economic growth and community revitalization.
Mr. Crews mentioned this topic can be addressed during the special planning
commission meeting on June 18th, and a copy of the document will be sent to the
commission beforehand.
9. Secretary/City Staff Reports:
Mr. Crews reminded the Commission there will be a special planning commission
meeting to review the Comprehensive Plan and discussion potential revisions or
updates.
Mr. Crews stated the hotel rooms at the block rate for the Virginia Chapter of the
American Planning Association conference had sold out very quickly, noting the rooms
were now more expensive than what the department budget could cover. Mr. Crews
stated he was in communication with the Finance Department on whether a portion of
the cost could be covered and he would follow up.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Hairston,
seconded by Commissioner Harley.

_
Planning Commission Chair

Date

Attachments:
•

Public Comments Received

10

6/2/26, 10:09 AM

Inbox - Jared Crews - Outlook

Outlook
Petersburg Historic District Pattern Book (Planning Commission)
From Marcus Squires <[email protected]>
Date Tue 6/2/2026 9:50 AM
To

Jared Crews <[email protected]>; Maxwell Gorman <[email protected]>; Kenneth Miller
<[email protected]>; Charles Cuthbert <[email protected]>; Joanne Williams
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>

CAUTION: External! - Do not open attachments or click links unless you know the content
is safe.

Good morning,
Could this email please be included in the Planning Commission record and
forwarded to the Planning Commissioners for their next June meeting?
I am requesting that the Planning Commission consider supporting the creation of a
Petersburg Historic District Pattern Book to guide compatible new construction
and infill development in the city’s local historic districts.
This issue falls within the Planning Commission’s role in guiding the city’s physical
development, including the Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision
regulations, land use policy, and long-term development patterns. New
construction in historic districts directly affects neighborhood character, housing
development, land use compatibility, and preservation planning.
People move to historic districts because of their character, architecture, scale,
craftsmanship, and sense of place. Without clearer guidance, developers may
continue building homes that meet basic zoning requirements but do not fit the
historic rhythm, proportions, materials, porch forms, rooflines, and architectural
character of Petersburg’s neighborhoods.
A pattern book would not stop development. It would make development clearer,
faster, and more predictable. If the city created pre-approved or pre-reviewed
renderings and house designs, it could guide historic district development while
11

https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AZkl0b%2B%2B0%2FkiZFpf%2Bdf5aLAACIwkKYQAA?n…

1/2

6/2/26, 10:09 AM

Inbox - Jared Crews - Outlook

also encouraging investment. Developers could reduce upfront design costs, avoid
uncertainty, and save money on architectural planning by using city-supported
model designs.
Grant funding could also be explored to help create these renderings and pattern
book materials, including through the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Certified Local Government program.
I respectfully ask that the Planning Commission consider recommending that City
Council direct staff to develop a Petersburg-specific historic district pattern book in
coordination with Planning staff, the Architectural Review Board, and preservation
stakeholders.
Helpful examples include:
Portsmouth Historic Districts / Pre-Approved Plans:
https://www.portsmouthva.gov/413/Historic-Districts
Roanoke Residential Pattern Book:
https://www.roanokeva.gov/1281/Residential-Pattern-Book
Washington, D.C. CHASE Pattern Book:
https://dhcd.dc.gov/page/pattern-book
Virginia DHR Certified Local Government Grants:
https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/grant-funding/certified-local-government-grants-clg/
Thank you for your time and consideration.
This e-mail message and any attached files are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or
taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

12
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AZkl0b%2B%2B0%2FkiZFpf%2Bdf5aLAACIwkKYQAA?n…

2/2

6/2/26, 3:03 PM

Inbox - Jared Crews - Outlook

Outlook
Fw: 2719 South Crater Road
From Elaine Negasi <[email protected]>
Date Tue 6/2/2026 2:52 PM
To

Jared Crews <[email protected]>

Elaine Negasi
Planner 1
Department of Planning & Community Development
135 N Union Street, Petersburg, VA 23803
(804) 733-2344
[email protected]

From: Joe Whittle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 2:51 PM
To: Elaine Negasi <[email protected]>
Subject: 2719 South Crater Road
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: External! - Do not open attachments or click links unless you know the content is safe.

As owner of Quail Oaks LLC, which is adjacent to the above property, I have the following concerns:
Drainage
Parking
Green space
Lighting
Thank you
Joe Whittle
Sent from my iPhone
This e-mail message and any attached files are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or
taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

13
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AZkl0b%2B%2B0%2FkiZFpf%2Bdf5aLAACIwlaLgAA?na…

1/1

City of Petersburg
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes
June 18, 2026
Members Present:

Fenton Bland
Dianne Harley
James Norman
Thomas Hairston
Kirsten Katzenbach
Tony McDaniel

Members Absent:

Marshall Ford, Chair
Alvin Cannon, Vice-Chair
Aku Reinhardt

Others Present:

Jared Crews, City Planning Staff
Elaine Negasi, City Planning Staff

1. Call to Order:
The City of Petersburg Planning Commission special meeting held on Thursday, June 18,
2026, was called to order by Mr. Crews at 6:08 p.m.
Mr. Crews stated the Commission would need to elect a member to serve as Chair for
the meeting. Commissioner Norman motioned to have Commissioner Hairston serve as
chair for the meeting. Commissioner Bland seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously.
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Commissioner Norman motioned to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner
Bland seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
3. Special Meeting:
Mr. Crews presented overview of the City’s Comprehensive Plan PetersburgNEXT 2044,
which included a brief summary of the content in each chapter. Mr. Crews presented a
list of potential items that may warrant updates to the Comprehensive Plan, including
changes to the state code, consideration of the casino development, and data centers.
Mr. Crews stated topics like manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, and other

14

bigger picture concepts would need to be visited in the plan to make sure it aligns with
recent state law changes. Mr. Crews also noted additional small area plans,
transportation priorities, public school improvements, and targeted properties for
adaptive reuse as possible update topics. Mr. Crews discussed using long range planning
to develop visions and goals for the area around the casino.
The Planning Commission discussed manufactured homes as a topic in the
comprehensive plan and the quality of homes currently being installed in the City as well
as concerns over data center development and utility demands.
Commissioner Hairston presented his recommendation to include an evaluation of the
redevelopment capabilities of AP Hill Community and Titmus Optical Plant in the
Comprehensive Plan and explained these were properties in Ward 6, but he supported
identifying redevelopment opportunities for city-owned buildings across the city.
Commissioner Hairston asked the Planning Commission members to review his
addendum and include any other abandoned properties in their respective wards.
Mr. Crews stated Planning Commission should identify areas of focus and, at some
point, check in with City Council before completing the revision to explain the work the
Commission was doing and determine whether Council has priorities that should be
considered. Mr. Crews stated the length of the process would vary depending on the
scope of work, noting an overall schedule and actionable steps could be formulated
once there is clear direction.
The Planning Commission identified the following topics that should be reviewed in the
plan to determine whether updates were needed:
•
•
•

City Infrastructure
Blighted Properties
Schools

Mr. Crews stated he and Ms. Negasi would compile information on the target areas
identified and follow up to determine next steps in the review/update process.
Commissioner Katzenbach volunteered to provide additional information on blighted
properties and Commissioner Bland stated he could research infrastructure.

15

Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

_
Planning Commission Chair

Date

16

Planning Commission Attendance 2026

Alvin Cannon
Fenton Bland
Thomas Hairston
James Norman
Dianne Harley
Tony McDaniel
Kirsten Katzenbach
Daquan Reinhardt
Marshall Ford

January
A
P
P
P
P
A
P
A
A

P=Present

A=Absent

January Sp
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A

February Sp
P
P
A
P
P
A
P
A
P

February
P
P
A
P
P
A
P
P
P

March
P
P
A
P
P
A
P
P
P

NM=No Meeting

NQ= No Quorum

April
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
A
P

May
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P

*Attended Virtually

17

June
P
P
P
P
P
A
A
P
A

June Sp
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
A

July

August
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

September

October

November

December

City of Petersburg
MEMORANDUM
DATE:

July 2, 2026

TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

Planning and Community Development

RE:

2025-SUP-04: Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a
request by Sheila and Rashad Coleman, Greater Community Housing LLC, on
behalf of Chanelle Welch, Trustee of the Chanelle Welch Living Trust, for a
special use permit for multiple-family dwellings as authorized and controlled by
the R-5 Multiple Dwelling District Standards at 30 Shore Street, Parcel ID
031310003, in the B-2 General Commercial District.
_____________________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is seeking to construct three, five-story multi-family structures at 30 Shore
Street in the B-2, General Commercial Zoning District. A special use permit is required for
multi-family housing in the B-2 District and the use, if permitted, will be subject to the area
regulations of the R-5, Multiple Dwelling District as well as any conditions recommended by
Planning Commission and accepted by City Council. The property is designated a Historic Core
Neighborhood on the Future Land Use Map of the PetersburgNEXT Comprehensive Plan. Staff
is recommending denial of the request.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
1. September 2024 – Present – Planning Staff have had intermittent communication with
the applicant on ideas for development of the property, including providing review and
feedback on multiple concept plans
2. August 20, 2025 – Application for special use permit received
3. October 2, 2025 – Original public hearing scheduled; meeting was cancelled
4. December 17, 2026 – The applicant requested the application be put on hold while
plans were finalized and responses provided to the original staff report
5. June 11, 2026 - The applicant provided an updated application and narrative for the
proposed request
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located southeast of the intersection of Shore Street and Gates Lane
and is 0.52 acres in area. The property is in the18B-2, General Commercial Zoning District and is

currently undeveloped. According to City Assessor records, there were at least two, possibly
three, apartment buildings located on the site until 2008 when the structures burned down.
The applicant is seeking to build three, five-story, apartment buildings on the property.
According to the application, each apartment building will include 16-17 units with a total of
50 units on the site. Per the application, the dwellings will be a mix of 25 one-bedroom units
at approximately 700 square feet and 25 two-bedroom units at approximately 900 square
feet. The application states the buildings would feature varied massing and articulation to
reduce the visual impact of the size of the structures.
The application notes the buildings would be offered at market rate and include modern
interior finishes with luxury vinyl plank flooring, quartz countertops, modern appliances, and
keyless entry. The application also notes the units would be constructed with energy
efficiency components. On-site waste management is planned.
The application notes that parking will be provided under the individual buildings and the
applicant is exploring options for additional structured parking, potentially below grade. The
traffic flow on the site would be limited to one-way traffic with vehicles entering from Shore
Street and exiting onto Gates Lane. Drive aisles would be provided between the buildings for
emergency vehicle traffic. The application states sidewalks would be provided along Shore
Street and interior to the development.
The application was also accompanied by a rendering of the proposed buildings and a
conceptual layout of the site, though the renderings state each building will include 75 units
for a total of 225 units. The application notes that the site will retain or install the minimum
10% tree canopy coverage on the site and perimeter plantings are shown on the concept
plan.
A special use permit is required for multiple-family dwellings in the B-2 District and, if
approved, those dwellings are subject to the area and density standards of the R-5, Multiple
Dwelling District.
Per Article 23 of the Zoning Ordinance, Council may grant approval of special use permits
when the public health, safety, moral and general welfare will not be adversely affected, and
provided that necessary safeguards will be provided to protect surrounding property,
persons, and neighborhood values.
STAFF CONCERNS:
Planning staff have identified a number of concerns with the request as proposed:
•

•

Inconsistencies/lack of clarity in application: The unit count referenced in the
application (50 total units) differs significantly from what is shown on the concept
plan and rendering provided (225 total units). The difference in unit count would have
major impacts on requirements for parking and street impacts, and 250 units would
exceed maximum density for the site. Additionally, the application references building
articulation and variation to address visual impacts, but this does not appear to be
captured in the renderings.
Scaled site plan: The application references a scaled site plan to be provided prior to
the public hearing which has not been provided at the time this report was written.
The scaled site plan would be necessary to determine whether setback requirements
are being met and whether the site can
19accommodate the traffic flow as shown with

•

•

•

room for adequate access and emergency service.
Height: The B-2 District allows for a maximum height of 45 feet and three stories.
Five-story buildings at approximately 52 feet in height would not be permitted unless
a special exception was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant has
acknowledged that they would seek Board of Zoning Appeal approval if the special
use permit request is granted.
Greenspace: The proposed development of the site would result in a significant loss of
existing greenspace. While the application notes the overall 10 percent canopy
coverage requirement for the site could be met, it is unclear how parking lot
greenspace requirements could be met, particularly with parking located under the
buildings.
Existing Streets: Both Shore Street and Gates Lane are considered substandard
streets. Shore Street is approximately 20 feet in width, while Gates Lane is
approximately 12-13 feet in width. The minimum paved area allowed for any street
type would be 20 feet for an alleyway. Gates Lane is also a one-way street without
existing curb and gutter for stormwater drainage or sidewalk for walkability.
According to available data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a 50apartments would generate around 330 additional trips on these streets per day with
approximately 24 trips during peak morning hours and 29 trips in peak evening hours.

ADJACENT ZONING/USES
The subject property is in an area with a mix of zoning districts with property to the south and
west zoned B-2, General Commercial, property to the northeast zoned R-B, Office-Apartment,
property to the northwest zoned R-3, two-family residence, and property to the east zoned R2, single-family residence.
The subject property is largely surrounded by residential uses. Most of the residences are
single-family dwellings, but there are also several duplexes and lower density multi-family
dwellings with three to five units. The land immediately adjacent to the subject property to
the south and west is undeveloped, but neighboring properties closer to and along Sycamore
Street include commercial and office uses as well as an assisted living facility.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
The subject property is located within a Historic Core Neighborhood area on the Future Land
Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan describes Historic Core
Neighborhoods as areas located in the heart of Petersburg which directly reflect the city’s
historic development pattern. According to the plan, “the overall age, development pattern,
and scale make Petersburg’s historic core neighborhoods special places worthy of
preservation.” Multi-family dwellings and infill development are listed as primary land use in
Historic Core Neighborhoods, but the plan emphasizes the need to ensure that new
development fits the scale, proportion, and character of any existing development patterns.
In the subject request, three five-story apartment buildings would vary widely from the
existing development in the area. The tallest existing buildings in the neighborhood are 2.5
stories, and most buildings are under 3,000 square feet in area. The proposed buildings
would be approximately 52 feet in height and in the plans provided, the buildings appear to
be between 9-10,00 square feet in area.
20

PUBLIC INPUT
As of the writing of this report, staff have received no telephone calls, emails, or letters in
support of or in opposition to the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the special use permit request. The project as proposed does not
align with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan for Historic Core Neighborhoods. As
noted in the application, the Comprehensive Plan does talk about the need for additional
housing throughout the city, but it also speaks to the importance of appropriately siting
housing. The scale and density of the proposed apartments do not fit the pattern of
development in the area, and the building would be significantly different in size, proportion,
and character from surrounding structures.
There are also considerable concerns about the proposed layout of the site. The renderings
provided do not appear to accurately reflect the existing condition of the site and its
surroundings. With the information provided in the application, it is unclear how
development constraint concerns are addressed, but staff believe it is unlikely that a
development of this scale could be accommodated on the site while still meeting the
requirements of City Code and without major impacts on the surrounding streets, particularly
Gates Lane.
Based on the application provided, the proposed use would likely result in adverse impacts to
the surrounding area and neighboring properties and the request should be denied in
accordance with Article 23 of the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
Presentation
Resolution
Application
Rendering and Concept Plan
Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map
R-5 District Regulations
Comprehensive Plan Excerpt on Historic Core Neighborhoods
Adjoining Property Owners List

21

PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
JULY 2, 2026

2025-SUP-04: Consideration of a resolution
recommending approval of a request by Sheila
and Rashad Coleman, Greater Community
Housing LLC, on behalf of Chanelle Welch,
Trustee of the Chanelle Welch Living Trust, for a
special use permit for multiple-family dwellings
as authorized and controlled by the R-5 Multiple
Dwelling District Standards at 30 Shore Street,
Parcel ID 031310003, in the B-2 General
Commercial District.

22

Subject Property

23

Background
• Subject property is 0.52 acres located in B-2, General Commercial District
• 2-3 apartment buildings once stood on the site; total number of units is
unclear, possibly 5-7 apartments
• Applicant seeking to construct three, 5-story apartment buildings;
special use permit is required subject to area standards of R-5 District
• Application originally scheduled for public hearing at cancelled October
2, 2025 meeting; applicant requested application be paused to address
originally published staff report
• Special use permits may be granted public health, safety, and welfare will
not be adversely affected and if safeguards are in place to protect
surrounding property, persons, and neighborhood values

24

Existing Conditions

25

Existing Conditions

26

Request
•Construction of 3 apartment buildings with total of 50 units
•One-way access; entrance from Shore Street exit onto Gates Lane
•Parking provided under buildings, additional structured parking
referenced in application
•Mix of 700-square foot one-bedroom and 900-square-foot twobedroom market-rate units for rent

•Modern interior finishes with luxury vinyl plank flooring, quartz
countertops, modern appliances, and keyless entry; energy efficiency
components.
•Perimeter landscaping planned; sidewalk along shore street and interior
to development

27

28

Adjoining Zoning/Uses

29

Comprehensive Plan
Considerations
•Designated as Historic Core Neighborhood on Future Land Use Map;
areas in the heart of the City which reflect the City’s historic
development pattern
• Multi-family dwellings and infill development are included as primary
land uses, but new development should fit the scale, proportion, and
character of any existing development
•Development principles include preserving existing tree canopy and
including new plantings when necessary
•“The overall age, development pattern, and scale make Petersburg’s
historic core neighborhoods special places worthy of preservation”

30

31

32

Staff Concerns
•Inconsistencies/lack of clarity in application:
• Renderings do not appear to accurately represent site
• Lack of scaled layout plan
• Additional detail needed on how parking would be accommodated
• Conflicting information on unit count
• Features mentioned in application not clear on renderings/concept plan
• Unclear whether the size of the site could accommodate scale of
development proposed without adverse impacts/violation of City Code

•The proposed building height exceeds what is allowed in the B-2 or R-5
Districts; approximately 52 feet in height compared to the 45 feet and
three stories allowed.
•Loss of greenspace; unclear how parking lot greenspace could be met
with parking as proposed

33

Staff Concerns – traffic flow/impacts
•Both Shore Street and Gates Lane are
considered substandard; Gates Lane is only
12-13 feet wide and has no existing
curb/gutter or sidewalk
•Proposed development could result in
approximately 330 additional trips on the
local streets per day
•Unclear how one-way traffic flow through site
can accommodate emergency vehicles

34

Staff Concerns – Comprehensive Plan Compliance
•The proposed apartment building would vary widely in scale, proportion
and character from existing development in the area

•Existing buildings do not exceed 2.5 stories, and most are under 3,000
square feet, proposed buildings 5 stories and likely 9-10,000 square feet
•The Comprehensive Plan speaks to need for housing, but importance of
appropriately siting housing stock

•Application does not adequately address measures taken to ensure the
proposal would preserve the character of the existing neighborhood
and avoid adverse impacts

35

Planning Commission Options
•Recommend approval of special use permit
•Recommend approval of special use permit with conditions
•Recommend denial of the special use permit
Staff recommendation: Denial of request as presented due to
adverse impacts to surrounding properties, unlikeliness the site
could accommodate the scale of development, and lack of
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

36

A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PETITION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING AS AUTHORIZED AND CONTROLLED BY THE R-5 MULTIPLE DWELLING
DISTRICT STANDARDS AT 30 SHORE STREET PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 031310003 IN THE B-2,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRCT

WHEREAS, the City of Petersburg Zoning Ordinance establishes zoning districts and permitted uses
within each district; and
WHEREAS, the City received a petition from Sheila and Rashad Coleman, Greater Community
Housing LLC, on behalf of Chanelle Welch, Trustee of the Chanelle Welch Living Trust, owner of
property at 30 Shore Street for a special use permit pursuant to Article 23) of the Zoning Ordinance to
construct up to 50-unit multiple-family dwelling units subject to the regulations of the R-5 Multiple
Dwelling District; and
WHEREAS, the applicant provided an application describing the proposed development including
renderings of the proposed buildings and a concept plan of the proposed layout; and
WHEREAS, the previous use of the site included multi-family units which burned down in 2008; and
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission has found the development would not result in adverse impacts on
public health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding properties; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Titles 15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285 of the Code of Virginia, as
amended, a public hearing was advertised and held, in accordance with applicable laws.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of a
petition for a special use permit for multiple-family dwellings at 30 Shore Street in the B-2, General
Commercial District.

37

City of Petersburg
Department of Planning and Community Development
PROCEDURES FOR PETITION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS

1. Applicant files petition with the Petersburg Department of Planning and Community
Development, City Hall, 135 N Union Street, Petersburg, Virginia 23803.
2. The Filing fee for Petitions for Special Use Permits is $1,500. A Check or Money
Order made payable to the City of Petersburg is to accompany the application.
3. A Plat of the property must also accompany the petition.
4. The Department of Planning and Community Development Staff will refer the petition to the
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and consideration the petition. Department of
Planning and Community Development staff shall advertise the public hearing twice during a
fourteen-day period, and the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, and make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.
5. The City Council schedules then advertises a public hearing regarding the petition.
6. The City Council holds a public hearing then considers the petition with the Planning Commission
recommendation and renders a final decision to approve or disapprove the petition.

PLEASE NOTE: The special use permit process may take up to three months.

1

38

PETITION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
RETURN TO: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(CITY HALL, THIRD FLOOR, ROOM 304)
FILING FEE: $1,500 (CHECK OR MONEY ORDER) AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT: RS Coleman Homes
ADDRESS:

I,

hereby petition for a special use permit for ______________
at the following described properties:

A. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: (INCLUDE ANY PROPOSED CONDITIONS)

Residential apartments with 50 units for market rate use

B. PROPERTY INFORMATION
1. Tax Parcel Identification Number(s):

031-310003
2. Current Street Address(es) if assigned):

30 Shore St, Petersburg, VA 23803
3. Approximate Area:

26000

sq. ft.

acres

4. Public Street Frontage:
ft.
5. A boundary plat of this property outlining the area to be use must be attached to this petition.
6. The following deed restrictions may affect the use of this property:

7. Brief:
Said deed restrictions will expire on:
2

39

C. JUSTIFICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. The proposed use is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community because: (Provide a detailed statement of reasons why the proposed use should be
granted).

The apartment building will include garage parking under the building, gym, laundry facility
leasing office, lounge area for residents and mailroom. We're requesting to increase the height restrictions

to allow for five floors to include the parking garage.

2. The material impact of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public welfare of the City
nor to adjacent property owner(s) or properties located within the nearby vicinity because:
(Specify reasons to substantiate this statement and/or present ways the impact may be mitigated).
The building will enhance the area and will not cause any detrimental issue to the City or it's current residents.

The apartments will offer additional housing for the area and will include parking as to not cause any traffic

issues for the area.

3. The proposed use will be advantageous to the City and benefit the welfare of the general public
because: (Specify reasons to substantiate this statement).
This luxury apartment building will provide luxury living space offering one and two bedrooms.

4. Describe your experience with developing and maintaining the use in question (Provide references
and/or examples).
JC Bynum Construction is a Class A Construction Company with a residential and commercial specialization and

has been in business since 2008 with many successful projects. Currently in Petersburg we've built several

luxury affordable homes on Bolling, Shore and Wilson Street.

3

40

D. CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned applicant certifies that they:
_____________ (a)

are the owner, lessee or agent for (specified in writing)

_____________ (b)

possess a proprietary interest in (contract or option agreement)

the property(ies) identified within this PETITION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, and that the
foregoing information and statements herein provided, and all other information herewith
submitted, are in all respects true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.

Signed:

Sheila Coleman

Mailing Address:

Phone Number:
Email Address:
APPROVED

City Attorney

TO BE FILED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION RECORD
Date Filed (with Planning Department):
Date of Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Planning Commission Action(s):
Date of City Council Hearing:
City Council Action(s):

4

41

PETITION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Written Narrative and Justification
30 Shore Street • Petersburg, Virginia 23803
Parcel ID: 031-310003 • B-2, General Commercial District
Applicant: Greater Community Housing LLC / Sheila and Rashad Coleman

1. Executive Summary
Greater Community Housing LLC, on behalf of property owners Sheila and Rashad Coleman
and Chanelle Welch, respectfully petitions the City of Petersburg Planning Commission for a
Special Use Permit to construct a multiple-family residential development at 30 Shore Street.
The applicant proposes three (3) residential apartment buildings, each five (5) stories in height,
containing a combined total of a minimum of fifty (50) market-rate residential units — twenty-five
(25) one-bedroom units and twenty-five (25) two-bedroom units.
This application responds to City staff’s review of the original case 2025-SUP-04 and to
subsequent direction provided by Jared Crews, the City’s Director of Planning, regarding the
scope and process of this petition. As confirmed by Planning staff, this Special Use Permit
governs the residential use of the property and the proposed site layout; it does not, and cannot,
grant relief from the B-2 District’s height limitation. The applicant understands that the proposed
building height — approximately 52 feet across five (5) stories — exceeds the B-2 District’s 45foot / three-story maximum, and that a separate variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) will be required before construction can proceed at this height. Consistent with Planning
staff’s direction, the applicant understands that the BZA process cannot be initiated until this
Special Use Permit has been approved, and respectfully requests that the Commission consider
this application on that basis.
This proposal distributes the development across three separate buildings rather than a single
large structure, resolves the prior emergency-access concern raised in the original review by
keeping ground-level parking internal to each building’s footprint, and provides a complete,
specific description of the proposed development and site plan as requested by Planning staff.
As described in Sections 4 and 5.4, the applicant’s civil engineer is finalizing a structured
parking solution to meet the City’s parking requirement within the buildable area established by
the confirmed B-2 yard setbacks, and will provide complete parking details prior to the public
hearing.

2. Site and Property History
The subject property is a 0.5206-acre (22,677 square foot) vacant lot located at the southeast
corner of Shore Street and Gates Lane, identified as Parcel ID 031-310003. The property is
currently zoned B-2, General Commercial District.
Critically, this site has a well-established history as a residential property. Prior to the fire that
destroyed the structures on this lot, the property contained three (3) residential apartment
buildings. The proposed development is not the introduction of a new use — it is the restoration
of housing that previously existed on this site. The applicant is seeking to return the property to
its prior residential function in a form that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and
compliant with all applicable regulations other than the building height addressed in Section 3
below.

42

The lot has approximately 74.70 feet of frontage on Shore Street to the south and runs
approximately 304.74 feet along Gates Lane to the east. The western boundary measures
approximately 294 feet total (146.77 ft + 147.42 ft per survey). Neighboring properties include
residential uses to the north, east, and west, and mixed commercial and residential uses further
along Sycamore Street to the south.

3. Regulatory Process and Scope of This Application
The subject property is zoned B-2, General Commercial District. Per direction from Jared
Crews, the City of Petersburg’s Director of Planning, multi-family residential use is not a
permitted use in the B-2 District by right; it requires this Special Use Permit regardless of
building height or unit count. This Special Use Permit therefore governs the applicant’s request
to use the property for residential apartments and establishes the approved site layout, building
footprints, parking, access, and landscaping.
The B-2 District separately imposes a maximum building height of 45 feet / three stories. The
Special Use Permit process does not have authority to waive or modify this height standard.
Relief from the height standard can only be granted through a variance from the City’s Board of
Zoning Appeals, and that process can only be initiated after this Special Use Permit has been
approved.
The applicant is presenting a single, specific proposal — three buildings of five stories each,
totaling 50 units — as the development it intends to construct on this site, consistent with
Planning staff’s request for an application that describes exactly what the applicant is seeking
and includes a detailed site plan. The applicant respectfully requests that the Planning
Commission approve the Special Use Permit for the residential use and the accompanying site
plan, with the shared understanding that a subsequent Board of Zoning Appeals variance
application will be required, and will be pursued promptly following Special Use Permit approval,
to authorize construction above the 45-foot / three-story limit.
The applicant further notes that the City of Petersburg is currently engaged in a comprehensive
update to its Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Should any provision of that update be adopted
prior to final action on this petition, the applicant respectfully requests that this application be
evaluated under the zoning regulations in effect as of the date of this submission, and reserves
the right to address any applicable transition or grandfathering provisions that may apply.

4. Description of Proposed Development
The applicant proposes to construct three (3) separate residential apartment buildings, each five
(5) stories in height (approximately 52 feet, based on an average floor-to-floor height of
approximately 10.5 feet), arranged along the length of the lot from Shore Street to the north end
near Gates Lane.

Building Program
•

Three separate residential buildings, each five (5) stories in height

•

Approximately 16 to 17 units per building, for a combined total of 50 units

•

Unit mix: 25 one-bedroom units (approximately 700 sq. ft.) and 25 two-bedroom units
(approximately 900 sq. ft.), with both unit types represented in each building

43

•

All units are market-rate with modern interior finishes including luxury vinyl plank
flooring, quartz countertops, stainless appliances, smart thermostats, and keyless entry

•

Energy-efficient construction with high-performance insulation and windows

•

Exterior materials and architectural character designed to complement the surrounding
Historic Core Neighborhood, with varied massing and articulation between the three
buildings to reduce the apparent bulk of any single structure

Parking and Site Layout
•

At least one level of resident parking is designed to be internal to each building’s
footprint

•

Additional structured parking — to be finalized by the applicant’s civil engineer — will
supplement this internal parking to meet the City’s requirement of one space per unit
plus guest parking; see the Parking Plan note below

•

Required B-2 District yard setbacks, as confirmed by City Planning staff, are: 0-foot front
yard (Shore Street); 5-foot side yard (west property line); 15-foot side yard on the cornerlot side (Gates Lane); and 25-foot rear yard (north property line). These setbacks apply
to both building structures and on-site parking areas

•

One-way vehicular access: entrance from Shore Street, exit onto Gates Lane

•

The drive lanes and open areas between the three buildings remain unobstructed by any
structure, preserving clear access for fire apparatus, ambulances, and refuse vehicles

•

Trash enclosure located at the north end of the site near the Gates Lane exit

•

Concrete sidewalk at Shore Street entrance with accessible path to all building entries

Parking Plan
Because the B-2 yard setbacks described above apply to parking areas as well as buildings, the
combined building-and-parking program for this site must fit within approximately 14,800 square
feet of buildable area — the 22,677-square-foot lot less the required front, side, corner-side, and
rear yards. A single ground-level, tuck-under parking configuration alone would not provide
adequate capacity for 50 units within that buildable area at the City’s required ratio of one space
per unit plus guest parking. The applicant’s civil engineer is accordingly finalizing a structured
parking solution — expected to include additional garage levels and/or partial below-grade
parking — to meet this requirement while preserving the proposed 50-unit program. The
applicant commits to providing a complete, engineered parking plan with exact space counts
and configuration to Planning staff prior to the public hearing.

5. Response to Planning Staff Concerns
The applicant has carefully reviewed the concerns identified by Planning staff in the October
2025 staff report and in subsequent correspondence, and addresses each below.

5.1 Building Height
The original proposal called for a single five-story building, which exceeded the B-2 District’s 45foot / three-story maximum. This proposal also exceeds that limit — three buildings of five
stories each, approximately 52 feet — and the applicant is not asking the Planning Commission
to waive that standard through this Special Use Permit. As described in Section 3, the applicant

44

requests approval of the Special Use Permit for the residential use and site layout, and will
separately pursue the required Board of Zoning Appeals variance once the Special Use Permit
is approved, consistent with the City’s process. Dividing the development into three smaller
buildings, rather than one large structure, meaningfully reduces the massing and visual bulk
associated with the additional height.

5.2 Building Bulk and Setbacks
The original single-building footprint of approximately 13,500 square feet covered the majority of
the lot. City Planning staff has confirmed the applicable B-2 yard setbacks for this corner lot: 0foot front yard along Shore Street, 5-foot side yard along the west property line, 15-foot side
yard along Gates Lane (the corner-lot side), and 25-foot rear yard along the north property line,
with these setbacks applying to both buildings and on-site parking. After excluding these
required yards, approximately 14,800 square feet of the 22,677-square-foot lot remains
available for combined building and parking use. The current proposal’s three buildings,
distributed across this buildable area rather than concentrated in one structure as in the original
design, substantially reduce the massing of any individual building and leave open area for
landscaping and emergency access. The site plan provided with this application includes a
graphic scale and will demonstrate setback compliance for both structures and parking areas.

5.3 Density
The R-5 District requires 250 square feet of lot area per one-bedroom unit and 500 square feet
per two-bedroom unit. With a total lot area of 22,677 square feet, the site can accommodate up
to 90 units if all one-bedroom, or up to 45 units if all two-bedroom. The proposed mix of 25 onebedroom and 25 two-bedroom units requires approximately 18,750 square feet of lot area (25 ×
250 + 25 × 500), leaving a buffer of approximately 3,927 square feet under the maximum
allowable density. The applicant notes that this 50-unit total is compliant specifically because of
the proposed bedroom mix — 50 units of an all-two-bedroom configuration would exceed the
District’s density limit — and will confirm the final unit mix and density calculation in the
engineered site plan submittal.

5.4 Parking
The original plan showed 50 parking spaces for 50 units, which staff identified as potentially
insufficient. The applicant’s governing parking requirement is one space per unit plus guest
parking. Because the B-2 yard setbacks described in Section 5.2 apply to parking areas as well
as buildings, the combined building-and-parking program must fit within the approximately
14,800-square-foot buildable envelope described above. A single ground-level tuck-under
parking configuration alone would not provide sufficient capacity within that envelope at 50
units; accordingly, the applicant’s civil engineer is finalizing a structured parking solution —
expected to include additional garage levels and/or partial below-grade parking — to meet the
required ratio while preserving the proposed 50-unit program. The applicant commits to
providing a complete, engineered parking plan with exact space counts and configuration to
Planning staff prior to the public hearing.
The applicant also notes that a new Virginia law (Va. Code § 15.2-2209.4), effective July 1,
2026, caps minimum required parking for multifamily development at 0.5 spaces per unit on
parcels located within one-half mile of a qualifying transit stop. The applicant requests that
Planning staff confirm whether this site qualifies, as it may reduce the structured parking
capacity needed to satisfy the requirement.

5.5 Landscaping and Tree Canopy

45

The applicant acknowledges the importance of greenspace preservation and the requirements
of the newly adopted landscaping ordinance. Although the proposed building footprint is larger
than that of the previously contemplated 8-to-15-unit version of this proposal, the three-building
arrangement still leaves meaningful open and pervious area between structures compared to a
single, monolithic building of equivalent unit count. The site plan will incorporate retention of a
minimum 10% tree canopy coverage on site, new native plantings along the perimeter and
between buildings, landscaped buffers adjacent to the sidewalk along Shore Street, and
stormwater-permeable surfaces where feasible in parking and drive areas.

5.6 Street Conditions and Traffic
Planning staff correctly identified that Shore Street (approximately 20 feet wide) and Gates Lane
(approximately 12–13 feet wide) are substandard. At 50 units, this proposal generates an
estimated 330 vehicle trips per day (based on ITE rates of approximately 6.65 trips per unit) —
consistent with, not a reduction from, the trip generation associated with the original 50-unit
proposal. The applicant does not represent that this design reduces overall trip volume; rather, it
mitigates the impact of that volume through design: a one-way traffic pattern (in from Shore
Street, out to Gates Lane) that distributes traffic and avoids conflicting movements, and the
elimination of in-garage vehicle maneuvering present in the original design. The applicant
remains open to discussing a contribution to, or coordination with, the City on near-term
improvements to Gates Lane, such as grading or drainage improvements, and welcomes a
traffic study if the Commission determines one is warranted given the site’s substandard street
frontage.

5.7 Emergency Vehicle and Service Access
A significant concern with the original proposal was that emergency vehicles and waste
collection trucks would be required to travel through the parking garage to access the site. In
this proposal, ground-level parking is contained entirely within each building’s own footprint; the
open drive lanes and turnaround areas between the three buildings are not used for parking and
remain unobstructed. This preserves clear, direct access for fire apparatus, ambulances, and
refuse vehicles throughout the site without requiring travel through any structure.

5.8 Application Completeness
Staff noted that the original application lacked exterior renderings, a scaled site plan, and
sufficient detail to verify code compliance, and subsequently requested an application
describing exactly what the applicant is seeking along with a detailed site plan. This submission
describes a single, specific proposal — three five-story buildings totaling 50 units — and will be
accompanied by a scaled site plan showing all buildings, setbacks, access, and landscaping. As
described in Section 5.4, the parking configuration is still being finalized by the applicant’s civil
engineer to meet the required ratio within the setback-constrained buildable area, and a
complete parking plan will be provided prior to the public hearing. Exterior elevation renderings
illustrating the architectural character of the proposed buildings will also be provided to staff
prior to the public hearing. The applicant is committed to working cooperatively with Planning
staff during the review process, including on the subsequent Board of Zoning Appeals variance
application.

46

6. Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The property is designated a Historic Core Neighborhood on the Future Land Use Map of the
Petersburg NEXT Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies multi-family
dwellings and infill development as primary land uses within Historic Core Neighborhoods,
provided that new development fits the scale, proportion, and character of the existing
development pattern.
The applicant acknowledges that the proposed five-story height exceeds the 2.5-story scale of
existing residential structures noted in the staff report, and does not represent otherwise. The
applicant submits that the proposal nonetheless advances the Comprehensive Plan’s broader
goals in several respects: dividing the development into three separate buildings, rather than
one large structure, breaks up the massing and keeps each building’s individual footprint
modest relative to the lot; the project rebuilds housing that previously existed on this site after it
was lost to fire, which is precisely the type of infill the Comprehensive Plan encourages; and the
development is designed to preserve and supplement the existing tree canopy consistent with
the Plan’s development principles for Historic Core Neighborhoods. The applicant respectfully
submits that, on balance, the public benefit of restoring substantial housing capacity to this longvacant, fire-damaged parcel outweighs the departure from the neighborhood’s prevailing
building height, and requests the Commission’s and, subsequently, the Board of Zoning
Appeals’ consideration on that basis.

7. Public Benefit and Community Need
The City of Petersburg is experiencing a documented housing shortage, and the addition of
market-rate residential units in an underserved neighborhood serves a genuine public need.
The proposed development will:
•

Restore residential use to a site that has been vacant since a fire destroyed three
apartment buildings that previously stood here

•

Add 50 quality housing units to the city’s housing supply at market rate

•

Generate substantial new property tax revenue from a currently vacant parcel

•

Improve the appearance and safety of a long-vacant lot in a residential neighborhood

•

Provide substantial on-site parking, including ground-level structured parking, to reduce
street congestion

•

Support Petersburg’s broader goal of attracting new residents and investment to its
Historic Core Neighborhoods

8. Developer Qualifications
The project is being developed by Greater Community Housing LLC in partnership with Sheila
and Rashad Coleman. JC Bynum Construction, the project’s builder, is a licensed Class A
contractor with more than 20 years of experience in residential and commercial construction.
The firm has completed multiple successful projects in the City of Petersburg, including luxury
residential homes on Bolling Street, Shore Street, and Wilson Street, demonstrating familiarity
with the local regulatory environment and commitment to quality construction within the
community.

47

9. Conclusion
The applicant respectfully requests that the Petersburg Planning Commission approve this
Special Use Permit for a multiple-family residential development consisting of three five-story
buildings totaling 50 market-rate units at 30 Shore Street. The applicant understands, and this
application makes clear, that Special Use Permit approval does not constitute approval of the
proposed building height; the applicant will separately pursue the required Board of Zoning
Appeals variance following Special Use Permit approval, consistent with the process described
by Jared Crews, the City’s Director of Planning.
This project will restore substantial housing to a lot where apartments previously stood, bring a
long-vacant property back into productive use, and contribute to the residential character and
vitality of the neighborhood. The applicant looks forward to working with Planning staff, the
Commission, and the Board of Zoning Appeals toward a successful outcome.
Respectfully submitted,
Greater Community Housing LLC
Sheila and Rashad Coleman, Property Owners
30 Shore Street, Petersburg, VA 23803
804-615-0662 | [email protected]

48

49

50

CITY OF PETERSBURG
FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM)
ADOPTED MAY 21, 2024

City of
Colonial
Heights

E. Bank St.

St.

St
.
W
in
dh
am

Baxter

.
vd
Bl

e ll
sk
Ha

St .

e.
Av

301

Banister Rd.

d.
an
dy
Dr
.

Pkw

y.

d.

es
te

ad

D r.

R
ton
mp
tha

ne
rR

No
rm

r
No

Rd.

Blvd.

95

.
Rd

rk
Pa
S.

.
Dr

fiel
Bras

d

Rd.
agner
Old W
M

Squ

Ho
m

Rd.

ells
W

irrel
Leve
l

h
ut
So

W
ag

St.
Halifa
x

St.
We
st

Dup
uy R
d

y
oun
t

St
.

.
Dr

e Rd.
Defens

N. Stedman Dr.

ty
un

wid
die
C

Ve
rn
on

E.

h
W. Sout

d.

95

t.

85

ke
no

ill R
yH

Co

Din

ty
un
Co

t.
re S
amo

M

al
edi c

rR

Community Mixed-Use

D
Park r.

ate
Cr
S.

Neighborhood Commercial

Bi
rd
so
ng

General Industrial
Civic

F la
nk

Research and Development

R d.

d.

Johnson Rd.

Corridor Commercial

Rd
.

301

Rives Rd.

rg
e Geo
Princ

fax
Hali
Rd.

Conservation and
Recreation

e
rg

St .

.
Rd

c
S. Sy

St.

kor
Hic

k St.

ya
We

South Crater Urban
Development Area (UDA)

Community Residential

St. Mar

85

Waterways

Historic Core Neighborhoods

St.
rson
S. Je3e

ing
Hard

Appomattox River

.

e Rd.

Roads

ve.
le A
n da
Fer

301

Fort Le

City Limits

t.

1

Youngs Rd.

LEGEND

t.
the S

t.
eS
erc

rS
me
Far

n St.
hingto

r
ate
Cr
N.

t.
hS
Hig

Ave.

E. Wy
m
Com

eo
eG
inc
Pr

Grove

ick
Patr

ty
oun

h
urc
Ch

ld C

Ave.
Richmond

St.

Old
N.

fie
ter
hes

N. Market St.

C

as
W. W

gton
ashin
E. W

95

nty
e Cou

±

Gateways
Corridors

51

PART II - CODE
APPENDIX B - ZONING
ARTICLE 10. "R-5" MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT REGULATIONS

ARTICLE 10. "R-5" MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Section 1. [Purpose.]
The regulations set forth in this article or set forth elsewhere in this ordinance when referred to in this
article, are the regulations in the "R-5" Multiple Dwelling District. This district provides for the highest density
multiple-family residence, either in new construction or for conversion of existing dwellings to apartments, in older
sections of the city.

Section 2. Use regulations.
A building or premises shall be used only for the following purposes:
(1)

Any use permitted in the "R-1" Two-Family Residence District and the "R-3" Two-Family Residence
District;

(2)

Multiple-family dwellings;

(3)

Private clubs, fraternities, sororities, and lodges excepting those the chief activity of which is a service
customarily carried on as a business;

(4)

Parking areas (Ground level);

(5)

Accessory buildings and uses not otherwise prohibited in this section;

(6)

Nonprofit religious, educational and philanthropic institutions.

Section 3. Height, area and bulk regulations.
The height, are and bulk requirements shall be as set forth in the chart of article 22 of this ordinance; except:
(1)

Requirements for lot area per family shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities or sororities where no
cooking facilities are provided in individual rooms or apartments.

Section 4. Reference to additional regulations.
The regulations contained in this article are supplemented or modified by regulations contained in other
articles of this ordinance, especially the following: Article 19, Off-street parking regulations, except that required
off-street parking shall be provided in the rear of such buildings or in the portion of the side yards except adjacent
to a street, if a corner lot, lying to the rear of extensions of the front line of such building; Article 20, Off-street
loading regulations; Article 23, Supplementary use regulations; Article 25, Supplementary height, area and bulk
regulations.

Petersburg, Virginia, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 19, Update 3)

Created: 2024-10-28 16:42:12 [EST]

Page 1 of 1

52

HISTORIC CORE NEIGHBORHOODS
Historic core neighborhoods directly reflect
Petersburg’s historic development pattern and
are generally located in the heart of Petersburg
north of Interstate 85 and west of Interstate
95. This development pattern consists of
relatively short blocks in a grid orientation,
small lots, and residential dwellings in a variety
of architectural styles and developed at a
moderate density. The overall age, development
pattern, and scale make Petersburg’s historic
core neighborhoods special places worthy
of preservation. Revitalization of historic core
neighborhoods will serve as a catalyst for
revitalization throughout the City.
Development in historic core neighborhoods
should continue the existing historic street
grid, be sited on compact lots, front on the
public right-of-way, and use architecture that
is complementary to the historic character
of surrounding structures. Single-family
attached and detached dwellings, accessory
dwelling units, and the adaptive reuse of
former single-family structures into triplexes
or fourplexes are all appropriate to expand
the variety of housing options. Triplexes and
fourplexes are appropriate, even if not part
of a retrofitted structure, provided they fit the
architectural character of the surrounding area.
Streetscapes should integrate streetlighting

and landscaping, with separated pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure on higher volume
streets. Renovation of existing structures,
adaptive reuse, and infill are the most
appropriate methods of new construction in
historic core neighborhoods due to a high
number of blighted properties and few large,
vacant lots. All renovations and infill within
designated Local Historic Districts should
conform to the Historic District Design
Guidelines and decisions of the Architectural
Review Board (ARB).

Primary Land Uses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Accessory dwelling units
Multi-family dwellings
Parks, open space, trails, and
recreational facilities
Places of worship
Residential adaptive reuse
Residential infill development
Schools and daycares
Senior housing
Single-family attached dwellings (e.g.,
rowhouses, duplexes)
Single-family detached dwellings
Triplexes and fourplexes

Massie Street | Lexington, VA

Planning + Development Principles
•

•

•
•

•

•

•
•

53

Continue the existing street grid pattern,
with new development providing
interconnected streets and pedestrian
infrastructure where appropriate.
Direct the preservation, renovation,
reuse, and adaptive use of existing
structures.
Protect and enhance historic structures.
Ensure that both new and infill
development fits the scale, size,
proportion, and character of any
existing development pattern.
Include a variety of housing types,
including accessory dwelling units, to
accommodate varying income levels.
Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle
connections and safety enhancements
where possible.
Orient new buildings towards the street.
Preserve the existing tree canopy and
include native plantings when new
landscaping is necessary.

| 249

BLIGHT ABATEMENT AND
REHABILITATION
A blighted property is an individual structure
that poses a threat to the community’s general
health, safety, and welfare due to dilapidation,
deterioration, or a violation of minimum
health and safety standards (Code of Virginia
Section 36-3). Blighted properties have several
effects on community life in Petersburg,
including
depressed
property
values,
increased disinvestment from businesses, and
heavy financial and time burdens on local
government. In some cases, blighted properties
become associated with illicit activity, posing
significant threats to the health and safety of
the greater community. Additionally, blight
and disinvestment send messages to potential
residents that the quality of life they may be
seeking for their family is best met elsewhere,
dampening population growth in Petersburg.

Code Enforcement as “red tag” properties,
or properties that have been identified as
uninhabitable and evacuated or vacant, are
shown in Maps 3.1 through 3.5, and generally
have the following characteristics:
•

Red tag properties are concentrated
in the central area of the City, north of
Interstate 85 and west of Interstate 95.

•

Red tag properties inversely correlate
with median household income: the
lower the household income of an area,
the greater the likelihood of blight.

•

About half of identified red tag
properties fall within the boundaries
of a designated local, state, or federal
historic district.

•

Red tag properties tend to inversely
correlate with owner-occupancy rate.

There are several challenges to identifying
and eliminating blight in Petersburg. One of
the biggest challenges to blight abatement
in Petersburg is limited staff and financial
constraints. Without adequate resources,
Petersburg will be unable to proactively
identify and remedy blighted properties.
Petersburg should prioritize the expansion of
its Department of Code Enforcement, aiming to
double the number of staff responsible for code
enforcement within the next five years.

The City of Petersburg Department of Code
Enforcement is responsible for property
maintenance code enforcement. Procedures
for identifying and remedying blighted and
derelict property are outlined in Chapter 22
of the City’s Code of Ordinances and align
with what is permitted by the Code of Virginia.
The Virginia National Guard assists the City
with blight abatement on an annual basis
through demolition of properties in violation.
Properties identified by the Department of
54

| 63

MAP 4.1 | RED TAG PROPERTIES
City of
Colonial
Heights

St .

Halifa
x

ty
un

301

cam
t.
ore S

Cou

E.

Din
wid

die

Co

unt

y

d.

Youngs Rd.

Dup
uy R

Co

t.

Petersburg
National
Battlefield

S. Sy

ton S

1

e
rg
eo

t.
the S

d.

E . Wy

rR
ate
Cr
N.

C

s h in g
W. Wa

t.

eG

C

95

y

S
ton

inc
Pr

ield

f
ter
hes

t
oun

g
ashin
E. W

So

h
ut

nty
Dr.

.
vd
Bl

ell
sk
Ha

e.
Av

Rd.

Dr.

R
agner
Ol d W

r
ate
Cr
S.

ughan R d.
Va

Ho
me
ste
ad

J o h nson

W
ag

ne
r

Rd
.

85

d.

.
Rd

d.

95

k R

LEGEND

an

Fl

City Limits

301

Petersburg National Battlefield
P

Identified Red Tag Properties

64 |

55

unty

o
rge C

Geo
rince

.
x Rd

Appomattox River

ifa
Hal

Roads

±

SOURCE: City of Petersburg, Virginia (November 2022)

MAPS 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 | RED TAG PROPERTIES AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

HISTORIC DISTRICTS

OWNER OCCUPANCY RATE

VACANCY RATE

RED TAG PROPERTY
LOW

BLOCK GROUP
HIGH
SOURCES: City of Petersburg, Virginia; American Community Survey 2016-2021

56

| 65

Absentee landowners, or property owners
who live outside of Petersburg or Virginia,
present challenges to blight abatement due to
both physical distance and legal constraints
in issuing summonses. Absentee landowners
often lead to code violations due to a lack of the
owner's continuous monitoring of the property.
This can lead to blight, creating a cycle that
becomes increasingly difficult to manage and
correct over time.
While Petersburg cannot prevent absentee
landowners or corporations from purchasing
property, there are several ways to ensure they
are fully maintaining and investing in their
assets:
•
•

•

66 |

Provide adequate staff and financial
resources to enforce City Ordinances.
Review City Ordinances to ensure that
penalties for violations are clearly stated
and set to the maximum allowable by
the Code of Virginia.
Amend City Ordinances to deny
issuing building permits to owners
of tax-delinquent property until the
delinquency is remedied, as permitted
by Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2286.

Finally, the City’s older housing stock coupled
with low rates of development can contribute
to blight by constraining the available supply for
potential buyers and renters, creating pressure
to keep older homes in service longer. With
many of Petersburg’s existing homes over 40
years old, the need for upkeep and maintenance
can require investments in major building
systems, weatherization, energy efficiency,
accessibility, and other building repairs, which
can often be cost-prohibitive for owners. For
properties within a designated local or federal
historic district, there are additional standards
for aesthetic appearance, adding even more
time and cost burden for owners.

Table 4.1 | Housing Rehabilitation
Programs and Resources
Click the links to learn more about the available programs!
Available
Program

Organization

Link

Emergency
Home and
Accessibility
Repair
Program

Virginia
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development

dhcd.virginia.
gov/eharp

Indoor
Plumbing and
Rehabilitation

Virginia
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development

dhcd.virginia.
gov/ipr

Weatherization
Deferral Repair

Virginia
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development

dhcd.virginia.
gov/wdr

Weatherization
Assistance
Program

Virginia
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development

dhcd.virginia.
gov/wx

Virginia Livable
Home Tax
Credit

Virginia
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development

dhcd.virginia.
gov/lhtc

Rental Unit
Accessibility
Modification
Program

Virginia Housing

virginiahousing.
com/renters/
accessibilitygrants

Lead Hazard
Reduction

Virginia
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development

dhcd.virginia.
gov/lhr

Programs and Resources
Several grants and homeowner assistance
programs from the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development (DHCD)
are readily available and can provide property
owners with the financial and educational
support they need to keep their home
maintained. These programs offer assistance
with rehabilitation, weatherization, and more
to ensure homes remain safe, stable, and wellmaintained. Examples of these programs and
resources are shown in Table 4.1.

57

Moving Forward
There are several solutions the City can pursue
to aid in the fight against blight. Some of these
are regulatory in nature, including evaluating
an increase in fines for violations and adopting
a drug blight ordinance in accordance with the
Code of Virginia Section 15.2-907. A drug blight
ordinance provides the City with an additional
mechanism to eliminate blight associated with
confirmed criminal activity.

Blight Abatement in Historic Districts
Demolition in designated local or national
historic districts should be avoided. Demolition
in areas not designated as historic districts
may be pursued after other options have been
exhausted or proven infeasible, with contiguous
properties assembled and marketed to develop
small-scale subdivisions of single-family
residences or duplexes. This paves the way for
infill that is complementary to the surrounding
neighborhood. Reviewing and updating the
City’s Zoning and Subdivision ordinances
to ensure minimum lot sizes facilitate
development that is compatible with existing
neighborhood character is an important and
relevant opportunity.

The City should establish a data-driven, digital
real estate database to include property
records, maps, and code violations to support
code enforcement and policy development
efforts. Moving towards data-driven property
maintenance code enforcement will improve
efforts by allowing City officials to allocate
limited resources to achieve the greatest
impact. It will also provide additional
quantitative data for City Staff, City Council,
and the court system, to, at a minimum, track
progress over time and to better determine
priority areas for intervention. Having a
rigorous system to provide readily available
data can also better inform Ordinance updates
and capital improvements planning.
Ultimately, further study will be necessary to
develop a fully comprehensive blight abatement
strategy. The City should make the completion
of a blight study, and the creation and adoption
of a blight abatement strategy, a short-term
high priority.

Mayton Transfer Lofts

58

| 67

Working Together for
Vibrant Neighborhoods and Housing for All
Goal Statement: Petersburg will be a city where all housing and neighborhoods are attractive, safe, and
accessible to all residents.
Objectives

Strategies
4.1.1: Create a stand-alone, comprehensive residential blight abatement strategy.
4.1.2: Adopt a drug blight ordinance in accordance with the Code of Virginia as an additional mechanism to
eliminate blight associated with confirmed criminal activity.
4.1.3: Ensure that penalties for blight violations are clearly stated in the City’s Ordinances and set to the maximum
allowable by state code.

4.1 Systematically identify 4.1.4: Avoid demolition of properties in identified historic districts, pursuing rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, or
and eradicate residential creative reuse instead.
blight across Petersburg. 4.1.5: Allow demolition as needed in non-historic districts to allow infill with compatible residential development.
4.1.6: Create an online code enforcement database to allocate City resources more efficiently, track progress, and
guide Ordinance updates and capital improvements planning.
4.1.7: Partner with the Virginia National Guard to eradicate blighted structures.
4.1.8: Prioritize the expansion of its Department of Neighborhood Services, aiming to double the number of
staff responsible for code enforcement within the next five years.
4.1.9: Develop a robust code enforcement strategy to allow the City to be more proactive in preventing properties
from reaching Red Tag status.

78 |

59

Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS)
Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS) is
dedicated to excellence in education and has
a mission of developing “21st-century citizens
able to effectively collaborate, communicate
and innovate.” The system is comprised of
seven schools, one early childhood center,
and one alternative program for a total student
enrollment of 4,045 as of 2023.
In 2016, PCPS entered a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Virginia Board
of Education. The purpose of this MOU was to
assist PCPS in obtaining full accreditation for
all schools. As of the 2022-2023 school year,
all schools are now accredited. Maintaining
accreditation should be the top priority for PCPS;
capital improvements which assist in meeting
this goal should be pursued accordingly.
Innovate 2022, the PCPS strategic plan, focuses
on instruction-based strategies, which are the
purview of the School Board and its staff. PCPS
also submits an annual capital improvement
plan (CIP) as part of the budget process.
Currently, most capital projects undertaken by
PCPS are maintenance oriented. These include
new roofing for several schools, track and field
improvements, HVAC related items, and school
buses. The 2021 Facility Evaluation and Efficiency
Review, conducted between PCPS and the
Virginia Department of Education (VDOE),

132 |

PETERSBURG CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Cool Spring
Elementary
School

Lakemont
Elementary
School

Pleasants Lane
Elementary
School

Walnut Hill
Elementary
School

6th Grade
Academy at
Blandford

Vernon Johns
Middle School

Petersburg High
School

Westview Early
Childhood
Education
Center

Pittman
Academy

60

SOURCE, ALL: Petersburg City Public Schools

identified recommendations for capital projects
to improve efficiency and safety in operations
at all City public schools. While the study did
not find a need to provide additional classroom
spaces or alter grade structures due to an
ongoing decline in student enrollment, several
capital projects were recommended as high
priorities at all PCPS facilities, including ADA
accessibility at playgrounds and bathrooms,
safety and vehicular circulation, interior lighting
upgrades, and HVAC replacement. The PCPS
CIP for fiscal years 2023-2027 allocates funding
for priority improvements based on these
recommendations.

Table 6.1 | Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS) Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2023-2027
Fiscal Year

Improvement

Location

Cost

Description

2023-24

Parent Drop Off Loop

Westview Early Childhood
Education Center

$262,000

Safety improvements to
establish a safe parent drop
off area.

Roof Replacement

Westview Early Childhood
Education Center

$350,000

Roof leak repair.

Window Replacement

Cool Spring ES

$356,000

Energy efficient window
replacement; includes
ESSER Grant funding.

New Ceiling &
Lighting

Cool Spring ES

$35,000

Energy efficient lighting &
ceiling replacement; includes
ESSER Grant funding.

Roof Replacement

Lakemont ES

$350,000

Roof leak repair; includes
ESSER Grant funding.

New School
Construction

Westview/Walnut Hill ES
Replacement

$26,600,000 A new building is proposed
to consolidate two aging
school buildings.

Repoint/Repair/
Replace Brickwork

Walnut Hill ES

$150,000

Brick and mortar repair.

Bathroom Upgrade

Walnut Hill ES

$36,000

ADA upgrades and
enhancements; includes
ESSER Grant funding.

New Ceiling &
Lighting

Lakemont ES

$35,000

Energy efficient lighting &
ceiling replacement; includes
ESSER Grant funding.

Window Replacement

Lakemont ES

$266,400

Energy efficient window
replacement; includes
ESSER Grant funding.

Field House

Petersburg HS

$1,200,000

New field house to increase
functionality of activities.

Roof Replacement

Vernon Johns MS

$350,000

Roof leak repair; includes
ESSER Grant funding.

Roof Replacement

Cool Spring ES

$350,000

Roof leak repair; includes
ESSER Grant funding.

Replacement School
Bus

PCPS Transportation
Dept.

$103,000

Replacement of older bus.

New Ceiling &
Lighting

Pleasants Lane ES

$35,000

Energy efficient lighting &
ceiling replacement; includes
ESSER Grant funding.

2024-25

2025-26

Graduation Ceremony
Photo Credit: Petersburg City Public Schools

2026-27

61

SOURCE: Petersburg City Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2023-2027

| 133

GOVERNOR'S SCHOOLS
The Appomattox Regional Governor’s
School for the Arts and Technology
(ARGS) opened in the old Petersburg
High School in 1999, and offers six focus
areas: theatre arts, musical arts, visual arts,
dance, literary arts, and technology. ARGS
provides advanced instruction to gifted
and talented students with a curriculum
in their chosen area of study that would not
otherwise be available generally.
Students who participate in Virginia’s
Summer Residential Governor's Schools
return in the fall with new experiences to
share with their teachers and classmates,
and teachers who serve as instructors
for Summer Residential Governor's
Schools acquire new skills for working
with academically advanced students,
providing expanded knowledge and
content.

Schools are integral in fostering community
identity by serving as centralized gathering
places. Currently, PCPS allows third-party
groups to use its facilities with advance
permission. However, greater public access
to school property should be encouraged.
Envisioning schools to serve a dual purpose
as community centers weaves them more
tightly into the fabric of the community and
produces safe spaces for students to learn and
thrive outside the classroom. While prioritizing
maintenance and enhancement for the core
function of K-12 education, strategies and
capital projects can also be designed to include
items intended for extracurricular activities.
Examples such as holding community meetings
at schools, keeping playgrounds and fields
open to the public at nights and on weekends,
and allowing some access to computer labs
and maker spaces are all ideas that can help
advance synergy between neighborhoods and
schools, and help schools be seen as places for
continued life-long learning.

PROGRAMS AND
PARTNERSHIPS
Petersburg fosters and maintains many
partnerships and initiatives with other
organizations. These organizations all provide
valuable community services and maintain
an important physical presence in service
provision to the community. Continuing to work
with these groups, among others, is necessary
to provide quality community services to the
public:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

134 |

62

Appomattox Regional Water Authority
(ARWA)
Bon Secours
Central Virginia Health Services (CVHS)
Communities in Schools (CIS) of
Petersburg
Crater Planning District Commission
(CPDC)
Dominion Energy
Petersburg Career and Technical
Education
Petersburg Healthy Options Partnerships
(PHOPs)
South Central Wastewater Authority
(SCWWA)

Strengthening Infrastructure and Services
to Build a Stronger Petersburg
Goal Statement: Petersburg provides and maintains exceptional community facilities, services, and
infrastructure to enhance livability and promote a high quality of life for all residents.
Objectives

6.1 Demonstrate
commitment to
transparency, efficiency,
and accountability in
governance.

Strategies
6.1.1: Expand and improve external government communications through maintaining a robust social media
presence and revamping the City website to maintain regular updates on important announcements.
6.1.2: Create a phone-based civic alert system or a reverse 911 notification system to provide important updates
and emergency alerts to residents without internet access.
6.1.3: Enhance interdepartmental communication across City government as well as between the various public
boards and City Council.
6.1.4: Explore the feasibility of creating a centralized government complex.
6.1.5: Seek community input on service needs and priorities to ensure equitable investment in infrastructure and
facilities.

6.2 Offer City facilities
that are efficient,
effective, and meet the
needs of residents and
businesses.

6.2.1: Develop a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) as recommended by Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2239;
review annually to monitor progress and update with emerging needs.
6.2.2: Perform a Space Needs Assessment to determine and prioritize the needs of City departments and
facilities.
6.2.3: Inventory and assess unused City-owned land and parcels to determine optimal uses for City services
and/or redevelopment opportunities.

63

| 135

Objectives

Strategies

6.3.1: Develop comprehensive water, sewer, and stormwater improvement strategic plans to determine the
highest priority needs for investment.
6.3 Maintain functional
6.3.2: In partnership with Crater Planning District Commission (CPDC), develop a comprehensive Geographic
water, sewer, and
Information System (GIS) database and map for water, sewer, and stormwater systems.
stormwater infrastructure 6.3.3: Upgrade stormwater infrastructure in dense residential neighborhoods with histories of spot flooding and
to support residential
ponding issues.
and business
6.3.4: Assess utility needs in areas targeted for future commercial and industrial development, such as industrial
development.
parks.
6.3.5: Apply for state and federal grant programs to help address vital water, sewer, and stormwater
improvements.
6.4.1: Provide financial support to the Petersburg Public Library to maintain and grow the space as a valued
center of community and learning.
6.4 Expand educational
opportunities for
6.4.2: Pursue grant funding to support upgrades to existing broadband and cell service and expansion of
residents through
broadband in unserved areas to ensure universal access.
support of modern
6.4.3: Provide financial support to Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS) as they work to maintain accreditation
technology, Petersburg
for all schools, and complete capital improvements which assist in developing high-quality learning
City Public School
environments.
facilities, and community
6.4.4: Permit the use of Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS) facilities after-hours to provide safe,
spaces.
neighborhood-oriented space for education, recreation, and socialization.
6.4.5: Monitor Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS) student enrollment as a means of determining the shortterm and long-term needs of school facilities.

136 |

64

Objectives

Strategies
6.5.1: Improve collaboration between the Department of Social Services (DSS) and regional organizations to
alleviate caseload and provide more specialized assistance for residents.
6.5.2: Create a comprehensive informational clearinghouse available both online and as a paper copy that
provides a comprehensive list of available health and human services resources in the Tri-Cities region; review
and update annually.
6.5.3: Advertise, and encourage community involvement in, the Adopt-a-Spot, Adopt-a-Street, and Don’t Trash
6.5 Recognize the
Petersburg programs.
relationship between
6.5.4: In partnership with regional stakeholders, initiate educational campaigns and marketing efforts to reduce
high-quality community
solid waste flow and encourage household recycling and sustainability.
facilities and
infrastructure and overall 6.5.5: Allocate funding for the placement of additional waste receptables around Old Towne.
6.5.6: Promote urban gardens and small-scale agriculture by allowing unused City-owned property to be used
health, wellness, and
for community gardens.
quality of life.
6.5.7: In partnership with regional stakeholders, identify potential locations throughout Petersburg that could
support new pop-up Farmers' Markets.
6.5.8: Recommend approval of rezoning and development proposals for primary, urgent, and emergency medical
care land uses in and around the Old Towne, South Crater Road, and Blandford areas.
6.5.9: Strengthen existing partnerships with Virginia Department of Health (VDH), Central Virginia Health
Services (CVHS), and other regional organizations to identify community health needs and provide equitable
and reliable medical care.
6.5.10: Evaluate the potential for additional mobile markets during the summer months in partnership with PCPS,
local non-profits, and regional organizations.

65

| 137

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure is the circulatory system of a city.
It provides the necessary ingredients to build
the foundation of community vitality, such as
clean water and the removal of waste. Good
infrastructure gives a community what it needs
to grow. Conversely, inadequate infrastructure
can inhibit a city, keeping it from reaching its full
potential, particularly if upgraded systems are
needed to support industrial and commercial
growth.
For Petersburg, quality infrastructure is critical
to realizing positive economic development
outcomes and supporting the everyday lives
of its residents. By alleviating infrastructure
bottlenecks
and
maintaining
existing
infrastructure to the highest standards,
Petersburg will ensure that it has a solid
foundation to build the bright future of tomorrow.

Water and Sewer
Water is provided to the City of Petersburg
by the Appomattox River Water Authority
(ARWA). The Authority was formed in the
1960s to own and operate a regional water
supply and to provide drinking water to the
Cities of Petersburg and Colonial Heights and
the Counties of Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, and
Prince George. Water is supplied by the 3,100acre reservoir at nearby Lake Chesdin and
pumped to a nearby treatment facility capable

of producing up to 95 million gallons of treated
water per day. After treatment, finished water
is fed to a transmission system and distributed
into locally maintained water systems.
Wastewater is treated through an agreement
with the South Central Wastewater Authority
(SCWWA), which provides wastewater
treatment services to the Cities of Petersburg,
and Colonial Heights and the Counties of
Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, and Prince George. The
SCWWA operates the wastewater treatment
plant located east of Pocahontas Island on
Magazine Road. The plant was originally
constructed in 1955, with upgrades and
expansions in the 1970s and 1990s, bringing the
current treatment capacity to 20 million gallons
per day. This treatment capacity is expected to
be adequate for the City’s immediate needs, but
additional growth in the surrounding localities
may require expanded capacity during the
timeframe of this Plan. The SCWWA is currently
undertaking a nutrient reduction project and
additional improvements may be required over
time due to increasing regulatory requirements.
The local water and sewer systems within
Petersburg are maintained by the Department
of Public Works. The systems distribute
approximately 5 million gallons of drinking
water a day and collect 8 million gallons of
wastewater, including wastewater from several
neighboring jurisdictions and Fort Gregg66

Adams. These systems are comprised of 1,400
miles of pipe and include six water storage
tanks, 21 pump stations, and 1,375 fire hydrants.
Utility metering and billing is handled through
the Department of Public Utilities. Components
of the City’s metering system are older and in
need of replacement – particularly sewer lines,
many of which are at capacity. This can also
translate to inconsistencies and inaccuracies
in monthly bills, creating a financial and time
burden for residents. Additionally, much of the
in-ground infrastructure is located on private
property without easements, making access
and maintenance difficult.
Operating and maintaining water and sewer
systems is an expensive task. While not directly
responsible for production or treatment, the
City is a member of both the producing and
treatment authorities. Given Petersburg’s past
fiscal challenges, special consideration should
be given to maintaining an appropriate rate
structure. In addition, funding is needed for
improvements to the in-ground network. The
City should evaluate the current rate structure
to determine if it is adequate to cover the cost
of providing these services, especially in light
of increasing costs caused by recent inflation,
materials scarcities, and deferred maintenance.

| 123

MAP 6.2 | WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

City of
Colonial
Heights
gton
ashin
E. W

95

unt

Co

eG
i nc
Pr

ld
rfie

St .

y

ou

eC
rg
eo

e
est

Ch

unt

Dup
uy R

t.

1

d.

Cou

nty
Dr.

Din
wid

die

Co

on S
h in g t

Halifa
x

St .

301

Youngs Rd.

y

s
W. Wa

nty

Petersburg
National
Battlefield

Rd
.

85

Rd.

Dr.

R
agner
Ol d W

r
ate
Cr
S.

ughan R d.
Va

Ho
me
ste
ad

J o h nson

W
ag

ne
r

95

d.

.
Rd

d.

LEGEND
k R

City Limits

an

Fl

Petersburg National Battlefield

301

Roads
orge

e Ge
Princ

.
x Rd

Water Line

ifa
Hal

Appomattox River

Sewer Line

ty
Coun

±
SOURCE: City of Petersburg

124 |

67

Stormwater
In April 2013, City Council adopted the
Stormwater Utility Ordinance. This ordinance
instituted an impervious area-based fee on
all properties within the City and created
a dedicated funding stream to address
stormwater
needs.
Previously,
funding
stormwater improvements through General
Fund revenue had caused a backlog of projects
as stormwater competed with other needs. The
ordinance created an average monthly fee of
$3.75 and was estimated to generate $1,148,000
in annual revenue. This funding was estimated
to provide for a Level of Service 3, which
allowed for compliance with State regulations
and some partial CIP implementation. The fee
and level of service should be reevaluated in
five-year cycles to align with review of the MS4
and VPDES permit, with potential fee increases
going toward ongoing system improvements.
Most existing stormwater infrastructure is in
or adjacent to Old Towne. Future study and
consideration should be given to installing
drainage in other areas of the City, particularly in
denser residential neighborhoods. This will work
to reduce spot flooding and ponding issues in
these areas, result in less required maintenance
of roadways, and generally improve conditions
in residential neighborhoods.
In order to provide the infrastructure to support
the desired type and level of future development,
the following priority projects need to be

completed. These projects are crucial to
providing a firm footing for the development
of Petersburg and economic development
sites such as the Petersburg Pharmaceutical
Campus. Some funding from state and federal
sources has already been secured, but more
is needed to complete the projects. Possible
sources for this funding include the Capital
Improvements Program, General Obligation
Bonds, and various state and federal sources.
Careful consideration should be given to future
development in these areas; generally, changes
in zoning and economic development activities
should follow the infrastructure as it is improved
and the ability to support future development
is obtained. However, prioritizing the below
projects will shorten that timeline, leading to a
brighter future for the City.
Poor Creek Water and Wastewater
Improving the water and sewer infrastructure
in the Poor Creek service area is critical to
future economic development outcomes
in Petersburg, as a number of businesses
associated with the Petersburg Pharmaceutical
Campus are located within the service area
and there is significant potential for additional
businesses in the future.
The service area is in the southeastern portion
of Petersburg and comprises approximately
one third of the City’s land area. While some
work and funding have been secured in the
past, additional critical priorities remain, which
68

The City of Petersburg owns and
operates stormwater management
facilities and is required to have
a Virginia Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (VPDES) permit
to discharge stormwater into local
waterways. The specific permit
is referred to as the MS4 General
Permit and is issued by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) in 5-year cycles. The current
permit requires the City to develop a
stormwater management program
that addressed six minimum control
measures:
1. Public education and outreach on
stormwater impacts;
2. Public involvement and
participation;
3. Illicit discharge detection and
elimination;
4. Construction site stormwater runoff
control;
5. Post-construction stormwater
management for new development
and development on prior
developed lands; and
6. Pollution prevention and good
housekeeping for municipal
operations.
Strategies to implement the permit’s
six control measures should work
in tandem with recommendations
included in PetersburgNEXT.
| 125

were identified in the Poor Creek Pump Station
Capacity Study. These improvements will allow
for reductions in flooding in several areas by
laying new force mains to increase flow and
pumping rates to be adequate for a 10-year
storm, replacing most of the water distribution
mains in the area, abandoning the wastewater
line through Petersburg National Battlefield,
rehabilitating the Walnut Hill Water Tank, and
various other necessary distribution upgrades.
Mount Vernon
The Mount Vernon water pumping station
currently does not meet reliability requirements
set by the Virginia Department of Health
(VDH). The station supplies water to Old Towne
Petersburg and various other core areas of the
City and provides water to several storage tanks.
Necessary improvements include rehabilitating
the pump station and equipment as well as
improving the transmission mains.

126 |

Old Towne Petersburg
Two key improvements that are vital to the
future success of Old Towne Petersburg are
the replacement of both the Main Street Pump
Station and the Bank Street Pump Station. The
Main Street Pump Station has reached the
end of its useful life and has no backup power
generation capability. The Bank Street Pump
Station is in an area susceptible to flooding
from Poor Creek, posing issues with station
operation during flood events and necessitating
flood proofing.

69

Lock’s Booster Station
The Lock’s Booster Station supplies all drinking
water to the City of Petersburg from the Lake
Chesdin reservoir in nearby Dinwiddie County.
The station pumps are inadequate for future
growth, operate beyond their expected lifespan,
contain significant amounts of asbestos
piping, and have no functional backup power
generators. Necessary improvements include
the installation of new new pumps, a power
generator, and a new electrical system.

MAP 6.3 | STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

SOURCE: City of Petersburg

70

| 127

Solid Waste

KEEPING PETERSBURG
CLEAN + BEAUTIFUL
Through the Adopt-A-Street and AdoptA-Spot programs, caring citizens take
part in preserving and maintaining
streets throughout Petersburg. A wide
range of community organizations, civic
groups, businesses, schools, and churches
adopt sections of road in or near their
communities and remove litter from those
segments at least four times a year for a
minimum of two years.
The benefits of these
programs include:
1.

Serving as an educational tool against
littering;
2. Contributing to the City's commitment
to create a more livable and sustainable
community;
3. Helping advance tourism, development,
and quality of life for the community by
improving the appearance of our area;
and
4. Saving taxpayer dollars by performing
a valuable public service on a volunteer
basis.

Petersburg is a member of the Central Virginia
Waste Management Authority (CVWMA),
which oversees solid waste management for
the region. Curbside collection to approximately
11,000 households and small businesses is
provided privately through a contract. Larger
commercial waste is collected under private
contracts between businesses and private
collection firms. Residents are provided with
refuse as well as recycling bins. Petersburg
produces approximately 14,000 tons of waste
annually.
As of 2019, there were nine permitted landfills
being operated within the Authority’s coverage
area. The Tri-Cities Regional Landfill, a privatelyowned facility located in Petersburg, and the
previous destination for most solid waste from
the City, was shut down by the state in 2019
for violations. Since this time, Petersburg’s
solid waste has been transferred to a facility in
Lunenburg County. The CVWMA’s 2019 Solid
Waste Management Plan determined that,
while existing landfills within the CVWMA’s
coverage area were becoming full, there was
sufficient capacity in the nearby landfills to
accommodate the region’s needs through 2039.
Like water and sewer, the City may wish to
evaluate the current rate and fee structure
to ensure that solid waste and recycling
operations are not a net-revenue loss affecting

128 |

71

the City’s bottom line. Another way to reduce
costs is through strategies that reduce the
amount of solid waste that must be disposed of.
Such strategies could include “Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle” promotional campaigns to raise
awareness of how household choices impact
the waste stream. The City could also consider
a grant program for municipal backyard
composters, or taxes and ordinances aimed at
reducing plastic bag use.

Community Infrastructure and Economic
Development
To realize sustainable growth in economic
development
–
particularly
advanced
manufacturing and pharmaceutical-oriented
uses – and living-wage jobs, the City’s
economic development sites such as the 200acre Petersburg Interstate Industrial Park must
have the infrastructure to meet the demands of
industry. Utilities such as water, sewer, internet,
and stormwater management must be in
place to attract future industries and to sustain
operations. The lack of infrastructure in areas
targeted for future economic growth becomes
an impediment to development and a headwind
to Petersburg realizing its full potential.

Strengthening Infrastructure and Services
to Build a Stronger Petersburg
Goal Statement: Petersburg provides and maintains exceptional community facilities, services, and
infrastructure to enhance livability and promote a high quality of life for all residents.
Objectives

6.1 Demonstrate
commitment to
transparency, efficiency,
and accountability in
governance.

Strategies
6.1.1: Expand and improve external government communications through maintaining a robust social media
presence and revamping the City website to maintain regular updates on important announcements.
6.1.2: Create a phone-based civic alert system or a reverse 911 notification system to provide important updates
and emergency alerts to residents without internet access.
6.1.3: Enhance interdepartmental communication across City government as well as between the various public
boards and City Council.
6.1.4: Explore the feasibility of creating a centralized government complex.
6.1.5: Seek community input on service needs and priorities to ensure equitable investment in infrastructure and
facilities.

6.2 Offer City facilities
that are efficient,
effective, and meet the
needs of residents and
businesses.

6.2.1: Develop a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) as recommended by Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2239;
review annually to monitor progress and update with emerging needs.
6.2.2: Perform a Space Needs Assessment to determine and prioritize the needs of City departments and
facilities.
6.2.3: Inventory and assess unused City-owned land and parcels to determine optimal uses for City services
and/or redevelopment opportunities.

72

| 135

Objectives

Strategies

6.3.1: Develop comprehensive water, sewer, and stormwater improvement strategic plans to determine the
highest priority needs for investment.
6.3 Maintain functional
6.3.2: In partnership with Crater Planning District Commission (CPDC), develop a comprehensive Geographic
water, sewer, and
Information System (GIS) database and map for water, sewer, and stormwater systems.
stormwater infrastructure 6.3.3: Upgrade stormwater infrastructure in dense residential neighborhoods with histories of spot flooding and
to support residential
ponding issues.
and business
6.3.4: Assess utility needs in areas targeted for future commercial and industrial development, such as industrial
development.
parks.
6.3.5: Apply for state and federal grant programs to help address vital water, sewer, and stormwater
improvements.
6.4.1: Provide financial support to the Petersburg Public Library to maintain and grow the space as a valued
center of community and learning.
6.4 Expand educational
opportunities for
6.4.2: Pursue grant funding to support upgrades to existing broadband and cell service and expansion of
residents through
broadband in unserved areas to ensure universal access.
support of modern
6.4.3: Provide financial support to Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS) as they work to maintain accreditation
technology, Petersburg
for all schools, and complete capital improvements which assist in developing high-quality learning
City Public School
environments.
facilities, and community
6.4.4: Permit the use of Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS) facilities after-hours to provide safe,
spaces.
neighborhood-oriented space for education, recreation, and socialization.
6.4.5: Monitor Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS) student enrollment as a means of determining the shortterm and long-term needs of school facilities.

136 |

73

Objectives

Strategies
6.5.1: Improve collaboration between the Department of Social Services (DSS) and regional organizations to
alleviate caseload and provide more specialized assistance for residents.
6.5.2: Create a comprehensive informational clearinghouse available both online and as a paper copy that
provides a comprehensive list of available health and human services resources in the Tri-Cities region; review
and update annually.
6.5.3: Advertise, and encourage community involvement in, the Adopt-a-Spot, Adopt-a-Street, and Don’t Trash
6.5 Recognize the
Petersburg programs.
relationship between
6.5.4: In partnership with regional stakeholders, initiate educational campaigns and marketing efforts to reduce
high-quality community
solid waste flow and encourage household recycling and sustainability.
facilities and
infrastructure and overall 6.5.5: Allocate funding for the placement of additional waste receptables around Old Towne.
6.5.6: Promote urban gardens and small-scale agriculture by allowing unused City-owned property to be used
health, wellness, and
for community gardens.
quality of life.
6.5.7: In partnership with regional stakeholders, identify potential locations throughout Petersburg that could
support new pop-up Farmers' Markets.
6.5.8: Recommend approval of rezoning and development proposals for primary, urgent, and emergency medical
care land uses in and around the Old Towne, South Crater Road, and Blandford areas.
6.5.9: Strengthen existing partnerships with Virginia Department of Health (VDH), Central Virginia Health
Services (CVHS), and other regional organizations to identify community health needs and provide equitable
and reliable medical care.
6.5.10: Evaluate the potential for additional mobile markets during the summer months in partnership with PCPS,
local non-profits, and regional organizations.

74

| 137