Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT A PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, JULY 5, 2012 AT 3:30 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Carlton Campbell called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioner James Young was absent. Before entertaining a motion for the minutes of last month’s session of the Planning Commission, Chairman Campbell welcomed City Council woman Chris Snead to the Planning Commission ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams to approve the minutes of the June 7, 2012 work session and Planning Commission meeting as amended. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, McCloud, Williams, Snead, Bunting NAYS: None ABST: Campbell ABSENT: Young IV. Staff Reports A. Youth Planner Report James Payne, Senior Youth Planner stated the Youth Commission worked on goal # 5 which was “Places to go and Things to do” from the youth component, To have success in this goal they looked at how to get youths to come to certain events and what makes the events appealing to youth. The policy committee constructed a document to help organizations and businesses when coming up with an event and one example in the Youth Friendly Event Guide Book could be that youth like free food. The content of the document is finished but throughout the summer and the 2012-2013 school year a roll will be played by the Youth Commission in creating a partnership in order to the implement the document. The Publicity and Philanthropy Committee constructed a marketing plan for the year that will give a roadway/guide for the Youth Commission for when they have an event and how to market that event.  The Facebook page has been enhanced and the recruitment phase and events for the spring have been marketed. The marketing plan was created to set a structure where the Youth Commission would not reinvent the wheel. They found themselves doing the same things over and over. The marketing plan gives them a structure they can look at and say they have a recruitment process coming up and that this is how they are going to reach out to the teenagers. The marketing plan shows how to use social networking tools such as Facebook, twitter and You-Tube. The Publicity and Philanthropy Committee came up with their marking plan in order to do so. Before the Youth Commission can be assigned anything for the year they must be trained. There were 16 new commissioners selected from the interview; more than in the past. Training occurs through the “Boot Camp” – 3 days of leadership and teen building activities. They are able to learn about the local government and the City of Hampton and its vision and goals. The next time they meet will be at their retreat in August at which the newly elected officials will play a big role. The new elected officials will be Lexy Parson, Chairwoman, Sharmae Stringfield, Vice Chairman and Sara Angel, Secretary. Each member will play a big role in making certain the retreat functions and the leadership activities and training sessions go well. The Planning Division selected Chyna Matheny to be the new Youth Planner. They are looking forward to a good year. Chairman Carlton Campbell welcomed Chyna. Chairman Campbell thanked Evelyn Baumgardner for her years of service and a job well done. Chairman Campbell stated that James had mentioned about how to get the word out about the activities and motivate the youth and hopefully their marketing efforts will do that as that was a concern of Commissioner McCloud. Vice-Chairman Williams welcomed Chyna as the new Youth Planner. Commissioner McCloud thanked the Youth Planners for their work and looks forward to their work this coming year. In response to Commissioner LaRue, James Payne explained how to access the Hampton Youth Commission’s Facebook page. Public Hearing Procedures Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, read key points of the Hampton Planning Commission Public Hearing/Comment Rules in order for the affairs of the Commission to be conducted in a courteous and orderly manner. V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Conditional Privilege Application No. 122-2012: by Andrea Alston to allow a day care 3 at 923 Aberdeen Road (LRSN 3005147). The property is zoned Limited Commercial District (C-2), which permits a day care 3 subject to securing a conditional privilege. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends Commercial for this area. Planner Jeff Conkle stated this is a request for a conditional privilege by Andrea Alston’s Alston Village Day Care Center at 923 Aberdeen Road to operate a day care facility for a maximum of 38 children ages 6 weeks to 12 years and operate six days a week. The property is zoned C-2 (Limited Commercial) which does permit a day care subject to approval by the Planning Commission and Council subject to conditions. The request promotes several of the policies of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) including education; community facilities and services; and supporting a nurturing environment for Hampton’s youth. There are eleven conditions imposed on this application which include hours of operation, as well as enrollment and licensing requirements. Applicant Andrea Alston stated the only thing she had to add to the presentation was that the hours of operation would be from 5:30 AM to 11:30 PM, Monday through Friday. Saturday hours would be from 7 AM to 12 PM. In response to Commissioner McCloud, the applicant explained her pick-up and drop-off schedule. In response to Commissioner LaRue, Ms. Alston explained that the extended hours on Saturday are due to clients who might be in the restaurant or retail business and would need the extended hours. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to eleven (11) conditions. There were no speakers from the public. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Alston’s Village Learning Center to permit a day care center in an existing building at 923 Aberdeen Road (LRSN 3005147); WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends commercial land use for this property. The plan also encourages developments that support high quality community services and a nurturing environment for youth such as day care centers;  WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District which permits a Day Care 3 with an approved Conditional Privilege; WHEREAS: eleven conditions are attached to address such issues as hours of operation, age and maximum number of children who can be cared for, a requirement to meet Virginia Department of Social Services requirements and a termination clause; WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal; and WHEREAS: the applicant hosted a community meeting which was attended by three citizens who generally had no opposition to the proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Conditional Privilege Application No. 122-2012, subject to eleven (11) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Bunting, Snead, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Young B. Conditional Privilege Application No. 126-2012: by Emmanuel Lutheran Church to allow a day care 3 at 23 Semple Farm Road (LRSN 6001078). The property is zoned One Family Residence District (R-11), which permits a day care 3 subject to securing a conditional privilege. The site also lies within the Special Public Interest – Magruder Visual Corridor Overlay District (SPI-MVC) which recommends proposed developments protect and enhance the visual environment along Magruder Boulevard. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends High Density Residential for this area Planner Alison Alexander stated the applicant, Emanuel Lutheran Church is proposing to open a day care at 23 Semple Farm Road for a maximum on 109 children from ages of 0 to 13 years and hours of operation are from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. The property is located on Semple Farm Road in the Magruder Visual Corridor. The property is zoned R-11 (One-Family Residence District) which permits a Day Care 3 subject to approval of a Conditional Privilege. Emmanuel Lutheran operated a day care and a school at this site between 2000 and 2004 and proposes to reopen the day care in September 2012. The applicant held a community meeting on June 15 and no one from the public was in attendance.  City Traffic Engineers have approved the traffic circulation plan and the applicant has also agreed to provide trained traffic control in the future if the Hampton Public Works Department deems it necessary. Ten conditions have been attached to this application which includes hours of operation; capacity; traffic circulation; and a termination clause. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) provides several policies as guidance when reviewing this request, such as providing high quality services and facilities in Hampton’s neighborhoods and promoting a nurturing environment for youth in Hampton. In response to Chairman Campbell, Ms. Alexander acknowledged there was no one in attendance at the public hearing and no other correspondence in support or opposition was received from any members of the community. Commissioner Bunting welcomed Ms. Alexander on her first, and well done, presentation to the Commission. In response to Chairman Campbell, the applicant, Mark Terry, 28 Decesare Drive, Hampton, responded that the number of children – 109 – agrees with that as the number allowed by capacity of the building but had confused that number with the number for enrollment. Staff recommends approval of this application with the ten (10) conditions. There were no speakers from the public. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Alston’s Village Learning Center to permit a day care center in an existing building at 923 Aberdeen Road (LRSN 3005147); WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends commercial land use for this property. The plan also encourages developments that support high quality community services and a nurturing environment for youth such as day care centers; WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District which permits a Day Care 3 with an approved Conditional Privilege; WHEREAS: eleven conditions are attached to address such issues as hours of operation, age and maximum number of children who can be cared for, a requirement to meet Virginia Department of Social Services requirements and a termination clause; WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal; and  WHEREAS: the applicant hosted a community meeting which was attended by three citizens who generally had no opposition to the proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Conditional Privilege Application No. 122-2012, subject to eleven (11) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Bunting, Snead, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Young In response to Chairman Campbell, Secretary to the Commission, Terry O’Neill stated the next two amendments; Items C and E are related items so a joint public hearing and briefing will be held. It is recommended that separate actions be taken on the two items. C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 049-2012: by the City of Hampton to amend and re-enact Chapter 1, entitled “Zones and General Provisions” by adding section 1-25 to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia, pertaining to the regulation of renewable energy systems. and. . . E. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 051-2012: Ordinance to amend and re- enact Chapter 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia, entitled “Definitions” by adding definitions for terms related to the regulation of renewable energy systems and by deleting the section numbering system by which definitions are organized. The definitions will remain listed in alphabetical order. Planner Tamaria Green stated she would be presenting the two ordinances that relates to the regulation of renewable energy systems. This is an amendment to amend and re-enact Chapter 1 entitled “Zones and General Provisions” by adding section 1-25 to the Zoning ordinance and an amendment to format Chapter 2.1 of the ordinance by deleting the numbering system. This is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish the procedures and standards by which renewable energy systems will be regulated. The amendment allows the applicant to apply for an administrative permit from the Building Code Official for such systems. Renewable energy systems will be permitted in all zones as an accessory structure except in the M-4 and M-5 Langley Flight Approach Districts where they will be prohibited.  Photos were displayed of renewable energy systems on Chesapeake Avenue in Hampton. For the purpose of this ordinance amendment renewable energy systems include small wind energy conversion systems, also known as “SWECS”, and solar energy equipment and solar panels. These systems convert natural resources such as wind and rays from the sun into energy which will be used to support heating and lighting in homes and businesses. The intent of this ordinance amendment is to establish standards and procedures by which renewable energy systems will be regulated in the city in order to promote the safe and effective use of such systems; address potential impacts; limit production to on-site usage and anticipate future proposals and streamline the process. The need to regulate renewable energy became apparent as residents and business owners expressed interest in installing the systems on their property. The philosophy of this amendment is to reach a reasonable method of regulating these systems without restricting them in such a way they would be effectively prohibited. The amendment process began in December 2011 in response to a request by a private property owner and subsequent Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) action to explore draft language to the zoning ordinance. A summary of preliminary research findings were presented to ZOAC (Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee) on February 13, 2012. Staff presented draft language to ZOAC at the April and May meetings. ZOAC stressed the importance of permitting the installation and operation of the renewable energy systems at a distance far enough to protect adjacent property owners and to prevent public nuisances from occurring as a result of their operation. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) emphasizes practicing environmental stewardship of the city’s natural resources and assets and promoting energy conservation. The plan also encourages the City to lead by example, with the implementation of environmentally safe practices. The ordinance amendment achieves those policies by initiating a streamlined process of regulating renewable energy systems. This amendment also responds to the objectives and policies of the Community Plan by attempting to protect community appearance, character, and meet high quality urban design standards, and promoting site planning that protects personal safety. Lastly, the amendment directly answers the Community Plan’s strategy to modify codes, ordinances, and policies that foster green building and renewable energy development. In most cases, the height of the system is important to the economic feasibility of the structure. Particularly, the height of the wind turbine directly affects the capacity of the system and its potential to produce energy. Because wind speed increases with height, in general, the higher the tower, the more power the wind system can generate. The tower also raises the turbine above the air turbulence that can exist close to the ground because of obstructions such as buildings and trees. As it now stands, the zoning ordinance effectively prohibits wind turbines because the height restrictions imposed on them make them economically infeasible.  The current ordinance does not have specific language to regulate renewable energy systems. They are currently treated as accessory structures and subject to the same height and setback requirements as any other accessory structure. The ordinance amendment includes standards and procedures by which the applicant must abide. The most significant standards are the system setbacks from the property lines, right-of-ways and public overhead utility lines. Setbacks are set to prevent renewable energy systems from becoming nuisances and ensure that if such systems are somehow disabled they will not cause damage to adjacent property owners and harm to passersby. Under the current zoning ordinance, in residential districts, the height of an accessory structure is limited to sixteen (16) or twenty-five (25) feet maximum, depending on setbacks. In practical application of the ordinance, any residential property owner is permitted to install a wind turbine up to twenty-five (25) feet in height, provided they have a fifteen (15) foot setback from adjacent properties. The minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet and the placement in the front yard of either a SWEC or solar energy product is prohibited. To increase the height of the system to a more usable height taller than twenty- five feet, the applicant would need to request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The BZA has the authority to grant variances in cases where strict applications of the zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship for the property owner. Since the height of the wind turbine is a hardship affecting virtually all surrounding properties, the proper way to regulate height is through specific regulations in the zoning ordinance. In response to Commissioner McCloud, Secretary, to the Commission, Terry O’Neill stated permits must be obtained for compliance with installation standards. Commissioner McCloud expressed concern if there were requirements for the installation of the turbines. Also expressed was concern about storms or anything that would cause problems and how these structures would affect the aesthetics of the community whether it is one or many (a grid) as this issue is unique and has not previously been addressed. Commissioner Bunting stated she also questioned the concerns Commissioner McCloud expressed and questioned whether the Neighborhood Commission had been included in any discussion on this issue. Commissioner Bunting acknowledged the important work Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) has done, but if there were not any neighborhood commissioners or former commissioners on that group, that perhaps it is looked at to ensure there is someone in the group in the future. Something like this clearly has residential impact and should be heard by the Neighborhood Commission to help vet the issue prior to final action. There is clearly a property rights aspect to this issue but there is a larger community impact. She stated she also understands Commissioner McCloud’s concerns about aesthetics and neighborhood concern.  Commissioner Bunting welcomed Tamaria Green on her second presentation, as she had missed her first, and on a job well done. She stated as Ms. Green was new that Mr. O’Neill could possible reply to some of these concerns. In response to concerns addressed by Commissioners McCloud and Bunting about aesthetics and neighborhood concerns and the affect these items would have on the entire neighborhood Mr. O’Neill stated he is not aware of the names of all of those on the ZOAC committee, but believes there are some former Neighborhood Commissioners representing the neighborhood interest on the Board, but is a good point that their viewpoint is adequately represented on ZOAC and if those members feel there is an issue that is significant to neighborhoods it can be raised at that time. It can then be taken as part of the preliminary development of the ordinance and can be taken to the Neighborhood Commission to have them weigh in on it. In response to Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Green stated the ordinance was for on-site use only and would only benefit the individual property owner or business owner only where the system would be installed. Commissioner McCloud stated if allowed in neighborhoods, as a neighbor it would impact him and that is his concern. In response to Chairman Campbell, Mr. O’Neill stated this ordinance is for a personal system but he believes arrangements can be made with energy providers that one would be compensated for generating electricity if it were put on a grid. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. O’Neill stated there is a property maintenance code enforcement section where an inspector drives around the city checking on the proper upkeep of properties. If properties fall into disrepair or these units are unsightly the issues can be addressed by the inspector’s drive-around or through complaints received. In response to Chairman Campbell, Mr. O’Neill stated his recommendation was that the call on whether or not to vote on the ordinance is up to the Commission. If the Commission feels there should be more discussion prior to putting the motion to a vote they can do so. The only urgency is that there are individual property owners bringing requests of this type to the City and they would like to get something on the books to regulate it properly. This item can be taken back if the Commission believes there should be more vetting on the issue. Senior Deputy City Attorney, Vanessa Valldejuli, stated there is a member of ZOAC that is present and would like to speak. Susan Gaston, 1001 North Campus Parkway, Hampton, Virginia, stated she represents the Peninsula Association of Realtors and is also involved with ZOAC. She stated the association represents property owners and real estate professionals in the area. They have been working closely with the Planning staff on this issue providing information from other parts of Virginia where there have been local ordinances that would allow property owners the right to do these types of construction/accessory uses. Most of the ordinances have been coming from the mountainous regions where there is more wind. Property owners are now coming to localities and asking if they had the ability to erect these sorts of structures. This issue is becoming a growing trend across the country. Ms. Gaston presented a profile and offered to provide additional copies of homebuyers and sellers the National Association of Realtors compiled last year. Approximately 2/3 of all individuals surveyed indicated that energy conservation is a growing trend. It is something people want. She commended the City on taking a proactive step on what could be a trend in the coming years. In response to Commissioner McCloud on the aesthetics, Ms. Gaston stated she did not readily have an answer but could look into it. From solar panels, solar optic tubes to wind structures, this is a trend buyers are asking for throughout the country. The effort to get off the grid and have the ability to reduce personal energy costs is becoming more popular. Erecting a wind turbine, getting permits from the City and having a regular maintenance and review conducted by Mr. Shapiro and his staff would play into the ability to make sure those structures are safe, as it would be with a digital dish on the side of the home or a large greenhouse or conservatory in one’s back yard to grow vegetables in one’s yard. An individual property owner wants to have that ability with whatever conditions that would be put upon one by the City. Chairman Campbell stated he could understand solar panels, satellite dishes and greenhouses, but this ordinance would allow a 70 foot structure in one’s back yard and that is different. He stated he shares the concerns that alternate energy sources are needed but he also shares concerns as expressed by Commissioner McCloud. Chairman Campbell stated he shares the concerns about the aesthetics. Chairman Campbell questioned if Ms. Gaston, as a realtor in the Peninsula area, found here or in any of the other cities in the area that may have an alternative energy source ordinance in place and has she seen windmills in the backs of people’s yards. Ms. Gaston clarified she is not a realtor; she represents them in the government relations legislative consultant capacity. She knows all of their localities and represents them before the General Assembly of Virginia and Virginia Congressional delegation. She can provide pieces of information but suggests York County was one of the first Peninsula localities to allow this sort of ordinance. Eighteen to 24 months ago the county had received three (3) requests from residents asking for the permission to erect wind structures. Ms. Gaston stated she believes the City of Virginia Beach also has an ordinance on wind turbines. This trend is coming and Hampton should be prepared for it. While the Association represents the professionals in the industry it is the homeowners and property owners who help bolster what the association stands for. It is the individual right for the property owner. It is important for the property owners to have the ability to have this choice instead of being told from the outset they cannot. Senior Deputy City Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli stated the Virginia Beach ordinance treats wind turbines similar to any structure like a shed; playground equipment; or above ground outdoor pools and are regulated in height and setbacks. They have to adhere to side and rear yard setbacks and are prohibited in front yards. As she understands from her counterparts in Virginia Beach, there has not been a bustling trend to erect these structures. Some of these structures are on the coastal area where the wind is more conducive to those types of structures. Commissioner LaRue stated her concern that this is the first step and the process will continue to be tweaked to deal with safety issues to make certain these structures are sound. Hampton has different types of winds, hurricanes, and tornadoes. She would like to make certain the blades will not fly off in those winds. She also stated concern with the noise factor generated. Commissioner LaRue questioned if the wind turbines in the area meet compliance. In response to Ms. LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated there are two wind turbines in Hampton and an application for a solar farm. Deputy Director, Steve Shapiro stated there are two that exist, one on Lighthouse Drive and one on Chesapeake Avenue. They would not have to be retrofitted as they are grandfathered and built in accordance with what was in place with the zoning ordinance at that time and as explained by Tamaria Green and Terry O’Neill, they were treated as accessory structures. The solar farm and the subdivision are in the planning stages and would have to comply with the ordinance if it is adopted. In response to Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Shapiro explained that it is the intent that the solar farm provides power to the all of the houses in the proposed subdivision. Commissioner McCloud stated that is what he would consider a mini grid. He stated his concerned if approval is recommended today, not enough people understand what this is even though it was advertised in the paper. This needs to be vetted out. Commissioner Williams would like to propose that this Zoning Ordinance Amendment be sent back to staff for neighborhood input. Commissioner Snead commended staff on their forward thinking regarding this issue, but while people are not rushing in to get wind turbines, she would like to see some sort of visual on what structures of this type would look like. It is Important to address energy conversation efforts. Chairman Campbell also expressed concern for more vetting on this issue. Senior Deputy City Attorney Valldejuli stated the two ordinance amendments are separate issues and it there would be no harm-no foul to go forward with the second amendment which addresses definitions. In response to Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Shapiro stated one could apply for a permit for a wind turbine, but that it would be considered as an accessory structure and would be restricted in height. The ordinance does state that it has to be designed by a structural engineer and structurally it would meet all requirements. For additional height one would have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals  In response to Commissioner Bunting if an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals is made for the height of a structure, an ad would be placed in the newspaper and the adjacent property owners would be notified. In response to Commissioner LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated staff has also considered the question about homeowner’s or neighborhoods getting together to do their own project or a subdivision building its own solar farm, but has not come with any conclusions. Ms. Green stated the maximum height on a turbine is based on the lot area of a property and is a safety measure. In regards to the height of a turbine, if it should collapse there are manufacturing rules and standards which include the rotors and would stop the turbine and the turbine would collapse in half. In high winds there are aerodynamic breaking systems that would stop the rotors and collapse it on the lot. Other municipalities in Virginia that have been looked at are Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Suffolk, Amherst County, Rockingham County which currently have wind turbines, ordinances or other renewable energy systems. A letter was received from Langley Air Force Base stating they do not have a problem with small wind or energy systems, but did mention M-4 and M-5 districts in which they will be prohibited. Commissioners Bunting and Snead would like to see something which would show representation of what lot sizes would permit these structures. In response to Commissioner LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated he did not know the height of a telephone or light pole but to the peak of a two-story house would be 35 feet. On a typical 65 foot lot one would only be allowed to construct a 30 foot wind turbine. Ms. Green explained utility poles are 60 – 90 feet in height with 30 feet being bellow ground. However there are telecommunication poles that are much taller and above 100 feet. In response to Commissioner Williams, Ms. Green stated ham operated towers are about 75 feet in height. Staff recommends approval of ZOA 049-2012 and ZOA 051-2012. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 049-2012 by the City of Hampton to amend and reenact Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Zones and General Provisions” by adding section 1-25 pertaining to the regulation of renewable energy systems; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will allow applicants to apply for an administrative permit from a building code official to install such systems;  WHEREAS: renewable energy systems will be permitted in all zoning districts as an accessory structure, except in the M-4 and M-5 Langley Flight Approach districts, where they will be prohibited; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment includes minimum setback standards for renewable energy systems from property lines, public rights-of-way, or public overhead utility lines; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will fulfill the goals of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) to modify codes, ordinances, and policies that foster green building and renewable energy development; WHEREAS: staff has discussed this amendment with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee which supports the proposed amendment; WHEREAS: Susan Gaston, spoke on behalf of Virginia Association of Realtors in support of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS: the Commissioners voiced a concern that this amendment had not been vetted with the Neighborhood Commission and the public at large given the possible impact of renewable energy systems upon individual property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gregory Williams and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission voted to defer zoning ordinance amendment (No. 049-2012) referenced above for a period of six months. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, McCloud, Williams, Bunting, Snead, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Young Tamara Green stated Ordinance Amendment No. 051-2012 was included in the presentation of the first amendment and it is to add definitions that relate to renewable systems and would eliminate the numbering system. This amendment could go forward without the base amendment No. 049-2012. The Commissioners approved the following resolution. WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 051-2012 by the City of Hampton to  amend and reenact Chapter 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Definitions” to include terms and definitions pertaining to the regulation of renewable energy systems; WHEREAS: this amendment will effectively eliminate the numeric system by which definitions were organized in Chapter 2.1 entitled “Definitions” of the Zoning Ordinance. WHEREAS: definitions in Chapter 2.1 will henceforth remain in alphabetical order without numeric labeling and remain under the general heading “Section 2.1-2. – Definitions;” WHEREAS: staff has discussed this amendment with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee which supports the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gregory Williams and seconded by Commissioner Mary Bunting, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of zoning ordinance amendment (No. 051-2012) as referenced above. . A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, McCloud, Williams, Bunting, Snead, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Young C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 050-2012: Ordinance to amend and re- enact the following: chapter 11, entitled “C-1 District—Neighborhood Commercial District” by amending section 11-1(43.2), pertaining to restaurants providing outdoor dining; chapter 12, entitled “C-2 District—Limited Commercial District” by amending section 12-1(13.2) pertaining to restaurants providing outdoor dining; and chapter 13, entitled “C-3 District—General Commercial District” by amending section 13-1(29.2) pertaining to restaurants providing outdoor dining. Planner David Stromberg stated this Zoning Ordinance Amendment 050-2012 is an amendment to revise the sections of the zoning ordinance that regulate outdoor dining as an accessory use to a restaurant. The goal of this amendment is to make it easier for a restaurant to provide outdoor dining while making sure it does not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The current regulations are that any restaurant located in C-1, C-2 or C-3 districts requires a use permit to be granted from City Council before being allowed to provide outdoor dining. The benefit of this system is that it allows public input and establishes conditions for the use of the operation. Some drawbacks are that use permits are time consuming and can take up to 90 days and a $650 application fee. Restaurants located downtown may add outdoor dining through an administrative review which is allowed by existing language written in the SPI-OH section of the ordinance. The proposed language would create two different tiers of outdoor dining. The more frequently expected permit to be applied for would be outdoor dining 1 and would only require administrative review. Conditions for outdoor dining 1 would be written directly into the zoning ordinance and automatically be applied to all of the permits that are issued. Applicants pursuing outdoor dining 1 will be limited to 9 PM on weekdays and 10 PM on weekends. Applicant pursuing outdoor dining beyond the times specified would be considered outdoor dining 2 and would be required to go through the current use permit process. This allows staff to tailor the specific conditions to that site and because of the later hours it allows public notification and neighborhood input. In researching this ordinance it was found that there is little consistency around the different localities in Hampton Roads and how they approach outdoor dining. Some allow it by right, some by size limitations of the patio, and some are made to go before design review. A lot of cities have specified districts like entertaining districts specifically for those areas. In Hampton except for SPI-OH there are no specialized districts. There is a need to come up with something that works city wide in commercially zoned districts that is flexible enough to work in different places. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) has several policies encouraging small businesses, corridor-oriented commercial businesses, and promoting regional tourism and attractions. The plan also emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the integrity of existing neighborhoods and better integrating neighborhoods and commercial districts, strengthening the viability of commercial uses and protecting residential uses/neighborhoods. This ordinance amendment achieves those policies by reducing the time and financial burden on restaurants pursuing outdoor dining while maintaining a level of governmental oversight to prevent or discontinue a malfeasant operator from becoming a nuisance to the neighborhood. All administrative zoning permits will have conditions attached that the restaurant Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment 050-2012. There were no speakers from the public. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 050-2012 by the City of Hampton to amend and reenact the following chapters of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia: chapter 11, entitled “C-1 District—Neighborhood Commercial District” by amending section 11-1(43.2), pertaining to restaurants providing outdoor  dining; chapter 12, entitled “C-2 District—Limited Commercial District” by amending section 12-1(13.2) pertaining to restaurants providing outdoor dining; chapter 13, entitled “C-3 District— General Commercial District” by amending section 13-1(29.2) pertaining to restaurants providing outdoor dining; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will allow a majority of restaurants to apply for an administrative outdoor dining 1 permit; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will establish conditions that attached to all administrative outdoor dining 1 permits; WHEREAS: any restaurant proposing outdoor dining beyond 9 PM Sunday through Thursday and 10 PM Friday and Saturday will be required to apply for a use permit; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment is consistent with the recommendations of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) by promoting commercial viability, nurturing small businesses, and protecting existing neighborhoods; WHEREAS: staff has discussed this amendment with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee which supports the recommended text changes; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud, and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of the zoning ordinance amendment (No. 050- 2012) referenced above. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, McCloud, Williams, Snead, Bunting, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Young VI. Community Development Director’s Report Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Board, stated several months ago it was mentioned to the Commission there was work being done on a major reorganization to one division of the Community Development Department, and with a lot of hard work and help from the Manager’s Office, the City Attorney’s Office, the Human Resources Department, and other places also including Steve Shapiro, the doors were open on the new Development Services Center this past Monday. It was a major redesign of the permitting and development services function. He encourages everyone who has a chance to visit and find out more about it or use it. It is hoped that this will be a more user friendly system for the customers that will expedite and help make what is often a confusing process more understandable. Among the major features of the new redesign are designated project coordinators who will shepherd all projects through the process and basically hand hold the applicants from the beginning of their project to the last thing that is done on that project. Being implemented over the next six months or so is a brand new software system that will allow for customers to do a lot of the transactions from their desktops or mobile phones and never have to come into the office. Lastly established is an external customer oversight committee made up of approximately 20 of our regular customers that will help us to stay on top of customer related issues and make sure we do not fall behind. If there are issues that our customers believe are cropping up and we hear from them those issues can be addressed right away. For further information either he or Steve Shapiro would be happy to send them more information. The division is up and running and it is obvious that it is a big learning curve during the first weeks or so. The next 30 to 60 days things should be smooth sailing. At the very least customers are seeing things are different. In response to Chairman Campbell, Mr. O’Neill explained that the software is being procured by a company that has done this kind of thing in other places. The company has a module that they have used and we will be allowed to customize it to some degree for our particular applications. It is a web based application and we look forward to our customers being able to access and fill out a lot of their forms and permits on line for us to review them on line and send back to them electronically. It will also allow making payments on line without ever having to come into the office, all of which cannot be done presently. Commissioner LaRue stated the City has a reputation that it is hard to do business with and this sounds like a forward thinking process that is being put in place and will make Hampton the friendliest place to come and do business with. Commissioner Bunting stated Terry O’Neill, Vanessa Valldejuli, others and the external customers as well spent a least a week or two in interviews looking for the right people for the jobs also. The process and technology are being changed and people have been chosen with strong customer service skills along with technical skills as both are needed to function well in that environment. Technical skills are needed to evaluate the application but that alone is not sufficient to be recognized as a place one wants to do business. Strong customer service skills are also necessary. Commissioner Bunting thanked staff and the external customers who volunteered their time to sit on the panel. Every job in the new Development Services Center was filled anew. Some of the employees came back into the center as they had the blend needed, some did not. When the new center was opened they wanted to make certain that they had people who fit the technical bill and the customer service part of the job. Hopefully the reputation referred to by Commissioner LaRue will be changed in short order. VII. Items by the Public There were no items by the public. VIII. Matters by the Commission There were no items by the Commission. IX. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, __________________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to Commission APPROVED BY: ________________________________ Carlton Campbell Chairman