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, SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 AT 3:33 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 Commissioners Andre McCloud and Gregory Williams were absent. Commissioner McCloud arrived at 3:36 PM. Chairman Campbell turned the floor over to Secretary to the Commission, Terry O’Neill for the annual election of new officers for the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman. ITEM III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, opened the floor for nominations of Chairman to the Hampton Planning Commission for the year starting September 2012 to September 2013. A. Election of Chairman A motion was made by Commissioner James Young and seconded by Commissioner Mary Bunting to nominate Commissioner Gregory Williams as Chairman to the Hampton Planning Commission. A roll call vote on the motion for Commissioner Gregory Williams as Chairman to the Planning Commission resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, Bunting, Snead, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: McCloud, Williams B. Election of Vice-Chairman Due to the absence of the newly elected Chairman Gregory Williams, Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission opened the floor for nominations of Vice- Chairman to the Hampton Planning Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner James Young and seconded by Commissioner Mary Chris Snead to nominate Commissioner Gaynette LaRue as Vice- Chairman to the Hampton Planning Commission. 1  A roll call vote on the motion for Commissioner Gaynette LaRue as Vice- Chairman to the Planning Commission resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, Bunting, Snead, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: McCloud, Williams ITEM IV. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner James Young to approve the minutes of the August 2, 2012 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Young, McCloud, Campbell, Snead, Bunting, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None. ABSENT: Williams ITEM V. Staff Reports A. Youth Planner Report Senior Youth Planner, James Payne gave an update on the mandatory retreat held at Old Dominion University for the Neighborhood Youth Advisory Board and the Hampton Youth Commission. The two day event included instructional sessions, teambuilding and committee work that was facilitated by staff and the Youth Planners. This gave the attendees an opportunity to learn about local government, techniques for problem solving, outreach and collaboration, facilitation and conducting meetings using parliamentary procedure. These four topics were chosen as staff considers them vital for having a successful year. Teambuilding activities were included in order to strengthen the bond between the two youth groups. The new committee system consists of three different committees: • Partnership Committee - will focus on creating partnerships within businesses and organizations throughout the city and give the Hampton Youth Commission an opportunity to work with these businesses and get input from different people in order to get a broad perspective and a teen perspective. • Policy Committee– will focus on creating and developing policies that will better Hampton for teenagers and create a better environment for Hampton. • Publicity Committee – will focus on marketing and promoting opportunities offered by the Hampton Youth Commission (events or public meetings). These three committees will come together as: • Philanthropy Committee – will come together one time of the year (March/April), during the grant process of the Youth Commission. This committee is made up 2  of members from each of the three other committees and they will work on offering grants to youth organizations or youth lead projects throughout the city. The hope is that these committees will help further Hampton’s vision to make Hampton “The Most Livable City in Virginia”. The Youth Planners worked on the Youth Friendly Business project in Coliseum Central in which businesses were evaluated as to their “youth friendliness”. An interactive map is being created which will have those qualifying businesses on it and will serve as a resource for anyone in Hampton to see which businesses are youth friendly. The Youth Planners and the Hampton Youth Commission have thought, prepared and are acting on having a successful year. In response to a question by Commissioner Young, James Payne stated that out of the nine (9) projects requested, eight (8) were approved for grants. Examples are: band lockers fixed at Kecoughtan High School by the Kecoughtan High School band; softball benches at a local church fixed by their youth group; and a grant for a youth theater group. In response to Commissioner Campbell, James stated the Planning staff met with the businesses who responded to the letters sent out regarding youth friendly businesses to let them know the letter was not to bash the businesses, but to see how they could better work with each other. James stated he has not noted any changes with the businesses that had been met with, but was something he should check. In response to Vice-Chairman LaRue, James stated the Coliseum Central area was chosen because it is a central business district, especially for teens. It is his belief the Youth Planners will evaluate others businesses areas outside of Coliseum Central Terry O’Neill added that the previous round of Youth Commission surveys had included downtown Hampton, Phoebus and parts of Buckroe along with other places in the city. It could not be done to that extent at this time due to financial restrictions. Young people from the community are hired to do the survey work and it takes time to visit each business, fill out forms and collect data. Due to the limited resources the decision was made to restrict the surveys to one area, which was Coliseum Central, as it is the biggest and most prominent district with the highest concentration of businesses. When resources become available they would like to survey the other districts. 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. 3 ITEM VI. Public Hearing Items A, Conditional Privilege Application No. 129-2012: by BL Restaurant Operations, LLC to allow live entertainment at Bar Louie Restaurant and Bar at 3530 Von Schilling Drive [LRSN 13002023]. The restaurant is part of the larger 77± acre Peninsula Town Center development and is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2), which permits live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant subject to securing a Conditional Privilege. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends commercial for this area. City Planner Tamaria Green stated Conditional Privilege No. 129-2012 by BL Restaurant Operations, LLC, d/b/a as Bar Louie Restaurant and Bar, is a request by the applicant for a conditional privilege for Live entertainment 2 to allow live entertainment for predominantly a disc jockey. The property is located at 3530 Von Schilling Drive in Peninsula Town Center in the Coliseum Central area of the city. The site is zoned C-2, limited commercial, which permits live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant subject to securing a Conditional Privilege. The application supports several of the Hampton Community Plan policies: economic development priorities; expanding entertainment opportunities; nurturing small business; and promoting Hampton as a retail destination. The applicant hosted a community meeting on September 4, 2012, with no members of the public in attendance, The application has ten conditions attached such as hours of operation of indoor entertainment; maximum allowable capacity; sound; ABC license; and term of permit. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Privilege No. 129-2012 with 10 conditions. There were no public speakers. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by BL Restaurant Operations, LLC d/b/a Bar Louie Restaurant and Bar to allow live entertainment in an existing restaurant at 3530 Von Schilling Drive [LRSN 13002023]; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended) recommends mixed use for the subject property. The surrounding area is also recommended to be mixed use focusing on commercial and residential; WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District which allows live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant subject to the securing of a Conditional Privilege; 4  WHEREAS: ten conditions are attached to address hours of operation, capacity, and a termination clause; WHEREAS: the applicant held a community meeting prior to the public hearing, which no one from the public attended; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE: on a motion by Commissioner James Young and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Conditional Privilege Application No. 129-2012, subject to ten (10) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Larue, Young, McCloud, Bunting, Snead, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 052-2012: Ordinance to amend and re- enact chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Zones and General Provisions” by adding section 1-18 (6) pertaining to projections allowed in yards and courts. Senior Deputy Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli stated Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 052-2012 is an ordinance to amend and re-enact chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia, entitled “Zones and General Provisions” by adding section 1-18 (6) pertaining to projections allowed in yards and courts. The Commission saw this ordinance last year and Council approved it in Chapter 18. Muni-Code did not supplement at the same time other amendments were done and when Chapter 18 General Provisions was recodifed into Chapter 1, this section was inadvertently left out. This is a housekeeping amendment. Staff requests approval of Zoning Ordinance No. 052-2012. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Senior Deputy Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli stated this request was not related to the hearing on alternative energy options, but an amendment the Commission recommended for approval in October 2011 and approved by Council in November 2011 under chapter 18. General Provisions were being recodified into chapter 1 and this section was inadvertently left out of Muni-Code. Terry O’Neill stated this topic generally covers mechanical equipment and things 5 projecting into side yards; and this was an attempt to provide greater flexibility to allow for things such as air-conditioners and generators. 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 BL Restaurant Operations, LLC d/b/a Bar Louie Restaurant and Bar to allow live entertainment in an existing restaurant at 3530 Von Schilling Drive [LRSN 13002023]; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended) recommends mixed use for the subject property. The surrounding area is also recommended to be mixed use focusing on commercial and residential; WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District which allows live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant subject to the securing of a Conditional Privilege; WHEREAS: ten conditions are attached to address hours of operation, capacity, and a termination clause; WHEREAS: the applicant held a community meeting prior to the public hearing, which no one from the public attended; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE: on a motion by Commissioner James Young and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Conditional Privilege Application No. 129-2012, subject to ten (10) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Larue, Young, McCloud, Bunting, Snead, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams VII. Community Development Director’s Report Terry O’Neill introduced Mellissa Morrison, Zoning Official/Project Coordinator in the Development Services Center, who came to the city from Tennessee. 6  Mr. O’Neill stated the following report by City Planner Tamaria Green is a follow- up of the research and proposed zoning ordinance amendment previously presented on wind turbines and other small energy generating systems during which staff was asked to review and collect additional information. This is a no action item and staff is still in the process of vetting this issue. The Neighborhood Commission will be briefed on this issue at their meeting on Monday, September 10. Tamaria will brief the Commission on their findings. Renewable Energy City Planner Tamaria Green stated this is a follow-up presentation on Zoning Ordinance Amendment 049-2012 presented to the Commission on July 5, 2012. The purpose is to identify getting additional input from the public through the City’s Neighborhood Commission; provide additional information on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to regulate small wind energy systems; and to address additional questions or comments from the Commission. A review process has been established to obtain feedback from the public via the Neighborhood Commission for this particular zoning ordinance amendment: • Presentation to the Neighborhood Commission at their regularly scheduled public meeting on September 10, 2012 by Planning Staff • 60 days to gather feedback from prospective neighborhood stakeholders with feedback to be brought back at the next regularly scheduled Neighborhood Commission meeting for discussion and a consensus on their opinion • A memo outlining the Neighborhood Commission’s perspective identifying conclusions and any pros and cons from a neighborhood perspective will then be forwarded to city staff for review. Ms. Green explained the basic parts and operation of a small wind electric system accompanied by a picture of same along with a picture of an actual wind turbine alongside other common neighborhood features in a suburban New Jersey neighborhood. The ordinance amendment pertinent to this discussion will be applicable only to systems designed to support individual residential and commercial users. Utility scale wind farms are not part of this proposal. Ms. Green explained some of the factors a property owner interested in installing a wind turbine might consider such as location, height, cost, setbacks, lot size and noise. The wind resources in the city of Hampton are located along the eastern coastline of the city alongside the Chesapeake Bay. Wind resources diminish in speed the further inland one goes from the coastline. Discussed were: • Heights of towers - vary from 40 feet to 100 feet for small turbines in the Hampton Roads area • Cost of operating a wind turbine - estimated payback time of 15 to 20 years. 7  • Setbacks – issue of safety and aesthetics; preventing turbines from becoming a nuisance or damage of adjacent properties (illustration shown) Ms. Green displayed a map showing lots that have at least 100 feet frontage in the city of Hampton on which a wind turbine that has a 43 foot tall tower with 7 foot blades (which is the total height of the turbine combined with the blades) and a 50 foot side yard could be placed. Only 4% of approximately 51,000 total parcels in the city meet those criteria. Noise levels associated with wind turbines are typically between 40 and 50 decibels which are above a whisper but below what typically comes out of a home. Pictures of the two wind turbines located in Hampton were shown: 1400 Chesapeake Avenue and 116 Light House Drive. The property owners for both locations appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals to obtain a variance from the height restrictions, as the current ordinance treats these structures as accessory structures and are therefore subject to certain height restrictions and setbacks. Had the applicant proposed a height within the height restrictions for accessory uses, the property owner would have been granted a building permit. The current zoning ordinance does not include any language which specifically pertains to the regulation of small wind turbines, so they are treated as accessory structures and are approved by right provided they are within the height and setback restrictions (similar to garages, sheds, flag poles, etc.). The process is administrative and property owners are granted a building permit if height and setback restrictions for accessory structures are met. The purpose to regulate wind energy systems is to protect existing neighbors; address issues of local concern; and protect safety and welfare of the public. The City may decide to allow wind turbines to be approved by-right or subject to a Use Permit. The current proposal suggests a by-right process where an applicant is granted a permit to install a wind turbine provided they meet the height setbacks and other requirements prescribed by standards. The by-right approval process will be administrative. There will be no public meeting unless the applicant requests a variance to the setback or height requirements or appeals a determination of the Zoning Administrator with respect to the regulation of the wind turbine system. The use permit process is applied when there are factors or impacts that are unique to the proposed use wherein special conditions are appropriate to ensure that the use will not be a threat or a nuisance to the public. This will require public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council which will allow public comment on each application. The applicant will still need to meet the prescribed standards of approval of the use permit. The next steps in this process of the review of the proposed ordinance amendment are: • Gather feedback from Neighborhood Commission • Revise the draft ordinance • Prepare for Planning Commission and City Council review. 8  In response to questions by Commissioner McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated staff was to propose options to the Planning and Neighborhood Commissions based on some the Planning Commissioner’s concerns. Tamaria described the original proposal based on feedback received from the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee which was to create an ordinance to allow energy systems by-right. It was determined from the feedback and impressions from the Commission that perhaps other options should be explored. This interim report showed three options: 1. Do nothing and regulate as it is now which staff feels is inadequate and puts the Board of Zoning Appeals in a difficult situation as there are no standards (which staff does not encourage) 2. Create standards which will allow wind turbines to be permitted by-right and would be an administrative process. As long as standards are met a permit could be issued 3. Use permit process with a set of standards but would require an applicant to go through a public hearing process (Planning Commission and City Council) and notification to adjoining property owners (a process which the commission is already familiar) In order to give staff guidance at this point, it would be helpful for the Commission to give staff feedback on any of the options toward which they may lean. These options are the response to original feedback received and staff needs to know what else may need to be explored. In response to the second part of Commissioner McCloud’s questions, Mr. O’Neill explained that the neighborhood group that participated in the Community Plan process is not a standing group and would have to be brought back together. He stated he does not know what additional perspective they would bring to this and that it could possibly be duplication. The intent of involving the Neighborhood Commission, which is a new step in a process like this, was implemented to provide to a way for a grass roots neighborhood’s view and perspective to be gathered on these types of things that do impact neighborhoods. Mr. O’Neill stated he would do what the Commission asks staff to do but there seems to be duplication in that there are approximately 20 Commissioners representing the 10 city districts and at-large representatives in the Neighborhood Commission. The Neighborhood Commission will be briefed and charged to take this information back to their districts and share the information with other organizations over a 60 day period; then collect that information and bring it back to the Commission for a second discussion. To balance the efficiency of time, there is need to be careful as to how long it takes to review one of these things and not push it too fast; but also respect that there are issues out in the community that theses ordinances need to address. A year would be too long to take. Mr. O’Neill reiterated that there is a process in place, but if the Commission senses the need for another step in this process, staff will follow its direction. 9  In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated consent of the owner of record would be required to proceed if a request for a generator/wind turbine was made by a tenant. Commissioner McCloud stated he had raised the issue because this item was not part of information covered under the strategic plan. In response, Mr. O’Neill stated the broader perspective is one of the challenges of the Community Plan Process is that there was a neighborhood focus group - point of emphasis on neighborhood aesthetics - which clearly plays into the equation. There was also a group on sustainability which said the city should pursue policies that allow our community to move more toward energy independency and support those kinds of things. For a lot of issues it is not as clean as having one group come together and say “my perspective is this”. A lot of issues take a broad perspective that represents more than a singular perspective on an issue and trying to put things in place is why it was thought to have the Neighborhood Commission be a part of this process, as it is a group that already sits and meets Commissioner Bunting suggested the list of people who participated on the Community Plan be given to the Neighborhood District Commissioners as they may already recognize some of these participants and make a special point to invite these people to their meetings. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Green replied that the percentage of homes with 100 foot frontage was 4% and the placement of the wind turbine would have a rear and side yard setback of 50 feet. Mr. O’Neill stated that Ms. Green was providing a scenario with the 100 foot frontage of a lot based on a structure that was 50 feet tall. Research has indicated this to be a typical standard which would require an equal setback to the height of the structure so in any kind of disaster from a public safety aspect should this structure collapse and fall one would not want it to fall on another house and try to prevent injury or further damage. This is an example of common standards that have been seen in other places. Variables of this process were discussed. The numbers and percentages would change depending on standards that are adopted and the process will be refined. In response to Commissioner Snead, Ms. Green stated this ordinance amendment has been designed for single family usage. In response to Commissioner Young, Ms. Green stated the picture shown of the wind turbine in New Jersey is in an area that has standards in place. She also stated that in the Hampton Roads area, Suffolk, Virginia Beach and Norfolk currently have regulations in place for wind turbines which can be viewed on-line in Muni-Code and are being used as a guide in this process. 10  In response to Commissioner Young concerns, Mr. O’Neill suggested having a table compiled showing the comparison on standards in these surrounding communities. Commissioner Bunting stated to keep from leaving this up to a case by case basis or having to go before the BZA and to provide for neighborhood protection, that standards be provided for uniformity which might be preferable. Commissioner Bunting stated that she is a big proponent of neighborhood aesthetics issue and going to the Neighborhood Commission. At this point people are able to get wind turbines by going to the BZA without regard to some of the things the Commission has thought about. Until parameters are in place this is being done on a case by case examination, even though advertised to the public and surrounding properties, protection and uniformity is not provided for the neighborhoods. Vice Chairman LaRue stated she would like the Commission to examine other avenues and sources while looking at the issue of turbines and have this information made available for those who may not have large enough lots or be located on the water. In response to Vice Chairman LaRue’s comment, Mr. O’Neill stated the city now has a sustainability manager in the Community Development Department who is the point person for the organization in terms of bringing together a cohesive comprehensive green strategy. There are many issues on the table and Vice-Chairman LaRue’s question is amongst those. The issues will be addressed in time in manageable chunks. The goals and objectives of the city have to be determined before such tools, as ordinances and codes, can be modified. The process has jumped ahead because these structures are being built and causing people to raise questions about them in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Bunting stated aesthetically and affordability wise two or three neighbors going in together on wind turbines may be more feasible and cut down on too many of these structures being unsightly and allow for more of the sustainable technology. Mr. O’Neill stated no action on this matter is required. Tamaria Green will present this issue to the Neighborhood Commission on Monday, September 10. The Neighborhood Commissioners will take the information back to their neighborhoods and then return in approximately 60 days with their feedback. Staff will then share this information with the Commission. VIII. Items by the Public There were no items by the public. Senior Deputy Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli introduced the newest member of the City Attorney’s Office, Bonnie Brown, who is awaiting results of her bar exam and will be working with the Attorney’s office through a fellowship program at the College of 11 William and Mary. She will be concentrating on planning, zoning, real estate and economic development. IX. Matters by the Commission Secretary to the Commission, Terry O’Neill read the following resolution put together by staff and some of the Commissioners in recognition of Commissioner Young’s final meeting subject to City Council appointing a replacement. Commissioner Young has served on the Commission for eight years and has provided the community with outstanding service in his various capacities. RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION OF JAMES A. YOUNG WHEREAS: James Young has faithfully served as a member of the Hampton Planning Commission from his appointment in October 2004 to September 2012; WHEREAS: James Young served as Chairman of the Hampton Planning Commission from September 2006 to September 2009 and from September 2010 to September 2011; WHEREAS: His honorable, faithful, and active participation on the Planning Commission has led to the development and implementation of several Master Plans and the Hampton Community Plan - all of which included significant community participation; WHEREAS: James Young’s tenure on the Commission has been characterized by diplomacy, patience, knowledge, and steadfast support of the staff within the Hampton Planning Division; WHEREAS: During his tenure on Planning Commission, James Young has consistently kept concerns of the general citizenry in the forefront of the Commission deliberations and has directed the Planning staff to continually search out innovative solutions to community conflicts; WHEREAS: James Young has honorably and generously given of his time to represent the Planning Commission and has shared a common interest in the youth of the City of Hampton; 12 WHEREAS: James Young can reflect on the accomplishments of this Commission during his eight year tenure as a concerted vision between the Commission, staff, and the citizenry in shaping the destiny of Hampton; WHEREAS: Members of the Planning Commission and staff sincerely respect and hold Commissioner Young in the highest regard; and WHEREAS: The Planning Commission, Planning staff, and the citizens of Hampton have benefited tremendously from James Young’s leadership and encouragement during his tenure on the Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission and staff do hereby officially commend Commissioner James A. Young for his outstanding service to the citizens of Hampton and do extend their gratitude for his dedication and service to the Hampton Planning Commission. Given this 6th day of September, 2012. A motion was made by Commissioner McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Campbell that the Resolution for Mr. Young be approved: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Campbell, Snead, Bunting NAYES: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams Commissioner Young stated it was an honor and privilege to have served in the capacity he has done for the past eight years for the city of Hampton and to have had the honor and privilege to have done that with such a professional and diligent Planning Department and staff directed by Mr. Terry O’Neill. He stated he has met a multitude of people he has grown to admire and respect for their diligence and commitment to the city and the city’s growth and improvement. It has bettered him as an individual and a citizen of the city. He plans to stay involved and engaged and will be knocking on the door from time to time so he is not forgotten; and nag at times when he sees things he thinks need additional attention. He thanked everyone for the opportunity to serve. Vice-Chairman Gaynette LaRue thanked Commissioner Young for a job well done and for a lot of dedicated time and commitment to serve the city of Hampton. In response to Vice-Chairman LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated that all the public meetings on the Phoebus Master Plan Update are open to the general public and the public can participate. The more identified stakeholder group would be the property owners, businesses and residents in Phoebus. Staff has worked with the Phoebus 13 Improvement League to alert them to the meeting schedule and will continue to do so. Individual meetings are held with those as requested. There will be a farewell reception after the meeting in Commissioner Young’s honor. X. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:47 PM. Respectively submitted, ____________________________ Terry O’Neill APPROVED BY: ________________________________________ Gregory Williams Chairman l 14