Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT THE WORK SESSION OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE LAWSON CONFERENCE ROOM, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2013, AT 3:00 P.M. Chairman Gregory Williams, Vice Chairman Gaynette LaRue, and Commissioners Carlton Campbell, Andre McCloud, Chris Snead, and Mary Bunting were present. Absent was Commissioner James Young. Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, opened the floor for questions or comments regarding the agenda items. Sr, Deputy City Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli stated the Commission will hear a re- codification of chapter 35 of the city code of the City of Hampton, Virginia. The Commissioners discussed Conditional Privilege Application No. 133-2013, by Abedellatif Dadouche and Mostafa Lghaouch to permit a pawn shop at 922 LaSalle Avenue. There was discussion regarding the location of the proposed pawn shop and what has transpired regarding the shopping center in the past. Sr. Deputy City Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli stated that pawn shops are highly regulated today with hook-up to police software and subject to surprise inspections. This is a retail use that would be allowed but is required to have a Conditional Privilege because they are a regulated use. Commissioner Andre McCloud stated his concerns are problems caused at this shopping center and the fact that the surrounding property has been purchased in an effort to clean up the area. The applicants did not hold a community meeting. It was noted the property is zoned C-3 (General Commercial) wherein pawn shops are allowed, and that conditions can be attached to the use through the Conditional Privilege process. Issues to be addressed are that the property is properly zoned and the proposed use meets the criteria of the Community Plan. Mr. O’Neill stated that Use Permits and Conditional Privileges are presumptive permitted uses. They will either prove they can or cannot operate under the approved conditions. The meeting adjourned at 3:29 p.m. 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, MARCH 7, 2013 AT 3:30 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gregory Williams called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Chairman Williams, Vice-Chair Gaynette LaRue, and Commissioners Carlton Campbell, Andre McCloud, Chris Snead, and Mary Bunting as present. Commissioners James Young was noted as absent. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Vice-Chairman LaRue, to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2013 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, McCloud, LaRue, Snead, Bunting, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Young Commissioner Bunting left the meeting prior to presentation of the staff reports. IV. STAFF REPORTS James Payne, Senior Youth Planner stated the Youth Planners have worked with the Hampton Youth Commission to update the Youth Component of the Community Plan. Mr. Payne stated that, while working as a Youth Planner, he has learned how to plan and process projects. The Planning Division and the Youth Planners have been working on a process for the Youth Component Update; made up of four components, the Update began with a kick-off meeting and is now in the edit/revision stage. Upon completion approval is still required from the Hampton Youth Commission, the Planning Commission, and final approval from City Council. On April 15, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. the Hampton Youth Commission will host the Youth Friendly Event Guidebook reception at the Teen Center. Used as a guide for youth-serving organizations, this guidebook helps make events youth-friendly within the city of Hampton. 1  The Youth Commission takes pride in learning about local government and educating themselves on the city’s budget process. Mr. Payne introduced two members of the Youth Commission, Chair Sharmae Stringfield and Vice-Chair Sarah Angel. Sharmae Stringfield, Chair of the Hampton Youth Commission, gave a brief history of the Youth Commission. She heard about the organization through announcements in her middle school and has been a member for four years. Made up of high school students from different area public and private schools, the Youth Commission is one of the many wonderful youth organizations within the city that invokes youth civic engagement. Meeting dates are held on Mondays as follows: first Monday - Public Meeting; second Monday – training meeting; third Monday – committee meetings; and the fourth Monday - Team Building. The Youth Planners act as guides for the commissioners for three of the four of their current committees which are: Policy, Partnerships, Publicity, and Philanthropy. Their vision is to be the youth with the voice and power to shape the future of Hampton. Involved in policy making and being champions of the Hampton Youth Component, the Youth Commission thinks of itself as the Youth City Council. Ms. Stringfield stated a personal goal of hers is to have a lasting impression on what youth will do; have them think of Hampton in the future; and gradually keep them coming back to the City. She stated the bike lanes located around the city are due, in part, to the hard work of past Commissioners. Sarah Angel, Vice-chair, spoke to the Commission about her transformation from timid and nervous to active and confident. It was not an easy journey, nor one she initially chose to be as involved with as she is now. She joined during the frenzy of SAT studying and college searching during her junior year so another item could be added to her resume. She quickly realized how much enjoyment there was in the assigned work and that many parts of her life (history, government, and English) were connected to this one extracurricular activity. Most importantly, she could relay information on problems seen daily in school. Through multiple grant cycles, public opinion surveys, and the Youth Component Update, the Youth Commission is a perfect outlet to voice concerns and act upon them to make Hampton a better place. Having learned basic principles along the way has helped her understand behind the scenes workings of the City, and fundamental facts have enabled her to become a more productive and useful member of society. Ms. Angel explained she has learned cooperation and how to work with others even though they might not think alike. Work with the Youth Commission has provided her with an open mind that she will carry with her to college and elsewhere. She has learned qualities that make a great leader and 2 that leadership is not about commanding, but giving up control and fostering the best in others to allow achievement of greatness. The Hampton Youth Commission is worth the time of any teen; with even half the passion and drive she has, future commissioners will be a better influence on their world, and being on the Commission will help them become more well rounded. Ms. Angel stated she values the strong sense of service and altruism she has gained. The following members of the Youth Commission stood and introduced themselves: Michael York; Ricky Barnes; Grace Kelly; and Gabrielle Taylor. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Angel stated she joined the Youth Commission because she wanted to serve and be productive. She likes the events the Youth Commission has put together and has made available to the public, and being able to contribute to the progress of the city. What she likes most about being on the Youth Commission is the feeling of being a part of something bigger and learning from those with whom she associates. Commissioner Campbell stated he is impressed with the Youth Planners and Youth Commissioners and thanked them for what they do. Commissioner LaRue stated she continues to be amazed and impressed with the quality of the young people the city is producing. Chairman Williams thanked the Youth Planners and Youth Commissioners and stated they make our community proud. Public Hearing Procedures 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. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 053-2013: Ordinance to amend and re- enact chapter 14 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “M-1: Limited Manufacturing District” by adding noncommercial communication towers to the permitted uses in the district. Tamaria Green, City Planner, presented the staff report of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 053-2013, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Noncommercial communication towers are defined in the ordinance in chapter 2.1 and are permitted in nearly every residential, commercial and manufacturing district with a height of 75 feet by right and up to 125 feet with an approved Use Permit. 3 The purpose of this amendment is to permit non-commercial communication towers in an M-1 Manufacturing District and to promote consistent zoning and land use practices. This amendment arose from a private request to install an amateur radio tower on a property located on West Pembroke Avenue and zoned M-1 (Limited Manufacturing). Staff conducted research and found the use was inadvertently omitted from this zoning district. Approving this amendment will not create any negative land use impacts, as the use is already permitted in neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. This proposal will add noncommercial communication towers to permitted uses in M-1 Districts. Most Hampton Roads localities regulate amateur radio towers or non- commercial communication towers in residential districts in a similar way as Hampton. Some only permit commercial communication towers and not amateur radio towers in commercial or manufacturing districts. Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) encourages evaluating proposals from regional, city-wide and neighborhood prospective; safeguarding existing neighborhoods; and coordinating compatibility among different land uses. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 053-2013. There were no speakers from the public. The Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 053-2013 by the City of Hampton to amend and reenact Chapter 14 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia, entitled “M-1: Limited Manufacturing District” by adding noncommercial communication towers to the permitted uses in section 14.2; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will allow noncommercial communication towers in the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District, subject to the issuance of a use permit; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will allow noncommercial communication towers by-right up to seventy-five (75) feet, and up to one hundred twenty-five (125) feet with an approved use permit in the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will fulfill the goals of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) by evaluating proposals from regional, city-wide, and neighborhood perspectives, safeguarding existing neighborhoods, and the coordination and compatibility among different land uses; and 4 WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 053-2013. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, McCloud, Snead, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Young B. Ordinance Amendment: Ordinance to amend and re-enact chapter 35 of the City Code of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Subdivisions” by amending section 35-7 pertaining to exceptions, section 35-10 (A) (4) pertaining to the vacation of a subdivision plat, lot or boundary line adjustment, section 35-11 pertaining to fees, section 35-20 pertaining to pre-application conferences, section 35-22 pertaining to the preparation of a subdivision plat, section 35-23 pertaining to the contents of a preliminary subdivision plat, section 35-67 pertaining to the stormwater drainage system, section 35-82 pertaining to landscaping, section 35-102 pertaining to who may prepare a subdivision plat, section 35-103 pertaining to the content of a development plan, section 35- 105(B)(2) pertaining to inspection fees, and section 35-108 pertaining to bonds and the deletion of section 35-21 pertaining to the requirement of a subdivision plat. Vanessa Valldejuli, Sr. Deputy City Attorney, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The proposed amendment to the ordinance is to amend and re-enact chapter 35 of the city code of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Subdivisions”. These are housekeeping amendments which address issues associated with the implementation of the new subdivision ordinance approved by Council in August 2011 and changes resulting from the new stormwater management regulations enacted by the General Assembly effective July 2012. Awareness of many of the clarifications and housekeeping amendments were brought about by Development Services Center staff members from Community Development and Public Works who work on the subdivision plans. The change to section 35-7 clarifies that City Council cannot grant exceptions to provisions that are governed by the building code (chapter 9), the land disturbing ordinance (chapter 13.1), the stormwater management ordinance (chapter 33.1), the wetlands ordinance (chapter 41.1) and the “City of Hampton Landscape Guidelines” in addition to the zoning ordinance and the public works design and construction standards. 5  The change to section 35-10 corrects a clerical error. The change to section 35-11(A) (4) corrects a clerical error. The change to section 35-11(B) (4) eliminates the review fee for a final subdivision plat where there is no public infrastructure involved (City staff determined that a review fee was unnecessary). The change to section 35-11(B) (5) corrects a clerical error. The change to section 35-20 clarifies that any comments made at a pre- application conference do not constitute official review comments regardless if they are written or oral. Comments made at these conferences are made to assist a subdivider with all threshold issues that arise from the proposed concept plat prior to the submission of the subdivision application and preliminary plat . The elimination of section 35-21 is proposed because it is redundant. The requirement for subdivision plan submittal is addressed at the beginning of the ordinance. The change to section 35-22 is required because the city cannot require who is to perform wetlands delineations under the subdivision provisions of the state code. The subdivision ordinance already complies with the CBPA (Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act) regulations regarding delineations. The changes to section 35-23 address stormwater management regulation requirements and eliminate redundant provisions already governed by provisions in the zoning ordinance. The change to section 35-67 is precipitated by the stormwater management regulations and the pending stormwater management model ordinance. References will be made to the actual chapter of the city code rather than a title or specific code section in chapter 33.1. The changes to section 35-82 are minor changes clarifying where the “City of Hampton Landscape Guidelines” are kept. The change to section 35-102 is the same as the change to 35-22 as it relates to development plans. The changes to section 35-103 eliminate redundant provisions already found in the zoning ordinance or other city code provisions and clarify some terms. The change to section 35-105 adds sidewalks to the inspection fees for public infrastructure installed. This was an inadvertent omission. The changes to section 35-108 alleviate a hardship on subdividers that cannot complete sidewalks before the public infrastructure goes into the maintenance period 6 because the subdivision is not built out and sidewalks are generally installed after the dwelling is built. Additionally, the reduction of the performance bond to 10% of the construction costs is allowed by state code and was recommended by public works staff. Staff respectfully requests that the Commission approve the proposed amendment. 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 proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact chapter 35 of the city code of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Subdivisions” by amending section 35-7 pertaining to exceptions, section 35-10 (A) (4) pertaining to the vacation of a subdivision plat, lot or boundary line adjustment, section 35-11 pertaining to fees, section 35-20 pertaining to pre-application conferences, section 35-22 pertaining to the preparation of a subdivision plat, section 35-23 pertaining to the contents of a preliminary subdivision plat, section 35-67 pertaining to the stormwater drainage system, section 35-82 pertaining to landscaping, section 35-102 pertaining to who may prepare a subdivision plat, section 35-103 pertaining to the content of a development plan, section 35-105(B)(2) pertaining to inspection fees, and section 35-108 pertaining to bonds and deleting section 35-21 pertaining to the requirement of a subdivision plat; WHEREAS: amendments are housekeeping items that address issues associated with the implementation of the new subdivision ordinance and changes resulting from the new stormwater management regulations; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Gaynette LaRue, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment to chapter 35, Subdivisions, of the City Code. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, McCloud, LaRue, Snead, William NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Young, Bunting 7 C. Conditional Privilege Application No. 133-2013: by Abdellatif Dadouche and Mostafa Lghaouch to permit a pawn shop at 922 LaSalle Avenue [LRSN 2000406]. The property is zoned General Commercial District (C-3), which permits pawn shops subject to securing a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends commercial use for this site. City Planner, Tamaria Green, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The request is a proposal by Abdellatif Dadouche and Mostafa Lghaouch to operate a pawn shop at 922 LaSalle Avenue. This property is located in the Queens Plaza Shopping Center. The site is currently zoned C-3 (General Commercial) which permits pawn shops subject to the issuance of Conditional Privilege permit. The site is surrounded by single-family dwellings, a church, an auto shop, and a Taco Bell/KFC restaurant. The Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended) recommends commercial use in this area. The plan also recommends policies that encourage and maintain an environment that promotes the continued growth of small businesses. The application has eight attached conditions, the most pertinent of which relate to hours of operation and licensing requirements. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Privilege No. 133-2013 with eight conditions. Ms. Green stated one email was received in opposition to the approval of the request for a pawn shop in that location. There were no speakers from the public. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Lghaouch stated he had chosen this location because C-3 zoning districts, which permit pawn shops, are hard to find and this one is located in a residential area. After discussion, which included concerns as to whom notification had been sent and if the adjacent church had been notified; the amount of experience the applicants have in running this type of business; the type of security equipment to be used: and previous problems surrounding the shopping center and how to address those problems if they do occur, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Abdellatif Dadouche and Mostafa Lghaouch to operate a pawn shop at 922 LaSalle Avenue [LRSN 2000406]; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended) recommends commercial use for the subject property. The surrounding area is also recommended to be commercial; 8 WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned General Commercial (C-3) District which allows a pawn shop use subject to the securing of a Conditional Privilege; WHEREAS: eight (8) conditions are attached to address hours of operation, licensing, and a termination clause; WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal; and WHEREAS: the applicant opted not to host a community meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Conditional Privilege Application No. 133-2013, subject to eight (8) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Larue, Snead, Williams NAYS: McCloud ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Young VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT Terry O’Neill, Community Development Department Director, stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 019-2013: Phoebus Master Plan (2007), which was recently heard and acted on by the Planning Commission, is ready to move on to City Council for action at their March 13, 2013 meeting. The meeting was turned over to Sr. Deputy City Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli who informed the Commission of an upcoming major ordinance update which is to be heard and voted on at the Planning Commission meeting in April. She introduced Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown who would present a short presentation on the ordinance update. The site plan regulations are found in Article IV, chapter 9, of the city code and should be located near the subdivision ordinance. The Virginia Code groups subdivisions and site plans together and states they should mirror each other. Chapter 9, article IV, will be replaced with chapter 35.1 which will be located by the subdivision ordinance. The change would bring the ordinance into compliance with the state code, which it has not been since 1964. Community Development Department staff will work further on chapter 35.1. 9  Upon introduction, and as requested by Chairman Williams, Ms. Brown told the Commission she comes to the city of Hampton from New York. She stated she attended Christopher Newport University and the College of William and Mary’s Law School. Mr. O’Neill explained the difference between site plans and subdivisions. Site plans deal primarily with commercial development and the subdivision ordinance deals with residential subdivisions and other subdividing of land. Ms. Brown stated the site plan regulations in chapter 9 will be repealed and recodified into chapter 35.1 of the city code which brings site plan regulations into compliance with the Virginia Code. This will eliminate the requirement of preliminary site plans and conflicts with the zoning ordinance. Fees will be established to cover increasing costs of administration and enforcement. Site plan regulations have not been comprehensively amended since 1964 so the fee structure will reflect the actual time spent in reviewing site plans as they are today. A fee schedule was displayed showing the fees to be enacted compared to fees from other localities. Mr. O’Neill stated that after a review of the fee schedule comparison was done, Council’s guidance was that Hampton be competitive, not the highest nor the lowest, and that the reviews be done more often. Ms. Brown stated the current design standards will not be amended but will be addressed in a future phase (Phase II); the green area requirements will not be amended, they will be moved to the zoning ordinance; and the landscaping requirements will not be amended, they will be placed in the “City of Hampton Landscape Guidelines” on file with the Community Development Department, Development Service Center. Ms. Valldejuli explained that green area requirements were in chapter 9 for some zoning districts, but the rest of the green area requirements which affect how people use their property, were in other districts of the ordinance. These requirements will be put in their respective zoning districts so appeals can be made through the Board of Zoning Appeals rather than through city code. Ms. Brown stated the site plan ordinance is composed of four articles similar to the subdivision ordinance as required by Virginia Code: provisions for review and approval processes; content of plans; appeals, requests for exceptions; and bonding of public improvements. The new ordinance will mirror the subdivision ordinance. The process remains administrative and will be handled through the Development Services Center as the City’s agent. This ordinance will make site plan provisions easier to find; eliminate the preliminary site plan making it cheaper and more efficient for staff and developers; 10 provide clear direction to developments with either a rejection of the plan, with reasons articulated in writing, or an approval; and encourage a pre-application conference at no cost to the developer (concept plan phase). Mr. O’Neill stated developers/customers will be encouraged to have a pre- application discussion or conference for guidance and advice prior to submission of a full site plan. Ms. Attorney Brown stated some major clarifications in chapter 35.1 make clear that it is Public Works’ responsibility to administer the monitoring and enforcement of site plans to include maintenance and surety bonds: Parks and Recreation will enforce provisions pertaining to required landscape plans and landscaping bonds; and creation of an “exception” process to allow the Planning Commission and Council to waive or modify provisions of the ordinance to address unique or adverse circumstances as provided in the Virginia Code. .Ms. Valldejuli stated enforcement of site plans is done by various departments: Community Development Department enforces the zoning and building code issues; fire codes, such as alleyways, are enforced by the Fire Department; and landscaping is enforced by Parks and Recreation. Ms. Brown stated the state code changes: review periods for site plans are now in compliance with the Virginia Code provisions; release of surety bonds now complies with the provisions of the Virginia Code; fee schedules have been reorganized and established as expressly authorized by Va. Code § 15.2-2241.A.9; and the ordinance complies with new stormwater management regulations where applicable. The current review process was initiated in March of 2012 and the regulations had not been comprehensively amended since 1964. A review team initiated by the City Attorney’s Office was formed to identify inconsistencies with the Virginia Code and new stormwater management regulations. Amendments to substantive provisions of the site plan ordinance are to be initiated at a later date by the Planning & Zoning Administration Division in the Phase II process. There will also be 17 amendments to the zoning ordinance which resulted from changes from chapter 9 to chapter 35.1, resolving conflicts between the site plan and the zoning ordinance and complying with stormwater management regulations. A review team of city staff members from several departments was formed to review proposed changes. Several preliminary drafts were compiled and reviewed by city staff in preparation for review by a special stakeholders group of surveyors, engineers, developers, a land use attorney, and representatives of the Coliseum and Downtown BIDS, as well as Phoebus and the Peninsula Homebuilders Association. 11  The final draft was reviewed and approved in January 2013. ZOAC (Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee) was not involved because these are state code mandates. The repeal of article IV, chapter 9, where the site plan regulations used to be, will go directly to City Council. Acknowledging those who helped in the process are: • Community Development: Terry O’Neill, Steve Shapiro, Keith Cannady, Greg Goetz, Jeff Conkle, Dave Stromberg • Public Works: McCord Newsome, Delane McCarty, Walt Crockett • City Attorney’s Office: Vanessa Valldejuli, Bonnie Brown • Stakeholders: John Ishon and Richard Bagley – DHDP BID; Walt Deskin – Phoebus (developer); Bradford Brown – CCBID; Robert Duckett – PHBA; Lawrence Cumming – Attorney; Tom Savage – Land Surveyor; Eddie Marschieder – Civil Engineer Phase I of the process is expected to come before the Commission in April and the City Council in May. 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 4:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: ________________________________________ Gregory Williams Chairman 12