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, APRIL 4, 2013, AT 3:00 P.M. Chairman Gregory Williams, Vice Chairman Gaynette LaRue, and Commissioners Carlton Campbell, James Young, Andre McCloud, and Mary Bunting were present. Absent was Commissioner Chris Snead. Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, opened the floor for questions/and or comments regarding the agenda items. Commissioner Campbell mentioned the two reasons for denial of Rezoning Application No. 1308-2013 by TR Development for the funeral home and the crematorium in the staff report: 1) not conforming to the Community Plan and 2) rezoning of the second parcel from R-11 to C-2. His concerns were what the overall consensus was of those who had attended the community meeting and the large parcel of land involving the project. He stated he was not convinced the request should be denied. Senior City Planner Donald Whipple stated most of the opposition expressed at the meeting regarded the additional traffic and the potential impact from the crematorium on air quality. Questions related to stormwater issues will be vetted through the site plan and other related ordinances. Commissioner Andre McCloud stated the request for the funeral home and the crematorium violates the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). Chairman Williams stated he sees the Commission as a guardian of the community plan and this is what the community wanted. The community put in a lot of years working together on this community plan. A big uproar on funeral homes has not been heard as was heard with cell towers. Mr. O’Neill gave a brief history on the Big Bethel Road Corridor Study that was done in the 1990’s which drove the current land use policy. He does not believe particular parcels were discussed at that time. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Whipple stated that some of the residents attending the community meeting were in favor of the request. Commissioner Campbell stated, as with the request by WaWa, residents would have an opportunity to speak at the Council meeting. Mr. O’Neill stated it is the role of staff to look at these requests from a technical and professional perspective. The role of the Planning Commission is to process information from the staff, the community, and the applicant for times when decision calls are close. Planning Commission Work Session 20130404 Page 1 In response to Commissioner LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated things get tough when requests like the funeral home are located across the street in an area with residential uses such as a large church and with Big Bethel Road’s use as a major arterial. The residents still consider their area more residential than commercial. The reason for the corridor study and the policy of the City of Hampton was that most of the residents desired Big Bethel Road not be commercial from one end to the other. Commercial development would be limited to certain areas. It is the Commission’s job to determine if the plan is still relevant. Churches are a permitted use. In response to Commissioner Campbell, Mr. O’Neill stated the conditional privilege request by TR Development is contingent upon approval of their rezoning request. If the Chairman is in agreement, the rezoning and conditional privilege requests can be read and heard in conjunction, but separate votes will be required on each action. Mr. Whipple stated he received two emails in opposition to the requests by TR Development. The Commissioners discussed Use Permit 1085-2013 by Richard S. Ayers, DBA Attic Tattoos, LLC to allow a tattoo parlor on an existing site. Planner Alison Alexander stated the tattoo parlor previously located on this site did not have a use permit because one was not required at the time it began operation. Sr. Deputy City Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli stated it was determined that tattoo parlors must be allowed but they could be regulated. Ms. Valldejuli reminded the Commissioners that chapter 35.1 was coming up for a vote at the Planning Commission meeting. The worksession meeting ended at 3:27 p.m. Planning Commission Work Session 20130404 Page 2 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, APRIL 4, 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 Commissioner Chris Snead was absent. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Vice-Chairman LaRue, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2013 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Young, McCloud, LaRue, Bunting, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Snead IV. STAFF REPORTS Youth Report Junior Youth Planner Chyna Matheny stated the gathering input stage of the Youth Component update process is complete. All data collected has been confirmed at the checkpoint meeting hosted at the Hampton Teen Center. The Youth Planners will now focus on how to compose all topics discussed from the checkpoint meeting, focus groups, and survey into the newly updated Youth Component. One of their goals was “Places to Go and Things to Do.” The youth of Hampton need to have things to do. On April 15, 2013 from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., a meeting will be held at the Teen Center for youth-serving organizations. A brochure will be distributed to the guests and they will have the opportunity to plan an event with a chance to win a grant to help with planning their event. The Youth Friendly Guidebook will be available online. The Youth Planners along with Hampton Youth Commission met with the Budget Analyst and took the opportunity to ask questions pertaining to the budget and learn how to better understand it. 1  Commissioner Bunting thanked the Youth Commission for meeting with the Budget staff as very few youth groups around the country get involved in the budget process. 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. Rezoning Application No. 1310-2013 by TR Development LLC to rezone parcels at 978 and 1014 Big Bethel Road [LRSNs 4001445 and 4001446], totaling 4.64± acres from Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1) and Single Family Residence (R-11) to a Limited Commercial District (C-2) with conditions, to construct and operate a Funeral Home and Crematorium. C-2 permits a Funeral Home with an approved Conditional Privilege. The existing use of the site is vacant. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends the Big Bethel Road corridor to develop as a residential corridor with new and expanded commercial uses concentrated within established commercial nodes; the future land use recommends the subject parcels as Mix Use and Low Density Residential. B. Conditional Privilege Application No. 135-2013 by TR Development LLC to operate a Funeral Home and Crematorium on parcels at 978 and 1014 Big Bethel Road [LRSNs 4001445 and 4001446], totaling 4.64± acres. The parcels are zoned Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1) and Single Family Residence (R- 11) which requires a rezoning to Limited Commercial District (C-2), and an approved Conditional Privilege to operate a Funeral Home and Crematorium. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends the Big Bethel Road corridor to develop as a residential corridor with new and expanded commercial uses concentrated within established commercial nodes; the future land use recommends the subject parcels as Mix Use and Low Density Residential. Mr. O’Neill stated both cases by TR Development, LLC are related items so a joint hearing will be heard in order to expedite the process; however, separate action will be taken on each case. Senior City Planner Donald Whipple presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The applicant proposes to rezone the 4.64± acres to a Limited Commercial District (C-2) with conditions, to construct and operate a funeral home and crematorium at the intersection of Big Bethel Road and Old Big Bethel Road. A Conditional Privilege is required to allow the crematorium. Within the funeral home will be a 400 seat chapel. 2  Parcel 1 (zoned C-1) allows mixed use and parcel 2 (zoned R-11) allows low density residential. Other policies from the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) reflect the Big Bethel Road Corridor as a residential corridor with commercial nodes. The city has aging commercial corridors throughout that need redevelopment and reinvestment. A community meeting was held on March 7, 2013 at the Hilton Garden Inn Hampton with approximately 25 citizens in attendance. There are thirteen proffered conditions which speak to the limitation of land use for the funeral home and crematorium use only. There are architectural standards for the signage and lighting on the site; traffic recommendations from the traffic study done on the site, and landscape buffer recommendations. Also included for the operation of the funeral home and crematorium, the Conditional Privilege has seven conditions which include hours of operation; licensing; and traffic circulation. Staff recommends denial of the Rezoning from C-1 and R-11 to C- 2 and denial of the Conditional Privilege for a funeral home and crematorium as it conflicts with the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). The prevailing land use in this area is low density residential and the land use recommendation for Parcel 2 continues to be low density residential. Big Bethel Road is the only north/south connector in this quadrant of the city west of I-64. Identified as a residential corridor, Big Bethel Road absorbs all residential traffic for this section of the city. Additional commercial development puts pressure on maintaining the capacity for residential use and development within the area as recommended in the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). Big Bethel Road is identified as a residential corridor and the plans call for it to remain residential in character, concentrating commercial development identified in the commercial nodes at Big Bethel Road and Todds Lane, and further north at its intersection with Hampton Roads Center Parkway. If the requests are approved, further commercial development could cause the future character of the Big Bethel Road corridor to convert into a commercial corridor instead of a residential corridor. Staff has consciously and consistently pursued policy direction to maintain the residential character of Big Bethel Road as a residential corridor with commercial nodes. Commercial rezoning pressures in the 70’s and 80’s were either withdrawn or denied and staff analysis was similar with today’s recommendation. Staff believes there is existing commercial land and commercial zoning within the city to accommodate this use. Staff is also concerned that this development is too large for this neighborhood commercial node. At 15,500 square feet of proposed funeral home space it would easily be the largest funeral home in the city of Hampton and possibly the Peninsula. The increased paving and parking translates into the traffic impact on the corridor. Both items threaten the residential character of the Big Bethel Road corridor and are not compatible with the land use even though it is a well designed and quality development. 3  In response to a question from Vice Chairman LaRue, Mr. Whipple stated staff explored the possibilities of looking at just Parcel 1, which is currently zoned commercial (C-1) and would still have to be rezoned to C-2, but would be consistent with the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) and staff could recommend commercial development. The actual facility would need to be smaller for it to fit on the lot and recommendation for approval for rezoning Parcel 1 would possibly be allowed. In response to a question from Chairman Williams, Mr. Whipple stated there are no consistent times of operation and an event could coincide with another event. The concern has been additional cars on the road at any given time, i.e. 5:00 p.m. Mr. Whipple stated two emails had been received voicing concern to the requests being granted: Holly Bell, 106 Bristol Court, and Bryan Meissner, 205 Ian Court. In response to Commissioner Williams, Mr. Whipple stated about 90% of the people in attendance at the Community meeting were in opposition. The applicants’ representative, attorney Michael Sweeney, 1105 Madison Plaza, Suite 120, Chesapeake, stated TR, LLC desires to purchase and rezone the land at 978 and 1014 Big Bethel Road. TR stands for Taylor Robinson and Taylor Robinson Funeral Home consists of Roselyn Taylor, Michael Robinson, and Christopher Suber. Mr. Sweeney stated Ms. Taylor has a passion to help people in the funeral home business. She grew up in Hampton and is licensed as a Funeral Service Provider and a member of the Virginia Mortician’s Association. Mr. Robinson grew up in Newport News and is also a licensed Funeral Provider and is member of the Virginia Mortician’s Association. Mr. Suber, founder of Construction Development Services, is a Class A contractor and builds for federal and state government. He is also a member of the community. Other team members are architect Wendell Green, president of WTG Design and designer of other funeral homes in the area; Hollis Ellis, the Civil Engineer who will speak about stormwater management, the site plan, and traffic flow; and Bryant Goodloe, the traffic engineer who will speak about the traffic. Mr. Sweeney stated the lots located at 978 and 1014 Big Bethel Road are vacant and underutilized. Taylor Robinson proposes to rezone and construct the Taylor Robinson Funeral Home. The closest cross street is Todds Lane and the properties from Todds Lane to these properties are commercial. Neighbors to the south are commercial and one of the proposed lots is commercially zoned C-1. Further north there is a vacant parcel; approximately 10 homes; a church; Burton Road; another church; and then Michaels Woods Drive. Across the street from this parcel is a shopping center and Liberty Baptist Church, the largest church in Hampton. A funeral home would be compatible in this location and funeral homes are permitted under C-2 zoning with a Conditional Privilege. 4  Mr. Sweeney stated one of the goals he found when he reviewed the Hampton Community Plan, (2006 as amended) is to encourage and foster business and encourage businesses like Taylor Robinson in the city of Hampton. He quoted from the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended), “Strong business environment is the backbone of a community. Jobs and private investment fuel the economy and also provide the resources to pay for many of the community’s services and quality of life projects. If Hampton is to achieve its vision of being the most livable city in Virginia it must have a healthy business climate.” Mr. Sweeney stated the desire of his clients is to make a substantial investment in the city of Hampton. They have hired the finest architects and engineers. This investment would broaden the city tax base and would create jobs. The applicants are not asking for help, they are proffering different conditions and making stipulations. The Taylor Robinson Funeral Home would further fulfill the goals of the Hampton Community Plan, 2006 as amended. Mr. Sweeney stated churches are compatible with funeral homes. Funeral homes typically locate in neighborhoods the same as churches as they are places of worship and meditation. Funeral homes are places for people to meet and remember loved ones. Churches have services and so would this funeral home. The funeral home would be a good neighbor and would benefit the community. Mr. Sweeney stated the community meeting was held to get input from the community and he believes there were more in favor than against the request. They spoke with many families living in the surrounding area and he understood at the meeting 25 people to be in favor with five against this request. When the project was begun it was the applicants’ desire to work with the city and have a project in which everyone would be proud. He emphasized that his clients would bring investments to the city by adding jobs and adding to the tax base. Mr. Sweeney stated the use is compatible with the surrounding area and he believes it to be consistent with the community plan and a benefit to the community. He asked the Commission to approve the request. Bryant Goodloe of Bryant Goodloe, PC, 8809 Adams Drive East, Suffolk stated he performed the traffic impact study which was done for a larger plan than is seen now. He has been working with John Yorks, the city of Hampton’s Traffic Engineer. Traffic was based on the development plan with a total of seven employees which would cause minimal morning and afternoon traffic. The school traffic has a huge impact. There will be limited traffic during normal business hours with most of the traffic for the site between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Visitation is often at night. The project is located at a traffic signal and a right turn lane will not be necessary. Hollis Ellis, CAE, Inc., 321 Office Square Lane, Suite 101A, Virginia Beach stated TR Development is his client. The funeral home will have to meet all city and state stormwater management requirements and that covers water quality and quantity treatment for stormwater. There will be nothing to adversely harm or impact the area. The applicants are working in conjunction with the city review staff and any issues will 5 be addressed. A large drainage ditch that traverses through the site will be addressed in the final site plan. The traffic circulation on site has all the required parking per the zoning ordinance and will meet all stormwater requirements. Wendell Green, 860 Greenbrier Circle, Chesapeake, stated he is the architect of record for the proposed concept. He stated he has done three similar funeral homes. He and the clients looked at the community, the church, and the residential area and designed a structure to fit into the community. It has a very nice comprehensive flow: 1) A grand administrative area 2) Staterooms for families to meet the bereaved before a funeral 3) A chapel large enough for 300 to 400 people 4) A crematorium - one would not be aware it is there when around it. EPA regulates all crematoriums and this one is state-of-the-art. In response to questions by Vice Chairman LaRue and Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Ellis stated there is no odor associated with a crematorium. No noticeable odor or smoke is emitted, only water vapor. An air quality permit will have to be obtained from the DEQ. Ms. Taylor presented a package to the Commissioners from the people who would build the crematorium which she stated should answer all questions. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Taylor stated the team viewed several different properties and this property meets all of their needs. When Commissioner Campbell stated that one parcel is already commercial and greater consideration would be given if the applicant’s request was restricted to the one commercial property, Ms. Taylor stated it had not been discussed but the team would discuss it. Mr. Ellis stated the property line would be vacated and the properties merged so the property would be one parcel. LaTanya Blanton, 205 Maryfield Court, stated she had two sheets of signatures from the community stating they do not want the rezoning that would allow the crematorium and funeral home. Her concerns are that schools are there and they want the aesthetics; auto insurance would go up; adjacent properties would depreciate. Other issues of concern are lung disorders, blood diseases, and mood depressors. There are six funeral homes in the area and available auditoriums. Churches should provide what is needed. A funeral home is not what they want in their back yards. Ms. Blanton stated traffic is already intense and she would like to see the neighborhood stay low density residential. 6  In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Blanton stated she had attended the community meeting and she does not want the funeral home or a crematorium. Nelson Ortiz, 215 Maryfield Court, stated he had not attended the community meeting but does not feel this request is appropriate for the neighborhood. Even with nodes for commercial sites most of the area is residential. Homes are located 25 yards or less from this location. Located within a half mile of this site are five schools. Big Bethel Road has a lot of traffic with much of it going to Langley (AFB) and it is the one road that crosses over before one gets to Jefferson Avenue. This is just not the right place even though he realizes the employment opportunities and the tax base. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Ortiz stated that traffic is not his only concern; some people just do not want a funeral home located next to them. Marilyn Cooper, 204 Ian Court, stated she is opposed to the idea for environmental reasons and horrific traffic. Tom Waltz, 134 Andrews Crossing, Yorktown, stated he is part of the team and ownership. His commercial real estate firm is selling the property. There have been positive comments about the property and they think it is a great idea and great use of the property. His firm handles property throughout Hampton Roads and Ms. Taylor and Mr. Robinson thoroughly researched the market place and decided this was a good location. He asked that the Commission grant one of the greatest privileges of all and allow the applicants a chance to turn their dreams into a reality and allow them to serve the community. Thomas Sinclair, 384 Eaton Street, stated there are pros and cons on both sides. This request needs to be longer thought out. Linda Lloyd, 203 Ian Court, stated her husband Eric and she had not attended the community meeting. She stated they are definitely against the request because traffic is a concern. A nursing home community is located across the street from their cul-de-sac and has frequent traffic. Big Bethel Road is considered a short cut. With two schools being on the same campus, school times are staggered and she is concerned about children getting on and off buses. Liberty Baptist Church is already using the Hampton Police Department for directing traffic because their traffic is so heavy. Bringing in a funeral home and crematorium does not seem like much, but it is not beneficial to the homeowners and does not allow them to have a safe environment. Patricia Pittman, 107 Bristol Court, stated she and her husband, who is also in attendance, live behind this property and are sorry that more in favor of the request are not present. Worse things, such as bars and strips joints or places that could be open until three in the morning, could be built there. The funeral home would have very little impact on traffic or the community that would be harmful and it would be an asset. 7  Harold Pinkston, Sr., 2795 Butternut Drive, stated he had a brother who had been a funeral director in Pennsylvania. Mr. Pinkston stated he wanted to say something positive about the request. When his brother opened his business, property values increased. There is a difference between a funeral parlor and a church. A funeral parlor that has the chapel as described would be an asset and an opportunity for Hampton. It would be a model for other funeral establishments. He asked the Commission to consider approving these requests. Mr. Pinkston stated he disagrees that 90% were against the funeral home. David Wineman, 920 Old Big Bethel Road, stated when he purchased his property he had intentionally picked that area in which to live. He stated he is in favor of the funeral home. He previously opposed a request when apartments were proposed for that location because of the increase in traffic and congestion in that area. This property is empty and not being used at all. This proposed use will put a minimum impact on the area. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated the Commissioners can recommend approval or denial of a case even though staff recommends denial. Each of the Commissioners stated their stand on the requests and that much thought went into considering these applications. There were mixed feelings from the public as to where they stood on these requests. It was stated that staff recommended denial based on the requests not being in line with the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended). After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolutions to deny the requests: (Rezoning Application No. 1310-2013) WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by TR Development LLC to rezone vacant parcels at 978 and 1014 Big Bethel Road [LRSNs 4001445 and 4001446], totaling 4.64± acres from Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1) and Single Family Residence (R-11) to a Limited Commercial District (C- 2) with conditions, to construct and operate a funeral home and crematorium; WHEREAS: C-2 permits a funeral home with an approved Conditional Privilege; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends the Big Bethel Road corridor to develop as a residential corridor with new and expanded commercial uses concentrated within established commercial nodes, and the future land use plan recommends the subject parcels as Mixed Use and Low Density Residential; 8 WHEREAS: the rezoning of 1014 Big Bethel Road, from One Family Residential (R-11) to Limited Commercial (C-2) is not supported by the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended); WHEREAS: the scale of the proposed commercial development does not fit with the character of this segment of Big Bethel Road which raises concerns about the quality of life for surrounding residents; WHEREAS: the applicant has proffered 13 conditions that pertain to limiting the allowable land uses, architectural standards, landscape buffers, fencing, lighting, signage, and traffic improvements; WHEREAS: approximately 25 citizens attended a community meeting hosted by the applicant on March 7, 2013 at the Hilton Garden Inn; and WHEREAS: there were members of the public that spoke in favor and opposition at the Planning Commission public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion to deny the application by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner James Young, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council denial of Rezoning Application No. 1310-2013. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Young, McCloud, LaRue, Williams NAYS: None ABST: Bunting ABSENT: Snead Commissioner Bunting abstained on this motion as this is her neighborhood and she does not want it to appear her decision was made on a personal rather that professional basis. (Conditional Privilege Application No. 135-2013 WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by TR Development LLC to operate a funeral home and crematorium on vacant parcels at 978 and 1014 Big Bethel Road [LRSNs 4001445 and 4001446], totaling 4.64± acres; WHEREAS: the parcels are zoned Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1) and One Family Residence (R-11) which require a rezoning to Limited Commercial District (C-2), and an approved Conditional Privilege to operate a funeral home and crematorium; 9  WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends the Big Bethel Road corridor to develop as a residential corridor with new and expanded commercial uses concentrated within established commercial nodes, and the future land use plan recommends the subject parcels as Mixed Use and Low Density Residential; WHEREAS: the rezoning of 1014 Big Bethel Road, from One Family Residential (R-11) to Limited Commercial (C-2) is not supported by the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended); WHEREAS: the scale of the proposed commercial development does not fit with the character of this segment of Big Bethel Road which raises concerns with the quality of life for surrounding residents; WHEREAS: if approved, staff is recommending seven conditions pertaining to the issuance of permit, traffic circulation and improvements, hours of operation, licensure of operator, nullification, and revocation; WHEREAS: approximately 25 citizens attended a community meeting hosted by the applicant on March 7, 2013 at the Hilton Garden Inn; and WHEREAS: there were members of the public that spoke in favor and opposition at the Planning Commission public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion to deny the application by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner James Young, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council denial of Conditional Privilege Application No. 135-2013. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Young, McCloud, LaRue, Williams NAYS: None ABST: Bunting ABSENT: Snead Commissioner Bunting abstained on this motion as this is her neighborhood and she does not want it to appear her decision was made on a personal rather that professional basis. C. Ordinance Amendment: Ordinance to amend and re-enact chapter 35 of the City Code of the City of Hampton, Virginia, Entitled “Subdivisions” by adding a new chapter 35.1 entitled “Site Plans”, and to Establish Fees for Review and Administration of the Site Plan Ordinance as Authorized by VA. Code § 15.2- 2241.A.9. 10  Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown presented the amendment to chapter 35 of the City Code of the city of Hampton, Virginia by adding a new chapter 35.1 entitled “Site Plans.” Due to the lengthiness of the meeting and upon request, Ms. Brown dispensed with the presentation given to the Board at the March Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Brown stated this new chapter is the culmination of a year long process to revise the site plan regulations for the city of Hampton. There are two main things being done: 1. This new ordinance mirrors the state code provisions regarding sureties, review periods, and several other items. 2. There are no changes to the design standards or specifications as that will be part of Phase 2. Terry O’Neill stated a few years ago Council advised that the fee structure be revisited periodically and adjusted accordingly so Hampton was neither too high nor too low in comparison to other jurisdictions. Sr. Deputy City Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli stated the fee structures will be taken up with the budget hearings and budget process and will be included in the ordinance. The ordinance will go to City Council in May with the budget. Commissioner Bunting stated the fees do not capture the complete costs of time or analysis spent by staff. What can realistically be done is captured so legally mandated review costs can be borne by the applicant. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Valldejuli stated that chapter 35.1 was added so all the site plan regulations buried in an article in the Building Code found in chapter 9 of the City Code would now be more easily located and easier for developers to find. For that reason and coupled with the fact that the Virginia Code basically requires subdivision and site plan regulations parallel each other is why 35.1 is being added to chapter 35. All of the conflicts have been taken out with these necessary changes. There were no speakers from the public. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 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 adding a new chapter 35.1 entitled “Site Plans,” and to establish fees for review and administration of the Site Plan Ordinance as authorized by VA. Code § 15.2-2241.A.9; 11  WHEREAS: new chapter 35.1 is a recodification of article IV of chapter 9 of the city code with respect to design standards; WHEREAS: new chapter 35.1 eliminates inconsistencies with other provisions of the site plan regulations, the zoning ordinance, and the state code; WHEREAS: new chapter 35.1 also eliminates the preliminary site plan requirement to resolve any issues with the vested rights statute and to make the review process more efficient for developers both in time and cost; WHEREAS: new chapter 35.1 encourages a pre-application conference at no cost to the developer; WHEREAS: new chapter 35.1 incorporates changes to comply with the new stormwater management regulations enacted by the General Assembly; WHEREAS: new chapter 35.1 establishes fees in sections 35.1-11and 35.1-103 as allowed by VA. Code § 15.2-2241.A.9, which fees will be considered by Council at the same time it considers the city budget in May; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment to chapter 35 of the City Code of the City of Hampton, Virginia, entitled “Subdivisions” by adding a new chapter 35.1 entitled “Site Plans,” and to establish fees for review and administration of the Site Plan Ordinance as authorized by VA. Code § 15.2-2241.A.9. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Young, McCloud, LaRue, Bunting, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Snead D. Use Permit Application No. 1085-2013: by Richard S. Ayers DBA Attic Tattoos, LLC to allow a tattoo parlor and body piercing studio at 1073 N. King Street (LRSN 8000678). The property is zoned Limited Commercial District (C-2), which permits a tattoo parlor subject to securing a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends Commercial use for this area. 12  City Planner Alison Alexander presented Use Permit Application No. 1085-2013, by Richard S. Ayers DBA Attic Tattoos, LLC, to allow a tattoo parlor studio south of the intersection of N. King Street and West Mercury Boulevard at 1073 N. King Street. The property is zoned C-2 (Limited Commercial) which permits tattoo parlors subject to approval of a Use Permit. The applicant held a community meeting on April 2, 2013, but no one from the public was in attendance. Eight conditions have been attached to this Use Permit which include hours of operation; health regulations; screening so that tattooing is not visible when one is on the exterior of the building; a termination clause; and term of permit. Public policy provided by the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) includes guidance in reviewing this request and includes nurturing small and start-up businesses and encourages location of businesses in commercial nodes to protect adjacent neighborhoods. Staff recommends approval of Use Permit Application No. 1085-2013 with eight conditions. The applicant, Richard Ayers, 142 Findley Square, stated he plans to open up his business in an existing building. He was raised in Hampton and has family in the area. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Ayers stated he has been licensed to tattoo for four years and has been practicing for 14 years. 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 Richard S. Ayers DBA Attic Tattoos, LLC to permit a tattoo parlor in an existing building at 1073 N. King Street [LRSN 8000678]; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended) recommends commercial use for this property, encourages an environment that nurtures small and startup businesses, and encourages the clustering of commercial development in an effort to protect residential uses and adjacent neighborhoods; WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District which permits a tattoo parlor with an approved Use Permit; WHEREAS: eight conditions are attached to address hours of operation, screening, compliance with applicable health regulations, and term of permit; and 13  WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner James Young, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 1085-2013, subject to eight (8) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Bunting, Campbell, Larue, McCloud, Williams, Young NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Snead VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT There was no report from the Director. VII. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. VIII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION There were no matters by the Commission. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: ________________________________________ Gregory Williams Chairman 14