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, FEBRUARY 6, 2014, AT 3:00 P.M. Commissioners Carlton Campbell and Andre McCloud, Chairman Gaynette LaRue, and Vice-Chair Tommy Southall were present. Commissioner Chris Snead arrived at 3:10pm. Commissioner Bunting arrived at 3:30pm. Commissioner Gregory Williams was absent. Commissioner McCloud stated he had not intended to state at the January 2, 2014 worksession that the Commissioners were required to attend Council meetings. The minutes were corrected to read “Commissioner McCloud stated one way to become more intimately involved with what is going on within our City is to attend Council meetings whenever possible.” Commissioner Campbell stated he should have stated “in his observation the Commissioners are privileged with the support of Planning Division staff at their disposal and that other localities may not have the same support.” Discussed was Subdivision Exceptions. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated that the subdivision ordinance is normally administratively enforced. Where elements do not meet the requirements the applicant can work with staff or the applicant can ask to go to Council for an exception to the ordinance requirements. There are six criteria from the City Code that must all be met in order to approve a subdivision. Similar to variances the six criteria are: 1. Strict adherence to the ordinance requirement will cause undue hardship; 2. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others; 3. The facts upon which the petition request is based are unique to the property for which the relief is sought and are not applicable generally to other property so as not to make reasonably practical the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to this chapter; 4. No objection to the exception has been received in writing from the City’s Fire Chief, or any affected state, federal or local agency including, but not limited to Langley Air force Base; 5. The hardship is created by the unusual character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of the property. Personal, financial, or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered proper justification for an exception; and 6. The relief sought will not in any manner vary the provisions of chapters 9, 13.1, 33.1, and 44.1 of the City Code, the “City of Hampton Landscape Guidelines,” the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, or official map, except that those documents may be amended in the manner prescribed by law. In response to a question from Commission Snead, Ms. Brown stated a hardship could be the irregular shape of the lot or restriction by topography. Worksession minutes 20140206 Page 1 In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Brown stated if a property had been purchased 10 to 15 years ago with the intention to build another dwelling on the property for a family member, the fact that the rule changed is not a hardship. In this case there were originally a number of lots and the internal lot lines were vacated by the property owner causing this to be a self-inflicted hardship. If the lot lines had not been vacated the property would have remained as several parcels. There was further discussion regarding subdividing lots. The laws are applied as they now stand. Vice-Chair Tommy Southall stated it was discovered the garage was built over the property line when the applicants applied to refinance their loan. The property owner felt this issue should have been discovered during the permitting process. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Senior Planner Mike Hayes stated there is no option in the “tool box” if the applicant’s request is denied other than to build a road. In order to create a new dwelling with a road accessible from the main road to the dwelling will cause an issue with the Fire Department as they need appropriate access to the property. Vice-Chair Southall stated the applicant is restricted as to where the dwelling can be placed on the lot. In response Mr. Hayes stated the frontage requirement is not the question. Ms. Brown stated the issue is not that the applicant cannot build on the lot; as Mr. Hayes stated, it is that the applicant cannot build another dwelling on the lot without subdividing the lot. Vice-Chair Southall stated the applicant is being required to build a 25’ wide by 247’ long road which is cost prohibitive. Chair LaRue asked if the applicant could build closer to Cypress Street. Mr. Hayes stated different options were researched but the Chesapeake Bay regulations come into play. Vice-Chair Southall asked if the plans for the lot could be reconfigured to place the road in another location, understanding the applicant cannot build in the wetlands. Ms. Brown and Mr. Hayes stated the plans would have to be looked at. In response to Vice-Chair Southall stating the applicant had proffered conditions, Ms. Brown stated it was a possibility but the project needs to be researched. Ms. Brown stated there are other considerations and it cannot be stated today that the lot can be subdivided as suggested by Mr. Southall. The applicant would have to go through a new review and submittal. In response to a question from Chair LaRue, Ms. Brown stated the Commission cannot act on other options today. Worksession minutes 20140206 Page 2 Terry O’Neill stated it is trying to be conveyed that there are abstractly other ways for this to be done, but that cannot be done yet as there has to be a survey to reflect the changes. The rules are to help the homeowner or to provide information. Staff can only advise. In response to a question from Commissioner Snead, Ms. Brown stated the applicant could do some additional work and resubmit plans if denied, but there could be additional fees. Ms. Brown stated the Planning Commission is only making a recommendation. If the applicant’s request is denied by Council, work can still be done to pursue the request. The Fire Chief posed an objection. Commissioner Bunting stated the simplest way to look at this request is that on the list of criteria it mentions objections to the exception being received from the City’s Fire Chief, or any affected state, federal, or local agency, including, but not limited to Langley Air Force Base, and an objection was received from the City’s Fire Chief. In answer to Commissioner Campbell as to why there was still discussion if No. 4 is an issue, Mr. O’Neill stated this is the way to apply the criteria. Commissioner Bunting stated the Planning Commission could suggest to City Council that the City Code be changed if it decides this will cause issues for future subdivisions. Council could also be requested to review the ordinance. Ms. Brown stated the Commission could ask Council to look at the code; however, the issue today is for a particular request. Commissioner McCloud stated the Commission previously saw subdivisions for review prior to recordation but now only hear subdivision exceptions. In response to Chairman LaRue’s question, Mr. O’Neill stated this is not a right-of-way issue; it is that criteria No. 4 cannot be met. Mr. Hayes stated had Cypress Street been extended and a public road built, the applicant would not be before the Commission. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Ms. Brown stated it is the subdivider’s responsibility to provide the road where one is necessary for development. The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Worksession minutes 20140206 Page 3 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, FEBRUARY 6, 2014 AT 3:42 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gaynette LaRue called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Chairman Gaynette LaRue, Vice-Chair Tommy Southall, Commissioners, Carlton Campbell, Andre McCloud, and Chris Snead were present. Commissioners Mary Bunting and Gregory Williams were absent; Commissioner Bunting was noted as present at 3:45 p.m. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, seconded by Vice- Chair Tommy Southall, to approve the minutes as corrected of the January 2, 2014 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, McCloud, Southall, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: Snead ABSENT: Williams, Bunting 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. ITEM IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing items advertised in the Daily Press on January 23 and 30, 2014. A. Subdivision Exception Application No. 14-0001: by Thomas and Marie Loughran for exceptions to Subdivision Ordinance sections 35-26.1(B) and 35-71(A), which pertain to the requirements for proposed lots to have direct access to a public right-of-way. The property address is 21 N. Cypress Street [LRSN 12000726]. Grant of the exceptions requested would allow the property owner to create one additional lot without direct public right-of-way access. Grant of the exception would also mean that the adjoining property would not have direct public right-of-way access as prescribed by the Subdivision Ordinance. PC Minutes 20140206 Page 1  Senior Planner Mikes Hayes presented Subdivision Exception Application No. 14-0001 (SE 14-0001), which is the city’s first subdivision exception in Hampton’s history. Adopted along with the new subdivision ordinance in 2011, this process is a new experience for staff and the Planning Commission in terms of understanding what is a subdivision exception. Unlike the land use applications typically seen by Planning Commission and City Council (rezonings and use permits), which are weighed against adopted policies and plans, subdivision exceptions are requests to omit or modify the regulations governing the subdivision of a piece of property and require demonstration that the request meets all of a very specific set of criteria identified in the ordinance. There are two sections of the subdivision ordinance that have not been met – Section 35-26(B) which addresses the requirement for extension of public right-of- way and Section 35-7 (A) which addresses the minimum street frontage requirement. The applicant is requesting relief from the requirement to extend the public right-of-way to a newly created lot, and relief from the criteria that requires street frontage for each newly created lot. The parcel for which the lot subdivision is requested is located at 21 North Cypress Street off Pembroke Avenue. The applicant has proposed an easement to the proposed lot. To the right of the proposed lot is an existing landlocked parcel. The submitted plat shows an access easement in the location where a public-right- of-way should be included pursuant to the subdivision ordinance. Furthermore, by including an access easement rather than the appropriate right-of-way, the applicant would deny the prescribed public access to the adjacent property to the east. There are six criteria that have to be met before a recommendation of approval can be granted: 1. Strict adherence to the ordinance requirement will cause undue hardship (hardship as defined by State does not include financial hardship); 2. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others; 3. The facts upon which the petition request is based are unique to the property for which the relief is sought and are not applicable generally to other property so as not to make reasonably practical the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to this chapter; 4. No objection to the exception has been received in writing from the City’s Fire Chief, or any affected state, federal, or local agency, including, but not limited to Langley Air Force Base. 5. The hardship is created by the unusual character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of the property. Personal, financial, or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered proper justification for an exception (the hardship being unique to the property and not a personal situation); and 6. The relief sought will not in any manner vary the provisions of chapters 9, 13.1, 33.1, and 44.1 of the City Code, the “City of Hampton Landscape PC Minutes 20140206 Page 2  Guidelines,” the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, or official map, except that those documents may be amended in the manner prescribed by law. Staff found the applicant does not meet four of the criteria: Criteria 1 The property can be used and subdivided. Criteria 2 Exception to right-of-way provision denies adjacent property access. Criteria 4 The Fire Division has objections. The Fire Division has concerns with the proposed access to the new lot. The new structure would need to be constructed to a level that provides the necessary width for and can bear the weight of the Fire Division vehicles and be able to access fire hydrants. The adopted right-of-way requirements exist to ensure that these types of safety and welfare standards are met. Criteria 5 The hardship is financial in nature. Staff recommends denial of Subdivision Exception 14-0001. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Hayes stated there is nothing on file to indicate the landlocked property adjacent to the applicant is not developable. Parts of the applicant’s property are wetlands. The driveway leading to the public right-of-way did not have to be part of planning land use. The rights for building a single-family structure are different from developing a subdivision. In response to Commissioner Campbell’s question, Mr. O’Neill stated the answer would depend on when the lot was created and recorded. As indicated by Mr. Hayes, if the process had never reached the threshold of constituting a subdivision, the City’s normal review process under subdivision regulations would never have occurred. Lots of properties were carved out and recorded that either predated regulations or never reached the threshold of subdivision review where these things would have been required to be reviewed. In response to a question from Vice Chair Southall, Mr. Hayes stated the easement is private --granted from one property owner to another property owner. The easement proposed on this particular plat is to service the proposed lot and would not inherently grant access to adjacent property owners. In response to Vice Chair Southall regarding an easement shown in the top right hand corner of the proposed plat providing access to a neighboring land- locked parcel, Mr. Hayes replied that the easement would not be considered adequate access for the land-locked parcel because the requirement is for a direct public right-of-way access. Even though the properties have the same owner, as it would not be developable property that could be sold. PC Minutes 20140206 Page 3  In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Hayes stated that the easement in question does not constitute direct access because the lot is not directly on a public right-of-way as required. Easements are a private property deal, and they do not give the adjacent property owner access to the right-of-way by default. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue to clarify Vice Chair Southall’s question, Mr. Hayes stated the easement in the top right hand corner of the platis not something that would permit the development of the adjacent parcel and could not provide an essential right-of-way needed by fire trucks. Applicants Thomas and Anne Marie Loughran appeared before the Commission. Mr. Loughran stated he would like to address a couple of items brought up during the worksession. Permits were obtained for his garage and it was not realized at that time the garage extended over one of the property lines and it remained that way as there were no immediate plans to do anything with the other part of the property. When their daughter got out of school and planned to move out they decided to build a house on the lot next to them. It was found at the beginning of the process with the City that the ordinance had changed and there would be some impediments. The subdivision ordinance had changed and they knew from talking to staff that the first phase was no, but that they and staff would have to work through the process to look at all the possibilities for the process to move forward and all the information would be available. The property lines were vacated approximately one and one half years ago when trying to refinance their home loan for a better interest rate. Banking industry standards had gotten tighter and it was noticed the garage extended over one of the property lines and that became a legal impediment for the applicants for obtaining the loan. The solution at that time was to vacate the property lines which solved the problems with the bank. It might have been better to have not vacated the property lines as it has caused the current problem. Their one real objection has to do with the Fire Department, but the Fire Marshal told Mrs. Loughran he would be willing to withdraw his objection if they would “sprinkle” the house. However, Mrs. Loughran stated she had mistakenly told the Fire Marshal that her husband had split the lot into two parts that went to the road. Mr. Loughran stated that in initial discussions with the staff it was probably mostly his responsibility to resubmit his request, but no other possibilities were given except for building a 275 foot, engineered road to City standards for access to the lot. He does not have the $100,000 to build a road up to the new structure. He could possibly adjust the property line and bring it down to the street but that option was not given to him. With this application being the first, the new process was unclear. Staff did not know what would happen but to get things started the PC Minutes 20140206 Page 4 applicant should give them a plat. As staff is more aware of what the requirements are, Mr. Loughran thinks it is the responsibility of City staff to help the applicant by suggesting solutions that could correct the problems with the applicant having to making concessions. In response to a question by Vice-Chair Southall, Mr. Loughran stated the Holcomb’s sold the property to the Loughrans and an access easement at the right hand corner of the lot was given the sellers to allow them access to the landlocked lot for the convenience of grass cutting or dog walking. If it would make it work, the Loughrans would give the Holcombs access to whatever road would go to North Cypress Street. Commissioner McCloud stated his apology for an earlier statement during the work session regarding the need for vacation of the lot lines due to the possibility of building a structure with no permits. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Loughran stated this was the first submittal of the request. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated there are no charges for the first re-submission of a subdivision plat, but there are fees after that first re-submission. In response to a question from Mr. Loughran, Ms. Brown stated if the applicant is denied approval of his request, there will not be a fee at the time the application is re-submitted with corrections; anything after that will require fees. In response to a question from Ms. Loughran after having stated her embarrassment, Mr. O’Neill stated that the purpose of the subdivision ordinance, which is required by state code, is to ensure that property in the community is developed in an orderly fashion. There are many things to look at when reviewing a subdivision request – utilities, access, etc. - and in looking at these, attention is paid to adjacent properties and to what properties are developable so reasonable access can be provided to those properties. This situation appears to be complicated because properties are built up around the property in question and there are vacant properties that could potentially be subdivided with two or three houses. Ms. Loughran stated none of the utilities are from Cypress Street. The access easement for their house is from the property behind them on Chichester Street. Chairman LaRue stated the items presented by the applicant would be better followed up by staff to see if there are other options. Today the Commission has to deal with what has been presented to them. Commissioner Campbell stated there was nothing for the applicants to be embarrassed about as this is the first time the Commission, along with the applicants, has heard this type of request and it is a learning process for everyone. As much as PC Minutes 20140206 Page 5 they would love to provide what the applicant is looking for, the Commission has to abide by the subdivision ordinance. Commissioner Southall stated he does not like the conditions of the ordinance and he would like City Council to review the ordinance because he believes there is a difference between rural versus urban development. Commissioner Bunting stated she has every confidence that staff will work with the Loughrans and determine if something can be done that meets the intent and law of the ordinance to what the applicants want to achieve. It is the goal as a community to be friendly to their neighbors and businesses, but the law has to be followed. Ms. Bunting gave her personal assurance that staff will work with the applicants to see if anything can be achieved that honors the code as it currently exists and get it back to the applicants in an expeditious time frame. Chairman LaRue asked the Commission if discussion should be entertained regarding the questions brought up with this new ordinance. In answer to Chairman LaRue’s question, Commissioner Bunting asked that the Commission let the staff work on the request first and reflect on what was said today instead of trying to fix the ordinance and possibly making it worse. This will give staff an opportunity to come back and tell the commissioners that these were the concerns and this may be how they can be addressed. Ms. Bunting wants to make certain things are done carefully and deliberately. Chairman LaRue stated the Commission’s earlier discussion was not to try and fix the issue today but see if a recommendation should be made to City Council to work on it. Commissioner Bunting stated she is not disagreeing to have Council review the ordinance, but she would like staff and the Planning Commission work on this to see what recommended changes might be brought before City Council. Commissioner Snead stated as a Council Member, Manager Bunting was correct that staff should give the Planning Commission an overview because there had to be a reason why the Subdivision Ordinance changes were made. One situation should not have them changing the whole ordinance. She would like to have staff come back with some of the highlights as to why the ordinance was changed and how it impacts future development. Commissioner Campbell stated when this was passed there was a broad range of reasons why the adjustments were made. The premise of the regulation put in place was sound and covered a number of different areas. It probably needs to be revisited in order to see how this type of situation should be addressed. Commissioner McCloud agrees that this issue needs to be looked into and recommendations be given to work with for this type of situation. PC Minutes 20140206 Page 6  Commissioner LaRue stated she remembers when the changes to this ordinance were passed and there were valid reasons. The sense is for staff to go back and work with the applicant and, in those deliberations, see if any recommendations need to be made to Council. There were no public speakers. After discussion the Commission denied the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a request for an exception to the subdivision ordinance by Thomas F. & Anne- Marie Loughran for 21 N. Cypress Street [LRSN 12000726]; WHEREAS: the request specifically relates to the requirements of Section 35- 26.1(B) and Section 35-71(A); WHEREAS: Section 35-26.1(B) requires the installation of adequate public facilities to serve the project and provide access to adjoining lands; WHERAS: Section 35-71(A) requires all lots to front on a dedicated public street; WHEREAS: the granting of a subdivision exception must be based upon meeting six criteria listed within the ordinance in Section 35-7(B); WHEREAS: the request does not meet criteria 1) Strict adherence to the ordinance requirement shall cause undue hardship; 2) The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others; 4) No objection to the exception has been received in writing from the City’s Fire Chief, or any affected State, Federal, or local agency including but not limited to Langley Air Force Base; and 5) The hardship is created by the unusual character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of the property. Personal, financial, or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered proper justification for an exception; WHEREAS: the Hampton Division of Fire & Rescue submitted that the road to the new lot should be 26’ in width and new construction must withstand 80,000 pounds of weight for firefighting apparatus; WHEREAS: the current lot contains a single family house so the property is in use; WHEREAS: the hardship claim within this application is one of financial hardship; PC Minutes 20140206 Page 7  WHEREAS: the proposed easement displays that the prescribed right-of-way can be created in this subdivision; WHEREAS: the creation of the prescribed right-of-way would create access to the adjacent parcel, which currently lacks such access; and WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Chris Snead, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council denial of Subdivision Exception Application No. 14-0001. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, McCloud, Southall, Snead, Bunting, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 135-2014: Ordinance to Amend and Re- Enact Article I of Chapter 18.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia, entitled “General Sign Regulations” by Amending Section 18.1-6(2) pertaining to drive-through restaurant menu board signs. Approval of this amendment would permit businesses to have two (2) menu boards rather than the existing maximum of one (1). Senior Zoning Official Jeff Conkle presented Zoning Ordinance No. 135-2014. This is an amendment that would change the way the number of signs is regulated for traditionally fast food style restaurants. The sign section of the ordinance regulates various types of signs, familiar ones being wall signs or freestanding signs at a business. Also regulated are drive-through signs. There can be single or multiple lanes or multiple signs for a single lane for a drive-through. This amendment is in response to numerous requests for variances at the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow for more than one drive-through menu board at restaurant properties across the city. There have been four of these instances in the last year. Staff is presenting an ordinance amendment that will increase the number of allowable drive-through menu board signs per property. Some locations have two drive-thru lanes. Currently, each property is allowed just one menu board sign regardless of the number of drive-through lanes. The size and height of the menu boards are regulated: 16 square feet in front or side yard; 24 square feet in rear yard; and 6 feet height maximum for all menu signs. Approval of this amendment would permit businesses to have two (2) menu boards per drive-through lane rather than the existing maximum of one (1) per property. Size and height requirements will not change. PC Minutes 20140206 Page 8  The proposed amendment was evaluated and supported by the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) in December 2013. The Coliseum Central Business Improvement District (CCBID), where a lot of these restaurants are located, also supports this amendment. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 135-2014. There were no public speakers. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 135- 2014, a proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 18.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia, entitled “Signs” by amending Section 18.1-6(2) pertaining to menu boards; WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals has heard numerous requests over the last year for an increased number of menu boards; WHEREAS: staff evaluated the ordinance and determined a change was warranted; WHEREAS: this item will allow for an increase in the number of allowable menu boards per site; WHEREAS: this item has the support of the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee and the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Tommy Southall, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 18.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, McCloud, Southall, Snead, Bunting, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams Secretary to the Commission Terry O’Neill stated the next two items relating to community gardens will be presented together. Separate actions will be taken. PC Minutes 20140206 Page 9  C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 136-2014: Ordinance to Amend and Re- Enact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Uses Permitted” by amending sections 2-2 and 2-3(46) pertaining to community gardens. Approval of this amendment would permit and regulate community gardens within the city. This application accompanies Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 137-2014, which if approved would provide a definition for community gardens in the zoning ordinance. D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 137-2014: Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia, entitled “Definitions” by Amending Section 2.1-2 pertaining to community gardens. Approval of this amendment would provide a definition for community gardens in the zoning ordinance. This application accompanies Zoning Ordinance Amendment Application No. 136-2014, which if approved would permit and regulate community gardens in the city. City Planner Tolu Ibikunle presented Zoning Ordinance Amendments No. 136- 2014 and 137-2014 in regulating community gardens. The proposal is to amend and re- enact Chapter 2 “Uses Permitted” within the use table of the Zoning Ordinance. It is also to amend Chapter 2.1 “Definitions” to redefine how community gardens are defined in the Zoning Ordinance. There are several reasons this proposal is being presented which started with staff researching opportunities to have a community gardens program within the city of Hampton. Once started it became evident the zoning ordinance needed to be amended first as community gardens are not currently permitted. This gave an opportunity to redefine community gardens in the zoning ordinance and explore opportunities to transition some publicly owned vacant land to community gardens. This is not for all vacant and publicly owned land, just when it is deemed by the City Council to be an appropriate location and site for a community garden. It is also an opportunity to make a vacant lot into a community asset. This Zoning Ordinance amendment aligns with a lot of Hampton’s Community Plan policies. It promotes connections between open spaces and community facilities such as libraries, schools, or community centers. It also promotes community interaction among families, schools, and other community members. It promotes environmental education to community members, as well as stewardship, and is an efficient use of land. In addition to the research done other localities were looked at (Newport News, Richmond, and Roanoke) to see how they regulate community gardens in their communities and what zoning regulations they use. During the research it was found that there are community gardens at Cary Elementary School and Spratley Gifted Center which provide an educational purpose to the students. The Virginia Peninsula Food bank has a community garden that serves the programs there to provide food for those who need it. PC Minutes 20140206 Page 10  Feedback was received from the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee and the Neighborhood Commission that both bodies support and see the need for a community gardens program in Hampton. If these amendments are approved community gardens will be permitted categorized by land ownership type. Community gardens will be permitted on publicly owned vacant land, if designated by City Council, as a primary use as well as an accessory use to a community facility such as a community center. Community gardens would also be permitted on privately owned land by non-profit charitable or educational and religious entities such as a church as an accessory use, but would not be permitted as a sole primary use. Another outcome of the proposal is that the definition would be defined to mirror the vision of a new way to regulate community gardens. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendments 136-2014 and 137-2014. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated the Department of Parks and Recreation will be administrating the program and will issue program guidelines and regulations as to how to carry this out and who is responsible for what; that part is not rolled into the ordinance. These actions will permit community gardens as a use with which the City can move forward. The Parks and Recreation Department will be working with and sponsoring organizations that choose to participate. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Ibikunle stated the Zoning Ordinance amendment puts existing gardens into compliance and will not adversely affect them. To further clarify, Assistant City Attorney Brown stated City property and School Board property are separate property owners. This amendment only applies to City property. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Ms. Ibikunle stated the purpose of this ordinance is to make community gardens a permitted use so rezoning applications would not be necessary. If an opportunity arises where the property could be redeveloped for another use, it can be done as the property will not be restricted to only community garden use. Mr. O’Neill stated as the program evolves not every City-owned lot will be eligible as a community garden, as there will be selected sites designated for this purpose. Ms. Ibikunle stated the amendments are the first phase, and the Planning Division will continue to work with the Parks and Recreation Department, along with other departments, to iron out the program. Staff will continue to update the Commission. PC Minutes 20140206 Page 11  In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Ibikunle stated one can still have a garden in one’s yard. There were no public speakers. C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 136-2014 After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 136- 2014, a proposed amendment to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Uses Permitted” by amending sections 2-2 and 2-3(46) pertaining to community gardens. This application accompanies Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 137-2014; WHEREAS: staff explored the potential for having a community gardens program in Hampton and determined the first course of action was an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit them in the city; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would permit and regulate community gardens in all zoning districts within the city; WHEREAS: this item has the support of the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) and the Neighborhood Commission; 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 to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 136-2014. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, McCloud, Southall, Snead, Bunting, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 137-2014 There were no public speakers. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: PC Minutes 20140206 Page 12  WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 137- 2014, a proposed ordinance to Amend and Re-enact Chapter 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Definitions” by Amending Section 2.1-2 pertaining to community gardens. This application accompanies Zoning Ordinance Amendment Application No. 136-2014; WHEREAS: staff explored the potential for having a community gardens program in Hampton and determined the first course of action was an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit them in the city and re-define community gardens to reflect the new vision for regulating community gardens; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would provide a revised definition for community gardens in the zoning ordinance and regulate community gardens; WHEREAS: this item has the support of the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) and the Neighborhood Commission; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Tommy Southall and seconded by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 137-2014. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, McCloud, Southall, Snead, Bunting, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams ITEM V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. O’Neill stated one item is a response to the request to provide regular updates and information to the Planning Commissioners. Intentions are to give regular updates on items such as Master Plans or an ordinance update as the agenda allows. A. Update on Master Plan Implementation Planner Matt Smith presented an update of implementation activities related to the Buckroe Master Plan since its adoption is 2005. Buckroe is a unique area of the city. The beach town is now a residential community and is still the peninsula’s PC Minutes 20140206 Page 13 beach. It is also a community in transition and the Plan envisions Buckroe to become a regionally unique mixed income beach community. The organization of the plans and presentation follow five initiatives: 1. The Bayfront Blocks 2. Buckroe Avenue Initiative 3. Pembroke Avenue Initiative 4. Mallory Street Initiative 5. Infill Housing Initiative The Bayfront Initiative is organized around the open space in Buckroe Park and also calls for improvement and diversity in the housing stock and improved access to a better park and public beach. There have been street and breakwater improvements; beach replenishment; and replacement of the Buckroe Pier. The most recently adopted CIP calls for another breakwater in Salt Ponds. Housing is an important component of the Plan. The Parade of Homes was an important project to provide diversity and improve the quality of housing in the area. There is housing development today in the section of Buckroe Bayfront district west of the Parade of Homes with five houses under development. Construction of duplex housing has been approved along Mallory Street on the other side of Pembroke Avenue. Future development in this area is focused around the Atlantic Redevelopment area. The City and the Housing Authority have acquired property and are considering options for redevelopment opportunities in this area. The Buckroe Avenue Initiative is intended to re-establish Buckroe Avenue as the main street of the community focused around neighborhood commercial development. Public Works is in the process of designing a streetscape project to connect the main street area to the west of Mallory Street with the beach. The project would include bike lanes, parking, some street trees, and lighting. The Pembroke Avenue Initiative is the third initiative. Pembroke Avenue is the main gateway into Buckroe. Any successful redevelopment of that area will rely on improvement of that corridor. There have been two streetscape projects completed, Mallory Street to 5th Street and Seaboard Avenue to Old Buckroe Avenue. Parking, sidewalk, bike lane, and lighting have been added. The streetscape project has a third phase that extends along Pembroke Avenue from Old Buckroe Road to Grimes Road. It is the intention of Public Works to develop that section by reducing the travel lanes from four to three, provide bike lanes, appropriately scaled lighting, street trees, and sidewalk improvements. Public Works intends to hold a public meeting in March on this project in hopes of advertising construction by July. Future development in this initiative is likely to focus around the intersection of Pembroke Avenue and Skyland Drive in the hopes residential development will spur commercial development along this node. PC Minutes 20140206 Page 14  Mallory Street Initiative is the fourth initiative. Another gateway into Buckroe, it also holds re-development opportunities. Similar to Pembroke Avenue, there has been a streetscape project that extends from Pembroke Avenue to Old Buckroe Road. HRHA has acquired properties in the College Court area and is currently working with consultants on re-development opportunities for this area. Infill Initiative – the Master Plan lays out design concepts for three types of appropriate infill housing for different areas: Buckroe Beach Infill, Mallory Infill, and Salt Ponds Infill. The Buckroe Bayfront Pattern Book also provides input on infill housing in this area. There are vacant lots in each of these three areas where infill housing would be appropriate. It is evident that a lot of community investment has gone on in the Buckroe area, and that has spurred some private investment with hopes that it will continue. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. O’Neill stated the Buckroe Bayfront Pattern Book was available online. Mr. O’Neill explained when improvements to the streets and infrastructure are put in place the stage is set for increased investment in the area. He encourages everyone to drive down that way to see what has been done. Within a couple of months of the road and streetscape project, one of the older apartment complexes along East Pembroke Avenue undertook a complete overhaul with new siding, lighting and landscaped grounds at no prodding from the City. Property owners often make private improvements once the City makes the area look better. There are several new small businesses at Buckroe Avenue and Mallory Street since the Buckroe renovations were made. It takes time but this does happen when people see progress and people making new investments. Chairman LaRue stated she has heard that people are afraid to drive around Hampton. There is no real reason given, but after hearing the presentation a better feeling is generated when these areas are cleaned up and given sidewalks and lighting. People feel better and feel a greater sense of safety and security when things are neat and tidy. This is a testament to the value of what the city is doing. Mr. O’Neill stated future updates could be bundled together, but he will try and keep them as short and concise as possible, depending on the agenda. B. Budget Office, CIP Update Senior Budget and Management Analyst Sunshine Torrey presented the CIP update. At the last meeting the Commission asked for the following: an update on how the CIP Committee was working; the Pochin/Indian Creek project; and a comprehensive list of the unfunded projects compared to the current CIP PC Minutes 20140206 Page 15 submission. This information has been provided in her January 24, 2014 memorandum. The CIP committee has had four meetings to date. They are going through the submissions and the ranking process has begun. Commissioner McCloud stated he appreciates the update on Pochin/Indian Creek as he raised the issue. Commissioner Campbell stated the merged information is a very comprehensive update. Chairman LaRue stated her appreciation of the update as it is a good, concise listing. Now the CIP Committee has the hard job of prioritizing and cutting the information. Ms. Torrey told the Commissioners to let either she or Mr. O’Neill know if any questions arise. C. Youth Planner Report Junior Planner Michael York stated the Youth Planner Program and the Hampton Youth Commission are half way through their work year. The Caring Relationships Committee has completed the outreach portion of the Youth Event Survival (YES)” Guide; the Places to Go and Things to Do Committee is currently revising the Friendly Business Guide Program. They are partnering with the Newport News Mayor’s Youth Commission to explore ways to improve the youth friendliness of businesses on the Peninsula. A joint training session was held with the Newport News Mayor’s Youth Commission in January and the training topic was about building partnerships and communication. The 2 groups also discussed youth violence. The Newport News Mayor’s Youth Commission presented their work plan for the year to Mayor Price. The Youth Planners served as recorders and co-facilitators at the Armistead Pointe meeting on January 16. Upcoming meetings will be: • March 3 public meeting – meeting with the Commonwealth’s Attorney on what it means to be an elected official and what his role is in the community • March 17 – Youth Component Community Meeting • March 18 – Joint Work Session (Planning Commission and HYC) • April 28 – Candidates Forum In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. York stated he would check to see if Newport News has a similar program as Hampton’s with paid Youth Planner positions. PC Minutes 20140206 Page 16  Mr. O’Neill stated he had one reminder for the Commission, that there will be a joint meeting with the Youth Commission on March 18 from 5:30 to 6:00 PM. An invitation will be extended to Council members in case they would like to attend. The time and place are still being worked on. There will be two main topics. The Commission will be given an update on the Youth Component of the Community Plan. Diana Schor will be present and will give an overview of her perspective of what Hampton does as she looks at youth civic engagement around the country and the world. Those will be the two main topics. ITEM VI. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. ITEM VII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION Commissioner Campbell asked if the Commission was to become more involved with the School Board. His question stemmed from the previous request to give the School Board their contact information. The School Board wanted contact information so they could keep the Planning Commission up-to-date on what the school system is doing. This is one of the outreach efforts being made to keep the public more aware of the positive programs and outcomes in the schools. ITEM VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: ____________________________________ Gaynette LaRue Chairman PC Minutes 20140206 Page 17