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, JULY 10, 2014, AT 3:00 P.M. Commissioners Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Andre McCloud, Vice-Chair Tommy Southall, and Chairman Gaynette LaRue were present. Commissioners Chris Snead and Mary Bunting were absent. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 14-0001 is the result of a change in State law. An applicant cannot be forced to submit a preliminary subdivision plat for processing. Secretary to the Commission Terry O’Neill stated there is not a lot of discretion to whether this is something to like or dislike. Ms. Brown stated Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 145-2014 is related to amendments made to the City Code regulating “Extended Stay Establishments” around the city. There are exceptions, but one cannot live in hotels or extended stay locations. Secretary to the Board Terry O’Neill stated that when hotel inspections were done last year it was found that people were living in these places and they are not set up to be permanent residences. Deputy Director Steve Shapiro stated the amendments have legitimized some circumstances. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, City Planner Alison Alexander stated the Use Permit request for the tattoo parlor is another request for this location as the applicant let his license lapse due to medical issues and because of the break in continuous use the applicant must come back and request a new permit. Everything is the same. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. O’Neill stated the people who were or had been living in the hotels, motels, and extended stays that were being displaced would be directed to Social Services for assessment of their situations and Social Services would then try to match them with resources. Director Wanda Rogers says the rate of help is usually high. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. O’Neill stated all information given to Social Services is confidential. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. Shapiro stated Property Maintenance Inspectors and Fire Department Inspectors make the inspections together. They handle the safety issues. The Health Department also does inspections. The hotel logs can be inspected in order to determine the length of guest stays. This process was based on log inspections in other cities. Mr. Shapiro explained that when other violations are found they are followed up by the Police Department. Mr. O’Neill stated Wanda Rogers of Social Services would possibly come and give a report if the Commissioners are interested. Commissioner Williams stated it would be nice to meet with other departments (i.e. HRHA and Neighborhood Division) as they have done in the past and also possibly set-up another bus trip around the City. Ms. Brown stated ZOA No. 145-2014 gives the definition for Extended Stays and describes the kitchen facility; it changes the definition for the length or cap of stay for hotels to 30 days; permits Extended Stays as a use in the Use Table; and requires a use permit to operate an Extended Stay. Extended Stay Hotels are exempt from the City Code requirements related to length of hotel stays. This ordinance amendment will address extended stays in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Shapiro stated there are five extended stay hotels in Hampton. City Council amended the City Code at the July 9, 2014 Council meeting. Ms. Alexander explained the day care request was permitted under an old Use Permit. The applicant wants to include new hours and have it listed in her name. The odd hours cover shift work. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Brown stated the new subdivision ordinance complies with the new State Code. Currently there is a fee for the preliminary subdivision and none for the final. This amendment makes the fee the same, but the amount of the fee is not being increased. A preliminary plat will not be required for subdivisions of 50 or less lots. In response to a statement made by Commissioner Campbell about the articles of incorporation included in a request, Mr. O’Neill stated it is not up to the staff to edit an application; the articles are a part of the applications. Copies of the final Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) were distributed to the Commissioners. Ms. Brown recognized four students from the Hampton University Pre-Law program. There being no further business, 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, JULY 10, 2014 AT 3:30 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 Commissioners Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Chris Snead, Vice-Chair Tommy Southall, and Chairman Gaynette LaRue were present. Commissioner Mary Bunting was absent. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2014 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Snead, Southall NAYS: None ABST: LaRue ABSENT: 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 June 26 and July 3, 2014, 2014. A. Use Permit Application No. 14-00011: by Denise Gibson to operate a day care 3 at 918 Big Bethel Road [LRSN 4001444]. The property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), which permits a day care 3 subject to securing a use permit. The applicant is requesting permission to operate the day care for approximately 60 children. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this area. City Planner Alison Alexander presented Use Permit Application No. 14-00011 by Denise Gibson to operate a day care 3 at 918 Big Bethel Road. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 1  This is a request for a use permit to operate a day care facility for approximately 100 occupants. Clients range in age from 2.5 to 13 years, and hours of operation are 5:30am to 1:00am Monday through Friday and 7:00am to 5:00pm on Saturday. The applicant initially requested 100 children; however, after staff review of the proposal, it was determined that state building code will limit the applicant to 60 children in this facility. The applicant intends to lease the building from Pavilion Square II, LLC, the owners of the property in which the day care will be located at 918 Big Bethel Road. The site provides sufficient parking for day care services. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, which permits a Day Care 3 subject to securing a use permit. There are two previous use permits associated with this address – Use Permit No. 764 and Use Permit No. 861. Use Permit No. 861 while still in effect, does not provide the operating hours desired by the applicant. The applicant is currently operating under the existing use permit, Use Permit No. 861, while seeking a new permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this area. The Plan also recommends policies that will encourage and maintain an environment that nurtures children in the Hampton community. In line with the Hampton Community Plan, this proposal will encourage a nurturing atmosphere for children by providing a healthy and educational environment for children who are out of parental care for a portion of the day. There are ten conditions attached to this permit including the hours of operation; a cop of occupants not to exceed 60; and a revocation clause. Staff recommends approval of this application. In response to questions from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander stated the brochure is a future brochure and a community meeting was not held to address the extended hours. The applicant, Denise Gibson, 918 Big Bethel Road, stated she had not planned on holding a community meeting, but since she has been made aware of this process she will have one. Commissioner Williams stated he is pleased with day care with extended hours as it addresses a need, Vice-Chair Southall stated he read about the mentoring program for boys and girls in the applicant’s brochure and commends the applicant on this as there is a need for such a program. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 2  Chairman LaRue stated she hopes the program is so successful others will follow suit. There were no public speakers. After discussion the Commission approved the follwing resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Denise Gibson to permit a day care 3 in an existing building at 918 Big Bethel Road [LRSN 4001444]; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended) recommends mixed use for this property, and the Plan recommends policies that will encourage and maintain an environment that nurtures children in the Hampton community; WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) District, which permits a day care 3 with an approved use permit; WHEREAS: ten conditions are attached to address, among other things, hours of operation, traffic and circulation, capacity, and a revocation clause; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gregory Williams and seconded by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 14-00011, subject to ten (10) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Snead, Southall, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting B. Use Permit Application No. 14-00013: by Ben Johnson DBA Skin Deep, Inc. to allow a tattoo parlor at 1531 E. Pembroke Avenue [LRSN 12003420]. 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. City Planner Alison Alexander presented Use Permit Application No, 14-00013 by Ben Johnson DBA Skin Deep, Inc. to operate a tattoo parlor at 1531 E. Pembroke Avenue. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 3  The applicant received a use permit for a tattoo parlor in this location in August of 2013 under Use Permit No. 1087-2013. Due to health issues, the applicant closed the business for a time, letting his use permit lapse. Today the applicant is seeking a new use permit to reopen the business at 1531 E. Pembroke Avenue in a structure owned by Fordham Associates, LLP. The proposal will generate negligible traffic impacts, and the existing parking lot will provide sufficient parking for the tattoo parlor use. The property is zoned C-2, Limited Commercial, which permits a tattoo parlor subject to securing a use permit. The proposed use is consistent with the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended), which recommends policies that will encourage and maintain an environment that promotes the continued growth of small businesses and encourages the location of businesses in commercial nodes in an effort to protect residential uses and adjacent neighborhoods. There are seven conditions attached to this permit which include the hours of operation and term of permit. Staff recommends approval of this application. Commissioner Campbell stated he was intrigued by the applicant’s letter which stated the business would cater to women. C. Clark, 1531 E. Pembroke Avenue, appeared on the applicant’s behalf. Mr. Clark stated the operation is very clean and upscale. This is the first of its kind in the nation. It was in his personal surveys that he discovered 70% of the market was female. In response to a questioin from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Clark stated that men are not forbidden from their business, but it is their plan to promote it for ladies only. Males will not be turned away. In response to a question about the survey from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Clark stated he has operated a temporary tattoo business in Virgina Beach for 13 years. The women he spoke with want a location geared just toward women. This location is a nice, bright, and clean place and will have 5 or 6 artists. They are trying to find female artists; however, there are only 20 in the area. There were no public speakers. After discussion the Commission approved the follwing resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Skin Deep, Inc. to permit a tattoo parlor in an existing building at 1531 E. Pembroke Ave [LRSN 12003420]; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended) recommends commercial use for this property, encourages an environment that Planning Commission 20140710 Page 4  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: seven conditions are attached to address hours of operation, screening, compliance with applicable health regulations, and term of permit; and 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 Greg Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 14-00013, subject to seven (7) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Snead, Southall, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 145-2014: Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 2 Entitled, “Definitions,” and Chapter 2.1 Entitled, “Uses Permitted,” of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia By Amending Sections 2-2 and 2.1-2 Pertaining to Extended Stay Establishments and Hotels. Approval of this amendment would specifically permit extended stay hotels in the C-2, C-3, SPI-BBD, SPI-HRC, SPI-HRCNC, SPI-OHB, and SPI- OHW districts subject to the approval of a use permit. Approval would also amend the definition of “extended stay establishment” to further define kitchen facilities and the definition of “hotel” to include a maximum stay of 30 days unless a longer stay would be permitted by the City Code. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown presented Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 145-2014. Ms. Brown stated there are three things associated with this change: 1. Define “extended stay hotel” to further define kitchen facilities. 2. Amend the definition of “hotel” to include a maximum stay of 30 days unless a longer stay would be permitted by the City Code. 3. Allow the extended stay as a permitted use on the Use Table. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 5  Accordingly, this amendment is necessary so that the Zoning Ordinance is made consistent with the City Code. Currently “extended stay establishment” is defined in Chapter 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance but not specifically permitted in any zoning district. Extended stay establishments have been regulated in the same way as hotels, which are permitted in certain districts with a use permit. If this zoning ordinance amendment is approved, extended stay establishments will be permitted as a separate use in the zoning ordinance in the same districts in which hotels are currently permitted, subject to the approval of a use permit. This amendment would also further define the definition of extended stay establishment in part to elaborate upon what constitutes “kitchen facilities.” Finally, this amendment would define “hotel” to permit only a 30-day stay unless otherwise permitted by Chapter 16.1 of the City Code. In response to a question from Commissionier Campbell, Ms. Brown stated the language in the hotel definition mentioned 10 rooms, so to be consistent that language was kept in the language for extended stay establishments. Up to nine rooms is considered a “tourist home”. Deptuy Director Steven Shapiro stated City Council approved the City Code amendments portion of this issue at the Council meeting on July 9, 2014. If adopted this ordinance amendment will go to City Counil in August and if it is adopted by City Council it would bring the Zoning into line with the City Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell as to the number of families affected by this ordinance change, Mr. Shapiro stated he did not have numbers, but that the Social Services Department will work with the families affected by the change. Terry O’Neill, Director of Community Development, stated there will be a team effort to enforce the various provisions of this ordinance. Fire Department and Community Development staff inspect these units and when families are identified as illegally living in the units, the Social Services part of the team works closely with the families to match them up with suitable accomodations. Wanda Rogers, Director of Social Services, has previously reported to City Council that they have a high success rate in matching families up with suitable accomodations. Chairman LaRue stated it had been mentioned in the worksession to have Wanda Rogers give a report to the Commission about these placements. In response to Commissioner Williams’ questioning whether or not a moratorium would be placed on Section 8 Housing and how many people have been affected, Mr. O’Neill stated he did not know as his department does not work directly with families. Ms. Rogers has more information than the Community Development Department has and he will see if she can come speak with the Ciommission. There were no public speakers. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 6  After discussion the Commission approved the follwing resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 145- 2014, a proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 2.1 Entitled, “Definitions,” and Chapter 2 Entitled, “Uses Permitted,” of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia By Amending Sections 2-2 and 2.1-2 Pertaining to Extended Stay Establishments and Hotels; WHEREAS: in August 2013, as part of its “Safe & Clean” initiative, the City of Hampton amended Chapter 16.1 of the City Code to, among other things, limit the amount of time occupants may stay in a hotel to 30 days in a defined period with exceptions for extended stay establishments and other situations; WHEREAS: in July 2014, City Council again amended the City Code related to hotels in part to expand the exceptions to the 30-day rule; WHEREAS: this amendment will make the definitions of Extended Stay Hotel and Hotel consistent with the City Code amendments; WHEREAS: this amendment will also permit Extended Stay Hotels as a separate use in the zoning ordinance in the same districts in which hotels are currently permitted, subject to the approval of a use permit; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing for this item. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapters 2 and 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Williams, McCloud, Southall, Snead, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting D. Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 14-00001: Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 35 of the City Code of the City of Hampton, Virginia by Amending: Section 35-11 of Article I Entitled “In General,” To Establish Fees for Review of Single Submission Subdivision Plats as Authorized by Va. Code § 15.2-2241.A.9; Sections 35-21 and 35-27 of Article II Entitled, “Preliminary Plat – Procedures,” Pertaining to Mandatory and Optional Preliminary Subdivision Plats and Effect of Approval; Sections 35-41, 35-43, and 35-50 of Article III Planning Commission 20140710 Page 7  Entitled, “Final Plat,” Pertaining to When Final Plats are Required, Contents of a Final Plat, and Effect of Approval; and Section 35-101 of Article V Entitled, “Development Plans – Requirements, Procedures for Permitting and Performance Assurances,” Pertaining to When Development Plans are Required. Approval of this amendment would amend the subdivision ordinance in order to comply with changes to the Virginia Code effective July 1, 2014, which prohibit requiring the submission of preliminary plats for subdivisions involving 50 or fewer lots. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown presented Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 14-0001. Ms. Brown stated this is a housekeeping amendment necessary to bring the subdivision ordinance into compliance with changes to state law that become effective July 1, 2014. In its 2014 Session, the Virginia General Assembly amended Section 15.2-2260 of the Code of Virginia regarding subdivision plats. Specifically, the amendments state that a locality may require submission of a preliminary subdivision plat only for subdivisions involving at least 51 lots. Moreover, if a subdivision ordinance requires submission of a preliminary subdivision plat for subdivisions of 51 or more lots, it must also allow for submission of a preliminary subdivision plat at the option of a landowner for subdivisions of 50 or fewer lots. Currently the City subdivision ordinance requires submission of a preliminary subdivision plat for all subdivisions, regardless of the number of lots. Accordingly, this amendment will make submission of a preliminary subdivision plat for subdivisions of 50 or fewer lots optional, while continuing to require preliminary plats for subdivisions of 51 lots or more. This amendment also establishes a fee for landowners electing not to submit a preliminary subdivision plat. This will ensure that the cost will be the same for landowners electing to submit a preliminary plat and those electing not to submit a preliminary plat. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Brown stated State law says subdivisions of 50 or fewer lots are not required to obtain a preliminary subdivision plat and 51 or more will require a preliminary plat. Community Development Director Terry O’Neill stated that neighboring jurisdictions were checked and Hampton is staying in line with them. There were no public speakers. WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day SOA 14- 00001, a proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 35 of the City Code of the City of Hampton, Virginia by Amending: Section 35-11 of Article I Entitled “In General,” To Establish Fees for Review of Single Submission Subdivision Plats as Authorized by Va. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 8  Code § 15.2-2241.A.9; Sections 35-21 and 35-27 of Article II Entitled, “Preliminary Plat – Procedures,” Pertaining to Mandatory and Optional Preliminary Subdivision Plats and Effect of Approval; Sections 35-41, 35-43, and 35-50 of Article III Entitled, “Final Plat,” Pertaining to When Final Plats are Required, Contents of a Final Plat, and Effect of Approval; and Section 35-101 of Article V Entitled, “Development Plans – Requirements, Procedures for Permitting and Performance Assurances,” Pertaining to When Development Plans are Required; WHEREAS: in its 2014 session, the Virginia General Assembly amended Section 15.2-2260 of the Code of Virginia regarding subdivision plats to prohibit localities from requiring the submission of a preliminary subdivision plat for subdivisions involving 50 or fewer lots; WHEREAS: currently the City subdivision ordinance requires submission of a preliminary subdivision plat for all subdivisions regardless of the number of lots; WHEREAS: this amendment will make submission of a preliminary subdivision plat for subdivisions of 50 or fewer lots optional, while continuing to require preliminary plats for subdivisions of 51 lots or more; WHEREAS: this amendment will also establish a fee for landowners electing not to submit a preliminary subdivision plat in order to ensure that the cost will be the same for landowners electing to submit a preliminary plat and those electing not to submit a preliminary plat; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing for this item. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Southall and seconded by Commissioner McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 35 of the City Code. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Williams, McCloud, Southall, Snead, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting ITEM V. Community Development Director’s Report A. Youth Planner Report Planning Commission 20140710 Page 9  Senior Youth Planner, Chyna Matheny, stated June was a busy month for the Hampton Youth commission and the Youth Planners. A welcome reception was held on June 9 for new and current commissioners and their parents. Mayor George Wallace and several Planning Commissioners were also in attendance. In a Youth Commissioner the five things looked for are that they must be able to lead; participate in teamwork; have knowledge; have representation; and be in attendance. The Youth Planner interviews were held. The one day Boot Camp Event held by the HYC allowed an opportunity for those in attendance to understand the Youth Commission and helped build teamwork. The next step is a retreat which will be held at the end of the summer. This will involve more training and work will be done on a work plan. In response to a question from Commission Campbell, Mr. O’Neill explained that James Payne is on board as a former Youth Planner and will be working with the Youth Commission and Youth Planners during the summer. Commissioner Campbell stated that James Payne and Chyna Matheny represent the youth of the city through their good work. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, both Vice-Chair Southall and Mr. O’Neill explained that the Youth Advisory Board that had been in attendance at a previous HYC retreat has been combined with the Youth Commission. There is now a young person in a position similar to a Youth Planner who works as a staff liaison out of the Community Development Department, and serves as a link to the Neighborhood Commission and Youth Commission. Chairman LaRue commended Ms. Matheny on her years of work with the Youth Planners and thanked her for the great ice breakers she always gave. B. Substandard Lots Amendment Senior Planner Mike Hayes presented an update on the Substandard Lots Amendment previously discussed at the June 5, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 10 Mr. Hayes stated the briefing gave the Planning Commission an outline of the legal risks associated with the substandard lot provision of the Zoning Ordinance and the potential direction for bettering the situation. As was stated in the meeting, the current provision requires the merger of substandard lots, which are or have been in common ownership since January 12, 1989, comes with some legal risk. That risk was made greater with State legislation that has taken effect this month and created a greater sense of urgency to improve the ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Brown gave the legal information and stated the main issue is if a lot is substandard (defined as not having the required lot frontage or area) and the owner also owns an adjacent, contiguous lot since 1989, the lot is in a strange situation and may require an involuntary merger. The involuntary merger decision says that in order to develop that lot one has to either merge it with the other lot to bring it in conformance or go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Owners need to inform buyers of these lots of these circumstances when they are sold or re-deeded and this is not necessarily done. Without a variance someone may be deprived of the use of their property and it has been disfavored by a least one court in Virginia. Staff is now trying to find a way to fix these issues. Mr. Hayes stated this discussion is about already existing platted lots and no one is trying to circumvent the subdivision ordinance and create a substandard lot. Goals and objectives going forward are to:  Protect the City against legal implications  Encourage investment in our neighborhoods – as a lot of the vacant lots occur in historic and older neighborhoods  Maintain and enhance community appearance and character  Ensure infill development fits the scale of the existing neighborhood Staff Recommendations:  Eliminate common ownership language  Establish standards for development of existing substandard lots  Implement a phased approach In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Hayes stated the current ordinance wording may force one to build a house that is not favorable to the character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 11  There is no perfect solution that would solve every potential zoning problem or issue. At this point what is being looked at is something that applies citywide and can be done quickly; a solution to deal with the legal implications while at the same time dealing with the character. The proposal is to look at amending the Infill Housing District Ordinance that currently exists and build on the work that was done in the past on a citywide scope. It will be an overlay district and deal with existing substandard lots with a base zoning district of R-8, R-9, R-11, or R-13. These four districts apply to typical single family subdivision development in Hampton. The proposed changes to the substandard lot provisions are not a substitute for other changes, such as changes to a base zoning district, implanting an historic preservation district, or addressing architectural details. With that in mind, the following changes are proposed to permit development on substandard lots in a way that the new development adheres to dimensional standards typical of its neighbors and to ensure that new development is in furtherance of the City’s adopted policies for encouraging building design and site planning that enhances community, community character, interaction, and personal safety. These dimensional standards include building setbacks, building height, and green area. The conditions deal with adjustments to the front yard setback. Currently the setback is a minimum of 30 feet and generally front yard setbacks are 30 feet. With vacant infill lots the following adjustments may be made: construction of homes would be required to be built at a depth equal to the average of existing single family development within three hundred feet (the typical length of a block) in either direction and on the same side of the street. A green area requirement would be that 50% of the front yard must be green area. The current ordinance requires two parking spaces for a 40’ lot. It is understood that there are some areas that cannot provide two off-street parking spaces. This provision would keep someone from coming in and paving their whole front yard. The new ordinance would permit reducing parking to one space. All other regulations of the base district, which includes a minimum square footage requirement for dwelling area, would still apply. However, the proposed amendments do propose one administrative exception. In the rare case that the development meets the height and setback requirements but cannot meet the minimum dwelling size requirement, a reduction in dwelling size would be allowed, provided that the maximum possible building size is achieved. As an example, if the base zoning district requires a home to be a minimum of 1,700 square feet, but Planning Commission 20140710 Page 12 between the setback requirements and the two story height limit create a buildable area of only 1,500 square feet, the home, if constructed must have 1,500 square feet of dwelling area. It should also be noted that none of these changes remove the right for an individual to apply for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. O’Neill stated there is nothing that would prohibit one from parking in a front yard. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Brown stated that a substandard lot can be divided under certain conditions. Mr. Hayes explained that a lot of thought has been given to the parking issue. The issue of parking on front lawns has been brought up. Another aspect of parking is garages and it is proposed that garages be set back at least 18 inches from where the front door is located to help provide “eyes on the street” to promote public safety as garages do not necessarily have windows. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. Hayes stated that if something is in existence when an ordinance comes into affect it is grandfathered. Mr. Hayes explained that substandard lots vary in size. Typically in Hampton they are around 50 feet in width. There are certain neighborhoods where lots may be over zoned and the neighborhood as a whole is platted with 60 foot wide lots, but zoned for 75 foot lots. These are mostly built-out neighborhoods and platted single family subdivisions. One of the future options in this case would be to look at these neighborhoods and do a comprehensive rezoning; and then move forward with a city sponsored rezoning to place the neighborhood into another zoning district classification to better meet standards. Conversations would occur with the neighborhoods before any of this would happen. There is need to look at balancing City resources as there is time and effort, along with costs, that go along with any change. In going forward a determination will have to be made as to where it is thought the most important changes are and where time needs to be spent. Another provision is capping the height of a structure so that no home may be taller than two-stories and/or 25 feet tall. Two-stories will fit in almost any neighborhood in the City of Hampton. If the minimum square footage could not be met, a formula has been devised to figure out the maximum buildable area. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Hayes stated that rear yard setbacks do not have the same issues as front yard setbacks, but it is something that can be taken into consideration. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 13  Commissioner McCloud stated that he has been very involved with neighborhoods and is familiar with the example given by Mr. Hayes. The character of a new house has to be conducive to the neighborhood. In response to a statement from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Hayes stated the City has legal limitations on zoning for aesthetics. Mr. O’Neill stated the reason to have brought this to the Commission at this stage is to get comments, concerns, and questions. This issue is complicated and staff will try to build a perfect ordinance with structure and context and meet legal requirements. Staff is committed to come as close as they can, but there are many criteria to be met and satisfied (i.e. citizens, boundaries, parking). Commissioner McCloud stated he has worked twenty years on neighborhood issues and is passionate about making and having neighborhoods attractive so that people want to move into and live in these neighborhoods. Chairman LaRue stated it is the Commission’s job to try to support the community. Hampton is old with a hodgepodge of different housing and it is a challenge to create some order. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell on the example of the three-story house given, Mr. O’Neill stated the house was built under the provisions of the Infill Housing Ordinance, but this is an example of where an ordinance does not work as intended because of the way someone else worked hard at making an exception to make it work for them. This is where the person, because they did not want to comply with the design requirements, built a three- story structure that met the dwelling size requirements. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams regarding houses on 1st Street, Mr. O’Neill stated the houses were recorded prior to the provisions and were most likely built by-right. Mr. Hayes explained one can build on a substandard lot today as long as it does not come under the common ownership requirement. The dwelling size and setbacks will have to be met. One of the most basic provisions of zoning and personal property rights almost explicitly stated in State legislation and where the greatest power rests is in being able to govern things like setbacks, heights and square footage. It gets more complicated when you involve building materials and architectural details. Mr. Hayes’ response to Commissioner Snead was that the ordinance is trying to prevent something like this issue from occurring again by putting a cap on the height of a structure. It might still not be a house that everyone thinks is the most pleasing at two-stories, but it would not stand out as much. Also, pattern books could be developed to encourage people to meet standards and blend houses into the neighborhood. This process seems to be working in Norfolk, but there are legal implications and it is a more intensive and longer process. Mr. Hayes stated Planning Commission 20140710 Page 14 Hampton will look at things more like the City of Norfolk does. Norfolk has a pattern book that applies to most of the City which makes things easier for builders. This would be a by-right way to build. Another way would to apply and go through the Planning Commission process. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. O’Neill stated a number of the adopted Master Plans that deal with neighborhood related issues have some broad guidelines, but that the Master Plan is not the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hayes is trying to bring to the Commission how substandard lots can be codified into the ordinance. Hampton does not have the resources to implement the Pattern Book approach quickly. That will not help with the legal issues at this point. If that is the path to take it will take time and resources. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. Hayes replied that flexibility in how to work with building structures on substandard lots will be considered. Commissioner McCloud stated the concern is other substandard lots in the area and the wish to not repeat previous issues. Mr. Hayes stated there are other provisions in the ordinance where front yard setbacks in certain districts are based on the houses within 300 feet where the substandard lot is located in the neighborhood. Mr. Hayes stated with the timeline the plan is to take the comments expressed in this discussion and work on the specific language. This language will be in the next Planning Commission package and if found to be acceptable, the Commission will recommend approval of the proposed amendment to be forwarded to City Council for their approval in September. Commissioner Williams stated it will take a while to get it right and he appreciated being able to comment on the process. In response to Commissioner McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated that one would still be able to request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals while this amendment is being worked on. Staff is trying to work on this process as quickly as possible, but does not want to rush it and possibly make things worse. The BZA understands these issues and they are sensitive to issues, but must follow the legal route. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated things are not out of control, but there are pressing legal reasons to move forward. Staff is trying to get through the process as quickly as possible. C. Fort Monroe: Community Plan and Zoning Amendments Terry O’Neill stated Keith Cannady, Planning and Zoning Division Manager, has been the point person from the department working on Fort Monroe issues since Planning Commission 20140710 Page 15 the BRAC process. An important and critical juncture is forthcoming with the evolution of Fort Monroe so Mr. Cannady is here to give the Commission an update on where the status is on moving forward with a Community Plan amendment that would incorporate Fort Monroe, as well as, the zoning provisions for Fort Monroe. Keith Cannady stated Fort Monroe is a great opportunity for the City of Hampton, the region and beyond. This is a complex issue to think about and not like a lot of things looked at from a zoning or planning standpoint. He encouraged the Commissioners to ask questions and comment on what is seen at this presentation. This is one of three presentations scheduled over the next three months. In 2005 the BRAC decision was made that closed Fort Monroe. The City is now at the point to consider making important decisions to amend the Community Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Secondly it is early in the process of developing these amendments. Before BRAC there was one owner, the United States Army; one use, the military; and one zone R-13 (Single Family Residence) which is the one zoning category given to all Federal and State properties as a holding zone. The puts the City in a good position should the City be in a position to plan for and zone the property. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. Cannady stated Army bases are not subject to local zoning and the zoning did not matter to Fort Monroe as the City had no jurisdiction over the Army, but the R-13 zone is the same R-13 zone used in Hampton. This was the recommended zone in case the City ever had jurisdiction over the property. Fort Monroe’s future will include multiple property owners: land owned by State and Federal Government and private property owners. There will be multiple land uses; a lot of park spaces (Continental Park and waterfront park spaces); community facilities; bowling alleys; churches; and the YMCA. There will be a lot of privately owned residential property; also some business uses, i.e. restaurants, marina; and office uses. The new look will be more like the rest of the City with multiple uses, property owners and multiple districts. The task before us is to amend the plan and the Zoning Ordinance. From a Planning and Zoning standpoint Fort Monroe is unique. In the 1960’s Ft. Monroe was designated as a National Historical Landmark. It is one of the first properties nationally to get that designation. It has carried that level of significance and the influence of the National Park Service for over 50 years and that is one of the reasons it has been preserved so well. It will always be a National Historic Landmark no matter who owns it. It also received the designation as a National Monument by presidential proclamation. Fort Monroe is managed by a new political subdivision of the Commonwealth called the Fort Monroe Authority (FMA) and they have the authority Planning Commission 20140710 Page 16 and responsibility to plan, regulate, develop and program what happens at Fort Monroe. Some of its functions overlap City of Hampton functions which will affect what the City will recommend and how the Plan and Zoning Ordinances are changed. All BRAC properties are subject to the environmental site assessment and clean-up process. Fort Monroe has gone through this process and continues to go through it. That process also spins off land use constraints or controls and so far these land use constraints are limited to where and how the excavation is done. A graphic was developed a couple of years ago during the update of the Phoebus Master Plan because of the need to appreciate the relationship with the National Park Service and the FMA and the need to work together to make Fort Monroe as successful as it can be. These three groups were working on plans for Fort Monroe at the same time. The graphic helps to keep the organizations straight and helps the public appreciate all that is going on. It shows that the agencies are working together on a common vision for the future of the property. The common theme is that the public is still concerned about the same things as when the process started. They are aware of the broad goals in terms of where the groups should be going with respect to the future use of the property. In developing a Community Plan Amendment and the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the next steps are the need to remove the military designation as Ft. Monroe is changing and help transfer it into its future use. The new zoning will be informed by those policies. Ft. Monroe becomes a different kind of an asset for the City as a park asset, a community asset and a recreational asset which all need to be reflected in the plan. There are five topics or issues identified which are important and need to be addressed:  Historical significance  Governance  Recreational and cultural opportunities  Hampton as a ‘gateway’ to a National Park  Environment resources People often come to a community just to visit a National Park or Monument and there are things that can be taken advantage of to improve that experience for those new visitors to the community. Staff is looking at a different format for this plan amendment forwardbecause it does not fit the mold of a common Master Plan. Plans are for this to be a stand- alone plan. Plans show Park Service ownership which includes property inside the moat, the parade grounds and Quarters One. Planning Commission 20140710 Page 17  The FMA is also required under State Law to develop a plan for Fort Monroe which will work a lot like a Master Plan that the City would develop for Downtown or Coliseum Central. A Community Plan amendment will be adopted. Fort Monroe is one big parcel and it is important to determine land use boundaries and identify mixed-use districts. Fort Monroe was developed long before zoning and cars and is a walkable community with houses built next to churches and next to businesses. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Cannady stated the parade grounds are controlled by the National Park Service. State land will be managed by the FMA. Some of the property will be sold to private owners and some will remain in State hands (primarily park lands).Most of the Ft. Monroe property was deeded to the Army by the State with a reverter clause which requires that when no longer used as a military base it would revert back to the Commonwealth. There is disputed ownership of property around the marina and around the north gate. Bruce Sturk stated the Army and the State have hired appraisers regarding the disputed properties. They will meet in August to share the appraisals and hopefully it will then allow them to move forward on potential sales of those two disputed properties and share the proceeds when they come together. The State could purchase the marina from the Army depending on the appraisal price and if they want to buy it. Mr. O’Neill introduced Bruce Sturk, Director of Federal Facilities. Mr. Sturk works closely with Ft. Monroe, Langley, NASA, and the VA. Mr. Cannady stated the zoning of Ft. Monroe is currently R-13 (One Family Residence) and that will not work for future uses for Ft. Monroe. That is the reason for working on the development of the amendments before bringing it back to the Commission. The FMA has substantial legal obligations to regulate the future use of the property. The City has zoning and preservation authority under the State code. The FMA has similar authority in regulation as well. The first step taken was to understand what the three zoning and preservations options are and how they overlap. The National Historic Preservation Act required the Army to develop standards to protect Ft. Monroe before it reverted back to the Commonwealth. That resulted in the Programmatic Agreement (PA); understandings between the Commonwealth and the Army; and ultimately very detailed design standards that govern the future standards of Ft. Monroe (rehabilitation properties and new construction). There is a fully developed set of standards in place today that govern the future development of Ft. Monroe and these will need to be considered during the development of the Zoning Ordinance. This document was developed through a public process and these parties have a legal responsibilities under that document. A long list of interested parties under the National Historic Preservation Planning Commission 20140710 Page 18 Act were involved in the development of these standards and are called concurring parties and consulting parties. There is also a process called a “protocol for public notification and stakeholder participation” that makes it an open process. One can check to see if standards are being met and see if the public’s interest is being met and protected. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Cannady stated anyone could be a concurring party if one attends meetings and participates in the process. Hampton University has a historically strong relationship with Ft. Monroe. They believe the relationship can be further strengthened now that Ft. Monroe is no longer an Army Base. Ft. Monroe has been broken up into different zones based on historical significance. There is no new development permitted in the inner fort area. The historic village area outside the gate with the walkable housing, marina and office areas will allow some new development if it is infill and replaces something that was torn down. Strict guidelines will have to be met and be historically comparable to what is already on the property. The only significant new development to be allowed will be located in the Wherry Corridor and the North Gate area where there are larger vacant properties that are available. They will still have to meet strict design standards. What the City will try to find out is how our zoning fits best into the already existing regulatory environment. In addition with the State enabling legislation that Planning and Zoning operate under, the most recent change in the General Assembly to the FMA Act also requires recognition of the authority the FMA has with respect to planning and zoning. There is also the option of a local Historic District Overlay Zone. That would be the avenue to take if seeking to preserve the historic Ft. Monroe property with local zoning. New base zoning districts are also needed for Ft. Monroe. The City wants to avoid overlapping and conflicting regulations. Allowed uses and intensity of use is only controlled by base zone district. Current design standards do not deal directly with how a building is used. That is a significant missing gap that will be focused on when the zoning amendments are developed. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Sturk stated the former Officer’s Club, beach and pool belong to the Army, and have been leased over to the Commonwealth who has leased it to the Paradise Club. When the property is turned over to the National Park Service it could lease it out to another operator or owner. Tax monies collected are turned over to the City. Mr. Cannady stated that with all three options (Base Zoning District; Historic District Overlay; Fort Monroe Authority) everything is covered but there is some overlap. He is also aware that most of the existing zoning districts in Hampton will not fit well on Ft. Monroe as it was developed long before there were zoning ordinances. Most of Hampton’s zoning is driven around suburban, single-family, Planning Commission 20140710 Page 19 separated land uses. One exception is the Special Interest Public Land District. This district may apply to the park spaces on Ft. Monroe. Work needs to be done to properly identified property boundaries. Ft. Monroe is in two important overlay zones: the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay and a Flood Zone Overlay. A decision needs to be made as to what is IDA (Intensely Developed Area) and RPA (Resource Protection Area). The next steps will be on the Chesapeake Bay Overlay and identifying different boundaries for the districts. The primary focus will be on land use and the intensity of use. Many things are already covered under the FMA’s design standards. The agreement with FMA needs to be amended so responsibilities are clearly laid out and everyone knows who is responsible for what and the public is assured that the important resources are protected. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Cannady stated the property that formerly housed the Wherry Quarters is State owned and managed by the FMA. Those housing units have been demolished. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Cannady stated there are two or three big spaces for new development and some spaces where only improvements can be made. There are some existing infill areas where houses have been torn down and new houses can be filled in. The first priority is to fill the existing buildings. The Planning Commission’s role is to protect the public’s interest in the development of private land. The Wherry housing area and the North Gate area are the best areas for new development. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Cannady stated the properties are still State owned but are located within the City of Hampton city limits and subject to the City’s planning and zoning authority. Vice Chair Southall stated he had served on the advisory board for the Fort Monroe Area Development Authority (FADA) and the subject of tourism was heard repeatedly. In looking at the map there is some public beach, a small area of hospitality and a lot of residential. Also heard is that “we have eaten up all of our waterfront with residential”. There is a prime opportunity here but we are eating up our waterfront with private residential. It has been found in the past that it may be a public waterway but when private residential moves in they begin making demands to change that waterfront and it is essentially lost to the public. A lot has been heard about bringing outside dollars in, but the cost of servicing residential property does not generate revenue for the City, it creates more services. The retail tax base helps provide those services, but the bulk of the residential budget goes to educational purposes. He does not see this as a dollar generator and does not see what the draw would be there other than the “moat” itself and other than the casemate museum. He does not see what would draw those outside dollars from other areas such as Norfolk and Williamsburg. We need to look for those types of draws. The bulk of the development should bring people into the area; provide places for people to come and stay. Hampton is centrally located between the Planning Commission 20140710 Page 20 waterfront and Colonial Williamsburg and these are two places probably most visited. Hampton could offer a mid-point to those locations and offer people a place to stay while on vacation. He stated he has no problem with the existing residential but believes new residential would create an atmosphere the City may not desire. In response to questions from Chairman LaRue, Mr. Cannady reviewed the different areas of Ft. Monroe and where the mixed-uses would be and what areas are already developed. Once the property is sold all the tax revenues will be collected from these properties once they are on the tax rolls. Commissioner Williams stated it appears this will offer the potential for another gated community. Vice-Chair Southall mentioned again turning the Ft. Monroe area into a tourist location. Mr. O’Neill explained the revenue process once the property is sold. He also explained there will be more briefings on the Ft. Monroe issues and time for more in- depth questions. A plan will be developed that is in the best interest of the City and a Zoning ordinance will be developed that will allow the City to implement the plan as the property is sold. They will then be more like other properties in the City. No action is requested at this meeting and the Commission will not be asked to adopt anything at this time. The purpose of the presentation was to introduce the process. A lot of economic analysis has gone into this complicated process. After all discussions the Commission will be asked for their input and ultimately to recommend something to City Council in terms of a Plan Amendment to the Community Plan and a zoning approach as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cannady stated a lot of economic analysis has gone into this process. Fiscal impact studies were done and the map shown was part of that. Ft. Monroe is intended to meet an economic sustainability goal. The State at some point will not include the Fort in it’s operating budget. Fort Monroe will have to start generating revenue to pay for the services and other things needed to improve the property. A Steering Committee (FMA, NPS, Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources, Partnership for a New Phoebus, Downtown Hampton Development Partnership, Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, U. S. Army, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) was formed with the goal to include people with a major property interest and people from the community who have been involved in the process for many years. The first meeting will be held either the end of July or first of August. Staff would like to have both amendments adopted by the end of 2014 or early 2015. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Cannady stated that the initial issues have been settled. It is time for the City to move forward with Planning Commission 20140710 Page 21 the Park Service and the FMA and come together for a vision on the property to make it attractive for visitors and those who would like to live there and invest there. The public has been involved in the process; it has been vetted; the economic studies have been done; the Boards that needed to act have done so; the Governor adopted; and now it is the third partner’s turn to come in and do its part in Planning and Zoning. VI. Items by the Public There were no items presented by the public. VII. Matters by the Commission Chairman LaRue welcomed Carlton Campbell on his reappointment to the Planning Commission. VIII. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: ____________________________________ Gaynette LaRue Chairman Planning Commission 20140710 Page 22