Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT THE SPECIAL WORK SESSION OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE LAWSON CONFERENCE ROOM, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, 22 LINCOLN STREET, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2017 AT 2:30 P.M. Vice-Chair Tommy Southall called the meeting to order at 2:33 p.m. A call of the roll noted Commissioners Carole Garrison, Ruthann Kellum, Vice-Chair Tommy Southall, Jimmy Gray, and Pete Peterson as being present. Commissioners Trina Coleman and Chairman Christopher Carter were noted as absent. Staff in attendance were Secretary to the Commission/Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown, Planning & Zoning Administration Division Manager Michael Hayes, Chief Planner Donald Whipple, Senior City Planner Tolu Ibikunle, Senior Zoning Official Hannah Sabo, City Planner Lucy Stoll, and Recording Secretary/Administrative Assistant Kristie Graves. The Commission and staff discussed the following agenda items, with the following information being provided: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Briefing: The Budget Office gave a brief overview of the CIP process for the new Commissioners and updates on the Fiscal Year 2018 – 2022 CIP progress. Public input meetings will be held in February that allow citizens and community partners to provide feedback on the CIP. The policies and vision within the Hampton Community Plan is one of the factors considered in the CIP. Currently, the committee is in Phase 1 of the process, which is ranking projects in order of importance as submitted by the departments. The CIP committee will provide monthly updates to the Planning Commission and City Council until the proposed plan is completed. November 16, 2017 Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes: Commissioner Garrison noted a correction to be made in the minutes: Item V-A. Page 6, Paragraph 4, “A motion was made by Commissioner Carole Garrison and seconded by Commissioner Trina Coleman to defer Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00004 until the December 21, 2017 Hampton Planning Commission meeting to allow further consideration to determine which Board will be responsible for hearing exception requests so that the amendment can be split into two separate sections, one dealing specifically with the buffer area, and one dealing with the review process of the Chesapeake Bay Review Committee. She will make a motion to defer approval of the December 21, 2017 meeting minutes until the January 18, 2018 meeting. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00004, 17-00015 and 17-00005: by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 9, Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance Entitled “O-CBP District – Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay”, and by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 2, Section 2-2 of the Zoning Ordinance Entitled “Definitions”. The current Chesapeake Bay Review Committee is comprised of four City staff members and one citizen. ZOA 17-00004 shifts exception reviews to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) which is a court-appointed board of citizens, and is intended to eliminate conflicts in the existing review process and place the duty with an existing board already structured to deal with quasi-judicial decisions regarding zoning provisions. This amendment creates a new “special green area” to ensure that homes have usable yard space outside the protected RPA buffer. The subdivision on Firefly Lane led to the proposed twenty–foot (20’) “special green area”. The RPA buffer was enacted by the General Assembly. Permitted encroachments are specifically delineated in the State code and repeated in the City’s zoning ordinance and are reviewed administratively. Certain by-right activities can be approved under certain criteria that are in the State code and the City’s ordinance. If the activity does not meet the criteria, it is considered an exception and will be heard in a public hearing by either the Chesapeake Bay Review Committee or the BZA. The WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 1 applicant can also appeal the decision of the Zoning staff and be heard in a public hearing before the BZA. The majority of zoning and permit processes have an appeal process which will be explained in the public hearing. Administrative permits that are authorized by the code and issued do not have minutes because there is not a public hearing, but there is an administrative record. All the information is available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Minutes and agendas for every board should be available online. City staff believes in transparency for public processes. It is suggested to hold one public hearing for the three amendments. The Commission will need to recommend approval of one of the two amendments (ZOA 17-00004 or ZOA 17-00015) that relates to the review of exception requests. The other amendment (ZOA 17-00005) involves the new definitions. There will need to be a motion for each of the amendments. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00013 and 17-00014: by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 1, Section 1-23 of the Zoning Ordinance Entitled “General Provisions”, and by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 4, Section 4-106 of the Zoning Ordinance Entitled “R-4 District – One Family Residential”. It is suggested to hold one public hearing for the two amendments and there will need to be a motion for each of the amendments. ZOA 17-00013 has been amended and does not address stairs or ramps at this time; it is limited only to porches. The amendments would permit porches on the side of a house facing a public street to encroach into the setback, similar to the way the City permits porches to encroach into the front yard setback. Use Permit Application No. 17-00014: by Sectorsite LLC to permit the construction and operation of a commercial communications tower at 332 Rip Rap Road. Because of Federal law, the Planning Commission’s review of telecommunications towers is under very strict conditions. In order to deny, there has to be substantial evidence in the written record, e.g. consistency with the Community Plan, impacts on neighborhood properties, character and size of the tower, placement on the site. An item that cannot be considered is the environmental effects of a cellular tower. Another item to consider is whether or not the applicant has made a good faith effort to look at alternative sites. There is a hierarchy in the Community Plan in terms of what sites are more desirable and most consistent with the Plan. Work session adjourned at 3:30 p.m. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 2 AT THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, 22 LINCOLN STREET, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2017 AT 3:30 P.M. l. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Tommy Southall called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioners Carole Garrison, Ruthann Kellum, Vice-Chair Tommy Southall, Jimmy Gray, and Pete Peterson as being present. Commissioners Trina Coleman and Chairman Christopher Carter were noted as absent. Staff in attendance were Secretary to the Commission/Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill, Deputy Director of Community Development Steve Shapiro, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown, Planning & Zoning Administration Division Manager Michael Hayes, Development Services Center Manager David Stromberg, Chief Planner Donald Whipple, Senior City Planner Tolu Ibikunle, Senior Zoning Official Hannah Sabo, City Planner Lucy Stoll, Senior Youth Planner Janaria Lickey, and Recording Secretary/Administrative Assistant Kristie Graves. III. MINUTES – NOVEMBER 16, 2017 WORK SESSION & PUBLIC MEETING A motion was made by Commissioner Carole Garrison and seconded by Commissioner Jimmy Gray to defer the minutes of the November 16, 2017 Work Session and Planning Commission meeting to the January 18, 2018 meeting, with noted correction: Item V-A. ZOA 17- 00004, Page 6, Paragraph 4, “A motion was made by Commissioner Carole Garrison and seconded by Commissioner Trina Coleman to defer Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17- 00004 until the December 21, 2017 Hampton Planning Commission meeting to allow further consideration to determine which Board will be responsible for hearing exception requests so that the amendment can be split into two separate sections, one dealing specifically with the buffer area, and one dealing with the review process of the Chesapeake Bay Review Committee. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Garrison, Kellum, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Coleman, Carter IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS WELCOME OF NEW PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATION STAFF Secretary to the Commission/Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill introduced the new City Planners Corey Block and Ana Elezovic to the Planning Commission. Secretary O’Neill read the 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 manner. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 3  Secretary O’Neill suggested that the next three related public hearing items be part of one presentation and public hearing. A separate motion and vote will be required for each item. A. ZOA 17-00004 – AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 2, “O-CBP DISTRICT – CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION OVERLAY” Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the agenda item. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00004: by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 9, Article 2 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “O-CBP District – Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay”. Approval of this amendment would reorganize the ordinance, create new “special green area” requirements, authorize administrative review of permitted encroachments into the Resource Protection Area buffer, and transfer responsibility for review of exception requests from the existing Chesapeake Bay Review Committee to the Board of Zoning Appeals. This item is proposed in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00015, which creates a competing alternative for maintaining the authority for decisions on exception requests with the Chesapeake Bay Review Committee. This item is also proposed in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00005 to amend definitions pertaining to the O-CBP District. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street, or from Mike Hayes, 757-728- 5244 or mdhayes@hampton.gov. B. ZOA 17-00015 – AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 2, “O-CBP DISTRICT – CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION OVERLAY” Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00015: by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 9, Article 2 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “O-CBP District – Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay”. Approval of this amendment would reorganize the ordinance, create new “special green area” requirements, authorize administrative review of permitted encroachments into the Resource Protection Area buffer, and maintain responsibility for review of exception requests with the Chesapeake Bay Review Committee. This item is proposed to be heard in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00004, which would move responsibility for hearing exception requests from the Chesapeake Bay Review Committee to the Board of Zoning Appeals. This item is also proposed in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00005 to amend definitions pertaining to the O- CBP District. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street, or from Mike Hayes, 757-728-5244 or mdhayes@hampton.gov. C. ZOA 17-00005 – AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 2, “DEFINITIONS”, SECTION 2-2, UPDATE O-CBP DISTRICT – CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION OVERLAY” Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 4  Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00005: by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 2 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Definitions” By Amending Section 2-2. Approval of this amendment would update definitions pertaining to the O-CBP District including “Green Area,” “Impervious Surface,” “Resource Delineation,” “Special Green Area,” “Water Quality Impact Assessment, Major,” and “Water Quality Impact Assessment, Minor.” This item is proposed in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00004 and No. 17-00015 to reorganize the O-CBP District. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street, or from Mike Hayes, 757-728-5244 or mdhayes@hampton.gov. Planning & Zoning Administration Division Manager Michael Hayes presented the staff report on the subject amendments, copies of which are attached to the original minutes. Mr. Hayes stated that staff recommends approval of ZOA 17-00004 and ZOA 17-00005, and denial of ZOA 17-00015. In response to a question from Commissioner Gray, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown responded that if a neighboring property owner is impacted by a permitted encroachment, they can appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). In response to a question from Commissioner Garrison, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated that there is no provision in the ordinance as it is written that requires notification to a neighboring property owner of a permit that is being applied for, or the decision that is made by a Zoning Official regarding that application; the neighbor may find out when they see work occurring on the site. Secretary O’Neill added that we are gradually moving towards putting most of the review and permitting actions on the City’s website so that people in the neighborhood are aware of activities that are going on in their neighborhood. Some of these activities are permitted and do not go through a public hearing process, so no formal notification is required. Because of the large number of permits issued annually, the process of putting them online is not complete but has started. Ms. Brown added that if a project requires a building permit, the permit is posted on the worksite. Commissioner Garrison shared her concerns regarding ZOA 17-00004 and wanting the review of the permitted encroachments to be separated from the review of the exception requests because of the General Assembly’s efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay. She is concerned that the administrative review of the permitted encroachments would limit the public’s knowledge of decisions that are made regarding the Chesapeake Bay. Commissioner Garrison noted the “special green area” creation is an excellent suggestion but cannot support it because the two items are linked together in one amendment. In response to a request from Commissioner Garrison regarding 42 Riley’s Way, Secretary O’Neill explained permitted encroachments and the application approval process. When the General Assembly enacted the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, their Code, which is mimicked by the City’s ordinance, is very specific about what constitutes a permitted encroachment. It allows property owners to have development rights to their property and, under certain conditions, allows permitted encroachments into the RPA buffer; the Code gives very specific and narrow conditions with which this can happen. An example is if the buffer, applied strictly, precluded a homeowner from building a driveway to their buildable site on a residential lot. Per the General Assembly, if the property owner meets the strict conditions, it shall be permitted. The approval for a permitted encroachment is not a public hearing discretionary WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 5 process, but if the application does not meet the criteria listed in the Code, it is considered an exception and is heard before a board in a public hearing. Staff can only look at the narrowly defined set of circumstances listed in the Code. One of the options proposed allows an administrative review by staff because there is little or no discretion to deviate from the standards; we are required to permit it if the standards are being met. Anything that does not fall within that boundary will go before either the Chesapeake Bay Review Committee (CBRC) or the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), depending on the option chosen. Secretary O’Neill added that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was consulted and confirmed that staff’s understanding of the Code was correct. In response to a question from Commissioner Gray, Secretary O’Neill stated that in anticipation of the Board of Zoning Appeals to potentially have the responsibility of hearing exceptions; staff gave an initial training of the Board in the summer. Just as with the other boards and commissions supported by the Community Development Department, staff tries to provide both formal and informal opportunities for training on an ongoing basis. Secretary O’Neill stated he understands that when a new responsibility is given to a board there is a learning curve, but the same applies when a new member is appointed to a board as well. Most members do not come to every board completely trained, versed, and educated on the applications and regulations that they are being asked to comply with. There is a commitment from City Council and the City Manager that the Community Development Department provide resources to the Board members and Commissioners for them to do their job and the mission they have been assigned. In response to a comment from Commissioner Peterson, Secretary O’Neill clarified that in theory there are two kinds of exceptions; in nomenclature in the ordinance one is called an encroachment and one is called an exception. Permitted encroachments are exceptions into the buffer and are more narrowly defined, whereas exceptions are more severe. Commissioner Peterson detailed that the CBRC is made up of five members, four of whom are the same staff members who initially review the application. Transferring the review of exceptions puts the application back before a public panel for dialogue. Secretary O’Neill elaborated that currently both the permitted encroachments and exceptions are reviewed by the CBRC. The proposal would have the permitted encroachments be reviewed administratively and not go before any board or body while the exceptions would go before a public body. The two categories are being split out and some believe that is not a good process. Commissioner Peterson directed attention to the word “shall” in the code; this does not give staff an option to deny the application although it is heard by a committee. Secretary O’Neill agreed that in hindsight, the decision for the CBRC to review permitted encroachments should never have been made. Commissioner Garrison commented that currently denied homeowners or affected third parties can appeal to the BZA. She believes that changing the process will not give the public as much notice of the action and people will not find out until work has begun on the property. The proposal would cause a person to have to hire an attorney and go to court to appeal if they do not agree with BZA’s decision, instead of appealing to another board. She believes this puts a big burden on people and it is one of the reasons she was against moving the exceptions from CBRC to BZA. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 6  In response to Commissioner Garrison’s comments regarding the appeals process, Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown agreed that Commissioner Garrison’s explanation was correct. She added that an impacted third party must also show on an appeal that the Board applied the criteria incorrectly and was wrong in their decision, or that the Zoning Official or Administrator was wrong in their application of the ordinance. Most people do appear in Circuit Court with an attorney but it is not required. Commissioner Garrison conveyed that she is more concerned about the neighbor who lives near the water, has an impervious surface, and is already worried about water quality and flooding. They suddenly have a road or driveway next to their property and if the water cannot go into the ground, it usually goes onto the neighbor’s property. That is one example of where they may have issues. Secretary O’Neill indicated that we see that concern all the time and those scenarios do exist. When the code or ordinance says that it is either a by-right use or approved if the criteria are met, there is that conflict between notifying the neighbor and the rights of the property owner. There is a balancing act that goes on and staff understands that. Secretary O’Neill reiterated that the name “permitted encroachments” means that if they meet the criteria they are not open for public debate, we are supposed to approve them. If someone comes in with a building plan that meets all of the building codes, we are supposed to approve it. The code says it is permitted if all the boxes are checked. If the primary concern is transparency, that is something we can work on in a different way; there are ways the information can be available for the public. Commissioner Garrison expressed her concern with instances such as 42 Riley’s Way, where the wrong decision was made by staff and the property was developed where it should not have been. The neighbor should have had some option to appeal besides suing the property owner. In response to Commissioner Garrison’s comments, Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown expounded that 42 Riley’s Way was not a permitted encroachment where staff looked at the criteria and made a decision. That particular case involved a permit that came through a different process and was approved incorrectly. It is not a fair analogy and does not forecast what would happen if the proposed amendments were approved. Secretary O’Neill remarked that Commissioner Garrison is very passionate and knowledgeable about this topic, which is a good thing. He has been in public service for a long time and the people he works with do their very best each time but they are human and make mistakes. There is no process that will design out human error but mistakes happen. Secretary O’Neill commented that the outcome of 42 Riley’s Way is not what most wanted but our State Supreme Court said that the owner had a right to build on that property. Secretary O’Neill stated that two members of the public were signed up to speak at the public hearing. He stated that their comments applied to all three amendments. Jill Davis, 42 Wallace Road, spoke against moving exception reviews to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Davis provided the Planning Commission and staff a copy of a response from the City of Hampton to her Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for copies of records including but not limited to emails, messages, notes, audio recording, meeting minutes, and letters regarding CBRC, and cases heard before the CBRC and the BZA. Ms. Davis added that the information should be freely available to the public and staff should be expected to have the supporting documentation and provide copies at minimal cost. She suggested that the City WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 7 should use the CBRC to review exception requests to keep the process in the public view and transparent. She requested that the provided FOIA response be officially added as part of the minutes (see Attachment A). Claire Neubert, 405 Elizabeth Lake Drive, spoke against dissolving the CBRC and moving exception reviews to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Neubert stated that she was pleased with the additional green space buffer to protect the water. She also stated that she was concerned with the training of the BZA members, lack of public notification, and transparency. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Southall, Secretary O’Neill responded that the BZA does have staff support. In response to the public comments from Ms. Davis, Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown clarified the cost for the FOIA request. The City only charges for FOIA requests that take more than one hour of staff time to complete. The requester asked for emails sent by the seven (7) City Council members to staff giving direction on the proposed amendments. The process to search email inboxes requires IT staff at least ½ hour of time per inbox. Minutes, packages, or statistical information can be given free unless it is so voluminous that it requires mass review or redaction, or there are other extenuating circumstances. Typically the information is online if it is minutes or, if the information is not online and a FOIA request is needed, there would not be a charge. In response to a question from Commissioner Garrison, Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown replied that the response letter gives an estimated cost for the response and itemizes the fees, showing that the emails are the bulk of the cost. Without re-reading the letter, she cannot say if the letter states that a requester can reduce their request. The City will work with people on payment, and if the letter does not state it, that can be added to the response letters. Commissioner Garrison reiterated that she is very supportive of the buffer area. She shared that she is against transferring the responsibility of reviewing exception requests to the BZA, and troubled that there will no longer be a record for permitted encroachments. She felt that the CBRC was doing a good job but she wished there were more citizens on the board. She is against a person having to go to court to appeal. In response to a question from Commissioner Kellum, Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown answered that all zoning appeals go through the same process – they are appealed through the BZA, and then to the Circuit Court which is a process laid out by the state. Other permit appeal processes are slightly different; they follow different pathways depending on the permit. Secretary O’Neill shared that the Chesapeake Bay Preservation District is in the zoning ordinance so the appeal is being treated in the same manner as the appeal of any other zoning provision. Commissioner Gray summarized his understanding of why the proposed amendments were before the Planning Commission. He added that staff could have also appointed additional citizens to the CBRC to review the exceptions; they would have required training on the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act just as the BZA members would. Secretary O’Neill concurred and added that staff was growing more uncomfortable with their role on the committee as well as the concerns from the community members that the process did not seem as transparent as it should. Commissioner Gray shared that based on the number of encroachment reviews and exception requests over the years, he does not feel that another committee is warranted when an existing committee fits with the review process. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 8  Vice-Chair Southall related that he has put himself in the property owner’s shoes and people complain that they do not like dealing with the City because it takes forever to have things approved. He stated that ZOA 17-00004 streamlines the review process, and he has all faith that the administration has the expertise and can determine if an application meets the criteria. Exceptions will go before a court-appointed board of citizens who have no direct connection to City staff or City Council, and the BZA has support staff to assist. The State has granted the property owner the right to a permitted encroachment if they meet a certain criteria and the City should not delay that. There is recourse if a property owner or impacted third party is not satisfied with a decision – it can be challenged in court. He shared that he will be supporting ZOA 17-00004 and not ZOA 17-00005. There being no additional questions or speakers, the Planning Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00004 to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 9, Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “O-CBPD – Chesapeake Bay Preservation District Overlay”; WHEREAS: the Chesapeake Bay Preservation District Overlay is a regulatory tool adopted to adhere to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act; WHEREAS: the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act opens with and sets as a theme that: Healthy state and local economies and a Healthy Chesapeake Bay are integrally related; balanced economic development and water quality protection are not mutually exclusive; WHEREAS: this zoning ordinance amendment is an update to Hampton’s existing district; WHEREAS: the proposed changes reorganize the chapter for clarity and ease of use; WHEREAS: this amendment creates a “special green area”, which requires an additional setback between a vegetated Resource Protection Area and a building; WHEREAS: “permitted encroachments” will become an administrative approval; WHEREAS: responsibility for hearing “exception” requests will be moved to the Board of Zoning Appeals; WHEREAS: the proposed changes streamline the process for reaching a resolution; WHEREAS: the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed and approved of the proposed changes; and WHEREAS: two members of the public spoke against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Pete Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Jimmy Gray, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00004. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 9  A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Kellum, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: Garrison ABST: None ABSENT: Coleman, Carter Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown explained to the Commission that ZOA 17-00015 is the alternative competing option to ZOA 17-00004 that was just approved. ZOA 17-00015 proposes to keep the Chesapeake Bay Review Committee. She also added that it is appropriate to vote on the amendments in the same order as listed on the agenda. The Commission also approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00015 to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 9, Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “O-CBPD – Chesapeake Bay Preservation District Overlay”; WHEREAS: the Chesapeake Bay Preservation District Overlay is a regulatory tool adopted to adhere to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act; WHEREAS: the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act opens with and sets as a theme that: Healthy state and local economies and a Healthy Chesapeake Bay are integrally related; balanced economic development and water quality protection are not mutually exclusive; WHEREAS: this zoning ordinance amendment is an update to Hampton’s existing district; WHEREAS: the proposed changes reorganize the chapter for clarity and ease of use; WHEREAS: this amendment creates a “special green area”, which requires an additional setback between a vegetated Resource Protection Area and a building; WHEREAS: “permitted encroachments” will become an administrative approval; WHEREAS: the proposed changes streamline the process for reaching a resolution; WHEREAS: the Chesapeake Bay Review Committee is made up of four members of City staff and only one member of the public; WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals is an existing body suited for reviewing and rendering decisions on exception requests, given the Board’s history of hearing Chesapeake Bay Preservation District appeals, zoning variance cases, and appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions; and WHEREAS: two members of the public spoke against moving exception reviews to the Board of Zoning Appeals. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Ruthann Kellum and seconded by Commissioner Pete Peterson, WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 10 BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council denial of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00015. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Kellum, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: Garrison ABST: None ABSENT: Coleman, Carter Commissioner Garrison noted that she is generally in support of ZOA 17-00015 but is voting in opposition because she does not believe that moving the encroachments into a non- public transparent process is good. The Commission also approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00005 to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 2, Section 2-2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Definitions”; WHEREAS: this amendment is associated with the amending of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay District (O-CBPD); WHEREAS: this amendment provides definitions for the terms: green area, special green area, impervious surface, resource delineation, water quality impact assessment, major, and water quality impact assessment, minor; WHEREAS: these terms were previously undefined within the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Jimmy Gray and seconded by Commissioner Carole Garrison, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00005. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Garrison, Kellum, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Coleman, Carter Secretary O’Neill suggested that the next two related public hearing items be part of one presentation and public hearing. A separate motion and vote will be required for each item. D. ZOA 17-000013 – AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 1, “GENERAL PROVISIONS”, SECTION 1-23, PROJECTIONS ALLOWED IN YARDS Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 11  Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00013: by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 1 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “General Provisions” By Amending Section 1-23 Pertaining To Projections Allowed In Yards. Approval of this amendment would permit unenclosed porches and exterior stairways that do not extend above the first floor level to extend into a required side yard, adjacent to a right-or-way. The amendment would also require exterior stairs that extend above the first floor level to be located in the rear of all buildings or structures. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street, or from Hannah Sabo, 757-728-5144 or hmsabo@hampton.gov. E. ZOA 17-00014 – AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 4, “R-4 DISTRICT – ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL”, SECTION 4-106, PORCH ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00014: by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 4 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “R-4 District – One Family Residential” By Amending Section 4-106 Pertaining To Porch Encroachments Into The Side Yard Setback. Approval of this amendment would permit unenclosed porches with a roof to extend into a required side yard on a corner lot. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street, or from Hannah Sabo, 757- 728-5144 or hmsabo@hampton.gov. Chief Planner Donald Whipple presented the staff report on the subject amendments, copies of which are attached to the original minutes. Mr. Whipple stated that staff recommends approval of the two (2) zoning ordinance amendments. In response to a question from Commissioner Garrison, Mr. Whipple responded that, as previously mentioned in the Work Session, the item in the staff report addressing stairs has been removed and is not included in the proposed amendment. Secretary O’Neill explained that Commissioner Garrison’s question regarding stairs on homes that have been raised due to flooding will need further research. In response to a question from Commissioner Kellum, Mr. Whipple clarified that the porch can have a cover but cannot be enclosed as living space; neither can space underneath a porch be enclosed if it is tall enough. If the property was in a flood zone and was essentially a second story porch, you would not be able to enclose that space underneath. The ordinance is very specific that porches that encroach into the setback must remain open and can never be enclosed as living space. Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown recommended to the Commission that the motion should be approved or denied as amended. There being no additional questions or speakers, the Commission approved the following resolution: WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 12 WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00013 to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 1, Section 1-23 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled, “General Provisions” by amending Section 1-23 Pertaining to Projections Allowed in Yards. Approval of this amendment would permit unenclosed porches to project into the required side yard of a corner lot; WHEREAS: the development standards for O-IH District – Overlay Infill Housing are intended to ensure that new/infill developments throughout the City and specifically within the Master Plan areas are contextually sensitive, reinforce a sense of place, and generally enhance existing neighborhoods; WHEREAS: “A Pattern Book for Hampton”, which is a guiding development for infill development within several of Hampton’s historic areas, encourages entrances and porches facing public rights-of-way; WHEREAS: porches are important to the character of neighborhoods and a contributing element of good streets; WHEREAS: currently the ordinance accounts for and accommodates the projection of front porches, but does not allow a similar projection into a side yard that fronts on a public street; WHEREAS: developers have encountered difficulties applying the intent of the development standards on corner lots; WHEREAS: this proposed amendment affords the same projection allowance for side yards as front yards, which will enable unenclosed porches to occur on the side of a residence, which in many instances serve as a “second front”; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carole Garrison and seconded by Commissioner Jimmy Gray, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00013. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Garrison, Kellum, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Coleman, Carter The Planning Commission also approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00014 to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 4, Section 4-106(2) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled, “R-4 District – One Family Residential” by amending Section 4-106(2) Pertaining to Porch WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 13  Encroachments Into The Side Yard Setback. Approval of this amendment would permit unenclosed porches to project into the required side yard of a corner lot; WHEREAS: the development standards for R-4 District are intended to ensure that new/infill developments throughout the City and specifically within the Master Plan areas are contextually sensitive, reinforce a sense of place, and generally enhance existing neighborhoods; WHEREAS: “A Pattern Book for Hampton”, which is a guiding document for some of Hampton’s historic areas, encourages entrances and porches, facing public rights-of-way; WHEREAS: porches are important to the character of neighborhoods and an integral element of good streets; WHEREAS: currently the ordinance accounts for and accommodates the projection of front porches, but does not allow a similar projection into a side yard that fronts on a public street; WHEREAS: developers have encountered difficulties applying the intent of the development standards on corner lots; WHEREAS: this proposed amendment affords the same projection allowance for side yards as front yards, which will enable unenclosed porches to occur on the side of a residence, which in many instances serve as a “second front”; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Ruthann Kellum and seconded by Commissioner Carole Garrison, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00014. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Garrison, Kellum, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Coleman, Carter F. UP 17-00014 – SECTORSITE LLC, 332 RIP RAP ROAD [LRSN 13004594] Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Use Permit Application No. 17-00014: by Sectorsite LLC to permit the construction and operation of a commercial communications tower at 332 Rip Rap Road, which is on the west side of Rip Rap Road, near the I-64 Rip Rap Road exit [LRSN: 13004594]. The property is currently zoned Heavy Manufacturing (M-3) and is covered by the Flood Zone Overlay (O-FZ) (X, X500); both zoning districts allow for a commercial communications tower with a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this site. Copies WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 14  of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street, or from Tolu Ibikunle, AICP, 757-728-5237, or tibikunle@hampton.gov. Senior City Planner Tolu Ibikunle presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. Ms. Ibikunle stated that staff recommends approval of the rezoning application with eleven (11) conditions. Ms. Ibikunle stated that a community meeting was held on December 7, 2017, and the applicant was available to answer questions as well as present a proposal. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Southall, Ms. Ibikunle responded that one (1) member from the public attended the community meeting. The community member did not express opposition to the use permit; his concern was regarding one of the master plans and was not relevant to the application. In response to a question from Commissioner Gray, Ms. Ibikunle disclosed that the applicant does not own the subject site or any of the buildings on the property. The property is owned by a trust and the applicant will lease the site from the property owner, if approved. In response to questions from Commissioner Garrison, Ms. Ibikunle replied that the property owners were informed of the proposal and none attended the community meeting. The proposed communications tower will not interfere with the planned extension of the I-64 Rip Rap Road exit ramp. In response to questions from Commissioner Kellum, Ms. Ibikunle stated that the lease lines are within the compound and the applicant is providing landscaping along the length of the property lines. The proposed communications tower will not affect traffic along Thomas Street. Attorney Lisa Murphy of LeClair Ryan, 999 Waterside Drive, Suite 2100, Norfolk, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on wireless data usage and provided further information on the project. In response to questions from Commissioner Kellum, Ms. Murphy responded that the antennae are long flat panels, at least six feet long and a few feet wide. The galvanized steel monopole design is meant to blend more with the surroundings and is one of the more mitigating designs; it will not be lit, and is not marked or painted a color. There being no additional questions or speakers, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Use Permit Application No. 17-00014 by Sectorsite LLC to permit the construction and operation of a commercial communications tower at 332 Rip Rap Road, which is on the west side of Rip Rap Road, near the I-64 Rip Rap Road exit [LRSN 13004594]; WHEREAS: Sectorsite LLC representing T-Mobile is proposing to construct and operate a commercial communication tower (monopole) that can accommodate at least three (3) users or cell phone carriers; WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 15 WHEREAS: the proposed tower has an overall height of 125’ (120’ structure plus a 5’ lightning rod), along with the associated ground equipment for utilities. The tower will be located within a ±1,849 SF compound and made out of galvanized steel; WHEREAS: the communications tower compound will be unmanned, with quarterly site visits completed by technicians for maintenance purposes. The communications tower will not emit any odors or produce a glare from lighting; WHEREAS: the subject property is zoned Heavy Manufacturing (M-3) and Flood Zone Overlay (O-FZ) (X, X500); WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed-use development for the subject site and much of the surrounding area; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan encourages the location of new communications towers at preferred sites through implementation of standards and procedures incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance; WHEREAS: staff is recommending eleven (11) conditions to mitigate any adverse impacts to adjacent properties and to ensure compliance with applicable codes and ordinances; the tower must be constructed in substantial conformance with the concept plan; the height of the tower will be limited to 120’ with an additional 5’ for the lightning rod, and will be of a galvanized steel monopole construction; the tower and associated ground level equipment will be required to be fenced by an eight (8) foot high chain link fence; it will be screened with landscaping in accordance with the City of Hampton Landscape Guidelines; and the tower will have space to accommodate at least three (3) cell phone carriers; and WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carole Garrison and seconded by Commissioner Ruthann Kellum, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 17-00014 with eleven (11) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Garrison, Kellum, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Coleman, Carter V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. LARGE LOT SIGNS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT BRIEFING Secretary O’Neill explained that the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District (CCBID) requested staff to look into signage requirements specifically for large commercial users. The item may be on the Planning Commission agenda in the coming months. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 16  Chief Planner Donald Whipple updated the Planning Commission on the ordinance amendment regarding large lot signs. Sign Ordinance Amendments:  Off-Premises Advertising Definition  Business/Shopping Center Definition o Business/Shopping Center 1 • Group of establishments <25 acres o Business/Shopping Center 2 • Group of establishments >25 acres  Overlay – Coliseum Central (O-CC) o Additional Freestanding – “Directional” o Incentive Signage • Freestanding • Wall  Site Size Disparities  Unique Properties/Challenges o Multiple access points o Multi-sided building o “Campus-like” Properties • Internal (directional) • Buildings set back from street • Hidden buildings • Identification  Design Guidelines o Enhanced Site Design • Pedestrian Connectivity • High Quality Elements & Materials o Enhanced Building Design • High Quality Building Elements • High Quality Materials  Next Steps o January – CCBID Endorsement o February – Planning Commission o March – City Council In response to questions from Commissioner Kellum, Mr. Whipple replied that there is a difference between an advertising sign and an information sign. Main identification signs are larger and are located at main entrances. The internal signs are smaller and intended to be way-finder signs that have lists and directional arrows; they may also have a business directory list. A building owner may also choose to place a sign listing the multiple tenants on the side of their building as long as it is within the parameters of their sign area; the City cannot dictate the content of the sign. Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown added that in 2015, the Supreme Court decided that localities cannot treat signs differently based upon their content but can regulate the location of the signage by zoning district and by use of the property. B. RESILIENT HAMPTON INITIATIVE BRIEFING Secretary O’Neill explained that the presentation is the draft phase 1 report of the work that has been ongoing for approximately one year under the term Dutch Dialogues. The draft report was presented before City Council in December and will be presented again before City Council in late January. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 17  City Planner Lucy Stoll updated the Planning Commission on the Resilient Hampton Initiative. The Dutch Dialogue workshop in 2015 initiated the project with the cities of Hampton and Norfolk. Resilient Hampton is the name of the initiative. Currently there are three phases in the project:  Phase 1 – Current phase o City-wide high-level assessment o Locating and understanding the best available data o Establishing guiding principles and values o Creating goals o Preliminary creation of an evaluation tool (to be further tested) o Establishment of a legal framework for implementation of resilience policies and projects o List of next steps  Phase 2 – Beginning early 2018 o Implementation strategy for pilot area o Test “Evaluation Tool” – Assists leaders in decision making • Snapshot of investment’s resilience • Scores investments against values • Institutionalize new way of thinking o Education & outreach plan o Potential Focus Areas • Langley Air Force Base ° Separate funding from Department of Defense ° Amendment to Joint Land Use Study geared towards resiliency strategies • Newmarket Creek • Downtown • Fox Hill • Buckroe – public beach frontage  Phase 3 and beyond – Near future o Other identified priorities and initiatives  Relative Sea Level = Rising tides + Sinking Land  Forces of Water o Storm Surge o Stormwater o Tidal Action o Groundwater  Place-Driven Analysis o Policy o Education & Communication o Physical o Operations & Maintenance  Location-Specific Conditions o Low-Lying – Foxhill, Grandview, Harris Creek o Bay Facing – Buckroe, Phoebus, Fort Monroe o Harbor Facing – Greater Wythe, Merrimac Shores, Armstrong Gardens o Hampton River – Downtown, Hampton University, Hampton VA Medical Center, East Hampton, Elizabeth Lakes, Little England, Pasture Point WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 18  o Southwest Branch Back River – Riverdale, Seldendale, Pastures, Tide Mill, Windsor Terrace, Coliseum Central o Newmarket Creek – Coliseum Central, Northampton, Aberdeen, Westhampton, Briarfield, Newport News  Hydrologically-Based Study Areas o Different challenges o Different priorities and values o Different outcomes  Guiding Principles o Create value driven solutions o Reinforce assets o Layer public benefits o Strengthen partnerships o Use best data o Share knowledge and resources  Goals o Address the Challenge o Embrace the Initiative o Adopt Resilience standards o Solutions at multiple scales o Educate community o Follow Guiding Principles o Evaluate o Lead the way  Next Steps o Identify focus area for Phase 2 o Amend the Community Plan o Refine the “Evaluation Tool” o Pursue changes to the legal framework as necessary o Review and amend City codes and ordinances o Set “resiliency targets” o Develop a community education program o Continue to work with our partners o Develop JLUS Amendment with Langley AFB o Establish and support a “Hampton Resilience Partnership” Commissioner Garrison expressed her delight with the initiative, the name Resilient Hampton, and the inclusion of an evaluation tool to track the usefulness of the different ideas. Secretary O’Neill shared that Commissioner Garrison was on the original work group that started the Dutch Dialogues project. C. YOUTH PLANNER PRESENTATION Senior Youth Planner Janaria Lickey presented the Youth Planner report for December. Throughout the month of November, the Hampton Youth Commission (HYC) participated in three ice breakers that served a common goal of promoting relationship building between Commissioners: Rock-Paper-Scissors-Squad, Take What You Need, and Fear In A Hat. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 19  On November 6th, the HYC hosted the Hampton Youth Forum where middle and high school students were invited to voice their opinions to Mayor Tuck. The students were each presented with a Certificate of Attendance in addition to refreshments. HYC thanks Dr. Donna Woods with the Hampton City Schools Administration for her assistance in the presentation of certificates. One of the suggestions the students provided was the need for more activities and things to do in Hampton. The Forum adheres to the 2020 Master Plan goal of Youth Are Respected by giving the youth an outlet to voice their concerns. November 13th marked the second HYC meeting for the month. During this meeting, the Adventure Hampton committee provided research of potential sponsors to aid in the creation of the Adventure Hampton app. The Grant Exploration committee continued editing their City Council proposal for assistance in reinstating the Grant Program. The Simulated Economy committee brainstormed dates to meet with the Parks, Recreation and Leisure Services Advisory Board to discuss implementing financial literacy programs in the community centers. The Youth Voice committee debriefed the Hampton Youth Forum. The final meeting for the month was held on November 20th. The Adventure Hampton committee focused on drafting a proposal to present to potential sponsors. The Grant Exploration committee continued editing the proposal that will be presented to City Council in hopes of reinstating the Grant Program. The Simulated Economy committee edited the proposal for their meeting with the Parks, Recreation and Leisure Services Advisory Board. The Youth Voice committee began preliminary planning for the upcoming 2018 Candidates Forum. The next Hampton Youth Commission meeting will be held on January 8th at the Ruppert Sargent Building, 1 Franklin Street at 6:00p.m. – 7:30p.m. Vice-Chair Southall questioned if the Youth report can be presented earlier in the meeting. He feels that it is important for the youth to have a broader audience to share their activities and appreciates the hard work of the Youth Planners. Secretary O’Neill agreed with Vice-Chair Southall and relayed that he would consult with the Senior City Planner and Youth Planners to work on a solution. With the Planning Commission’s consent the agenda can be flexible. The Youth Planners alternate presenting the report and there are scheduling conflicts regarding school dismissal. He indicated that in the past the report was early in the meeting but had to be changed due to the school dismissal conflict. Secretary O’Neill wished all present a safe and Happy Holiday on behalf of the Community Development staff. He added that we appreciate all the work that they do. VI. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. VII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION Vice-Chairman Southall thanked Secretary O’Neill, the Community Development staff, and Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown on the hard work that is done each month for the Planning Commission meeting. He also wished all present a Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holiday, and a very productive 2018. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 20 Attachment A WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 22 WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 23 WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20171221 Page 24