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, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 AT 2:30 P.M. Secretary to the Commission/Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill called the meeting to order at 2:36 p.m. A call of the roll noted Commissioners Trina Coleman, Carole Garrison, Ruthann Kellum, Jimmy Gray, and Pete Peterson as being present. Vice-Chair Tommy Southall and Chairman Christopher Carter were noted as absent; however Vice-Chair Southall arrived after the roll call. 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, 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: Secretary O’Neill noted that if the Chairman and Vice-Chair are not present for the meeting and public hearing, the Commission will need to select a person to run the meeting. Typically the person is not the Council or City Manager’s representative. Commissioner Kellum volunteered to run the meeting and public hearing in case the Chairman and Vice-Chair are not present. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Briefing: The Budget Office gave an update on the progress and development of the Fiscal Year 2019 – 2023 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Public input meetings will be held February 20th – Town Hall at Hampton High School at 6:30p.m.; February 22nd – Online Chat at 6:30p.m.; and February 24th – Community Feedback meeting at Kecoughtan High School at 9:00a.m. Meetings with community boards and commissions will be held in February and March. The CIP is expected to come before the Planning Commission for a recommendation to City Council in March. The Planning Commission’s role is to review the expenditure plan as it relates to the Community Plan and provide a recommendation to City Council. Planning Commission 101 – Part II: The annual training was led by Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown: A. Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) B. Virginia Conflicts of Interest Act (COIA) Use Permit Application No. 17-00013: by PI Tower Development, LLC to permit a commercial communications tower at 1821 Cemetery Lane. A recommended amendment to Condition No. 2 Building Permit was provided. Work session adjourned at 3:29 p.m. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 1 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, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 AT 3:30 P.M. l. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Tommy Southall called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioners Trina Coleman, Carole Garrison, Ruthann Kellum, Jimmy Gray, Pete Peterson, and Vice-Chair Tommy Southall as being present. Chairman Christopher Carter was noted as absent; however, he arrived after the roll call. 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, Senior City Planner Tolu Ibikunle, City Planner Lucy Stoll, Senior Youth Planner Janaria Lickey, Junior Youth Planner Symone Gibbs, 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 Trina Coleman to approve the minutes of the November 16, 2017 Work Session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Coleman, Garrison, Kellum, Southall, Gray, Peterson NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Carter IV. MINUTES – DECEMBER 21, 2017 WORK SESSION & PUBLIC MEETING A motion was made by Commissioner Ruthann Kellum and seconded by Commissioner Jimmy Gray to approve the minutes of the December 21, 2017 Work Session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Coleman, Garrison, Kellum, Southall, Gray, Peterson NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Carter V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 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 20180215 Page 2  Secretary O’Neill requested that the next three related public hearing items be part of one presentation and public hearing. A separate motion and vote is required for each item. A. ZOA 17-00009 – AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 2, “DEFINITIONS”, SECTION 2-2, REMOVE BED AND BREAKFAST AND ADD EVENT, BED AND BREAKFAST 1, AND BED AND BREAKFAST 2 Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the first agenda item. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00009: 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 remove the definition of bed and breakfast and add the definition of event, bed and breakfast 1, and bed and breakfast 2 to the Zoning Ordinance. This item is proposed in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00010 to remove bed and breakfast from the use table and add bed and breakfast 1 and bed and breakfast 2. 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 Lucy Stoll, 757-727-6301 or lucy.stoll@hampton.gov. B. ZOA 17-00010 – AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 3, “USES PERMITTED”, SECTION 3-2, REMOVE BED AND BREAKFAST, ADD BED AND BREAKFAST 1 AND BED AND BREAKFAST 2 Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00010: by the City of Hampton to Amend And Re-Enact Chapter 3 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Uses Permitted” By Amending Section 3-2. Approval of this amendment would remove bed and breakfast from the use table and add bed and breakfast 1 and bed and breakfast 2. This item is proposed in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00009 to add the definition of event, bed and breakfast 1, and bed and breakfast 2 to the Zoning Ordinance. 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 Lucy Stoll, 757-727-6301 or lucy.stoll@hampton.gov. C. ZOA 17-00016 – AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 10, “SIGNS”, SECTIONS 10-19, 10- 31, AND 10-32, RESTRICT ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE FOR BED AND BREAKFASTS 1 AND 2 IN ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00016: by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 10 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Signs” By Amending Sections 10-19, 10-31, and 10-32. Approval of this amendment would create restrictions on allowable signage for bed and breakfasts 1 and 2 in One and Two Family Residential Districts. 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 Lucy Stoll, 757-727-6301 or lucy.stoll@hampton.gov. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 3  City Planner Lucy Stoll presented the staff report on the subject amendments, copies of which are attached to the original minutes. She stated that staff recommends approval of the three (3) zoning ordinance amendments. In response to a question from Commissioner Garrison, Mrs. Stoll responded that the City does allow Airbnb rentals but they are not automatically considered a bed and breakfast. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown added that an Airbnb rental is permitted as an accessary use of a single-family home provided that the owner actually lives in the home and it does not become the primary use of that property. It is not a separate primary use like a bed and breakfast; it is part of the regular use of the property. In response to a question from Commissioner Kellum, Mrs. Stoll answered that pylon signs stand on poles whereas monument signs stand directly on the ground. Commissioner Peterson remarked that the amendments do not change the ability of the bed and breakfasts that exist; they expand the use of the bed and breakfast and change the signage. In response to a question from Commissioner Peterson, Mrs. Stoll indicated that there are two bed and breakfasts currently operating in the City and both would fit the new signage requirements. In response to a comment from Vice-Chair Southall, Mrs. Stoll confirmed that a homeowner would have to go through the use permit process to make their home a bed and breakfast. In response to a question from Commissioner Gray, Mrs. Stoll stated that if the signs for the two bed and breakfasts operating in the City did not fall within the new signage requirements, they would be still able to keep their current signage. They would need to comply with the new restrictions if they decided to completely change their signage. Secretary O’Neill reminded the Commissioners that a separate motion and vote will be required for each item. 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. 17-00009 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; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would remove the definition of bed and breakfast, and add definitions for bed and breakfast 1, bed and breakfast 2, and event; WHEREAS: this item is proposed in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17- 00010 to remove bed and breakfast from the use table and replace it with bed and breakfast 1 and bed and breakfast 2; WHEREAS: the definition of bed and breakfast does not allow for events associated with the bed and breakfast, and staff was directed to research the appropriateness of allowing events; WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 4 WHEREAS: staff determined in some instances, events may be an appropriate addition to a bed and breakfast; WHEREAS: the key difference between a bed and breakfast 1 and a bed and breakfast 2 is that events would be permitted in a bed and breakfast 2; WHEREAS: both bed and breakfast 1 and bed and breakfast 2 would require a use permit, allowing each request, including whether or not, or to what extent the hosting of events is appropriate, to be considered on a case-by-case basis; 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 Chairman Christopher Carter, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00009. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Coleman, Garrison, Kellum, Southall, Gray, Peterson, Carter NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None The Planning Commission also approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00010 by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 3 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Uses Permitted” by amending Section 3-2; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would remove bed and breakfast and add bed and breakfast 1 and bed and breakfast 2 to the Use Table; WHEREAS: this item is proposed in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17- 00009 to add the definitions of bed and breakfast 1, bed and breakfast 2, and event to the Zoning Ordinance; WHEREAS: bed and breakfast 1 and bed and breakfast 2 would be allowed in the same districts as bed and breakfast currently are; WHEREAS: bed and breakfast 1 and bed and breakfast 2 would require a use permit in the same districts as bed and breakfast currently, with the exception of PH-1, in which they were previously permitted by-right, and would now require a use permit; WHEREAS: the only district that would permit a bed and breakfast 1 or bed and breakfast 2 by-right is FM-4, one of the Fort Monroe districts, which have been given additional consideration and have additional oversight; and WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke for or against this proposal. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 5 NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Jimmy Gray and seconded by Commissioner Trina Coleman, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00010. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Coleman, Garrison, Kellum, Southall, Gray, Peterson, Carter NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None The Commission also approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00016 by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia by Amending Articles II through III of Chapter 10 Entitled “Signs”; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment adds restrictions to allowable signage for a bed and breakfast 1 and a bed and breakfast 2 in One and Two Family Residential Districts; WHEREAS: the purpose of these restrictions is to maintain a residential character in residential areas by limiting the size and type of sign that a bed and breakfast 1 and bed and breakfast 2 are permitted; WHEREAS: bed and breakfast establishments are currently permitted the same size and type of signage as commercial establishments, such as banks, restaurants, and general retail; WHEREAS: bed and breakfast establishments would not be permitted to utilize internally illuminated signs or signs with changeable electronic messages; WHEREAS: bed and breakfast 1 and bed and breakfast 2 would have greater restrictions on the height and total square footage of signage, and allow only two (2) total signs, one of which may be freestanding; WHEREAS: these restrictions are based on an example bed and breakfast within a residential neighborhood in the City of Hampton, and which has signage that clearly identifies the establishment while maintaining residential character; and WHEREAS: no members of 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. 17-00016. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 6  A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Coleman, Garrison, Kellum, Southall, Gray, Peterson, Carter NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None D. UP 17-00013 – PI TOWER DEVELOPMENT, 1821 CEMETERY LANE [LRSN 1003669] Secretary O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Use Permit Application No. 17-00013: by PI Tower Development, LLC to permit a commercial communication tower at 1821 Cemetery Lane, which is north of Kecoughtan Road in the cemetery [LRSN: 1003669]. The property is currently zoned One–Family Residential (R-11) which allows for a commercial communication tower with a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends low density residential for this site. 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 Lucy Stoll, 757-727-6301 or lucy.stoll@hampton.gov. City Planner Lucy Stoll presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. She stated that staff recommends approval of the use permit application with twelve (12) conditions, Condition No. 2 as amended. Mrs. Stoll mentioned that the proposed site is not high on the “placement hierarchy” of preferred sites because there were no existing towers on which to co-locate, nor tall buildings or pre-approved school properties nearby. Also, no other sites higher on the hierarchy met the needs of the applicant to fill the coverage gap. A community meeting was held on November 20, 2017, and one (1) member from the community was in attendance. Mrs. Stoll added that the applicant was available to answer questions regarding the matter. 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 Gray, Ms. Murphy responded that the goal for T-Mobile is to give optimal coverage throughout the city, to the extent possible based on budget. The challenge is matching up the technological need with funding that can satisfy that need. For the proposed site, the current data capacity and future demand can be improved with an added antenna. Ms. Murphy detailed that each carrier has their own network, although there is overlap of networks. T-Mobile was the last provider to build out in the Hampton Roads market so they are co-located at a lower spot on most of the antenna sites. The need for coverage is always there and that need continues to increase; the question is how the carrier prioritizes the need in a particular location and where the funding is applied. Developing a cell tower is an expensive process so they build towers for multiple users’ needs. Ms. Murphy added that the applicant considered a site that was away from residences and the street so it would not be very visible. The vegetation will be used as a natural buffer. The proposed antennae are semi or modified flush mount, and the antennae do not set out WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 7 from the tower which aids in camouflaging the tower. The applicant plans to maintain the current vegetation and supplement in areas where there is less vegetation. Ms. Murphy pointed out the site and vantage points of the tower in various photos. In response to a question from Commissioner Garrison, Ms. Murphy stated that there are many factors to picking a location for a cell tower. There is a challenge in finding a site that works from both a technological and zoning standpoint; there also needs to be a willing landowner. The coverage shown on the map in the applicant’s presentation is spillover onto the water. Moving the tower further inland would create a coverage gap elsewhere or move away from the coverage objective area. Mrs. Stoll stated it is her understanding that the signal travels further across water than land. Commissioner Coleman commented that looking at the coverage map it appears that the other towers are centered within their space, so there is equal distribution of the signal as you move out radially. There is not much interference from objects on water. Commissioner Coleman expressed that the proposed tower does not appear to cover as much area on land as the other towers even if the water was not present. In response to a comment from Commissioner Coleman, Ms. Murphy compared the height of the structures where towers are located and the height of the stand-alone towers in the area. In comparison, the rooftop installations are limited by the height of the buildings. The taller the tower, the bigger the coverage area will be. In response to a question from Commissioner Coleman, Ms. Murphy responded that the ordinance states towers are allowed less than 199 feet tall, unless the tower is in an FAA sensitive area which may have different restrictions. One hundred fifty feet (150’) was proposed by the applicant because it gives T-Mobile the height that they need and mitigates the visual impact but also gives sufficient height for other carriers to co-locate. Regarding the signal boost, Ms. Murphy explained that the power output is limited by the FCC so the power cannot be increased. The frequency waves are set by their licensing. T-Mobile operates at multiple frequencies on each of their towers to increase capacity and enhance service, and have added antennae and different frequencies to existing sites. Secretary O’Neill stated that there are no public speakers signed up for this item. Commissioner Coleman indicated that she wished the Commission had received more information regarding the technical aspects of the case. Commissioner Gray shared that he would be interested in knowing what T-Mobile’s long term investment plan is regarding infrastructure in Hampton. In response to comments from Commissioner Gray, Secretary O’Neill conveyed that staff can work with representatives from the industry to provide the Commission with an up to date perspective on what the City can and cannot regulate and the industry’s future expectations and objectives. There can be a work session in the near future specifically for this topic. In response to a question from Commissioner Coleman, Secretary O’Neill responded that the item can be deferred to a specific date if there is certain information missing that is readily available, unless the applicant agrees to defer indefinitely. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 8  Commissioner Coleman remarked that she was not suggesting that the item be deferred indefinitely. Based on the previous discussion and how the FCC guidelines are changing, there are a number of unanswered questions. Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown understood that the discussion was generally relating to the future of this type of application, not this particular application. If there are specific issues regarding this application, it is within the Commission’s authority to defer when it is in the public’s interest to do so. Ms. Brown recommended that they relay their concerns, giving consideration to the completed application and staff work. Commissioner Garrison commented that she would request a deferral because she did not believe the site was the best location to provide the applicant optimal coverage for that area. She added that she would like to see the difference in coverage if the tower were moved to other locations within the area. Commissioner Coleman shared that if the height of the tower was maximized, coverage would be expanded and the number of towers needed would be reduced. Her concern is that the applicants are not optimizing the towers during the initial installations. Commissioner Kellum added that she feels that deferring the item will be a disservice to the applicant. She believes that the issues raised are important and should be addressed on a long range basis. A motion was made by Commissioner Ruthann Kellum and seconded by Commissioner Pete Peterson to approve Use Permit No. 17-00013 with twelve (12) conditions, Condition No. 2 as amended. In response to a question from Commissioner Gray, Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown explained that if a motion is defeated, another motion can be made to defer an application, or the motion can be withdrawn. If the motion to recommend approval is not passed, then either a motion to defer the application or a motion to deny the application would be needed, per Robert’s Rules of Order. The failure to approve the motion is not automatic denial of the application; there would need to be another motion. The person who makes a motion is the only one who can withdraw the motion. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Kellum, Southall, Peterson NAYS: Coleman, Garrison, Gray, Carter ABST: None ABSENT: None The motion to approve the use permit application was defeated. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Southall, Secretary O’Neill explained that a specific reason for deferral is helpful so staff can satisfy the questions that are necessitating the deferral. He remarked that there is not clarity on the reason to defer. Secretary O’Neill suggested that it may be difficult to work with the applicant on the requested information in time for the March 15, 2018 meeting. He added that he is not clear on what information is needed, who it is needed from in order to respond to the questions, and how quickly staff can get the information. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 9  In response to Secretary O’Neill’s comments, Commissioner Coleman remarked that the applicant should have technical white papers, land studies in other areas, and information that can provide some of the details. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Southall, Project Manager Drew Patterson of Network Building and Consulting, LLC, 4435 Waterfront Drive, Suite 100, Glen Allen, representing the applicant, stated that they can get more information on whether a taller tower would be more beneficial. Mr. Patterson added that having a taller tower would give more co-location positions and would give a little better coverage, although in his experience it is not usually the will of the Planning Commission for an applicant to construct a taller tower. The applicant can submit plans for consideration but would like guidance on whether that is something the Commission wants the applicant to do. The applicant looked at every location in the search ring, which is very small, highly residential, and offers very little options where the setbacks could be met. The proposed site was one of the only options besides another location where the landowner was not interested because the property was being sold. Mr. Patterson stated that he was not sure what other information he could provide the Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Garrison, Mr. Patterson stated that the red area shown on the coverage map is T-Mobile’s coverage objective. T-Mobile is also lacking coverage along the coastline. Moving further north, east, or south would encroach upon other sites. Coverage is lacking in the particular area because it is highly residential and it is an area where towers were not encouraged in the past because of the City’s zoning ordinance. The setback requirement from residential properties eliminates other options within the search ring. Mr. Patterson added that the applicant would agree to defer in order to provide additional information but would like guidance on exactly what else is needed. In response to a question from Commission Garrison, Mr. Patterson answered that if the application is not recommended for approval, T-Mobile has no other sites to place a tower in that particular area. Vice-Chair Southall related that the proposed site is near where he lives. He stated that it is probably the most secluded place to be found in the area, and one of the only locations that can accommodate a tower without being very obstructive. Secretary O’Neill stressed that staff has spent a considerable amount of time researching locations with the applicant. Commissioner Peterson remarked that no one from the community spoke against the tower at the community meeting or public hearing yet the Commission is requesting unnecessary technical information about the tower. In response to a question from Commissioner Gray, Secretary O’Neill responded that City Councils in the past have asked that the height be kept at the lowest practical limit as possible to meet the legitimate demands of that area, particularly when they are in predominately residential neighborhoods. Most of the taller antenna sites in the city are in commercial, industrial, or secluded areas, or had existing antennae available. If there is a change in direction, a discussion will be needed with City Council. Because of the variables involved, there is no guarantee that a taller antenna will eliminate the need for additional towers. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 10  Commissioner Gray commented that five 175-foot towers may be a better choice aesthetically compared to ten 150-foot towers. If in the future there are more requests for more towers, perhaps we should look at increasing the height of the towers in order to decrease the number of towers being constructed. In response to Commissioner Gray’s comments, Mr. Patterson stated that a taller tower is not always better; there wouldn’t be a huge increase in the coverage area on the coverage map. The carrier wants to use a “good neighbor” height and they are comfortable with 150 feet. Chairman Carter emphasized that the Commission’s concern is that if a taller antenna does not provide more coverage, there will be a large number of applications for towers throughout the city in the future. Deferring the application gives the Commission time to ask questions and get more understanding of the information provided. Commissioner Peterson commented that the Commission’s task is to decide on the use permit that is before us, not to decide on future use. Commissioner Kellum stated that she feels very strongly that the Commission is doing a disservice to applicants who have met all of the qualifications and gone through the application process to deny their application. Unless there is strong contention from the community we should not delay the applicant. She agrees that the Commission should direct staff to look into the questions raised with these kinds of applications on a broader basis, not just this particular application. In response to comments from Commissioner Kellum, Mr. Patterson stated that he would personally volunteer to work with staff on a larger policy on where the industry is going. Commissioner Garrison stated that the Planning Commission’s job is to look at what is best for the entire City. A motion was made by Commissioner Trina Coleman and seconded by Chairman Christopher Carter to defer Use Permit No. 17-00013 until the March 15, 2018 Hampton Planning Commission meeting in order to receive more information on optimization of location, how the height of the tower may or may not affect coverage and corresponding data. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Coleman, Garrison, Gray, Carter NAYS: Kellum, Southall, Peterson ABST: None ABSENT: None VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. YOUTH PLANNER PRESENTATION Senior Youth Planner Janaria Lickey presented the Youth Planner report for February. In the month of January, the Hampton Youth Commission (HYC) held one meeting on January 29th. The meeting began with an inclusion activity to emphasize the importance of teamwork. HYC members were debriefed on the December 18th refresher that served to remind WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 11 the Commissioners and executive officers of their commitment to the Hampton Youth Commission. During debrief, two (2) questions were asked: What are your expectations for the roles of Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, and Youth Planner and how can those positions provide leadership to the HYC? After analyzing the responses, the commonalities identified between the responses were commitment and communication. Ms. Lickey disclosed that in addition to her position as Senior Youth Planner, she is working with Tolu Ibikunle, Youth Planner Program and Hampton Youth Commissioner Coordinator, to analyze the impact of youth-led grant programs on youth civic engagement and youth crime rates. The project is part of her enrollment requirement at the Governor’s School for Science and Technology. She has identified two (2) localities within the US, St. Charles, IL and Laurel, MD, that have youth-run grant programs. She has kept an open dialogue with the coordinators of the programs and hopes to work with the HYC Grant Exploration committee with the reinstatement of the former HYC Grant Program, with City Council’s assistance. The next meeting of the Hampton Youth Commission will be held on March 5th at the Ruppert Sargent Building, 1 Franklin Street at 6:00p.m. – 7:30p.m. Chairman Carter applauded the Youth Planners and Hampton Youth Commission for their hard work and encouraged them to continue trying to improve the life of the youth in Hampton. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Southall, Ms. Lickey replied that HYC previously had a grant program that aided the youth serving organizations and overall improved the youth environment in Hampton. Secretary O’Neill expounded on the grant program the HYC is now working to re-establish. When the HYC first began, one of the fundamental principles of the originators was for the youth to have some ability to influence not only city policy but also encourage other youth serving organizations. City Council supported the grant program which was fully run and administered by the youth. The initial appropriation was approximately $40,000 per year and was awarded to organizations that pursued the goals and objectives that either met City Council’s priorities or priorities identified in the youth element of the community plan. The grant program was successful but ended due to budget cuts. Organizations had to be for youth and run by youth; programs had to be designed by youth and administered by youth but could be partnered with an adult organization. The HYC is interested in reigniting the program so they can partner with other community organizations to help them accomplish the objectives they are trying to achieve. Vice-Chair Southall agreed with Chairman Carter in applauding the youth and thanking them for showing the Hampton community that youth can be a positive role model. Ms. Lickey shared that the Candidate’s Forum will be held on April 9th; the location and time has not yet been determined. Secretary O’Neill added that the Youth Commission hosts the City Council Candidates Forum every two years, and strongly encouraged the Commissioners to attend, especially if they have never attended one in the past. Specific details regarding the Forum will be shared once they have been finalized. Commissioner Kellum expressed that the Forum is very important to the community and highly recommended that all should attend. B. UPDATE ON RESILIENT HAMPTON Secretary O’Neill updated the Planning Commission on the Resilient Hampton Initiative that the Commission was briefed on at the December 21st meeting. City Council endorsed the WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20180215 Page 12