Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT THE WORK SESSION OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING HELD IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM, 5TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, 22 LINCOLN STREET, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2021 AT 3:00 P.M. Chairman Carole Garrison called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. A call of the roll noted Commissioners Tracy Brooks, Michael Harper, Vice-Chair Ruthann Kellum, Steven Bond, and Chairman Garrison as being present. Commissioners Trina Coleman and Steven Brown and were noted as absent; however Commissioner Coleman arrived after the roll call. Staff in attendance was Secretary to the Commission/Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill, Deputy City Attorney Bonnie Brown, Planning & Zoning Administration Manager Michael Hayes, Zoning Administrator Hannah Sabo, Senior City Planner Allison Eichele, City Planners Olivia Askew and Frank Glover, and Recording Secretary/Administrative Coordinator Kristie Graves. The Commission and staff discussed agenda items, with the following information being provided: Introduction of New Planning Commissioner: Secretary O’Neill introduced and welcomed new Planning Commissioner Tracy Brooks. Briefing on Community Plan Update: Staff will give a briefing on the process and schedule of the Community Plan Update. City Council was given a briefing at the July 14, 2021 meeting. The Planning Commission plays a large role in the update. Change in Agenda Order: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Nos. 21-00010 and 21-00011 are related and will have one presentation and public hearing. A separate vote will be required for each item. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Nos. 21-00012, 21-00013, and 21-00014 are related and will have one presentation and public hearing. A separate vote will also be required for each items. Use Permit Application No. 21-00007: by Medical Management International, Inc (Banfield Pet Hospital) to operate a pet hospital at 1123 W. Mercury Boulevard [LRSN: 7001212]. The initial conditions distributed in the Planning Commission package were based upon the hours of operation on the applicants use permit application. The applicant has since requested a change in hours of operation to allow some flexibility. An updated set of conditions were distributed to the Planning Commissioners. There will be no overnight boarding of animals unless an animal is under medical care. The hours of operation for this business are based on normal commercial hours. Staff is unsure if the opening of this new location means that Banfield Pet Hospital will be relocating from PetSmart location. Staff bases use permit conditions primarily on past use permit applications, and the applicant’s requests, not what staff believes the applicant should do. If in the future, the applicant wanted to be open 24 hours, they would have to submit a use permit application to change the hours of operation. The application would have to go before Planning Commission and approved by City Council, and could take at least 90 days, best-case scenario. The more complete an application, the quicker it can be processed, and the more controversial the application, the longer it may take. Rezoning Application No. 21-00006: by Marlyn Development Corporation to rezone 1963 West Pembroke Avenue [LRSN: 13004215], to construct a multifamily facility for seniors. Typically, a DEQ permit is for a specific amount of disturbance and can be extended or renewed. DEQ permits are regulated by the state. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 1 Planning Commission members continued discussion on various topics including wetland bank mitigation credits and ownership documentation required when submitting a use permit application The work session adjourned at 3:30 P.M. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 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, JULY 15, 2021 AT 3:30 P.M. l. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Carole Garrison called the meeting to order at 3:33 P.M. II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioners Tracy Brooks, Michael Harper, Trina Coleman, Vice- Chair Ruthann Kellum, Steven Brown, Steven Bond, and Chairman Carole Garrison as present. Staff in attendance was Secretary to the Commission/Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill, Deputy Director Steve Shapiro, Deputy City Attorney Bonnie Brown, Planning & Zoning Administration Manager Michael Hayes, Zoning Administrator Hannah Sabo, Code Official Kimberly Mikel, Chief Planner Donald Whipple, Senior City Planner Allison Eichele, City Planners Olivia Askew and Frank Glover, Senior Youth Planner Maia Patterson, Junior Youth Planner Jericho Nicely, and Recording Secretary/Administrative Coordinator Kristie Graves. III. MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2021 WORK SESSION & PUBLIC MEETING A motion was made by Commissioner Steve Brown and seconded by Commissioner Trina Coleman to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2021 Work Session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Harper, Coleman, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Brooks ABSENT: None Commissioner Brooks abstained from voting because she had not been appointed and was not present at the June 17, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Garrison introduced and welcomed new Planning Commissioner Tracy Brooks. IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Secretary O’Neill read the key points of the Hampton Planning Commission Public Hearing/Comment. Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the first agenda item. A. RZ 21-00004 – RYAN CORBELLI, STM PROPERTIES, INC., 208 BRIGHTWOOD AVENUE [LRSN: 1006398], NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-4), SINGLE FAMILY HOME Rezoning Application No. 21-00004: This is a rezoning application by Ryan Corbelli on behalf of STM Properties, Inc., to rezone a property at 208 Brightwood Avenue [LRSN: 1006398], totaling +0.2 acres from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to a One Family Residential (R-4) to allow for the construction of a single family home. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 3  The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends Low Density Residential for this area. This property is also within the Kecoughtan Master Plan area, which recommends enhancing Kecoughtan Road as a residential boulevard with commercial development clustered in certain areas. Planning & Zoning Administration Manager Mike Hayes presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. Staff recommends approval Rezoning Application No. 21-00004 with seven (7) proffered conditions. Applicant Ryan Corbelli, 205 N. Birdneck Road, Virginia Beach, was available to provide further information on the rezoning application. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Kellum, Mr. Hayes explained that there is a pattern book developed specifically for the Buckroe area. The City of Hampton’s A Pattern Book For Hampton (2014, as amended) was developed with consultants and addresses other historic neighborhoods in the City such as Greater Wythe, Old Wythe, and historic Downtown neighborhoods. Mr. Hayes further explained the purpose of the pattern book. Jack Robinson, whose father owned the subject property as well as the adjacent White Oaks Restaurant, 3533 Kecoughtan Road, is opposed to the rezoning application. The restaurant business was sold by his father recently but went out of the business; Mr. Robinson has plans to reopen the restaurant. Mr. Robinson was clear that his concern is that a home owner would potentially complain about activities and noise at the restaurant should it reopen. In response to a question from Commissioner Bond, Mr. Robinson responded that his father sold the lot and the business. The new owners of the restaurant went out of business. In response to a question from Commissioner Harper, Mr. Robinson stated that there has been one complaint from the homeowner that sits immediately adjacent to the vacant lot. There were no other complaints of which he is aware. He has concerns with complaints from the new owners of the proposed home that is being built. Because of the size of the new home, they will be able to look directly into the restaurant. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Kellum, Mr. Robinson responded that the main parking is in the front and side of the restaurant. The entire parking lot is paved, and parking is available in the back of the restaurant. Vice-Chair commented that there are other restaurants near residential areas in the City. Some of the businesses provide accommodations to the nearby property owners to ensure that the concerns Mr. Robinson raised do not occur. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Kellum, Mr. O’Neill explained that the restaurant business would not have to go through another permit process to reopen as long as it is zoned properly for a restaurant. If the business was a legally non-conforming use and ceased to operate for 24 months, it would have to go through the use permit process. This particular restaurant is properly zoned for a restaurant but would have to go through another process for live entertainment or outdoor dining. Mr. Hayes noted that staff would have to research exactly when the restaurant ceased operations to determine if they would have to go through the Zoning Administrator permit or use permit process to reopen with and alcohol beverage license. Vice-Chair commented that she hoped that the restaurant and neighbors would be able to co-exist in the future without the concerns that Mr. Robinson raised. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 4  Commissioner Brown commented that Mr. Robinson was anticipating a number of problems before the home is built. The prospective homeowner will choose to purchase the new home knowing that an established business is there. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Robinson’s problem would have been solved had he purchased the lot when it was up for sale. Chairman Garrison remarked that the purchaser of the lot could always potentially build on the property, and it would not be a buffer. The sale of the property eliminates the ability to control the use of the property. Mr. Robinson stated that a commercial business being built on the lot would not be as bad as a residential property being built. There are a number of commercial businesses in the vicinity, and other vacant lots. Commissioner Harper stated that it would not make sense to place another commercial business behind a current business as most businesses want to be on a main corridor. Mr. Harper suggested Mr. Robinson extend himself to his neighbors to try to build his business up. There being no further questions or speakers, the Planning Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a request by Ryan Corbelli, to rezone a parcel at 208 Brightwood Avenue [LRSN: 1006398], totaling +0.19 acres, from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) District to One Family Residence (R-4) District with proffered conditions; WHEREAS: the proposal includes the development of a single family residence of two stories which conforms to the building and design standards of the City of Hampton’s A Pattern Book For Hampton (2014, as amended; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends low density residential land use for this property; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan promotes safeguarding the integrity of existing neighborhoods by encouraging high quality new development that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan also promotes policies which encourage and maintain a diverse mix of housing types and values, and evaluates land use proposal’s from a regional, city-wide, and neighborhood perspective; safeguard the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods; and promotes high quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding developments; WHEREAS: the property is within the Kecoughtan Road Corridor Master Plan boundaries, and the overarching theme of the master plan’s recommendations is that the Kecoughtan Road transition to a residential boulevard with commercial uses consolidated to select nodes; WHEREAS: the application includes a total of seven (7) proffered conditions include limiting this site to one single family home, together with all accessory use; the attached garage being located a minimum of 18” behind the main façade of the house; Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 5  the home design will remain in conformance with the standards for a colonial style home in A Pattern Book For Hampton; the property being developed in substantial conformance with the conceptual plan; and WHEREAS: one member of the public spoke against this proposal at the public hearing, primarily citing concerns that residents may take issue with the activities and noise generated at the neighboring restaurant should the restaurant reopen in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Trina Coleman and seconded by Commissioner Steven Brown, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Rezoning Application No. 21-00004 with seven (7) proffered conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Coleman, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Rezoning Application No. 21-00004 with seven (7) conditions passed unanimously, and would be heard by City Council at the August 11, 2021 meeting. Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. B. RZ 21-00006 – MARLYN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 1963 WEST PEMBROKE AVENUE [LRSN: 13004215], GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MD- 3), 150 AGE-RESTRICTED SENIOR MULTIFAMILY UNITS WITHIN 1 – 4-STORY BUILDING Rezoning Application No. 21-00006: This is a rezoning application by Marlyn Development Corporation. to rezone a parcel at 1963 West Pembroke Avenue [LRSN: 13004215], totaling +7.82 acres, from General Commercial [C-3] District to Multifamily Residential (MD-3) District with proffered conditions. Approval of this application would permit development of 150 age-restricted senior multifamily units distributed within one (1) four (4) story building. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends low density residential for this area. City Planner Olivia Askew presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. Staff recommends approval of Rezoning Application No. 21-00006 with fifteen (15) proffered conditions. A community meeting was held on June 30, 2021, at The Woodlands at Phoebus development. Eight members of the public were in attendance. In response to a question from Chairman Garrison, Ms. Askew pointed out the non-tidal wetlands on the Concept Plan. The developer would have to meet the City’s stormwater codes in the site plan review process. The applicant can provide further information on wetlands mitigation. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 6  Commissioner Harper commented that the area floods, and he would be interested in the developer’s plans regarding drainage. Mr. Hayes explained that the site plan review process requires more detail from the developer on mitigation. There is a sizable pond shown on the concept plan. Mr. Hayes added that the developer also constructed the Woodlands, which had very complex stormwater issues which were rectified. In response to a question from Chairman Garrison, Mr. Hayes stated that the stormwater retention pond on the concept plan does not currently exist. Commissioner Harper noted that his main concern was how the developer would handle excessive water on the property. He commented that he was impressed with the building. Mr. Hayes remarked that the developer would not be able to fix water problems that occur outside of his property and also would not make the flooding issues any worse. In response to a question from Commissioner Brown, low density is defined as up to nine (9) units per acre. The specific proposed density for the site is 19.1. Mr. Hayes confirmed that the developer is required to mitigate flooding issues prior to construction. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Garrison, Ms. Askew pointed out that new Wythe Fire Station is proposed to be located near the corner of W. Pembroke and Kentucky Avenues. Mr. O’Neill explained that the wooded parcel to the right of the intersection of W. Pembroke Avenue and Kentucky Avenue is the proposed site for the new Wythe Fire Station. The building will be located on the west side of the parcel. Mr. Hayes added that there was great effort in preserving trees and minimizing the impact on the wetlands. Attorney Timothy Trant, Kauffman & Canoles, 11815 Fountain Way, Newport News, and applicant CFO Brian Staub, Marlyn Development Corporation, 308 35th Street, Virginia Beach, provided a presentation with further information on the application. In response to a question from Chairman Garrison, Mr. Staub responded that grading of the land will aid the excessive water on the property to flow into the BMP. The BMP will be managed by the company that handles the developer other properties. Chairman Garrison complimented Mr. Staub on the wonderful work with water mitigation at the Sinclair Commons development. In response to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Staub answered that there will not be decal parking in the development. The starting rate for one bedroom is $910 – $1,200 per month, and two bedroom rent is $1,080 – $1,400 per month depending on the size of the apartment. Entry access is controlled, and visitors can be buzzed in by residents. In response to a question from Commissioner Harper, Mr. Staub explained that the entire property will be ADA accessible. The developers provide van transportation with lifts for resident activities. Mr. Staub further explained that the developers cannot control accessibility off site. In response to a question from Commissioner Bond, Mr. Staub responded that the community is not an assisted living facility. Traffic consultants calculate the parking and traffic requirements for the community, which is anticipated to be less than one vehicle per household. Also, seniors travel at different times of the day than if it were a commercial property. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 7  There being no further questions or speakers, the Planning Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a request by Marlyn Development Corporation, to rezone a parcel at 1963 West Pembroke Avenue [LRSN: 13004215], totaling +7.82 acres, from General Commercial (C-3) District to Multiple Dwelling (MD-3) District with proffered conditions; WHEREAS: the proposal includes the development of 150 age-restricted residential apartments within one (1) four-story building; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends low density residential land use for this property; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan promotes safeguarding the integrity of existing neighborhoods by encouraging high quality new development that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan also promotes supporting housing opportunities for individuals and groups with special needs including seniors, youth, and persons with disabilities; WHEREAS: a higher density residential product provides an appropriate transition between the high intensity industrial uses on the northern side of West Pembroke Avenue, and the existing single family residential neighborhood on the southern side of West Pembroke Avenue; WHEREAS: the proposed development includes amenities such as a community garden, dog park, fitness room, and media room; WHEREAS: fifteen (15) proffered conditions include limitations of use, adherence to the concept plan and building elevations, increased standards of construction for the building elevations, building materials, dumpster enclosure construction, landscape buffers, fencing material, and the inclusion of community amenities; and WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke on this proposal at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Steven Brown and seconded by Commissioner Steven Bond, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Rezoning Application No. 21-00006 with fifteen (15) proffered conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Coleman, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Rezoning Application No. 21-00006 with fifteen (15) proffered conditions passed unanimously, and would be heard by City Council at the August 11, 2021 meeting. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 8  Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. C. UP 21-00007 – MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INERNATIONAL, INC. (BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL), 1123 W. MERCURY BOULEVARD [LRSN: 7001212], OPERATE A PET HOSPITAL Use Permit Application No. 21-00007: by Medical Management International, Inc (Banfield Pet Hospital) to operate a pet hospital at 1123 W. Mercury Boulevard [LRSN: 7001212]. The property is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this area. This site is also within the Coliseum Central Master Plan (2015, as amended), which calls for large format retailer’s, supported by outparcel retail, restaurants and hotels in this area. Planning & Zoning Administration Manager Mike Hayes presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. Staff recommends approval Use Permit Application No. 21-00007 with seven (7) conditions, as amended. Developer Bill Moseley, 2612 Danbury Street, Charlotte, NC, representing the applicant was available to respond to questions. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Kellum, the applicant responded, the proposal is for a multi-tenant building. The multiple units will consist of Freddy’s, a steakburger and custard restaurant, Banfield Pet Hospital and a vacant unit for a third tenant. There being no further questions or speakers, a motion was made by Vice-Chair Ruthann Kellum and seconded by Commissioner Michael Harper to approve Use Permit Application No. 21-00007, with seven (7) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coleman Deputy City Attorney Brown reminded the Commission that Use Permit Application No. 21- 00007 had amended conditions. A second motion would need to be made to reconsider approval of the use permit application with the amended conditions. There being no further questions or speakers, the Planning Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a request by Medical Management International, Inc. (Banfield Pet Hospital) to operate a veterinarian office/hospital at 1123 W. Mercury Boulevard [LRSN: 7001212], totaling +2.3 acres, in a proposed new building as part of the redevelopment of 1123 W. Mercury Boulevard. WHEREAS: the site is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District, which permits veterinarian office/hospitals with an approved use permit, as well as Coliseum Central Overlay (O-CC) District; Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 9 WHEREAS: per the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended), the recommended land use for this property is mixed-use; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan encourages corridor-oriented commercial development within specified areas to strengthen the viability of commercial uses and to protect residential uses and adjacent neighborhoods; recommends fostering the successful development of well-situated vacant and underutilized commercial and industrial properties within the City; and focuses special attention on strengthening the ability of older commercial areas to support new and expanded business activity; WHEREAS: the Coliseum Central Master Plan (2015, as amended) calls for exploring innovative ways to maintain a competitive edge and encourages development patterns conducive to the economic vitality of Hampton with a variety of retail and mixed- use developments. The area is considered a regional retail location for the surrounding communities; WHEREAS: all activities are proposed to be indoors, including not having any outdoor runs; WHEREAS: seven (7) proposed conditions address adherence to the site development and concept plan as well as attached building elevations, hours of operation, prohibiting kenneling of animals except for medical care, and restricting the keeping and care of animals to the interior of the building; and WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke on this proposal at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Vice-Chair Ruthann Kellum and seconded by Commissioner Michael Harper, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 21-00007, with seven (7) conditions, as amended. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coleman Use Permit Application No. 21-00007 with seven (7) conditions, as amended, has passed, and would be heard by City Council at the August 11, 2021 meeting. Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. D. ZOA 21-00001 – CITY OF HAMPTON, AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 1, “GENERAL PROVISIONS”, PARKING VEHICLES ON UNIMPROVED SURFACES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00001: This is a Proposal by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia by Amending Chapter 1 Entitled, “General Provisions” Pertaining to Parking Vehicles on Unimproved Surfaces in Residential Areas. Approval of this amendment would prohibit parking in street frontage yards on lots with a one family, two family, Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 10  or duplex as the primary use, on an unimproved surface with exceptions for lots without street parking, during street sweeping, during severe weather events, during a special event when a special event permit has been issued by the City, and when the vehicle is being washed. Zoning Administrator Hannah Sabo presented the staff report on the subject amendment, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00001. In response to questions from Commissioner Harper, Ms. Sabo explained the Reasonable Accommodation (ADA) exception. If a citizen had a medical need to park on their lawn, a request can be submitted to the Development Services Center. The request would be reviewed to ensure it is directly connected to their parking need. Deputy City Attorney Bonnie Brown further explained that the City is required by Federal law to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. The review would be to determine if the accommodation requested is necessary and addresses the requestor’s disability. If so, the City is required to make an accommodation proportional to what their disability is. The accommodation decision is made by the Zoning Administrator and can appealed if denied. Mr. O’Neill described an example of reasonable accommodation for a person who lives in an older neighborhood which does not have a driveway or curb and gutter on their street, and possibly has a ditch along the road. The person may be in a wheelchair and unable to access their front door. The accommodation would allow them to pull the vehicle onto the grass near the front door, and use a ramp or other ADA access to enter their home. Ms. Brown stated that the requestor would receive a Zoning Administrator decision, which would go into the City’s records and be accessible by the Codes Inspectors. The requestor would apply to the Zoning Administrator and issue a decision. The decision would be issued administratively and not go before the Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning Commission, or City Council. If denied by the Zoning Administrator, they would appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. In response to question from Commissioner Brown, Ms. Sabo stated that the zoning ordinance amendment would not go into effect until January 1, 2022 to allow time for outreach to citizens. Mr. O’Neill explained that the delay in enforcing the ordinance was also to allow staff some time to implement a grant program to assist citizens who may suffer a financial hardship. Vice-Chair Kellum noted that since the ordinance was discussed last year, she has noticed an increase in cement driveway additions in citizen’s yards, which contradicts the City’s Resilient Hampton efforts. Ms. Kellum is unsure the amendment will achieve the response the City wants. Ms. Sabo referred to the related zoning ordinance amendments approved by City Council in December 2020 which set a minimum green area requirement and regulated the impervious surface in the front yard. The City’s definition of improved surface is broad and allows people to use more resilient options if there is a concern for resilience. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Kellum, Ms. Sabo responded that a permit is required if new impervious area is added. Mr. O’Neill noted that the majority of the City’s enforcement procedures are by the City’s Code Inspectors seeing violations or from complaints by other citizens. Ms. Sabo added that a number of permits have been issued because Codes Inspectors have issued violations. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 11  Commissioner Bond commented that the ordinance is not perfect but is a good compromise. The exceptions are reasonable. Much time, energy and thought was put into the ordinance and the City has made sure that ll perspectives have been considered. In response to a question from Commissioner Harper, Ms. Sabo answered that a permit from Public Works is required for a solid concrete apron. A gravel driveway can be installed as long as it is bordered. A permit is required for installing an impervious surface. In response to a question from Commissioner Brooks, Ms. Sabo stated that RVs must be parked on an impervious surface. In response to a question from Commissioner Harper, Ms. Sabo responded that a permit is required for installing a gravel driveway. Gravel driveways must meet the setback requirement and the parking area must meet the green space requirement. In response to a question from Chairman Garrison, Ms. Sabo confirmed that effective January 1, 2022, a boat owner would have to park the boat on an improved surface, install a driveway if they do not have one, or park the boat in a facility. Ms. Sabo added that the boat owner could possibly park the boat on a paved area in their back yard. Ms. Garrison shared her concerns for people who live in the older areas of Hampton that have ditches, do not have curbs and gutter, and cannot park in their yard. Some of those particular areas tend to flood. Ms. Garrison would have liked to see an exception for those particular areas. Mr. O’Neill pointed out the list of parking exceptions in the staff presentation. Ms. Garrison also shared her concern that more vehicles being parked on smaller streets could cause traffic problems. Mr. O’Neill suggested he and Commissioner Garrison discuss the specific areas and streets that she is concerned about at a time outside the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. O’Neill stated that he did not believe that City Council was intentionally creating a hardship for those citizens and staff tried to build into the ordinance as much flexibility as they could. Ms. Garrison volunteered to send pictures of the areas. There being no further questions or speakers, the Planning Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00001 by the City of Hampton to Amend And Re-Enact Chapter 1 Entitled, “General Provisions” Pertaining to Parking Vehicles on Unimproved Surfaces in Residential Areas; WHEREAS: on December 9, 2020, City Council approved a series of related zoning ordinance amendments which: set a minimum green area requirement for all lots with a one- family, two-family, or duplex dwelling as the primary use or proposed primary use; permitted a 12’x 25’ driveway and 3’ wide walkway regardless of minimum green area requirement on residentially used parcels; created a zoning permit requirement for new impervious surface otherwise exempted from obtaining a building permit; limited the materials that can be used for driveways on residentially used parcels to concrete, asphalt, pavers designed to support the weight of motor vehicles, rock, gravel, oyster shells, or any other similar impervious surface, not to include grass, dirt or compacted soil; Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 12 WHEREAS: on December 9, 2020, City Council indefinitely deferred the proposed amendment to regulate parking of passenger vehicles on residential lots due to the economic uncertainty associated with COVID-19 with the intent to bring it back at a later date; WHEREAS: in May 2021, City Council requested the amendment be brought back after the COVID-19 related restrictions were eased; WHEREAS: this proposal would prohibit parking in street frontage yards on lots with a one family, two family, or duplex as the primary use, on an unimproved surface WHEREAS: proposed amendment includes exceptions to the prohibition for lots without street parking, during street sweeping, during severe weather events, during a special event when a special event permit has been issued by the City, and when the vehicle is being washed; WHEREAS: this amendment does not require citizens to install a new driveway on lots with an existing dwelling; WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Steven Brown and seconded by Commissioner Steven Bond, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00001. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Kellum, Brown, Bond NAYS: Garrison ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coleman Chairman Garrison stated that she is voting against the zoning ordinance amendment until she sees an exception for the scenarios she mentioned. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00001 passed, and would be heard by City Council at the August 11, 2021 meeting. Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. E. ZOA 21-00002 – CITY OF HAMPTON, AMEND AND RE-ENACT SECTION 3-2(B), “TABLE OF USES PERMITTED IN SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICTS”, STORAGE FACILITY 1, STORAGE FACILITY 2, AND STORAGE FACILITY 3, PHOEBUS URBAN CORE (PH-1), PHOEBUS TOWN (PH-2), AND PHOEBUS COMMERCIAL TRANSITION (PH-3) Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00002: This is a Proposal by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-enact the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia by Amending Section 3-2 (b) Entitled, “Table of Uses Permitted in Special Zoning Districts” to Permit Storage Facility 1, Storage Facility 2, and Storage Facility Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 13  3 with an Approved Use Permit in the Phoebus Urban Core (PH-1), Phoebus Town (PH-2), and Phoebus Commercial Transition (PH-3) Zoning Districts. Use permit applications require public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council, are reviewed on a site specific basis, and grant the opportunity for site specific conditions to be attached. Planning & Zoning Administration Manager Mike Hayes presented the staff report on the subject amendment, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00002. The Partnership for a New Phoebus (the Partnership) submitted a letter to City Council opposing the proposed ordinance amendment. The letter was not received by Planning staff when the Planning Commission meeting package was distributed. A copy of the letter was distributed to the Commissioners at the meeting. In response to questions from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Hayes stated that no application had been submitted to the City for a storage facility in these districts. There is however, an unsolicited proposal with the Economic Development Department, which prompted staff to consider this amendment. Staff felt the use would be more appropriate being allowed with a use permit rather than a by-right use. Mr. O’Neill further explained that unsolicited proposal from developers are received regularly, including proposals for storage facilities in Newmarket and Coliseum Central. When staff begins to see trends occur, staff reevaluates if the specific uses should be accommodated because the development market is changing. Commissioner Brown commented that the Partnership is adamantly opposed to the idea. He wished that the Commission had received the letter prior to the meeting in order to reach out to the members regarding the use. Mr. Brown added that the Partnership wants to maintain the integrity of the appearance in the Phoebus districts. The Planning Commissioner should that in considering whether they support the amendment. Mr. Brown stated that he cannot support the amendment. Deputy City Attorney Bonnie Brown clarified that the unsolicited proposal is now a signed executed agreement with the Economic Development Authority, and not with the City. There are many contingencies within the contract, one of which requires zoning approval from City Council and this particular zoning ordinance amendment to be approved. The developer would also be required to submit a use permit application. Vice-Chair Kellum commented that there are various different storage facilities in the City, pointing out the storage behind Pinnacle Apartments in Coliseum Central, storage facilities on Pembroke and LaSalle Avenues, and the storage in the E-Commerce Center. Ms. Kellum wondered if restrictions could be placed on the storage facilities to keep them within a specific look. In response to questions from Vice-Chair Kellum, Mr. Hayes stated that because staff was unable to come up with a standard set of conditions for storage facilities, the use permit requirement was decided. It is not expected that storage facilities would be very common in this part of the city due to the space necessary for a facility that would meet the expectations of the design within the plans for that district. A use permit would allow staff to work with the developer on location, design, building height, materials, etc., on a case by case basis. Storage that is attached to apartments and assigned to a specific unit would not fall under this particular Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 14 amendment. If the storage is not assigned to a specific tenant and is instead open to the general public for rent, that would fall under as storage facility and would be regulated by this ordinance and require a use permit. In response to a question from Commissioner Harper, Mr. Hayes responded that this is to amend an ordinance; there is no specific development that the Planning Commission would be taking action on. Mr. Harper stated that he looks at how a use would affect the community and if the use is aesthetically pleasing to the community. He would need more information before voting to approve the amendment. Commissioner Bond commented that the letter from the Partnership mentions one specific concern. Businesses have said that they need storage space, even in Phoebus. He is leaning towards approving the ordinance because there is a need to support the storage for businesses and for the community, which has nothing to do with the specific developer. There is a need in Phoebus that needs to be met. Vice-Chair Kellum remarked that there is a need for storage for people to be accommodated. Commissioner Harper stated if the use permit will be looked at strenuously on a case by case basis; there is possibly some leniency in his thoughts. His main objective is to keep citizens in consideration. Chairman Garrison commented that she wished the Commission members had received the letter to read prior to the meeting. She would not support the amendment because she is a big supporter of master plans because she knows what is involved in getting a master plan completed. Ms. Garrison would have liked to speak with the Partnership members to get their thoughts and unless the Partnership members reverse their decision and supports the amendment, she cannot support it either. Joe Griffith, 46 N. Willard Avenue, is the Neighborhood Commissioner for Phoebus. He is representing the Partnership for a New Phoebus, the neighborhood, including stakeholders, resident, and businesses. Mr. Griffith thanked Mr. Hayes and Planning staff for bringing the amendment to the attention of the Partnership members. The Partnership felt that the proposed storage was not characteristic of the historic Phoebus District. Mr. Griffith canvassed the Phoebus residents for their thoughts on having storage facility at 111 Howard Street. Neighbors adjacent to the address oppose the proposed amendment and shared comments including: “negatively impact the historic character of the neighborhood,” “unknown how it would complicate the existing traffic crisis,” “having vehicles and activity in a residential area with a self-storage unit would be detrimental to the residents and their quality of life,” and the “zoning amendment opens up the possibility of other self-storage units being built in other locations in Phoebus.” None of the ten (10) business owners, including four (4) restaurants, said they would not use the storage facility if it were built at the proposed site. Mr. Griffith noted that the overwhelming consensus was that the Phoebus residents and business owners did not want the proposed storage facility. One particular Phoebus resident stated that a self- storage facility should be reserved for a more industrial area and not an historic district that is notated on the Hampton seal. Mr. Griffith stated that he appreciated the staff who put time and effort working on the amendment. He also remarked that appreciate the ‘big idea’ of the developer because that is what keeps the local economy moving forward. Phoebus has always been about big ideas and trying to be progressive in the way they think about business, which is what drives the entrepreneurial spirit in Phoebus, Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 15 using land and existing buildings in a cool way. Mr. Griffith added that he has to respect the people and businesses in the community because that is the truest form of democracy, when we listen to them and make decisions based on that. Chairman Garrison thanked Mr. Griffith for his extensive outreach effort as a Neighborhood Commissioner. Commissioner Harper stated that he knows Mr. Griffith from the Neighborhood Commission. He is very concerned and involved in his neighborhood, and has done a lot to maintain the heritage and integrity in Phoebus; it is very dear to his heart. Commissioner Kellum stated that she feels conflicted concerning the zoning ordinance amendment. Although there is an offer for a storage facility from a developer, what the Commission is addressing at this meeting is the ability to have storage in the Phoebus districts. Ms. Kellum reiterated that she thinks it is important to have storage. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Kellum, Mr. Hayes responded that the Phoebus Master Plan was initially adopted in 2007. A lot has changed in the industry since the adoption, the way storage facilities are being built is different, and where they are being built and used is different. A use permit will allow them but not by-right. In response to a question from Commissioner Brooks, Mr. Hayes responded that with the use permit requirement, any new storage facility would have to come before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. Mr. Harper commented that he supports businesses coming to the community but wanted to make sure the Planning Commission is not tampering with the aesthetics of a community and keeping the citizens opinions in mind. In response to a question from Commissioner Harper, Mr. Hayes stated that any application for a storage facility would have to go through a public hearing process. Staff recommends that each applicant hold a community meeting, though it is not legally required. Community members are able to speak in the public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. In response to a question from Commissioner Harper, Mr. Griffith stated that there is undeveloped land located throughout Phoebus that board members felt were better suited for a storage facility. He also remarked that they felt it would not be appropriate for any self-storage in the Phoebus Historic District but felt there were other zones where the self-storage would be more appropriate. Mr. O’Neill remarked that Planning staff could have a conversation with the Phoebus Partnership regarding other areas in Phoebus that would be conducive to self-storage. Commissioner Brown suggested the Planning Commission defer the zoning amendment in order to have a deeper conversation with the Phoebus Partnership to see if a compromise can be made. Mr. Hayes reminded the Commission if the decision is to defer the amendment, there needs to be ample time scheduled for community outreach to work with the neighborhood. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 16  In response to a question from Chairman Garrison, Ms. Brown explained that according to the Code, a text amendment requires the Planning Commission to report to City Council within 100 days or it is deemed approved by the Planning Commission. The Commission can select a particular monthly meeting to defer until, and could be as late as the October Planning Commission meeting, or earlier if staff is ready to present. Mr. Hayes commented that staff may be prepared in time for the September Planning Commission meeting, but the October meeting is ideal. Chairman Garrison questioned if staff’s preference is the October Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Kellum, Ms. Brown responded that if the Planning Commission allowed staff to present the amendment once they have completed community outreach, she advised they defer indefinitely. Staff can bring the amendment before the Commission no later than October. If the outreach is completed sooner, staff can present sooner than October. There being no further questions or speakers, a motion was made by Commissioner Steven Brown and seconded by Vice-Chair Ruthann Kellum to defer. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coleman Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00002 is deferred indefinitely. A ten (10) minute recess was taken at 6:15 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting resumed at 6:25 P.M. The next two (2) public hearing items are related and will be part of one presentation and public hearing item. A separate motion and vote are required for each item. Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing notices on the next two related agenda items. F. ZOA 21-00010 – CITY OF HAMPTON, AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 1, “DEFINITIONS”, ADD FLAG, MODIFY SIGN, SIGN AREA, AND OFF PREMISES ADVERTISING SIGN AND RELATED TERMS Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00010: This is a Proposal by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact the Zoning Ordinance of the City Of Hampton, Virginia by Amending Chapter 1 Entitled, “Definitions”. Approval of this amendment would add a definition of the term flag and modify the definitions of the terms sign, sign area, and off premises advertising sign and related terms. This item is being brought forward in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00011. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 17  G. ZOA 21-00011 – CITY OF HAMPTON, AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 10, “SIGNS”, ADD REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS AND FLAGS Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00011: This is a Proposal by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia by Amending Chapter 10 Entitled, “Signs” to add regulations pertaining to temporary signs and flags. Approval of this amendment would regulate the number and size of flags permitted based on the primary use of a parcel. This amendment also extends the period of time signs placed in proximity to Election Day may remain by permitting such signs until 10 days after the certification of the results of the election by the applicable authority. This item is being brought forward in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00010. Zoning Administrator Hannah Sabo and Deputy City Attorney Bonnie Brown presented the staff report on the subject amendments, copies of which are attached to the original minutes. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00010 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 20-00011. In response to a question from Chairman Garrison, Ms. Brown answered that there is a State law that regulates signs around polling places on Election Day. The State law takes precedence over this zoning ordinance amendment. Ms. Brown stated she would research and forward a link to the Statute to the Planning Commissioners. In response to questions from Vice-Chair Kellum, Ms. Sabo stated that the amendment specifically notes Federal holiday to not prohibit citizens from being able to place U.S. flags on their property in addition to a sign. Additional signage is allowed on certain days such as Election Day, in conjunction with a property for sale or for rent or in conjunction with a yard sale. The City does not regulate what the sign says. Ms. Brown explained that content of signs is protected under the First Amendment; however, the City can regulate the size and location of the sign, and type of property those signs are on. There are a few narrow exceptions. In response to a question from Commissioner Bond, Ms. Sabo stated that a flag by definition is attached on one side, whereas, a banner is attached on both sides. There are different size requirements for banners. Since banners are typically temporary, their size limits are smaller. There being no further questions or speakers, the Planning Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00010 by the City of Hampton to Amend And Re-Enact Chapter 2 Entitled, “Definitions” Pertaining to Definitions of Sign, Flag, Off-Premises Advertising Sign, and Sign Area; WHEREAS: this proposal would add a definition for the term flag; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would also amend the definitions of sign, off premises advertising sign, and sign area; WHEREAS: this amendment is accompanied by a separate, related amendment to Chapter 10, “Signs” (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00011); Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 18 WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Steven Bond and seconded by Commissioner Steven Brown, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00010. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coleman Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00010 passed, and would be heard by City Council at the August 11, 2021 meeting. The Planning Commission also approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00011 by the City of Hampton to Amend And Re-Enact Chapter 10 Entitled, “Signs” Pertaining to Temporary Signs and Flags; WHEREAS: in 2015, the United States Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 2015 ruled content-based restrictions on signs presumptively unconstitutional. WHEREAS: In response to the Supreme Court decision, in 2016, the City of Hampton’s sign chapter was comprehensively updated; WHEREAS: the current sign definition regulates and exempts “flags of any nation, state, or other geopolitical entity not related to a commercial business, product, or service”. This definition treats flags differently based upon the message displayed and is a content based restriction; WHEREAS: this ordinance amendment removes that content-based exemption and sets appropriate regulations for flags as a type of sign; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would permit flags on lots with a one-family, two- family, or duplex dwelling as the primary use with the following standards: flags shall be mounted on a flagpole or similar device; no more than two (2) flags, not to exceed 24 square feet in area per flag, permitted per parcel; no more than three (3) flags not to exceed two (2) square feet in area per flag, permitted per parcel. WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would permit flags on lots with a use other than a one- family, two-family, or duplex dwelling as the primary use with the following standards: flags shall be mounted on a flagpole or similar device; the total flag area shall not exceed the amount of monument sign area permitted on the parcel, but will be counted independently from any monument signs; Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 19 WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would require new ground mounted flag poles over 5’ in height to obtain a zoning permit; WHEREAS: flagpoles would be required to be setback from the nearest property line no less than the height of the flagpole. The maximum height of a flag pole on a residentially used lot would be 30’; WHEREAS: this amendment includes flags as a type of sign permitted in conjunction with an automobile dealer and an educational or medical campus encompassing 50 or more acres. This amendment does not increase the number or size of signs permitted in conjunction with those uses; WHEREAS: this amendment adds flags as a type of temporary sign permitted in proximity to a federal holiday. These flags must not be more than two (2) square feet in area, are permitted seven (7) days prior to, and must be taken down no later than seven (7) days after the Federal holiday. WHEREAS: this amendment adds flags as a permitted type of sign in proximity to Election Day. It does not increase the size or number of signs permitted in proximity to Election Day; WHEREAS: this amendment is accompanied by a separate, related amendment to Chapter 2, “Definitions” (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00010); WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Vice-Chair Ruthann Kellum and seconded by Commissioner Steven Bond, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00011. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coleman Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00011 passed, and would be heard by City Council at the August 11, 2021 meeting. The next three (3) public hearing items are related and will be part of one presentation and public hearing item. A separate motion and vote are required for each item. Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing notices on the next three related agenda items. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 20  H. ZOA 21-00012 – CITY OF HAMPTON, AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 1, “DEFINITIONS”, ADD CEMETERY AND RELATED TERMS Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00012: This is a Proposal by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia by Amending Chapter 1 Entitled, “Definitions”. Approval of this amendment would add a definition for cemetery and related terms. This item is being brought forward in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendments No. 21- 00013 and 21-00014. I. ZOA 21-00013 – CITY OF HAMPTON, AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 3, “USES PERMITTED”, ADD USE OF CEMETERY TO USES PERMITTED WITH A USE PERMIT IN STANDARD AND SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, ADD ADDITIONAL STANDARD TO USE OF CEMETERY Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00013: This is a Proposal by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 3 Entitled, “Uses Permitted” of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia. Approval of this amendment would add the use of a cemetery to the uses permitted with a use permit in a number of standard and special zoning districts. Approval of this amendment would also add an additional standard to the use of cemetery. This item is related to Zoning Ordinance Amendments No. 20-00012 and 21-00014. I. ZOA 21-00014 – CITY OF HAMPTON, AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 12, “NONCONFORMITIES”, ALLOW LEGALLY NONCONFORMING USE OF CEMETERY TO EXPAND TO OCCUPY AN AREA NOT GREATER THAN THE LEGALLY PLATTED PARCEL OCCUPIED Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00014: This is a Proposal by the City of Hampton to Amend and Re-Enact Chapter 12 Entitled, “Nonconformities” of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia. Approval of this amendment would allow a legally nonconforming use of a cemetery to expand to occupy an area not greater than that of the legally platted parcel occupied. This item is related to Zoning Ordinance Amendments No. 20-00012 and 21-00013. Zoning Administrator Hannah Sabo presented the staff report on the subject amendments, copies of which are attached to the original minutes. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00012, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00013 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 20-00014. There being no questions or speakers, the Planning Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00012 by the City of Hampton to Amend And Re-Enact Chapter 2 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled, “Definitions”; WHEREAS: this proposal would amend Chapter 3 to add a definition for cemetery; WHEREAS: the proposed definition is consistent with the City Code and State Code; Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 21 WHEREAS: this amendment is accompanied by separate, related amendments to Chapter 3 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00013) and Chapter 12 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00014), “Uses Permitted” and “Nonconformities”, respectively; WHEREAS: this item is also in conjunction with a City Code Amendment which would align the language and requirements with the Zoning Ordinance. City Code Amendments do not require action by the Planning Commission; WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Steven Brown and seconded by Commissioner Tracy Brooks, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00012. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coleman Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00012 passed, and would be heard by City Council at the August 11, 2021 meeting. The Planning Commission also approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00013 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”; WHEREAS: this proposal would amend Chapter 3 to add “Cemeteries”, to the uses permitted with a use permit in the R-LL, R-43, R-33, R-22, R-15, R-13, R-11, R-9, and DT-1 Districts. WHEREAS: this amendment would add an additional standard to each of the districts in which cemeteries are proposed, clarifying the requirement that all cemeteries are subject to the provisions of City Code Section 10, Entitled “Cemeteries”; WHEREAS: this amendment is the result of the City’s on-going assessment of land use regulations with respect to changing dynamics of the economy; WHEREAS: this amendment helps to ensure that zoning regulations reflect the current locations of cemeteries within the City; WHEREAS: the requirement of a use permit in each district allows City Council to add appropriate conditions to any new cemeteries and limit the expansion of existing cemeteries based on site specific characteristics; Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 22 WHEREAS: this amendment is accompanied by separate, related amendments to Chapter 2 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00012) and Chapter 12 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00014), “Definitions” and “Nonconformities”, respectively; WHEREAS: this item is in conjunction with a City Code Amendment which would align the language and requirements with the Zoning Ordinance. City Code Amendments do not require action by the Planning Commission; WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Vice-Chair Ruthann Kellum and seconded by Commissioner Michael Harper, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00013. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coleman Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00013 passed, and would be heard by City Council at the August 11, 2021 meeting. The Planning Commission also approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00014 by the City of Hampton to Amend And Re-Enact Chapter 12 Entitled, “Nonconformities” to Restrict the Expansion of Legally Nonconforming Cemeteries; WHEREAS: on August 12, 2020, City Council approved an amendment which allows legally nonconforming one-family, two-family, and duplex residential uses to expand only within the area of the legally platted parcel occupied by the use as of August 12, 2020; WHEREAS: the August 12, 2020 City Council approved amendment prevents commercial and all other legally nonconforming uses, with the exception of one-family, two-family, and duplex residential uses, from expanding beyond the land area which was occupied by the nonconforming use as of August 12, 2020; WHEREAS: cemeteries are a unique land use typically with minimal associated buildings; WHEREAS: this proposal would allow legally nonconforming cemeteries to expand to an area not greater than the area of the legally platted parcel occupied by the nonconforming use as of August 12, 2020, rather than continue to limit the expansion to the land area which is currently occupied by the use; WHEREAS: this amendment is accompanied by separate, related amendments to Chapters 3 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00013) and Chapter 2 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00012), “Uses Permitted” and “Definitions”, respectively; Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 23 WHEREAS: this item is also in conjunction with a City Code Amendment which would align the language and requirements with the Zoning Ordinance. City Code Amendments do not require action by the Planning Commission; WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Vice-Chair Ruthann Kellum and seconded by Commissioner Steven Brown, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00014. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Brooks, Harper, Kellum, Brown, Bond, Garrison NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coleman Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-00014 passed, and would be heard by City Council at the August 11, 2021 meeting. V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. O’Neill shared that this Youth Planner Report would be the last for Maia Patterson. She would be leaving for college soon. Commissioner Brown congratulated Maia on her graduation and academic achievements. A. YOUTH PLANNER PRESENTATION Senior Youth Planner Maia Patterson presented the Youth Planner Report for the Hampton Youth Commission (HYC). The Youth Master Plan Update Committee completed the 2021 update of the Youth Component of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). The revised plan includes the new HYC goals: Youth Are Active, Youth Are Prepared, Youth Are Respected, and Youth Are Returning, 2018-2019 Dream Studios data, and synthesized survey conclusions from 2018-2019, which focused on educational, occupational opportunities, employment, transportation, and safety in the City of Hampton. The Youth Master Plan is being reviewed by the Community Development staff. On June 30th, the Grants Committee distributed funds to all of the grants recipients.  Hampton High School K-Pop Dance Club – $1,350 to host a Youth International Night to highlight the various cultures in Hampton (Youth Are Active)  Hampton IB CAS Tutoring – $1,200 to fund their COVID-19 tutoring program to provide students with virtual learning tools (Youth Are Prepared)  Hampton Key Club – $1,560 to create blessing bags for women and children living at Transitions Family Violence Center (Youth Are Prepared) Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 24  The focus for the Youth Voice Committee is to provide the materials for HYC interviews. Eleven students were interviewed and were invited to join the Youth Commission:  Amani Courtney – Hampton High School – 8th grade  Sean Roberts – Hampton High School – 11th grade  Jeremiah Edwards – Kecoughtan High School – 9th grade  Jada Hardy – Hampton High School – 11th grade  Dusty Philman – Hampton High School – 12th grade  Jessica Phan – Bethel High School – 12th grade  Jonathan Jackson – Bethel High School – 10th grade  Vicky Chen – Bethel High School – 11th grade  Muhammed Alsaffar – Hampton High School – 11th grade  Stephanie Adejayan – Bethel High School – 9th grade  Tamia Kelly – Hampton High School – 11th grade On July 9th, Kyra Reed was interviewed for the Junior Youth Planner. Kyra is a 2020-2021 Youth Commissioner. She is a rising junior at Hampton High School in the IB Program. Next activities for the Youth Commission:  ODU Presentation (Importance of Youth Civic Engagement) – July 21st  HYC Boot Camp – July 21st & July 22nd  HYC Retreat – August 17th – August 19th Maia shared that her last day with the City of Hampton will be July 21st. She will be attending Howard University on a full scholarship majoring in Political Science, minoring in Business on the Pre-Law Track. Maia thanked the Commission for an amazing opportunity and the lessons learned in leadership and community. She hopes to make the Planning Commission proud. Chairman Garrison thanked Maia for an excellent job and wished Maia a wonderful experience at Howard University. Vice-Chair Kellum commended Maia for a wonderful job. Commissioner Harper wished Maia the best of luck. Mr. O’Neill shared that Maia was integral in gathering the youth’s opinions and ideas for the Hampton Aquatics Center. He added that she would be disappointed that she will not be in Hampton when the Center opens but will make sure that she has an opportunity to enjoy it once it opens. B. COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE PRESENTATION Mr. O’Neill advised the Planning Commission that the Community Plan Update Presentation would not be held due to the late timing of the Planning Commission meeting. The briefing can occur at the August Planning Commission meeting or can be forwarded to the Commissioners. Chairman Garrison decided to have the presentation emailed to the Planning Commission members. Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 25  Chairman Garrison suggested the Commissioners take advantage of the community outreach that occurs during the Community Plan Update sessions. VI. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. VII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION There were no matters by the Commission. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, ____________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: ____________________________ Carole Garrison Chairman Work Session & Public Meeting Minutes 20210715 Page 26