Planning Commission Meeting Packets

SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR AUGUST 16, 2016 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROBERT P. GOUMAS, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR THE REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE SUFFOLK CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL BUILDING IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND OR NEED SPECIAL ACCOMODATIONS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT (757) 514-4060 PRIOR TO 12:00 NOON ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 12, 2016. HOWARD C. BENTON CHAIRMAN  AGENDA SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 2016 2:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order A. Invocation B. Roll Call 2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting 3. Family Transfer Subdivision Plat: A. FAMILY TRANSFER SUBDIVISION PLAT FT02-16, submitted by Jarvis Randall Byrum and Phyllis C. Byrum, property owners, requesting a family transfer subdivision pursuant to Section 31-514 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The affected property is identified as Zoning Map 76*10*3, Great Fork Road, Whaleyville Voting Borough, Zoned A, Agricultural Zoning District. 4. Public Hearings: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, C13-15, Duncan Accessory Dwelling, submitted by Veronica and Terrance Duncan, applicant(s) and property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-306, 31-406 and 31-706 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish an accessory dwelling unit, on property located at 4560 Starcher Court, Zoning Map 16A(2A), Parcel(s) 59. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Holy Neck Voting Borough, zoned RE, Rural Estate zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Rural Agriculture Use District. B. EXCEPTION REQUEST, EX02-16, Boykins Residence, submitted by Brian Layne of Parrish-Layne Design Group, agent(s) on the behalf of, Blake and Jennifer Boykins, applicant(s) and property owner(s), in accordance with Section 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant an Exception to the development criteria and buffer area requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area to permit the construction of a single family residence, to encroach into the 100-foot Resource Protection Area buffer, on property located at 3434 Ferry Road, Zoning Map 12, Parcel(s) 49A. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Sleepy Hole Voting Borough, zoned RR, Rural Residential zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Inner Ring Suburban Use District. Page 1  C. ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT OA04-16; initiated by the Suffolk Planning Commission, for amendments to the Code of the City of Suffolk, Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4, Zoning, Section 31-406, Use Regulations, Table 406-1: Permitted Uses in Zoning Districts; Article 7, Supplemental Use Regulations; and Appendix A, Definitions, for the purpose of establishing standards for solar energy uses in the City of Suffolk. 5. Old Business A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C07-16, Tidewater Fair Downs, submitted by Whitney Saunders of Saunders and Ojeda, P.C., agent(s) on the behalf of Tidewater Fair Downs, LLC, applicant(s) and property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish townhomes, for properties located at 2001 and 2005 East Washington Street, Zoning Map 35F, Parcel (s) RT*PT1, RT*PT1*2 and RT*PT2*3. The affected area(s) are further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned B-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Core Support Use District. 6. New Business A. Status Report – City Council Meeting, July 20, 2016 7. Commissioner’s Comments 8. Adjournment Page 2  MINUTES SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION July 19, 2016 2:00 P.M. The meeting of the Suffolk Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 442 W. Washington Street, Suffolk, Virginia, with the following persons present: MEMBERS: STAFF: Howard Benton, Chairman Helivi Holland, City Attorney Arthur Singleton, Vice-Chairman Robert Goumas, Interim Director of Planning Johnnie Edwards Claire Jones, Interim Asst. Dir. of Planning John Rector Nicole Ward, Current Planning Manager Mills Staylor David Parks, Principal Planner James G. Vacalis Catina Myrick, Executive Secretary James Rountree Anita Hicks The meeting was called to order by Chairman Benton and Commissioner Rector opened with a prayer. The roll was called by Mr. Goumas and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Mr. Benton relinquished the Chair to Mr. Goumas. Mr. Goumas opened the floor. Howard Benton was nominated as Chairman. The election of Mr. Benton to serve as Chairman was passed by a voice vote of 8 to 0. 1 Arthur Singleton was nominated for Vice-Chairman. The election of Mr. Singleton to serve as Vice-Chairman was passed by a voice vote of 8 to 0. Mr. Goumas relinquished the Chair to Mr. Benton. Chairman Benton advised that Vice-Chairman Singleton, Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Rountree and Commissioner Vacalis will serve on the Committee on Ordinances. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARINGS: REZONING REQUEST, RZ01-16, (Conditional), Bennett’s Creek Marina, submitted by Melissa Venable, Land Planning Solutions, agent, on behalf of BC Marina, LLC, property owner(s) and applicant(s), to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk to change the zoning from RR, Rural Residential zoning district, to B-2, General Commercial zoning district and RU, Residential Urban zoning district, for property located at 3301, 3305 and 3356 Ferry Road, Zoning Map 12, Parcel(s) 49, 49*1 and 49*2. The affected area( s ) ar e further identified as being located in the Sleepy Hole Voting Borough, zoned RR, Rural Residential zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a part of the Northern Growth Area, Inner Ring Suburban Use District. The first item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by Claire Jones, Interim Assistant Director of Planning. Ms. Jones stated that this is a request for a change in zoning from Rural Residential, to B-2, General Commercial and RU, Residential Urban zoning districts. Under the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, this property falls within the Northern Growth Area, Inner Ring 2 Suburban Use District. The requested change in zoning would include a 5.34 acre B-2 district for commercial development at the existing marina site and an RU district of just over 3 acres for residential development on the eastern portion of the site. The conceptual plan provided by the applicant showed the redevelopment of the marina with a restaurant, ship store, pool, and tiki bar, as well as, a proposed residential development of 22 single family units. The proposed residential density is 7.3 dwelling units per acre, which conforms to the recommended density range of 6 to 12 units per acre in the Inner Ring Suburban District. Both zoning districts proposed on the parcel appear to be appropriate for the Use District and also support a balance between commercial and residential uses recommended in the comprehensive plan. The applicant indicated that redevelopment of the marina site will reduce impervious cover in the RPA by 287 square feet. Proposed improvements in the Ferry Road right-of-way are expected to increase impervious cover in that part of the RPA by 7,724 square feet. Additional encroachments or increases in impervious area within the buffer may require an exception from the Planning Commission. Information pertaining to the requirements for public facilities, stormwater management, and traffic impacts was also provided with this request. All of these items will be thoroughly assessed during the site plan review process. Ms. Jones noted that the applicant intends to provide City water and sewer to this site, but that non-potable uses at the marina will continue to use 3 an onsite private well. Voluntary proffers were provided by the applicant in support of this rezoning request. Staff found this proposal to be generally consistent with the provisions of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the UDO, and that the proposed use will be able to mitigate impacts to public facilities. Therefore, staff recommended approval of this application. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application was Melissa Venable, Land Planning Solutions, 5857 Harbourview Blvd., Suffolk, VA. Rennie Richardson, 2601 S. Nansemond Drive, Suffolk, VA – he stated that he was in support of this application. There being no speakers in opposition, the public hearing was closed. After discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Rountree made a motion to approve this application as proffered, seconded by Commissioner Hicks and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. REZONING REQUEST, RZ05-16,(Conditional), Tidewater Fair Downs: submitted by Whitney Saunders of Saunders and Ojeda, P.C., agent(s) on the behalf of Tidewater Fair Downs, LLC, applicant(s) and property owner(s), to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk to change the zoning from RM, Residential Medium zoning district, to RU-18, Residential Urban-18 zoning district, for property located at 1901 Freeney Avenue, Zoning Map 35F, Parcel(s) RU*1*2*3. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Whaleyville Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Core Support Use District. 4 The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by Nicole Ward, Current Planning Manager. Ms. Ward stated that this request is to rezone the property from Residential –Medium Density, RM, to RU-18, Residential Urban – 18 zoning district. The applicant proposed to establish up to five, single family townhomes. The proposed use is located within the Central Growth Area, Core Support use district as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. The Public Facilities Report provided stated that the townhouse units will be provided adequate City water and sewer service from Freeney Avenue, 12th Street and E. Washington St. The Public Works Department advised that the conceptual plan layout provided does not identify the proposed BMPs. It was recommended that an alternative approach to stormwater management be considered; however, these matters will be addressed during the site plan development approval process. The Traffic Impact Analysis noted that the development will minimally increase the volume of traffic on the roadways and at the intersection of the study. In addition, the existing laneage and signalized operations will accommodate the proposed development traffic. As it relates to schools, since there is adequate capacity at the elementary school level, this development would not require the advancement of capacity for elementary schools. Also, because there is no net increase in the student generation at the middle and high school levels when comparing the proposed development to the by-right zoning there 5 is no net increase for the middle and high school levels. Therefore, the developer would not be responsible for the advancement of capacity. The applicant submitted a fiscal impact study that stated the overall fiscal impact of the proposed development is positive. However, the study stated that a negative cash flow will be received by the City, but this is compensated by a larger positive cash flow in the City’s enterprise funds. In addition, the study stated this is to be expected for an income limited residential development. Based on guidance by the provisions of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and UDO, staff concluded that the proposed change in zoning and use are consistent with the requirements of the UDO and will be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the findings-of-fact, staff recommended approval of this application with the proffers. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application was Whitney Saunders, 705 W. Washington Street, Suffolk, VA. There being no speakers in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vacalis made a motion to approve this application as proffered, seconded by Commissioner Staylor and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. REZONING REQUEST, RZ06-16, (Conditional), Family Dollar Retail Store: submitted by Jeffery J. Lamberson of TRC Acquisitions and Holdings, LLC, applicant(s) and property owner(s), to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk to change the zoning from RM, Residential Medium zoning district, to B-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, for property located to the southeast of 6 800 White Marsh Road, Zoning Map 35G(B)A, Parcel(s) 3*4*5*6*10+. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Whaleyville Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Core Support Use District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by Nicole Ward, Current Planning Manager. Ms. Ward stated that the applicant proposed the construction of a new 9,180 square foot Family Dollar retail store. This project is located within the Central Growth Area, Core Support Use District. The Comprehensive Plan specifically encourages development that accommodates neighborhood-serving retail which is limited in size and walkability. The Public Facilities report noted that City water and sewer services are available to the site through 8” water and sewer mains in White Marsh Road. The Department of Public Utilities recommended approval of the request as presented. The Department Public Works advised that water quality and water quantity should be provided to demonstrate the proposed layout will comply with the storm water regulations. The Department of Public Works, Engineering Division indicated it had no concerns at this time regarding the proposed change in zoning. The conceptual plan proposed two entrances, one from White Marsh Road and the other from East Washington Street. All public improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Code and the UDO. The Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division indicated it had no concerns at this time regarding the proposed change in zoning. 7 Based on guidance of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and UDO, staff concluded that the proposed change in zoning and use are consistent with the requirements of the UDO and will be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the findings-of- fact, staff recommended approval of this application. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application was Helen Manett, Twin Rivers Capital LLC, Development Manager. Also, speaking in favor of this application was Curtis Milteer. He asked for the Commission’s approval of this application. Also, speaking in favor of this application was William Goodman, 511 Reed Court, Suffolk, VA. He advised that the East Suffolk Gardens Civic League is in support of this project. He also noted that they are concerned about the fencing around the pond – they would like to see a 6 ft. fence. Also, speaking in favor of this application was Bernard Wright, Vice-President of the Rosemont Civic League. He stated that they are in support of this application. In reference to the runoff pond, the citizens would like to see a 6 ft. wrought iron picket fence that will be maintained locked at all times. They would also like to have adequate lighting to support this project. They are also concerned about the loitering that may occur in this area. 8 Also, speaking in favor of this Connie Simpson, Sr. Pastor of Faith Community Church – she stated that she was in support of this application. There being no speakers in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Benton inquired about the height of the fence. Ms. Manett advised that it is unknown at this time if the designated area will be a wet or dry pond. Typically, Family Dollar requires a 4 ft. fence, if it is a wet pond. Mr. Goumas advised that these issues will be reviewed during site plan review. Commissioner Staylor inquired about the road improvements at the intersection of White Marsh Rd. and E. Washington Street as it relates to the rezoning down the street on White Marsh Road. Mr. Goumas advised that the traffic impact analysis submitted with this application is acceptable with the proposed remarking that may be necessary for the appropriate turn lanes to serve the facility with or without the improvements associated with the rezoning down the street on White Marsh Road. After discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Singleton made a motion to approve this application, seconded by Commissioner Rountree and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C06-16, Bennett’s Creek Marina, submitted by Melissa Venable, Land Planning Solutions, agent, on behalf of BC Marina, LLC, property owner(s) and applicant(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31- 9 306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish a nightclub (Live Entertainment) on properties located at 3301, 3305 and 3356 Ferry Road, Zoning Map 12, Parcel(s) 49, 49*1 and 49*2. The affected areas are further identified as being located in the Sleepy Hole Voting Borough, zoned RR, Rural Residential zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a part of Northern Growth Area, Inner Ring Suburban Use District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by David Parks, Principal Planner. Mr. Parks stated that the applicant proposed to construct a new marina building with boat slips and piers along with a restaurant, ship store, and fueling stations. The applicant also proposed to have live entertainment associated with the use. The applicant is currently in the process of redeveloping the site by demolishing the existing restaurant and constructing a new facility along Bennett’s Creek. Once completed, the applicant would like to provide live entertainment at the restaurant and also at the associated tiki bar that will be contained on the property. According to the applicant, the live entertainment shall be limited to a single acoustic guitarist or a single steel drum musician. The proposed hours of operation for the outdoor live entertainment shall be limited to Sunday through Thursday from 4:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. and on Friday and Saturday from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. The use of live entertainment will be governed by the noise ordinance which is contained within the City Code and enforced by the Police Department. The restaurant will be served by City water and sewer. Also required by 10 the UDO, there are a set of standards that must be complied with when considering approval of a conditional use permit. Staff reviewed the criteria for this proposed project and determined that this request will conform to the required criteria as described in the staff report. Therefore, it was staff’s opinion that the site in question is appropriate for the proposed use and given the type of live entertainment and the limited hours of operation for the live entertainment the proposal will have no more adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommended approval of this application with the conditions noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application was Melissa Venable, Land Planning Solutions. She asked for the Commission’s approval of this application. Also, speaking in favor of this application was Roger Fawcett, 4235 Sleepy Hole Road, Suffolk, VA, He asked for the Commission’s approval of this application. There being no speakers in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vacalis advised that there was a typo in Condition #2 wherein it should read “The proposed hours of operation for the live entertainment shall be from 4:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday Friday and Saturday. 11 Mr. Mullins advised that if they had a choice, they would like for the hours of operation to be from 2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 2:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Rountree stated that the residents in the area are concerned about the noise in the evening hours. Commissioner Rountree made a motion to approve this application with the conditions and amend Condition #2 to read “The proposed hours of operation for the live entertainment shall be from 2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 2:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday”, seconded by Commissioner Rector and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C07-16, Tidewater Fair Downs, submitted by Whitney Saunders of Saunders and Ojeda, P.C., agent(s) on the behalf of Tidewater Fair Downs, LLC, applicant(s) and property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish townhomes, for properties located at 2001 and 2005 East Washington Street, Zoning Map 35F, Parcel (s) RT*PT1, RT*PT1*2 and RT*PT2*3. The affected area(s) are further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned B-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Core Support Use District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by Nicole Ward, Current Planning Manager. Ms. Ward stated that this application is to construct up to 4 townhomes on the properties located at 2001 and 12 2005 East Washington Street. The development regulations in the UDO will be required to be satisfied in regard to building and site design. In order to promote and maintain compatibility with the surrounding community, the proposed townhomes shall include design standards, such as rear loaded lots, covered porches, architectural shingles and brick skirting. The proposed use is also located within the Central Growth Area, Core Support use district. The Comprehensive Plan specifically encourages an Urban Neighborhood place type within the Core Support Use Districts. As it relates to schools, since there is currently adequate capacity, this development would not require the advancement of capacity for elementary schools. However, noting that this proposed development will generate less than one whole student, combined between the middle and high school levels, the developer may be responsible for the advancement of capacity for the 0.28 middle school students generated, with a payment in the amount of $12,093.58 and a payment in the amount of $15,319.58 for the 0.4 students generated for high school. This translates into a cash contribution of $6,853.28 per dwelling unit. Based on the guidance provided by the UDO and the analysis and findings-of-fact set forth in the staff report, staff recommended approval of this application with the conditions noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application was Whitney Saunders, 705 W. Washington Street, Suffolk, VA. He asked for the Commission’s 13 approval of this application with the deletion of Condition #3, as it relates to cash contribution per each dwelling unit – they do not believe it is justified. There being no speakers in opposition, the public hearing was closed. After discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Rountree made a motion to table this application for thirty (30) days until City staff could meet with the applicant to further discuss and resolve Condition #3, seconded by Commissioner Singleton and passed by a vote of 6 to 2. EXCEPTION REQUEST, EX01-16, Borelli Residence, submitted by Nicholas Borelli, applicant(s) and property owner(s), in accordance with Section 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant an Exception to the development criteria and buffer area requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area to permit the installation of a deck and pavers, to encroach into the 100-foot Resource Protection Area buffer, on property located at 134 Dutchess Way, Zoning Map 20C, Parcel(s) 2*138. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Cypress Voting Borough, zoned RLM, Residential Low Medium zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Inner Ring Suburban Use District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by David Parks, Principal Planner. Mr. Parks stated that the applicant requests to encroach into the 50-foot channelward portion of the 100-foot RPA Buffer with the expansion of his existing deck and the construction of a pervious paver patio. The proposed disturbance within the buffer will be 576 square feet, which does not include the previously unpermitted 10x10 shed. Mr. Borelli proposed to increase his 14 deck from 144 to 240 square feet. He will also remove the existing patio, done by the previous home owner, and install a 480 square foot patio of pervious pavers which will connect the deck and the shed. The applicant proposed several shrubs and an understory tree to compensate for the increase in impervious area within the RPA Buffer. During review of this application, staff found that the previous homeowner had completed improvements and work within the 100-foot RPA Buffer without obtaining the required permits and authorization. The existing shed on the property was placed on site during 2006 without a building permit from the Community Development Division, or a Buffer Restoration Plan through the Planning Division. It also appears the previous home owner completed an unpermitted concrete sidewalk curving around the home during 2014. Because they were unpermitted, both structures have increased impervious surface in the buffer and were not mitigated for with further vegetation in the 100-foot RPA Buffer. At the time of plat approval, certain lots were given 50-foot reductions in the buffer with the stipulation that residential BMPs would be installed at the time of construction of the primary dwelling. The property at 134 Dutchess Way is one of those lots granted a reduction for the primary dwelling, but this does not extend to accessory structures attached or detached from the primary dwelling. As previously stated this lot is subject to the full 100-foot RPA, but was granted a 50-foot reduction to encroach within the 50-foot landward portion of the 15 buffer to build the primary dwelling. Staff found the request to expand the existing deck to be a self-imposed condition which resulted in the need for an Exception Request. To meet the intent of “minimum necessary to afford relief” would be to maintain what structures are existing on the property without further expansion or encroachment into the buffer. The existing buffer area on this lot is mainly comprised of turf grass with a few mature canopy trees. The applicant’s request will not involve the removal of woody vegetation within the buffer, but will increase the impervious area within the buffer by 576 square feet. To comply with the Administrative Code, the Planning Division does not permit encroachment of any structure that is not water dependent within the 50-foot channelward portion of the buffer. Staff noted a reduced buffer area and increased impervious area will not effectively treat water quality and quantity issues. While not recommended, if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the applicant’s request for this Exception, it is staff’s opinion that the mitigation of further encroachment into the 100-foot RPA Buffer necessitates installation of native vegetation, as approved by the Riparian Buffers Modification and Mitigation Manual, as shown on the attached Buffer Restoration Plan included as Exhibit C. Staff recommended denial of this application due to encroachment into the 50-foot channelward portion of the buffer. 16 The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application Nicholas Borelli, applicant. He advised that he did not know the shed and patio pavers had been improperly installed. He also advised that out of the 240 square feet expansion of the deck itself, only 57 sq. ft. will be within the 50 ft. buffer, which is approximately 10% of the entire project to be within the buffer. He asked for the Commission’s approval of this application. There being no speakers in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Singleton advised that he personally wouldn’t have a problem if it was only the 57 sq. ft into the buffer, but the shed is a problem. Commissioner Rountree inquired if the shed could be moved to the side of the house. He advised that if it was only the 57 sq. ft. of deck expansion into the 50 ft. buffer he would not have a problem – the shed is the problem. After discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Hicks made a motion to approve this application, seconded by Commissioner Singleton and passed by a recorded vote of 6 to 2. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN: Michael Kelly, Principal Planner of Parks & Recreation gave a presentation on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, a component of the Suffolk 2035 Comprehensive Plan. 17 Commissioner Staylor made a motion to approve the resolution in support of this project, seconded by Commissioner Hicks and passed by a voice vote of 8 to 0. STATUS REPORT: Mr. Goumas gave a status report of the June 15th City Council meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Commissioner Singleton made a motion to initiate an amendment to the UDO pertaining solar energy facilities, seconded by Commissioner Vacalis and passed by a voice vote of 8 to 0. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 18  MT: Rountree MT: Vacalis MT: Singleton MT: Rountree PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND: Hicks 2ND: Staylor 2ND: Rountree 2ND: Rector MEETING TO: Approve TO: Approve TO: Approve TO: Approve w/modified July 19, 2016 w/proffers w/proffers conditions VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: 8-0 RZ6-16 C6-16 RZ1-16 RZ5-16 PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO X X X X X Benton, Howard C. X X X X X Edwards, Johnnie X X X X X Hicks, Anita X X X X X Rector, John X X X X X Rountree, Ronnie Singleton, Arthur X X X X X X X X X X Staylor, Mills X X X X X Vacalis, James  MT: Rountree MT: Hicks MT: Staylor MT: Singleton PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND: Singleton 2ND: Singleton 2ND: Hicks 2ND: Vacalis MEETING TO: Table for thirty TO: Approve TO: Approve TO: Initiate an amendment July 19, 2016 (30) days to UDO in regard to solar energy facilities VOTE: 6-2 VOTE: 6-2 VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: 8-0 Bicycle Pedestrian C7-16 EX1-16 Master Plan PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO X X X X X Benton, Howard C. X X X X X Edwards, Johnnie X X X X X Hicks, Anita X X X X X Rector, John X X X X X Rountree, Ronnie X X X X X Singleton, Arthur X X X X X Staylor, Mills X X X X X Vacalis, James THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  STAFF REPORT DESCRIPTION EXCEPTION REQUEST: CBPA Exception Request EX02-16, submitted by Brian Layne of Parrish-Layne Design Group, agent(s) on the behalf of Blake and Jennifer Boykin, applicants and property owners, to grant an exception to the development criteria and buffer area requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District to permit the construction of a single family residence to encroach into the 100-foot Resource Protection Area Buffer. APPLICANT: Submitted by Brian Layne of Parrish-Layne Design Group, agent on the behalf of Blake and Jennifer Boykin, applicants and property owners. LOCATION: The affected property is located at 3434 Ferry Road, and is further identified as Zoning Map 12, Parcel 49A. PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential Density Zoning. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant. PROPOSED LAND USE: Single family detached dwelling, including an attached garage, with a pool that encroaches into the 100-foot Resource Protection Area Buffer. SURROUNDING LAND USES: North – RR District, single family home South – RR District, single family home East – RR District, single family home West – Bennetts Creek COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The City’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Inner Ring Suburban Use District. CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA DESIGNATION: The property is located within the City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District and is designated as a Resource Protection Area (RPA) and Resource Management Area (RMA). PUBLIC NOTICE: This request has been duly advertised in accordance with the public notice requirements set forth in Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and with the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. CASE HISTORY: Previously, the parcel was granted a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Exception request, EX02-14, as submitted by the former owner. The former exception request proposed the construction of a new single family detached dwelling with the addition of an in- ground pool and installation of additional concrete within the 100-foot RPA Buffer. The proposal matched the footprint of the original home where it encroached into the 50-foot channelward portion of the buffer. Exception Request EX02-14 increased the total impervious from the original 11,395 square feet to 11,867 square feet. Exception Request EX02-16 is a request for Planning Commission August 16, 2016 EX02-16 Page 2 of 6 new owners who are seeking approval for a new layout on the property. The chart below highlights the various changes to impervious area. Impervious Surface for 3434 Ferry Road 1954 Home EX02-14 EX02-16 Dwelling 1,809 3,500 7,386 Pool - 470 307 Parking - - 1,437 Accessory Buildings 939 475 - Sidewalks 1,036 600 209 Driveway/Roadway 7,368 6,822 1,933 Other Impervious 243 - 1,141 Total 11,395 11,867 12,166 Percent Impervious 9.0% 9.0% 10.0% STAFF ANALYSIS ISSUE The applicants are requesting an exception from the regulations of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District to encroach into the 100-foot Resource Protection Area with the construction of a 7,386 square foot single family home and attached garage. The applicants are also requesting to construct an in-ground pool with associated paver terrace within the 100- foot RPA Buffer. The proposal for the Boykin residence differs from the approved Exception Request EX02-14, and also the original house, in that the design keeps the building envelope outside of the 50-foot channelward portion of the buffer. The applicants are proposing approximately 1,933 square feet of driveway within the RPA Buffer. The total proposed square footage for this request is 12,166 square feet for the entire parcel; this is an increase of 771 square feet. Originally, this site contained a single family home with a detached garage, all of which were located within the 100-foot RPA Buffer. Elements of the former home encroached into the 50- foot channelward portion of the buffer, particularly the basement. The home was constructed in 1954 and the lot was platted in the 1940s. All previous development on this parcel was done prior to the effective date of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area regulations. The impervious area associated with the original home was 11,395. The home was demolished in December of 2014 in conjunction with Exception Request EX02-14, excluding the basement and gravel driveway which remain. The applicants are proposing to fill in the basement area to provide additional stability to the slope the proposed home will sit atop. Due to the layout of the lot the proposed home will still be contained within the 100-foot RPA Buffer, but no portion of the home will encroach into the 50- foot channelward portion of the buffer. The applicants will be constructing the pool directly adjacent to the new house. The driveway will be asphalt, converting portions of the existing gravel driveway, and revegetating the remainder of the original driveway. Planning Commission August 16, 2016 EX02-16 Page 3 of 6 Following approval of EX02-14, four large canopy trees were removed. Because the owner at the time never built the proposed home or landscaping those trees have not been replaced as required. With the construction of the Boykin residence, those four previously removed trees are being mitigated for in the Buffer Restoration Plan. The landscape plan submitted by the applicants also mitigates for the encroachments within the RPA. This plan proposes the installation of 1,722 square feet of landscaping in addition to the compensation for the removal of the four canopy trees. This is composed of the appropriate ratio of canopy trees, understory trees, and shrubs. The proposed Buffer Restoration plan meets the requirements of the Riparian Buffers Modification and Mitigation Manual. CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. This lot was platted and developed prior to the effective date of the City’s 1990 adoption of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District regulations. The original home on the property, which was constructed in 1954, was located entirely inside the 100-foot RPA Buffer. The lot sits on a peninsula on Bennetts Creek and, given the location of the wetlands, the majority of the lot is encumbered by the 100-foot RPA Buffer. The only portion of the lot that is located outside of the buffer is the northeastern portion where the lot width and setback requirements make placement of a single family dwelling challenging. 2. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay District, Section 31-415(d)(1)(A) specifies that tidal wetlands and non-tidal wetlands that are connected by surface flow and contiguous to water bodies with perennial flow are protected by a vegetated buffer area of not less than 100 feet in width located adjacent to and landward of wetlands. The property is located on the tidal waters of Bennetts Creek. The site plan of the proposed home identifies the location of CBPA wetlands on the property and the corresponding 100-foot RPA Buffer. 3. City water and sewer are not available to this site. The lot had a septic system located on the western edge of the property to the rear of the original home, within the 50-foot channelward portion of the buffer. There is an existing private well located on the western edge of the property associated with the original home, and the applicants are proposing to relocate the well system. The applicants are proposing to install the new septic system outside of the 50- foot channelward portion of the buffer, to the northeast of the proposed home. The applicants are currently in the process of working with the Health Department on certification for this new system. 4. In accordance with Section 31-415(d)(1)(D), Buffer Area Requirements, to minimize effects of human activities on the other components of the Resource Protection Area (RPA) Buffer, State waters, and aquatic life, a 100-foot buffer area of vegetation that is effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering non-point source pollution from runoff shall be retained if present and established where it does not exist. Restoration and establishment of additional vegetation according to the CBLAD Riparian Buffer Manual is required in the RPA Buffer for the additional impervious surface area. Where practical, a vegetated area that will maximize water quality protection, mitigate the effects of the buffer encroachment and is equal to the area of encroachment into the buffer area shall be established elsewhere on the lot or parcel. Planning Commission August 16, 2016 EX02-16 Page 4 of 6 To compensate for the additional impervious area created by the construction of the new home, pool and spa, and also the parking and driveway, as well as for the previously removed four trees within the 100-foot RPA Buffer, the applicants have submitted a Buffer Restoration Plan. This will help mitigate the impact caused by the increase in stormwater runoff. The applicants have selected a combination of trees, shrubs, and woody groundcover as outlined in the Riparian Buffers Modification and Mitigation Manual. 5. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overly District requirements were amended in November 2003 to comply with a change in state law. In accordance with Section 31- 415(f)(5) of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall review the request for an Exception since there is an increase in the amount of impervious surface within the 100-foot RPA Buffer and also for the proposed accessory structure (in-ground pool). Originally, the site impervious area was 11,395 square feet and the proposed impervious area will be 12,166 square feet, a 771 square foot increase. 6. Per Section 31-415(f)(5) of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay District, a request for an exception to the ‘Development Criteria for Resource Protection Areas’ and ‘Buffer Area Requirements’ shall be made in writing to the Planning Commission. It shall identify the impacts of the proposed exception on water quality and on lands within the Resource Protection Area through a Water Quality Impact Assessment. The Planning Commission may grant the exception with such conditions and safeguards as deemed necessary to further the purpose and intent of the Overlay District if the following findings are made: a. Granting the Exception will not confer upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied by this Ordinance to other property owners in the Preservation Area District. This exception request involves the construction of a single family home, in- ground pool with associated paver terrace, and a concrete parking area on a lot that was recorded prior to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area regulations. A home and detached garage, built prior to the CBPA regulations, were located on the parcel such that they encroached into the 100-foot RPA Buffer. With this request the applicants are going to place the new house and improvements landward of the previous structures. The proposed home footprint is located within the 50-foot landward portion of the buffer, which is consistent with similar request for Exceptions in the past. This request does not confer any special privileges that have been denied to other property owners. b. The exception request is not based upon conditions or circumstances that are self- created or self-imposed, nor does the request arise from conditions or circumstances either permitted or nonconforming that are related to adjacent parcels. The original home and detached garage were permitted at the time of their construction. The house was constructed in 1954 which was prior to the existence of the 100-foot RPA Buffer. This lot is surrounded on three sides by Bennetts Creek which results in the majority of the lot being located within the 100-foot RPA Buffer. The applicants are proposing to locate the house outside of the 50- Planning Commission August 16, 2016 EX02-16 Page 5 of 6 foot channelward portion of the buffer. Given the shape of the lot, it would be very difficult to locate a house outside of the 100-foot RPA Buffer. There is a proposed total increase of impervious area of 771 square feet within the RPA Buffer. Staff does not believe that this request is based upon conditions that were self-created. c. The exception request is the minimum necessary to afford relief. The 100-foot RPA Buffer encumbers a majority of the lot as shown on the attached site plan. The applicants have requested to build a new structure that will be located within the 50-foot landward portion of the buffer. The overall increase in impervious area within the RPA will be 771 square feet. The existing encroachments in the buffer include a house, concrete sidewalks, detached garage, and gravel driveway. To mitigate impacts from construction of a new home, this request proposes the removal of the gravel driveway and conversion to vegetation, as well as constructing the new driveway with pervious asphalt. The applicants will be removing and revegetating the area of the detached garage. The proposed building footprint for EX02-16 keeps all improvements outside of the 50-foot channelward portion of the buffer, including designing the pool and spa area directly adjacent to the home so that it is outside of that portion of the buffer. Staff believes this request is the minimum necessary to afford relief. d. The exception request will be consistent with the purpose and the intent of the Preservation Area District, not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, and is not of substantial detriment to water quality. All previous structures on this lot were located within the 100-foot RPA Buffer. This is due to the shape of the lot and the fact the lot is surrounded on three sides by Bennetts Creek wetlands. The proposed structure will also be located within the 100-foot RPA Buffer; however, the proposed layout does not encroach into the 50-foot channelward portion of the buffer, which is pulling back from the previous footprint. The redevelopment of this lot should not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood. e. Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed which will prevent the exception request from causing a degradation of water quality. The proposed dwelling and structures only encroach into the 50-foot landward portion of the RPA Buffer. The applicants are proposing to revegetate previously impervious areas within the 100-foot RPA Buffer, as well as mitigation for prior removal of four mature canopy trees. The applicants have provided a Buffer Restoration Plan to provide 1,772 square feet of vegetation to help mitigate the increase of the proposed 771 square feet of impervious area within the RPA Buffer. Planning Commission August 16, 2016 EX02-16 Page 6 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the applicants’ request does satisfy the criteria outlined in Section 31- 415(f)(5)(C) of the UDO to grant an exception to the requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District. The applicants have provided a Buffer Restoration Plan consistent with buffer landscaping requirements outlined in the CBLAD Riparian Buffer Manual. In that regard, staff recommends approval of Exception Request EX02-16 with the recommended conditions of approval outlined below and in the approving resolution: 1. For the property located at 3434 Ferry Road, encroachment into the 100-foot Resource Protection Area Buffer shall be limited to the construction of a primary dwelling and related improvements as shown on the attached Exhibit C, Site Plan/Buffer Restoration Plan. 2. There shall be no removal of any additional vegetation within the RPA Buffer without prior approval from the City of Suffolk in accordance with Section 31-415(d)(1)D of the Unified Development Ordinance. 3. All landscape plantings shall be installed prior to a certificate of occupancy for the construction of the single family home and in accordance with the Buffer Restoration Plan dated July 9, 2016. Attachments  Exhibit A – Proposed Resolution  Exhibit B – Zoning/Land Use Map  Exhibit C – Buffer Restoration Plan/Site Plan  GENERAL LOCATION MAP 5*3 3 11 22 12 *5 2B ** 44 88 AA 12 *52A 12 *6 1 12 *4 8 12 *5 1 12 *4 8 B E E BERW IN BENNETTS CREEK A VE 12 *4 9 A * 22 11 22 ** 44 99 JJ * 12 *3 5 12 *4 9 E 12*49J*3 RD * 11 11 22 ** 44 99 JJ * 12*4 ** 44 99 HH 9J 9 BB II11 22 11 22 ** 44 9 11 22 ** 44 99 YEATES 9 KK 11 22 ** 44 9 Y 12 *4 DR FERR 9*D 12 *4 9 * 22 11 22 ** 44 99 * 99 FF * *44 11 22 12 *1 2 A *4 12 *4 9 G B R ID G E R D s 12 *3 4 12 *1 2 M B R ID G E R D BB EX02-16 44 12 *1 2 12 *3 4 C 12 *3 4 A 11 22 ** 33 ** 33 22 BENNETTS 11 1 in = 5 0 0 ft CREEK 12 *3 4 E *1 44 CC ** CC 12 *5 5 E BENNETTS BENNETTS CREEK AA CREEK  Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 16-08-3 CITY OF SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION A RESOLUTION FOR A CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3434 FERRY ROAD EX02-16 WHEREAS, Brian Layne of Parrish-Layne Design Group, agent(s) on the behalf of Blake and Jennifer Boykin, applicant(s) and property owner(s), has submitted an exception request for review pursuant to the provisions of the City of Suffolk’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District Ordinance, which plans are attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein and hereafter referred to as the plans; and WHEREAS, the specific request is that an exception be granted under Section 31- 415(f)(5) of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit a 12,166 square foot encroachment into the 100-foot Resource Protection Area Buffer for the construction of a single family residence; and WHEREAS, the procedural requirements for the consideration of this request by the Planning Commission have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, that: Section 1. Findings. The Suffolk Planning Commission: a) finds b) does not find 1. Granting the exception will not confer upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied by this Ordinance to other property owners in the Preservation Area District; 2. The Exception request is not based upon conditions or circumstances that are self-created or self-imposed, nor does the request arise from conditions or circumstances either permitted or nonconforming that are related to adjacent parcels; 3. The exception request is the minimum necessary to afford relief; 4. The exception request will be consistent with the purpose and the intent of the Preservation Area District, not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, and is not of substantial detriment to water quality; and 5. Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed which will prevent the exception request from causing a degradation of water quality. READ AND ADOPTED:_________________________________ TESTE:________________________________________  CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ACT EXCEPTION REQUEST EX02 -16 CONDITIONS 1. For the property located at 3434 Ferry Road, encroachment into the 100-foot Resource Protection Area Buffer shall be limited to the construction of a primary dwelling and related improvements as shown on the attached Exhibit C, Site Plan/Buffer Restoration Plan. 2. There shall be no removal of any additional vegetation within the RPA Buffer without prior approval from the City of Suffolk in accordance with Section 31-415(d)(1)D of the Unified Development Ordinance. 3. All landscape plantings shall be installed prior to a certificate of occupancy for the construction of the single family home and in accordance with the Buffer Restoration Plan dated July 9, 2016.  EXHIBIT B EX02-16 ZONING / LAND USE MAP BENNETTS CREEK 5 *3 3 11 22 1 2 *5 2 B ** 44 88 AA 1 2 *5 2 A Zoned RR 1 2 *6 1 1 2 *4 8 1 2 *4 8 B E BE RW INE 1 2 *5 1 AV E 11 22 ** 33 88 AA BENNETTS CREEK 1 2 *4 9 A * 22 1 2 *4 9 E 12*49J*3 11 22 ** 44 99 JJ * 1 2 *3 5 LN RM Zoned J ** 11 11 22 ** 44 99 J 12*4 FA HH 9J 1 22 ** 44 99 12*49 BB I 1 E 1 2 *4 11 22 ** 44 99 11 22 ** 4 4 99 I LE YEATES 11 22 ** 44 99 *C RL 00 9 *D ** 55 DR 11 2 2 KK 99FF 1122 1 2 *4 9 * *44 BB * * Zoned 11 22 MM 55 FERRY RD 22 RLM 1 2 *1 2 A *4 B R ID G E R D Zoned O-I 1 2 *4 9 G s Zoned BENNETTS CREEK 1 2 * 3 4 B RI D G E R D 11 22 BB ** DD 11 ** 22 1 2 *1 2 M B-2 Zoned Zoned 44 BB BENNETTS 1 2 *3 4 E *1 RL 11 22 Zoned CREEK B-1 Zoned ** 33 Zoned 11 22 ** 1 in = 6 0 0 ft 1 2 *1 2 RU 1 2 *3 4 C RU Zoned 1 2B-2 *5 5 E 33 44 CC RR BENNETTS CREEK ** CC AA BENNETTS CREEK EXHIBIT C EX02-16 EXHIBIT C EX02-16 THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  RESULTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF July 20, 2016 A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C05-16, Early Resultz Daycare Center, submitted by Carl and Melvina Williams, applicant(s), on the behalf of Mountain View Bennett’s Creek, LLC, Tenant in Common, and Club Forest Bennett’s Creek, LLC, Tenant In Common, property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Approved Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish a daycare, child day w/modified center, for property located at 3215 Bridge Road, Suite 4, Zoning Map 12, Parcel 12I. The conditions affected area is further identified as being located in the Sleepy Hole Voting Borough, zoned B-2, General Commercial zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Suburban Use District. THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK