Planning Commission Meeting Packets

SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 15, 2016 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DAVID HAINLEY, 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, NOVEMBER 11, 2016. HOWARD C. BENTON CHAIRMAN  AGENDA SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2016 2:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order A. Invocation B. Roll Call 2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting 3. Public Hearing: A. REZONING REQUEST, RZ07-16, (Conditional), Riverfront Parcel 8B, submitted by Melissa Venable of Land Planning Solutions, agent(s), on the behalf of Richard “Tuck” Bowie of RF8B, LLC/ RF8B Investment, LLC, applicant(s), on behalf of Continental-Lakeview Associates, LLC, property owner(s), to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City WITHDRAWN of Suffolk to change the zoning from O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district, to RU-24, Residential Urban-24 zoning district, for property located at 7101 Bridgeway Drive, Zoning Map 6, Parcel(s) 2G*B. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Nansemond Voting Borough, zoned O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district and PD, Planned Development Overlay zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Mixed Use Core District. 4. Old Business 5. New Business A. Staff Report – Consideration by the Planning Commission to present a report and recommendation to the City Council on whether it is advisable to expand the areas in which chickens may be kept B. Status Report – City Council Meeting, October 19, 2016 6. Commissioner’s Comments 7. Adjournment Page 1  MINUTES SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION October 18, 2016 2:00 P.M. The meeting of the Suffolk Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 18, 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 Scott Mills, AICP, Deputy City Manager 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 Amanda Beck, Planner II James Rountree Catina Myrick, Executive Secretary Anita Hicks The meeting was called to order by Chairman Benton and Commissioner Hicks opened with a prayer. The roll was called by Mr. Mills and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARINGS: REZONING REQUEST, RZ07-16, (Conditional), Riverfront Parcel 8B, submitted by Melissa Venable of Land Planning Solutions, agent(s), on the behalf of Richard 1 “Tuck” Bowie of RF8B, LLC/ RF8B Investment, LLC, applicant(s), on behalf of Continental-Lakeview Associates, LLC, property owner(s), to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk to change the zoning from O-I, Office- Institutional zoning district, to RU-24, Residential Urban-24 zoning district, for property located at 7101 Bridgeway Drive, Zoning Map 6, Parcel(s) 2G*B. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Nansemond Voting Borough, zoned O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district and PD, Planned Development Overlay zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Mixed Use Core District. The first item of business was introduced by the Chairman. Chairman Benton advised that the applicant requested this application be continued until the Commission’s meeting in November in order to allow time for discussion of this application and its proffers with interested community residents and adjacent property owners. Commissioner Rountree made a motion to table this application for thirty (30) days in order for the applicant to meet with adjacent property owners, seconded by Commissioner Edwards and passed by a recorded vote of 7 to 1. REZONING REQUEST, RZ08-16, (Conditional), 118 C Street, submitted by Whitney Saunders of Saunders and Ojeda, P.C., agent(s), on the behalf of Bob Arnette of Coastal Virginia Developers, applicant(s), on the behalf of Douglas Naismith, property owner(s), to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk to change the zoning from B-2, General Commercial zoning district, to RU, Residential Urban zoning district, for property located at 118 C Street, Zoning Map 36A, Parcel(s) 188 and 189*190. The affected area(s) are further identified as being located in the Cypress Voting Borough, zoned B-2, General Commercial zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Inner Ring Suburban Use District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report 2 presented by Amanda Beck, Planner II. Ms. Beck stated that the applicant is seeking to change the zoning from B-2, General Commercial, to RU, Residential Urban (Conditional) zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Inner Ring Suburban Use District. The Inner Ring Suburban Use District recommends residential densities of six (6) to twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. As proffered by the applicant, this development proposed no more than 70 single-family attached townhomes will be constructed, resulting in 10.15 dwelling units per acre, which conforms to the recommended density range. It was staff’s opinion that the requested zoning district is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Within the Central Growth Area, 8.8% of the total pipeline development within this growth area is single family attached. Of the 364 total proposed single-family attached dwellings in the development pipeline 77% remain unbuilt as of October 2016. This proposed rezoning for 70 single-family attached dwellings would increase the total single-family attached units within the Central Growth Area to just over one-tenth of the total proposed residential subdivisions still in the development pipeline. The UDO notes that B-2 zones shall be located along arterials and arterial/arterial or arterial/collector intersections. While this property is located just north of a principal arterial, access to the site is available only via C Street, which is designated as a local roadway, and has restricted connectivity and limited 3 visibility for a commercial use. In regard to Adequate Public Facilities, City water is available via an 8” water main stub that exists at the intersection of C Street and Magnolia Street that will need to be extended as part of this project. An 8” gravity sewer main fronts the property along C Street that eventually outfalls to City Pump Station #36 (Beamons Mill). The force main from this pump station discharges to the Hampton Roads Sanitation District Shingle Creek gravity interceptor system. The Shingle Creek interceptor experiences wet weather capacity issues. Due to this, the City has initiated capital improvement projects for Pump Stations #21 and #22, relocating them along the HRSD force main. This will remove the equivalent of 233 residential units from the Shingle Creek interceptor. The Public Utilities Department noted that a hydraulic analysis to determine if there is sufficient capacity in existing Pump Station #36 will be required during site plan review. With regard to the Shingle Creek force main issue, to mitigate capacity and infiltration issues due to increasing development demands on this infrastructure, the applicant proffered a prorated contribution to advance capacity for public utilities. This site is located within the City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District and is designated as a Resource Management Area. This project proposed to meet the applicable Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations. For adequate street improvements, the applicant provided a Traffic Impact Study, which advised that no traffic signal 4 improvements are warranted with the construction of this project. Based on the study, the developer proffered to construct a 150-foot exclusive, southbound right turn lane with a 150-foot taper on C Street for access to Portsmouth Boulevard. The project would have two (2) exiting and two (2) entering lanes on C Street; no other connections to surrounding subdivisions, or right-of-way construction, is proposed with this development. The TIA noted that approximately 240 vehicles travel along C Street per day, and this project would create an additional 472 vehicles per day. With regard to schools, under the current B-2 zoning there are no impacts to school facilities within the City. This development is located in Zone 2 for elementary schools, which currently has surplus capacity, and therefore no advanced capacity for this development will be required. This development is located in Zone 1 for middle schools and will generate 4.9 students. John F. Kennedy middle school currently has a deficit of students. Each additional middle school student generated would require payment in the amount of $43,191.36 for a total amount of $211,637.66 to mitigate the impact. This equates to $3,023.40 per single family attached dwelling with this development; which the applicant proffered to advance for the middle school. Similarly, this development is located in Zone 3 for high schools and will generate 7.0 students. Kings Fork high school currently has a deficit, and each additional high school student generated would require payment in the amount of $38,298.95 for a 5 total amount of $268,092.65 to mitigate for impacts to the high school. This equates to $3,829.89 per single family attached dwelling with this development. The voluntary contribution offered does meet the requirements needed to adequately advance capacity at the middle and high school levels. The applicant included several additional voluntary proffers with this application, namely addressing the living space and architectural finishes for the units. Staff found that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO, and the proposal does mitigate for impacts to public facilities. Staff recommended approval of this application with the proffers 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. Ashley Cleary, 424 Waterwheel Crescent, Suffolk, VA – she was concerned about water runoff and traffic on C Street. Speaking in rebuttal, Mr. Saunders advised that in regard to traffic on “C” Street, they understand the need to address a right turn lane at the intersection of C Street and Portsmouth Boulevard, which will make a significant difference in the wait times. He also noted that the ditch will be piped and hopefully it will create some relief in regard to water runoff. There being no more speakers, the public hearing was closed. 6 After discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Staylor made a motion to approve this application with the proffers, seconded by Commissioner Rector and passed by a recorded vote of 7 to 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C03-16, The Mansion at Double R Ranch, submitted by the Clarence V. Russell. Jr., 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 a public assembly, not otherwise enumerated, on property located at 7742 Quaker Drive, Zoning Map 62 Parcel(s) 1*3. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Holy Neck Voting Borough, zoned A, Agricultural zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a part of the Rural Agricultural 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 this application is to establish a public assembly, not otherwise enumerated. The property is the current residence of Mr. Russell and contains approximately 32 acres. The applicant proposed to utilize the two-story garage for weddings and receptions which was clarified verbally during a meeting with the property owner on September 28, 2016. This structure contains a multi-purpose room on the first floor and three finished rooms and three bathrooms on the second floor. The applicant also intends to offer the outdoor area within the property limits for use as a wedding facility. No other portion of the property may be used for events or accommodations under this Conditional Uses Permit request. Staff is aware that in the past the entire structure has been made 7 available for events such as weddings and receptions. However, the applicant’s current request is to only utilize the two story garage for a public assembly use. The applicant received design approval from the Health Department for a private septic system to be utilized for the two story garage where the events will take place. All parking for the proposed events will take place on site. The applicant has stated in their application that it will be the responsibility of the renter of the facility to provide food, beverages, and entertainment. The applicant will be required to obtain the services of a registered design professional to submit any necessary interior plans to the Division of Community Development, Fire Department, and the Health Department relating to occupancy of the structure and also classification of the use. Prior to initiation of the use, the applicant will be required to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the Division of Community Development. Also required by 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 of a public assembly. With the appropriate conditions in place, the use shall not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. In that regard, staff recommended approval of this application with the conditions noted in the staff report. 8 The public hearing was opened. There being no speakers in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vacalis advised that he was confused as to what the property was going to be used for. He found information online, which it advertises events for the whole house. Commissioner Staylor inquired about the property in violation of the current zoning. Mr. Parks advised that in May 2016 the property was inspected and a notice of violation was issued. It was referred to General District Court on June 27, 2016 and was continued pending outcome of the approval of the conditional use permit. Mr. Clarence Russell advised that the website was established in order to see who would be interested in renting this type of venue. After discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Staylor made a motion to table this application for thirty (30) days in order for City staff to provide additional information on how the property is being taxed and information on the notice of violation, seconded by Commissioner Vacalis. After discussion, Commissioner Staylor and Vacalis withdrew their motion. Commissioner Singleton made a motion to approve this application with the conditions included in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Rountree and passed by a recorded vote of 6 to 2. 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C10-16, Hanson’s Accessory Dwelling, submitted by Ben Jones, JFLP Ventures, agent(s), on the behalf of David S. and Barbara S. Hanson , 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 an accessory dwelling unit, for property located at 7832 Crittenden Road, Zoning Map 11, Parcel(s) 12E*2*PT*E*3. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Chuckatuck Voting Borough, zoned RE, Rural Estate zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Rural Conservation 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 advised that this application is to construct an accessory dwelling unit on the property. The applicant requested to build a 1,288 square foot, two-story accessory structure within which the applicant is requesting to establish an accessory dwelling unit with a total living area of 852 square feet. Section 31-406 of the UDO requires that a conditional use permit be obtained for an accessory dwelling unit within the RE District. Supplemental standards are established in the UDO for detached accessory dwelling units which includes, setbacks, a 35% maximum gross floor area of the principal structure, septic connection, maximum number of units, parking, and use. This application meets all of the supplemental standards as outlined in the staff report. 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. 10 The public hearing was opened. There being no speakers in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vacalis made a motion to approve this application with the conditions and add a condition that the accessory dwelling unit shall be used by family members only, seconded by Commissioner Staylor and failed by a recorded vote of 7 to 1. Commissioner Hicks made a motion to approve this application with the conditions, seconded by Commissioner Rector and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. STATUS REPORT: Mr. Mills gave a status report of the September 21st City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Mills advised that the Committee on Ordinances concluded their discussion in reference to urban/backyard chickens and will forward a report to the full Commission next month. Commissioner Singleton made a motion to bring a staff report to the Commission in regard to urban/backyard chickens, seconded by Commissioner Edwards and passed by a voice vote of 8 to 0. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 11  MT: Rountree MT: Staylor MT: Singleton MT: Vacalis PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND: Edwards 2ND: Rector 2ND: Rountree 2ND: Staylor MEETING TO: Table for thirty TO: Approve TO: Approve TO: Approve October 18, 2016 (30) days w/proffers w/conditions w/conditions and add condition shall be used by family members only VOTE: 7-1 VOTE: 7-1 VOTE: 6-2 VOTE: 7-1 C3-16 C10-16 RZ7-16 RZ8-16 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 X X X X X Singleton, Arthur X X X X Staylor, Mills X X X X X X Vacalis, James  MT: Hicks MT: MT: MT: PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND: Rector 2ND: 2ND: 2ND: MEETING TO: Approve TO: TO: TO: October 18, 2016 w/conditions VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: VOTE: VOTE: C10-16 PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO X X Benton, Howard C. X X Edwards, Johnnie X X Hicks, Anita X X Rector, John X X Rountree, Ronnie Singleton, Arthur X X X X Staylor, Mills X X Vacalis, James THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  EXHIBIT C RZ07-16 ZONING / LAND USE MAP WE BUCKEYE E N LL NE RD LL EG T OW RD S 6*2G*8F CO DR ME D R Zoned R JA PA CP CO RK Zoned LL EG M-1 6* S 1 E D 66 * 2 DR BR 2 G * 22 G *O G ** 33 R 44 2G 66 * IDG * 8 * 22 G G ** 3 EW D 6*1B 6* 66 * 66 * * 22 GG * 22 G ** 3 3 66 AY G ** 3 3 77 3 88 6* 6 * 1 66 * DR * 22 G Zoned G ** 3 3 99 1 C SE *A RU 6*1C*B OU VIL PL LAGE 6*2G*E MM SQU DR E R ARE Zoned H PE AR 6*2D SU SH DR RL 6*2G*C Zoned BLV D AY TT W O-I 6E*RF*FF*OS*2*B 6*2G*B 6*2E W IE RIO U RV MAR O RB 6*2G*A HA NO G RT 2 H RU HR 6* M O * C MA P *2 N PL 6*2I*10A Zoned *O S* 6*2B 6*2H B 6E WATE *2*E M-1 RS E *O *R BUOY DGE S* F* LN A HH CT Zoned LAKESID 6E *R NO F* EE RT 6*2I*10B H PD E WA RIVE V DR EY R RD HA RBO UR 6*3*2*BB s 6*GC*7A NORTH DR JAMES DR 6*2C Zoned 6*3*21 V IE W B LV D 6*2J*A 61*in B-2 GC= *525 6 A ft THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  STAFF REPORT Urban/Backyard Chickens Issue In response to direction provided by City Council, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 21, 2016, initiated a review and report by the Committee on Ordinances as to whether it is advisable to amend Chapter 31 of the Unified Development Ordinance of the Code of the City of Suffolk to expand areas within the City in which urban/backyard chickens may be kept. Accordingly, the following information was reviewed and considered by the Committee on Ordinances: Unified Development Ordinance Under Appendix A of the Unified Development Ordinance, any chicken kept in the City of Suffolk is currently considered to be an accessory agricultural animal to an agricultural use or a form of livestock defined as any other individual animal specifically raised for food or fiber. As defined, they are permitted in the A (Agricultural), RR (Rural Residential) and RE (Rural Estate) zoning districts under Section 31-702, Animal Regulations and Agricultural Production Operations and Facilities. With the exception of intensive livestock operations (200 animal units or more), the keeping of chickens is subject to the provision that they be fenced so that they are no closer than 20 feet from a dwelling unit on an adjoining property. The keeping of chickens is currently prohibited in all other zoning districts under this section. As noted above, chickens are allowed to be kept in three predominantly rural zoning districts. Utilizing the City’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, an analysis was conducted to determine the total land area within Suffolk where chickens may be kept under the existing regulations. As shown in the chart and map below, 67.7% of the City’s total land area is located within a zoning district where chickens are permitted to be kept. The total area where they are 1 permitted is comprised of land zoned A, Agricultural (58.7%), RR, Rural Residential (3.2%), and RE, Rural Estate (6.2%). 2 Having a total land area of approximately 430 square miles, the City of Suffolk is somewhat unique in that it has a wide and diverse range of development forms and land use opportunities for one to choose to live in so to satisfy their preferred interest and lifestyle. For example, one may choose to live in the approximately 291 square miles (67.7%) of the more rural areas of the City that currently affords the opportunity for the raising of chickens. These are areas of low density where the predominant land uses are forest, agriculture, and single-family residential dwellings. For those persons that do not desire to live in a rural setting, there are also ample opportunities to live in the approximately 32 square miles (7.4%) of the more densely populated suburban or urban neighborhoods which do not afford the opportunity to raise chickens. The table below specifies the size of each residential zoning district grouped by whether chickens are allowed. Land Area by Selected Zoning Districts Area in Percent Zoning District Acres of Total Residential Areas Where Chickens are Permitted Agricultural, A 161,299 58.7% Rural Residential, RR 7,653 3.2% Rural Estate, RE 16,996 6.2% Sub-Total 185,947 67.7% Residential Areas Where Chickens are Not Permitted Residential Low Density, RL 7,582 2.8% Residential Low Medium Density, RLM 8,742 3.2% Residential Medium Density, RM 2,167 .08% Residential Compact, RC 574 .02% Residential Urban, RU 1,144 .04% Residential Urban - 12, RU-12 - - Residential Urban - 18, RU-18 - - Residential Urban - 24, RU-24 - - Sub-Total 20,209 7.4% All Other Conservation, Mixed Use, and Non-Residential Areas Where Chickens are Not Permitted Sub-Total 68,473 24.9% Grand Total 274,629 100% 3  Survey of Neighboring Localities In addition to Suffolk regulations, a comparison of the regulations of neighboring localities pertaining to the keeping of urban/backyard chickens in residential areas was also provided for review. The comparison shows that the cities of Suffolk and Virginia Beach consider chickens to be livestock/agricultural animals, and as such, prohibit the keeping of chickens in non- agricultural areas. In contrast, the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk and Portsmouth permit the raising of chickens in areas designated for detached single family development, as shown in the table below. Urban / Backyard Chickens Survey of Selected Localities Jun-16 Urban / Backyard Enclosure or Location and Roosters Zoning or Land Locality Chickens Minimum Lot Size Housing Setback Permit Required Permitted Uses Restrictions Permitted Restrictions Restrictions 20' from Dwelling No N/A N/A A, RR and RE Must be Fenced on Adjoining N/A Suffolk Property Agricultural, Rural Considered Residential and Rural Agricultural Animal Estate Greater Than Detached Single Fully Enclosed 15' Side/Rear Yes No Yes Portsmouth 5,000 Square Feet Family Dwelling Coop Yard Setback Maximum of 6 Rear Yard Only SFD Zoning Fully Enclosed Yes No No Rear Yard Only No Chesapeake Districts Coop Maximum of 6 Greater Than SFD Zoning Fully Enclosed 15' from Property Yes No 10,000 Square Yes Districts Coop Line Norfolk Feet Must Not be Visable Detached Single Maximum of 6 from any Right-of- Family Dwelling Way Agriculture Use No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Virginia Beach Only Considered Agricultural Animal Considerations In considering whether it is desirable to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to allow the raising of chickens in additional residential zoning districts, the Committee on Ordinances discussed the following issues suggested by staff as matters of consideration should a text amendment be proposed at a future date: • Where to Expand When considering the expansion of the permitting of urban/backyard chickens as an accessory use in residential areas, consideration should be given to within which zoning districts such expansion may be considered. For example, should the keeping of such flocks be restricted to only those zoning districts where only detached single family residential lots are permitted (see table below)? 4  The Committee generally focused on the lower density residential zoning districts as potential areas for expansion, including the RM, Residential Medium Density, RLM, Residential Low-Medium Density, and RL, Residential Low Density, zoning districts, as shown in the map below. Should it be determined that it is advisable to expand the areas in which chickens may be kept, the addition of these areas would constitute an additional 18,491 acres, or 6.8% of the City. Inclusion of these districts would allow urban/backyard chickens to be kept in approximately 75% of the City’s total area. Selected Development Criteria By Residential Zoning District Maximum Minimum Zoning District Density Lot Size Permitted Residential Uses (Units/Acre) (Conventional) Detached Attached Multi- Single Single Family & Family Family Apartments Agricultural, A 1.0 1 acre X Rural Residential, RR 1.0 1 acre X Rural Estate, RE 0.3 3 acres X Residential Low Density, RL 1.5 30,000 sf X Residential Low Med. Density, RLM 2.9 15,000 sf X Residential Medium Density, RM 4.4 10,000 sf X X Residential Compact, RC 7.3 6,000 sf X X X Residential Urban, RU 10.9 4,000 sf X X X Residential Urban - 12, RU-12 12.0 3,630 sf X X X Residential Urban - 18, RU-18 18.0 n/a X X Residential Urban - 24, RU-24 24.0 n/a X X 5 6 • Minimum Lot Size: When considering the expansion of the permitting of urban/backyard chickens as an accessory use in residential areas, consideration should be given to not only within which zoning districts such expansion may be considered, but under what minimum standards may this accessory use be established. As shown in the table above, for each designated residential zoning district established by the UDO, there is a corresponding minimum permitted lot size. These minimum lot sizes are based on the corresponding maximum allowable density and presume a conventional form of development versus one of the permitted alternative forms such as a cluster subdivision, where the UDO does not establish an acceptable minimum lot size. Accordingly, while it may be concluded that it may be acceptable to allow the expansion of the permitting of urban/backyard chickens as an accessory use in a conventional subdivision that meets the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which it is located, it may not, in contrast, be acceptable to permit the establishment of an urban/backyard flock within a subdivision type that may have significantly smaller lot sizes than is usually located within the same zoning district. The Committee generally focused on minimum lot areas of 10,000 or 15,000 square feet, which correspond to the minimum lot size in the RM, Residential Medium, and RLM, Residential Low-Medium, zoning districts, respectively. • Maximum Number and Gender of Chickens: As noted above, a survey of Suffolk’s neighboring localities prohibits the keeping of roosters and limits the maximum size of urban/backyard flocks to 4 to 6 chickens. How should the City of Suffolk address these matters when considering the expansion of the permitting of urban/backyard chickens as an accessory use in residential areas? • Housing/Enclosure: When considering the expansion of the permitting of urban/backyard chickens as an accessory use in residential areas, consideration should be given to the type and form of housing or enclosure in which urban/backyard flocks may be kept. For example, what is the appropriate amount of space per animal needed to avoid overcrowding; must a chicken coop be enclosed with a roof; and may chickens by allowed to roam free and unsecured. • Location and Setbacks: When considering the expansion of the permitting of urban/backyard chickens as an accessory use in residential areas, the location as to where any such use may be located must be addressed. For example, should such flocks be restricted to the back yard or back and side yard only. Concurrently, at what minimum distance from adjacent property lines, water bodies or homes should any structure associated with the housing of urban/backyard chickens be permitted? • Animal Care and Biosecurity: As is the case for the keeping of all animals, proper and humane care is an important consideration. Virginia Code Section 3.2-6503.1, Care of Agricultural Animals by Owners, is the principal regulation governing the care of chickens, requiring that each owner provide: feed to prevent malnourishment, water to prevent dehydration, and veterinary care as needed to address impairment of health or bodily function. 7  The issue for the need for proper and effective biosecurity measures is also an important consideration. Following the May 18, 2016, meeting of City Council, where several individuals of the public spoke in support of the expansion of areas where the keeping of urban / backyard chickens may be permitted, City staff was immediately contacted by representatives from the Virginia commercial poultry industry. Specifically, while not opposed to the idea of allowing the keeping of small urban/backyard flocks, Hobey Bauhan, President of the Virginia Poultry Federation wrote to emphasize the need to incorporate as much protection as possible against avian influenza (AI) and other infectious avian diseases. In his written comments he noted the outbreak of AI in both commercial and backyard flocks in the Midwestern United States, which cost approximately $1 billion to contain and generated a $3 to $4 billion economic impact on the U.S. poultry industry. Examples of effective biosecurity measures include, access of backyard flocks by the Virginia State Veterinarian’s Office for inspection and examination; minimum distance separation from nearby poultry farms, hatcheries, feed mills, and processing plants; the proper disposal of animal waste and carcasses; and owner education. • Nuisances: When considering how to best regulate the permitting of urban/backyard chickens, issues such as excessive noise, offensive odors, and free running (unsecured) chickens should also be considered so as to assure their presence in residential neighborhoods and communities do not become a nuisance to other persons. As summarized below, a review of the record of the complaints staff has received and investigated shows that such issues are often the cause for the complaint (see table below). The Committee specifically discussed responsibility for complaints regarding unsecured chickens, which would fall to Animal Control. The Committee also discussed prohibiting the sale of eggs and slaughtering of chickens on site. Summary of Complaints Received Involving the Keeping of Urban / Backyard Chickens Number of Complaints Received Basis of Complaint Keeping of Agricultural Animals (Livestock) Where 5 Not Permitted 1 Offensive Odors 2 Unsecure Agricultural Animals (Livestock) Total Number of Complaints Received: 8 • Permitting and Licensing: In order to ensure the initial and continued compliance with applicable regulations pertaining to the keeping of urban/backyard chickens, matters associated with documenting the approval, permitting and licensing of any such use must be considered. 8 Conclusion Based on the above information and considerations, the Committee on Ordinances did not recommend that is advisable to expand the areas in which urban/backyard chickens may be kept at this time. The members were evenly split in regard to the issue, with two members believing it is advisable to consider allowing urban/backyard chickens in the RLM and RL zoning districts, and two members taking the position that is not advisable to expand the areas where chickens may be kept. As such, the Planning Commission may choose to forward a report and recommendation to City Council to take no action on the matter at this time or it may choose to make an alternate recommendation to initiate an ordinance text amendment based on the above information. 9 THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  RESULTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF October 19, 2016 A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C09-16, First Baptist Church-Mahan, submitted by Nathan Lahy, PLA, ASLA, agent(s), on the behalf First Baptist Church-Mahan, 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 a place of worship, large, at least 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary, for properties located at 112 Approved Mahan Street, Zoning Map(s) 34G11(A), Parcel(s) 101*102, also included are Zoning w/conditions Map(s) 34G11(A), Parcel(s) 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108*109, 126 and 127*128. The affected area(s) are further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RU, Residential Urban and CBD, Central Business District zoning districts. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Mixed Use Core District. B. REZONING REQUEST, RZ03-16, (Conditional), NRGC Residential Community: submitted by Melissa Venable of Land Planning Solutions, agent(s), on the behalf of Tuck Bowie of NRGC Development, LLC, applicant(s), on behalf of River Highlands, LLC, property owner(s), to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk to Approved change the zoning from PD, Planned Development zoning district, to RU, Rural Urban w/proffers zoning district, for property located at 1000 Hillpoint Boulevard, Zoning Map 26F, Parcel(s) S*6. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Chuckatuck Voting Borough, zoned PD, Planned Development zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Suburban Use District. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C03A-03, River Club, submitted by Catherine Scarborough of L.M. Sandler and Sons, Incorporated, applicant(s), on the behalf of River Club VA, LLC, 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 modify the Approved original approval of the River Club subdivision. The affected areas are located at Zoning w/conditions Map, 12, Parcel 23, zoned RR, Rural Residential zoning district and, Zoning Map, 12, Parcel 25, RR, Rural Residential zoned and RL, Residential Low Density zoning district. The affected areas are further identified as being located in the Cypress Voting Borough. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Suburban Use District and Inner-Ring Suburban Use District. D. 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 Approved Conditional Use Permit to establish an accessory dwelling unit, on property located at 4560 w/conditions 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. THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK