Suffolk Planning Commission Agenda Packet (April 18, 2017) by City of Suffolk, Virginia

SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR APRIL 18, 2017

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, APRIL 14, 2017.

HOWARD C. BENTON CHAIRMAN

AGENDA SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2017 2:00 P.M. 1.

Call to Order A.

Invocation

Roll Call

Approval of minutes from previous meeting

Public Hearings: A.

REZONING REQUEST, RZ16-16, (Conditional), Meadows Landing: submitted by James R. Bradford of Site Selection and Design, LLC, agent(s), on the behalf of Bob Arnette, Meadows Landing Associates, LLC, applicant(s), on the behalf of Richard E. Conner, property owner(s), to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk to change the zoning from A, Agricultural zoning district, to RLM, Residential Low Medium Density zoning district, for property located at 595 Turlington Road, Zoning Map 43, Parcel(s) 21. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Whaleyville Voting Borough, zoned A, Agricultural zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Suburban Use District.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C03-17, Lighthouse Ministries of Suffolk: submitted by David Joyner, agent on the behalf of Lighthouse Ministries of Suffolk, applicant(s), on the behalf of David and Susan Joyner and N. Howard and Hazel Small, property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant the Conditional Use Permit to establish a place of worship, (small, under 6,000 square feet in main sanctuary), on properties located at 6617 Holland Road, Zoning Map 40A, Parcel(s) A29*PT28 and A30. The affected area(s) is further identified as being located in the Holy Neck Voting Borough, zoned VC, Village Center zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Rural Agriculture Use District.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C04-17, Brick and Mortar Brewing Company: submitted by David Stacknick of Brick and Mortar Brewing Company, applicant(s), on the behalf of Suffolk Fairgrounds Properties, LLC, property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant the Conditional Use Permit to establish a winery or micro-brewery with entertainment (nightclub), on property located at 212 and 218 East Washington Street, Zoning Map 34G18(A), Parcel(s) 220 and 221. The affected area(s) are further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District zoning district. The Page 1

2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Mixed Use Core District. D.

ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT, OA02-17; initiated by the City of Suffolk, to amend the Code of the City of Suffolk, Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 7, Supplemental Use Regulations, Section 31-701, Accessory Uses and Structures, and Appendix A, Definitions, for the purpose of establishing definitions and standards pertaining to the keeping of backyard chickens. The purpose of the text amendments is to update and refine the Code of the City of Suffolk, Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance due to a change in circumstances.

Old Business

New Business A.

Status Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; City Council Meeting, March 22, 2017

Commissionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Comments

Adjournment

Page 2

MINUTES SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION March 21, 2017 2:00 P.M. The meeting of the Suffolk Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 21, 2017, 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 Arthur Singleton, Vice-Chairman Johnnie Edwards John Rector Mills Staylor James Rountree Anita Hicks James Vacalis

Helivi Holland, City Attorney David Hainley, Dir. of Planning & Com. Dev. Bob Goumas, Assistant Director of Planning David Parks, Principal Planner Amanda Beck, Planner II Andrew Reitelbach, Planner I Amy Thurston, Planner I Catina Myrick, Executive Secretary

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Benton and Commissioner Rountree opened with a prayer. The roll was called by Mr. Hainley and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as written. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT: PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUEST, PS02-16, NRGC Residential 1

Subdivision: submitted by River Highlands, LLC, applicant(s), on behalf of Tuck Bowie of Terry-Peterson Residential, property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-308 and 31-508 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to approve a Preliminary Subdivision Plat to create 178 residential parcels and associated rights-of-way, on 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 RU, Residential Urban zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Suburban Use District. The first item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by David Parks, Principal Planner. Mr. Parks stated that the proposed residential subdivision will contain 178 detached single family homes within the Hillpoint Neighborhood.

The proposed subdivision will be developed as a

conventional subdivision. All of the proposed lots meet the dimensional requirements of the RU district as required within Table 407-1 of the UDO. The site will be served by both City water and sewer. This conventional subdivision layout provides one main active open space parcel along the Nansemond River. This active open space will consist of a path to a pier with an overlook along the Nansemond River. This active open space parcel is also the location of the existing Civil War Battery, Fort Huger and the developer stated that a memorial plaque will be placed to provide a history of the site. As part of the conditional rezoning, the developer is required to provide the City with a Cultural Resource Report for this fort site. The layout also provides for 1.21 acres of passive open space which generally consist of grassy areas and critical areas

within the site. The Department of Parks and Recreation reviewed the open space layout and recommended approval based on the layout provided. The open space plan meets the requirements of the UDO.

The traffic impacts associated with the

preliminary plat are consistent with the findings of the previously approved conditional rezoning. This subdivision proposed two access points off of Hillpoint Boulevard. One entrance will be a full entrance and exit and the other proposed access point will provide for right in/right out only. The main entrance to the subdivision will be constructed through the existing parking area for the Nansemond River Golf Course. This will require a redesign of the parking lot and will be reviewed accordingly through the engineering plan review process. The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Traffic Engineer reviewed and approved the recommendations in the traffic impact study. Stormwater will be treated through a combination of structures including ponds, bioretention structures, and rooftop disconnects. Further design of these structures will be reviewed by Public Works through the engineering plan review. It was staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinion that the proposed preliminary subdivision plat is in compliance with the minimum design standards of the UDO and is consistent with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Based on these findings of fact, staff recommended approval of this application with the conditions noted in the staff report. Speaking in favor of this application was Melissa Venable, 5857 Harbour View Blvd. 3

Suffolk, VA. Commissioner Rountree made a motion to approve this application with the conditions, seconded by Commissioner Hicks and passed by a voice vote of 8 to 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C01-17, Hampton Roads ParkwayVEPCO T-Mobile VA70660A: submitted by C.E. Forehand, FCI Towers, agent(s) on the behalf of T-Mobile c/o FCI Towers and C.E. Forehand, applicant(s), on the behalf of Robert Copehart of Virginia Dominion Power, property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant the Conditional Use Permit to establish a telecommunication tower, on property located at 6545 Hampton Roads Parkway, Zoning Map 6, Parcel (s) 13C*1. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Nansemond Voting Borough, zoned B-2, General Commercial zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Mixed Use Core District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by Andrew Reitelbach, Planner I. Mr. Reitelbach stated that the applicant proposed to construct a 145’ monopole telecommunications tower, as well as a lightning rod and associated equipment, through the middle of the existing 131’ latticestyle transmission tower on a parcel containing a Dominion Power substation. A short access drive branching off from the main driveway into the Dominion facility will also be constructed. The City’s Traffic Engineer expressed no concerns about this because there will be no new entrance on Hampton Roads Parkway and a minimal number of new trips overall. The proposed tower conforms to the character of the site and

neighborhood where it will be located and should not pose any adverse effects on the surrounding area. By placing this new telecommunication tower within the footprint of, and up through the middle of, an existing Dominion transmission tower, the new tower is relatively disguised and minimizes the visual impact on its surroundings. Co-siting these towers also limits the number of new individually-standing towers in the area. The UDO supports the co-siting of telecommunications towers with transmission towers in order to lessen the impact of new towers. It is compatible with both existing uses on the subject parcel â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the transmission tower and the substation facility. The proposed tower should not have an injurious impact on the surrounding neighborhood either, based on the existing uses of the subject parcel and because the tower is co-sited with the transmission tower, minimizing its impact. There should also be minimal impact on any residential areas â&#x20AC;&#x201C; businesses surround the parcel on three sides, and a BMP pond buffers this site from the apartments located on the parcel to the east. The tower should not be an endangerment to the public, as it meets the required setbacks and is proposed to be built within the footprint of an existing Dominion transmission tower. Dominion approved the construction of this tower on its property. Historically, the city has not required lighting on towers that are constructed through the middle of existing Dominion transmission towers, as this one is. This proposed tower should enhance telecommunications service in a rapidly growing and developing area of the 5

city, the Hampton Roads Parkway and College Drive corridors. It was staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinion that the request in question meets the standards outlined in the UDO, and the proposal will have no adverse impacts on the surrounding area. Therefore, staff recommended approval of this application with the conditions noted in staff report. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application was C. E. Forehand, FCI Towers. He asked for the Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approval of this application. There being no speakers in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Singleton made a motion to approve this application with the conditions and added a condition to add FAA lighting to the tower, seconded by Commissioner Hicks and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. SUBDIVISION VARIANCE REQUEST, V01-16, River Creek Crossing: submitted by Tim Jones, of JFLP Ventures, LLC, applicant(s), on the behalf of JK II Family, LLC, property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-308 and 31-515 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a variance to the Street Improvement Standards of Section 31-612 of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit the creation of a residential subdivision which lots derive access via a single cul-de-sac road on the property located at 9345 Rivershore Drive, Zoning Map 1A(C ), Parcel(s) C. The affected area(s) is identified as being located in the Chuckatuck Voting Borough, zoned RL, Residential Low Density zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a part of Northern Growth Area, Suburban Use District and the Crittenden/Eclipse Village Use District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by Amanda Beck, Planner II. Ms. Beck stated that the applicant requested a variance from Section 31-612 subsection (f)(7), Connectivity and Secondary Access. 6

The proposed subdivision would be accessed via a cul-de-sac, resulting in a connectivity ratio of 1.0.

While the project is unable to meet the minimum

connectivity ratio, the applicant did stress that the cul-de-sac, which would become public right-of-way, would be one of few streets within the surrounding area designed to accommodate for emergency service vehicle turn around, as many of the existing streets in Eclipse dead end or terminate into a private drive. Staff believes that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or injurious to other property. In fact, the addition of an appropriately sized cul-de-sac would facilitate the turnaround of emergency service vehicles in this area. The condition which the request is based upon is unique to the property. The lots surrounding parcel 1A(C)C have been subdivided, sold, and built upon in a fashion which makes infill development difficult on this parcel. Because of the physical surroundings, and the shape of the parcel, requiring a connectivity ratio of 1.40 creates a hardship for the applicant. The relief sought does not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan, but in fact follows the development pattern allowed by RL zoning and also suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. Due to the size and shape of parcel 1A(C)C, as well as the physical surroundings which prevent additional street connections from being extended to adjacent properties, staff felt that the conditions upon which the request is based are unique to the subject 7

property and that it could only be developed with a single cul-de-sac providing access. In that regard, staff recommended approval of this application with the condition noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application was Melissa Venable, 5857 Harbour View Blvd. Suffolk, VA. Speaking in opposition was William Beigle, 9338 Rivershore Drive, Suffolk, VA – he expressed his concerns with the drainage issues. Also, speaking in opposition was William Plemmons, 9228 Wigneil Street, Suffolk, VA. Also, speaking in opposition was Steve Charles, 9191 Wigneil Street, Suffolk, VA. Also, speaking in opposition was Robert Spain, 9368 Rivershore Drive, Suffolk, VA – he advised that five (5) houses are way too much for this area. Also, speaking in opposition was Caroline Martin, 9164 Wigneil Street, Suffolk, VA – inquired if the City had done a study to see if high density supports this area. Also, speaking in opposition was Cathy Darden, 1776 Bleakhorn Rd., Suffolk, VA. Commissioner Rountree made a motion to allow an additional 10 minutes for speakers to speak, seconded by Commission Staylor and passed by a voice vote of 8 to 0. Speaking in opposition was Johnny Holland, 9351 Rivershore Drive, Suffolk, VA – he advised that this project does not fit into this community. 8

Also, speaking in opposition was David Canada, 9316 Dixon Road, Suffolk, VA – he advised that their community need nice roads with sidewalks. Also, speaking in opposition was Sandford Tomlin, 9389 Rivershore Drive, Suffolk, VA – he also expressed his concerns with safety and environmental issues in this area. Speaking in rebuttal was Melissa Venable – she stated that they will be improving the water runoff situation and also will be doing improvements to the roads. There being no more speakers, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rountree advised that all the concerns and questions raised by the community will be looked at when the subdivision plat has been submitted; therefore, he made a motion to approve this application with the conditions, seconded by Commissioner Hicks and passed by a recorded vote of 7 to 0 to 1. (Commissioner Rector abstained.) ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT, OA1-17; initiated by the City of Suffolk, to amend the Code of the City of Suffolk, Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 7, Supplemental Use Regulations, Section 31-701, Accessory Uses and Structures, and Appendix A, Definitions, for the purpose of establishing definitions and standards pertaining to the installation and removal of temporary family health care structures. The purpose of the text amendment is to update and refine the Code of the City of Suffolk, Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance due to a change in circumstances and changes to the Code of Virginia. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report presented by Amy Thurston, Planner I. Ms. Thurston stated that this text amendment

is to establish temporary family health care structures as an accessory use in accordance with changes to the State Code. The purpose of a temporary family health care structure is to provide care from a caregiver to a mentally or physically impaired person. The property must be owned or occupied by the caregiver as his or her residence. This use must be permitted as an accessory use in any single-family residential zoning district and shall not be subject to a special use permit or other requirements beyond those imposed on other authorized accessory structures. The structure must be transportable; it cannot consist of a foundation, and cannot exceed 300 gross square feet. The occupants of the structure are limited to one mentally or physically impaired person or, in the case of a married couple, two occupants, one of whom is a mentally or physically impaired person, and the other requires assistance with one or more activities of daily living as certified in writing by a physician licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The locality may require that the applicant provide evidence of compliance on an annual basis as long as the temporary family health care structure remains on the property. Evidence may also involve an inspection by the locality. Such structures may be required to connect to any water, sewer, and electric utilities that are serving the primary residence on the property and shall comply with all requirements of the Virginia Department of Health. No signage advertising the existence of the use is permitted. Lastly, the structure must be removed within 60 days 10

of the date on which the structure was last occupied by a mentally or physically impaired person receiving services or in need of assistance. Based on the considerations previously noted, staff recommended approval of the proposed text amendments. The public hearing was opened. There being no speakers in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rector made a motion to approve this ordinance text amendment, seconded by Commissioner Vacalis and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. STATUS REPORT: Mr. Hainley reported on the results of the February 15th City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Singleton made a motion to initiate an ordinance text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance in reference to 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.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 21, 2017

PRESENT

ABSENT

MT: Rountree

MT: Singleton

MT: Rountree

MT: Rector

2ND: Hicks

2ND: Vacalis

TO: Approve w/conditions

TO: Approve w/conditions and add condition about lighting

TO: Approve w/conditions

TO: Approve

VOTE: 8-0

VOTE: 7-0-1

VOTE: 8-0

PS2-16

C1-17

V1-16

YES

OA1-17 NO

YES

Abstained

Rountree, Ronnie

Singleton, Arthur

Staylor, Mills

Vacalis, James

Benton, Howard C. Edwards, Johnnie Hicks, Anita Rector, John

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 21, 2017

MT: Singleton

MT:

2ND: Edwards

2ND:

TO: Initiate text amendment in reference to backyard chickens

TO:

VOTE: 8-0

VOTE:

Initiate Text Amendment

PRESENT

ABSENT

YES

Hicks, Anita

Rector, John

Rountree, Ronnie

Singleton, Arthur

Staylor, Mills

Benton, Howard C. Edwards, Johnnie

Vacalis, James

YES

STAFF REPORT DESCRIPTION REZONING REQUEST: Rezoning Request, RZ16-16, Meadows Landing, requesting to rezone 17.31 acres from A, Agricultural, zoning district, to RLM, Residential Low Medium Density, zoning district. APPLICANT: Submitted by James R. Bradford of Site Selection and Design, LLC, agent(s), on behalf of Bob Arnette, Meadows Landing Associates, LLC, applicant(s), on behalf of Richard E. Conner, property owner. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 595 Turlington Road and is further identified as Zoning Map 43, Parcel 21, Whaleyville Voting Borough. The subject property is located near the southwest corner of the intersection of Turlington Road and Jackson Road. The property fronts approximately 634 linear feet on Turlington Road and 608 linear feet on Jackson Road. PRESENT ZONING: A- Agricultural zoning district. EXISTING LAND USE: The parcel currently contains a single-family dwelling on approximately 0.91 acres and 16.4 acres of cultivated farmland. According to the applicant, the site contains approximately 5.3 acres of forested wetlands. In addition, a 150 foot wide Virginia Power right-of-way easement, which is approximately 3.03 acres, runs diagonally in the northern portion of the property. PROPOSED LAND USE: The proposed use of the property is single-family detached dwellings. SURROUNDING LAND USES: North – Single-family dwellings zoned RLM- Residential Low Medium West – Unimproved land zoned A- Agricultural South – Single-family dwellings zoned RLM- Residential Low Medium East – Undeveloped land zoned C- Conservation COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a part of the Central Growth Area, Suburban Use District. CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA DESIGNATION: The property is located within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District and is designated as a 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. A notice, containing a copy of the staff report, was also provided to the applicant on April 14, 2017.

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 RZ16-16 Page 2 of 6

STAFF ANALYSIS ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to rezone 17.31 acres from A, Agricultural, to RLM, Residential Low Medium, for a parcel of land located at 595 Turlington Road. The subject property is further identified as Zoning Map 43, Parcel 21, Whaleyville Voting Borough. The subject parcel fronts approximately 634 linear feet on Turlington Road and 608 linear feet on Jackson Road. The existing land uses include a one story single-family dwelling, which is located on approximately 0.91 acres, and 16.4 acres of cultivated farmland. According to the applicant, this site contains approximately 5.3 acres of forested wetlands. In addition, a 150 foot wide Virginia Power rightof-way easement, which is approximately 3.03 acres, runs diagonally in the northern portion of the property. As presented, the applicant proposes to rezone the property for the purpose of developing singlefamily detached dwellings as permitted in the RLM zoning district. The applicant intends to develop a cluster subdivision, as stated in their narrative; however, the applicant is under no obligation to do so and may choose to develop a conventional subdivision as permitted under the Unified Development Ordinance. CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS In accordance with Appendix B, Section B-4 of the Unified Development Ordinance, rezoning applications must include a statement of the reasons for seeking an amendment to the zoning maps of the City of Suffolk. The applicant provided several reasons for this rezoning request. First, the surrounding properties are zoned RLM, Residential Low Medium, to the immediate north and south, A, Agricultural, to the west, and C, Conservation, to the east; therefore, the applicant believes that the proposed zoning would fill in existing gaps in RLM zoning and provide a buffer to the Agricultural zoning district to the west. Secondly, the applicant indicated that this property is one of only a few remaining parcels that front Turlington Road and are still zoned Agricultural. In addition, Turlington Road is currently improved with City water and sewer. The applicant stated that the proposed development would be consistent with the Comprehensive Planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Themes, Policies, and Actions which encourage cluster developments to preserve and protect the natural environment and provide for open space. In addition, the applicant believes that the proposed zoning is compatible with the existing uses and densities permitted within the surrounding area (which may or may not be similarly situated with jurisdictional wetlands). Lastly, the applicant stated that rezoning the property would provide valuable tax revenue to the City. 1.

Comprehensive Plan The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a part of the Central Growth Area, Suburban Use District. The Suburban Use District is the least dense area within the Growth Areas and should be primarily composed of traditional residential subdivisions. Single-family dwellings are the most common use found in this district. The recommended density is 1-5 dwelling units per acre; the proposed zoning would fall within this range by allowing a maximum of 2.9 dwelling units per acre. Based on the information provided by the applicant, the applicable place type would be Suburban Neighborhood under the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 RZ16-16 Page 3 of 6

The Comprehensive Plan sets specific themes and policies related to land use, transportation, open space, and the environment that should be considered when contemplating a rezoning application. Relevant to this application are the following: Policy 2-1: Keep development focused in designated Growth Areas in the City  Action 2-1A: Ensure that the City’s land use regulations support higher density/intensity development in focused Growth Areas. The proposed RLM, Residential Low Medium zoning, appears to be appropriate for a location within the Suburban Use District of the Central Growth Area as it would allow a maximum of 2.9 dwelling units per acre. As stated, the current use of the property is one single-family dwelling and approximately 16.4 acres of cultivated farmland; therefore, the proposed zoning would result in an increase in density, which is encouraged within the Central Growth Area. The proposed zoning would also be in keeping with the surrounding single-family dwellings. It is staff’s opinion that the requested zoning district is consistent with the policies of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Policy 4-1: Provide opportunities for residents to adopt a lifestyle that is less dependent on auto travel.  Action 4-1A: Focus development in the two Suburban/Urban Growth Areas based on the densities shown in Chapter 3. The recommended density for the Suburban Use District is 1-5 dwelling units per acre; since the proposed RLM zoning falls within the recommended range at 2.9 dwelling units per acre, the request complies with Policy 4-1A. Policy 6-1: Encourage development of a balanced and diverse housing stock throughout the City.  Action 6-1A: Ensure that the City’s land use regulations allow for a variety of housing types, such as single-family detached, single-family attached, and multifamily. The proposed zoning would increase the single-family detached housing stock within the Central Growth Area. The proposed change in zoning would fill in a gap of RLM zoning along Turlington Road such that it would create a continuous, nearly two (2) mile section of RLM zoning from Austin Drive to Carolina Road. 2.

Unified Development Ordinance Under Section 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, single-family detached dwellings are permitted as by right uses in the proposed RLM zoning district. Conventional, hamlet, and cluster use patterns are permitted in this zoning district per Section 31-408 (e). As stated in Section 31-407, conventional lots in the RLM district must be a minimum of 15,000 square feet in area with a minimum frontage of eighty (80) feet and a minimum lot width of one-hundred (100) feet. There is no minimum lot area requirement for cluster or hamlet option developments.

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 RZ16-16 Page 4 of 6

The proposed 17.31 acres of RLM zoning would require that 7% of the gross area, or 1.21 acres, be set aside as open space in a conventional subdivision. Per Section 31-607 (e), seventy percent (70%) of the total open space must be active open space, which equates to approximately 0.85 acres. A cluster development requires a minimum of 45% or 7.79 acres of open space, of which 5% or 0.39 acres must be active. Active open space must consist of activity-based recreational amenities such as parks and trails, picnic areas, or playgrounds, among others. Compliance with regard to open space requirements will be verified during development review. 3.

Adequate Public Facilities The purpose and intent of the adequate public facilities ordinance is to ensure that public facilities are available to support new development and associated impacts and that each public facility meets or exceeds the Level of Service standards established by the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. No rezoning request should be approved which would cause a reduction in the levels of service standards for any public facility impacted. Overall, the existing public facilities that serve this property are adequate to support the proposed Residential Low Medium zoning district. Public Water and Sanitary Sewer The applicant submitted a Public Facilities Report that addresses the issue of providing water and sewer service to the site. The Department of Public Utilities has indicated that City water is available to this property parcel via an 8” asbestos cement and 20” ductile iron water main on Turlington Road. City sewer is available by means of an 8” gravity sewer main and 8” sewer force main on Turlington Road. City PS #162/Turlington Road will receive the gravity sewer flow from this portion of Turlington Road. City PS #162 has sufficient capacity for the proposed development and a pump station analysis will not be needed as part of the design. Public Utilities advised the applicant that a City water model will need to be requested during the design stage to determine whether sufficient fire flow is available to the site. Based on the information provided, Public Utilities has no objections to the Rezoning Request at this time. Stormwater Management The subject property is located within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area and is designated as Resource Management Area (RMA). Preliminary VRRM calculations were provided by the applicant to demonstrate a possible stormwater solution for the site. The applicant has stated that they plan to address stormwater management with a Level 1 Wet Pond and simple disconnects to A/B soils. A detailed stormwater management design will be provided during the development review phase of the project. The applicant has also indicated that should they elect to encroach into the Virginia Power easement, written approval from Dominion Power will be provided. The Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, has advised the applicant that their ability or inability to utilize the Virginia Power easement for stormwater management may affect the overall layout and design of the site.

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 RZ16-16 Page 5 of 6

Transportation The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Analysis with this application, which outlines the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. Although the TIA findings indicate that turn lanes are not required for the proposed development, Traffic Engineering has advised the applicant that an eastbound right turn lane will be required on Turlington Road in accordance with Section 4.2.2 of the Public Facilities Manual. This requirement will be reviewed during the development review phase of the project. Schools For the purpose of analyzing future school impacts, the number of proposed dwelling units is based on the maximum number of dwelling units permitted by right in the RLM zoning district according to Section 31-407. The RLM district allows a maximum of 2.9 dwelling units per acre; therefore, a total site area of 17.31 acres would allow a maximum of 50 dwelling units by right in a conventional subdivision. The student generation rates calculated below were based on Section 31-601. Elementary Middle High

0.21 x 50 dwelling units = 11 students 0.12 x 50 dwelling units = 6 students 0.19 x 50 dwelling units = 10 students

The subject property will feed into Kilby Shores Elementary School, which has a surplus in capacity of 34 students, Forest Glen Middle School, which as a surplus in capacity of 59 students, and Lakeland High School, which has a surplus in capacity of 412 students. All of the impacted schools currently have surpluses; therefore, no advancement of school capacity is needed. 4.

Fiscal Impact Study The applicant submitted a fiscal impact study that estimates that the proposed development will generate a cumulative net fiscal impact to the City of Suffolk of approximately $431,413 from 2017 to 2018. Once build-out occurs, it is estimated that the Meadows Landing development will provide an annual positive net fiscal impact to the City of Suffolk of approximately $55,136.

Proffered Conditions The applicant has not proffered conditions in support of this request.

RECOMMENDATION In summary, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of Rezoning Request RZ16-16.

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 RZ16-16 Page 6 of 6

Attachments:  General Location Map  Zoning/Land Use Map  Application Narrative  Conceptual Layout  Proposed Ordinance  Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution  Exhibit B – Property Map  Exhibit C – Plat

GENERAL LOCATION MAP RZ16-16

LAKE MEADE

! ( Subject Property Location

Central Growth Area Use Districts MIXED USE CORE CORE SUPPORT INNER-RING SUBURBAN SUBURBAN RURAL CONSERVATION RURAL AGRICULTURE

Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, Â© OpenStreetMap contributors, VILLAGE and the GIS user community

ZONING/ LAND USE MAP RZ16-16

RLM

C R

SO LAW N

BEN TLE

A 43*21

RLM N

ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE AND AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK, TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONING DISTRICT, TO RLM, RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM DENSITY, ZONING DISTRICT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 595 TURLINGTON ROAD, ZONING MAP 43, PARCEL 21; RZ16-16 WHEREAS, James R. Bradford of Site Selection and Design, LLC, agent(s), on behalf of Bob Arnette, Meadows Landing Associates, LLC, applicant(s), on behalf of Richard E. Conner, property owner have requested a change in zoning from A, Agricultural, zoning district, to RLM, Residential Low Medium Density, zoning district, for property located at 595 Turlington Road, Zoning Map 43, Parcel 21, which land is depicted on Exhibit "B"; and, WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning and amendment to the official zoning map have been advertised and reviewed by the Planning Commission in compliance with the requirements of state law; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a recommendation as stated in Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing before City Council was duly advertised as required by law and held on the 17th day of May, 2017, at which public hearing the public was presented with the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, that: Section 1.

Exhibit "A", "Planning Commission Recommendation", Exhibit “B”, “Property Map”, and Exhibit "C", “Plat”, which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated as part of this ordinance.

Section 2.

Findings.

Council finds that the proposed rezoning is reasonable, and warranted due to a mistake or change in circumstances affecting the property; and has considered the following factors and finds that the proposed rezoning does not conflict with: 1.

the existing use and character of property within the City;

the Comprehensive Plan;

the suitability of the property for various uses;

the trends of growth or change;

the current or future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies;

Section 3.

the transportation requirements of the community;

the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services;

the conservation of natural resources;

the preservation of flood plains;

10.

the preservation of agricultural and forestal land;

11.

the conservation of properties and their values;

12.

the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the City; and,

13.

the expressed purpose of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as set out in Section 31-102 of the UDO, as amended, and Section 15.2-2283 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended.

Rezoning.

A. The property be, and it is hereby, rezoned to RLM, Residential Low Medium Density, zoning district, and the official zoning map be, and it is hereby, amended as shown on the attached Exhibit “B”, which is incorporated herein by reference. B. The foregoing rezoning and amendment to the official zoning map are expressly made subject to the performance of the conditions hereby proffered and accepted and these conditions shall remain in effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the property; however, such conditions shall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance. Section 4.

Recordation.

A certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded, by the applicant, in the name of the property owner as grantor in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk, Virginia. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and shall not be published or codified. READ AND PASSED: _________________________ TESTE: _________________________ Erika S. Dawley, City Clerk

Approved as to Form:

_____________________________ Helivi L. Holland, City Attorney

EXHIBIT “A” RESOLUTION NO. 17-04-1 CITY OF SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION A RESOLUTION TO PRESENT A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL RELATING TO REZONING REQUEST RZ16-16 TO REZONE AND AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK, TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONING DISTRICT, TO RLM, RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM DENSITY, ZONING DISTRICT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 595 TURLINGTON ROAD, ZONING MAP 43, PARCEL 21 WHEREAS, James R. Bradford of Site Selection and Design, LLC, agent(s), on behalf of Bob Arnette, Meadows Landing Associates, LLC, applicant(s), on behalf of Richard E. Conner, property owner have requested a change in zoning from A, Agricultural, zoning district, to RLM, Residential Low Medium Density, zoning district; 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. A.

Findings. The Suffolk Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning is reasonable, and warranted due to a change in circumstances affecting the property, and has considered the following factors and finds that the proposed rezoning does not conflict with: 1.

the existing use and character of property within the City;

the Comprehensive Plan;

the suitability of the property for various uses;

the trends of growth or change;

the current or future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies;

the transportation requirements of the community;

the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services;

the conservation of natural resources;

the preservation of flood plains;

10.

the preservation of agricultural and forestal land;

11.

the conservation of properties and their values;

12.

the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the City;

13.

the expressed purpose of the City’s Unified Development Ordinances as set out in Section 31-102 of the Code of the City of Suffolk (1998), as amended, and Section 15.2-2283 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended (“Va. Code”).

Section 2.

Recommendation to Council

The Planning Commission recommends to City Council that the request, RZ14-16, be: ___a. Granted as submitted, and the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance without modification. ___b. Denied, and that Council not adopt the proposed Ordinance. ___c. Granted with the modifications set forth on the attached listing of specific recommendations, and that Council adopt the proposed Ordinance with such modifications. READ AND PASSED: ________________________________ TESTE: ________________________________

PROPERTY MAP RZ16-16

EXHIBIT B

RLM

C LI

SO LAW N

BEN TLE

43*21

RLM N

REZONING EXHIBIT RZ16-16

EXHIBIT C

STAFF REPORT DESCRIPTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Conditional Use Permit Request C03-17, submitted by David Joyner, agent on the behalf of Lighthouse Ministries of Suffolk, applicant(s), on the behalf of David and Susan Joyner and N. Howard and Hazel Small, 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, (small, under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary), on properties located at 6617 Holland Road, Zoning Map 40A, Parcel(s) A29*PT28 and A30. APPLICANT: Submitted by David Joyner, agent on the behalf of Lighthouse Ministries of Suffolk, applicant(s), on the behalf of David and Susan Joyner and N. Howard and Hazel Small, property owner(s). LOCATION: The affected properties are located at 6617 Holland Road and are further identified as Zoning Map 40A, Parcel(s) A29*PT28 and A30. PRESENT ZONING: VC, Village Center Zoning District, and SCOD, Special Corridor Overlay District. EXISTING LAND USE: The two parcels together have a total area of 0.78 acres. Zoning Parcel 40A*A29*PT28 has a building that was formerly a BB&T bank branch building and associated parking lot. Zoning Parcel 40A*A30 has a portion of the parking lot associated with the former BB&T building. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicants propose to convert the existing building into a place of worship, (small, under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary). SURROUNDING LAND USES: North – Holland Road, single-family home, and park, zoned VC, Village Center zoning district, RM, Residential Medium Density zoning district, and SCOD, Special Corridor Overlay District. South – Norfolk Southern railroad tracks, zoned VC, Village Center zoning district. East – Single-family home, zoned RM, Residential Medium Density zoning district. West – Vacant lot, zoned VC, Village Center zoning district, and SCOD, Special Corridor Overlay District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The City’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as being located within the Holland Village Use District. CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA DESIGNATION: This property is located outside of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District. 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. Notice to the applicant, containing a copy of the staff report, was also sent on April 14, 2017.

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 C03-17 Page 2 of 5

CASE HISTORY: There is no case history associated with this property.

STAFF ANALYSIS ISSUE The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish a small place of worship (under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary) on the property at 6617 Holland Road, which consists of approximately 0.78 acres across two adjacent lots. There is an existing building, formerly a BB&T bank branch, of 3,596 square feet, on the property, along with an associated parking lot. The applicants are proposing to convert the existing building into a place of worship. There is no plan to provide a day care or other accessory uses at this property, and these uses are not contained within this Conditional Use Permit request. This property is served by public water. This property is on a private septic system and requires approval from the Suffolk Health Department in order to operate. CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1.

Section 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires that a conditional use permit be obtained for a place of worship, (small, under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary), within the VC, Village Center zoning district.

City water is available to serve this property via a 12â&#x20AC;? City water main that is available for connection along Holland Road and South Quay Road for fire and domestic needs. The Department of Public Utilities has reviewed this application and has no objections to the proposed use.

This property does not have City sewer available for connection. It requires a private, onsite septic system to handle sanitary sewer flows. This septic system has received approval from the Suffolk Health Department, limiting the number of seats in the church to a maximum of 50. Future expansion in the number of seats would require updated approval from the Health Department.

Food preparation conducted on the property is not allowed under the current approval of the Suffolk Health Department. If there is a desire in the future to conduct food preparation activities on the property, updated approval from the Health Department would be needed.

Parking requirements outlined in the UDO require one (1) parking space per four (4) seats at a religious assembly use. There are 24 existing parking spaces, including three (3) handicapped spaces, on this property. The number of existing parking spaces allows for a maximum of 96 seats for this religious assembly use. Because the septic system approval from the Health Department limits the number of seats to 50, there is sufficient parking currently available for the number of seats allowed.

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 C03-17 Page 3 of 5

The existing building is currently accessed off of Holland Road. The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s traffic engineer has reviewed this application and has no objections to the proposed use.

The applicants will be required to address any issues regarding occupancy of the building pertaining to the Building Code with the Division of Community Development.

Pursuant to Section 31-306 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a Conditional Use Permit recognizes uses that, because of their unique characteristics or potential impacts on adjacent land uses, are not generally permitted in certain zoning districts as a matter of right. Rather, such uses are permitted through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by City Council when the right set of circumstances and conditions are found acceptable. Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria, 31-306(c) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; As may be specified within each zoning district, uses permitted subject to conditional use review criteria shall be permitted only after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council, and only if the applicant demonstrates that: a) The proposed conditional use shall be in compliance with all regulations of the applicable zoning district, the provisions of Article 6 of the Ordinance and any applicable supplemental use standards as set forth in Article 7 of the Ordinance. The proposed use of a place of worship, (small, under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary), is a listed conditional use in the VC, Village Center zoning district per the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Unified Development Ordinance. There are no supplemental use standards for places of worship set forth in Article 7 of the Ordinance. b) The proposed conditional use shall conform to the character of the neighborhood within the same zoning district in which it is located. The proposal as submitted or modified shall have no more adverse effects on health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in or driving through the neighborhood, or shall be no more injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, than would any other use generally permitted in the same district. In making such a determination, consideration should be given to the location, type and height of buildings or structures, the type and extent of landscaping and screening on the site and whether the proposed use is consistent with any theme, action, policy or map of the Comprehensive Plan which encourages mixed uses and/or densities. The general character of the surrounding area is a village district, with a mix of small businesses, single-family homes, and a few other churches, along with a community park and railroad tracks. The proposed use will occupy an existing building that was formerly a BB&T bank branch building. The building is currently vacant. As the proposed place of worship will occupy a former commercial building in a village center, this use will not be adverse to persons living in, working in, or driving through the neighborhood. c) Adequate measures shall be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic hazards and to minimize traffic congestion on the public roads.

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 C03-17 Page 4 of 5

The request for the place of worship has been reviewed by the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Traffic Engineer, who expressed no concerns regarding parking or traffic for the proposed use and location. The building and parking lot are already in existence, and no changes are proposed to the ingress and egress of the property. There will be no substantial increase in traffic generation between the proposed religious assembly use and the previous use of the property as a commercial bank. d) The proposed use shall not be noxious or offensive by reason of vibration, noise, odor, dust, smoke or gas. The proposed use is for a place of worship and should not produce excess vibration, noise, odor, dust, smoke, or gas. It is not anticipated that there will be any use attached with this activity which would have a noxious or offensive impact on the surrounding community. e) The proposed use shall not be injurious to the use and enjoyments of the property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted nor substantially diminish or impair the property values within the neighborhood. The property is located within the Holland Village Center area of the City, with a mixture of uses including small businesses, single-family homes, other churches, a community park, and railroad tracks. The proposed place of worship is similar to and compatible with surrounding uses, and it should not diminish or impair the property values within this neighborhood. By occupying a vacant building, this use should be less injurious than the current situation. f) The establishment of the proposed use shall not impede the orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted within the zoning district. The property is located in a developed area. The proposed place of worship should not impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding area. g) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. The proposed use of a place of worship should not be a detriment or endangerment to the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. The sewage needs of the property are served by an on-site septic system. This septic system has been approved by the Suffolk Health Department. h) The public interest and welfare supporting the proposed conditional use shall be sufficient to outweigh the individual interests which are adversely affected by the establishment of the proposed use. The public interest and welfare should not be compromised by the proposed use of a place of worship. The individual interests of persons within the neighborhood should

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 C03-17 Page 5 of 5

not be adversely impacted by the proposed use. RECOMMENDATION The proposed use of a place of worship (small, under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary) is similar to and compatible with uses in the surrounding area and should have minimal impacts on the neighborhood. Based on this review, staff has determined that the applicant’s request to grant Conditional Use Permit C03-17 will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area and hereby recommends that this request for a Conditional Use Permit be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit is granted to establish a place of worship, (small, under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary), at 6617 Holland Road, Zoning Map 40A, Parcel(s) A29*PT28 and A30, as shown on Exhibit “B”, “Property Map”. 2. The applicant will be required to address any issues regarding occupancy of the proposed space pertaining to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code with the Division of Community Development. 3. Occupancy of the building will be established by the City’s Building Official and the Suffolk Fire Department and shall not exceed 50 persons without written approval of the on-site septic system from the Suffolk Health Department.

Attachments  General Location Map  Zoning / Land Use Map  Letter from Applicant  Health Department Evaluation  Proposed Ordinance  Exhibit A – Planning Commission Recommendation  Exhibit B – Property Map  Exhibit C – Site Survey/Building Layout

GENERAL LOCATION MAP C03-17 Legend MIXED USE CORE CORE SUPPORT INNER-RING SUBURBAN SUBURBAN RURAL CONSERVATION RURAL AGRICULTURE

JAMES RIVER

VILLAGE

Subject Property Location

! (

ZONING/ LAND USE MAP C03-17

RM QU

TA N

40A*A30

40A*A29*PT28

ORDINANCE NO. ________________

AN ORDINANCE TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A PLACE OF WORSHIP, (SMALL, UNDER 6,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE MAIN SANCTUARY), ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6617 HOLLAND ROAD, ZONING MAP 40A, PARCELS A29*PT28 and A30; C03-17 WHEREAS, David Joyner, agent on the behalf of Lighthouse Ministries of Suffolk, applicant(s), on the behalf of David and Susan Joyner and N. Howard and Hazel Small, property owner(s), have requested a conditional use permit for a place of worship on a certain tract of land situated in the City of Suffolk, Virginia, which land is designated on the Zoning Map of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, as Zoning Map 40A, Parcels A29*PT28 and A30, and which land is depicted on Exhibit "B", “Property Map”; and, WHEREAS, the procedural requirements of Article 3, Section 31-306 of the Code of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, 1998 (as amended), have been followed; and, WHEREAS, in acting upon this request, the Planning Commission and City Council have considered the matters enunciated in Section 15.2-2284 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and Article 1, Section 31-102 and Article 3, Section 31-306(c)(1 through 8) of the Code of the City of Suffolk, 1998 (as amended), with respect to the purposes stated in the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, Sections 15.2-2200 and 15.2-2283; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a recommendation as stated in Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, that: Section 1. Exhibits. Exhibit "A", "Planning Commission Recommendation", Exhibit "B", "Property Map", and Exhibit “C”, “Site Survey/Building Layout”, which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated as part of this ordinance. Section 2.

Findings.

Council finds that the proposal for a conditional use permit, as submitted or modified with conditions herein, the expressed purpose of which is to establish a place of worship that is in conformity with the standards of the Unified Development Ordinance of the City of Suffolk and that it will have no more adverse effects on the health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in or driving through the neighborhood, and will be no more injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood than would any other use generally permitted in the same district, taking into consideration the location, type

and height of buildings or structures, the type and extent of landscaping and screening on site and whether the use is consistent with any theme, action, policy or map of the Comprehensive Plan which encourages mixed uses and/or densities with the conditions set forth below. These findings are based upon the consideration for the existing use and character of property, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services, the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values, and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the City. These findings are based upon a determination that the most reasonable and limited way of avoiding the adverse impacts of a place of worship is by the imposition of the conditions provided herein. Section 3.

Permit Granted.

The conditional use permit for the Property be, and it is hereby, approved for the Property, subject to the following conditions and the general conditions set forth in Section 4 hereof. The conditional use permit specifically permits a place of worship, (small, under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary), in compliance with Exhibit “C” (the “Site Survey/Building Layout”), and Sections 31-306 and 31-406 of the Code of the City of Suffolk. Conditions

1. This Conditional Use Permit is granted to establish a place of worship, (small, under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary), at 6617 Holland Road, Zoning Map 40A, Parcel(s) A29*PT28 and A30, as shown on Exhibit “B”, “Property Map”. 2. The applicant will be required to address any issues regarding occupancy of the proposed space pertaining to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code with the Division of Community Development. 3. Occupancy of the building will be established by the City’s Building Official and the Suffolk Fire Department and shall not exceed 50 persons without written approval of the on-site septic system from the Suffolk Health Department. Section 4. (a)

General Conditions.

The conditional use permit may be revoked by City Council upon failure to

comply with any of the conditions contained herein, after ten days written notice to David Joyner, agent on the behalf of Lighthouse Ministries of Suffolk, applicant(s), on the behalf of David and Susan Joyner and N. Howard and Hazel Small, property owner(s), or their successors in interest, and a hearing at which such persons shall have the opportunity to be heard. (b)

To the extent applicable, the requirements set forth in Section 31-306 of the Code of the City of Suffolk, Virginia shall be met.

(c)

The commencement of the use described in Section 3 of this ordinance shall be deemed acceptance by David Joyner, agent on the behalf of Lighthouse Ministries of Suffolk, applicant(s), on the behalf of David and Susan Joyner and N. Howard and Hazel Small, property owner(s), or any party undertaking or maintaining such use, of the conditions to which the conditional use permit herein granted is subject.

Section 5. Severability. It is the intention of the City Council that the provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable; and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section and provision of this ordinance hereby adopted shall be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, sections and provisions of this ordinance, to the extent that they can be enforced notwithstanding such determination. Section 6. Recordation. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded, by the applicant, in the name of the property owner as grantor in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and shall not be published or codified. The conditional use authorized by this permit shall be implemented within two (2) years from the date of approval by the City Council and shall terminate if not initiated within that time period. READ AND PASSED: __________________________

TESTE: __________________________ Erika Dawley, City Clerk

Approved as to Form:

_______________________________________ Helivi L. Holland, City Attorney

Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 17-04-2 CITY OF SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION A RESOLUTION TO PRESENT A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C03-17 TO ESTABLISH A PLACE OF WORSHIP, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6617 HOLLAND ROAD, ZONING MAP 40A, PARCELS A29*PT28 AND A30 WHEREAS, David Joyner, agent on the behalf of Lighthouse Ministries of Suffolk, applicant(s), on the behalf of David and Susan Joyner and N. Howard and Hazel Small, property owner(s), have requested the issuance of a conditional use permit for a certain tract of land situated in the City of Suffolk, Virginia, which land is described and depicted on the proposed Ordinance attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the specific request is to permit a place of worship, (small, under 6,000 square feet in the main sanctuary), in accordance with Sections 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, that: Section 1.

Findings.

The Suffolk Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a conditional use permit, as submitted or modified herein: a) Will have no more adverse effects on the health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in or driving through the neighborhood, b) Will have more adverse effects on the health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in or driving through the neighborhood, c) Will be no more injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or d)

Will be more injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood than would any other use generally permitted in the same district, taking into consideration the location, type and height of buildings or structures, the type and extent of landscaping and screening on site and whether the use is consistent with any theme, action, policy or map of the Comprehensive Plan which encourages mixed uses and/or densities.

Section 2.

Recommendation to Council.

The Planning Commission recommends to City Council that the request, C03-17, be: a) Granted as submitted, and that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance without modification. b) Denied, and that Council not adopt the proposed Ordinance. c) Granted with the modifications set forth on the attached listing of specific recommendations and that Council adopt the proposed Ordinance with such modifications.

READ AND ADOPTED:_________________________________ TESTE:________________________________________

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C03-17 CONDITIONS

PROPERTY MAP C03-17

EXHIBIT B

H OL

L AN

40A*A29*PT28

40A*A30

S OU

RURIT AN

EXHIBIT C

C03-17

EXHIBIT C

C03-17

STAFF REPORT DESCRIPTION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT OA02-17: As initiated by the City Council of the City of Suffolk, the proposed text amendments are intended to modify the Code of the City of Suffolk, Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 7, Zoning, Section 31-701, Supplemental Use Regulations, Accessory Uses and Structures, and Appendix A, Definitions, for the purpose of establishing standards for the keeping of backyard chickens in the City of Suffolk. APPLICANT: The proposed ordinance text amendment has been initiated by the City of Suffolk. 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.

STAFF ANALYSIS ISSUE AND BACKGROUND The proposed text amendments shown in attached Exhibit B are presented for consideration to establish the keeping of backyard chickens as accessory uses in the City of Suffolk and to provide related performance standards in the Unified Development Ordinance. In that regard, the following sections of the UDO are recommended to be amended: Sec. 31-701- Accessory Uses and Structures -

It is proposed that the keeping of backyard chickens be added as an accessory use only on lots developed with a detached single family dwelling within the RL, Residential Low Density, and RLM, Residential Low-Medium Density, zoning districts. Such uses must comply with proposed standards and criteria listed in subsection 31-701(b)(18).

Appendix A- Definitions. - Proposed to add definitions for “Backyard Chicken” and “Backyard Chicken Enclosure” and amend the definition of “Agricultural Animals.” You may recall discussion has been held regarding this issue at various levels over the past year. The Committee on Ordinances, at its September 20, 2016 meeting, was briefed

Planning Commission April 18, 2017 OA02-017 Page 2 of 2

by staff in regards to the exploration of allowing backyard chickens within certain single family residential zoning districts within the City. Staff presented the Planning Commission with a report based on the Committee’s findings at their November 15, 2016, where, by a vote of 6-2, the Commission recommended pursuing amendments to the UDO on this issue to City Council. City Council was presented a report with the Planning Commission’s findings at their January 18, 2017, meeting and, by a vote of 7-1 has directed the Planning Commission to draft an ordinance that will allow the keeping of chickens in selected residential zoning districts. When taking this action, City Council specified that the following issues be considered when preparing this ordinance: • • • • • • •

Where to Expand - By Zoning Districts and or Minimum Lot Size Maximum Number and Gender Housing/Enclosure Requirements Location and Setback Requirements Animal Care and Biosecurity Nuisances Permitting and Licensing Requirements

The language presented for your consideration has been designed to incorporate provisions that address the above criteria. RECOMMENDATION Based on the considerations as noted above, staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments. The Committee on Ordinances, at their meeting of March 21, 2017 meeting, supported the text amendments as proposed by staff, with revisions, and, by a vote of 4 to 0, passed a motion to forward the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission for consideration with the recommendation that they be approved. Attachments • Proposed Ordinance • Exhibit A – Planning Commission Recommendation • Exhibit B – Proposed Text Amendments

ORDINANCE NUMBER_____________ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 31, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK, ARTICLE 7, SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS, SECTION 31-701, ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, AND APPENDIX A, DEFINITIONS; OA02-17 WHEREAS, the City of Suffolk, Virginia has initiated the aforementioned amendments to Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance, for the purpose of establishing definitions and standards pertaining to the keeping of backyard chickens in the City of Suffolk; and, WHEREAS, the specified amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance as shown in Exhibit “B” are in compliance with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, as adopted; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a recommendation as stated in Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, the procedural requirements for the consideration of this request by the Planning Commission have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, that: Section 1.

That Exhibit “A,” “Planning Commission Recommendation,” and Exhibit “B,” “Amendments to Chapter 31, Article 7, Supplemental Use Regulations, Section 31-701, Accessory Uses and Structures, and Appendix A, Definitions of the Code of the City of Suffolk, Virginia,” which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated as part of this ordinance.

Section 2.

That Chapter 31, Article 7, Supplemental Use Regulations, Section 31-701, Accessory Uses and Structures, and Appendix A, Definitions of the Unified Development Ordinance of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, is hereby amended to read as referenced in Exhibit “B,” attached.

Section 3.

All phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, subsections, sections and chapters of the Code not amended hereby remain in full force and effect.

This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and shall not be published. READ AND PASSED:___________________________

TESTE:___________________________________ Erika S. Dawley, City Clerk

Approved as to Form:

_________________________________ Helivi L. Holland, City Attorney

Exhibit “A” RESOLUTION NO. 17-04-4 CITY OF SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION A RESOLUTION TO PRESENT A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL RELATING TO AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 31, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK, ARTICLE 7, SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS, SECTION 31-701, ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, AND APPENDIX A, DEFINITIONS; OA02-17 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Suffolk, Virginia has initiated the aforementioned amendments to Chapter 31 of the Unified Development Ordinance for the purpose of establishing definitions and standards pertaining to the keeping of backyard chickens in the City of Suffolk; and WHEREAS, the specified amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance as shown in Exhibit “B” are in compliance with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, as adopted; 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 finds that the proposed ordinance amendments are reasonable and warranted. Section 2.

Recommendation to City Council.

The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of the City of Suffolk, Virginia that the proposed amendments be; _____a.

Adopted as submitted without modification.

_____b.

Denied, and that Council not pass the proposed ordinance.

_____c.

Adopted with the modifications set forth on the attached listing of specific recommendations, and that Council adopt the proposed Ordinance with such modifications. READ AND ADOPTED:

TESTE:

“Exhibit B” “Amendments to Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 7, Supplemental Use Regulations, and Appendix A, Definitions, of the Code of the City of Suffolk, Virginia”

ARTICLE 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS

SEC. 31-701. - ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES. (a) GENERALLY. Unless otherwise provided herein, accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in any zoning district, but only in connection with, incidental to, and on the same lot with a principal use or structure which is lawfully permitted within such district. Accessory buildings or uses shall not be constructed or established on a lot until construction of the principal building has been actually commenced or the primary use established. Accessory buildings shall not be used for dwelling purposes, except as provided in Subsection (b) of this Section. (1) Detached accessory buildings shall not be located in the required front yard. Detached accessory buildings may be built in the required rear yard but such accessory buildings shall not occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the required rear yard and shall not be closer than five (5) feet to any side or rear lot line or setback line. (2) Should the accessory building be located within the side yard, said building shall meet all required side yard regulations of the applicable zoning district. (3) Accessory buildings shall not exceed the height regulations of the zoning district within any part of the buildable lot area or exceed by twenty-five percent (25%) the height of the dwelling, whichever is less. (4) Accessory buildings on through lots shall not be closer to either street than a distance equal to the required front yard of such lot. (b)

ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH RESIDENTIAL USES. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in conjunction with residential uses: â&#x20AC;Ś (18) The keeping of backyard chickens shall be permitted only on lots developed with detached single-family dwellings within the RL, Residential Low Density and RLM Residential Low-Medium Density zoning districts in accordance with the following provisions: A. No more than six (6) backyard chickens shall be allowed for each detached singlefamily dwelling. Backyard chickens allowed under this section shall only be raised for domestic purposes and no commercial use such as selling eggs or selling chickens for meat shall be allowed. B. The minimum lot size for the keeping of backyard chickens shall be 15,000 square feet. C. No roosters shall be allowed. D. There shall be no outside slaughtering of backyard chickens.

E. All backyard chickens must be kept in a backyard chicken enclosure that contains at a minimum 10 square feet per bird. Backyard chicken enclosures shall consist of no more than 100 square feet. The backyard chicken enclosure shall be fully enclosed in a manner that prohibits the escape of the birds and deters the entry of other animals. F. Backyard chicken enclosures shall comply with the minimum setback and intensity of use regulations for the principal dwelling unit as set forth in Section 31-407 of this Ordinance, and shall be restricted to placement in the rear yard. Backyard chicken enclosures shall be located no closer than 20 feet to any adjacent dwelling. Backyard chicken enclosures are prohibited in any Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and must be placed outside of any easements located on the property. G. All backyard chicken enclosures must be kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all times and must be cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent offensive odors. H. All feed for the backyard chickens shall be kept in a secure enclosed container or location to prevent the attraction of rodents and other animals. I. All persons must provide documentation that the backyard chickens to be kept originate from a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Poultry Improvement Plan member hatchery. J. All persons must complete the Virginia Livestock Premises Registration with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and provide proof of said registration at the time of permit submittal. (c) ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in conjunction with commercial and industrial uses: â&#x20AC;Ś

APPENDIX “A” – DEFINITIONS … AGRICULTURE: The use of land for a bona fide agricultural operation such as the raising of crops, horticulture, the keeping of animal, bees, and fowl, or any other similar agricultural activity, and including the customary accessory uses which are normally associated with such activities. AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS: The following animals are considered accessory agricultural animals to an agricultural use, whether used for personal enjoyment or for commercial purposes: horses, mules, burros, sheep, cattle, rabbits, chickens, ducks, geese, pigs, goats, ostrich, emu or rhea. Backyard chickens, as defined in this appendix, shall not be classified as agricultural animals. AGRICULTURAL BUILDING: A structure utilized to store farm implements, hay, feed, grain or other agricultural or horticultural products or to house poultry, livestock or other farm animals. Such structure shall not include habitable or occupiable spaces, spaces in which agricultural products are processed, treated or packaged, nor shall an agricultural building be a place of occupancy by the general public. (Source: Uniform Statewide Building Code) … AWNING: An awning is an architectural projection that provides weather protection, identity or decoration and is wholly supported by the building to which it is attached. An awning is comprised of a lightweight, rigid skeleton structure over which a rigid covering is attached. (Source: Uniform Statewide Building Code) BACKYARD CHICKEN: A domestic chick or hen, not to include roosters, kept on a residential lot within a permitted zoning district where allowed as an accessory use as specified in Article 7, Section 31-701 of this Ordinance. BACKYARD CHICKEN ENCLOSURE: A fully enclosed and stationary coop or pen used for the purposes of confining backyard chickens to one property, to deter the attraction of predators, rodents and other pests, and to prevent the birds from running at large.

BAR: Premises used primarily for the sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages by the drink for on-site consumption and where food may be available for consumption as an accessory use. â&#x20AC;Ś

RESULTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF March 15, 2017 A. REZONING REQUEST, RZ14-16, Subdivision of Childress Property, submitted by C. Raeford Eure, L.S., Hoggard-Eure Associates, P.C., agent(s), on the behalf of John Napolitano, Napolitano Homes, applicant(s), on the behalf of WOV Properties, LLC, property owner(s), to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk to change the zoning from PD, Planned Development zoning district, to RU, Residential Urban Approved zoning district, for property located at 115 Childress Street, Zoning Map 12, Parcel(s) 59. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Sleepy Hole Voting Borough, zoned PD, Planned Development zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Inner Ring Suburban Use District. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C09A-08, ATC# 283553 FAA Lighting Change: submitted by Margaret Robinson, of American Towers, LLC, applicant(s), on the behalf of Samuel G. Chapman, III, property owner(s), in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to amend the current Conditional Use Withdrawn Permit in order to allow the removal of FAA Lighting from an existing telecommunication tower, for property located at 1877 Ferry Point Road, Zoning Map 10, Parcel (s) 70. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Chuckatuck Voting Borough, zoned VC, Village Center zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Rural Conservation Use District. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, C16-16, Bennis Guest House: submitted by Kevin and Stacey Bennis, 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, for property located at 6173 Knotts Creek Lane, Approved Zoning Map 12A(1), Parcel (s) PT10. The affected area is further identified as being located w/conditions in the Sleepy Hole Voting Borough, zoned RLM, Residential Low Medium Density zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Inner Ring Suburban Use District.