Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT A PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 2011 AT 3:30 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairman Andre McCloud called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioner Mary Bunting and Chairman James Young as absent. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2010 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Tuck NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Young ITEM IV. STAFF REPORTS A. Youth Planner Report Ms. Monique Leeper, Youth Planner, stated it has been previously reported to the Commission that the Youth Planners are working on three projects (i.e., Buckroe Parade of Homes pictorial documentation; Downtown Hampton Landscape Design Study; and the Wythe School Parking Study). She presented a poem on the Downtown Hampton Landscape Design Study. The project is to recapture experiences that people have felt in Downtown Hampton and to create an identity that everyone can stand behind and move forward. The project will also help in creating consistency in the different downtown elements such as lighting, trash cans, and making sure everything is not scattered but located within a certain area. The project also gives the Youth Planners an aspect of being involved in planning. The Youth Planners are currently working to finalize the counts and to design a map of the inventory. She stated in regards to the Youth Commission, the Go Green Committee is formulating ideas of what a green class should be and what to include. This is being accomplished by contacting potential partners in order to create a network and gather information on things they do not understand or know about. The Youth and Adult Relationships Committee will be meeting in February with the Peninsula Towne Center businesses to build on their partnership for the upcoming year. Public Hearing Procedures Mr. O’Neill read key points of the Hampton Planning Commission Public Hearing/Comment Rules in order for the affairs of the Commission to be conducted in a courteous and orderly manner. ITEM V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing item advertised in the Daily Press on December 24 and 31, 2010. A. Rezoning Application No. 1292-2010 by Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority and Queens Plaza, LLC to rezone a 0.77± acre parcel (LRSN 2000405) and a 0.61± acre parcel (LRSN 2001170) from Multiple Residence (R-M) District to Multiple Dwelling MD-2 District; a 0.05+ acre portion of a parcel (LRSN 2000406) from General Commercial (C-3) District to Multiple Dwelling (MD-2) District; and a 0.01+ acre portion of a parcel (LRSN 2001134) from Two Family Residence (R-8) District to Multiple Dwelling (MD-2) District to permit a mix of apartments and town homes in a multiple family development. These parcels are located between West Queen Street and Settlers Landing Road approximately 340 feet east of LaSalle Avenue. MD-2 permits townhomes and multiple family developments. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends medium and high density residential uses for this area. Mr. Jeff Conkle, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The 1.44+ acres is proposed to be rezoned to Multiple Dwelling (MD-2). The change in zoning will allow a 20 unit apartment and townhome community to replace the existing (now vacant) Pine Cove Apartment site. The proffered conditions will create a desirable project that enhances the neighborhood and furthers the goals of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Conkle stated the applicant is required to have 36 parking spaces, but was granted a variance to 28 parking spaces by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. O’Neill asked Mr. Conkle to explain the construction of the new Patterson Avenue extension. Mr. Conkle stated the new extension will have on-street parking which will provide an additional 20 spaces that did not exist previously. This will alleviate some of the parking needs, as well as Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority (HRHA) in the past has dealt with residents who may not own a vehicle. Given the odd configuration of the lot, the applicant was granted the variance. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Conkle stated he does not know the exact time commitment of Patterson Avenue and Patterson Crossing being 2 finalized simultaneously. In order for the new Patterson Crossing development to be successful, the new street needs to be opened by the time the residents occupy the units, but he does know the specifics. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Conkle confirmed with an HRHA representative that the Patterson extension will be constructed before or at least available at the time the complex is constructed. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution. WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Rezoning Application No. 1292-2010 by the Hampton Redevelopment & Housing Authority and Queens Plaza, LLC to rezone from Multiple Residence District (R-M), Two Family Residence District (R-8), and General Commercial District (C-3) to Multiple Dwelling District (MD-2); WHEREAS: the area to be rezoned consists of a 0.77± acre parcel (LRSN 2000405), a 0.61± acre parcel (LRSN 2001170), a 0.05± acre portion of a parcel (LRSN 2000406), and a 0.01± acre portion of a parcel (LRSN 2001134) all generally located between West Queen Street and Settlers Landing Road, approximately 340’ east of LaSalle Avenue; WHEREAS: the proposal will allow for the redevelopment of the Pine Cove Apartments site into a new 20-unit townhome and apartment development on 1.44± acres to be known as Patterson Crossing; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) land use map recommends high density residential, medium density residential, and commercial for this site; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) also recommends encouraging a diverse mix of housing types and values, safeguarding the integrity of existing neighborhoods, promoting quality infill housing, and continuing to support the Hampton Redevelopment & Housing Authority; WHEREAS: the redevelopment of this site is a goal of the Old Hampton Neighborhood Initiative portion of the Downtown Hampton Master Plan; WHEREAS: fourteen (14) proffered conditions, which address the site plan, building materials, landscaping, elevations, and other development standards, have been submitted; and WHEREAS: a community meeting was held by HRHA, and one person attended the meeting who supported the proposal; and 3 WHEREAS: there was one speaker from the public, who asked clarifying questions, but did not speak specifically for or against the application. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Donnie Tuck, and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning Application No. 1292-2010, subject to fourteen (14) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Tuck NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Young Mr. O’Neill read the next public hearing item. B. Use Permit Application No. 1068-2010 by Hampton University to construct and operate a building to be used as a biomedical research center on five parcels totaling 2.0441± acres located at 41, 45 and 49 East Tyler Street, 100 B College Place and a portion of an unnumbered lot located on West Tyler Street (LRSN’s 12001088, 12001089, 12001090, 12001091 and a portion of 12001034). Proposal includes a portion of the five parcels as shown on the site layout created by MSA, PC titled “Use Permit Area for Research Center II Hampton University” dated November 18, 2010. The property is part of the larger 210± acre campus owned by Hampton University. The site is zoned One Family Residence (R-11) District and Multiple Residence (R- M) District which permits college and university uses with an approved Use Permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends public/semi-public and low density residential uses. Mr. Chris Dyser, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The request is for a two-story building to be used as a biomedical research center to be located on the campus of Hampton University. A variance was approved for the reduction of front yard setbacks and an increase in the height of the building for the research center. The proposal is consistent with the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended), and staff supports the request subject to four conditions. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Dyser confirmed that all of the property is owned by Hampton University. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Dyser confirmed that the nine parking spaces that will be removed are not within the realm of the Intensely Developed Area (IDA) and the Resource Management Area (RMA). 4  In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Dyser stated the residents in the seven single-family homes in the subject area were notified of the proposed request, and there have been no responses. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Arthur Kamp, Attorney representing Hampton University stated the student center will not be demolished. Mr. Kamp stated he is available for any questions the Commissioners may have. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Use Permit Application No. 1068-2010, a proposal by Hampton University to construct a biomedical research center located on a portion of five parcels totaling 2.0441+ acres including 41, 45, and 49 East Tyler Street, 100 B College Place, and a portion of an unnumbered lot located on West Tyler Street [LRSNs 12001088, 12001089, 12001090, 12001091 and a portion of 12001034]; WHEREAS: the applicant requests a Use Permit for expansion of a private university use to allow for a two story, 20,000 square foot biomedical research center; WHEREAS: the site is located on the campus of Hampton University directly adjacent to Hampton University’s Research Center One building along East Tyler Street approximately 199+ feet east of College Place; WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned One Family Residence District (R-11) and Multiple Residence District (R-M) which permits private university uses subject to securing a Use Permit; WHEREAS: the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the land use recommendations of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) which designates public/semi-public and low density residential land use for this site, and which allows universities and public or private institutional uses such as a biomedical research center; WHEREAS: there was no community meeting for this proposal; however, surrounding property owners were notified of the proposal by mail; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue and seconded by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Use Permit No. 1068-2010, subject to four (4) conditions. 5  A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Tuck NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Young ITEM VI. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Mr. O’Neill mentioned the memo that was in the Commissioner’s package where he outlined the unique circumstances the City faces as they move into the budget process this year. He stated while in consultation with the City Manager and the Budget Director, it has been decided that this will be a good time, given the circumstances, to make the transition in terms of the CIP process schedule. The City has struggled in the past from a timing and sequence perspective in terms of bringing the CIP to the Commission and getting community input into the process. When the City began the process in the November/December timeframe, it tended to squeeze the schedule, knowing that the CIP had to be approved well in advance of the City Manager preparing the budget for Council that has to be delivered no later than the 15th of April. He gives credit to the Commission for urging staff to take a look at the process in how they can do it better, and provide more time, input, and space for the community to look at the CIP projects. He stated the City does not anticipate any new revenues in this year’s budget, and it would not be beneficial to go through a long community conversation about projects for the CIP when the City does not foresee any new revenues. Staff is going through the Community Plan update conversations, and the CIP is one of the primary ways of implementing capital projects that come out of the priority setting process. Staff wanted to have proof of that discussion before they set out to propose the next five year CIP Plan. These issues lead staff to decide to move forward without a CIP process that the Commission would normally review. City Council will have to adopt the fiscal year 2012 CIP budget in April or May. There is already a proposed list of projects in the CIP from last year, and Council will review those projects and make any necessary adjustments based on revenues or priorities. Staff will propose to begin a new CIP schedule in the middle or late part of the summer/fall in order to have plenty of time to go through that process, provide information to the Commission for their deliberation, and to allow more time to get the information out to the business communities, groups, etc. to receive better input into the process. He stated the City Manager can talk more at length regarding the financial rational for doing that process. He stated for the last couple of years, staff has been willing to change the schedule, but could not figure out the right time to do it. Given that the City does not anticipate a lot of new funds to spread around or have those conversations, now is a good time to transition the schedule. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated the Commission is not legally required to make a recommendation to City Council each year on the CIP. The Hampton City Code states the Commission may make a recommendation. City Council adopted a five year CIP last year which is still in effect that has fiscal year 2012 6 projects that the Commission has reviewed and had input into. City Council has the authority to modify the CIP based on funding and priorities. Council has only adopted in the budget one year of the CIP. There is a CIP in place that has gone through the public hearing process that the Commission has reviewed and forwarded to City Council. What staff is suggesting is the Commission use that adopted CIP for this year’s budget, and pick up with formulating a new five year plan at the end of the summer or beginning of fall. This will give staff a better understanding of where community priorities lie from the Community Plan discussions and a better sense from City Council and the City Manager regarding the financial picture going forward which gives them more time. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. O’Neill concurred that there is no obligation for the Planning Commissioners to review and forward to City Council recommendations, but they can if they so choose to. He stated historically, City Council has asked the Commission to review the CIP and take a role, particularly in gaining public comment on the CIP in order to send a recommendation to Council. Commissioner Williams stated that based on the fact that the City is not anticipating any new revenue, is it simply a matter of rearranging the priorities that the City already has since he does not believe there will be any new projects added with no new money. Mr. O’Neill stated if the City Manager was here, she could speak better to the issue, but the belief is that on some level, it is not worth staff and community time to come out and discuss projects when the City has a list of projects that may exceed the City’s financial capabilities. Given the fact that Council holds public hearings on the budget, staff believes it would be judicious of people’s time. The sincerity of the effort is that it would be better to wait and get a handle on what the community’s priorities might be coming out of the discussions that are being held. In response to a question by Commissioner Tuck regarding Mr. Steiner’s work on the Downtown plan, presentation, time frame, and if Mr. O’Neill anticipates anything coming before the Commission that needs to be put in the CIP for FY12, Mr. O’Neill stated he does not have the answer to most of Commissioner’s Tuck’s questions, but he does know that Mr. Steiner’s first phase of work concluded in December. Staff is awaiting his report, and he is suppose to schedule a time where he will give that report to both City Council and the Downtown Hampton Development Partnership (DHDP). Once staff receives the report, they will make it available to the Commission as soon as Council has seen it. He does not know what is in the report, but it could make suggestions that would warrant some additional funding or rearranging of priorities. He stated there is some capital money from the past CIP allocated to Downtown Hampton and has been placed to the side during the re- prioritization. Hopefully Mr. Steiner’s report will help inform the City how to allocate the funds. In response to a question by Commissioner LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated staff is looking at resetting the schedule which provides a plus for moving forward. When a schedule is reset, there is a strange time between the old schedule and the new schedule. Staff did not want to go through a big community input process, even if there were funds to talk about. 7 To do the meetings twice in the order of three or four months, staff felt it would be difficult to do. With all the reasons he has described, now is a good time to make the change which is going to interrupt the normal schedule as we know it now. From this point forward, Council will adopt their new annual budget in May, and that budget year begins July 1. Sometime shortly after the beginning of that budget year, after the decisions have been made by Council, staff will start looking forward to the next year beginning in the middle of the summer into the fall so that the CIP recommendations will be done in the time frame of November. The CIP then becomes a completed process and becomes input into Council’s consideration for the budget. Last year, the CIP did not get adopted until April, and now Council is already crunching numbers with the City Manager and discussing priorities, etc. and they do not have the CIP at this point. Staff is trying to avoid that process in advance so they will know what that information is in the budget. Commissioner LaRue commented that last year was the first time she went through the CIP Planning process, and they were informed that the City did not have all the information (i.e. funding), but it turned out the City did end up having a surplus. She stated it would be helpful to have a better idea of the context of the entire projected budget when dealing with the CIP unless there is always a certain amount of money set aside for the CIP. She stated another area of concern is the process that staff goes through to establish priorities. It was hard for her to look at staff recommendations and not think it was absolutely the right thing because she did not have enough information to know about the projects. She would be interested in having an educational meeting at some point for the Commissioners to get a better handle on the process when choosing priorities. Mr. O’Neill stated those are good points and echoes the sentiments that the Commissioners had in the past. He has heard Commissioners say they do not want to be “rubber stamping” something they don’t fully understand. He sometimes feels the process has been rushed, and he cannot help but think the Commissioners have been put in that position. The other comment staff has had from the public is the same in regards to the time to understand the amount of information on what each of the projects entail, how they relate to their neighborhood, and how they give input into the process. What has led staff to the change of schedule is they have to start earlier if they want to do justice with the CIP process and have time to address the Commissioner’s questions and allow the community to have more meaningful discussions and dialogue. He stated they need to start earlier to deliver to Council a proposed CIP that they have as input in the beginning of their budget deliberations and discussions; not at the middle or close to the end where they almost have to make their decisions already. This will allow time to do this. The Commission has a very specific role in the CIP process. The Commission is not being asked to prepare a budget document, but they are being asked to solicit community input on capital project priorities within the context of do they further the goals, objectives and strategies of the Hampton Community Plan. The Commission is a body who is the keeper of the plan. In other words, is the Commission putting their resources as a representative in the CIP to the right priority based on their analysis and perspective about what the Community Plan says the City should be doing. That is a more narrow slice of the question than what Council has to wrestle with. Council is looking for the Commission’s recommendation to say the plan has a good balance of all the things staff and Commission know of, and at the end of the day, this 8 is a fair CIP in terms of carrying out the recommendation of the plan. The Commission does have to be careful that they are not preparing the budget. Staff tries to give the Commission as much information as they want, but there are times when staff has to politely inform the Commission that they are not doing the budget. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated he or the Commission can talk to the City Manager about how the contingency list works. He suspects what will show up in the budget is some version of the list of projects that are currently in fiscal year 2012 in the CIP that was acted upon last year. During Council’s deliberation, they will look at the projects that were in the CIP for fiscal year 2012, and discuss if they think those contingency projects need to be reprioritized or pushed back another year. Commissioner Tuck mentioned that today he has not heard any discussions about revenues from City Council, and he is not sure where they are with that. ITEM VII. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC In response to a question by Mr. Thornly Roberts, 1007 Florida Street regarding the type of housing proposed by HRHA, Mr. Conkle stated the project will be owned by HRHA and they will be the leasing agent for the town homes and apartments. He stated this is not a Section 8 development, but it will be open to anyone and the rent will be market rate. ITEM VIII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION There were no items by the Commission. ITEM IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to Commission APPROVED BY: ________________________________ James Young Chairman 9