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, MARCH 3, 2011 AT 3:30 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman James Young called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted all members present. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Gregory Williams and seconded by Vice- Chairman Andre McCloud to make a correction to the December 2, 2010 minutes to change “grocery store” to “book-n-card store” located on page three, first paragraph of line five. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Bunting, Tuck, Young NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by Commissioner Mary Bunting, and seconded by Commissioner Donnie Tuck to approve the minutes of the January 6, 2011 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Bunting, Tuck, Young NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None ITEM IV. STAFF REPORTS A. Youth Planner Report Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, stated as it has been done in the past because the Youth Planners are coming from school, he asked that the Youth Planner Report be moved to the end of the agenda. The Commission was in agreement to move the Youth Planner Report to the end of the agenda. 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 February 18 and 25, 2011. A. Rezoning Application No. 1293-2011 by the Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority to rezone 0.17+ acres at 723 Old Point Avenue [LRSN 13002684] from One Family Residence District (R-9) to Multiple Dwelling District (MD-2) for a clubhouse associated with the adjacent Old Point Townhomes. R-9 allows up to 6.5 units per acre, and MD-2 allows up to 16 units per acre. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends medium density residential in this area, and the Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommends a single family residential street along Old Point Avenue with townhomes located on the interior portion of the site. Conditions have been proffered and such proffers are available for public review in the Planning Division of the Department of Community Development. Mr. Michael Hayes, Senior City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The request is to rezone the property from One Family Residence District (R-9) to Multiple Dwelling District (MD-2) to permit a clubhouse in association with the adjacent Old Point Townhomes. As per the recommendation of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended), Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority (HRHA) has ensured staff that the proposed building fits within the context and builds upon the quality of single-family homes along Old Point Avenue. Proffered conditions have been attached to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Staff supports the proposed request and recommends approval of Rezoning Application No. 1293-2011, subject to 14 conditions. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Hayes stated approximately two individuals attended the community meeting, and he believes they were a married couple. There was a discussion about being content with the proposal, but he hesitates to speak beyond that discussion in terms of framing someone else’s comments or thoughts. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Hayes concurred that there was not an outright rejection of the proposal. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. Hayes stated the function of the clubhouse is to provide office space for the property manager, but there is also a meeting space as well as a kitchen area. He stated it is not a clubhouse in terms of having a pool or recreational activities, but it will have a meeting or gathering space. 2  In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. Hayes stated the meeting space would be for the residents of the townhouses. No one can come and randomly rent out the space for a party. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. O’Neill stated the proposed request is considered part of the townhouse project which is a multi-family project that necessitates a change in zoning. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Hayes concurred that the proposed request serves a dual purpose (i.e., a place for the project manager to work, and a meeting place). He introduced Mr. Carter to provide further information. Mr. Aaron Carter, Development Coordinator, HRHA, noted that the townhouses are not for purchase, but for rent. If a person wanted to rent one of the townhomes, they would come into the office to discuss it with the project manager. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Carter stated the property manager currently resides off site. Mr. Carter stated in addressing Commissioner Campbell’s question, there were two residents who attended the meeting, and he believes they were married, even though they did not state it. Their main concern was having eyes on the development, and the proposed request plays perfectly into what they were looking to have on site, which also plays into what HRHA wants to have as well (i.e. someone on site to answer questions, lease, move, and to provide a space for the residents to enjoy). In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Carter stated there are 27 townhomes for rent. Commissioner LaRue commented that the proposed request appears to be a creative and innovative use for a small piece of property that would have been difficult if developed any other way. It also meets unmet needs of the townhouse development. In response to a question by Chairman Young, Mr. Carter stated while the property manager is at the facility during the day, the residents can come in and enjoy the facility. HRHA is not looking at renting out the facility to the tenants because there would not be anyone there to monitor the facility after business hours. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. Carter stated at this point the facility could not be rented out for a social function after hours. It is something that HRHA can look into. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Ms. Vanessa Valldejuli, Deputy City Attorney, stated in Proffer #2 submitted by the applicant, it specifically states that the property will be leased exclusively for Old Point Townhomes and will not be leased to anyone who is not a resident of Old Point Townhomes, except for HRHA. 3  Vice-Chairman McCloud wanted clarification that if he is a resident of Old Point Townhomes and he wants to have a Christmas party, could he use the proposed facility to do that, and Mr. Carter stated yes, the residents could do that. Commissioner Williams stated he thought Mr. Carter mentioned that the facility would only be available if the property manager was on the premises. If he was going to have a Christmas party, the property manager would have to be present during the hours of operation when the property manager was there and Mr. Carter concurred. Commissioner Williams stated HRHA may want to rethink the use of the facility because it sounds like the clubhouse is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at this point. He stated what Vice-Chairman McCloud is articulating is if the residents want to do something in the evening, it is no use to have a clubhouse because they cannot use it. It is more of a place for the property manager to reside than a traditional clubhouse, which is his personal opinion. Mr. O’Neill stated for clarification, the condition that Ms. Valldejuli mentioned is a condition that speaks to some part of the proposal which is before the Commission to act on. He is not stating that some of the discussion is not important or germane to the conversation because it is, but he wants to be clear that the Commission knows what is in the condition and what it does and does not say. He stated the condition implies that anyone who is a resident of the townhouse complex can lease the clubhouse with the approval of HRHA staff. How HRHA manages the space is an internal organization policy, and it is not a condition of the case. Commissioner Tuck stated if it is primarily a place for the property manager to occupy, why not build another unit that would be an office versus a clubhouse. Mr. Carter stated it is an office/clubhouse; the office for leasing purposes, and the clubhouse because there will be elderly living in the townhomes, mobile impaired residents, and during the day, they can use the facility. But as Mr. O’Neill and Ms. Valldejuli pointed out, the wording in that proffer allows HRHA to have an employee after hours if HRHA wanted to. Mr. O’Neill stated to Commissioner Tuck that staff has worked with HRHA to make the project comply closely as possible with the Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommendation. The Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) is clear about maintaining the single family scale and character along the Old Point Avenue block because that is what is on both sides. Staff was hesitant about bringing the townhouses out to the street because staff felt it violated that principle in the plan that Old Point Avenue is primarily on the frontages of a series of single-family homes. Staff wanted to maintain the scale, look, and structure, and HRHA could not build a single-family structure because of the configuration of the property. Commissioner Tuck stated he is fine with the proposal. He was just following along the line of questioning about the proposed request being a clubhouse that apparently cannot 4 be used after hours, when one would think a function of a clubhouse would be that if someone wanted to have an event, they could have it after hours. He stated if that is not part of the purpose of the clubhouse, why not just build another unit. Not that the proposal is not in keeping with the residential design that is already there, but build a unit where the property manager would reside, but he is fine with the proposal. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Rezoning Application No. 1293-2011, a proposal by the Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to rezone from One Family Residence District (R-9) to Multiple Dwelling District (MD-2) the area consisting of 0.17+ acre at 723 Old Point Avenue (LRS 13002684); WHEREAS: the proposal is to allow for the development of a clubhouse containing meeting space, a kitchen, and a property manager’s office in conjunction with the Old Point Townhomes development; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends medium density residential (9-15 units per acre) in this area; WHEREAS: both the Hampton Community Plan and the Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommend maintaining the single family residential character of Old Point Avenue; WHEREAS: the applicant has proffered conditions, including building elevations and conceptual site plan, which ensure the lot will be developed in keeping with the single family character of Old Point Avenue, and that the use of the property will be limited to the clubhouse and property manager’s office; WHEREAS: two members of the public attended a community meeting that was held on February 22, 2011; and WHEREAS: no members of the public signed up to speak at the Planning Commission public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Mary Bunting and seconded by Commissioner Donnie Tuck, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning No. 1293-2011, subject to fourteen (14) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Bunting, Tuck, Young NAYS: None 5  ABST: None ABSENT: None Mr. O’Neill read the next public hearing item. B. Conditional Privilege Application No. 116-2011 by Peninsula Town Center, LLC, to allow live entertainment at Terra Restaurant and Bar at 2330 McMenamin Street [LRSN 13002022]. The restaurant is part of the larger 77± acre Peninsula Town Center development and is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2), which permits live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant subject to securing a Conditional Privilege. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends commercial for this area. Mr. David Stromberg, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto, and made a part hereof. The proposed use is to allow live entertainment which includes recorded music, live instrumental music, and/or disk jockey. The proposal is consistent with the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). The proposal is an acceptable use in conjunction with existing restaurant activity. Staff supports the proposed request, and recommends approval of Conditional Privilege Application No. 116-2011, subject to 11 conditions. In response to a question by Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Stromberg stated the Conditional Privilege would add live entertainment outdoors, but it would also allow greater capacity and extended hours of operation indoors. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Julius Wilson and David Nesbitt, owners of Terra Restaurant and Bar introduced themselves, and Mr. Wilson concurred that the later hours begin Wednesday through Saturday. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Wilson stated as of March st 1 , they are open everyday from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. with the exception of Sundays. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Conditional Privilege Application No. 116-2011, a proposal by Hampton Terra, LLC, doing business as Terra Restaurant and Bar, to permit live entertainment within an existing restaurant at 2330 McMenamin Street [LRSN 13002022]; WHEREAS: the applicant proposes indoor live entertainment occurring from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Tuesday, and 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday, and outdoor live entertainment occurring from 11:00 AM to 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday; 6 WHEREAS: the proposal is consistent with the land use recommendations of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) which recommends mixed use for this area and expansion of tourism, entertainment, and cultural opportunities within the city; WHEREAS: the site is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District which permits live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant subject to securing a Conditional Privilege; WHEREAS: the site is located in Peninsula Town Center and can be accessed from multiple points off of Mercury Boulevard, Coliseum Drive, and Cunningham Drive; WHEREAS: no members of the public attended a community meeting that was held on February 15, 2011; and WHEREAS: no members of the public signed up to speak at the Planning Commission public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Privilege No. 116-2011, subject to eleven (11) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Bunting, Tuck, Young NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None Mr. O’Neill read the next public hearing item. C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 023-2011: Ordinance to amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia by amending and reenacting sections 3-5, 3.1-6, 3.2-6, 3.3-6, 3.4-6, 4-5, 5-5, 6-5, 7-5, 8-5, 9-5, 10-2, 10-8(3), 10- 19(3), 10-30(3), 10.1-2, 10.1-5, 12-1,13-1,15-1(1), 17.3-24(5), 18-4, 18-7, 19-1 and 19-2 by deleting the term “churches” and replacing with the term “religious facilities” as set forth in chapter 2.1-144 of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Vanessa Valldejuli, Deputy City Attorney, presented the staff report a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The amendment is a housekeeping measure to replace the term “churches” with the term “religious facilities” to encompass all venues of worship in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff respectfully requests that the Commission approve the proposed amendment. 7  After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the following: sections 3-5, 3.1-6, 3.2-6, 3.3-6, 3.4-6, 4-5, 5-5, 6-5, 7-5, 8-5, 9-5, 10-2, 10-8(3), 10-19(3), 10-30(3), 10.1-2, 10.1-5, 12-1, 13-1,15-1(1), 17.3-24(5), 18-4, 18-7,19-1, and 19-2; WHEREAS: the intent of the amendments is to delete the term “churches” and replace it with the term “religious facilities” as set forth in chapter 2.2-144 of the zoning ordinance; WHEREAS: staff has discussed these amendments with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee who support the recommended text changes; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Donnie Tuck, and seconded by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia by amending and reenacting sections 3-5, 3.1-6, 3.2-6, 3.3-6, 3.4-6, 4-5, 5-5, 6-5, 7-5, 8-5, 9-5, 10-2, 10-8(3), 10- 19(3), 10-30(3), 10.1-2, 10.1-5, 12-1,13-1,15-1(1), 17.3-24(5), 18-4, 18-7,19-1, and 19-2 by deleting the term “churches” and replacing it with the term “religious facilities” as set forth in chapter 2.2-144 of the zoning ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, McCloud, Bunting, Tuck, Young NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None Mr. O’Neill read the next public hearing item. D. Public Hearing-no action Zoning Ordinance Amendment 021-2010: Ordinance to amend and reenact chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordnance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “General Provisions” by amending section 18-9 pertaining to fence and wall regulations. Mr. Jeff Conkle, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The proposed amendment is to provide greater flexibility for fencing in response to numerous citizen requests for variances from the current language. The amendment had two options (short and long version), and the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) recommended the longer version. Upon further staff review, issues were raised which increased the length and scope of services. A draft was presented to ZOAC, and will proceed to the Planning Commission April public hearing. No action is needed at this meeting. 8  In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Conkle stated he is not aware of any other restrictions on the type of materials that can be used for fencing. Commissioner Williams stated he would like staff to look at whether or not the type of fencing is appropriate with other housing in the neighborhood or fits in with the community so that we do not have anyone building eight foot cinder blocks. He is not saying aesthetically what the fence looks like, but the materials. Mr. O’Neill stated staff will provide him an answer to that question, but he can tell the Commission in general that staff is limited in these type of ordinances as to appearance and aesthetic aspects of the type of fencing that neighbor A or B builds. These issues are best governed by restrictive covenants that are civil matters in a neighborhood. That could be a part of staff’s response when Ms. Valldejuli helps staff craft the language. Staff has to deal specifically with structure and the land use application unless it is in a historic district where staff has greater power. In response to a question by Commissioner LaRue, Mr. O’Neill concurred that the homeowner is required to go through the building permit process to build a fence, but it is mostly for structural integrity and public safety type issues of the code. It is not about telling a person the type of materials they can use or how it looks unless they are in a historic district that has specific guidelines that can be enforced. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated the Property Maintenance Code gives some ability to regulate the condition of fencing, but it has to be structural integrity or public safety. It cannot regulate the ground in regards to the way it looks. Staff does not have a lot of room in that area. He reiterated that their enforcement deals with structure, soundness, safety, etc. The City has a Weed and Debris Ordinance, so there are some provisions that weed and debris can be enforced. In response to a question by Chairman Young, Mr. O’Neill stated the Commission should see these items at the April public hearing. No action is needed at this meeting. Mr. O’Neill read the next public hearing item. E. Public Hearing-no action Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 022-2010 by the City of Hampton to amend and re-enact Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Zones and General Provisions” by amending section 1-2 pertaining to zoning maps and adding section 1-5 pertaining to aircraft noise and aircraft accident potential zones and boundaries and section 1-6 pertaining to special regulations regarding discretionary zoning applications in air installation compatible use zones (AICUZ). Mr. David Stromberg, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The proposed amendment is to adopt the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ), boundaries to the official zoning map, and adopt special regulations on discretionary development within AICUZ boundaries (i.e. rezonings, 9 use permits, conditional privileges). The proposed amendment implements recommendations of Hampton-Langley Joint Land Use Study (JLUS); meets State code requirements, reduce future incompatible land use; supports Langley Air Force Base (LAFB); and protects private property rights. The amendment was presented to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee. The amendment meets the general polices in the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended), as well as several specific actions in the JLUS. The amendment was presented to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee with feedback from the committee. No action is needed at this meeting. The amendment will be presented to the Commission at the April public hearing. In response to a question by Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Stromberg stated the City is in a better situation than Virginia Beach in regards to boundaries because having smaller AICUZ boundaries means there is less of a chance of incompatible development. Ms. Valldejuli stated Oceana is a bigger base; it is a master jet base, which means their flight patterns are different and their noise zones are expanded, but the encroachment issue is greater in Virginia Beach, and it always has been. Hampton has been proactive in working with LAFB in establishing noise boundaries. It is not a new thing, and the only thing staff is doing is incorporating the existing boundaries into the zoning map which is a requirement of 15.2-2295 in order to enforce real estate disclosures. Commissioner Mary Bunting stated being a member of the City for many years, she recalled certain actions the City had taken in the 90’s, some of which were referenced, and others which were not, that in the early 90’s, the City made sure they did everything they could to BRAC proof LAFB, as well as other facilities. What Mr. O’Neill explained to her is that even though the City already had regulations in place, the City is trying to use the same language that LAFB and other military installations like to use. She stated in using the AICUZ language, it is very important to the military and federal government because they know that language. They do not necessarily know the unique local zoning language, but by adopting the full AICUZ program, it gives them a greater degree of comfort because they know what that language is. Ms. Valldejuli stated earlier in the work session, she distributed a new page dealing with some clerical amendments that was discovered during the publication of the ordinance that the Commission has. It deals with the flood zone ordinance that the Commission previously approved, and City Council adopted. These amendments highlighted in red will be coming forward to the Commission and it is outlined in blue so the Commission can see the difference. It deals with terminology that was incorporated into Article 5, Chapter 17.3 which needs to be mirrored in Section 1-2. Mr. O’Neill read the next public hearing item. F. Public Hearing-no action Zoning Ordinance Amendment 024-2011: Ordinance to amend and reenact chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordnance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “General 10  Provisions” by amending section 18-16 pertaining to projections allowed in yards and courts. Mr. Jeff Conkle, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The proposed amendment is to provide greater allowance for front porches in response to citizen requests for variances to allow front porches. Staff provided draft language which was reviewed by the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC), and they recommended staff to proceed. This is also in alignment with the plans and policies of the City. Staff proposes to allow porches to project up to 8 feet into the front setback provided that the porch is at least 10’ from the front property line. No action is needed at this meeting. The amendment will be presented to the Commission at the April public hearing. In response to a question by Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Conkle stated a lot of the newer community homes are built with the City’s regulations in mind. These neighborhoods have porches pushed back beyond the front setback, and they were designed with the thought that the homeowners want a front porch, but the regulation does not allow it. He cannot answer how the older neighborhood front porches were regulated. Ms. Valldejuli commented that in addition, some of the homeowners went before the Board of Zoning Appeals and requested a variance for the porches. Because of the size of the lot, the home owner was granted the variance, and the State Code states that when you have a request that becomes a common place rather than meet the distances of the neighborhood, then it is time to look at amending the Zoning Ordinance. In response to a question by Chairman Young, Mr. O’Neill stated staff can send him information regarding how balconies are regulated. He stated there is a lot of different language in the Zoning Ordinance that deals with various types of projections (i.e. bay windows, balconies, chimneys, etc.) that staff will research and send to him. Youth Planner Report Mr. Troy Elliott, Youth Planner, stated the Downtown Landscape Design is in its final stages of completion. It was forwarded to the Youth Planner Program Supervisor, Donald Whipple for approval, and comments will be presented to the Youth Planners at their staff meeting. The Buckroe Parade of Homes and Wythe School Parking Analysis is a work in progress. He showed a slide of a map indicating the location of lighting fixtures in Downtown Hampton, and stated it is a documentation of existing conditions. He showed a slide of a map indicating locations of décor and signage which includes different bench types, trash cans, public art, and sculptures within the City. He stated there is also an Excel sheet that has a tally of the number and different types of décor and signage in the Downtown area. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. O’Neill stated he does not believe the Youth Planner Reports are online because they have not been given to their 11 supervisor. The reports can be placed on Planning’s website once the information is completed. Mr. Elliott stated the presentation can be made available on the web as early as Monday of next week. Commissioner Campbell suggested a simple summary write-up that could be posted on the web that may not have all the details until it goes through the proper channels, but just what the Youth Planners and Commission are working on. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Elliott stated the Buckroe Parade of Homes project is similar to the Downtown Hampton documentation in regards to the process of what is happening in the Buckroe development which is taking pictures of the process of the project. Mr. O’Neill stated in major areas like Downtown, Coliseum Central, Buckroe or Phoebus where there are major projects for public and private improvement, particularly if they are recommendations coming out of an existing plan, staff will keep a pictorial history and inventory of those projects. Mr. Elliott and Ms. Leeper have been helping Planning staff do this by going out periodically taking pictures and inventory of various things. ITEM VI. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. O’Neill reminded the Commission of the Community Plan meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, 6:30 p.m. at the Convention Center. It is a check point meeting for the public who is invited to come and see the mid-point report from various focus groups. They will have an opportunity to make comments and suggestions on the progress to date. On Thursday, March 10, 2011 at the Ruppert Sargent Bldg., in the Veteran’s Conference Room on the first floor, representatives from each of the ten focus groups will participate in a dialogue work session. They can share what they heard collectively as a group from Tuesday night’s meeting, as well as help begin conversations of where issues cross focus groups and how staff can set up means for the groups to talk about those common issues and goals that they are working on. He encouraged the Commissioners to attend one or both of the meetings. Mr. O’Neill stated Phase 1 of the Community Plan process which is the strategic plan of the process, is suppose to be rapping up by the May timeframe. Staff is trying to schedule a joint work session with the Planning Commission and City Council sometime in June. He asked the Commission to look at their schedule and if it is a major issue with the majority of the Commission members, staff will look for an alternate date. Staff has typically done this work session when there are updates to the Community Plan and the Commission and Council come together to receive a briefing on what the likely recommendations will be coming out of the focus groups. The Commission and Council will have approximately an hour and a half or two to talk about their early impressions before they eventually come to each body for a formal adoption in the months that would come after. He stated June 8th is the meeting date. Typically what staff has done is have the work session at 10:00 a.m. or 12 11:00 a.m. on the Wednesday of Council meeting which allows Council to go into their 1:00 p.m. regular Council meeting. In response to a comment by Commissioner Williams, Mr. O’Neill assured Commissioner Williams that the exercise for the Hampton Community Plan does not go into a black hole. He stated most of the focus groups should have received through the conveners or facilitation teams a two and a half page list of projects or initiatives that have been implemented or come out of the previous Hampton Community Plan or Strategic Plan process. It is not an all encompassing list, but it is an impressive list of projects, initiatives, and programs that directly come out of recommendations from these type processes. He would hate for anyone to go forward thinking it is just an exercise for a document. He stated all of the things do not come to pass, but a lot of very important things do. If the Commission does not have the list, he asked that they e-mail him, and he will forward the list to them. He reiterated that this is the strategic part of the document. It identifies major issue areas and goals, and this part will end up being the strategic plan and it will be forwarded to the Commission for their adoption, and forwarded to Council. Commissioner Bunting stated in building on Mr. O’Neill’s comments, the Hampton Strategic Plan is intended to be a five year document. The expectations should not be that everything will be done immediately. What the plan does is it guides staff’s work in terms of how they research items that are forwarded to Council, and how it is budgeted. One of the things the City Manager is evaluated on is the management of work in accordance with the Strategic Plan and Hampton Community Plan. She stated it is very much a living breathing document, and she echoed Mr. O’Neill’s sentiments, that it may not be that everything can be done in the creative brainstorming environment that staff tries to foster during the Strategic Plan process. Sometimes ideas are generated, and when staff tries to implement them, they find out that they do not have the legal authority from the State of Virginia, but they try to actively pursue the overwhelming majority, if not all things that come forward over that five year period of a five year document. It is a guiding document for her organization, and she expects the department heads will foster their work plans in accordance with the plan, and they need to report to her on the plan, and she reports to Council. One of the things she would like to do coming out of the process is to have a more active report card document for the community so that they do not have to wait for an update. The process lasts several months, but possibly a quarterly or semi-annual report card to the community about what has been achieved or action steps taken towards larger goals. She stated one of the things that had been done in the past is having a Strategic Plan Oversight Group where citizens participate in the process and met on a quarterly basis, and she is looking at reconvening such a group in the future after Planning Commission and City Council review the document. She stated all of these things are ways to make sure that citizens who have invested time and energy don’t feel like it has been for naught. Commissioner Williams stated Ms. Bunting’s comments are along his line of thinking, and he will make the assumption that there are previous five year Strategic Plans, and there are documents codified somewhere what the accomplishments were every five years. 13  Commissioner Bunting concurred with Mr. William’s comments and stated when she first came to the organization in 1989, the City was in the process of an update. In that particular timeframe, many of the ideas that came out of that Strategic Plan are active components of the City government today. For instance, the Healthy Families Partnership, Healthy Start program, Parenting programs, etc., were all envisioned back in the early 90’s. The Neighborhood Initiative and how it ultimately came to be fostered to include not only the Neighborhood Department, but the Neighborhood College, the Neighborhood College Alumni program, and the Neighborhood Commission were outgrowths of the 1990 and 1995 update to the Hampton Community Plan. There are specific concrete actions that come out of the Hampton Strategic Plan efforts; many of which are living breathing organisms today. She stated roughly every five years, staff updates the Hampton Strategic Plan element of the Hampton Community Plan, and that is why staff reinitiated it this year because it was time to do that again. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated the meeting on Thursday, March 10th will be at the Ruppert Sargent Building, Veteran’s Conference Room, first floor beginning at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Bunting wanted to remind the Commission and viewing audience that the City is in the process of the community polling for the City budget priorities for fiscal year 2012. An event will be held this evening at Jones Middle School where audience participation polling will take place from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Another one will be held on Saturday morning at the Teen Center facility, but it is not restricted to the young members of the community, but open to everyone. There is also the online polling which can be accessed through the City’s web page www.Hamptonvalues.com or the www.Hampton.gov web page. She hoped that the Commissioners would take the opportunity to participate in either event, or the online polling so that their perspective can be heard as part of this important process. She encouraged the rest of the citizenry to do so as well. Also being scheduled are organizational chats or opportunities for neighborhood or other organized groups who would like to have a more in-depth conversation about the budget. She sees the whole month of March as an active budget engagement opportunity for residents and organizations alike. Vice-Chairman McCloud stated in regards to the planning process, he had the opportunity to participate in the 1989 process which was painful. He mentioned meeting after meeting, and implementation, and that it is still going on as far as he is concerned. He wanted to give accolades to the City for doing this process. He stated the concern comes in regarding the budget and the opportunity to do things and thinking out of the box. A lot of things surfaced from those meetings that will not happen because it cannot. He was on the first Neighborhood Commission and a lot of the initiatives he worked with, and programs and work that is going on in Downtown Hampton came out of those visions and sessions. He stated there is a document, and a lot of effort went into them, and now it is a continuation of the process. 14 ITEM VII. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. 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 5:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to Commission APPROVED BY: ________________________________ James Young Chairman 15