Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT THE WORK SESSION OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE LAWSON CONFERENCE ROOM, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2011 AT 3:00 P.M. Vice-Chairman Andre McCloud, and Commissioners Carlton Campbell, Gaynette LaRue, Gregory Williams, Donnie Tuck, and Mary Bunting were in attendance. Chairman James Young was absent. Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission opened the floor for questions and comments regarding the agenda items. The Commissioners asked questions and discussed Conditional Privilege Application 119-2011. Ms. Vanessa Valldejuli, Senior Deputy City Attorney, announced a correction to Zoning Ordinance Amendment on page 15, line 748, to delete “less than 65 dB Ldn,” and add “or” in front of 65-70dB Ldn. Commissioner Gaynette LaRue expressed her appreciation for staff and their work on the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. O’Neill discussed the joint work session that will be held with the Planning Commission and City Council scheduled for Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. at the Hampton Main Branch Library. The Commission discussed concerns with public policy, vetting issues, straying outside of land use roles, politics, and consistency with the Community Plan, State Code, and their role as Commissioners. Commissioner Bunting mentioned that she will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting due to a previous appointment. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:29 p.m. 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, JUNE 2, 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 Vice-Chairman Andre McCloud to approve the minutes of the April 7, 2011 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, Tuck, McCloud NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Young Public Hearing Procedures Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission 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 IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing item advertised in the Daily Press on May 20 and 27, 2011. A. Conditional Privilege Application No. 119-2011 by Bethel Temple Church, Inc. to operate a Day Care 3 in an existing building located at 1705 Todds Lane [LRSN 4002255]. The 9.36± acre site is zoned One Family Residence District (R-11) which permits a Day Care 3 subject to securing a conditional privilege. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends public/semipublic 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 request is to operate a Day Care 3 facility for a maximum of 40 children ages 2.5 to 6 years old from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday located at 925 Old Buckroe Road. The request is consistent with the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) which encourages the nurturing of children in the Hampton community. Staff support the request, and therefore recommend approval of Conditional Privilege Application No. 118-2011, subject to eleven (11) conditions. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Ms. Lila Hensley, applicant, stated she does not know the name of the type of fencing that will be installed around the playground area. She stated it is not going to be chain link, but it will be consistent with what is currently installed on the opposite side of the building. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Ms. Hensley concurred that it will be a solid fence. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a Conditional Privilege Application No. 119-2011, a proposal by Bethel Temple Church, Inc. to operate a Day Care 3 in an existing church building on a 9.3± acre site located at 1705 Todds Lane (LRSN 4002255); WHEREAS: the applicant requests a Conditional Privilege for a Day Care 3 to allow a maximum of 100 children ages 2.5 to 5 years old from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday; WHEREAS: the site is zoned One Family Residence District (R-11) which permits a Day Care 3 subject to securing a Conditional Privilege; WHEREAS: the proposal is consistent with the land use recommendations of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) which recommends Public/Semi-public uses for this area, wherein institutional uses such as day care centers are acceptable; WHEREAS: the proposal promotes early childhood education and a nurturing environment for youth as recommended in the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended); WHEREAS: there were no members of the public in attendance at the community meeting held June 1, 2011; and WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke at the Planning Commission public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue and seconded by Commissioner Donnie Tuck, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Privilege Application No. 119-2011, subject to eleven (11) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, Tuck, McCloud NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Young Mr. O’Neill read the next public hearing item. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 029-2011: Ordinance to amend and re- enact Chapter 22 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Board of Zoning Appeals” by amending section 22-9 pertaining to appeals to the board. Ms. Vanessa Valldejuli, Senior Deputy City Attorney, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The reason for the amendment is that House Bill 1844 which was signed by the governor on 3/20/11 requires the City to give notice to the property owner in order for a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to be binding on the property owner. It is the result of a court case in Northern Virginia known as “The Crucible Case”. Accordingly, this is treated as a housekeeping measure. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Ms. Valldejuli stated this is a convoluted process. Sometimes the owner may or may not be involved; it could be a contract purchaser. This was the issue with Crucible; the property owner was not the party in interest; it was the developer that was taking on appeals and variances, and establishing vested rights. She stated sometimes there is legislation as a result of lobbyist such as the Homebuilder’s Association that have been pushing for these amendments to reverse the findings of the court in Crucible. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. Steve Shapiro, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated this amendment would not be for variances. He gave an example such as someone could appeal a decision and it may not be the owner of the property. What the Code of Virginia will change is that the property owner will have to be notified that the appeal was noted prior to the BZA finding.  In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. Shapiro stated in the course of business, this amendment will make sure that every locality has to notify the property owner. In response to a question by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Shapiro stated with this amendment, if the City issues an order or a decision and it is appealed, that Zoning Administrator’s decision is then presented to the BZA. In response to a comment by Commissioner Williams, Mr. O’Neill gave an example that a person could own ten acres of property, but may or may not live on that property. The contractor or developer approaches the property owner to buy the property for a price, subject to getting a rezoning, development plan, etc., approved. If the property owner agrees and signs the contract, and that contract purchaser works for six months to a year to put a development plan together, goes through various reviews, that developer could end up at the BZA for something in order to get the plan approved. He stated all this time the property owner has not paid attention to the procedures that the contractor or developer has been doing. Where this situation arises is if they do go through the process that Mr. Shapiro and Ms. Valldejuli articulated, the property owner will receive a required notification that there is an appeal of the decision. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a Zoning Ordinance Amendment request by the City of Hampton to amend and re-enact chapter 22 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Board of Zoning Appeals” by amending section 22-9 pertaining to appeals to the board; WHEREAS: the intent of the amendment is to meet the requirements of House Bill 1844 signed by the Governor on March 24, 2011, which requires that notice of a zoning violation or written order of the zoning administrator which is the subject of an appeal to the BZA be provided to the property owner in order for the decision of the BZA to be binding on the property owner; and WHEREAS: there were no other speakers at the 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 the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to chapter 22 “Board of Zoning Appeals”. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows:  AYES: LaRue, Campbell, Williams, Tuck, McCloud NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Young Mr. O’Neill read the next public hearing item. C. Ordinance Amendment: Ordinance to amend and re-enact chapter 35 of the City Code of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Subdivisions” and to establish or increase fees for review and administration of subdivision ordinance as authorized by Va. Code § 15.2-2241.A.9. This item was presented at the May Planning Commission meeting. Mr. O’Neill acknowledged Mr. Thomas Jordan, Senior City Planner, Ms. Vanessa Valldejuli, Senior Deputy City Attorney, members of the Planning Division and (i.e., Greg Goetz, LDS Division Manager; Gayle Hicks, Senior Civil Engineer; Lynn Allsbrook, Acting Director of Public Works; Walt Crockett, Survey Party Chief, Public Works; Delane Carty, Civil Engineer, Land Development Services; and Steve Shapiro, Deputy Director of Community Development, who are the key people that spent lots of time in coordinating the Subdivision Ordinance and getting it to the point of adoption. Mr. Thomas Jordan, Senior City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The proposed amendment is to bring the Subdivision Ordinance into conformance with the Virginia Code provisions, and to be more user friendly through a chronological flow; modernize and simplify the language; codify and refine the existing process; clarify and streamline the procedures; promote consistency of codes and policies; revise the fee schedule; provide flexibility to address emerging development codes and policies; revising fee schedules; and to implement better goals and policies from the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). Staff supports the request, and ask that the Commission approve the amendment subject to a modification of changing page 15, line 748, to add “or” in front of 65-70dB Ldn, and delete “less than 65 dB Ldn.” He acknowledged all City staff, departments and stakeholders for their contribution to the subdivision ordinance. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Thomas stated the property split that is shown on the slide is one that is currently under review and the City is working with the property owner and surveyor to address those issues. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Thomas stated there is an existing inadequate substandard private drive that serves the current parcels and almost doubles the amount of property that utilizes the private drive. In addition to the impact on Fox Hill Road at the intersection, there are questions and concerns regarding the stormwater easements, etc. to make the subdivision work properly.  In response to a comment by Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Valldejuli stated concerns have been raised by the Fire, and Police Department that the private roads are not adequate for fire trucks and the EMS to come and service residents. She asked how these emergency vehicles are supposed to service properties if they cannot get to a house. She is not saying the property owners have done anything illegal because as of now, property splits exist in the subdivision ordinance, but in order to stop this and put them under the purview of the subdivision ordinance, staff has to take a look at all issues, which is what they are trying to do. She stated it does not mean that the City is trying to hurt a mother or father who wants to split their property for their daughter because those are minor subdivisions that do not require public infrastructure; and in those cases, there are special provisions that can expedite the subdivision review. In response to a question by Commissioner Tuck, Mr. Jordan stated in the Code of Virginia, a subdivision ordinance is considered an administrative ordinance, which means if a property owner meets the regulations, a locality has to approve it. Currently, staff brings these development proposals before the Planning Commission for affirmation that the plans meet the requirements. What this amendment will do is eliminate the Planning Commission process, because there has been confusion between the citizens who see a subdivision on the agenda and think it is a public hearing item, and that their concerns can be considered and the Planning Commission can either approve, deny or modify the project. The Code of Virginia spells out that you have to approve the project if it meets City Code requirements, and there is no room for discretion. This is one thing staff is trying to address by making it an administrative process, unless the developer is trying to modify or seek a waiver on a certain development criteria, which would come before Planning Commission and City Council. In response to a question by Commissioner Tuck, Mr. Jordan concurred that this amendment would expedite the process for the developer for approval. Mr. O’Neill stated it does cut down on their potential time. It has been a long running and confusing process to the public, land owner, and the Commissioners when subdivisions come before the Planning Commission. Oftentimes, the public comments are about drainage, water pressure, etc.; none of which the Planning Commission has authority under the ordinance to deal with. The confusion is the public think they can come to the meeting and solve those issues. Trying to alleviate that confusion and what Ms. Valldejuli will share with the Commission regarding the ordinance being out of sinc legally with what the City is suppose to be doing is the reason why staff is changing the ordinance. There is an appeal process that comes before the Commission if there is a request on the administrative decision. He asked Ms. Valldejuli to explain the legal issues as to why the change is being made. Ms. Valldejuli stated currently the Subdivision Ordinance has as its focus that the Planning Commission review subdivisions for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which the State Code and the case laws state that it is exactly what the Planning Commission is not suppose to be doing. This has lead to confusion amongst the public, the Planning Commission and governing bodies. The thinking is you treat a subdivision similar to a rezoning where you start looking at the design, drainage, etc., that other ordinances and development plan reviews address. The issue is it is a ministerial type ordinance. If a developer complies with the requirements that are in the City’s ordinance, the City has to approve the subdivision. This is something that can be delegated to an agent, which is what the City will be doing. A Subdivision Agent will be doing the review and receiving input from all of the departments to ensure there is orderly development. The other layer is if there is public infrastructure that is involved, the Director of the Department of Public Works also has his designee who will review the public infrastructure to make sure things like drainage, sewer, etc., are set forth properly in the development and in accordance with Public Work’s specification standards. The final plat may not be approved by one person; it will have two signatures: the Subdivision Agent and the Director of Public Work who are the designees of the governing body. The City will know that when a subdivision plat goes to record, it would be finalized by everyone who has approved it. In response to a question by Commissioner Tuck, Ms. Valldejuli stated a subdivision can have private roads. The Virginia Codes states that if the developer wants to do private roads, there has to be notations, not only on the plat, but on the deeds of conveyances that tells the people who are buying the lots that the City or VDOT are not going to maintain those roads. In undergoing the subdivision review, the roads will still have to be wide enough for any EMS, fire and police, but it can still be a private road and not be built according to VDOT’s standards. In response to a question by Commissioner Tuck, Ms. Valldejuli stated the issue is not that the City wants the roads built to VDOT’s standards, but is it sufficient for fire, EMS, police and a garbage truck. Had the subdivision plat undergone the plan review, it would have been caught sooner rather than later. She stated it is easy to say the City is not going to worry about the subdivision plat because it is a private road, but the whole purview of the subdivision ordinance is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and sometimes you have to protect people from their own design. Commissioner Williams commented that it is too bad this amendment is not retroactive because there are a lot of subdivisions that if you get a garbage truck or fire truck to go down the street, it is not going to happen. It is too bad the City cannot go back and redo some things, but it is a great step forward. He thanked Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Jordan for recognizing all the other people who worked on the subdivision ordinance amendment. In response to a question by Commissioner LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated if you are an owner of a single piece of property, as long as that property meets all zoning requirements of lot size, setbacks, etc., you have the ability to split that property into two smaller pieces of property that meet all requirements. What this ordinance and other communities are finding is there are always creative people who use that provision for a narrow application. In other words, if you are going to split a piece of property, why should you have to go through this long bureaucratic review process? He stated some creative people have done multiple splitting of property, ending up with an eight lot subdivision. Ms. Valldejuli stated technically, the owner has assembled four pieces of property, which is fine, and they have not done anything illegal. Under the current ordinance, you take each piece and subdivide it into two. The property splits alone do not create the issue, but the four large pieces divided into eight with a small roadway (dirt road) which now needs to service eight possible homeowners; this would be a subdivision because you need to review the very things that people are concerned about (drainage, storm water, environment, infrastructure, sewer, and width of the road for police and fire). Those things do not get reviewed on a property split because usually a property split would not create those issues. The City is closing that loophole so that anything that is split into two will be reviewed. In response to clarification by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. O’Neill stated the Commission would never see a property split. The Commission would have limited ability to review even at the administrative level, the way the current ordinance is set up. Ms. Valldejuli stated unless the developer has an exception or variance to the ordinance, then the Commission would see it, and City Council would see it as well. For the developer, it is going to be a plus because if they just want to get their development done, all they have to do is meet the criteria and it gets reviewed within the review period, which now, under the new ordinance, would be in compliance with the State code. If the developer has a concept, and they do not want to spend money on the concept, they can come in and meet with all of the departments that would be involved, and they would sit down with the developer and take a look at concept before money is invested into it. It should be a money saving and time saving measure for the developer. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Valldejuli stated what Mr. O’Neill alluded to before is that people are confused. They think that subdivisions entitle them to comment whether they like the subdivision or not. It is not a legislative ordinance, but an administrative ordinance. By taking it out of the Commission’s arena, it brings the focus back as a ministerial process. If the developer wants to modify a subdivision, that is when the public should be concerned because the developer is doing something that the City would normally not approve under the administrative provisions, which would ultimately come to the Commission. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Ms. Valldejuli stated there are other tools such as the zoning overlays, pattern books, and design criteria depending on the zoning district. She stated you cannot use a subdivision ordinance to dictate aesthetics or compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is not within the purview of a subdivision ordinance to invite a public hearing process. If the subdivision is a subject of a rezoning, that is a different story, because in the rezoning you have the subdivision, but you also have proffers, which is subject to a public hearing, and the public has a right to look at the elevations that are being proposed as a result of a rezoning. That is when all of the other issues come into play. She stated a subdivision ordinance in and of itself is a ministerial ordinance that is designed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare with respect to orderly development, lots, insuring drainage, flooding, and other public health, safety, and welfare issues, but not the type of things you look at through the other zoning tools. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated other than what Ms. Valldejuli indicated, the City has certain tools such as the infill housing ordinance which looks at context where the overlay ordinance applies. He stated the way the laws are currently structured (i.e. design of the home), it is not something that the City can get into. There is some freedom as a landowner and homeowner for a citizen to design their house and structure differently than others as long as they meet the setback, front yard, and height requirements. In response to a comment by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Ms. Valldejuli stated the Commission has the tools to implement pattern books, design guidelines and overlays. She gave Buckroe as an example with a pattern book. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McCloud, Ms. Valldejuli stated a subdivision in the Buckroe SPI-BBD area would have to comply with the pattern book. Ms. Susan Gaston, Virginia Peninsula Association of Realtors (VPAR), stated the association has had the pleasure of being part of the stakeholders group on the subdivision and zoning ordinance from the beginning. The association wholeheartedly supports the subdivision ordinance and especially likes the expedited review process. This process will control or offer a timeframe that developers will be more comfortable with. It will also take out some of the guess work, and as a result, will reduce the timeframe and cost, and those savings typically are passed on to the homebuyer and homeowner, which is good, in particular with today’s market. The association is pleased with the open dialogue, and a collegial and cooperative experience from the beginning as being part of the stakeholders group. She commended Mr. O’Neill, Ms. Valldejuli, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Cannady, and the entire staff who not only allowed them to be open and bring in ideas and have constructive discussions, but the time that City staff has taken to come to the VPAR and review things as they progressed. She thanked everyone, and stated VPAR fully supports the ordinance, and she looks forward to open dialogue. She stated VPAR wants to be the resource on housing and real estate issues. They have been around for many years, and seem to be in a positive position now because they are getting their information to the Commission, other members of City Council, and other boards and commissions. She concluded with the VPAR giving thanks and support, and to continue positive discussions. Ms. Valldejuli noted to the Commission a correction to Zoning Ordinance Amendment on page 15, line 748, to add “or” in front of 65-70dB Ldn and delete “less than 65 dB Ldn.” After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day an ordinance amendment by the City of Hampton to amend and reenact Chapter 35 (Subdivisions) of the Hampton City Code and to establish or increase fees for review and administration of the Subdivision Ordinance by Va. Code §15.2-2241.A.9; WHEREAS: the proposed ordinance amendment brings provisions regarding preliminary and final plat review periods and procedures for the release of sureties into compliance with the Virginia Code; WHEREAS: sections have been reorganized to be more user friendly, intuitive, and provide a logical flow as related to the chronological sequence of the review and permitting process; WHEREAS: the proposed ordinance amendment significantly updates the subdivision regulations to better reflect modern development trends, practices, and terminology; WHEREAS: existing processes have been codified and refined to promote consistency and streamline procedures; WHEREAS: staff has discussed this amendment with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) and a stakeholders group which supports the recommended text changes; and WHEREAS: one speaker, a representative from the Virginia Peninsula Association of Realtors (VPAR), spoke at the public hearing to endorse the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance Amendment. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows:  AYES: Campbell, LaRue, Williams, Tuck, McCloud NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Young ITEM V. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. O’Neill announced that June 8, 2011 will be a joint Planning Commission and City Council work session beginning at 10:30 a.m. at the main library. The meeting is open to the public. There are no action items, but a meeting that is usually held on an annual basis to get to know each other and discuss joint issues. This meeting will begin the long process of informing and briefing the Commission and Council on the update to the strategic issues of the Community Plan. ITEM VI. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. ITEM VII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION There were no items by the Commission. ITEM VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to Commission APPROVED BY: ________________________________ James Young Chairman AT THE WORK SESSION OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN THE HAMPTON PUBLIC LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM, 4207 VICTORIA BOULEVARD, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2011 AT 10:30 A.M. PRESENT: Planning Commission Chairman James Young, Vice-Chairman Andre McCloud, and Commissioners Carlton Campbell, Gaynette LaRue, Gregory Williams, Donnie Tuck, and Mary Bunting City Council Mayor Molly J. Ward, Vice Mayor George E. Wallace, Councilpersons Ross Kearney, II, Angela Leary, Will Moffett, Christopher Stuart, and Donnie Tuck Vice-Chairman Andre McCloud on behalf of Chairman James Young welcomed those in attendance and turned the meeting over to Mr. Terry O’Neill, Director of Community Development. Mr. O’Neill announced that Ms. Diane Boone, Clerk to the Planning Commission will be retiring from the City of Hampton. Per Mr. O’Neill’s request, members that attended the Focus Group introduced themselves. Mr. O’Neill stated there are two things that the Planning Commission and City Council have the opportunity to do when the joint meeting occurs, and that is to discuss issues of mutual concern and have open dialogue about those issues. He stated the Planning Commission and City Council will receive a brief overview on the Community Plan that the Focus Groups have been involved in. Their work is completed, and the Commission and Council will hear a briefing, but not all details have been finalized. The draft will go through a number of revisions and the Commission and Council will receive the Plan which is tentatively scheduled to begin next month. Briefings were given by the following individuals: James Gray - Lifelong Learning, Education Public Safety Bill Berg - Community and Healthy families Diverse Population Youth and Seniors Jim Wilson - Community Appearance, Pride and Image Environment, Quality of Life Keith Cannady - Housing and Neighborhoods Good Government Terry O’Neill - Economic Base, Regionalism, Transportation and Infrastructure Waterways Mr. O’Neill showed a slide of the schedule of meetings for the Community Plan as follows: Community Checkpoint Meeting 5/24/11 Focus Group Representative Work Session 6/6/11 Joint Planning Commission/City Council Briefing 6/8/11 Technical Review by Content Experts June – July 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing 7/7/11 (Tentative) City Council Public Hearing 8/10/11 (Tentative) The Commission, Council, and Focus Groups discussed the following items: A plan for a report score card that shows progress of projects A uniqueness for the score card process Progress to date for the score card Regular reporting process A willingness to be involved in meetings An oversight process Training once a student receives a degree Workforce training Funding process for educating a child or adult with different resources Managing expectations Process being too slow Communication and utilizing all resources Citizen involvement Goals associated with cost of projects Minority report from groups (view holistically) Reviewing five year goals and look at funding for these goals Bring in experts 3 major things to identify in five or ten years Strategies established that goes from government to government and City Council to City Council (target those goals and evaluate) Elements provided by individuals and community groups (i.e., neighborhood improvements, personal health, educating children) CIP process (using pieces that already exist and soliciting citizen input in the planning process) Not government funding plan but community funding plan Getting other partners around the table Involve community groups, citizens, churches, businesses, non-profit organizations Providing conveners, facilitators, and solicit help Committees don’t want to just receive information, but they want to be a source in assisting in implementation Volunteer base in community including seniors and young people Uneven distribution in access and communities Support from other localities Adopt a project sign Mayor Ward and Chairman Young thanked the focus group participants and staff for all their hard work and achievements. Mr. O’Neill reiterated on the tasks, making it more refined and submitting the document to the Planning Commission and City Council public meeting once it is refined. He noted that comments were solicited from people in other localities who attended the Community Plan meetings and it was relayed that while Hampton has its challenges, they felt that the City has their act together. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:02 p.m.