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, OCTOBER 6, 2011 AT 3:30 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Carlton Campbell called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioners Mary Bunting, Donnie Tuck and James Young were absent. Commissioner James Young arrived at 3:50 p.m. ITEM III MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue to approve the minutes of the September 1, 2011 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Young, Bunting, Tuck ITEM IV. STAFF REPORTS A. Youth Planner Report Evelyn Baumgardner, Senior Youth Planner updated the Commission on what the Youth Planners have been doing. They held their second work session and talked about what success is and how they, as a commission, can be successful. They discussed their work plan for the year and projects they will be doing, such as informing the youth about the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), its processes, and the candidates’ forum. The candidates’ forum is a youth-run forum that introduces youth to the City Council candidates in order to get the youth more involved in local politics. The Commission also met in their respective two committees: Philanthropy and Publicity & Policy. The Committees will meet on Monday evenings from 6:00 until 7:00 at City Hall.  On September 12 they met independently to finalize attendance policies and continue discussion on the broad goals they would like to achieve. On September 17, the commission went on a field trip to Peninsula Town Center and Hampton Town Center in order to find out what worked and did not work in regard to creating good youth spaces. Those two locations were chosen because the Commissioner’s decided that they are two of the most popular places for teens to hang out. On September 19, the Hampton Youth Commission reconvened at their regular work session meeting to discuss their findings from Saturday night’s exploratory exercise. This narrowed their findings into three main areas of concern: affordability of products as well as the variety of merchandise offered, youth friendliness, and the variety of activities available to youth. Further discussion was done to discuss these issues, explore root problems, and brainstorm possible strategies relevant to each committee role on September 26. In addition to the work with the Youth Commission, the Youth Planners are analyzing the data collected during the Wythe School Parking Survey and generating a summary document. Vice Chair Gregory Williams asked Ms. Baumgardner how attendance is at the Teen Center. Evelyn Baumgartner stated there are approximately 30 attendees each evening. She also stated the Youth Commission is currently opening recruitment. 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. V. Public Hearing Items Mr. Terry O’Neill read the public hearing item advertised in the Daily Press on September 23 and 30, 2011. A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 030-2011: Ordinance to amend and re-enact chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “MD Districts—Multiple Dwelling Districts” by amending article IV sections 10-35 through 10-44 pertaining to the MD-4 district. Mr. Jeff Conkle, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. This amendment process began in 2009 with the first proposal to revise the MD-4 District. In addition to creating a more urban district, this proposal included a change that would have added single-family residential as a permitted use in MD-4. This proposal went to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) and Planning Commission (which recommended approval) in late 2009. However, prior to the February 2010 City Council hearing, staff chose to withdraw the amendment due to its inclusion in a package of amendments, another of which was not supported by City Council. Staff then looked into the proposed changes again in early 2011, and, after deleting the provision for single-family residential uses, is bringing this amendment back to Planning Commission and City Council. ZOAC reviewed this revised proposal in August 2011 and recommended proceeding. That brings us to the request today. This amendment will allow for easier implementation of Master Plan projects, many of which are urban infill sites which will benefit greatly from a less- restrictive multifamily district. The current regulation requires building setbacks, green area, and lot coverage standards to a degree with which urban-form projects are unable to comply. These regulations instead produce a typical suburban-form project that is out of character with Hampton’s older neighborhoods and Master Plan recommendations. Mr. Conkle presented examples such as the Heritage Project located downtown; the H2O site in the Coliseum Central area, which had to go through many variances; and the Phoebus area with the Mercury Boulevard/ Woodland Road gateway into Phoebus. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 030-2011 by the City of Hampton to amend and reenact chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “MD Districts—Multiple Dwelling Districts” by amending article IV sections 10-35 through 10-44 pertaining to the MD-4 district; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will change the development standards of this district to allow for more urban-style development; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment includes changes to setback, lot coverage and green area requirements; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will allow for easier implementation of the recommendations of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) and the City’s various Master Plans;  WHEREAS: revising the MD-4 district does not automatically apply it to any new properties, and properties must be rezoned to the MD-4 district through public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council; WHEREAS: staff has discussed this amendment with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee which supports the recommended text changes; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of the zoning ordinance amendment (No. 030-2011) referenced above. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, McCloud, Williams, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: Young ABSENT: Bunting, Tuck B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 033-2011: Ordinance to amend and re-enact chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “General Provisions” by amending sec. 18-16 – Projections allowed in yards and courts to define permitted encroachments into side and rear yards. Mr. Michael Hayes, Senior City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and a made a part hereof. Currently the zoning ordinance does not address the location or required setbacks of mechanical equipment associated with residential units. HVAC units and generators are often added to existing homes. Additionally, because the ordinance does not currently address this type of equipment, builders often look at the placement of the equipment after designing the entire house and lot layout. This zoning ordinance amendment proposes allowing such equipment to encroach into side and rear yard setbacks to a maximum of eight feet so long as a minimum setback of three feet from the property line is maintained. This encroachment is in line with similar encroachments that are currently permitted for porches, platforms, landings, and chimneys. Additionally, by including specific language in the zoning ordinance, the amendment will clarify up front where equipment can be placed when a home is constructed, making the process easier and more straightforward for potential homebuilders. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. There were no comments from the public or Commission. The Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day proposed Ordinance Amendment No. 033-2011 to amend and re-enact chapter 18, section 18-16 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Projections in yards and courts”; WHEREAS: the intent of the amendment is to specify the permitted encroachment and required setback for residential mechanical equipment; WHEREAS: the proposed encroachment of up to eight feet and required setback of three feet is in keeping with similar encroachments allowed in section 18-16 of the Zoning Ordinance; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment allows for the efficient use of land as recommended in the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended); WHEREAS: staff has discussed this amendment with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee which supports the creation of the district; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner James Young and seconded by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of the zoning ordinance amendment (No. 033-2011) to chapter 18, section 18-16 - Projections allowed in yards and courts. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Williams, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None  ABSENT: Bunting, Tuck C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 035-2011: Ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “R-9 District – One family Residence District” by adding a new Chapter 7.1 entitled “R- 4 District - One family Residence District”. Mr. Michael Hayes, Senior City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. This amendment creates a district in keeping with the development pattern and lot sizes typical of Hampton’s traditional, older neighborhoods, such as Olde Wythe, Pasture Point, and the Victoria Boulevard Historic District. The intent is to create a district which could allow for development in keeping with the pattern of an existing neighborhood. The proposed district would allow for both the efficient use of land as well as maintain the character of these communities. There are a number of single family zoning districts in Hampton, and currently, the smallest district is R-9 which requires a minimum of six thousand square feet (6,000) feet of lot area and a minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet. Staff has found this to be larger than a lot of lots in the city, especially in the older areas. In developing this district staff looked at recommendations within the master plans, and many of the master plans look at existing neighborhoods and the historic character that marks Hampton and gives us a sense of pride. The goal is to develop a district that helps harness those ideas and leads to an in-fill type development which means on a large piece of property and not on individual lots that would be respectful and help contribute to the character of those neighborhoods. Examples were given of Pasture Point located downtown. Some houses are located on lots smaller than R-9 standards but they would fit with R-4 standards. Old Hampton Neighborhood is another example. It has seen some reinvestment, much of it by Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority. There is opportunity with this district to encourage further development by the private sector. If the new zoning district is approved, someone would have to apply for a rezoning to use the district. Going through the rezoning process allows for the assurances in the quality of the development. By going through the rezoning process it will allow for a review of what the development will look like and what materials will be used to meet the character of the neighborhood, versus what is allowed by the current district where vinyl boxes not in keeping with the neighborhood’s historic character could go up. The Historic Victoria area which generally refers to streets that are a block off Victoria, such as Linden Avenue, was cited as another example. It has homes that harken back to the heyday era of Hampton and that are of the type and character that would be consistent with the proposed R-4 standards. Wythe- Phenix is another area where most of the lots and many of the houses are smaller than the R-9 standards and would fit the R-4. This is to inform potential future development and not to place this district on the ground. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Commissioner Andre McCLoud stated he thinks the Greater Wythe area understands the in-fill ordinance. Their plan was to build up and not down. Hours were spent on the In-Fill Housing Ordinance and it does not allow less than an R-9 zoning. He thought Council had denied this request before. The language has changed and makes this easier to go along with. Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, stated this amendment has come back before the Planning Commission and that it had not been previously denied by Council. There were concerns about several issues including the issues raised by Mr. McCloud . Council asked to have things clarified. The amendment was sent back to staff for more work and it is currently before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gaynette LaRue questioned the process since this was a new ordinance and asked if a rezoning by an applicant of the piece of property would be required. Mr. Hayes replied yes and it will undergo staff reviews and public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council to apply the district to a piece of property and develop under the R-4 standards. Commissioner James Young asked if this would apply to any area in Hampton. Mr. Hayes stated any property owner could apply, just as with any other zoning district. There were no speakers from the public. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 035-2011 by the City of Hampton to amend and reenact chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “R-9 District – One Family Residence District” by adding a new Chapter 7.1 entitled “R-4 District – One Family Residence District”;  WHEREAS: the type of development permitted under the proposed district supports recommendations in the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) and the City’s various Master Plans; WHEREAS: the proposed district’s standards are drawn from the development patterns of Hampton’s historic neighborhoods; WHEREAS: Hampton is a largely built-out community and must make efficient use of its land; WHEREAS: adoption of the R-4 district does not apply it to any property, and properties must be rezoned to the R-4 district through an application and public hearing process before the Planning Commission and City Council; WHEREAS: the district may only be applied in two scenarios: 1) the application includes a minimum of 24,000 square feet of contiguous property; or 2) the subject property is within a master plan area with a recommendation for this type of development and an adopted pattern book governing the character and quality of the development; WHEREAS: staff has discussed this amendment with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee which supports the creation of the district; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue and seconded by Commissioner James Young. BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of the zoning ordinance amendment (No. 035-2011) referenced above. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Williams, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Tuck D. Rezoning Application No. 1297-2011: by KLS Development, LLC. to rezone 0.75± acres on the eastern corner of the intersection of County Street and Mallory Street (LRSN 12001988) from Limited Commercial (C-2) District and Two Family Residence (R-8) District to C-2 with conditions for a commercial building The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use in this area. The Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommends a mixed use building which enhances the character of the historic core of Phoebus. Mr. Mike Hayes, Senior City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached. The subject property is located in the heart of Phoebus at the intersection of County and Mallory Streets. The site is a gateway to both Downtown Phoebus and Fort Monroe. The applicant proposes developing the currently vacant site for a commercial building planned to be a Family Dollar. The lot is split zoned. The portion of the property along Mallory Street is zoned C-2, a commercial district, and the portion of the property along Tennis Lane is zoned R-8, a district which allows single family homes and duplexes. The applicant proposes constructing a two story building that would initially be occupied on the first floor by a new Family Dollar store. The second story could be finished for a future use, though Family Dollar has made it clear that they do not intend to allow occupation of the second story so long as they remain in the building. The building has been brought up to the corner of the intersection, and the design shows two exterior doors. However, only one door would be functional. The door closest to public parking along County Street would not be operational. The second story façade of the building would include spandrel glass intended to look like windows. Most future uses of the second story would require that real windows be installed. The applicant proposes finishing the building with fiber cement panels intended to look like brick. There is a parking lot located across the street that serves County Street. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends this site be a part of a larger mixed use district in Downtown Phoebus. The Community Plan also includes recommendations regarding site and building construction that recognizes the character of the larger neighborhood and enhances the gateway. Giving further detail, the Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommends that Downtown Phoebus be a vibrant, pedestrian oriented mixed-use environment. The Master Plan and supporting market study also recommend that Downtown Phoebus build upon its authenticity as a traditional main street and nurture a specialty niche market of arts, antiques, artisans’ goods, hand- crafted products, performing arts, and dining. In addition to the connection to Fort Monroe, Phoebus’ greatest assets are its authentic sense of place and niche market. An important part of creating this environment is having active storefronts where people can see and be seen on the street and in the shops.  The applicant chose not to host a community meeting. The Farm Fresh shops have not rented well and there are a number of vacancies in Phoebus. Staff recommends denial of the subject rezoning application. In response to Commissioner James Young’s question whether the applicant plans were to lease the second floor as tenant space and if there would be windows or would it be the spandrel glass, Warren Sachs, representing KLS Development, stated there were no tenants or prospects at this time. In response to the second question by Commissioner James Young, Keith Woodard, a partner in the project stated the doors and the areas next to the doors would be glass. The windows on the second floor would have mullions and glass. Vice Chair Gregory Williams stated the project is a mixed use but will not start out as a mixed use. He then asked where the pawn shop was located in proximity to this proposed building. He then stated this does not seem to be the best use of the property, especially with the loss of Fort Monroe. He feels something of a higher standard could be built and another Family Dollar is not what families are looking for. This does not represent what he would like to see for Phoebus in the future. Commissioner Gaynette LaRue expressed thanks to the applicant for coming from the Southside to build something wonderful. The concern is a broader issue. The citizens have put work into the Master Plans around the city and it is important that their plans and directives are implemented. She expressed that the applicants could possibly go back and look at the gateway to Fort Monroe, as it needs something more upscale. Commissioner Williams asked the applicant if there were plans to have a community meeting to discuss the issues with the Phoebus committees and Mr. Sachs stated they had met with the Boards, but not the community. Chairman Carlton Campbell asked if the applicant had not notified the community because they had worked with the Boards or did they not see a need to have a community meeting. Mr. Terry Fuller, 225 Yukon Street, family member of the former Fullers Restaurant, located on this property, appeared and stated he had hoped for something different than what is proposed and something similar to the historic building.  Mr. Lawrence Jardan, 55 North Mallory Street stated he opened a store in August that has dollar bargains and more. Fifty to seventy percent of his merchandise is at $1.00. He chose this location because of the community and has invested a lot of time and money to get started. From an historical perspective this is family oriented and he asks the Planning Commission to vote not. They are already there and will serve the community. The property is adjacent to the parking lot of Farm Fresh and is within a block of the proposed request. Irene Desseym, 115 South Willard Avenue, and a neighbor of Mr. Terry Fuller, stated, it sounds like others do not want this request to be approved. This is a unique community and she would like to see the lot to be pleasing and upscale. Mr. Terry O’Neill Secretary to the Commission, stated a letter was received from the Phoebus Improvement League and emails from Mr. Alan Schutte, owner of the building at 5 North Mallory Street and Ms. Jan Miller, owner of the business located at 9 East Mellen Street. The Phoebus Improvement League stated there were some action items that had not been addressed. Mr. Schutte and Ms. Miller stated they do not believe this is the right direction in which Phoebus should head. Vice Chair Gregory Williams stated that a letter had been received from the Association stating the applicant had said they remain neutral, but the letter stated that the Phoebus Improvement League is against the application. Senior Planner Mike Hayes said that was correct. In response to a comment made by Mr. Williams regarding the existence of another dollar store nearby, Sr. Deputy City Attorney, Vanessa Valldejuli stated to the Commission at large that the Commission could not make a recommendation based solely on competition or on aesthetics. However the Commission could make its recommendation based on whether the proposed development complied with the adopted policies of the Hampton Community Plan and the Phoebus Master Plan which sets forth the principles of nurturing a downtown core as a significant mixed-use district focused on the arts, crafts, collectibles; the establishment of infill buildings that are well-designed and utilized; and having a walkable downtown with real interaction between the first floor commercial space and the street such as Ghent. Mr. Warren Sachs stated there is a Family Dollar Store in Hidenwood that is in an upscale neighborhood.  Commissioner LaRue stated she does not believe it is the tenant but the characteristics should be more upscale. Commissioners James Young, Andre McCloud and Gregory Williams stated this request does not align itself to the Master Plan. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by KLS Development, LLC. to rezone 0.75± acre on the eastern corner of the intersection of County Street and Mallory Street [LRSN 12001988] from Limited Commercial (C-2) District and Two Family Residence (R-8) District to C-2 with conditions; WHEREAS: the applicant requests the rezoning to build a commercial building; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends the upgrading and revitalization of districts in a manner consistent with the character of the district, encourages building design and site planning that enhances community interaction and personal safety, preserves and enhances the identity and scenic qualities of city corridors and gateways, and encourages a mix of land uses appropriate for each specific district; WHEREAS: the subject property is within the boundaries of the Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) and located in the heart of Downtown Phoebus; WHEREAS: the intersection where the subject property is located is recognized as a gateway from Downtown Hampton to Downtown Phoebus and Fort Monroe, as well as from Interstate 64 and Phoebus to Buckroe; WHEREAS: the Master Plan envisions an active and vibrant downtown atmosphere; WHEREAS: the Phoebus Master Plan and the supporting retail market study by Blount Hunter Retail & Real Estate Research recognize Downtown Phoebus as a unique place where the historic development pattern and architectural vernacular are important to the future success of the Phoebus neighborhood; WHEREAS: the Master Plan and market study recommend maintaining the authenticity of Phoebus and nurturing Downtown Phoebus as an arts, crafts, collectibles, and dining district; WHEREAS: successful and safe walkable downtown environments include interaction between first floor commercial space and the street environment through the location of doors and inclusion of large see-through storefront windows; WHEREAS: the proposed development does not meet the recommendations of the Hampton Community Plan or Phoebus Master Plan as the building is not in keeping with the character of the Downtown Phoebus core and does not help create a safe walkable downtown environment; WHEREAS: the proposed building makes use of spandrel glass, which is tinted glass over top of cinderblock walls, where individual windows are shown on the proffered elevations; WHEREAS: the door closest to public parking is proposed to be non- operational; WHEREAS: the use of spandrel glass and non-operational doors, by not allowing for visibility and access, works against the creation of a downtown environment that is safe, active, and walkable; WHEREAS: the applicant proposes cladding the building in a fiber cement board painted facsimile of brick rather than authentic brick veneer; WHEREAS: the applicant met with the boards of the Phoebus Improvement League and the Phoebus Civic Association but did not meet with the general membership to describe the proposed project; WHEREAS: staff received written notice from the chairman of the Phoebus Improvement League and two different property owners in the Downtown Phoebus area requesting denial of this application; and WHEREAS: three members of the public spoke in opposition during the public hearing.  NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue and seconded by Commissioner James Young, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council denial of the Rezoning Application No. 1297-2011. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Williams, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Tuck E. Rezoning Application No. 1298-2011: by Lee Hall Plaza, Inc. to rezone 2.45± acres on the eastern corner of the intersection of E. Mercury Boulevard and Woodland Road (LRSN 12002647 and a portion of 12002671) from Limited Commercial (C-2) District and C-2 with conditions to C-2 with new conditions for a drug store. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use in this area. The Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommends mixed use with special attention given to the corner as a gateway. Mr. Mike Hayes, Senior City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The property in question is currently owned by Z-Mark, LLC and a small piece is owned by the City of Hampton. A portion of the Z-Mark property was previously rezoned to C-2 and has proffered conditions on it which require development as a strip shopping center. Lee Hall Plaza, Inc. proposes developing the entire site as a CVS drug store. In order to be permitted to move forward with the proposed development, Lee Hall Plaza must acquire a small portion of City property (this requires a separate Council action) and rezone the property with conditions that will permit the proposed form of development. The site is currently vacant. Lee Hall Plaza proposes constructing a brick building with details reminiscent of Downtown Phoebus. The development of the property also includes streetscape improvements to further pedestrian connectivity and enhance the gateway to Phoebus. Also in designing the layout of the site, special attention has been paid to storm water flow and automotive entrances. Both the storm water and traffic solutions have been approved by Public Works. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends this site be a part of a larger mixed use node at the intersection. The Community Plan also includes recommendations regarding site and building construction that recognize the character of the larger neighborhood and enhance the gateway. Giving further detail, the Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommends a mixture of residential uses and a small amount of commercial development in this area. The Master Plan is also clear in that the intent of commercial development is to provide convenience shopping opportunities and not compete with the unique shopping, dining, and entertainment uses found in Downtown Phoebus. The applicant presented the proposal to a joint meeting of the Phoebus Civic Association and the Phoebus Improvement League on August 4, 2011. Staff recommends approval of Rezoning Application No. 1298-2011 with eight (8) conditions. Commissioner Andre McCloud questioned what the issue of the previous proffers on this property were as it is currently zoned C-2. Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, explained the previous rezoning was for a strip center and that would be the only thing that could go on there. Commissioner Gaynette LaRue questioned the location of this property and if it is within the Phoebus Master Plan area and if staff was satisfied with the plans and if they are consistent with the Phoebus Master Plan. Mr. Hayes stated the property is located within the Master Plan boundaries but outside of the historic district. The proposal would not be confused with historical buildings but the applicant has worked to incorporate similar design elements and quality materials. Commissioner Gregory Williams stated he would have a different opinion if this were to be located downtown Phoebus, but this seems to be a better fit at this location. Mr. Hayes explained that it is recognized in the Master Plan that there are standards used in different areas of Phoebus and this property is at a crossroads on the fringe of the neighborhood. Mr. O’Neill stated the Phoebus Master Plan recognizes there are different areas in Phoebus; ie: the historic district and arts district. The Master Plan says it is okay to have more suburban oriented, highway commercial and convenience uses, but they should be located on the highway and the Mercury Boulevard corridor. These uses should be done well and should be high quality development, but that kind of use and those developments should be in that location and should have a different type of building and site development. Based on those sets of recommendations in the Master Plan this use is a more suburban development; highway commercial where you see drugstores, it does fit.  Commissioner James Young commented on the Phoebus Master Plan and its varying standards in various areas. Mr. O’Neill stated it clearly says in the plans there is a place and there are roles for these kinds of national chains/franchises that are typically located on high volume, arterial corridors in the community and there is a place for that in Phoebus and that is on the Mercury Boulevard Corridor. Commissioner James Young understands that there was a community meeting with approximately fifty (50) people and there was no opposition, but wondered if there were any concerns, Mr. Hayes stated there were traffic concerns and the applicant spent time with the traffic engineers and did a full study. They agreed on access points; limited access and agreed to a shared access point along Woodland Road so there would be no need for additional curb cuts. In response to Chairman Carlton Campbell asking if there had been any opposition received after the meeting was over, Mr. Hayes stated there was none. There were no speakers from the public. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day an application by Lee Hall Plaza, Inc. to rezone 2.45± acres on the eastern corner of the intersection of E. Mercury Boulevard and Woodland Road [LRSN 12002647 and a portion of 12002671] from Limited Commercial (C-2) District and C-2 with conditions to C-2 with new conditions; WHEREAS: the applicant requests the rezoning to build a commercial building and operate a drug store; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends the upgrading and revitalization of districts in a manner consistent with the character of the district, encourages building design and site planning that enhances community interaction and personal safety, preserves and enhances the identity and scenic qualities of city corridors and gateways, and encourages a mix of land uses appropriate for each specific district; WHEREAS: the subject property is within the boundaries of the Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) and is located on the edge of the Phoebus neighborhood; WHEREAS: the intersection where the subject property is located is recognized as a suburban crossroads, with Woodland Road connecting to Interstate 64 and Downtown Hampton to the west and Buckroe and Fox Hill to the north and Mercury Boulevard connecting Coliseum Central to Phoebus and Fort Monroe; WHEREAS: the Master Plan recommends that this intersection contain a mixture of uses that do not compete with the unique commercial market of Downtown Phoebus; WHEREAS: the proffered use and general site layout are appropriate for this location; WHEREAS: the applicant worked with the City’s Engineering staff to find appropriate solutions to storm water and ingress/egress issues; WHEREAS: the proffered site plan includes appropriate vegetated buffering and screening from the rights-of-way as well as the adjacent single family homes; WHEREAS: the building design and materials, brick veneer and windows, are reflective of those found in Phoebus and provide clues to passers- by of the character of the neighborhood which lies beyond the gateway; WHEREAS: the building’s entrance is oriented toward the corner; WHEREAS: the applicant attended a joint meeting of the Phoebus Improvement League and Phoebus Civic Association to present their proposed development and fifty-eight people attended; and WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner James Young and seconded by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Rezoning Application No. 1298 -2011 with conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows:  AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Williams, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Tuck F. Use Permit Application No. 1074-2011: by Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, to collocate on an existing tower located at 111 Eaton Street (LRSN 2003052). The 0.38± acre site is zoned Special Public Interest – Old Hampton Business District (SPI-OHB) which permits communications towers with an approved use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends Mixed Use for this site. Mr. David Stromberg, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless is requesting a use permit to collocate at 125’ on an existing 267’ communications tower. The collocation would include the installation of three (3) additional antennas in order to provide 4G services to Verizon’s cellular customers. The existing ground cabinets will be utilized to provide these services and the height of the tower will not be increased. A use permit is required for collocations (spelling?) on existing towers that do not already have an approved use permit. The tower was constructed in 1977. The site is zoned Special Public Interest – Old Hampton Business (SPI- OHB) which permits communications towers subject to securing a use permit. The existing structures on site include a 267’ self support tower, two concrete pads with mechanical equipment, and two equipment compounds. No additional ground equipment is proposed in this application. The applicant has provided a landscape plan which will increase the level of screening around the base of the tower. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) provides a “placement hierarchy” that established a list of preferential locations for communications towers. The hierarchy describes collocations as the most preferable option. The applicant’s proposal is a collocation and is therefore at the top of the hierarchy for placement of towers within the city. The proposal would comply with the Community Plan’s support of collocations on towers within the city. The applicant held a community meeting on September 21, 2011. There were no members of the public in attendance. Staff recommends approval of Use Permit No. 1074-2011 with seven (7) conditions.  Stephen Romine, attorney for Verizon, appeared before the Commission. He spoke briefly that the unit would not affect ground equipment or the height of the tower. He also commented that no one appeared at the September 21, 2011 community meeting. He explained that there would be additional landscaping around the base of the tower. In response to Commissioner Gregory Williams’ question about the renewal condition, Mr. David Stromberg told him the condition applies to all new cell tower applications. If they are unused for a period of two years they are to be removed. Mr. Stephen Romine responded to Commissioner LaRue’s question about the number of units a cell tower could accommodate, stating that it is based on structural requirements and that enhancements are being made to this tower. Mr. Stephen Romine responded to Commissioner Gregory Williams’ question about how weather conditions and wind load affects the tower, stating that there are structural enhancements that are being addressed on this tower to meet the code requirements. There was no correspondence received or any public speakers. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless to collocate on an existing tower located on a 0.38± acre lot at 111 Eaton Street [LRSN 2003052]; WHEREAS: the applicant requests a Use Permit for the existing 267’ tower in order to install additional antennas at 125’; WHEREAS: the proposal complies with the “Placement Hierarchy” within the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) which describes collocations as the most preferable option for location of communications towers within the city; WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned Special Public Interest – Old Hampton Business District (SPI-OHB) which permits communications towers in conjunction with a Use Permit; WHEREAS: the site is located downtown adjacent to Mill Point Park;  WHEREAS: no members of the public attended a community meeting hosted by the applicant on September 21, 2011; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of the Use Permit Application No. 1074-2011, subject to seven (7) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Williams, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Tuck G. Hampton Community Plan Update 2011: Proposal by the City of Hampton to consider adoption of a resolution in support of an update to Hampton’s Community Plan, a citywide strategic and comprehensive plan that addresses the City’s vision and goals and the future development of the city through policies and strategies for the following ten areas: community appearance, pride, and image; community health and healthy families; diverse population, youth, and seniors; economic base, regionalism, transportation, and infrastructure; environment, sustainability, and quality of life; good government; housing and neighborhoods; lifelong learning and education; public safety; and waterways. This Plan will update the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, stated there are ten (10) strategic issues: 1. Community Appearance, Pride, & Image 2. Community Health, Healthy Families 3. Economic Base, Regionalism, Transportation, Infrastructure 4. Diverse Population, Youth, & Seniors 5. Environment, Quality of Life 6. Good Government 7. Housing & Neighborhoods 8. Lifelong Learning, Education 9. Public Safety 10. Waterway Management  Mr. Keith Cannady, Planning Manager, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached. This is the culmination of twelve months of work. Hampton’s Community Plan is done under the state enabling legislation for planning and zoning. The current Hampton Community Plan was adopted in 2006. Every five years we review this Plan to assess the accuracy and relevance of its major initiatives and recommendations. We also identify any major economic, social, cultural, and demographic changes that may not have existed when the Plan was first adopted. This process began in October 2010 with a kick-off community meeting. Over the course of the past 12 months, ten focus groups conducted in excess of 60 focus group meetings in addition to three community checkpoint meetings. Each focus group identified a vision and broad community goals, as well as suggested measures of success that would allow us to chart our progress. In addition to the individual focus groups, a joint committee made up of representatives from each of the focus groups met to share ideas and issues and to identify common themes that crossed multiple focus groups. New issues were Community Appearance, Pride and Image; Environment, Quality of Life; Public Safety; and Waterways. Hampton is getting older and its total population is aging which impacts services. Hampton is a built out city and redevelopment will be the course of change and growth as we go forward. Other important changes to Hampton are the climate change and sea level rise, and the closure of Fort Monroe and what it means to the future of our community. There is a need to focus on the implementation of the plans that have been developed; monitor progress as we go forward; keep the public informed; reach out and build partnerships with other private and public agencies; and achieve excellence and strive to be the best community we can be. Mr. Cannady explained the goals of the different committees to the commission. Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, stated he had the pleasure of working alongside the citizens group that was charged by council to move forward with the investigation of the waterways issue. They were given a different charge than the other groups. The Waterways group was charged with coming up with a plan. This group is not yet finished, but the summary in the document is a reflection of their goals, but it may be subject to change. Their vision statement is that they want Hampton to be a Chesapeake Bay community that manages its water resources in total. They want to be the best and be an example to other communities to look to; that they know what they are doing and they value their water and water resources. The group was formed into four areas and each developed their own vision statements and a set of goals. Some of their goals are to implement a comprehensive Shoreline Management Program; obtain funding sources in addition to City generated funds; educate residents and business; reduce the human and financial impacts associated with tidal flooding; meet the Chesapeake Bay Tidal Maximum Daily Load; realize an average reduction of citizen 311 drainage complaints; increase storm water compliance requirements; develop and implement a comprehensive waterway management and maintenance function; recognize and minimize the storm water system contribution to waterway degradation; take the necessary action to correct the historical degradation of Hampton waterways; and make Hampton a preferred waterway destination. The upcoming schedule was presented. Once endorsed, this document will serve as the framework that will direct City staff and other community partners to align procedures, programs, and policies with the strategic initiatives outlined in the work of the focus groups. Formal amendments to various plans and policies, including the existing Community Plan, would follow endorsement by the Planning Commission and City Council of this work. Staff requests adoption of the attached resolution which endorses the proposed “strategic issues, vision, and goals” as the framework for shaping both public and private directions over the next 5 years. Commissioner Andre McCloud expressed gratefulness for all the work and man hours involved. He still sees an issue with the things for youth to do. The lack of participation in the teen center could be that the kids do not have access to those venues. This group has no way to get to those places. This can be an impact to all the hard work that has been done. His concern is to get a way for this group to get to places and to get them involved so other issues such as a shooting in their area this past summer are not escalated to that point. In response to Commissioner McCloud, Mr. O’Neill acknowledged this is a great issue to be addressed and he encourages the Commission to address the Youth Commission to work on issues such as this or get involved with others who may be interested. This is why we have a Youth Commission and a Neighborhood Commission. The Youth Commission has worked on this and is not finished. They can identify certain areas and have ideas but they need help in making this happen. In response to Commissioner James Young stating there are other Boards that should have an interest and review this plan and one is the School Board, Mr. O’Neill stated they were taking this update to the School Board. A date has not yet been set. The School Board would be a very important partner and they will ask the School Board to sign on as a partner. In response to Commissioner James Young that the CIP is a linkage in going forward, Mr. O’Neill said it is one of those tools used to implement getting things done. Mr. O’Neill stated they would do the best they can in the CIP discussion. If Commission sees anything that can do better, let him know. In response to Commissioner Gregory Williams stating he would like to see the Commission come back and close this circle with the groups so they can see the outcome of their work and these people are not left thinking what they requested did or did not happen, Mr. O’Neill stated that was one of the things brought up earlier and that is something they are interested in doing. Jamie Chapman, 204 Lighthouse Drive, spoke on having worked on one of the committees and that the community needs to work with the government to accomplish its goals. Grandview Island Beach Partners was formed so the city could realize its dreams and visions that there could be public beaches or accesses from Fort Monroe all the way to Factory Point which would have a tremendous impact on the attitudes they have about themselves. Parts of their plan have already been implemented. He stated he hopes the Commission will endorse this plan. He thanked the staff and committee members for their involvement. Carole Garrsion, 410 Shoreline Drive, stated she was a member of the steering committee of the Waterway group and Good Government group. She is also president of the Peninsula League of Women Voters. One of their concerns is civic involvement which is a concern in many cities across the states. In wondering why others did not get involved in groups she found concern that groups were asked for their input and then it was not implemented. Those on the Waterways committee feel something can be accomplished because of the city’s involvement with them. She believes the city to be on the right path at keeping citizens involved. She thanked the staff and citizens involved in the process. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: in October 2010, the City of Hampton and numerous community partners initiated a broad-based process to review and update the Hampton Community Plan (2006); WHEREAS: this process was designed to take a fresh look at the strategic issues our community must address in order to achieve our vision of “making Hampton the most livable city in Virginia”; WHEREAS: vision statements, goals, and measures of success were identified for ten strategic issues: Economic Base, Regionalism, Transportation and Infrastructure; Community Appearance, Pride, and Image; Housing and Neighborhoods; Good Government; Community Health; Diverse Populations, Youth, and Seniors; Environment and Quality of Life; Education and Lifelong Learning; Public Safety; and Comprehensive Waterway Management; WHEREAS: the community planning partners also identified a number of overarching themes that are essential for achieving the community’s vision – History; Jobs and Business Attraction; Education; Neighborhood Quality; and Diversity; Waterfront as an asset; Improved Access to Services; Need for Partnerships and Community Involvement; People as Resources; More and Better Choices for Getting Around; More Green and Sustainable Policies, Practices, and Development; and Achieving Excellence; WHEREAS: one of the other important messages received during this process was to focus on implementation of our plans and projects and to better develop more public ways to monitor our progress; WHEREAS: the strategic issues and overarching themes were developed through a community-based process which involved ten focus groups populated by stakeholders representing diverse interests, expertise, and perspectives; WHEREAS: the work of the focus groups was shared with the general public at two community checkpoint meetings as well as posting the work on the City’s web site; WHEREAS: the next phase of work will involve aligning existing plans and policies with the directions and goals outlined in this document; and WHEREAS: there were two speakers who spoke in favor of the plan update during the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends endorsement of the Community Plan Update 2011 as a framework for moving the community forward toward our overall vision. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Williams, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, Tuck VI. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. Update on the CIP Process for Fiscal Year 2013 Terry O’Neill stated the Commission could put the date of October 25, 2011 on their calendars to attend the Waterways Committee giving their final report at the Hampton Roads Convention Center. VII. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. VIII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION There were no items by the Commission. X. ADJOURNMENT; The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 PM. Respectively submitted, ____________________________ Terry O’Neill APPROVED BY: _________________________ Carlton Campbell Chairman