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, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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 Vice-Chairman Gregory Williams and Commissioner Mary Bunting were absent. ITEM III MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner James Young and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud to approve the minutes of the January 5, 2012 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: Tuck ABSENT: Williams, Bunting ITEM IV. STAFF REPORTS A. Youth Planner Report Evelyn Baumgardner, Senior Youth Planner reported on the outcome of the Youth Commission’s field trip to Fredericksburg. Fredericksburg had been chosen to give the commission members a different prospective of what to look at. Pictures of the locations visited were shown: Treehouse Lounge -a club open on weekends and a great place to hang out and socialize; Old Towne Fredericksburg, a lot of old stores and not as inviting; Central Park – many shops, overwhelming and dangerous for pedestrians for getting around; and Spotsylvania Mall and Town Center, similar to Peninsula Town Center except there was an indoor mall as well as an outdoor mall. It was organized, had plenty of variety and a nice place to walk. Ms. Baumgardner explained the Youth Commission generation would like to have more technology and variety. In order to be more a youth friendly Hampton, they need a lot of technology. They would like inexpensive and affordable areas for socialization with a safe, comfortable, and adult-like atmosphere for areas and events. In response to Commissioner LaRue’s question, Ms. Baumgardner stated youth carry technology with them but the Treehouse Lounge had hookups at each table; a central area; an area to dance with a lot of music; a movie room; and places to socialize. In response to Commissioner Young’s question, Ms. Baumgardner stated the Youth Commission has been looking at ways to improve transportation and ease of access to the center. In response to Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Baumgardner stated his current and prior concern about the accessibility of the teen center to teens would be brought up at their next commission meeting. Mr. Terry O’Neill stated this question will be brought to the attention of the adult Planning advisors for follow-up. 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 items advertised in the Daily Press on January 20 and 27, 2012. Mr. O’Neill stated prior to the first hearing item that the first two items are related and suggested it may be more efficient to the Commission and the public that there be a joint public hearing on these two items so comments can be made on one or both at the same time. Item 1 A. Rezoning Application No. 1300-2012: by Renee Riley to rezone 20 parcels generally bounded on the north by S. First Street, on the east by Seaboard Avenue, on the south by Bay Shore Lane, and on the west by Atlantic Avenue (LRSNs 12006640 through 12006646, 12006649 through 12006660, and 12006664) totaling 4.09± acres from Multiple Residence District MD-2 with conditions to Special Public Interest – Buckroe Bayfront District. The Special Public Interest – Buckroe Bayfront District permits single family homes, duplexes, and mansion style multifamily homes and requires adherence to the Buckroe Pattern Book (2007, as amended). The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends this property as part of a larger mixed-use district and includes it within the Buckroe Master Plan (2005, as amended) boundaries. The Buckroe Master Plan recommends higher density, single family scaled development with coastal character. This item is being concurrently advertised and will be heard by the City Council on February 8, 2012.  Item 2 B. Rezoning Application No. 1301-2012: by Walter Johnson to rezone two parcels (LRSNs 12006647 and 12006648) totaling 0.17± acre on the north side of Bay Shore Lane, beginning approximately 175’ east of Atlantic Avenue, from One Family District (R-9) to Special Public Interest – Buckroe Bayfront District (SPI-BBD). The Special Public Interest – Buckroe Bayfront District permits single family homes, duplexes, and mansion style multifamily homes and requires adherence to the Buckroe Pattern Book (2007, as amended). The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends this property as part of a larger mixed-use district and includes it within the Buckroe Master Plan (2005, as amended) boundaries. The Buckroe Master Plan recommends higher density, single family scaled development with coastal character. This item is being concurrently advertised and will be heard by the City Council on February 8, 2012. Mr. Michael Hayes, Senior City Planner, presented the staff reports, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof. There are two applications involved which require two different motions and votes. There will be one presentation. One owner’s property is zoned R-9 (Single-family Residential District) and one owner’s is zoned MD-2 (Multiple Dwelling District). There are two sets of property all on the same block and essentially one piece of land. The recommendation is to bring the properties under the SPI-BBD (Special Interest Bayfront District) designation and therefore implement the Buckroe Master Plan for both requests. Mr. Hayes stated during the work session the Commissioner’s questioned how these requests relate to the earlier Buckroe rezoning (Abbott Rezoning No. 1299-2011). A map was displayed to show the correlation. This would bring about a decent amount of property within that district intended to implement the Buckroe Master Plan. The policies in this area are about maintaining development that would be residential and in keeping with a single family type neighborhood. Whatever comes about on the property would be in keeping with the character of a coastal community and being of high quality. That is why the Buckroe Pattern Book was developed and why the Buckroe Pattern Book is followed and required under this zoning district. That gets into detailed requirements such as types of doors; columns, windows, and materials; and the overall design of the house. Staff recommends approval of both applications in order to move forward with the Buckroe Master Plan. There are no plans at this time for any particular development expected immediately but the idea is to get the correct zoning district and formulate the plan for the property. Neither applicant appeared nor were there speakers. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolutions:  Item 1 WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Rezoning Application No. 1300-2012, a proposal by Renee Riley, to rezone approximately 4.09± acres in the Buckroe neighborhood [LRSNs: 12006640-12006646, 12006649-12006660, and 12006664] from conditional Multiple Residence District (MD-2) to the Special Public Interest – Buckroe Bayfront District (SPI-BBD); WHEREAS: the change in zoning is being requested by the applicant as a condition of purchase by the Hampton Redevelopment & Housing Authority; WHEREAS: the site is generally located in the block roughly bounded by S. 1st Street to the northwest, Seaboard Avenue to the northeast, Bay Shore Lane to the southeast, and Atlantic Avenue to the southwest; WHEREAS: the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the land use recommendation of the Buckroe Master Plan (2005 as amended) which recommends a mixture of residential development for this site; WHEREAS: the intent of the SPI-BBD is to ensure that new development within the district boundaries are developed to very high standards and all new development is consistent with the coastal beachfront heritage of the area; WHEREAS: an additional intent of the SPI-BBD is to require all land owned by the City of Hampton and the Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority to be developed according to the SPI-BBD and Buckroe Pattern Book development standards; WHEREAS: a community meeting was held on January 30, 2012; 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 recommends approval of Rezoning Application No. 1300-2012. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: Tuck ABSENT: Williams, Bunting  Item 2 WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Rezoning Application No. 1301-2012, a proposal by Walter B. Johnson, to rezone approximately 0.17± acre in the Buckroe neighborhood [LRSNs: 12006647 and 12006648] from One Family Residence District (R-9) to the Special Public Interest – Buckroe Bayfront District (SPI-BBD); WHEREAS: the change in zoning is being requested by the applicant as a condition of purchase by the Hampton Redevelopment & Housing Authority; WHEREAS: the site is generally located midblock on the northwest side of Bay Shore Lane; WHEREAS: the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the land use recommendation of the Buckroe Master Plan (2005 as amended) which recommends a mixture of residential development for this site; WHEREAS: the intent of the SPI-BBD is to ensure that new development within the district boundaries are developed to very high standards and all new development is consistent with the coastal beachfront heritage of the area; WHEREAS: an additional intent of the SPI-BBD is to require all land owned by the City of Hampton and the Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority to be developed according to the SPI-BBD and Buckroe Pattern Book development standards; WHEREAS: a community meeting was held on January 30, 2012; 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 Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning Application No. 1301-2012. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: Tuck ABSENT: Williams, Bunting C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 040-2011: Ordinance to amend and re-  enact chapter 17.3, article XV of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Special Public Interest (SPI) Districts” by amending section 17.3-117(3) pertaining to the design review process and the role of the Coliseum Central Design Review Committee (CCDRC) and section 17.3-118 pertaining to parking and loading. Donald Whipple, Senior City Planner presented the ordinance amendment changes, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereto. The primary emphasis of this amendment involves the design review process of the Special Public Interest – Coliseum Central District (SPI-CC). When the district was first created in 2000 the design review process was intended to be primarily an administrative one and would only invoke the involvement of the Coliseum Central Design Review Committee (CCDRC) when the respective developer and staff could not reach a consensus over a specific design aspect of the proposed development. The City Attorney’s office advised that the actual zoning language in this district was not consistent with actual policies and practices when doing the design review process. An amendment will correct that and bring both the zoning and actual practices into alignment. The amendment will also correct discrepancies between the parking ordinance and the parking requirements for this district. The Coliseum Central Business Improvement District (CCBID) reviewed and endorsed these proposed changes and continue to support staff processes of how staff conducts design review. Elizabeth McCoury, Executive Director (CCBID), 4410 East Claibourne Square, Suite 211, Hampton, Virginia, on behalf of the board spoke in support of the amendment at the public hearing and wanted to thank the City staff, particularly Mr. Whipple, for their investment of time with their members and all of the meetings. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Whipple stated it had always been the intent of the ordinance for the design review to be an administrative process and changes in the ordinance will now detail that process, including when involvement of the CCDRC is required. Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment: After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a request by the City of Hampton to amend and re-enact chapter 17.3, article XV of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Special Public Interest (SPI) Districts” by amending section 17.3-117(3) pertaining to the design review process and the role of the Coliseum Central Design Review Committee (CCDRC) and section 17.3-118 pertaining to parking and loading; WHEREAS: the revised ordinance language will clarify the design review process and the role of the CCDRC. In addition it will eliminate  conflicts associated with parking standards and permit the use of porous asphalt; WHEREAS: the design review provisions under Section 17.3 Special Public Interest – Coliseum Central (SPI-CC) support the implementation strategies as set forth in the Coliseum Central Master Plan as well as support several Community Plan policies that deal with development processes and creating quality developments; WHEREAS: This amendment will help staff to facilitate the design review processes and provide design assistance to the development community; WHEREAS: the process of evaluating alternatives to the standards (section 17.3-117(2)) set forth in section 17.3-117(3) will be implemented through a city staff administrative process. If the applicant and city staff cannot reach an agreement on the development proposal, including the submitted design alternative(s) in lieu of the minimum design standards, the CCDRC would be convened to evaluate whether or not said design alternative(s) are acceptable in achieving the overall design intent of the district as set forth in section 17.3-117(1); WHEREAS: the proposed revisions to Section 17.3 (SPI-CC) have been reviewed and endorsed by the Physical Improvements Committee of the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District (CCBID) as well as the CCBID Board; and WHEREAS: Elizabeth McCoury, Executive Director CCBID, spoke in support of the amendment at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud, and seconded by Commissioner James Young, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend approval of zoning ordinance amendment (No. 040-2012) referenced above. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: Tuck ABSENT: Williams, Bunting D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 044-2012: Ordinance to amend and re-enact the following: chapter 11, entitled “C-1 District—Neighborhood Commercial District” by amending section 11-1(43.1), pertaining to restaurants and venues providing dancing or live entertainment; chapter 12, entitled “C-2 District—Limited Commercial District” by amending section 12-1(13.1) pertaining to restaurants and venues providing dancing or live entertainment; chapter 13, entitled “C-3 District—General Commercial District” by amending section 13-1(29.1) pertaining to restaurants and venues providing dancing or live entertainment; and chapter 17, article XI, entitled “SPI-OH—Special Public Interest-Old Hampton District” by  adding section 17.3-70(1)(l) pertaining to restaurants and venues providing dancing or live entertainment. Dave Stromberg, City Planner presented the ordinance amendment changes, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereto. Mr. Stromberg stated this request is pertaining to regulations for live entertainment in restaurants and cafes. This amendment is fine tuning a major overhaul that was done about a year ago on live entertainment language specifically to revise the eligibility requirements to allow more restaurants to apply for live entertainment. This language applies to live entertainment within restaurants or cafes. It does not apply to garage bands or special events or events held outside. This amendment is in regard to the eligibility requirements for live entertainment that is in conjunction with restaurants or cafés. The amendment deletes language that prohibits live entertainment venues that are directly adjacent to single family residential uses. Rather than a direct ban on properties directly adjacent to single family residential, conditions will be determined for a live entertainment 2 application on a case-by-case basis to minimize any potential negative impacts that could occur from live entertainment uses. Conditions for live entertainment 1 are already listed in the zoning ordinance. This amendment is only applicable to live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant or café. The zoning text regulating live entertainment in conjunction with restaurants was previously amended on October 13, 2010 (ZOA 120-2010). There were four significant changes in the previous amendment: • Live entertainment venues were prohibited in the M-2 and M-3 manufacturing districts. • A conditional privilege permit is now required in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. Previously, a conditional privilege permit was only required in C-1 and SPI-OH. • Live entertainment venues with fifty (50) or fewer people are permitted to apply for an administrative permit provided they agree to follow the conditions as written in the zoning ordinance. • Live entertainment venues are prohibited when directly adjacent to a single family residence, regardless of the underlying zoning district. The current proposal is to delete the language that prohibits live entertainment directly adjacent to single family thereby allowing all restaurant operators to apply for live entertainment. One of the reasons for this amendment was from restaurant operators themselves as some restaurant owners were allowed to apply and others were not. Another concern was the ability of staff to enforce the ordinance under the current language because parcel lines and land uses can change over time which means that a restaurant’s eligibility could change over time and present a challenge to city staff to report.  Staff examined a number of alternatives including determining eligibility based on zoning classification or by a set distance from residential properties. Both of these options were dismissed due to the variability of restaurants that may request live entertainment and the variation of properties with the same zoning classification. For example, a property zoned C-2 can be found in the heart of Coliseum Central, along the West Mercury Boulevard corridor, and throughout Phoebus. Despite having the same zoning, all three properties likely have different lot areas, different adjacent land uses, and front onto roads of different capacities. Requiring a conditional privilege across the board not only simplifies the ordinance, but also allows each application to be evaluated on its own merits. The Community Plan does have a number of policies that aim to safeguard both the existing neighborhood and encourage public participation with neighborhoods and strengthen commercial uses along certain corridors and nurture small businesses. By taking an individual approach to live entertainment, the new ordinance amendment will achieve the best balance between the private business owners and the neighborhoods. Staff recommends approval. In response to a question by Commissioner Tuck, Mr. O’Neill stated Commissioner Tuck’s question is almost at the heart of why the Planning Commission and City Council wrestled with this a number of years ago on how to come up with a mechanism that is fair and balanced for both the business owner and the adjoining property owner. What was settled on was an approach that put a mechanism in place that allows businesses to prove their worth. They present their case to show they meet some basic level of comfort to the Commission and to Council that they can operate their live entertainment responsibly. Council then put an automatic one year review period in there so if there is an operator that causes problems then there can be an automatic revocation of the permit if someone comes forward and proves they are not a good neighbor. They want to encourage business to be successful but also have a swift, efficient mechanism to protect the interest of the adjoining property owners. Inadvertently a provision was placed in the ordinance that did not give everyone an equal opportunity to go through the process so it is now in the process of being cleaned up. In response to Commissioner Young, Mr. Stromberg stated the applicant would have to state on the application whether the entertainment was to be inside, outside or both and then separate hours of operation can be established for both with the outdoor part being more restrictive. Anytime the applicant exceeds the qualifications for live entertainment 1, whether for outdoor entertainment or exceeding the 50 person capacity, an administrative permit cannot be obtained and the applicant would then have to apply for a Use Permit. In response to a question by Commissioner Young, Mr. O’Neill stated that conditions on these permits are usually tied to the operator. It has been typically found that a new person would want to operate their own way, maybe new hours or different kinds of music. Unless operating with the exact same conditions for the prior owner, they would have to amend the permit. There were no speakers. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 044-2012 by the City of Hampton to amend and reenact the following chapters of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia: chapter 11, entitled “C-1 District—Neighborhood Commercial District” by amending section 11-1(43.1), pertaining to restaurants and venues providing dancing or live entertainment; chapter 12, entitled “C-2 District— Limited Commercial District” by amending section 12-1(13.1) pertaining to restaurants and venues providing dancing or live entertainment; chapter 13, entitled “C-3 District—General Commercial District” by amending section 13-1(29.1) pertaining to restaurants and venues providing dancing or live entertainment; and chapter 17, article XI, entitled “SPI-OH—Special Public Interest- Old Hampton District” by adding section 17.3-70(1)(l) pertaining to restaurants and venues providing dancing or live entertainment; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will revise the eligibility requirements to allow more restaurants to apply for a live entertainment permit; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will allow staff to perform better enforcement for live entertainment venues; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will simplify the zoning ordinance and be easier for the public to understand; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment is consistent with the recommendations of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) by promoting commercial viability, nurturing small businesses, and protecting existing neighborhoods; 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 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. 044- 2012) referenced above. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Young, McCloud, Campbell NAYS: None ABST: Tuck ABSENT: Williams, Bunting VI. Community Development Director’s Report There was no report from the Director. VII. Items by the Public There were no items by the public. VII. Matters by the Commission There were no matters by the Commission. IX. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to Commission APPROVED BY: ________________________________ Carlton Campbell Chairman