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, DECEMBER 6, 2012 AT 3:30 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gregory Williams called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted all members present. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner James Young to approve the minutes of the November 1, 2012 work session and Planning Commission meeting as amended on page 13, paragraph 4, line 3 to state neighborhood association and not Kecoughtan neighborhood association. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Young, McCloud, LaRue, Bunting, Snead, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None Chairman Williams asked for a motion to move agenda Item VII, Items by the Public to be heard at this portion of the meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner LaRue, second by Commissioner Bunting, to move Agenda Item III, Items of the Public, to be heard at this portion of the meeting. A roll call vote of the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Young, McCloud, LaRue, Bunting, Snead, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None ITEM VII. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC Chairman Williams introduced Dr. William R. Harvey and thanked him for recognizing this commission as one the many stakeholders in the health and vitality of this community and coming to give an update on the revitalization plan. 1  Dr. William Harvey stated when he was asked to lead the (Hampton First) Coalition he had stated he would keep the public involved and apprised of what was being done. He stated he asked to come before the Commission as he recognizes the Planning Commission as an important stakeholder in what is being done in the City of Hampton. One of the things he and the Hampton First Board have done is to keep the public involved and knowledgeable about what is being done; the public/private partnership can work really well for them. In addition to inviting members of the press and others to their meetings, a town hall meeting was held; this is another attempt on their part to keep others involved. Dr. Harvey stated the first thing talked about is trying to open up the waterfront. He, as well as others, has been to other waterfront communities who say they are a waterfront destination that do not have the amenities that Hampton has. Dr. Harvey stated in carrying out that mandate he has met with representatives from Graham and Rollins and Amory’s; he came away encouraged due to the great conversation. Spoken about were the needs of those businesses and about removing the buildings they currently occupy so the waterfront can be opened up. They want to keep Hampton’s history and heritage intact; they would hope they would not do away with the fisheries that currently exist and he believes that they would not have to. As an example, they would like to have seafood, soul food, Italian, and Asian restaurants. The example given for a seafood restaurant was to have a glass wall where the patrons could see the seafood operation - shucking oysters, picking crabmeat, and filleting flounder - as they eat. These current businesses stated they want to work with the Hampton First Coalition. Realizing that 70 percent of their business operation would have to be moved elsewhere, they would work for a win-win situation. Opening up the precious water resource would be a victory for the people of Hampton. Dr. Harvey stated the potential is exciting and is one of the most exciting things he has done in his adult life. The second item the consultants are working on is a grocery store. Operators expressing a strong interest in Hampton are Kroger, Aldi, and Sav-A-Lot; Aldi and Sav–a–Lot are looking at 15K to 16K square feet, and Kroger is looking at 125K square feet. Expressing moderate interest were Farm Fresh; Shady Grove Marketplace; Virginia Gardens; and Virginia Gourmet. Those that did not express any interest were Elwood Thompsons; Fresh Market; Harris Teeter; Trader Joes; Woodmans; and Whole Foods. Dr. Harvey stated he would like to speak with the appropriate people and see what can be learned from those who expressed an interest along with those who did not. The third item the consultants are working on is festivals. After looking at an article in the “Inside Business”, November 12 edition, which referred to the 2 advantages of festivals boosting local economies, Dr. Harvey stated he and Hampton First would like to have a children’s museum and a pirate’s museum, and include festivals along with them, while continuing what Hampton is already doing. These things can bring dollars, visitors, and jobs into the community. Dr. Harvey stated, having worked with people on all levels: state, local, national, and now with Hampton First, he wants the Planning Commission to work with them. When someone comes in with a grand idea he would like to find ways to work with them; now is an opportunity for all in leadership roles to try to make this happen. If not done now, it might be decades before this opportunity occurs again; the confluence of interest, talent, leadership, and investments has now come together. He plans to report to the Planning Commission again in 2013. Commissioner Gaynette LaRue stated she is also a member of the Hampton First Board and thanked Dr. Harvey for coming before the Planning Commission and sharing his report. It is important the larger community is made aware of what is being discussed and what priorities are being set. In response to questions from Commissioner Campbell, Dr. Harvey stated the existing buildings on the waterfront close the waterfront off. He would like to buy out the businesses, open the waterfront, and build new buildings for commerce, including restaurants. He gave an example of property he owned in Michigan that was located on the water. When city leaders there proposed opening up the waterfront, the businesses were bought out at a fair market price and relocated into an industrial park. The waterfront is now beautiful. Hampton First is proposing something similar. In regards to the grocery stores, the consultants were tasked to check out approximately 20 grocery stores; Dr. Harvey stated he would like a quality grocery store in which the downtown area could be proud. He wants Hampton to have the loveliest waterfront on the east coast. In response to a question by Commissioner Young, Dr. Harvey gave examples of some of the grocery stores, including the high-end grocers that showed no interest in coming to the Hampton waterfront. Dr. Harvey stated he would like to have a delegation, including himself, the mayor, and the city manager, to check with some of the non-interested grocers and see what their concerns might be. Commissioners McCloud and Snead and Chairman Williams thanked Dr. Harvey for coming before the Commission and for the work that has been done and what will be done. The plan Dr. Harvey stated he will present is a partnership of Hampton First Board, city staff, the community, and investors. Plans are to work with the Fort Monroe Authority and have connectivity between Ft. Monroe and downtown. Hampton has a lot to offer. 3  Joseph King, 905 Chesapeake Avenue, offered his assistance to Dr. Harvey and the Hampton First Board, and stated he owns interests in several restaurants and also sells produce to local grocers. IV. STAFF REPORTS A. Youth Planner Report Hampton Junior Youth Planner, Chyna Matheny, thanked Commissioner Campbell for attending the first focus group meeting this year of the Youth Commission. Ms. Matheny gave an update on the Youth Component and its process; the Youth Commission is still gathering related information. The first focus group meeting included the visions, goals, and strategies of the Youth component. The second focus group meeting was held at the Old Hampton Ice Cream parlor and was a follow-up of simplifying the visions, goals, and strategies. She thanked the owners of the business for extending their hours to allow the group to meet. Another method of obtaining information from youth is an on-line survey. The youth are working with a web person to host the Hampton Youth Commission Web Page which will include the current projects and the Youth Component survey. Each step on the Youth Component process ladder will help Hampton become a more youth friendly city and help Hampton achieve its goal in becoming the ‘Most Livable City in Virginia’. Commissioner Campbell stated Hampton has something very unique in having the Youth Commission which is unlike anything else throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. By attending two sessions he stated he was thoroughly impressed by what they do. They are not talking about the latest Wii games or iPhones; they talked about business of the public and what they would like to see the youth participate in here in the City of Hampton. He stated he was impressed by their intelligence, professionalism, and the level of discussion that takes place in their meetings and focus groups. He encouraged the Youth Commission and those who are a part of the City of Hampton who facilitate the sessions to keep up the good work. B. Planning Commission By-Laws Amendment Secretary to the Commission, Terry O’Neill, explained the process of amending the By-Laws. The options were read in full at the last meeting and this meeting is to determine the action the Commission would like to take on the requested change. 4  Senior Deputy City Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli read the two proposed alternatives to the Planning Commission By-laws, Article II (a) Election and Duties of Officers of the Commission, as follows: Alternative A. a. ELECTION OF CHAIR/VICE-CHAIR. At each regular September meeting, the Commission shall elect from its membership a Chairman and Vice-Chairman to serve for one term of one (1) year. A member of the Commission may hold any one office for up to two consecutive years. Those members shall serve in such capacity unless they resign or are removed from office. Should such a vacancy occur, the office shall be filled at the next regular meeting by election from the membership. Should both offices be vacant, the Secretary shall preside until the election can be held. This would allow the chair and vice chair to hold an office for two years to allow one to grow into the position. Alternative B. a. ELECTION OF CHAIR/VICE-CHAIR. At each regular September meeting, the Commission shall elect from its membership a Chairman and Vice-Chairman to serve for one term of one (1) year. No member of the Commission may hold any one office for up to two consecutive years, except for the chairman who may hold the office of Chair for up to two consecutive years. Those members shall serve in such capacity unless they resign or are removed from office. Should such a vacancy occur, the office shall be filled at the next regular meeting by election from the membership. Should both offices be vacant, the Secretary shall preside until the election can be held. Alternative B addresses the chairman only; alternative A addresses the chair and vice-chair and would allow them to hold the position for up to two years. In response to a question from Commissioner Snead, Senior Deputy Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli stated positions are not automatic, one has to be voted into the office of chair or vice-chair. After discussion and on motion by Commissioner James Young and seconded by Commissioner Chris Snead, the following Planning Commission By- Laws change, read as Amendment A, ARTICLE II, ELECTION AND DUTIES OF OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION, A. ELECTION OF CHAIR/VICE-CHAIR, was approved for adoption as worded: a. ELECTION OF CHAIR/VICE-CHAIR. At each regular September meeting, the Commission shall elect from its membership a Chairman and Vice-Chairman to serve for one term of one (1) year. A member of the Commission may hold any one office for up to two consecutive years. Those members shall serve in such capacity 5 unless they resign or are removed from office. Should such a vacancy occur, the office shall be filled at the next regular meeting by election from the membership. Should both offices be vacant, the Secretary shall preside until the election can be held. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, McCloud, LaRue, Bunting, Snead, Young NAYS: None ABST: Williams ABSENT: None 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. ITEMV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Rezoning Application No. 1308-2012: by the City of Hampton and Marlyn Development Corporation to rezone 5.18+. acres at LRSN 12002200 bounded by Woodland Road to the northwest, East Mercury Boulevard to the east, and Old Buckroe Road to the south and west from One Family Residence District (R-9) to Multiple Residence District (MD-4) with conditions for age restricted multifamily residence. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends this property contribute to mixed-use development at the Mercury Boulevard and Woodland Road intersection. The Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommends age restricted multifamily residences at this location. Staff Contact: Mike Hayes, 728-5244 or mdhayes@hampton.gov. City Planner, Alison Alexander, stated Rezoning Application No. 1308-2012 is a request by MDC Woodlands, LLC and the City of Hampton to rezone 5.18+ acres bounded by Woodland Road, E. Mercury Boulevard, and Old Buckroe Road from One Family Residence District (R-9) to Multiple Dwelling District (MD-4) with conditions to construct an age restricted multifamily development. The City of Hampton currently owns the property located in Phoebus, which MDC Woodlands, LLC has proposed purchasing and upon which the company would construct age restricted apartments. A community meeting was held in August of 2011 and more recently on December 3, 2012. 6  The applicant received a letter of support from the Partnership for a New Phoebus. This rezoning would help further the goals of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) by allowing high quality new development; maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods; and encouraging walkable and bikeable neighborhoods. The site is also specifically mentioned in the 2007 Phoebus Master Plan which recognizes the intersection of Woodland Road and Mercury Boulevard as a key gateway to historic Phoebus and Fort Monroe. This development will feature buildings built closer to the street with internal parking and multifamily residences. The proposed Woodlands development has ten (10) proffered conditions to include the maximum of 132 units; age restrictions; a proffered site plan; building elevations with interior parking with access from Old Buckroe Road; and proffered building elevations. The applicant proffers a site plan and building elevations drawing from the development pattern and architectural styling of downtown Phoebus. The City Traffic Engineers have reviewed the plan and determined this to be a good traffic plan and the residents will be able to travel at off-peak hours to minimize the traffic impact. There is an interior water feature which performs an aesthetic and stormwater function. Staff recommends approval of Rezoning 1308-2012 with ten (10) proffered conditions. Brian Staub with Marlyn Development Corporation stated Marlyn is very excited with this project and have been working on it for a couple of years with the Economic Development and Planning Departments. They specialize in senior community developments. It is a great location and is in keeping with the Phoebus Master Plan. This is seen as a real need for the future in this area as it provides moderately priced senior housing and an alternative to people looking for housing. Many amenities are provided: interior corridors, business centers; libraries within the structure; fitness center; beauty salon; on site-management; rental office; community center activities with an activity coordinator; and transportation to take residents to appointments, activities and other functions. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Staub stated all the water generated on the site will be contained within the site in the retention area. The proposal is an improvement over what is currently happening at the site. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander stated there were more challenges than initially believed and it took longer to engineer the site. The applicant has moved forward and there has been more work with the City and Economic Development through the developer’s agreement. 7  Commissioner Campbell stated this project should do wonders for the senior community should this move forward. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Senior Deputy City Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli stated this is part of the due diligence that all contract purchasers go through. Through the due diligence process there were many discoveries that were not of the applicant’s making and extensive work has been done. The City is cleared up title issues and road issues as well as stormwater issues. To clarify for the public, this project still has to go through the site plan review and stormwater management regulations that are imposed during the site plan review process; the developer will have to comply with that. These issues will be addressed but not as part of the rezoning. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Staub stated he has received nothing in opposition to this request. Ms. Alexander stated she heard no opposition at the second community meeting and Mr. O’Neill stated he had heard no opposition at the first community meeting; most people were pleased with the proposal, just concerned with managing traffic and stormwater. In response to a question from Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Staub stated the project was being developed as independent living for rent. Michael Riddick, 168 Old Buckroe Road, stated his opposition as a neighbor to this proposed project and wanted to know about traffic and environmental impacts statements. He stated his concern about the environmental impact on his property when the project goes in. Mr. O’Neill stated the traffic impact study has already been done because the issue was raised at an earlier community meeting. A turn lane was added to Old Buckroe Road going into the entrance of the project. A full blown federal environmental impact statement is not required for a local project. The applicant still has to go through assessments for environmental issues relative to a project like wetlands and Chesapeake Bay. There has been focus on this area and the developer will have to retain all the drainage generated on the site so it slowly goes out into the system; runoff cannot be routed onto adjacent properties. Mr. O’Neill told Mr. Riddick staff can keep him informed throughout this process. In response to a question from Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Staub stated the pond is part of the stormwater effort on the property and is engineered to contain the stormwater on the site. WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by the City of Hampton and MDC Woodlands, LLC to rezone 5.18 +/- acres bounded by Woodland Road, E. Mercury Boulevard, and Old Buckroe Road [LRSN12002200] from One-Family 8  Residence District (R-9) to Multiple Dwelling District (MD-4) with the intent of constructing an age restricted multifamily development; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) and the Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommend constructing high quality new development, maintaining the existing character of the neighborhoods, and encouraging walkable and bikeable neighborhoods; WHEREAS: the surrounding land uses include commercial and residential development to the north and east, residential development to the south, and public land to the west; WHEREAS: the parcel is currently vacant; WHEREAS: ten proffered conditions are attached to limit the development to 132 units, to limit occupancy to 55 and older, to include street improvements along Old Buckroe Rd., and to specify building materials and elevations; WHEREAS: the Partnership for a new Phoebus submitted a letter in support of the rezoning, several members of the public expressed support for the project and one member of the public spoke against this proposal; and WHEREAS: the applicant hosted a community meeting on December 3, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette Larue and seconded by Commissioner Chris Snead, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Rezoning Application No. 1308-2012, subject to ten (10) proffered conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Young, McCloud, LaRue, Snead, Bunting, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: None B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 049-2012: by the City of Hampton to amend and re-enact Chapter 1, entitled “Zones and General Provisions” by adding section 1-25 to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia, 9  pertaining to the regulation of renewable energy systems. Staff Contact: Tamaria Green, 728-5127 or tgreen@hampton.gov. City Planner Tamaria Green stated she has before the Commission, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 049-2012 pertaining to regulations of renewable energy systems which include wind turbines and wind solar panels. This is an amendment to the zoning ordinance to establish standards and procedures by which the siting, installation and operation of renewable energy systems (wind turbines and solar panels) shall be regulated. The amendment allows applicants to apply for a use permit for such systems. Renewable energy systems will be permitted in all zoning districts as an accessory structure, except in the M-4 and M-5 Langley Flight Approach districts, where they will be prohibited. For the purpose of this ordinance amendment included are small wind energy conversion systems, also known as wind turbines, and solar equipment also known as solar panels. These systems convert natural resources, wind and rays from the sun into energy to support heat and lighting in homes and businesses. Currently the ordinance treats these structures as accessory structures, similar to sheds, garages or flag poles. The ordinance does not adequately address issues that relate to height, safety and aesthetics of these systems. Intent of this ordinance amendment is to establish standards and procedures by which the installation and operation of renewable energy systems will be regulated within the City of Hampton in order to promote the safe and effective use of wind energy; address potential impacts; limit production to on-site usage; and anticipate future proposals. The amendment process began in December 2011 when residents and business owners expressed interest in installing systems on their property. Staff began researching surrounding municipalities to assess what adjacent communities were doing in terms of regulating these systems. At that time Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach all had language in their zoning ordinance pertaining to wind energy and solar panels. The need to regulate renewable energy systems became apparent as residents and business owners expressed interested in installing the systems on their property. A summary of preliminary research findings were presented to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) on February 13, 2012. Staff then presented draft language of the zoning ordinance amendment to ZOAC for review and feedback at their April 9th and May 14th meetings. ZOAC stressed the importance of permitting the installation and operation of the renewable energy systems at a distance far enough to protect adjacent property owners and to prevent public nuisances from occurring as a result of their operation. 10  Staff presented the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission at their public hearing on July 5, 2012. The Planning Commission voted to defer the proposed amendment pending more input from the public via the Neighborhood Commission Staff presented a follow-up presentation to Planning Commission at their September 6, 2012 public hearing informing the Commission of the status of the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Staff presented to the Neighborhood Commission at their public meeting on September 10, 2012. The Neighborhood Commission was then given sixty (60) days to gather feedback from their respective neighborhood stakeholders. At the conclusion of the sixty (60) days, the Neighborhood Commission brought feedback to their November 5th meeting for discussion and consensus on their opinion. Safety measures of such systems were stressed. At the meeting, a general consensus was made that wind turbines and solar panels should be allowed in Hampton, subject to the issuance of a use permit. The Commissioners decided that this was the best method for regulating the use, specifically highlighting that neighbors should be notified when a wind turbine or solar panel is proposed for installation adjacent to their property. Their concerns were to encourage safety precautions; affect of the physical environment; and the noise of the wind turbine. Staff has provided a letter of support of the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission from the Neighborhood Commission. Hampton Community Plan 2006 as amended emphasizes practicing environmental stewardship of the city’s natural resources and assets and promoting energy conservation. The Plan also encourages the City to lead by example with the implementation of environmentally safe practices. This ordinance also protects the community appearance and character. The ordinance amendment achieves those policies by initiating a streamlined process of regulating these systems by modifying codes, ordinances and policies that foster green building and renewable energy development. The current zoning ordinance does not have specific language to regulate renewable energy systems. They are currently treated as accessory structures and subject to the same height and setback requirements as any other accessory structure, for example a shed or flag pole. To increase the height of a system to a more usable height taller than 25 feet the applicant would need to request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). As it currently stands the zoning ordinance provides very little guidance for regulating these systems regarding height, safety and aesthetics. The ordinance amendment includes standards that applicants must abide by. The most significant standards are the system’s setback from property lines, public rights-of-way, or public overhead utility lines. Setbacks are set to prevent renewable energy systems 11 from becoming nuisances and to ensure that if the systems are somehow disabled they will not cause damage to adjacent properties and harm to passersby. The minimum setback for a small wind energy conversion system (SWECS) must be a distance which is at least equal to the total height of the SWECS. The minimum rear and side yard setback for solar energy equipment is fifteen (15) feet. Placement in the front yard is prohibited for SWECS and solar energy equipment. The Planning Commission and Council may decide to continue to treat these systems as accessory but that does not adequately address the height, safety and aesthetics. The current proposal suggests a use permit where an applicant can apply for a Use Permit to install a turbine. The applicant will appear before the Planning Commission and City Council where ample notification requirements will have been met and adjacent property owners notified. Applicants must meet height setbacks and other requirements prescribed by the ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 049-2012. In response to a question from Commissioner Young, Ms. Green stated there are design restrictions and requirements, such as color, height, and length of rotors. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Green stated the height of the wind turbine on Chesapeake Avenue is 33 feet and the rotors are three (3) feet long. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Green stated safety concerns are addressed by set standards, such as setbacks to regulate the height of turbines and rotors. Safety features are also manufactured into the construction of the wind turbines. Mr. Terry O’Neill stated there is a provision in the ordinance that addresses limiting and discouraging the ability to climb on these structures to discourage that. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated the size or height of the wind turbines is restricted to the size of the lot on which they are placed. Lots to house these structures will have to be fairly substantial in size. Chairman Williams stated he can perceive this to be an issue like cell towers, but safety measures will be in place. There were no public speakers. WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 049-2012 by the City of Hampton to amend and reenact Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia, entitled “Zones and General Provisions” by 12  adding section 1-25 pertaining to the regulation of renewable energy systems; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will allow small wind turbines to be permitted in all zoning districts as an accessory structure, subject to the issuance of a use permit, except in the M-4 and M-5 Langley Flight Approach districts, where they will be prohibited; WHEREAS: solar panels will be permitted by right in all zoning districts as an accessory structure subject to established standards for accessory structures; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment includes minimum setback standards for small wind turbines and solar panels from property lines, public rights-of-way, or public overhead utility lines; WHEREAS: the proposed amendment will fulfill the goals of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) to modify codes, ordinances, and policies that foster green building and renewable energy development; WHEREAS: per the request of the Planning Commission at the July 2012 public hearing to involve the Hampton Neighborhood Commission, the Neighborhood Commission provided consensus support following a sixty (60) day input period on behalf of neighborhood stake holders, on the installation of renewable energy systems, specifically advising staff to notify the public when wind turbines are installed near private property; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. 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 Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 049-2012. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Young, LaRue, McCloud, Snead, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting (at the time of vote) C. Use Permit Application No. 1082-2012: by The Garden City Cultural & Historical Society, Inc. to allow a private museum at 1911 Shell Road (LRSN 13  1002916). The property is zoned Two Family Residence District (R-8), which permits a private museum subject to securing a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends Low Density Residential for this area. Staff Contact: Alison Alexander, 728-5238 or aalexander@hampton.gov. City Planner Alison Alexander stated Use Permit Application No. 1082-2012 by the Garden City Cultural & Historic Society, Inc. is a request to allow a private museum to preserve and promote the history of the Garden City movement. Hours of operation are Sunday through Saturday from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. The subject property is located at 1911 Shell Road. The property is zoned R-8, Two Family Residence District, which allows the operation of a private museum subject to approval of a use permit. The property was built in 1918 and was part of the Garden City community in Elizabeth City County. Gardens on the property were sometimes showcased through the Federated Negro Garden Clubs of Virginia. Parking constructed in accordance with the submitted site plan will provide sufficient parking to allow for the private museum use. This plan accommodates four (4) vehicles and has been approved by the City Traffic Engineers. The request meets zoning requirements while maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. Ten (10) conditions have been attached to this application and speak to the allowed uses, specifically those outlined in the brochure that goes along with the Garden City Cultural and Historical Society. Those uses include preserving and rehabilitating the existing home; documenting the early families of the neighborhood and hosting cultural and educational programs. These conditions also include hours of operation, parking and a termination clause. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends Low Density Residential for this area. The Plan also recommends providing cultural and civic facilities that educate and inform residents and visitors about the community, its history, and resources. Staff recommends approval of Use Permit 1082-2012 with 10 conditions. The applicant, Gaynell Drummond , 222 Prince James Drive, Hampton stated Garden City is an historical community that began with the planning concept of the grandfather of the urban city planning profession, Ebenezer Howard, a British urban planner who sold the garden city ideas across America and Europe. 14  In 2013 the community will be celebrating its 100 year anniversary. It was a strong community during the era of segregation and Jim Crow. It had many black businesses and historical aspects including a Rosenwald School founded by Booker T. Washington. It had an early arena that hosted entertainment which gave rise to the Hampton Coliseum. This community is located five blocks from the site of the Monitor Merrimac on the Hampton Roads and down the road from the old Virginia State School. It would be a wise thing to preserve the community. Overlooked as the city of Hampton has grown it still has strong architectural structures – small county cottage, the prairie house and the American four square; many red brick homes were built in the community. Since the 1960’s and the redevelopment era the community has gone into decline. Documenting the history and bringing new attention to this community will raise the awareness of the historical aspects of the people who lived there. There is a sense of pride for all Hamptonians. Slavery began here and with the contraband movement at Fort Monroe, slavery ended. This community ties together this history and gave rise to a progressive black community and many successful families. Ms. Drummond stated the Society is partnering with the Virginia Cooperative Extension Master Gardeners as this area was a showcase state gardening community. Hampton had four of the National Federated Negro Garden clubs. Gardening tourism is now very strong and lends to a tourism opportunity to Hampton. This is an opportunity for Hampton to expand on its history. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Drummond stated several community meetings have been held in the past several years. They have also gone door-to-door. There has not been a strong turnout due to the decline in the community. A meeting had been planned for December 15 prior to realizing the date of the Planning Commission meeting. They had been meeting at the Hampton Public Library for three years, but have not had a large attendance as of late. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander stated staff has been working with the applicants for a several months fine tuning the activities they would like to hold at the property. The applicants would like to hold different types of cultural and educational programs and staff wanted to give them a flexible schedule that would allow some Saturday mornings and after school activities. Operating hours will be 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. The hours of 10:00 am to 4:00 pm are hours for the public. Norville Wooden, 2001 Shell Road, Hampton stated she lives across the street from this property and is very pleased with the request. She and the neighbors support this request. Joseph King, 905 Chesapeake Avenue, stated this is a non-profit organization. and began with him not being able to speak about being a Native American. He and Ms. Drummond want to be able to speak about their history. 15  Mildred Moses, 612 Pocahontas Place, Hampton, stated she thinks the museum is in a good location. It will take a while for it to materialize but wants to get it going. John Drummond, 222 Prince James Drive, Hampton, stated his parents had a home that was located at 517 Pocahontas Avenue and he is interested in working with the project. He has gotten area churches involved and they are excited about working with the children in the area. He stated he is hoping the commission will approve what needs to be done. Commissioner LaRue stated she had no previous knowledge of the Garden City projects but was interested to read the material provided. She thinks this will be a worthwhile project as Hampton is so rich in history and little is known about all of it. The use of the house may regenerate the neighborhood and upgrade the community. Interesting that it is a neighborhood project and a living museum. Commissioner McCloud stated he lives in the neighborhood and in response to Commissioner Campbell’s question about a neighborhood meeting Ms. Drummond and Mr. King came to his neighborhood’s organization about three years ago with the idea. This is a positive thing in the community and the Wythe-Phenix Improvement Association supports it. Ms. Drummond and Mr. King have attended more than one meeting regarding this issue. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. King stated they will not charge an admission fee. Once things are in place they will start collecting money and work on grants for funding. Currently he has been helping with the financing and the upkeep is being done by him and volunteers. Planner Alison Alexander stated the property would have to receive a Certificate of Occupancy prior to operating as a museum and inspections will be made at that time. In response to a question by Commissioner Young, Mr. King stated there are plans to engage the educational leaders of the city and that is already being done. WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by The Garden City Cultural and Historical Society, Inc. to permit a private museum, to preserve and promote the history of the Garden City movement, in an existing building at 1911 Shell Road [LRSN 1002916]; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended) recommends low density residential use for this property, and the plan recommends providing cultural and civic facilities that educate and inform residents and visitors about the community, its history, and its resources; 16  WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned Two Family Residence (R-8) District which permits a private museum with an approved Use Permit; WHEREAS: ten conditions are attached to address allowed uses, hours of operation, traffic and circulation, and a termination clause; and WHEREAS: several members of the public spoke for this proposal and no members of the public spoke against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Chris Snead and seconded by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 1082-2012, subject to ten (10) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Larue, McCloud, Snead, Williams, Young NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting (at time of vote) VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. FY 2014 CIP Update Lori Green-Braen, Senior Budget Analyst, stated she would give a brief update on the CIP process. The CIP Committee is currently meeting and reviewing project submissions. Last year Jonathan McBride of the Community Development Department provided the commission with an update on a “Road Show” presentation of the CIP process. A few groups have been added to that concept and they are the Community Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, HRHA and the Partnership for a New Phoebus. The Commission will be the first to be provided with a road show briefing at the January 3, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The information will be an educational overview of the CIP process. There will be discussion on the how the five year plan is developed, the funding resources, the project categories, the challenges, the delicate balance between maintaining the current assets and providing a plan for the economic development issues. In addition there will be two town hall sessions to be held in January. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. O’Neill explained that when projects are submitted to the CIP process and not funded in the five year plan they may have been dropped but there is still a contingency list and it would 17 be helpful to the general public to have a list posted to show where the projects are in the process; a prioritization process Sometimes a subset of the contingency list has been created that is called a priority contingency with projects that either have strong support from the public or is a city priority that is supported by the community but does not have money to support them. Commissioner Snead stated that at one time there was a prioritized contingency list and asked if it still existed or had the process been restarted. In response to Commissioner Snead, Ms. Green-Braen stated during the FY11 budget development process which also included the CIP process was when the economy “tanked” and things got bad. At that time the CIP Process was revamped and recalibrated. There were projects already approved by Council to be funded through the issuance of bonds but because the economy took a nose dive things had to go back and be reevaluated. All localities had to do the same. The listing was separated and several could not be done. In order to capture those projects a separate list was created; “A Priority Contingency List”. It was explained that when the economy recovered and if those projects were still a priority to Council they could be revisited. There is a contingency list of projects which has grown to an exorbitant amount of money over the years. Every five to ten years it is necessary to go back and refresh the contingency list because projects and/or costs are outdated and project scopes need to be updated. That is being done this year and is why the CIP process had to wait to commence with their meetings. Staff was taking time to get updated cost estimates and updated project scopes. Some of the projects on the contingency lists were rolled into other projects that had been done or they were combined with other projects. They need to see if the projects are still viable or if there is another way for the project to be done. The last briefing of the CIP was done in March. In response to questions from Commissioners Campbell and Snead, Ms. Green-Braen stated that the CIP process is on line but the unfunded projects are not as part of Council’s five-year plan. The contingency list that needs to be refreshed by the departments is not on line. Nothing has been taken off line; it is not part of the FY13 document. Mr. O’Neill recapped the question to look at: Where would a member of the public find a project of theirs that was not funded? B. Phoebus Master Plan Update Keith Cannady, Planning and Zoning Administration Manager gave a status report on the 2012 update of the Phoebus Master Plan, including: 18  1. Scope of 2012 Update 2. Public Process 3. Schedule for Plan Adoption There was widespread agreement on the long term goals from 2007 such as: public waterfront with coordinated private development; new residential development; and additional recreation and open space. There was very little interest in going back and redoing the work. The plan update has focused on what has changed since 2007: • Fort Monroe closed and people left; there was the economic recession, particularly in the real estate market; and the great news of the announcement of Fort Monroe as a national monument. • The update has also focused on what could be done with short term actions; ways to show visible progress; demonstrate commitment to the long term plan; and to set the stage for future success when the economy comes back. • Things that fit into the category of actions that can be done in the short term to build on the plan and move toward long term goals Include: establishing a local arts district; making zoning consistent with the plan; and improving property maintenance. Important steps in the public process include: 1. Working with the Partnership for a New Phoebus. There has been a close working relationship with the new organization in Phoebus – the Partnership for a New Phoebus which is a combination of former organizations and now speaks with one voice for the Phoebus community. 2. Stakeholder Interviews: One-on-one interviews with businesses owners, property owners and new people to the community to find out what was going on. 3. Collaboration: collaboration between the City of Hampton, the National Park Service and the Fort Monroe Authority was critical to making everything work. 4. Economic Development Task Force 5. “Think Tank” Session with key staff – a brainstorming session was held with City staff; Park Service staff; and Fort Monroe Authority staff to make certain things were on the right path in developing plans. 6. Public Meetings – Fort Monroe Master Plan held 3/29/12: Fort Monroe National Monument, 4/30/12; and Phoebus Update Kickoff, 5/17/12. The final big public meeting was held in Phoebus in November. The following are the scheduled meetings and dates for going forward: • Economic Development Task Force: 12/11/12 19  • Fort Monroe Public Meeting: 12/13/12 • Partnership for a New Phoebus: TBD • Planning Commission Recommendations: 1/17/13 • City Council Adoption: 2/13/13 The final draft documents will be out for review prior to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for January 17, 2013 when the Commission will be asked to recommend a plan for City Council at their February meeting. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Cannady stated he thought the Fort Monroe meeting would be at the Fort but was not certain of the location at this time. In response to a question from Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Cannady stated the City is working in a coordinated way with the Ft. Monroe plans since they are closely related. Fort Monroe is getting close to the end of their planning process where they will state their recommendations and he and Mr. O’Neill are on weekly conference calls with their group. There is some advantage to move forward quickly to be in sync with the upcoming budget process and the CIP process so the decisions around priorities for Phoebus can be taken into consideration together with the budget process. In response to a question from Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Cannady explained that the Partnership for a New Phoebus is a merger of the Phoebus Civic League and the Phoebus Improvement League. Mr. O’Neill and Chairman Williams wished everyone a happy holiday. VII. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC – moved to the beginning of the meeting. VIII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION No items by the Commission. IX. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:36PM. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to Commission APPROVED BY: ___________________________________ Gregory Williams/Chairman 20