Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT THE WORK SESSION OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE LAWSON CONFERENCE ROOM, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014, AT 3:00 P.M. Commissioners Carlton Campbell and Gregory Williams, Chairman Gaynette LaRue, and Vice-Chair Tommy Southall were present. Commissioners Andre McCloud, Chris Snead, and Mary Bunting were absent. Chairman LaRue thanked the Planning staff for the Buckroe Master Plan update at the February 6, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman LaRue advised the Commissioners and staff that she would be leaving at 4:30 and, therefore, there would no longer be a quorum present. She would like to keep comments brief in order to expedite the Planning Commission meeting. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown requested, in light of the upcoming elections, that an additional agenda item be added to include a change to the Hampton Planning Commission Public Hearing/Comment Rules. Ms. Brown advised that the Planning Commission bylaws permit a change to the Public Hearing/Comment Rules upon a majority vote of the members of the Commission. The Public Hearing/Comment Rules already require comments be confined to matters germane to the business of the Commission, but the proposed change would further specify that speakers cannot campaign for themselves or for others during public comment. This would be a fourth action item to be considered. City Attorney Vanessa Valldejuli explained that she and the City Manager consider this a cautionary measure. Other municipalities have this in their protocols or in their ordinance. Campaigning comments should be reserved for the campaign trail. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, City Planner Tolu Ibikunle replied that a variance would be required for one to have a fence over 6 feet in height in a residential area. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Ibikunle replied that no calls had been received in opposition to PetSmart. She also stated that noise should not be an issue as the PetSmart will not be housing or boarding animals overnight. The PetSmart facility is allowed by right. The current zoning of the property does not allow boarding of animals. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Ibikunle replied that the proposed proffered conditions for the Foxcroft L.P. rezoning request include requirements for fencing and landscaping of the buffer area. The wooded area has to be retained and landscaped. The residents want to make certain that the wooded area will be maintained. Similar concerns were expressed when the applicant submitted an application for rezoning in 2002-2003, which the applicant withdrew prior to going to the Planning Commission. Nothing specific was mentioned as to why the application was withdrawn. PC Worksession 20140306 Page 1  In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Ms. Ibikunle replied the request meets the intent of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). Due to limited access, the undeveloped site cannot be reached without going through the complex. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Southall, Ms. Ibikunle replied she was not aware of other types of housing being explored. Community Development Department Director Terry O’Neill explained there is no Master Plan for this area; it is only covered under the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). As Ms. Ibikunle indicated, specific properties must be looked at to see what is viable in the context of the Community Plan. In reality this particular property would be difficult to develop as a single-family development without tearing down someone’s home for access. In response to questions from Chairman LaRue and Commissioner Williams, Mr. O’Neill stated staff has not heard from the Hampton First Initiative. Dr. Harvey had indicated he would like to come back and give a presentation to Council once the project was completed. Dr. Harvey does not have to come back before the Planning Commission before going to City Council. Once the presentation is made to City Council, Council will direct City staff to amend current plans to align with their proposal. Due to budget constraints, the only exception Council has made to updating a master plan is for Phoebus; Council will not be looking at updating the downtown master plan at this time. The worksession ended at 3:29 pm. PC Worksession 20140306 Page 2 AT A PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014 AT 3:42 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gaynette LaRue called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Chairman Gaynette LaRue, Vice-Chair Tommy Southall, and Commissioners Carlton Campbell and Gregory Williams were present. Commissioners Andre McCloud, Chris Snead and Mary Bunting were absent. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2014 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Southall, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: Williams ABSENT: McCloud, Snead, Bunting Prior to the Public Hearings Chairman LaRue thanked Mr. Terry O’Neill and his staff for the Buckroe Master Plan update status at the February Commission meeting. Chairman LaRue stated there is barely a quorum at this meeting and she would need to leave at 4:30 pm; the meeting will then be handed to Vice-Chair Tommy Southall at which time there will no longer be a quorum. Public hearing items that are not heard while there is a quorum may need to be heard next month. Chairman LaRue asked speakers to keep comments as brief and concise as possible so the public hearing items may be heard while there is a quorum. The next item does not show up on the agenda, but is a recommended change to the Hampton Planning Commission Public Hearing/Comment Rules. ITEM IV. PUBLIC HEARING/COMMENT RULES Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated the Commission has before it a proposed change in the Hampton Planning Commission Public Hearing/Comment Rules for the Planning Commission. The change would specifically state that speakers may not campaign for political office for themselves or others while they PC Minutes 20140306 Page 1 are speaking to the Commission during the public comment period. All that is needed to approve the change is a motion and a majority vote. On motion of Vice-Chair Tommy Southall, seconded by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, to add the sentence “speakers shall not campaign for political office either for themselves or others” to Rule No. 7 of the Public Hearing Comments and Rules, a roll call vote resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, Southall, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: McCloud, Snead, Bunting PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, read key points of the Hampton Planning Commission Public Hearing/Comment Rules in order for the affairs of the Commission to be conducted in a courteous and orderly manner. ITEM V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing items advertised in the Daily Press on February 20 and 27, 2014. A. Use Permit Application No. 14-00003: by PetSmart to operate a veterinary health facility at 3670 Von Schilling Drive [LRSN 13002020] at Peninsula Town Center. The property is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District and is within the Special Public Interest-Coliseum Central (SPI-CC) Overlay District, which permits a veterinary health facility with a use permit. Approval of this application would allow a veterinary health facility within the PetSmart store [not yet open for business] in a +1,595 square foot area. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use development for this property. City Planner Tolu Ibikunle presented Use Permit Application No. 14-00003 by PetSmart to operate a veterinary health facility at 3670 Von Schilling Drive at Peninsula Town Center in a vacant storefront located beneath CineBistro and beside an H & M clothing store. PetSmart is proposing to open a store in the Fall of 2014. The subject matter of this case is not whether PetSmart is allowed to open in this location, as it is a permitted by-right use, but whether a use permit should be issued for a veterinary health facility proposed to be located within the store. This is a request for a use permit to operate a veterinary health facility in a ± 1,595 square foot area leased and operated by Bainfield, a licensed affiliate of PetSmart, located within the proposed PetSmart store. The applicant has stated that the veterinary services will be provided by properly licensed professionals and will generally consist of outpatient care, routine examinations, vaccinations, pharmacy, dental care, and most surgical procedures. PC Minutes 20140306 Page 2  The property is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District and Special Public Interest Coliseum Central (SPI-CC) District, which permit a veterinary health facility subject to securing a use permit. A use permit offers the ability to identify the operational characteristics of the proposal and establish conditions under which the facility will be operated. Uses permitted by right at this location include a grooming facility; a pet adoption area; and a training area. There are several proposed conditions attached to the Use Permit which include issuance of the use permit for the facility at 3670 Von Schilling Drive; licensing requirements from the Virginian Board of Veterinary Medicine; and that boarding of the animals is only permitted for medical purposes. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use development for this area. The Plan also recommends policies that encourage support for new development, business recruitment, expansion, and retention to achieve a healthy and a consistently expanding local economy. The Plan also promotes redevelopment of well-situated vacant and underutilized commercial and industrial properties within the city. The proposed use will offer more services to guests as well as residents of the city. The proposed site can be accessed from multiple entrances at Peninsula Town Center such as Mercury Boulevard, Coliseum Drive, and Cunningham Drive. Negligible traffic will be generated in comparison to other retail uses and no additional parking is required above the existing provided spaces at Peninsula Town Center. This proposal is consistent with the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). Bainfield, the veterinary health provider affiliated with PetSmart, does not currently exist in Hampton, making this a new business to Hampton’s local economy. The subject property is a vacant storefront; the veterinary health facility and PetSmart would fill that vacancy, achieving the development of a well-situated and underutilized commercial property. Staff recommends approval of Use Permit No. 14-00003 with five (5) conditions. In response to questions from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Ibikunle stated there are no residential units in the building; it is completely commercial. No community meeting was held but staff notified property owners and the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District of the proposal. No opposition was received. The only time boarding is permitted is when an animal needs to be kept overnight due to medical issues. Kennels are not permitted in C-2 districts. In response to questions from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Ibikunle stated PetSmart will not board any animals for a 24-hour period unless it is medically required, such as for surgery. The store may have sponsors such as the SPCA that would offer animals for adoption. None of the property owners, including the movie theater, have expressed concern relative to noise issues. PC Minutes 20140306 Page 3  In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Ibikunle stated the law requires adjacent properties to be notified of land use changes, and Hampton goes above and beyond what is required. It is the responsibility of property owners to notify their tenants of proposed changes. Attorney Steven Romine, 999 Waterside Drive, Norfolk, VA, stated he was a local attorney representing PetSmart. Raymond Tripp, manager of Peninsula Town Center, is also present and available for questions. Mr. Romine stated the staff report was thorough and included a full history. The site was redeveloped in 2005 and received a number of variances to permit the urban style mixed-use seen today at the Peninsula Town Center. The current use being proposed is a 14,286 square foot retail store with 1,595 square feet in the store dedicated to the veterinary health facility. The only thing the use permit is needed for is the veterinary health facility. All the other uses in a PetSmart are granted by right in this space which includes grooming, pet adoption, grooming area, and general retail. All tenants in the Center were notified through the property manager of the proposed use change, and there were no objections or concerns expressed. This use will enhance the Peninsula Town Center with another strong tenant and provide necessary services to the community. It is a big “win” for the Center. In respect to the theater, there is an 18-inch ceiling that will block any noise. PetSmart is not a kennel and will not board overnight unless medically necessary; anything related to the veterinary clinic where overnight monitoring is needed would be the only reason to house pets overnight. The five conditions recommended by staff are acceptable. Condition No. 3 states they are prohibited from boarding animals overnight except related to emergencies. Mr. Romine stated the applicants request approval of Use Permit No. 14-00003 to City Council. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. Romine stated PetSmart has an arrangement with Bainfield to run the veterinary clinics in some of their stores in the larger market areas. Elizabeth McCoury stated the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District has no opposition to this project. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by PetSmart to operate a veterinary health facility at 3670 Von Schilling Drive [LRSN 13002020] at Peninsula Town Center; PC Minutes 20140306 Page 4  WHEREAS: the property is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District and is within the Special Public Interest-Coliseum Central (SPI-CC) Overlay District, which permits a veterinary health facility with a use permit; WHEREAS: approval of this application would permit the proposed 1,595+ square foot veterinary health facility within a 14,286+ square foot PetSmart store opening in the Fall of 2014; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) and Coliseum Central Master Plan (2004) recommend mixed-use development for this property. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) also recommends policies that encourage support for new development and business recruitment to achieve a healthy and a consistently expanding local economy. This Plan also promotes redevelopment of well-situated vacant and underutilized commercial and industrial properties within the city; WHEREAS: there are five (5) conditions attached to this use permit to ensure, among other things, that the veterinary facility could only be located at 3670 Von Schilling Drive, the operator will adhere to the Commonwealth’s veterinary medicine standards, providing for nullification of the use permit if the applicant does not obtain a building permit or establish the use within 12 months of City Council approval, and providing that violation of any of the conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gregory Williams and seconded by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission approves Use Permit Application No. 14-00003 with five (5) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, Southall, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: McCloud, Snead, Bunting B. Rezoning Application No. 1312-2013: by Foxcroft, L.P. to rezone 14.38+ acres located at 59 Stapleford Way [LRSN 8003549] from One-Family Residence (R-11) District to Multiple Dwelling (MD-2) District with proffered conditions. If approved the rezoning would permit additional townhouse-style apartment buildings in the existing Kensington Square Apartments development. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends low density and high density residential land uses for this property. PC Minutes 20140306 Page 5  City Planner Tolu Ibikunle presented Rezoning Application No. 1312-2013 by Foxcroft, L.P. to rezone 14.38± acres located at 59 Stapleford Way (LRSN 8003549) from One-Family Residence (R-11) District to Multiple Dwelling (MD-2) District with conditions. The applicant is proposing to construct additional townhouse style apartments at the existing Kensington Square Apartments complex. This proposal will also bring the existing Kensington Square Apartments development into conformance with the City of Hampton Zoning Ordinance. The proposed units will be built on the undeveloped portion of the property. The applicant is proposing approximately 42 two- and three-bedroom townhouse style apartments. If approved this would add to the existing 184 garden and townhouse style apartment units, totally 226+ units. Other features being proposed include associated parking; stormwater improvements; and landscaping. East of the site is Fox Hill Road, north is Clemwood Parkway and west is Chickamauga Pike and Booker Elementary School. Extending Guilford Grove will provide access to the proposed units. If approved the conceptual site plan would still be required to go through site plan review. The property is zoned One-Family Residence (R-11) District. In 1970, the owners acquired a use permit, which was necessary at the time for multi-family development in the R-11 district. The Hampton Zoning Ordinance no longer permits multi-family uses in single- family districts with a use permit; therefore, the apartment complex is considered a legal non-conforming use. In order to expand the complex today, the property must be rezoned to the appropriate multiple dwelling district. If denied the apartment complex would remain a legal non-conforming use. The future land use plan recommends high density residential for most of the property; however, the undeveloped portion is recommended to be low density residential. Although the future land use plan recommends the undeveloped portion to be low density residential it also recommends supporting zoning requirements and other strategies that allow for increased housing mix and density in appropriate locations. Furthermore, the plan promotes safeguarding the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods, high quality design, and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure what they are proposing is of high quality and compatible with the surrounding uses. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) also recommends evaluating all land use proposals from a city-wide and regional level, and that has been done. Approximately 25 citizens attended a community meeting hosted by the applicant on November 19, 2013 (149 notices were sent to neighboring residents). Primary discussion focused on the potential impacts to surrounding single family residences and the public school system. PC Minutes 20140306 Page 6  In response to feedback from the community meeting and in line with the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended), the applicant offers proffered conditions to safeguard the integrity of the existing neighborhoods. The layout and proffered elevations integrate the proposed development into the existing development with a courtyard layout and Tudor-style architecture (e.g. stucco and brick exteriors with wood accents and trim) which is consistent with the existing townhouse-style apartments. There is a detailed landscaped buffer design that incorporates existing and new plantings (i.e. evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs of varying heights and widths) in conjunction with a six-foot privacy fence to achieve proper screening between the proposed townhomes and the adjacent neighborhood, along with lighting that would not spill over into the surrounding area. The land use plan recommends the undeveloped portion of this site as low density residential. However, the site could not effectively be developed as low density residential due to its irregular shape and lack of access. Its close proximity to the existing apartments along Clemwood Parkway affords a more appropriate opportunity to expand the apartment complex. The density is greater toward Clemwood Parkway. With the transition from apartments to townhomes as they get further from Clemwood Parkway, the density is lower as it gets closer to the single family uses. Staff recommends approval of Rezoning Application No. 1312-2013 with conditions. In response to questions from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Ibikunle stated access to the proposed site would be from Clemwood Parkway, and extending the private Guilford Grove located within the apartment complex to the new site. No one voiced support of this request at the community meeting. The major concern regarding being able to see from the apartments into neighborhood housing is being addressed by the buffer. Overcrowding of the schools is a school issue and not a Planning Commission issue. In response to questions by Commissioner Williams, Ms. Ibikunle stated changes were made in response to residents’ questions about fencing and buffer area at the community meeting and the community was notified. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell in regard to a previous rezoning to MD-2 of apartments in the vicinity of this request, Ms. Ibikunle stated the rezoning dealt with property located across Clemwood Parkway from the subject complex; at the time, that property was in common ownership. Mr. Larry Cumming, 2236 Cunningham Drive, Hampton, attorney with Kaufman & Canoles, stated he was representing the applicant, Foxcroft L.P. Mr. Cumming stated the idea is to convert the existing apartment complex into a conforming use. A total of 14 acres, with exception of 1 ½ acres, is currently used for apartments. There is only one section of the L-shaped piece of land that is in question and not appropriately zoned. Most of the undeveloped, non-conforming use property is zoned R-11 and has an existing use permit which allowed the apartments to be built. The apartments were PC Minutes 20140306 Page 7 built in 1975 under a prior zoning ordinance that no longer applies. When the City was approached to add the additional units, a request was made to have the applicants merge the parcels and to correct and clean up the zoning for the entire development, which they have done. There are currently 18 buildings with 8 buildings to be added. Of the 8 buildings, three are already on the property currently used for the apartments. Only some of the buildings would be on the undeveloped, hockey-stick-looking portion of land. All of the units, existing and proposed, are market rent apartments. The two-bedrooms are approximately $900 a month with the three-bedrooms at approximately $1,300 a month. The entire development is owned and operated by the same individuals. There is no absentee ownership with separate management. The owners have other developments and are experienced in what they are doing. The existing amenities include a clubhouse, fitness center, pool, sauna, and pool house. Currently there is a mix of garden-style apartment buildings and townhome-style apartment buildings. From Clemwood Parkway and the residential area, there is a natural transition area to where the lower density townhouse-style units are located. Zoning for garden-style apartments would allow 20 or more units per acre. Within the development are Tudor-style townhomes and mixed elevations. A courtyard design to allow open areas for the units will be incorporated per a request from the Planning staff. At $100,000 per unit, the 42 units will be of high quality. Access to these units will be provided internally off of Guilford Grove, with no access through the adjacent neighborhood or directly off of a public street. The proposed project will have an open feel with buildings flanking one another and with new parking spaces and a pedestrian walkway. Around all three sides of the complex adjoining residential properties, there will be a six-foot privacy fence and a 20-foot vegetative buffer enhanced with new vegetation. This application is relatively simple to analyze as the property contains only about 1-½ acres; the entire development is 14 acres with10% of the property developed as green area. With the existing development being expanded into the footprint it will not impact any new neighborhoods. All traffic will go through the existing Clemwood Parkway ingress/egress. Drainage of the site was another raised concern. Mr. Cumming stated there will be a retention pond to ensure that all site drainage is handled on-site and should not affect the adjoining neighborhood. The proposed development is consistent and harmonious with the adjoining development; it is also consistent with the Community Plan for that area, providing a various mix of densities. The density transitions to a lower density next to the residential units. There is no way the property can be developed as single-family homes as it is not big enough and there is no way to access it except through the apartment complex. PC Minutes 20140306 Page 8  In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Cumming stated buildings are shown on the plan that could be built on the portion of the property that is considered a legal non-conforming use should the City allow them to do so. Bill Bryant, 45 Apollo Drive, and President of the Malvern Civic Association, stated the Malvern residential area is located immediately adjacent to the property in question. Mr. Bryant stated Kensington Square Apartments purchased the subject property about 12 years ago, and were met with opposition when they first tried to rezone this property for the purpose of expanding their complex; the plans were dropped with no explanation. When the property was first purchased it was zoned R-11 which is single- family housing and is the same use as the adjoining homes in Malvern. Mr. Bryant submits there have been no error in zoning and no change in the neighborhood to give reason for a rezoning change. The residents of Malvern would not object to single- family homes being built in accordance to R-11 zoning with the current wooded buffer and the offset distance between the homes and apartments. The concern of some homeowners is the multi-family, multi-story apartments just 20 feet from their property lines; unless the buffer between the apartments and Malvern properties is high and dense, the appearance, sound, and sight lines would be too intrusive. This intrusiveness would encroach onto the Malvern homes and make these homes less attractive for sale and would lessen their values. Mr. Bryant stated the proponent claims the apartments will be market-value housing, but the neighbors have concerns about the potential impact if these apartments become voucher-supported housing. Other concerns about the expansion include the unrealistically limited parking at less than 1.5 parking spaces for two- and three-bedroom apartments, and the impact of the additional traffic on Clemwood Parkway, Fox Hill Road, and potentially Longbridge Road, which runs through the middle of Malvern. While the additional runoff from the apartments is to be routed from the currently soggy ground into the large open water BMP, it is an opportunity for mosquitoes to breed. Mr. Bryant respectfully suggested the issues in this case are fairly straightforward. The parcels in this case are zoned R-11 and have been zoned that way since before most of the properties around it were purchased. None of the property owners had reason to expect the zoning to change and that includes the owners of the Kensington Square Apartments. There has been no zoning error and the neighborhood has not changed. The property helps provide a physical and sound buffer for the adjacent property owners. The owners of the Kensington Square Apartments are not precluded from building single-family homes in an R-11 zoning. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. Bryant said there is a certain amount of sound carried from the pool in the summertime but it is less intrusive due to the buffer and no one is looking from their balcony into the homes. It is hard to say if the additional plantings will help. Mr. William Plummer, 109 Quaker Road, Hampton, stated the only thing he had received was the original notice of the meeting at Sentara, but had not received PC Minutes 20140306 Page 9 anything about the fence, buildings, or new plantings. He does not see how anything less intrusive could be placed there. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Attorney Cumming stated there had been questions at the community meeting as to what type of fencing they would have, how the buffer would be treated, and how the drainage would be dealt with. In communication with the Planning staff it was decided the fence would be solid, opaque, and as tall as allowed, which they were told could not exceed six feet in height. It was agreed the applicant would do what the Planning staff directed as to what would be needed for the buffer. The community may have not heard these decisions. Mr. John Davis, 123 Quaker Road, Hampton, stated most of his issues were addressed in the previous discussion. Having recently retired from the Air Force, his worry is his property value because it is one of the few things he has seen go up and down over the years. He dreads the complex expanding if it would bring his property value down. Another issue is the summertime noise from the pool area; he does not see how the trees will help because trees usually start out about four or five feet in height. Mr. Davis stated he was not provided information on the upgrade of the fence or the buffer. Again, his major concern is property values. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated property values are an ancillary issue with land use items. It is something the Commission can consider in making its decision and is not entirely out of bounds like business competition. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Ms. Ibikunle stated that based on the analysis done, property values did not go down for the single-family residences on Chickamauga Pike adjacent to the apartment complex. The majority of the properties looked at along the street were built in 1966 with the exception of three built in 1973. The reason that is important is because the apartment complex came about in 1975 and there was no indication that property values were driven down. Secretary to the Board Terry O’Neill stated he has been around land use issues a long time and there is no simple answer to these questions. If the apartment project is well kept and viewed as a desirable place to live it would probably not have a lot of impact on adjoining single-family property values. If the reverse of that would happen it could impact the adjoining properties and the same goes for single-family neighborhoods. Ms. Brenda Gervais, 149 Chickamauga Pike, Hampton, stated she is a real estate agent with a company in Chesapeake. She has seen the property values go down, basically due to foreclosures. She stated she is against additional apartments. There is enough traffic going through the neighborhood and it is hard enough getting to the school now. She has had to call the police department numerous times because of people speeding though the neighborhood. Ms. Gervais stated she will bring signatures in opposition to this request to the next meeting, as she did not have enough time to do PC Minutes 20140306 Page 10 this for tonight’s meeting. She stated she is upset with this request and knows it will bring property values down. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Gervais stated she could not give specifics without doing research on how the apartment complex affects property values in the neighborhood. She has seen more crime. Ms. Gervais stated she cannot imagine adding more apartments from the $990 to $1,300/month range when the adjacent housing ranges upward from the mid- $200,000. This will bring in more low income people and it will change the dynamics in the neighborhood. Commissioner Campbell stated that as an entry level $1,300 is not “a drop in the bucket” and is still a hefty price to pay. He questioned if a condition were in place wherein the complex would not accept vouchers would make a difference to those in opposition. He stated he is also trying to understand if the concern is specifically in relation to the apartment complex or in general to the neighborhood. It is his understanding from the attorney for the applicant that the complex will not be Federal or public housing and will be market value rent. Ms. Gervais stated there is already enough rental property and vacant houses in the area. Commissioner Williams stated it is his understanding that the two-story townhouses vastly differ from an apartment and look more like homes than apartments. He is not certain if the concern is that these will be the same as more apartments. The density of the complex will be less the further back one goes toward the neighborhood. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. Cumming stated the proposed additional units will be isolated to townhouses; they will be rental and not for- sale, and will be operated by the same, current owners and operators. They typically have low vacancy and high occupancy which is dependent on market conditions. There have been many speakers regionally and nationally stating this kind of housing and housing mix is needed for our community and the future. In that regard, there is no reason to believe that this will be a problem or any sort of detriment to the community. Mr. Cumming stated Ms. Ibikunle has given the factual example of the addition adjoining the immediate housing. He has literature showing the complex will not adversely affect the property value of the single family homes. The children will go to schools in the neighborhood. The traffic for this development has nothing to do with the Malvern neighborhood. In response to Chairman LaRue, Ms. Gervais stated she could not give an honest answer without researching to see if crime has increased because of the existing apartments. Mr. Levonne Young, 110 Quaker Road, Hampton, stated he recommends the property not be rezoned. He has lived at this address since 1986 and bought it because of the wooded area behind the development. The 20-foot buffer has been continually mentioned; from the two-story buildings the tenants will be able to look into the PC Minutes 20140306 Page 11 residential homes. One of the problems he has had is people that he does not know parking in front of his house at 3:30 in the afternoon. The point of who showed up at the community meeting is not that 147 notices were mailed out but that 25 people did attend. Also, the price of the apartments was mentioned and if the occupancy level does not meet the break-even point, he was certain that vouchers or other circumstances will be used to bring in lower incomes to fill the units. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Southall, Mr. Cumming stated the tallest tree proposed by the Planning staff, and what is shown on the plans, is 10 feet tall. Vice-Chair Southall stated he takes planning seriously. He spent time looking over the plans and driving through the adjacent neighborhood. He stated he has a strong background in neighborhoods and believes in preserving the neighborhoods. The Community Land Use Plan recommends low density residential for all of the area from Fox Hill Road to Little Back River Road to King Street. Since the plan was adopted, another large apartment complex has been built in that area. He stated his respect of the time of those who worked on these plans, and he does not think the hard work that has been done on these plans should be disregarded just because of some economic advantage. Vice-Chair Southall also stated he looked for direction in the plans. Some of the policies found in the plan were Land Use Policy No. 4, to evaluate land use proposals from a regional, city-wide, and neighborhood perspective; Policy No. 7, to safeguard the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods; and Policy No. 29, to encourage high quality new developments that are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. In light of Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority providing vouchers because they are dispersing the public housing areas, he sees this project as a prime candidate for becoming a voucher area; this disturbs him because he has seen this taking place at Bridgeport Apartments. Bridgeport was supposed to be a high-end luxury apartment complex but because of the high vacancy rate vouchers were accepted and the Fox Hill area around Nickerson and the Willow Oaks area have suffered greatly. He stated it is the Commission’s job as planners to ask “what if.” He knows this will be a high quality development but he cannot say they will rent with a low vacancy rate or resort to rental as subsidized housing. He would fully support a senior citizen single-story type development as a transition area into the neighborhood, but he cannot support an apartment complex as an addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Campbell stated that, by the same token there may be a need for subsidized housing, there is the need to be careful in stereotyping. People in need of subsidized housing need to be respected no matter where they move. Just because there are those who can afford $200,000 and $300,000 homes does not mean they are any better than those who need subsidized housing. Commissioner Williams stated if signatures against this request are garnered, each side needs to be prepared to go before City Council and show the rationale behind what they think will happen with these apartments. PC Minutes 20140306 Page 12  Chairman LaRue stated the charge of the Planning Commission is to look at the land use impact. City Council has a broader approach when they make their decisions. The Planning Commission makes its recommendations on land use issues and City Council makes its decision taking the land use recommendations into consideration along with other things. Staff has examined this issue thoroughly. Chairman LaRue stated it is her opinion there is not any other way to develop this land that will make any sense. It is not reasonable to think the people who own the existing complex would do something different with that little strip of land. Any section of the city is subject to Section 8 vouchers. There is a Section 8 house located next door to her house. As more places like Lincoln Park are closed, the more people will have to be relocated. It is better to spread Section 8 housing throughout the city instead concentrating it in certain locations. A Section 8 family could end up living next to anyone; if that is how one feels, not having multi-family housing is no protection. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Foxcroft, L.P. to rezone 14.38+ acres located at 59 Stapleford Way [LRSN 8003549] from One-Family Residence (R-11) District to Multiple Dwelling (MD-2) District with proffered conditions to construct additional townhouse style apartments; WHEREAS: the property is currently zoned One-Family Residence (R-11) District. In 1970, the Hampton Zoning Ordinance permitted multi-family uses within single family zoning districts subject to approval of a use permit. The City Council approved a use permit for the existing Kensington Square Apartments in 1970; WHEREAS: approval of this application would permit construction of the approximately42 additional townhouse-style apartment units and accessory features including - parking spaces, landscaping, and lighting - to be located on the undeveloped portion of land at the existing Kensington Square Apartment Complex which currently contains a mixture of 184 garden- and townhouse-style apartments; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends low density residential for the undeveloped portion of the existing apartment complex and high density residential land uses for the remaining property. Although the undeveloped portion is recommended for low density residential uses, it could not be effectively developed as such due to its irregular shape and lack of access from any other location except the entrance from the existing apartment complex. The proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) by providing a mix of high quality housing types that are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; PC Minutes 20140306 Page 13  WHEREAS: there are nine (9) proffered conditions attached to this rezoning that, among other things, limit the site to multi-family uses, require architectural standards to preserve the existing character of the surrounding neighborhoods, require a 20 foot landscaped buffer design with a privacy fence, and include other standard conditions ensuring quality development if approved by City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by, Commissioner Gregory Williams; BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission approves Rezoning Application No. 1312-2013 with nine (9) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, LaRue NAYS: Southall ABST: None ABSENT: McCloud, Snead, Bunting Chairman LaRue left for a previously stated appointment, turning the meeting over to Vice-Chair Southall. C. Use Permit Application No. 14-00004: by Sovonia Golden to operate a day care 3 at 3311 Kecoughtan Drive [LRSN 13002647]. The property is zoned One Family Residence (R-13) District, which permits a day care 3 subject to securing a use permit. The applicant is requesting permission to operate the day care for approximately 49 children. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends Public/Semi-public use for this area. Vice-Chair Southall stated Use Permit Application No. 14-00004 by Sovonia Golden to operate a day care 3 at 3311 Kecoughtan Road will be deferred to the meeting to be held April 3, 2014 as there is no longer a quorum present. ITEM V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. O’Neill stated one item is a response to the request to provide regular updates and information to the Planning Commissioners. His intentions are for staff to give regular updates on items such as Master Plans or ordinance updates as the agenda will allow. A. Budget Office, CIP Update No report. B. Update on Master Plan Implementation PC Minutes 20140306 Page 14  City Planner Alison Alexander presented an update on the Phoebus Master Plan (PMP) as follows: The Phoebus Master Plan was adopted originally in 2007 and an update was adopted in March 2013. The update was done to reflect the economy and the closure of Ft. Monroe as an active military base in September 2011 and the designation of Ft. Monroe as a National Monument in November 2011. The updated Plan retains the same basic visions and principles as the 2007 Master Plan but offers new ideas and strategies given the market and environment. Some of the basic visions were to keep Phoebus unique and improve the connections to Ft. Monroe, Hampton University, downtown, and Buckroe; encourage sensitive redevelopment of underutilized property; improve the existing commercial areas; and stabilize and revitalize the neighborhood housing. The PMP has six different initiative areas: 1. Phoebus Waterfront – seen as the gateway to Ft. Monroe. The Plan calls for public access to the waterfront. 2. Mellen Street – the historic main street area with a concentration of specialty shops that focus on art, antiques, and design. The Plan recommends sensitive infill of mixed use buildings. 3. Mallory Street – the gateway to the neighborhood. The Plan recommends a continued upgrade of the streetscape and sensitive infill on vacant parcels 4. Railroad Right-of-Way – the Plan calls for utilizing the railroad right-of-way for residential development to meet a market need for new housing and extending some new streets to continue the block pattern in Phoebus. 5. Enhanced Gateways – includes enhanced signage, landscaping, and street and sidewalk improvement. 6. Housing Strategies – there are two different housing strategy areas, South and North Phoebus, which call for sensitive infill development and investment in different properties through different city policy and programs such as the Curb Appeal Program. The community expressed it was pleased with the basic visions and principles from the original 2007 Plan but wanted to see more action. Out of this came an implementation program that included 19 items. These items were determined to be short-, mid-, or long-term goals, with short-term as 1 – 3 year goals; mid-term being 3 – 10 year goals, and long-term being 10 or more year goals. Some of the things accomplished are the Slaughter Lumber site and the residential occupancy permit program. The master plan calls for the Slaughter Lumber site to have some type of mixed-use development; currently this site has had some prep work done for future development. The Rental Occupancy Program was adopted by Council in October 2013 as part of the Safe and Clean Campaign to ensure the quality of rental housing in the PC Minutes 20140306 Page 15 city of Hampton. South and North Phoebus sections of Hampton roughly follow the two housing initiative areas from the master plan and are two of the districts that are part of the Rental Inspection Program. Other districts include Hampton Club and Magruder Heights; Holly Homes and Fordham; Old Northampton and Langley; Old Hampton; Shell Road Corridor; and South Wythe and Sussex. A lot of things are going on, one of which is updating the zoning in Phoebus. The Mellen Street corridor and the Mallory area are zoned C-2 and much of that area is considered a historic downtown main street. C-2 zoning is what is often found along Mercury Boulevard and throughout many of the city’s commercial corridors. The neighborhood and members of the community who worked on the master plan value the historic main street charm found in Phoebus and would like to retain that style of development for Mellen and Mallory Streets. The zoning needs to be updated to ensure future development is compatible with the existing development. During work on the master plan update, the community was interested in seeing an arts and cultural district. There is currently a steering committee made up of members of the arts community, the Downtown Hampton Partnership, and a Partnership for a New Phoebus. This committee is looking at the downtown area; Phoebus; some of the cultural institutions at Hampton University; and the historic district in Phoebus. Mallory Street has had streetscape improvements. Phase One of Waterfront Park has been finished with a lawn and planted trees. The official ribbon cutting has not yet happened as the living shoreline has not yet been completed. By spring signs should be installed through the Conventions and Visitor’s Bureau (CVB) as a city-wide project known as Wayfinding Signage. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department and the Phoebus Little League are working on finding partnerships to help with maintenance work on the ball fields. The City is constantly working on enhancing public property maintenance. Property maintenance work is constantly done to ensure private property is well maintained. The state code is checked to see how it can be further used by staff and what the code will allow to be done in requiring better property maintenance. There are conflicts between the Building Code and the Historic District Tax Credit Program which sometimes makes it difficult for people to reuse historic buildings because of building codes. Staff is looking for ways to help people do what they want more easily because of this difficulty. PC Minutes 20140306 Page 16  The extension of housing programs like Curb Appeal to housing strategy areas like North and South Phoebus is being considered as they have been found to be successful in other areas of the city. The PMP talked about piloting a housing strategy program along Howard Street and a marketing and branding campaign for CVB and a Partnership for a New Phoebus, as well as the possibility of having a type of visitor center located somewhere in Phoebus with a partnership of Ft. Monroe and CVB. There has been discussion about activating vacant storefronts in Phoebus (such as the one on the corner of Mellen and Mallory Streets) and discussion on the gateway improvements (so it is pleasing at the intersection of Woodland Road and County Street, as well as the bridges on Mercury Boulevard and Mallory Street when coming into Phoebus). As a bonus, two projects seen before are the Woodlands Project (currently under site development plan review) and the active marketing of the Maida site. In response to questions from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander stated the Residential Inspection Program was given the name of Residential Occupancy Program under the PMP update. In regards to ribbon cutting ceremonies, Ms. Alexander stated she would see that the Commissioners are notified. In response to a concern from Commissioner Williams that Zion Baptist Church is notified about the Woodlands Project, Mr. O’Neill stated staff would touch base with them to advise them of where things stand. C. Youth Planner Report Senior Youth Planner Chyna Matheny presented the update on the Youth Planner Program, as follows: The 2009 Plan Goal Areas were:  Youth Share Leadership  Caring Relationships  Place to Go, Things to Do  Getting Around  Prepared for a Career  Life Skills  Bring Them Back  Go Green The 2014 Plan Outcomes are: Hampton’s youth are….  RESPECTED PC Minutes 20140306 Page 17  Youth are Valued, Supported, and Respected  PREPARED Youth are Prepared for Life  ACTIVE Youth have Places to Go, Things to Do, and Ways to Get There  RETURNING Youth Choose Hampton as Their Home The proposed plan will be presented at the Youth Master Plan Checkpoint Meeting on March 17, 2014. There will be a joint work session with the Planning Commission on March 18, 2014 and this will give the Hampton Youth Commission (HYC) time to discuss and get feedback on the proposed changes. On April 28 the HYC will host the Candidate’s Forum, an event the HYC hosts biannually to give young people an opportunity to meet the candidates, state their concerns, and ask questions. In June the HYC looks to have the Youth Component and the Youth Survival Guide drafts completed to submit to the Planning Commission and City Council. All of these events will be held at the Teen Center. The HYC and the Newport New Mayor’s Youth Commission (NNMYC) have developed a partnership. The HYC has an Ad Hoc Committee that will meet with the NNMYC in the future regarding topics such as the Youth Friendly Business Project and Youth Violence Prevention. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Matheny stated the Hampton Youth Commission developed a list of partnerships to work with and the NNMYC came up in the discussion so the Hampton Youth Commission contacted them. Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, stated the Youth Commission’s Candidate’s Forum is quite different from other candidate forums and he encourages everyone to go. The Youth Commissioners design the forum themselves and have different ways to run the meeting. It is also unique in that adults, unless a candidate, are not allowed to participate; one can observe; watch; and listen; but non-candidate adults cannot participate. Ms. Matheny stated the March 18 Joint Session with the Planning Commission will be from 5:30 to 7:00pm at the Teen Center. The time for the Candidate’s Forum is still to be determined. Reminders will be sent. Vice-Chair Tommy Southall stated the youth are very active and doing a great job. ITEM VI. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. PC Minutes 20140306 Page 18 ITEM VII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION There were no matters presented by the Commission. ITEM VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: ____________________________________ Gaynette LaRue Chairman PC Minutes 20140306 Page 19