Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT THE WORK SESSION OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE LAWSON CONFERENCE ROOM, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2014, AT 3:00 P.M. Commissioners Gregory Williams, Andre McCloud, and Carlton Campbell, and Vice-Chair Tommy Southall were present. Commissioners Chris Snead and Mary Bunting, and Chairman Gaynette LaRue were absent. Secretary to the Commission Terry O’Neill stated that a request would be made to withdraw Rezoning Application No. 14-00002 and Use Permit Application No. 14- 00008 by Michael D. Sifen, Inc. to allow the operation of a self-storage facility at Todds Lane and Aberdeen Road. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown discussed the process for handling a withdrawal. The Public Hearing information will be read and any questions or concerns from the public will be heard. Mr. O’Neill stated Zoning Ordinance Amendment 145-2014 regarding extended stay establishments and hotels would also be withdrawn at this time. Deputy Director Steve Shapiro stated it was never the intent to allow people to use hotels/motels as apartments. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Zoning Official Jeff Conkle stated that the language “brewery/distillery/winery use” was not just being moved from one section of the Zoning Ordinance to another, as breweries do not currently allow live entertainment. There is a lot of interest in this concept from new breweries. Mr. O’Neill stated that areas, such as Richmond, are providing entertainment as a part of the revitalization of their downtown areas. Mr. Conkle stated there is a difference between restaurants, micro-breweries, and brew pubs. In response to a concern of Commissioner Williams, Mr. Conkle stated that most of these facilities use food trucks or caterers to supply their patrons with food. Mr. O’Neill stated there are establishments where a microbrewery has a sit-down restaurant. Vice-Chair Southall stated this type of facility is big on the West Coast. Worksession minutes 20140605 Page 1  In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Conkle stated the State regulates the use and types of alcohol and that will be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. In reply to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Brown stated she would check into the status of a previous request for a Subdivision Exception (SE No. 14-00001) from Thomas and Marie Loughran. Mr. O’Neill stated that Dianna Schorr will give her report on Youth Civic Engagement at the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Schorr has developed an interest in how Hampton engages its youth and has been working on this for a number of years. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. O’Neill stated the Hampton First Plan and the Downtown Master Plan are being reviewed by staff to see how they compare. Staff will present the results to the Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Senior City Planner Mike Hayes explained where the proposed parking lot for Hampton University’s dining and activity hall would be located. City Planner Tolu Ibikunle stated that Diana Schorr would be present this evening and Chyna Matheny would be giving the Youth Planner report. Ms. Matheny and former Youth Planner James Payne will also be speaking on youth violence at the Achievable Dreams function later this evening. The worksession meeting was over at 3:29 p.m. Worksession minutes 20140605 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, JUNE 5, 2014 AT 3:30 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Tommy Southall called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioners Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Chris Snead, and Vice-Chair Tommy Southall present. Commissioners Andre McCloud and Mary Bunting, and Chairman Gaynette LaRue were absent. Commissioner McCloud arrived at 4:00 PM. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Gregory Williams, seconded by Commissioner Chris Snead, to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2014 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, Southall, Snead NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: McCloud, Bunting, LaRue PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission, read key points of the Hampton Planning Commission Public Hearing/Comment Rules in order for the affairs of the Commission to be conducted in a courteous and orderly manner. ITEM IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing items advertised in the Daily Press on May 22 and 29, 2014. Items A and B by Michael D. Sifen, Inc. for 1.94± acres at Todds Land and Aberdeen Road are related items and will be addressed together. A. Rezoning Application No. 14-00002: by Michael D. Sifen, Inc. to rezone 1.94+ acres at Todds Lane and Aberdeen Road [LRSN 3003886] from One Family Residence (R-11) District to General Commercial (C-3) District with proffers to facilitate the construction of a self-storage facility. Approval of this application would permit a three-story self-storage building subject to securing a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) PC Minutes 20140605 Page 1  recommends mixed use for this area. This application accompanies UP14- 00008. B. Use Permit Application No. 14-00008: by Michael D. Sifen, Inc. to operate a self- storage facility at Todds Lane and Aberdeen Road [LRSN 3003886]. The property is currently zoned One Family Residence (R-11) District. This application accompanies RZ 14-00002, which would rezone the property listed above from R- 11 to C-3 with proffers, which would permit a self-storage facility subject to securing a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this area. Mr. O’Neill stated it is his understanding the applicant plans to withdraw both applications, but will formally make that request as the cases were advertised. Sarah Messersmith, Kaufman & Canoles Associate, Attorneys at Law, stated the applicant has elected to withdraw Rezoning Application 14-00002 and Use Permit Application 14-00008. David Duxbury, 907 Thames Drive, stated he has objections to the applicant’s requests. He does not want a three-story building or to have the property rezoned to C-3 (General Commercial). He stated he had attended a Northampton Civic Association meeting and the Association had not been notified of these requests and he feels area associations and commissioners should get prior notification of hearings. Mr. Duxbury continued that a three-story building is not compatible with the current uses in the area. Most of the structures are houses, although some of those houses are used as businesses. Other businesses such as a day care or conveneinece store could go on this property. A storage facility is alaready located on Big Bethel Road. This request is a spot rezoning and a storage facility would impede traffic at this location. Changing the zoning from residential to a commercial C-3 zone would be like the zoning is on Pembroke Avenue. There is no quarantee the applicant would put a storage facility on this location and not go with the most offensve C-3 use. Mr. Duxbury does not want a storage facility located next to him. It is not compatible with daily needs, such as fuel or food stores. Wayne Sigmon, 1612 Todds Lane, stated he is located in close proximity of the property. His concern is that this type of facility will reduce his property value. The location is already bad for traffic and safety is already an issue without adding more traffic and a three-story structure. Drainage is another issue. Dan McIntosh, 7 Bruin Court, stated when he moved to this area it was zoned residential. He would not have spent over $350,000 for a home had he known the property in question would be rezoned to commercial property. He asked that the Commission review this particular property, as a lot of people have invested in residential properties on that. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 2  A. Rezoning Application No. 14-00002: On a motion by Commissioner Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Williams that the Hampton Planning Commission approve the withdrawal of UP 14- 00002 as requested by the applicant, a roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, Snead, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: McCloud, Bunting, LaRue B. UsePermit Application No. 14-00008: On a motion by Commissioner Snead and seconded by Commissioner Campbell that the Hampton Planning Commission approve the withdrawal of UP 14- 00002 as requested by the applicant, a roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, Snead, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: McCloud Bunting, LaRue C. Use Permit Application No. 14-00012: Hampton University to amend the conditions of Use Permit No. 1062 for a university use, specifically relating to the development and operation of a dining facility and activity hall. The property is located at 530 E. Queen Street [LRSN 12001055] and is zoned One Family Residence (R-13) District, which permits university uses with an approved use permit. The proposed change to the conditions would permit the construction of a small parking lot in association with the hall. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends public/semipublic uses in this location. Senior City Planner Mike Hayes presented Use Permit Application No. 14-00012 by Hampton University to amend the conditions of Use Permit No, 1062 for a university use, specifically a dining facility and activity hall, at 530 E. Queen Street. Senior City Planner Mike Hayes presented the staff report on Use Permit Application No. 14-00012 for Hampton University to amend conditions of Use Permit No, 1062 for their dining hall. In 2010, City Council approved a use permit application by Hampton University (UP No.1062) for the construction and operation of a building to serve as a dining facility and activity hall. The approval was conditional. Among the conditions is one that restricts development to substantial conformance with the attached site plan. It is this condition that serves as the impetus for the present application. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 3  When the application was received in 2010, Hampton University presented parking figures for the campus showing that parking was not needed in conjunction with the proposed facility as it could be readily accommodated elsewhere on campus. In the time since the facility opened, Hampton University has found that the parking situation is not functional for the employees working at the facility. Therefore, the current request is to amend the previous use permit to allow for the development of a small employee parking lot adjacent to the facility. Applications to amend conditions of an approved use permit are subject to the same procedures as a new use permit application pursuant to Sec. 20-13 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned One Family Residence (R-13) District, which permits university uses with an approved use permit. It is also zoned Special Public Interest – Chesapeake Bay Preservation District, and is designated an Intensely Developed Area (IDA) within the district. This designation permits development, however the planting of vegetation to mitigate for increased impervious surface is required. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends public/semipublic land use for this area. The Plan also contains a number of policies supporting educational opportunities within the City of Hampton as well as the protection of waterways and visual corridors. This property is located on the Hampton River, which is a main entry point into the city for boaters, and is highly visible from Downtown. With this in mind, staff recommends including the previously approved conditions, which relate to use, development of the site, building elevations, lighting, and third party rental of the facility, as well as an amendment that would permit the parking lot with a substantial vegetated buffer and screening of the parking lot from both the public street and the waterway. The conditions for the dining hall are carried over which regulate the location of use; limitation of use; site plan; elevations; and visual and ecological buffering. Staff recommends approval of Use Permit No. 14-00012 with three (3) conditions. Archie Allen, 222 Mill Point Drive, stated he owns Joy’s Marina which is adjacent to the property of the proposed request. It is his understanding the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) has a 100 feet boundary. The widest point of this property is only 98 feet. The property slopes downward toward the marina. Water runoff on a lot used mainly for vehicular use, along with trash and oil droppings, will run onto the marina lot and into the river. Mr. Allen questioned why the parking lot behind the cafeteria, which is flat, cannot be expanded. He also questioned why the bio-medical building parking lot is not used. This new parking lot will increase traffic and it was noted in a previous request before the Commission that the residents were against additional traffic. Mr. Allen’s request to the Commission is to deny the use permit to allow additional parking. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 4  Nathan Lay, Landscape Architect/Land Planner, 5033 Rouse Drive, Virginia Beach, representing MSA, P.C. for Hampton University on this project, responded to the parking concerns and lack of vehicles in the lot and stated that this is a necessary expansion Hampton University sees so a closer access to the facility can be provided for their employees working in that facility. The stormwater management concerns will be addressed. Regulations change in July and there will be stringent regulations enforced as to pollutant removal as well as capturing and treating stormwater on site, before it is released. Conditions with the plantings on the site are extensive with 63 trees and at least that many shrubs planted around the parking. These are provided to reduce pollutant removal before going back into the bay. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Hayes stated the Chesapeake Bay first 100 feet on the property referenced by Mr. Allen is located in the Intensely Developed Area (IDA) and the second 100 feet is the Resource Management Area (RMA). Mr. Lay responded that the buffer does not require that development cannot take place within it, but requires once it falls within that development certain requirements must be addressed as far as the amount of new planted space and the amount of plant materials within that space. What is being placed within that buffer is based on calculations upon the impervious area and will satisfy the requirements. Mr. Hayes stated one point of clarification in understanding the Chesapeake Bay District. The area in question is considered IDA for the first 100 feet. There is another category that exists in other parts of the City called the Resource Protection Area (RPA) that is less developed and it may be more difficult to build within that 100 feet buffer. The requirements are different in that situation than this one. The requirements for developing in there and the requirements for plantings and mitigation measures for this request have been built into the maximum amount of impervious surface that can be built. The parking lot area may have to shrink for stormwater reasons. Language exists so that any stormwater or Chesapeake Bay requirements have to be met. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Hampton University to amend the conditions of previously approved Use Permit No. 1062 at 530 E. Queen Street [LRSN 12001055]; WHEREAS: the property is zoned One Family Residence (R-13) District, which permits university uses with an approved use permit; WHEREAS: the property is within the Special Public Interest-Chesapeake Bay Preservation (SPI-CBP) District; PC Minutes 20140605 Page 5  WHEREAS: the applicant proposes adding a parking lot to the existing dining facility; WHEREAS: the conditions of the existing permit limit development to a conceptual site plan, which was contemplated with the understanding of Hampton University having adequate parking existing on campus; WHEREAS: Hampton University found in practice that additional parking is needed for employees; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends public/semi-public land use, such as universities, for this area. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) also recommends policies in support of educational opportunities in the city. At the same time, the Plan stresses the need to protect waterways, visual corridors, and make responsible use of waterfront property; WHEREAS: there are three (3) conditions attached to this use permit. The conditions include the previously referenced building elevations and site plans with new language to permit the construction of a parking lot within limits, as well as providing protections and assurances that the parking lot would be appropriately buffered and screened on both the street and water frontages and stormwater will be handled as necessary; and WHEREAS: one member from the public spoke against this application; NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission approves Use Permit Application No. 14-00012 with three (3) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Southall, Snead NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, LaRue PC Minutes 20140605 Page 6  The following four Zoning Ordinance Amendments, ZOA 138-2014; ZOA 139-2014; ZOA 140-2014; and ZOA 141-2014, will be discussed together as they are related. D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 138-2014: Ordinance to Amend and Re- Enact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Uses Permitted” by amending sections 2-2 and 2-3(47) pertaining to micro-brewery/distillery/winery uses. Approval of this amendment would permit micro-breweries/distilleries/wineries in additional zoning districts within the city. This application accompanies Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 139-2014, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 140-2014 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 141-2014, which if approved would provide definitions for micro- brewery/distillery/winery and brewery/distillery uses and allow for live entertainment to be provided in conjunction with these uses. E. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 139-2014: Ordinance to Amend and Re- Enact Chapter 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Definitions” by amending section 2.1-2 pertaining to micro- brewery/distillery/winery and brewery/distillery. Approval of this amendment would provide a definition for micro-brewery/distillery/winery and brewery/distillery. This application accompanies Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 138-2014, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 140-2014 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 141-2014, which if approved would provide further regulation of micro-brewery/distillery/winery and brewery/distillery uses and allow for live entertainment to be provided in conjunction with these uses. F. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 140-2014: Ordinance to Amend and Re- Enact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Uses Permitted” by amending sections 2-2, 2-3(22) and 2-3(23) pertaining to live entertainment 1, in conjunction with a micro- brewery/distillery/winery and live entertainment 2, in conjunction with a micro- brewery/distillery/winery. Approval of this amendment would permit and regulate live entertainment 1 and live entertainment 2 in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery. This application accompanies Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 138-2014, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 139-2014 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 141-2014, which if approved would provide further regulation of micro-brewery/distillery/winery and brewery/distillery uses and allow for live entertainment to be provided in conjunction with these uses. G. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 141-2014: Ordinance to Amend and Re- Enact Chapter Article XV of Chapter 17.3 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “SPI-CC Coliseum Central District” by amending section 17.3-116 pertaining to permitted uses. Approval of this amendment would allow for the following uses: micro-brewery/distillery/winery; live entertainment 1, in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery; and live entertainment 2, in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery. This application accompanies Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 138-2014, Zoning PC Minutes 20140605 Page 7  Ordinance Amendment 139-2014 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 140-2014, which if approved would provide further regulation of micro- brewery/distillery/winery and brewery/distillery uses and allow for live entertainment to be provided in conjunction with these uses. Senior Zoning Official Jeff Conkle presented Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 138-2014 to amend and re-enact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Uses Permitted” by amending Sections 2-2 and 2-3(47) pertaining to Micro-Brewery/Distillery/Winery uses. Staff is presenting a total of 4 zoning ordinance amendments related to the proposal to amend and re-enact the zoning ordinance to allow for new definitions and regulations related to brewery/distillery, micro-brewery/distillery/winery, and live entertainment in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery uses. These amendments will clarify the difference between the brewery/distillery and micro- brewery/distillery/winery uses as well as expand the zoning districts which permit micro- brewery/distillery/winery uses. Additionally, these amendments will allow for live entertainment in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery as a new use, permitted by zoning administrator permit or use permit, depending on type and location. The first two amendments, 138-2014 and 139-2014, will be addressed first which focus on the brewery/distillery/or micro versions. Live entertainment will be addressed after these. The current zoning ordinance has a use called brewery/distillery and micro- brewery/distillery which are allowed in certain districts either by right or with a use permit. Neither term is defined currently which can lead to confusion as to which category one would fall into. They are not to be confused with a restaurant, which may include alcohol sales or a brewpub, which allows for brewing of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant, and is permitted as such. The reasons for the change are:  A need for definitions – difference between a full scale brewery and a micro-brewery  Inquiries from business owners seeking locations for these facilities in traditional main-street business districts  Positive economic impact of the micro-brewery/distillery/winery industry  Implementing goals of the Community Plan, such as opportunity to foster unique business and tourism in a growing industry The trend has increased in the number of US breweries between 1981 and 2013 by 2,700%. Of the total breweries in the US in 2013, 98% were micro-breweries. In 2012, Virginia had 48 micro-breweries, which is an increase of 37% since 2011. In 2012, Virginia had 8,163 people employed in the craft beer industry with an economic impact of $623 million. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 8  Some municipalities do not make a distinction between manufacturing uses which may include food or beverage items. Norfolk, Newport News, Suffolk, Williamsburg, and James City County are municipalities around this location that do. This region is home to nine breweries, three wineries and two distilleries. Most are located in Norfolk or Virginia Beach, but St. George Brewing Company is in located Hampton. In looking at where the uses should be expanded, a lot of the interest from potential business owners is in the traditional main street business districts like downtown Hampton, Phoebus, and other historic areas where someone can afford the rent to open a start-up business and have a lot of tourist or pedestrian traffic. Newport News, Norfolk, Suffolk, Williamsburg, Richmond, and Charlottesville permit these types of micro-brewery/distillery/winery uses in their downtown or mixed- use districts. Most of these uses are by-right and some will require use permits. Hampton is proposing to be a by-right use. Full scale breweries/distilleries are industrial uses and belong in manufacturing and some of the business park districts and that will not change. It will be defined with a full scale brewery or distillery that does not fall under micro-breweries. The term micro- winery will be added to the existing micro-brewery and distillery. This trend is not an actual winery with grape growing, but a micro-winery where grapes are grown offsite and the wine is produced in a building located in the city. It will be added as a permitted use in the M-1 District which is the lightest manufacturing district. St. George’s Brewery is located in an M-1 District. The use will also be added to the Downtown Business and Waterfront Districts (OHB and OHW). There has also been some interest in Phoebus, but staff is still working on additional zoning for Phoebus and this will most likely be addressed then. The downtown OHW district will require that a retail component be open to the public. If the micro-brewery is located in a traditional downtown or main street location, it will be required that a tasting or souvenirs be offered to the public so as to offset it being an industrial use in downtown. The definition is fairly easy. The level of production will be set at 15,000 barrels a year for beer and the limit for wine or spirits is 20,000 barrels a year. More than that is considered a full scale brewery/winery. These are industry standards. Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendments 138-2014; 139-2014; 140-2014; and 141-2014. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Conkle stated the use permits are required in M-4B, M-5A, M-5B, and M-5D because they are in the Langley Flight Zone. Currently the ordinance allows “live entertainment 1 (or 2) in conjunction with a restaurant”. The proposed change will allow the micro-breweries/distilleries/wineries to offer live entertainment in the same way as restaurants are permitted to offer live entertainment. Existing businesses are interested in offering live entertainment. Allowing PC Minutes 20140605 Page 9 live entertainment implements goals of the Community Plan, such as the opportunity to foster unique businesses and tourism in a growing industry. Requirements for the two new uses will be created to mirror those of “live entertainment 1 and 2 in conjunction with a restaurant”. “Live entertainment 1 in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery” will be allowed with a permit from the Zoning office with restrictions limiting capacity to 50 people; indoor only; and activity ceasing by 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday. “Live Entertainment 2 in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery” will be allowed by obtaining a use permit approved by the Planning Commission and City Council that allows a capacity of greater 50 people and with venues that differ from standard conditions of “live entertainment 1” in conjunction with a micro- brewery/distillery/winery”, i.e. not indoors or with closing by a certain time. The proposal is to allow the use in almost all of the districts where micro brewery/distillery/winery is permitted but not the Langley Flight Approach Districts. The intent of those districts is to keep people intensive uses from happening under the flight plan of the planes and not to concentrate entertainment in those areas. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Conkle stated the original discussion of where to allow the brewery/distillery/winery use was in commercial districts, but the decision not to do so was made so the use would not proliferate just anywhere in the city that might be commercially zoned. The Coliseum Central District has an overlay zone that can be specifically regulated and the Coliseum Central Business District requested this use to be permitted for their area. In response to a question from Commissioner Snead, Mr. Conkle stated that a micro-brewery is one that generally has a brewing facility in it with tables or a seating area where one could order a beer. It was found that it would be easier to regulate the use by using the annual production rather than the size. There is no specific square footage. An example given was St. George Brewery which is approximately 25,000 square feet in area, but not as large as the Anheuser Busch facility in Williamsburg. None of the breweries in this region have located to a more traditional or downtown area that could be shown as an example. State law just recently changed that has made this use more popular. Norfolk changed their special downtown arts district zoning to specifically allow these uses by-right. Newport News allows them by- right in their mixed-use and downtown areas. Mr. O’Neill stated that by the time this goes to City Council some examples may be found. In response to a concern from Commissioner McCloud about allowing these uses by-right in a downtown area, Mr. Conkle explained that this was brought before the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) and the head of the Downtown Hampton Development Partnership (who is familiar with these uses in other places) was in attendance and thought there would be no issue with them downtown, so he was happy to support them by-right. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 10  Vice-Chair Southall commented he had been to some of these in the Seattle and Los Angeles areas and they were located in contemporary type shopping centers and historic districts. They were small operations, not located in large buildings, and blended in well with the business district. Commissioner Campbell stated he had confused the number of barrels with the size of the buildings and agrees that pictures would better frame the proposal. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Conkle stated staff is working on zoning ordinances for Phoebus. The commercial district of Phoebus is zoned C-2 District and without an overlay district like Coliseum Central, there would be no way to allow these uses in Phoebus without allowing them in all C-2 Districts located within the City. Mr. Conkle stated the hope is to fix that issue with the other amendments that are being worked on for Phoebus. Rosemary Hobart, 62 Cherokee Road, stated that she has been to a few of the micro-breweries and they are quite comfortable and nice to go to. The ones Ms. Hobart has been to in the Outer Banks area and in Charlottesville blend in well with the neighborhood and the shopping and touristy areas. Conner Halfpenny, 123 Robinson Road, stated he is with St. George’s Brewery and the building in which they are located is 9,600 square feet, without their cooler, and they can brew 15,000 barrels. It does not take a lot of space. They have picnic tables and have put in huge fans to keep people cool. In order to have a brewery downtown, the focus would be more on how to fit into an existing location. Commissioner Williams stated he has seen these breweries in his hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio and they have gone into areas retrofitted for homes and apartment buildings. This has brought people back to the downtown and surrounding areas. In response to questions and discussions about how the micro-breweries would impact the downtown and/or Coliseum areas, Mr. Halfpenny stated the breweries were no more of an impact than a restaurant cooking a giant pot of soup; there are no harsh smells or anything that would hurt anyone; they are usually cordoned off by glass; and they look really good. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated the downside to not allowing these uses as a permitted use puts unnecessary burden, expense, and hurdles in front of businesses wanting to locate in the area. Staff does not want the City to be perceived as overly bureaucratic and regulatory. This is a growing industry and should be welcomed under the right circumstances. It creates jobs and tourism activity. Some communities around the country are using these kinds of uses as a centerpiece of their tourism strategies in certain districts and have found them to be quite successful. It has been decided not to let them in just any commercial or manufacturing district, but that does not limit the number that would be allowed. The focus is where they would be most appropriate and how they should be regulated to meet community standards. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 11  After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 138- 2014, a proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Uses Permitted” by amending sections 2-2 and 2-3(47) pertaining to micro-brewery/distillery/winery uses; WHEREAS: this item is part of a package of amendments including Zoning Ordinance Amendment Nos. 139-2014 through 141-2014, which will amend and re-enact the zoning ordinance to allow for new definitions and regulations related to brewery/distillery, micro- brewery/distillery/winery, and live entertainment in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery uses; WHEREAS: this item will permit and regulate micro-brewery/distillery/winery uses in the M-1, SPI-OHB, and SPI-OHW zoning districts in addition to the currently-permitted districts of M-2, M-3, M-4B, M-5A, M-5B, M- 5D, SPI-HRC, and SPI-HRCNC; WHEREAS: a growing interest in this industry has led to numerous inquiries of staff as to the definition and regulation of such uses; WHEREAS: this item has the support of the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee, the Downtown Hampton Development Partnership, and the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District; and WHEREAS: there were two speakers, both of whom supported the amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 139- 2014, a proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Definitions” by amending sections 2.1-2 pertaining to micro- brewery/distillery/winery and brewery/distillery uses; WHEREAS: this item is part of a package of amendments including Zoning Ordinance Amendment Nos. 138-2014, 140-2014, and 141-2014 which will amend and re-enact the zoning ordinance to allow for PC Minutes 20140605 Page 12  new definitions and regulations related to brewery/distillery, micro- brewery/distillery/winery, and live entertainment in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery uses; WHEREAS: this item will define the micro-brewery/distillery/winery and brewery/distillery uses which currently exist as undefined uses in the zoning ordinance; WHEREAS: a growing interest in this industry has led to numerous inquiries of staff as to the definition and regulation of such uses; WHEREAS: this item has the support of the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee, the Downtown Hampton Development Partnership, and the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District; and WHEREAS: there were two speakers, both of whom supported the amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Chris Snead, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Williams, McCloud, Southall, Snead NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, LaRue After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 140- 2014, a proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Uses Permitted” by amending sections 2-2, 2-3(22), and 2-3(23) pertaining to live entertainment 1, in conjunction with a micro- brewery/distillery/winery and live entertainment 2, in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery; WHEREAS: this item is part of a package of amendments including Zoning Ordinance Amendment Nos. 138-2014, 139-2014, and 141-2014 which will amend and re-enact the zoning ordinance to allow for new definitions and regulations related to brewery/distillery, micro- brewery/distillery/winery, and live entertainment in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery uses; PC Minutes 20140605 Page 13  WHEREAS: this item will permit and regulate live entertainment in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery use in the M-1, M-2, M-3, SPI- HRC, SPI-HRCNC, SPI-OHB, and SPI-OHW zoning districts; WHEREAS: a growing interest in this industry has led to numerous inquiries of staff as to the definition and regulation of such uses; WHEREAS: this item has the support of the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee, the Downtown Hampton Development Partnership, and the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District; and WHEREAS: there were two speakers, both of whom supported the amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gregory Williams and seconded by Commissioner Chris Snead, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Williams, McCloud, Southall, Snead NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, LaRue After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 141- 2014, a proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “SPI- CC Coliseum Central District” by amending section 17.3-116 pertaining to permitted uses; WHEREAS: this item is part of a package of amendments including Zoning Ordinance Amendment Nos. 138-2014 through 140-2014 which will amend and re-enact the zoning ordinance to allow for new definitions and regulations related to brewery/distillery, micro- brewery/distillery/winery, and live entertainment in conjunction with a micro-brewery/distillery/winery uses; WHEREAS: this item will permit and regulate micro-brewery/distillery/winery and live entertainment in conjunction with a micro- brewery/distillery/winery uses in the Special Public Interest-Coliseum Central overlay zoning district; PC Minutes 20140605 Page 14  WHEREAS: a growing interest in this industry has led to numerous inquiries of staff as to the definition and regulation of such uses; WHEREAS: this item has the support of the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee, the Downtown Hampton Development Partnership, and the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District; and WHEREAS: there were two speakers, both of whom supported the amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Chris Snead, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 17.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Williams, McCloud, Southall, Snead NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, LaRue H. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 145-2014: Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled, “Definitions,” By Amending Section 2.1-2 Pertaining to Extended Stay Establishments and Hotels. Approval of this amendment would remove the definition of “extended stay establishment” and amend the definition of “hotel” to include a maximum stay of 30 days. Secretary to the Commission Terry O’Neill stated this item is a staff initiated proposal and it is requested the item be withdrawn as staff is still working with the hotel owners to tweak the provisions so there are no unintended consequences that would be damaging for either the City or the businesses. The idea is to get it right the first time. On a motion by Commissioner McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Williams that the Hampton Planning Commission approve that ZOA No. 145-2014 be withdrawn as staff is continuing to work on the ordiannce amendment, a roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Snead, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting, LaRue ITEM V. Community Development Director’s Report PC Minutes 20140605 Page 15  A. Updates on Upcoming Community Plan & Zoning Amendments Mr. O’Neill stated the first briefing item is an initial introduction by Mike Hayes on amendment work being done on substandard lot provisions around our community. This will give the Commissioners time to think about work that still needs to be done on this complex issue prior to being asked to take any action. Senior City Planner Mike Hayes stated this presentation would not go into too much detail. Discussion will entail what a substandard lot is; why it is being talked about today; and how staff sees it could potentially move forward. The purpose today is to discuss substandard lots; obtain feedback from the Commission; possibly answer some questions; get questions the Commission would like staff to consider and come back to the Commissioners with possible answers. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated the legal team is the primary driver as to why the substandard ordinance is being looked at. A substandard lot is any lot that does not meet the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance; lot width or lot area. A substandard lot could not be created today so these lots are usually older lots that met the ordinance at the time or were lots created prior to ordinance requirements. In 1989 an involuntary merger provision, or substandard lot provision, was adopted that said if a substandard lot was owned in conjunction with another contiguous substandard lot at any time since 1989, the ordinance requires a merger of those lots that would ideally be in compliance with the ordinance. If the lots are not merged they are not buildable. The problem becomes when a lot is inherited, or the court divides a lot by partition, or a lot is acquired in a tax sale or auction and the history of a lot is not known, or one might not realize a lot was considered substandard and at one time held in common ownership since 1989. The four main concerns in involuntary merger provisions are:  Does not effectively put buyers on notice when they acquire a property  Does not comply with the subdivision ordinance  May deprive some people of use of their property  Is disfavored by the courts A lot of requests come in to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances for lots that do not comply with lot width or requirements. The General Assembly has made some amendments to the Virginia Code that will start July 1 that have made us want to eliminate even the possibility of an argument that this could be a suspect provision. Staff is being very careful in trying to remove it from the ordinance prior to the new law coming into effect that gives PC Minutes 20140605 Page 16 the property owners a little more incentive to take a closer look at zoning ordinances and possibly challenge them. Ms. Brown stated the key for us is the involuntary merger provision. In response to concern expressed by Commissioner McCloud regarding when this ordinance came into effect and the effort spent on creating the “Infill Housing” ordinance, Mr. O’Neill stated he would encourage everyone to listen to the presentation Mr. Hayes is about to give to see it will answer Mr. McCloud’s questions and address Commissioner McCloud’s concerns. The purpose is not to throw everything out the window, but to be sensitive to housing strategies and communities and how the concerns can be addressed. Senior Planner Mike Hayes stated the top objective of the Community Plan is to promote efficient use of land and recognize land as a limited resource in Hampton. Hampton is landlocked and there is no ability to annex. Much of Hampton is already built upon and a lot of it is wet and cannot be built upon, so land is a very limited resource. There are other objectives which Commissioner McCloud mentioned that deal with protecting and enhancing community character and respecting the existing communities. Finding a balance between that, and encouraging investment in Hampton and wanting to attract people to the City, play into how we need to view moving forward with our ordinances. More specifically the goals and objectives are protecting against legal implications; encouraging investment on vacant lots; maintaining and enhancing community appearance and character; and ensuring infill development fits the scale of the existing neighborhood. A lot of these lots happen to occur in some of the more historic neighborhoods. There are several steps that may have to happen as there is nothing that allows this to happen in one fell swoop. As previously stated, a substandard lot is a lot that does not meet the dimensional standards of the zoning district in which it is located, but met the requirements in effect at the time the lot was recorded. The current ordinance states that separate ownership since January 12, 1989 must meet dwelling size and setbacks of the current zoning district and common ownership at any time since January 12, 1989 allows the lot to only be developed if combined or merged. A push is coming from the State in terms of legal implications that could come from what the current ordinance states. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 17  Staff has focused on four single-family residential districts: R-8, R-9, R-11 and R- 13. There are other larger, more rural districts that function differently from the first four which are the typical single-family subdivision. Only current existing lots are being discussed and not new subdivisions. This is not a way to get around zoning a property into a particular district in order to do a new development. There are currently approximately 19,000 lots that are technically substandard because their size is smaller than the size required in their zoning district. Of those lots only 1,000 of them are currently vacant and that leaves 18,000 substandard lots that have been built upon and are being lived in. There are some instances where the issue is that the neighborhoods need to be placed in a different existing zone and not necessarily the key issue being a substandard lot. Staff’s current focus is dealing with substandard lots and looking at the legal implications and how to make it work within the community. The first key pieces are to eliminate common ownership language from substandard lot provisions; use a phased approach; and establish standards for development of existing substandard lots. Options for moving forward in phases are:  Develop an administrative review with basic conditions which will change the language of substandard lots that might involve setbacks or driveway orientation and the review will be done administratively;  A multiple step process with the land use application process through Planning Commission and City Council for approval and take multiple months or use a plan from a Plans Book Design that has specific architectural aspects  Comprehensive Rezoning which will take staff time and outreach to communities to see what neighborhoods already exist and determine if they should be in a different zoning district  Local Historic Preservation District – requires setting up a Board, staff review time, setting very detailed standards The time frame for adoption varies from the Administrative Review being the “quick fix” to the more time consuming process from the Historic Preservation Districts. The cost to implement covers things from advertising cost; costs associated with plans books; comprehensive rezoning involves outreach notifications and additional staff effort; and the cost associated with establishing another Board for the Historic Preservation District. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 18  Where each phase applies starts with the administrative review which is more of a one size fits all approach; that goes on to looking at plans books to potentially apply to multiple neighborhoods; then comprehensive rezoning which will be very specific from neighborhood to neighborhood; and then applying the Historic Preservation District which will apply to more specific districts. In terms of what would be required, the options range in specificity from the Comprehensive Rezoning; administrative review; land use application process; to local historic preservation districts. 1. In review, the recommended changes are:  Phased approach Phase 1  Administrative review  Standard Conditions  Setbacks  Green space  Parking location  Building height Future phases  Use of Plans Book  Comprehensive rezoning  Historic district Commissioner McCloud stated his concern regarding when the ordinance was changed in 1989 and how some developers worked around the requirements to meet heated living space, which in turn caused an eyesore. Mr. Hayes stated staff is aware of that particular example. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Hayes stated the number of substandard lots in the City and substandard vacant lot properties that were mentioned are based on the Assessor’s data. In response a question from Commissioner Campbell on changing the zoning designation of a subdivision from one zoning district to another in order to bring it into conformance and the lots not considered as substandard (Aberdeen Gardens given as an example), Mr. O’Neill stated that the concept was correct. To manage expectations and as a caution in order to solve this monumental task, staff, along PC Minutes 20140605 Page 19 with the help of the City Attorney’s office, would start with those subdivision areas that are most at risk. This will take time and money. Some of the comprehensive rezonings may come early with others taking longer. Mr. Hayes stated Aberdeen Gardens was mentioned because it is well known. September is the target date to start the process through Council. It is hard to determine how long the total processes will take. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated the Infill Housing District Ordinance will be used as a tool in approaching the process. Some approaches may be appropriate in some neighborhoods but not in others. Commissioner Snead commended the staff for taking on this task and stated that this change will help with neighborhood housing. She has seen this process happen in Norfolk, specifically near Norfolk State, and it is revitalizing the neighborhoods. David Stromberg will give the next presentation which will address proposed amendments regarding flood zone districts. This is an issue that has become more prominent in coastal communities. Specifically, City Council adopted the Hampton Waterways Plan and one of the recommendations is that, as a community, Hampton needs to revisit certain building and development provisions. Zoning Official David Stromberg explained that Norfolk made several changes to their flood zone amendments at the end of 2013 which adds into the timing of these amendments. Their amendments and changes were reviewed and the most appropriate of those were chosen for use by Hampton. The reason Hampton has a flood zone ordinance is because in 1968 the National Flood Insurance program was created due to the National Flood Insurance Act. Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally backed insurance to property owners with the purpose of reducing damage from floods. The NFIP is an agreement between the community and FEMA and not an agreement between FEMA and individual property owners. In order for a community to participate, a flood zone ordinance has to be adopted. Hampton’s ordinance was adopted in 1974 with the most recent revision in 2011. There are two components to having a flood zone ordinance. First is having a PC Minutes 20140605 Page 20 map – the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) given to the City by FEMA and the City is required to adopt these maps as part of their official zoning maps. The second part is having requirements in the ordinance that regulate new construction and substantial improvement of structures. Hampton participates in the Community Rating System (CRS) and joined a voluntary program where the community exceeds minimum NFIP requirements. Hampton joined in 2011 which allows a community wide discount for the entire community and Hampton receives a 10% discount. The proposed amendments will be done so the community can increase the community wide discounts and protect properties for years to come. The discussion today is about freeboard. The technical definition of freeboard is “a factor of safety expressed in feet above a level for the purpose of in flood plain management”. This means building a house higher than required under FEMA in order to compensate for unknown factors that contribute to flooding events such as sea level rise; land subsidence; or based on inaccuracies in the modeling. All FEMA maps are based on computer models that get better each time they are revised as more data is added, but they are not 100% perfect. If a property is in a flood zone the base flood elevation is where homes are required to be built. The freeboard is the additional feet about that elevation. The current freeboard in Hampton is one foot and that is proposed to increase to three feet. The different communities in the area have freeboard; Norfolk just went to three feet. Virginia Beach recently went to 2 feet, but is looking to increase that to three feet. The pros to having an additional freeboard in Hampton would be to increase the CRS points that could lead to the reduction of premiums city-wide. Higher elevated homes are less likely to have flood damage and can also offer a competitive advantage over other areas if a home has been built above what is required. The cons in adding the freeboard is that it adds to construction costs to new homes and to those that have substantial improvements done to come into compliance with the ordinance. The increase is approximately $3,600 for a 1,500 square foot house. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 21  Areas of moderate risk (X500) also known as “X Shaded”, “500 year flood”, or “B” zones (old maps) are properties with 0.2% annual risk of flooding. They are not considered a “Special Flood Hazard Area” by FEMA and do not have current requirements in Hampton, but a line on a map does not stop the water. There is not a base NFIP requirement. Proposed is a 1.5 foot elevation requirement for new construction for areas marked as “X 500”. FEMA does not provide base elevations for this district. Norfolk is the only city so far to take this step. The pros for this would be increased CRS points for Hampton; decreased flood insurance premiums for homeowners; it would be a competitive advantage until other localities follow suit and adopt similar regulations; and it would protect owners from future map amendments. The increased elevation affords further protection from insurance premium increases. The cons are the increased construction costs for new construction. An additional proposed amendment deals with sub-grade crawl spaces, also known as basements. This only applies to properties in the special flood hazard area (AE & VE zones) and few to no basements have been proposed in Hampton in the past few years. Norfolk is the only nearby locality that has codified this type of amendment. Under the current language the impact to current property owners if one makes substantial improvements to a home, the house would have to be elevated to one foot above base flood elevation; a new house would have to be elevated one foot above flood elevation; and a new house in X500 would have no flood standards. The proposed language would require substantial improvement to 3 feet above flood elevation; a new house would have to be 3 feet above flood elevation; and a new house in X500 would be elevated l.5 feet above grade. The proposed language has already been approved for going forward by the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee; it will go to the Peninsula Homeowners Association in June 2014; no date has been scheduled for the Virginia Peninsula Association of Realtors; the Planning Commission briefing is today, June 5, 2014; the Planning Commission will vote on the matter in July 2014; the City Council briefing will be in July 2014; and action for adoption by City Council will be in August 2014. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 22  In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Stromberg stated he did not know the exact numbers of those who had substantial improvements over the last year that would have been impacted by this proposal. It was not a high number, but he would try to find out what the percentage is by the next meeting. There are grants available from Emergency Management to assist homeowners required to elevate their homes. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Stromberg stated that the issue with street flooding is in the realm of Public Works and it is a major challenge for cities. Norfolk has raised some of their streets but that is incredibly expensive. B. Youth Civic Engagement Mr. O’Neill introduced Diana Schorr who has worked with Hampton for many years and has become very interested in civic engagement of our city and recently with Youth Civic Engagement. She is a PHD candidate who has chosen Hampton’s way of doing this as her central subject matter. The Commission had requested Ms. Schorr share her research and thoughts with the Commission. This is an interim set of observations. Diana Schorr started by quoting a famous sociologist, Francesca Polletta, regarding the civil rights movement that “Freedom Is an Endless Meeting” and she can see that that is true. She stated she would like to make some contributions to the great process of democracy in Hampton. The topic of her dissertation is “The System of Youth Civic Engagement in Hampton: How it has evolved over time and how was it that the City government itself became an enabler of the civic engagement for young people.” Her research is focused on young people because there is so much going on in Hampton. A lot has been happening with the Neighborhood work, the Unity Commission, and others. Ms. Schorr stated she wants to go over what she has gleaned from the last seven years doing her research in Hampton and talk about what changes have happed in the last five years since the financial crisis in 2008. It is her perception that there has been a change in what the City government has been able to offer to youth civic engagement. The outline of what will be discussed: PC Minutes 20140605 Page 23   Brief history of collaborate governance an youth civic engagement (YCE) in Hampton  Impact of YCE in Hampton – before/after 2008  Challenges to sustainability and resilience of YCE  VERY preliminary finding. . . Hampton has been recognized nationally and internationally for its work on youth civic engagement and she was fortunate to write about it in several publications. There is something going on in Hampton that is really well known. It is interesting when in the area that the people sometimes don’t consider this special, or even recognizes it, or takes it for granted that the city government cares what people have to say and to have a city government that is willing to listen to its citizens. It is an unusual situation in the United States and overseas for the government to be willing to listen and for citizens that think the government should. Collaborative governance deals with the idea of problems that are “cold and wicked”. These are complex problems such as dealing with flood zones, pollution, aids or obesity. The need is for new ways of thinking and engaging with people and institutions, across boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres. Collaborative governance deals with the idea that all stakeholders come together, governmental, non-governmental, private and public, citizens and institutional and try to find a consensus and build around it to resolve problems; to look at the strengths of all and see what each can bring to the table and how to work together to solve a problem. The collaborative governance concept is a shift in how public administrations think of themselves. Institutions do not just do administrative work with the public but work with the public. Sometimes one can distinguish between two sets of goals that are sometimes complementary and sometimes not – bureaucratic goals - better roads, promoting good community development delivering service done where people know how to get things done and democratic goals – a set of priorities whereby the local government should try to understand what the citizens want and how they want to self govern their own community. The democratic way is a different way to approach and is more like a social movement framework. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 24  Hampton, through a long process over a couple of decades, has come to view citizen engagement as a resource. With that process has come the valuing of that input. Collaborative governance has to do with reconciling the democratic goals and working with the public and not just for the public. In the 1980’s Hampton was dying in slow motion. The local government (Jimmy Eason and Bob O’Neill) came up with an idea to reinvent the government. It was a long process of designing a strategic plan around new vision. Hampton was one of the first cities/local governments to have a strategic plan. Thirty years ago very few were thinking of strategic plans. Out of the internal reorganization process the local government opened up the process of engaging the citizens. Specifically on youth, there was a three-year, $320,000 federal grant that was supposed to be used for community based planning on youth at risk, but instead of the people in Hampton just wanted to just do more programs for youth they decided to come together as a community and strategically decide what they wanted for its youth in the future. A planning and visioning process was set up with two groups; one with adult stakeholders working on youth issues, the other one with 20 youth who surveyed their peers. Out of this visioning process there was an emerging coalition of 5,000 youth and adults. This “Coalition for Youth” emerged as a voice for the young people in Hampton which came out with a core key message that to have young people thrive in Hampton a strong economy is necessary; a skilled workforce is needed; and it needs to know how to invest in youth to prepare them to be a part of Hampton. The things that are needed are growing up in a healthy family; having adults to mentor and support the youth; and being empowered to take part in their own development. This was a radical shift in how youth were viewed at that time and in the world. The job of the City and the community at large was to create such supporting systems. Working with young people requires and understanding of development. Four strategic initiatives came out of this: 1. Healthy neighborhoods (the Hampton Neighborhood Initiative) 2. Youth as resources to the community (youth civic engagement) (Hampton Coalition for Youth) 3. Strong families and 4. Investment in the first two decades of life (Healthy Families Partnership and the Hampton City Schools system) PC Minutes 20140605 Page 25  Youth Civic Engagement (YCE) is a conceptual move from a shift in thinking and not seeing youth as something that needs to be fixed but of youth as partners in their own development. Youth need to be empowered at different stages of their lives. Part of growing into adulthood is learning how to become a citizen and it is a process that is taught. Hampton has designed a process that is referred to as a pyramid of pathways of engagement and it has received national recognition. There are four types of Youth Civic Engagement 1. Youth in governance (Hampton Youth Commission, Youth Planner, Superintendent’s Advisory Group, etc.) 2. Youth philanthropy (HYC’s former mini-grant programs, -$10,000 yr.) 3. Youth activism (e.g., UthAct and dropout issue, youth violence prevention) 4. Youth in community service (e.g., volunteerism, service-learning-Mayor’s Book Club, etc.) Ms. Schorr explained her research focuses mostly in youth in governance. Youth engagement can be understood in multiple ways. Hampton’s unique way of approaching YCE is shown in the YCE “pyramid of opportunities. There are three structured pathways to provide civic engagement opportunities: 1. Simple form of volunteering – simple ways of contributing to their community 2. Input and consultation pathway – Young people who have shown an interest in contributing to their community and are participating in more substantive ways (e.g., such as the Principal’s Advisory Group; youth violence prevention work). The young people come together to try and figure out what is going on in their communities; how the issues can be addressed; and provide input and advice, but they do not yet have the ability to share power, money, or think strategically on the entire level of the City. This still requires more time; planning; investment in skills; where to get data; and how to come up with solutions. 3. Shared leadership pathway - This highest level of leadership deals with youth who have already proven themselves and grown up in this process in more complex ways in providing advice. The Youth Commission and Youth Planners are historically in this group which allows young people to assume more important leadership positions. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 26  Examples of institutional support for YCE are:  Government departments and youth leadership/advisory groups: 1. Coalition for Youth (replaced in 2010 by the Department of Youth Education and Families, Youth Engagement Unit, and now incorporated partially in the Community Development Department) 2. The Community Development Department’s Housing and Neighborhood and Planning Division a. The Hampton Youth Commission b. Youth Planners c. Neighborhood Youth Advisory Board (dismantled in 2013) 3. The Parks and Recreation Department a. Teen Center b. Teen Center Youth Committee 4. The Hampton School System a. Superintendent’s Advisory Group b. Principal Advisory c. Youth representative on School Board 5. Alternatives, Inc. Additional youth advisors and leaders serve on boards of other city department such as Parks and Recreation, the School Board, city commissions, board of directors as members of neighborhood groups, and other public-private partnerships. This is not the case in many other cities and is a testament how successful it has been in Hampton in their acceptance in young people and citizen input. The impact of Youth Civic Engagement received national prizes in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010 (2), and 2011. The most influential was the one in 2005 from Harvard University, Ash Institute of the Kennedy School of Government that was specifically for YCE. When the election results for the City of Hampton were looked at and compared with the national data, the election results for young people were higher than they would have expected for a city of it size with its demographics. The level of civic engagement was not expected. Hampton became a hub for teaching other cities in the United States about civic engagement. The prize won in 2011 is from one of the largest foundations in Europe and is a big field in which to be recognized. It recognizes cases in governance worldwide and Hampton came in 4th out of 150 nominees. The Germans wanted to know what they could do to better their governance and wanted the best model to adapt to the German context. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 27  Ms. Schor stated she has observed that Hampton has a culture that values youth and what they have to say. A process came out of the I Value campaign, which won awards for City Manager Mary Bunting, that preserving the youth services is really important because of the perceived value of the young people have in the community. In systemic changes there is a multiplying affect of having thousands of young people educated as citizens and leaders. Some return to Hampton, other lead lives of service elsewhere. You cannot expect to raise young people in Hampton and keep them here. What can be done is to promote and empower young people and create a culture that values young people so families will want to move to Hampton. There are examples of young people who have grown up in the civic engagement that have come back and chose to work with the government. There is an expectation that government officials learn to be a civic facilitator/convener and listen to what people say and develop a certain set of skills in a way to be not condescending when listening to youth voices. Governance is a hard and complex process and when speaking with government officials, boundaries need to be learned and what the government can do needs to be learned. That can help deal with issues, apathy, and discouragement people feel when thinking about the government. There is a need to learn through the process of talking with each other and preserving the democratic underpinnings that make us function well as a society. Building democracy is a goal that is important. Many youth have been employed by the City of Hampton and youth have served as advisors and leaders. HYC has had 161 past members and the Youth Planner program has had 21. These young people have put in a lot of time to serve the City. Some criticism of the Commission is that it has been that the youth come from the upper middle and capitalistic class and maybe in some ways only the elite are being served. Equal opportunities should be provided to all youth that come from different backgrounds, but research shows that people in the upper middle class and capitalistic class spend their money differently - possibly on a foundation for a museum but not a home for single mothers. Education for young people from different socio-economic strata is very important. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 28  The HYC holds 2 to 4 public meetings with a cumulative impact on 10,000 youth. Approximately $500,000 have been given out in mini-grants and impacted about 12,000 youth over two decades. There was a two-year effort of lobbying lobby to have one youth representative on the School Board. Upon interviewing one of the youth commissioners, Ms. Schorr stated the youth told her the Youth Commissioners were invited to the National League of Cities, one of the premier organizations in the United States, to be on their panel. He told her “Heck, we were the panel!” People came to listen to what they had to say. The Youth Planner program to hire youth as planners is designed treat them and pay them as other planners so they can contribute to city policies is such a unique commitment. Since 2008 there has been a little bit of a disinvestment to youth civic engagement from the perspective of the City. Even though there may have been less of an investment from the City there has been a growth in civic engagement of the youth at a community level (e.g. Youth Violence Prevention work and Unity Commission work). There has been an erosion of institutional support. One of the lynch pins of the Youth Civic Engagement is that the Coalition of Youth has been merged into other departments. That program did not just do problematic work they helped coordinate the policy at the level of the entire city. They tried to put everything under one coherent umbrella and come up with coherent policies. The fairly large budget has gone down significantly. Staff went from three full time staff to reassigning responsibilities to people in the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department has become more consolidated, but has lost the ability to reach into the neighborhood level. Staff used to have a person working in one or two of the neighborhoods who would be out in the neighborhoods all the time. Financial restraints have cut funding and the results are that there has been less of an outreach on the community level and less of an investment in staff working with youth. There are a lot of people working with the youth, but there are no longer four staff people working with the youth and the level of coordination at the city level is less. Other groups are doing youth development but the competency of promoting youth development is different than having competency in youth civic PC Minutes 20140605 Page 29 engagement. What happens with any disinvestment in any kind of capacity is that at some point staff will be lost that have the institutional capacity/memory that have the skills to get things done. The quality in the youth engagement process has decreased in some ways. The number of applicants has gone from 70 applications for the youth planner position to a handful. There is a thinner base for the feeder system and it has nothing to do with the hearts of the young people and their passion. It has to do with fact that they do not have the strong support that helps move the system forward. The young people have done a tremendous job in working with the Community Plan and working on the Youth Component and reaching out to their peers trying to get their feedback on the youth priorities for the City. The strong civic support from the City has been decreased a little, but at the same time Ms. Schorr stated she has seen new initiatives sprouting at community level. Ms. Schorr questioned whether the YCE in Hampton just shifting its form; is just different; or if it is rebounding; and how can they maintain what they had. A lot of policy questions are out there and there is still a lot of data collection and interviews to transcribe. She is trying to find a way to tell the Hampton story. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Schorr stated the tapestry shown earlier had a lot of programs with some that are no longer. Commissioner McCloud stated he has been present through a lot of what the outcome has been with the amount of effort, time and energy that has gone into this process over the last twenty years and that it is worthwhile. He is pleased that, with her doctoral work, people will know what has happened. Ms. Schorr stated other people will know the work that has been done, but those in the City may not know the whole picture. She hopes she does not only spread the word but provides an opportunity for the citizens of Hampton to view the young people as a resource. Hampton has a lot of incredible, talented young people that she just sits and listens to. She teaches Sociology on the college level and has some students who do not have the same levels of critical thinking skills as some of those young people in Hampton. Hampton has an interesting story. Commissioner Williams stated the in depth work that Ms. Schorr has done has enlightened him. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 30  Ms. Schorr stated there are a lot of people who know more than she and could speak more in depth about this subject. Vice-Chairman Southall also thanked Ms. Schorr for the work she has done to bring Hampton’s young people to light. In working with them he has found there are a lot of great young people in the City with a lot of talent. Often overheard are citizens who say our youth aren’t doing anything, but they have not dug in and seen all of the things the youth are doing and the things and great ideas coming from the youth component. A group he is working with have been meeting for once a week for almost a year and doing great work and is eager to meet more often. They reach out and talk to other young people and formulate recommendations to bring back to the City. He hopes more people will take heed with what is happening. Ms. Schorr stated that a lot of people in local government and those who work as public officials give up their time to work with the youth, but historically Hampton has an institutional process to provide the support by placing it in someone’s job description. That institutional support has lead to and enabled the civic engagement system to emerge. She has still seen some erosion in that, but she wants to acknowledge the work done by the motivated city officials she has met as well as people in the community. C. Youth Planner Report Outgoing Senior Youth Planner Chyna Matheny presented the update on the Youth Planner Program. Ms. Matheny stated she would be showing youth civic engagement in action. On May 1st, the Hampton Youth Commission hosted a Candidates Forum at the Hampton Teen Center for the May 6th Council elections. The purpose of the forum was to allow youth in the City to become involved in the political process, and to give them the opportunity to get to know the candidates and their intentions if they are elected. The questions for the candidates originated from the HYC and from the youth in attendance. The youth at the forum were also given the opportunity to express their opinion and have an unofficial vote for the candidates that they preferred. The majority of teens in attendance rated the event “Awesome”. Some of the topics discussed were the possibility of the teen center closing; job opportunities; and youth preventing violence. The Hampton Youth Commission (HYC) held interviews on June 4th at Phoebus High School. This location was chosen for the opportunity to give Phoebus an opportunity to increase their number of applicants. PC Minutes 20140605 Page 31  The first draft has been completed of the Youth Master Plan Update and it was reviewed by the HYC at a June meeting. On June 9th a reception will held to welcome the new HYC commissioners. Planning Commission members and parents are invited. Parents have been invited to help them in understanding the role of the HYC. Recruitment for a new Junior Youth Planner is in progress and interviews will be held on June 10th. The new commissioner’s names will be submitted to City Council for appointment on June 11. The HYC will prepare for orientation in late June to go over what it is to be a commissioner, assign different committees; and discuss work to be done in the next year. Vice-Chairman Southall stated the Candidate’s Forum was fun and different than all the other forums. ITEM VI. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. ITEM VII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION Commissioner’s Campbell and McCloud stated in reference to the meeting of July 3, they would not be present. ITEM VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Terry O’Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: ____________________________________ Thomas Southall Vice-Chairman PC Minutes 20140605 Page 32