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, JANUARY 8, 2015, AT 3:00 P.M. Commissioners Tommy Southall, Carlton Campbell, Teresa Schmidt, and Chairman Gaynette LaRue were present. Vice-Chair Andre McCloud, Commissioners Gregory Williams and Mary Bunting were absent. In reply to Commissioner Tommy Southall’s request for a definition of Special Events, Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown explained that City Code regulates Special Events. A Special Event Permit must be obtained for any event held outdoors on public property. Chairman LaRue stated she had received an email from Cecile Trevathan, Buckroe Improvement League Event Committee, regarding signage relative to the Buckroe Arts Festival. Community Development Director Terry O’Neill stated this is the first in a series of amendments that will come before the Commission relating to Special Events, the purpose of which is to try to make things easier for the public. The Neighborhood Division has worked to get the neighborhoods to do things as a neighborhood and it is discouraging to groups if there is too much bureaucracy and the process is cumbersome. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment being discussed today will offer greater flexibility for off-premise signage and will clarify what can be and what has to be done. Other amendments are being worked on as there are many things that come into play with Special Events. In response to a question from Vice-Chair McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated this question is two-fold. The provision in front of the Commission currently deals specifically with Special Events and those guidelines are in the City Code. Requests for Special Events signage must be made by the applicant and submitted along with the application. The second part of Vice-Chair McCloud’s question deals with illegal signs, and those are an enforcement issue. The Property Maintenance & Zoning Enforcement Division Inspectors pick up the illegal, off-premise signage. A lot of this type of signage is done on weekends and that makes it hard to keep up with. Mr. O’Neill stated the upcoming Coliseum Master Plan process is a multi-day process with multiple sessions involving property owners and businesses. The Commissioners can come and go as they wish. The Commissioners will be advised of the dates and times. Mr. O’Neill introduced Lucy Stoll, the newest City Planner. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Deputy Zoning Official Jeff Conkle stated there will be a 4’x8’ size limitation on the signs allowed for Special Events. The time allowed for displaying this signage will also be limited. PCWorksession 20150108 Page 1  In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. Conkle stated directional signage for these events is not permitted without an encroachment agreement from City Council. This type of signage is not permitted through the Zoning Ordinance. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Conkle stated that signs such as yard sale and open house signs do not require a permit but there are criteria guidelines. Commissioner Campbell and Vice-Chair McCloud asked for clarification on pages 12, 23, 19, and 20 of the December 4, 2014 minutes. Clerical corrections on content will be made. In response to Vice-Chair McCloud, Sunshine Torrey from the Budget Office stated that the Pochin Place drainage line item is funded and still in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); Public Works is working out the related issues. Commissioner Campbell stated he attended the CIP meeting at Kecoughtan High School and questioned when the information feedback from that meeting would be available. Ms. Torrey explained the feedback information from that meeting and the on- line information will be available during the February Planning Commission meeting. In reply to a question from Chairman LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated the Council ad for the items heard at the December Planning Commission meeting did not run due to issues at the newspaper. These items will be heard at the January 28, 2015 Council meeting. The application for LF Enterprises for the property on Big Bethel Road will most likely be seen at the February 2015 Planning Commission meeting in a different form. Ms. Brown stated the applicant originally asked for a deferral. The applicant will come back with a revised plan and a new application. Another vote will be taken if Council refers the original application back to the Planning Commission. This will give the public and the Commission time to hear the new information. Commissioner Southall stated the developer told him that the project has been redesigned as a two-story structure and will better resemble single family homes. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:28 p.m. PCWorksession 20150108 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, JANUARY 8, 2015 AT 3:30 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 Commissioners Tommy Southall, Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Vice-Chair McCloud, Teresa Schmidt, and Chairman Gaynette LaRue were present. Commissioner Mary Bunting was absent. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Andre McCloud, seconded by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2014 work session and Planning Commission meeting with clerical corrections. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Snead, Southall, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: 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 IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Mr. O’Neill read the public hearing items advertised in the Daily Press on December 25, and January 1, 2015. A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 155-2015: Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Article I of Chapter 18.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled, “General Sign Regulations” by Adding an Exemption for Temporary Special Event Signs. Approval of this amendment would exempt Temporary Special Event Signs from the zoning ordinance for events authorized by a Special Event Permit pursuant to Chapter 26 of the City Code. This application is being concurrently advertised for the January 14, 2015 City Council meeting. Deputy Zoning Administrator Jeff Conkle presented Zoning Ordinnace Amendment No. 155-2015 to amend and reanact Article 1 of Chapter 18.1 of the PCMinutes20150108 Page 1 Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled, “General Sign Regulations” by adding an exemption for temporary Special Event signs. Approval of this amendment would allow individuals or organizations that obtain a Special Event Permit to place signs at the location of the event as well as elsewhere on private property. Currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance are “public event banners” on City-owned property announcing City-sponsored events and “private event banners” on private property with a building (not a vacant lot), e.g. a grand opening sign for a business. This proposal adds a new category “temporary special event signs” and will exempt private special events on public property from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This will allow the Special Event Permit to regulate these signs through the City Code. The Special Event Permit, rather than the Zoning Ordinance, will be the primary regulatory tool governing use of these signs. Signs would be permitted as follows:  The location and placement of signs must be approved by the Hampton Police Division.  Signs shall be no larger than 4’x8’ each.  Signs cannot be placed more than 30 days prior to the vent authorized by the Special Event Permit and must be removed within 24 hours of the event authorized by the Special Event Permit.  Written authorization from private property owners must be obtained prior to placement of the sign. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance No. 155-2015. In response to a question by Commissioner Schmidt, Mr. Conkle stated a time limit will be placed on signs allowed for placement on private properties for these events even though the event takes place on public property. The placement of signs on public property will be limited to the location of the event. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated that City-sponsored events are sometimes advertised on public property. Private events are not typically advertised using public property. Under this ordinance amendment, only the event site would be allowed as a public site to have advertisement for the event. Mr. Conkle stated that typically what is called off-site advertising in the Zoning Ordinance is prohibited and that is common across the United States. A business cannot advertise on someone else’s property. It is common to restrict off-site PCMinutes20150108 Page 2 signage. This amendment would exempt these signs from that regulation and would allow temporary placement of advertisement on private property sites, with the agreement from the owner of that property, that do not contain the use being advertised. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Conkle stated the Buckroe Improvement League Event Committee ran into problems with their off- site signage. Two of their four requests, off-site signage and placement of signs on private property, have been given allowances. Their other two requests cannot be addressed through the Planning Commission or the Zoning Ordinance. The right-of-way and overpass signage are regulated through the Public Works Department and the City Council who can grant public encroachment of right-of-way use. If the electronic sign referred to in the letterfrom the Buckroe Improvement League Event Committee is the Coliseum sign, the Coliseum regulates the content of that sign. Ms. Brown explained that there is an encroachment process and there is a separate evaluation process for any kind of private use, object, or structure to occupy space on public property. The reason for not adding signage to public property is that everyone has to be treated in an equitable manner. Only allowing off-site signage on private property means the City will not have to determine what types of events would be allowed to advertise on public property and what types would not. This amendment would allow events to advertise on any private property with the agreement of the property owner. In response to a question from Vice-Chair McCloud, Ms. Brown stated a neighborhood group could have their event on public property and it can be publicized on the event site property, but not on other public property in the neighborhood. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Conkle stated that signs are limited in the amendment to 4’x8’ along with the duration they can remain. There are conditions in the Special Event Permit. Mr. O’Neill stated the duration the signs can remain is 30 days prior to the event, and the signs must be removed within 24 hours of the event. In response to a question by Chairman LaRue, Mr. Conkle stated that directional signage in public rights-of-way for an event is not permitted without encroachment approval from City Council. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams regarding directional signs for yard sales and open houses, Mr. Conkle stated there are special regulations for special types of signs allowed on a temporary basis that do not require a permit. The Zoning Ordinance mentions real estate signs and there are some criteria to PCMinutes20150108 Page 3 meet in th Zoning Ordinance. The criteria for real estate signs is mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance. No permit is required, but guidelines have to be followed. There are other special situations, but they are addressed in the City Code. There were no public speakers. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 155- 2015, a proposed ordinance to amend and reenact Article I of Chapter 18.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled, “General Sign Regulations” by adding an exemption for Temporary Special Event Signs; WHEREAS: this amendment would add “Temporary Special Event Signs” to the list of signs exempt from the Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 18.1 and define “Temporary Special Event Signs” as those signs authorized by a Special Event Permit issued pursuant to Chapter 26 of the Hampton City Code; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would allow individuals or organizations that obtain a Special Event Permit to place signs at the location of the event as well as elsewhere on private property; WHEREAS: the Special Event Permit, which is enforced by the Hampton Police Division, will be the primary regulatory tool governing use of these signs; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers from the public. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 18.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Southall, Snead, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting PCMinutes20150108 Page 4  B. Site Plan Ordinance Amendment No. 14-00002: Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 35.1 of the City Code of the City of Hampton, Virginia by Amending Section 35.1-2 Entitled, “Application and Scope of Chapter; Definitions” Pertaining to Application and Scope of Chapter and Definitions and Adding Sections 35.1-2.1 and 35.1-2.2 Pertaining to Exemptions from Site Plan Approval. Approval of this amendment would exempt different types of development from the site plan requirement. This amendment accompanies other proposed amendments to Chapter 33.2 of the City Code governing Stormwater Management and Chapter 13.1 governing Land Disturbing Operations. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown presented Site Plan Ordinance No. 14-00002 to amend and reenact Chapter 35.1 of the City Code of the City of Hampton, Virginia by amending Section 35.1-2 entitled, “Application and Scope of Chapter; Definitions” pertaining to application and scope of Chapter and Definitions and additional Sections 35.1-2.1 and 35.1-2.2 pertaining to exemptions from Site Plan approval. This amendment is the result of a request from the development community to consider adding more flexibility to the development ordinances (Site Plan Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Land Disturbing Ordinance, Stormwater Ordinance, and the Zoning Ordinance). The amendment changes would be based on what is allowed by the State Code. In May 2013, the City Council adopted a comprehensive site plan ordinance in Chapter 35.1 of the City Code. The new site plan ordinance brought the City‘s regulations into compliance with state law and amended many provisions including review periods, appeal and exception processes, and bonding. The stakeholder group of developers, engineers, surveyors, BID representative, and a land use attorney recommended approval of the ordinance, but noted at that time they thought the restrictions could be more relaxed since Hampton’s restrictions are more restrictive than the State Code restrictions. At the request of the stakeholders, the ordinance was looked at and this current amendment is the result of a review of the Stormwater, Land Disturbing, and Site Plan ordinances. The trigger for a lot of environmental ordinances is a land disturbing threshold. These thresholds come from the State level and are managed by the localities. Virginia localities are required by state law to regulate different types of land disturbing activity pursuant to the: Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program (VESCP); Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP); and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA). If a site is small enough, compliance with all the ordinances may not be required. Land disturbing is used differently in all three ordinances. In both land disturbing and stormwater the State allows a maximum amount of land disturbance that can be created and still exempt a project. For example, if the site is not within the Chesapeake PCMinutes20150108 Page 5 Bay area, up to 10,000 square feet of land disturbance can be exempt before one has to comply with the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and be reviewed for land disturbance. State Code says what the maximum amount to exempt is, but as allowed by State Code, Hampton opted to be more restrictive than the State and requires additional compliance if 2,500 square feet or more is disturbed. Most of Hampton’s ordinances are tied to the 2,500 square feet of disturbance limit which is the limit for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation District. Disturbing 2,500 square feet or more In the Chesapeake Bay area requires additional compliance for development such as additional planting, remediation, soil control, etc. For it to make sense Hampton connected all of its ordinances to the 2,500 square foot number and it is this number that triggers what is to be done. It was realized, when looking at trying to relax the requirements for the Land Disturbing and Stormwater ordinances, by adopting the State Code number of 10,000 square feet that amendments would also need to be made to the Site Plan Ordinance. With other changes being made the Site Plan Ordinance would not be in line with the other ordinances. The recommendation, to go with the State Code number of 10,000 square feet which would allow more of the smaller sites to be exempt from land disturbing review, will be considered by City Council on January 14, 2015. This would also apply to Stormwater. The current code in Hampton for a stormwater permit is also more restrictive than the State Code. Hampton is exempt if disturbing less than 2,500 square feet for a residential site; however, the State allows for up to one acre to be exempt. The proposal will be to adopt the one acre limit. These amendments are not before the Planning Commission, this is just background information. This site plan amendment would exempt additional forms of development from the site plan requirement to align with proposed changes to Land Disturbing and Stormwater Management ordinances. Disturbances that trigger the need for a site plan for commercial buildings is less than 500 square feet and the recommendation is to change that to less than 1,000 square feet. Currently, new or expanded parking lots require a site plan for distuabance of 2,500 square feet. We propose requiring a site plan only if 10,000 square feet. Residential is exempt and goes through a different process. No changes are being proposed for residential. Although it sounds like many things are being exempted from the site plan requirements, building permit review and all other ordinances will still occur. One will only be exempt if not making a direct connection to public facilities, if one is not within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation area, or one is not reducing green area on the site. Staff will require a complete site plan if a site is considered a more significant development. The hope in making these changes is to help alleviate the costs on the smaller projects. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan Ordinance No. 14-00002. PCMinutes20150108 Page 6  In response to a question from Commissioner Southall, Ms. Brown stated if a parking lot is less than 10,000 square feet a review would not be done for erosion and sediment control or stormwater management. There are general rules and laws that, as a neighbor, one cannot force stormwater onto and damage a neighbor’s property. If the parking lot is less than 10,000 square feet, the City would not be regulating it under state laws. In reply to a question by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Conkle stated the Zoning Ordinance requires a percentage of green area (undeveloped portion of site) in any district and this varies by district. Treated differently than a site plan, residential properties have a buildable envelope which leaves green area. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. O’Neill stated when new laws are passed by the General Assembly, localities have to do certain things. Most localities follow that lead and try what is thought as the best way to comply with the regulation. The General Assembly gives parameters under which to operate, but there are discretionary choices that have to be made. Choices vary and some localities, like Hampton, took the more restrictive path. It was found when the localities took the most restrictive approach it ended up as costly, particularly for small projects. The major cost of a project or small addition was what it took to meet the regulations. As a result, many communities have backed away from the more restrictive provisions and modified their approach. The mandates were met the first time around. Hampton, having learned and understood from that experience, weighed the benefits in terms of costs and how competitive Hampton would be in terms of development and small projects having to go through the big expense of trying to meet those regulations. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Senior Site Plan and Subdivision Agent Sarah Propst stated this change will impact the amount of site plan fees coming in, but it should balance out in that it will be less work for the Site Plan Review Committee. In response to a question from Commissioner Schmidt, Ms. Brown stated water overflow caused by one neighbor’s property to another neighbor’s property when a site plan is not in place is a private civil matter. If no site plan is required, water flow issues would be a private matter and would not be regulated through the City. This is a general private law principle that has nothing to do with City regulations. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell about building on one’s residential lot, Ms. Brown stated there is no notification requirement of which she is aware. Mr. O’Neill explained these situations described by Commissioner Campbell are in most cases presumed to be by-right uses. A neighbor can build a deck, a fence, an addition, or a commercial property can build an expansion and all that has to be done is to meet regulatory processes. If an issue arises, one can notify the City that something may not be right and it will be investigated. PCMinutes20150108 Page 7  Ms. Brown stated all of these uses would still need to comply with the building permit process which comes under a review and is not a totally exempt process. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Conkle stated placing a generator on one’s property would require a mechanical permit and not a building permit. The mechanical permit would require an inspection. The Zoning Ordinance does regulate that the equipment is kept a certain distance from a neighbor’s property line. Neighbors do not need to be notified pending development unless a public hearing is required in order to do a project. In response to a question from Commissioner LaRue, Ms. Brown stated that the ordinance and staff encourage developers to not piecemeal projects and not develop projects in sections like a 25,000 square foot parking lot. There is no way to know what someone’s future plans are. Mr. O’Neill explained there is no regulation, no matter how it is crafted, that could keep someone from “gaming” the system. People have to be trusted and honest, but it is impossible to prevent someone from figuring out a way to get around the system. There were no public speakers. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day SPO 14- 00002, a proposed ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 35.1 of the City Code of the City of Hampton, Virginia by amending section 35.1-2 entitled, “Application and Scope of Chapter; Definitions” pertaining to application and scope of chapter and definitions and adding sections 35.1-2.1 and 35.1-2.2 pertaining to exemptions from site plan approval; WHEREAS: in May 2013, the City Council adopted a comprehensively updated site plan ordinance in Chapter 35.1 of the City Code, which brought the city’s regulations into compliance with state law and amended many provisions including review periods, appeal and exception processes, and bonding; WHEREAS: leading up to the 2013 update, staff worked with a stakeholder group comprised of representatives from the Phoebus area, the Peninsula Homebuilders Association, the Downtown Hampton Development Partnership, and the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District, surveyors, engineers, and a land use attorney representing the development community; WHEREAS: the stakeholder group reviewed and approved the 2013 amendments but also recommended that the City undertake a further substantive review of the site plan ordinance’s design PCMinutes20150108 Page 8  standards and other general provisions and that the City consider raising the land disturbance thresholds for erosion and sediment control and stormwater management to the State Code limits; WHEREAS: in furtherance of the stakeholder group’s recommendations and concerns raised by the development community, staff undertook review of three chapters of the City Code including Chapter 33.2 governing Stormwater Management, Chapter 13.1 governing Land Disturbing Operations, and Chapter 35.1 governing Site Plans; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment to Chapter 35.1 of the City Code would exempt additional projects from site plan review provided that they do not require direct connections to utilities, will not reduce existing green area, and will not be located within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation District in the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers from the public. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Williams and seconded by Commissioner Campbell, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 18.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Southall, Snead, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) briefing, Sunshine Torrey, Office of Budget & Management Analysis Sunshine Torrey from the Budget Office stated there was information in the January Planning Commission packets that included the submissions for the CIP, as well as what had been presented during the Community Forum that took place on December 9, 2014, and that she was available to answer any questions. Ms. Torrey stated there is a survey currently on the City website for those citizens who were unable to make it to the community forum. This survey can be found by logging onto www.Hampton.gov and going on the home page to the Capital Improvement Plan link. The information from the forum is on this website. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Torrey stated information from the online responses will be obtained when the survey time has run its course, which will be January 12, 2015. PCMinutes20150108 Page 9  In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Torrey stated the community forum is a way to present the CIP one-on-one to the community and a place for those who may not be computer savvy to get their information and give their feedback. One could also go to the public library. There are no more community forums, but there will be an opportunity for the community to give input when the CIP presentations are given to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. Commissioner Schmidt stated she went to the Community Forum and suggested that more attendance could be generated by handing out flyers at community meetings and various community organizations. Ms. Torrey thanked Commissioner Schmidt for her feedback. In response to a question from Chairman LaRue, Ms. Torrey stated the old courthouse building is still in the FY15-19 CIP. Additional projects to be considered in the FY16-20 CIP are in the Commissioners’ packets. The listed projects are either brand new or slightly changed. Projects that are duplicated still require feedback. B. Youth Planner Presentation Junior Youth Planner Bryauna Kralik presented the Youth Planner Report. Their focus for the month of December was on connecting, learning, and sharing input with a key stakeholder in the area of Transportation. The Commissioners participated in a self-reflection activity titled Mirror-Mirror. An ice breaker based on the Youth Master Plan, this activity allowed the Commissioners to build on previously learned skills. The Commissioners were afforded an opportunity to partner with Mike Khuns, President and CEO of the Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce. Discussed were public transportation and the youth business relationships in the city of Hampton. Becoming comfortable in holding conversations was the purpose of the December 8 meeting. Training involved developing relationships while improving social skills and active listening. The Commissioners brainstormed on December 15 and decided on effective ways to gather qualitative and quantitative data. Participation in an activity titled “The Amazing Race” required them to think outside of the box. The Commissioners are surveying a population of 50,000+ people with an aim to reach more than 400 youth in Hampton. Possible target audiences, locations, and times were looked at for this data gathering. The next steps are to extract information to provide to the stakeholders. In reply to a question from Co-Chair McCloud, Ms. Kralik stated a count would be kept of those who have given information. PCMinutes20150108 Page 10  City Planner Tolu Ibikunle stated ways the count will be tracked is through surveys, Facebook, expanded social media usage, and connection with the schools. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Ibikunle stated that “The Amazing Race” television program and the activity done by the Youth Commissioners have no correlation. Mr. O’Neill stated that previous Youth Commissions have done an Amazing Race kind of exercise in real life. There was no money but there were prizes. Clues were given to the Commissioners on various ways to get to different places around a city. They travelled to downtown Norfolk by ferry from Portsmouth and then walked, biked, and bussed around in their navigation of downtown Norfolk. The learning point was to see what modes of transportation were youth-friendly. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Kralik stated Mr. Khuns from the Chamber of Commerce explained what the goals of the Chamber of Commerce are and what it does. The Youth were afforded an opportunity to ask questions. Ms. Ibikunle stated the object of meeting with Mr. Khuns was to inform the Youth Commission of what the Chamber of Commerce is and what it does. Earlier in the year the Commission identified three areas of interest to work on for the year: Public Safety, Transportation, and Education. In December the Commission selected transportation as one of their focus areas. One of the stakeholders they tried to reach out to was the Chamber of Commerce because business and transportation go hand-in-hand. This gave the Commissioners an opportunity to understand how that is done. Mr. O’Neill stated for those citizens who may be interested, that the upcoming community outreach effort for the Coliseum Central Master Plan update process will take place January 20 through 22 culminating with a public open house meeting from 6 – 8 PM at the Convention Center on January 22, 2015. The Commissioners are welcome to attend and participate in any or all of the sessions. VI. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. VII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell regarding updates on Lincoln Park, Mr. O’Neill stated that the Community Development Department works closely with the Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority. The typical process is a conceptual master planning phase that shows illustrations and pictures of what the project could look like. Since the Planning Commissioners saw those documents, and parallel to the relocation process, those ideas have been fine tuned through market analysis. It is now time to start the detailed design of each specific product. PCMinutes20150108 Page 11  Chairman LaRue thanked those who were responsible for providing the speakers that help those with hearing disabilities. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p. m. Respectfully submitted, 1I&_ V1LLx4 Terry ONeill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: Gaynette LaRue Chairman PCMinu[ es20150100 Page 12