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 4, 2015, AT 3:00 P.M. Commissioners Tommy Southall, Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Teresa Schmidt, Vice-Chair Andre McCloud, and Chairman Gaynette LaRue were present. Commissioner Mary Bunting was absent. Chairman Gaynette LaRue opened the floor for discussion of the agenda items. The Commissioners discussed Use Permit Application No. 15-00005, for Westview Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. to allow an active park/playground at Westview Drive. In reply to Commissioners’ questions, City Planner Matt Smith stated the complaints that brought about the request for the Use Permit dealt with issues such as drug use and noise. The neighbors could not enjoy their properties and some parents were not comfortable in bringing their children to the playground because of the basketball court. The application is to allow the Association to operate a playground to include the basketball court. The Association has a list of playground rules and regulations. The Use Permit also has attached conditions. Fifty-three residents responded to a survey regarding the playground and basketball court; two-thirds of the respondents would like to see the basketball court remain. The residents living next door to where the court is located were not in favor. City personnel can only enforce conditions attached to a use permit. They cannot enforce the Association’s rules and regulations. Mr. Smith stated the third condition attached to the use permit would have the basketball hoop being removed from its current location as the location does not meet the 50-foot setback requirement. Sr. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown discussed the Planning Commission by- laws regarding delays due to weather. A resolution needs to be adopted for clarification. This resolution will be reviewed at the June Planning Commission meeting and will not be considered for adoption until the July Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Brown also stated Zoning Ordinance Amendment 165-2015 deals with housekeeping changes. Senior Zoning Official Jeff Conkle stated the reason for the changes in the Table of Uses Permitted is because terminology has been defined and to create better alignment with the Master Plans. Any existing uses that may be affected by the changes become grandfathered and would need no other approvals. Community Development Department Director Terry O’Neill stated these changes are part of a bigger picture. Hampton is a community that does not have a lot of undeveloped land and, within Coliseum Central, we are trying to align the Zoning Ordinance with the uses that promote the vision for the district. PCworksession 20150604 Page 1  Mr. O’Neill responded to the question about blanket approvals for live entertainment stating that live entertainment uses vary considerably and the Peninsula Town Center wants to have some control as to what is allowed in their district. Another aspect is that some businesses may have both indoor and outdoor live entertainment and some locations might affect residential areas. Staff works on being consistent with attached conditions for each application. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:29 p.m. PCworksession 20150604 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 4, 2015 AT 3:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gaynette LaRue called the Planning Commission meeting to order. II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioners Tommy Southall, Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Teresa Schmidt, Vice-Chair Andre McCloud, and Chairman Gaynette LaRue were present. Commissioner Mary Bunting was absent. III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2015 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Southall, Williams, Campbell, Schmidt, McCloud, 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. IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Use Permit Application No. 15-00005: by Rachael Wright on behalf of Westview Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. for an active park/playground at Westview Dr. [LRSN 5000487]. The property is zoned Multiple Residence (R-M) District, which permits active parks/playgrounds with approval of a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends high-density residential for this area. City Planner Matt Smith presented Use Permit Application No. 15-00005 by Rachel Wright on behalf of Westview Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. for an active park/playground at Westview Drive. Westview Lakes is a subdivision of roughly 300 homes located off of Saunders Road in northwest Hampton that was developed in the 1980s and early 1990s. Regulations under which the subdivision was developed required dedicated open space. The Westview Lakes Homeowners’ Association erected playground equipment PCMinutes 20150604 Page 1 on a portion of that open space around the year 2000. Hampton’s Zoning Ordinance permits parks/playgrounds in the Multiple Residence (R-M) District, in which the subdivision is located, with the approval of a use permit. Since the installation of the playground equipment, common area in the subdivision has been used as a park/playground without approval of a use permit. In May 2014, a concrete pad and basketball hoop were installed at the park/playground. Complaints about activities related to the use of the basketball court brought the existence of the park/playground to the attention of City staff. A Notice of Zoning Violation was issued to the HOA stating that use of common area as a park/playground must cease pending final consideration of a use permit by City Council. The location of the basketball court is nestled between two sections of houses. The park/playground is roughly .85 acre and located adjacent to single family residence homes. The National Recreation and Park Association provides park classification and facility guidelines that define a mini park as one less than one acre in size, with a one-quarter mile service radius, that is used to address limited, isolated, or unique recreational needs. This description is appropriate to describe the Westview Lakes park/playground. Passive recreation facilities, such as picnic tables, benches, and play areas for small children, are generally considered most appropriate for mini parks. The Hampton Community Plan (2006 as amended) provides policies calling for community interaction, access to recreational facilities, and the provision of parks and recreation facilities that contribute to the health and safety of children and youth. It also calls for promoting compatibility among differing land uses and safeguarding the integrity of residential neighborhoods. The Westview Lakes park/playground generally aligns with these policies. Recommended conditions attached to the use permit can further bring the park/playground into alignment with the Community Plan. A community meeting was held in May with 13 resident attendees and five HOA Board members. The playground and park were the topic of discussion at this HOA meeting. There was general agreement that there were unwanted activities associated with the basketball court and these activities significantly affected the adjacent homeowners. A survey was sent out and 53 homeowners responded with 2/3 of them in support of keeping the playground and the basketball court. Staff also heard from several residents about the playground, primarily about the basketball court, and that communication was generally in opposition. Staff was presented with a petition in opposition of the basketball court. A conceptual plan of the park was provided. If this application is approved, staff recommends attaching conditions that restrict the hours of operation; stipulate that uses such as basketball would not be allowed within 50 feet of residential properties; and limit lighting on the property so it does not spill over onto neighboring properties. PCMinutes 20150604 Page 2  Sr. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown clarified the difference between Use Permit conditions and Home Owners Association rules. The Zoning Ordinance is enforced through the inspectors and they would look for Use Permit conditions attached to a use as well as Zoning Ordinance conditions. If there are violations of those conditions, violation notices would be issued to the property owner. The inspectors would not be actively policing the area as to who is using the court or how the playground is being used like it would be done by the HOA. The HOA can have additional rules above and beyond the Zoning Ordinance that the HOA would enforce. Staff recommends approval of Use Permit Application No. 15-00005 with 6 conditions. In response to questions from Commissioners Southall and Campbell, Mr. Smith stated the current basketball court is within the 50-foot buffer area and would not be allowed in that location if the Use Permit is approved. The current location places the court about 10 feet off the residential property line. There is an area where the court would be allowed and current lighting would only have to be replaced if it spills over into the adjacent areas. Westview Lakes Homeowner’s Association president Charles McCeachin, 4 Christin Way, stated he would try to clarify some of the previously asked questions. When one looks at the playground/basketball area one can see where the basketball courts are lined up on the property. The HOA extensively looked for a location for placement of the court. The court is in close proximity to homes, but there are very large trees to the left of the court and the area only opens up at the playground. Placing it there gave more distance from the children’s area. Removal of the trees would be expensive. The Association has about 310 homes and there are no other amenities such as recreation area, pools, or a community building. As a Board, the HOA noticed crime growth among the youth in the neighborhood. When the basketball hoops went up the amount of crime went down. Children who would not normally speak with the adults started to talk more, especially when the basketball court was secured. When the children congregate at the basketball court they can be seen. Before the court, basketball hoops would be rolled into the streets and driveways and with the driveways being slanted the balls would roll into the street. Mr. McCeachin stated what motivated him to get a basketball court was when he almost ran over a child when the child’s ball rolled in front of his truck. Homeowners complained about dings in their cars from the balls, balls under their cars, and basketball hoops in front or around their cars in the cul- de-sacs. The necessary evil was to put a basketball court in an open area where the children could be safe and away from the street. The children could not be seen at the old court which had been placed in the woods by the old Board. Mr. McCeachin stated he could open his windows and smell the drugs and watch the children drink in his driveway. When he spoke to these children they would conform. These are reasons that led to the basketball court being built. PCMinutes 20150604 Page 3  To move the court would entail taking down six or seven trees in any direction. Mr. McCeachin wants children to be safe when they go to the park. The area shown by staff is an ideal spot, but too expensive for the HOA. In response to a question from Commissioner Southall, Mr. McCeachin stated that he has also received some complaints. The basketball court is a magnet and now the children can be seen and everyone can see what happens. The homeowner’s have been instructed to report any illegal activities and the homeowners are held responsible by the HOA covenants. The Board members can only report illegal activities to the Police. No one volunteers to help when meetings are held for a community watch group. When the HOA held a town hall meeting some of those who had issued complaints would not volunteer. Commissioner Southall stated that every resident has a voice and needs to be heard. Those residents who signed the petition are directly affected and he would like to know what has been put in place to curb these issues if the use permit request is granted. Mr. McCeachin stated when the court was first installed there was a problem with trash and disrespect. He stated he knows most of the kids who use the court so he pulled them all together and told them if the court rules and regulations were abused he would secure the basketball court. When he noticed that trash was around and not picked up he pulled the net down during the middle of a game. When that happened the kids asked what needed to be done to reopen the court and they curbed that behavior. Mr. McCeachin stated he has tried to bring to the community meetings that things have to be kept in perspective and that the situation will never be perfect. He and the Board try to do their part to curb the children’s behavior. The fact that crime has gone down and packages are not being stolen means a lot to the Board. The Board cannot curb the entire neighborhood’s behavior, it takes the entire community. Those who complain need to be part of the solution. If the court has to be moved, Mr. McCeachin asks that the existing court pad remain, but not used, until it could be moved. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. McCeachin stated the homes closest to the court were the first homes that were approached. The older people did not want the court, but the younger people did. Those wanting the court outnumbered those who did not. Annual meetings and town hall meetings have been held to discuss this, but either no one shows up or the same people show up. The people from that particular area did not show up. The walk through for notification was done more than once. Residents were notified through mailed out newsletters; Board minutes; and through their website. When some of the homes were approached, the residents did not come to the door even though it seemed like they were home. Rachel Wright, Westview Lakes Homeowners Association manager, 78 Tall Pines Way, stated that newsletters are mailed out every quarter that monthly board meetings are held; everything is posted on the HOA website; town hall meetings were held prior PCMinutes 20150604 Page 4 to the board meeting in May; and within all of these was discussed the basketball court. A survey was done that asked homeowner’s what they would prefer if the basketball court had to come down, and with 310 homeowners only approximately 60 responded. Ms. Wright stated only she and the five board members of the HOA usually show up to the monthly meetings. According to the board’s documents the association can vote on issues and if the board members are the only ones present they can make decisions on behalf of the Association. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Wright stated that the area - but not the exact location - of the basketball court was relayed to all residents through the newsletter. The location of a new court area is not viable due to the location of the trees. Most of those who cause problems come from neighboring communities. The playground and the court rules are posted. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Wright stated she cannot do anything but report issues to the Police. Mr. McCeachin stated he has personally called the Police many times. Linda Singleton, 405 Westview Drive, stated a town meeting was held when decisions were made to have a basketball court. There was a specific mailer on top of the newsletter that stated a discussion would be held to decide on a basketball court. That meeting went well and about 40 to 50 homeowners showed up and a drawing was shown at that time. There were no complaints. A grand opening was not done when the court and playground originally opened. A grand opening will be held when they reopen. Ms. Singleton stated that Mr. McCeachin does a good job and relates well in talking with the children. Crime has gone down and the problems have not been as bad since the basketball court went up. The idea is to get the children out and active. There is no way to relocate the court without a lot of expense. If at all possible it would be good to get a waiver on the setback for the court. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Singleton stated the teenagers would use the playground and sit on the picnic tables; sit on the power box; and congregate in dark areas. The basketball court brought them to one area which makes it easier for them to be seen. In response to a question from Vice-Chair McCloud, Mr. McCeachin stated the community was aware that this issue would be before the Planning Commission, and, to his knowledge, only one person is in opposition at this meeting. Sherry Turner, 1 Poseidon Place, stated her property is located between two lakes and it is dark because the electric company has not dealt with the lighting in that vicinity; therefore, people hang out and there is drug activity. When lights are turned on everyone scatters. Ms. Turner stated she tells those hanging around that they need to disperse. Issues do not just happen in this part of the community. The basketball court PCMinutes 20150604 Page 5 has brought attention to the issue and that it needs to be addressed. She and other neighbors do make phone calls. It would be financially burdensome for the HOA to take care of relocating the basketball court. It is important to know that one can see what is going on at the court in this location when one drives by. It is visible and lighted. Ms. Turner stated things need to be done differently if an exception is made and the basketball court can remain in its current location or if the basketball court could be moved in the future. One thing that would be needed is that there is more communication with the children. It was discussed at the last town hall meeting to have quarterly discussions with the children; reinforce the rules and regulations; and let the children know there would be consequences if the rules are not followed. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Turner stated the court has been shut down since January of this year. Jason Sadler, 8 Wild Duck Court, stated he has a problem with the location of the basketball court. When he sits on his front porch with his grandchildren, they hear too much profanity coming from the court. Children are out there at night even when he takes a walk at 9:00 PM. They are out bouncing balls in the morning and there are five or more bouncing balls. It is too close to his home and needs to be moved. A court is needed but not so close to the homes. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Sadler stated the court should be removed from the playground and away from young children. The young children hear the bad language. Commissioner Schmidt commended Mr. McCeachin for trying to provide something positive for the children and Mr. McCeachin was correct in saying that negative behavior would happen if youth have nothing to do. The best site location would be the areas indicated on the map in blue, but if the court had to be moved to any of those locations there would be a considerable amount of trees. The court would be isolated if the trees are not taken down. Chairman LaRue stated she noticed the HOA has already invested $100,000 in this park/playground/basketball court. She questioned switching the playground with the court and would support the request with or without the 50-foot buffer. Since this will go on to City Council, Chairman LaRue encouraged the Association to see what could be done to resolve the issues. The 50-foot buffer may still be problematic. A Use Permit would allow the City to be more involved and would put more behind the Association’s rules and regulations. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Smith stated the 50- foot requirement is a suggestion that could be changed. PCMinutes 20150604 Page 6  Mr. O’Neill stated this recommendation is based on research and consultation with parks professionals and park standards in terms of trying to site these facilities in a way that balances the desire to have active play areas and the interest of nearby homeowners. Commissioner Campbell stated he thinks the basketball court is a great idea and he would be in support of a smaller buffer; it does help to isolate some of the negative behaviors of people. It serves as a good meeting point and focus for communities. In response to a question from Ms. Turner, Mr. Smith stated the Use Permit would permit the use of a playground. The condition only addresses active recreational uses, which does not include the playground equipment. If the Use Permit is approved by City Council the playground would be able to be used. The playground has also been closed since January. Commissioner Southall stated he is concerned that Mr. Sadler can hear profanity from the court across the street at his home. There are children on the playground not 50 feet from the court. It is his belief that places need to be provided where children and young people can go. His suggestion is that the green space in the middle of the complex be used. There is a design technique called Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) that speaks to instances like this where an activity is placed in the center of all the “eyes” and then most associated negative activity will diminish. It is called activity surveillance where residents are monitoring the activity and when activities are going on there are many eyes watching. Mr. McCeachin replied that the open area is behind the backs of the dwellings that are cottage homes with fenced-in back yards. That is why the playground area was put in front so it can be seen by everyone. Vice-Chair McCloud stated there is a noise level associated when playing on the street or on a court. In this situation it is a problem when there are 310 homes and only 40 to 50 people are concerned. The children know that and play to it. The problem comes back to the adults and not having enough adult support for the community. The residents know something needs to be done for the children, but no one is willing to enforce it and it is shown by those people not being at this meeting. The issue is not something that can be fixed in this meeting. Basketball has a tendency to attract those not from the community. Westview Lakes has a homeowner’s association and this issue requires them to all speak up. The children must be given something positive to do. Vice-Chair McCloud commends the association for trying to do something for their children. Commissioner Williams stated there are 310 homes in the neighborhood but only about 10 are affected so the others do not hear the noise; therefore, it is not their problem and they will not get involved. PCMinutes 20150604 Page 7  The noise from children playing basketball is loud and moving it 50 feet will not solve that problem. Commissioner Williams stated he likes the idea of having the court where it can be seen. He stated he would support having the basketball court remain where it is. The issue will be dealt with if it needs to be revisited at some time in the future. Vice-Chair McCloud stated the problem with people stealing did not just happen around the basketball court. The whole community is impacted and input from the adults in the area is needed. There should be more thought to see how to police the area and get the children in the area to respect things. Chairman LaRue stated how impressed she is that the HOA has taken care of the funding and building of this playground/park/basketball court area without City help. She suggested the Westview Lakes HOA contact other neighborhood associations and see how they deal with situations of this type. In response to a question from Commissioner Southall, Ms. Brown stated a recommendation can be made for approval with a revised Condition No. 3. The recommendation will then go forward to City Council with the staff recommendation and Council will then go with either the revised Commission recommendation, staff’s recommendation, or Council can choose to follow their own. Commissioner Southall stated he is torn on the issue. He stated coming into this matter he thought there was no way he could support the request. As a big supporter of providing for children he asks that the homeowner’s association continue to look for ways to help the children and look for ways to help out the residents in the area work out the issues. Commissioner Southall stated there are a lot of resources in the Community Development Department on the 5th Floor in City Hall and staff is willing to help. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by the Westview Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. for an active park/playground located at Westview Dr. [LRSN 5000487]; WHEREAS: Westview Lakes HOA has operated a playground without a use permit at this location since 2000, and a basketball court was installed in 2014; WHEREAS: the property is zoned Multiple Residence (R-M) District, which allows for the operation of an active park/playground subject to approval of a use permit; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) provides policies calling for community interaction, access to recreational facilities, and promoting compatibility among differing land uses; PCMinutes 20150604 Page 8  WHEREAS: staff recommended six (6) conditions be attached to the use permit addressing hours of operation, the location of active recreational uses, and lighting; WHEREAS: discussion at the meeting focused on both positive and negative impacts of the basketball court on the neighborhood; and WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission recommended amending Condition 3 to exempt the basketball court from the requirement that active recreational uses, such as basketball, be set back 50’ from residential properties; NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Southall and seconded by Commissioner Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 15-00005, subject to six (6) conditions. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: AYES: Southall, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, LaRue NAYS: Schmidt ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting B. Use Permit Application No. 15-00008: by Kuang Chu Peng DBA Sushi Hampton LLC for live entertainment inside and outside Sushi King restaurant at 5101 Kilgore Ave [LRSN 13002022]. The property is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District, and is also in the Special Public Interest Coliseum Central Overlay District, which permit live entertainment in association with a restaurant subject to securing a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this site. The Coliseum Central Master Plan (2004) recommends regional retail and auto-oriented uses for this area. City Planner Lucy Stoll presented Use Permit Application No, 15-00008 by Kuang Chu Peng DBA Sushi Hampton LLC. The applicant proposes providing live entertainment at an existing restaurant and bar located at 5101 Kilgore Avenue. Entertainment to be offered will focus on live bands, karaoke, and music from a disc jockey. The property is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District and also lies in the Special Public Interest - Coliseum Central Overlay District, both of which allow for live entertainment with a use permit. The restaurant is located specifically in the Peninsula Town Center. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) calls for nurturing small and startup businesses and expanding tourism and entertainment opportunities within the city. The Coliseum Central Master Plan further recommends a mix of development that is regionally-unique as well as locally-serving be pursued. Live entertainment at Sushi King, an independently run restaurant, is consistent with the policies and goals of the plan. PCMinutes 20150604 Page 9  Requested hours of live entertainment are from 11:00 AM until 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 PM until 2:00 AM Friday/Saturday. Staff recommends limiting outdoor live entertainment from 11:00 AM until 9:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 AM until 10:00 PM Friday/Saturday. These hours would be in accordance with other use permits issued for establishments of a similar nature. There are two areas designated for bands on the floor plan, one indoors, the other one is outdoors. Both are restricted to a 6’x12’ area and these are areas that will be cleared for but not specifically built for the live entertainment. A community meeting was held on June 2, 2015 and there were no members of the public in attendance. In response to questions from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Stoll stated the community meeting was held at the restaurant and the applicant already operates outdoor dining. There are areas for the designated seating and there will be areas for the live entertainment. Staff recommends approval of this application with twelve (12) attached conditions. Crystal Stump, 1807 S. Church Street, Smithfield, VA stated she was representing the applicant for any questions. In response to a question from Vice-Chair McCloud, Ms. Stoll stated there has been no known opposition to this request. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Stump stated the licensee would like to provide acoustic music as well as karaoke. There were no speakers. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Kuang Chu Peng DBA Sushi Hampton LLC to permit live entertainment inside and outside of Sushi King at 5101 Kilgore Avenue (LRSN 13002022); WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed-use in this area and calls for the expansion of entertainment and cultural opportunities within the city and nurturing small and start-up businesses; WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned C-2 (Limited Commercial District) and SPI- CC (Special Public Interest – Coliseum Central) District, which permits live entertainment 2 with an approved use permit; WHEREAS: twelve conditions are attached to address, among other things, the location of live entertainment, hours of operation, sound, capacity, dancing, and revocation; and PCMinutes 20150604 Page 10  WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke in favor or opposition of this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 15-00008, subject to twelve (12) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Southall, Williams, Campbell, Schmidt, McCloud, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting V. CLOSED SESSION pursuant to the exemption from open meetings allowed by Section 2.2-3711(A)(7) of the Code of Virginia to consult with legal counsel regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. Chairman Gaynette LaRue stated the Commission would convene the closed meeting in the Lawson Conference Room and will reconvene the open meeting and certify the closed meeting in Council Chambers. A motion was made by Commissioner Campbell, and seconded by Commissioner Southall, to go into a closed session pursuant to the exemption from open meetings allowed by Section 2.2-3711(A)(7) of the Code of Virginia, to consult with legal counsel regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Southall, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting The meeting reconvened at 5:53 pm. Chairman Gaynette Larue stated that Commissioner Schmidt had to leave to attend another meeting. Chairman LaRue stated that a motion would be entertained to certify that: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under Virginia law were discussed. PCMinutes 20150604 Page 11  2. Only public business matters as were identified in the motion, by which the closed meeting was convened, were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting by the Planning Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Southall, and seconded by Vice-Chair McCloud to reconvene and certify: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under Virginia law were discussed. 2. Only public business matters as were identified in the motion, by which the closed meeting was convened, were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting by the Planning Commission. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Southall, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Schmidt, Bunting PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CONTINUED C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 162-2015: Ordinance To Amend And Re- Enact Chapter 2 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Definitions” By Amending Section 2-2 Pertaining To Definitions. Approval of this amendment would create new definitions for “hospital,” “medical office,” and “mental health/substance abuse treatment facility.” This application is also being concurrently advertised for the June 10, 2015 City Council meeting. D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 163-2015: Ordinance To Amend And Reenact Chapter 3 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia By Amending Sections 3-2 Entitled, “Table Of Uses Permitted” Pertaining To Medical/Dental Clinics And Sanitariums. Approval of this amendment would rename the use of “medical/dental clinic” to “medical office.” This amendment would also rename the use of “sanitarium” to “mental health/substance abuse treatment facility” and remove the use from the R-R, R-M, C-1, C-2, RT-1, HRC-1, DT-1, and DT-2 districts but permit the use by-right in the C-3 district. This application is also being concurrently advertised for the June 10, 2015 City Council meeting. E. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 164-2015: Ordinance To Amend And Re- Enact Article 3 Of Chapter 9 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “O-CC District - Coliseum Central Overlay” By Amending Section 9-23 Pertaining To Modifications to Permitted Uses. Approval of this amendment would remove the use of mental health/substance abuse treatment facility from the O-CC District. This application is also being concurrently advertised for the June 10, 2015 City Council meeting. PCMinutes 20150604 Page 12  As the three Zoning Ordinance Amendment items are related they will be presented together, one public hearing will be held and each item will be voted on individually. Zoning Official Jeff Conkle presented Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 162- 2015; Zoning Ordinance Amendment 163-2015; and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 164-2015 in one presentation as they are inter-related health care uses in the Zoning Ordinance. The existing Zoning Ordinance contains several types of these medical related uses and three of the uses will be addressed today: hospital; sanitarium; and medical/dental clinic. None of these uses are defined so definitions need to be created. Some of those uses are in districts where they do not go along with the vision in the Community Plan or Master Plan, i.e. the Coliseum Central District which is being updated, and there is a focus on that district being a key economic driver in the City through things like retail and entertainment. The names of the uses to modernize the language are also being changed or altered. Medical/dental clinic will be changed to medical office and sanitarium will be changed to mental health/substance abuse treatment facility. Staff is recommending approval of all three amendments. An email letter was submitted from a property owner in the Coliseum Central District in opposition to the changes because of the potential impact on his property. There were no speakers from the public. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Conkle stated the three amendments are inter-related and the terms are being defined in ZOA 162-2015, but where the uses will be permited are being changed through ZOA 163-2015 and 164-2015. After discussion, the Commission approved the following amendments: ZOA 162-2015 WHEREAS: The Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 162- 2015, a proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “Definitions” by amending Section 2-2 pertaining to definitions of “hospital,” “medical office,” and “mental health/substance abuse treatment facility;” WHEREAS: staff discovered the need to define certain healthcare uses which were previously undefined in the zoning ordinance; PCMinutes 20150604 Page 13  WHEREAS: this amendment would create new definitions for “hospital,” “medical office,” and “mental health/substance abuse treatment facility;” WHEREAS: there were no speakers from the public. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Campbell and seconded by Commissioner McCloud, 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: Southall, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Schmidt, Bunting ZOA 163-2015 WHEREAS: The Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 163- 2015, a proposed ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 3 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia by amending Section 3-2 entitled, “Table of Uses Permitted” pertaining to medical/dental clinics and sanitariums; WHEREAS: staff discovered that allowances for certain healthcare uses were out of alignment with the community plan and applicable master plans; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would rename the use of “medical/dental clinic” to “medical office;” WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would rename the use of “sanitarium” to “mental health/substance abuse treatment facility;” WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would remove the use of mental health/substance abuse treatment facility from the R-R, R-M, C-1, C-2, RT-1, HRC-1, DT-1, and DT-2 districts but permit the use by-right in the C-3 district; WHEREAS: there were no speakers from the public. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Williams, PCMinutes 20150604 Page 14  BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Southall, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Schmidt, Bunting ZOA 164-2015 WHEREAS: The Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day ZOA 164- 2015, a proposed ordinance to amend and re-enact Article 3 of Chapter 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia entitled “O-CC District - Coliseum Central Overlay” by amending Section 9-23 pertaining to modifications to permitted uses; WHEREAS: staff discovered that allowances for certain healthcare uses were out of alignment with the community plan and applicable master plans; WHEREAS: the Coliseum Central Master Plan places a focus on the district being a key economic driver for the City through mixed uses and infill development related to tourism, hospitality, retail, office, and entertainment uses; WHEREAS: approval of this amendment would remove the use of mental health/substance abuse treatment facility from the O-CC overlay district; 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 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Southall, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Schmidt, Bunting PCMinutes 20150604 Page 15 F. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 165-2015: Ordinance To Amend And Re- Enact Articles I and II of Chapter 13 of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Board of Zoning Appeals” By Amending Sections 13-1 through 13-17 Pertaining To the composition, powers, and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals and variances, special exceptions, and appeals of the Zoning Administrator. Approval of this amendment would bring the zoning ordinance into conformance with changes to the Virginia Code adopted by the General Assembly in 2015 related to the standards and procedure for granting variances and appeals of decisions of the zoning administrator. The amendment would also make general housekeeping and organizational changes to the chapter. Sr. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown presented Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 165-2015. Ms. Brown stated this is a housekeeping amendment necessary to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with changes to State law that become effective July 1, 2015. There are a number of substantive and procedural changes. On the procedural changes the relationship between the Board of Zoning Appeals and staff has tightened. Care must be taken to share all information with the applicants as well as the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and give the applicants equal time to present in front of the BZA as time given to staff. There are limits on “ex parte” (one party) discussions where BZA members cannot discuss the facts or law of a case with City staff or the applicant outside of the BZA meeting once the case is filed. On the substantive side the General Assembly changed the standard of review for variances and lowered that standard to make it easier for the BZA to grant variances. The other changes in the chapter are to make if flow better and be consistent with the new recodified Zoning Ordinance and modern kinds of organizations. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Brown stated this ordinance amendment brings things into compliance with State Law and general organizational changes. There were no speakers. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Zoning Ordinance Amendment 165-2015, a proposed ordinance to amend and reenact Articles I and II of Chapter 13 of the zoning ordinance entitled “Board of Zoning Appeals” by amending sections 13-1 through 13-17 pertaining to the composition, powers, and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals and variances, special exceptions, and appeals of the Zoning Administrator; PCMinutes 20150604 Page 16  WHEREAS: In its 2015 session, by adoption of House Bill 1849, the Virginia General Assembly amended several sections of the Code of Virginia regarding the powers and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA); WHEREAS: Procedural changes included new limits on “ex parte” (one party) discussions, a requirement to share the materials of a case with applicant, and a requirement that applicants must receive the same amount of time as City staff to present their argument to the BZA; WHEREAS: Substantive changes included a clarification of the standard of review for appeals of determinations of the Zoning Administrator and a lowered standard for the BZA to grant a variance; WHEREAS: this amendment would bring the zoning ordinance into compliance with the requirements of House Bill 1849, which takes effect July 1, 2015, and would also make general housekeeping changes to reorganize the chapter; and WHEREAS: there were no speakers at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 165-2015. AYES: Southall, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, LaRue NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Schmidt, Bunting VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. Project updates Senior Planner Mike Hayes presented an update on the new commercial district for Phoebus. Mr. Hayes stated he is excited about the changes that are being worked on. The Master Plan was adopted and has been revisited with the closing of Ft. Monroe. At the top of the list is to work on updating the zoning for Phoebus which came from the action items on the Master Plan revision. The zoning in Phoebus needs to be changed so that it aligns with the recommendations of the Master Plan and works more effectively as a tool to implement the plan. PCMinutes 20150604 Page 17  The C-2 District in Phoebus has the same standards as found on West Mercury Boulevard, but has a very different type of development and expectations of what the community expects to see. Phoebus also has some old manufacturing districts that still exist. Phoebus is an older area and at one point had some manufacturing development, but they no longer exist. The focus is now on closing the C-2 gap by looking at development standards for building orientation and appropriate infill of vacant lots where buildings used to exist. Instead of having a district that would allow buildings with parking in front and the buildings set way back, the plan is to bring buildings up to the street and have a walkable, vibrant community. The ordinance is not looking to ban drive-thrus all together, but if any new businesses come in and want to incorporate a drive-thru, it will be done appropriately so as not to cut up the pedestrian feel in the vibrant activity center. At the same time plans are to make it easier to have mixed-uses, especially in the sense of having residences above commercial enterprises. Opportunities are also being looked at where there are smaller buildings. It is a little more difficult to do mixed-use with a smaller building on a smaller lot where one can only get one or two residences above the commercial. This would make it easier in the Phoebus area which is an area where it would be appropriate unlike some other commercial areas. There are still some uses that would be more appropriate for West Mercury Boulevard as that commercial district is a completely different character from Phoebus even though it is the same zoning district. Staff is looking to develop this zoning as something that fits the character and type of uses in Phoebus and encourages that type of investment in the community. Different regulations such as required build-to lines that would have one build to the front of the property which is different from the setback lines that are normally used. Some exceptions will be built-in but it will involve certain pedestrian amenities. Sign regulations may be different and one obvious thing would be the large monument signs that would be on a 45-mile-an-hour street. There will be more utilization of signs on buildings than the use of monument signs. Parking standards would be more like that found in downtown Hampton as Phoebus has more in common with downtown Hampton in terms of being a walkable area where one may park in a city lot and walk to numerous commercial destinations versus the big parking lot out front were one goes into one business and then gets back in their car to drive further down the street to another big store/lot. In addition to Zoning Ordinance changes are changes that would affect Phoebus and downtown Hampton and make it easier for businesses to put seating out in front of their building and make it permissible to put out tables and chairs. This PCMinutes 20150604 Page 18 would add to the vibrancy within the neighborhood. This is being done in collaboration with the Public Works Department. Mr. Hayes stated he would be meeting with the executive director of the Partnership for a New Phoebus and to be discussed is the setup of stakeholder meetings and community meetings. A draft should soon be ready for public release. Meetings have been held with property and business owners about the upcoming changes. The expectations are that a good ordinance has been built and that only tweaks, if any, will be minor. This update will be back before the Commission in August for a vote and move forward to City Council in September for adoption. Covering that large an area, this is a district that encourages and allows the type of development expected in Phoebus. Mr. O’Neill stated this presentation gave the Commission advanced notice of what is being done and a sense of what is coming before them. There is no action being asked of the Commission at this meeting. This is advance notice to the Commission should any questions arise while they are out in the community so the Commissioners are aware of what is happening. Chairman LaRue stated it is her belief that what is being done is fantastic and has gone by relatively quickly. It is a good idea that Phoebus and downtown Hampton have been looked at as an extension of each other. B. Youth Planner presentation Community Development Director Terry O’Neill stated this would be Michael York’s final presentation before the Commission as he will be graduating. Mr. O’Neill stated everyone is very proud of Michael and his growth over the past two years. Junior Youth Planner Michael York presented the June 2015 Youth Planner report. During May the Hampton Youth (HYC) and Youth staff worked on outreach to the community for recruitment for the Youth Planner program position and HYC Commissioners for the 2015-2016 year. The Hampton Youth Commission (HYC) began May with a work session dedicated to planning out the last stretch of the 2014-2015 work years. The meeting was initiated with mock interviews, where commissioners split into groups and one member would interview the others from the point of view of a major company (i.e. Hewlett-Packard, Target). This was, in part, training on how to properly participate in an interview, but it was also to prepare them to interview candidates for the 2015-2016 HYC. The remainder of the meeting was spent drafting questions to effectively vet potential youth commissioners. On several dates throughout May, and as part of the recruitment process, City staff and youth commissioners went to local high schools to inform teachers of the opportunities the HYC can offer their students. PCMinutes 20150604 Page 19  On May 11th, the HYC received training on resumes and cover sheets as a part of their training series. During the meeting, an acronym (S.U.C.C.E.S) which stands for Simple, Unexpected, Credible, Emotional, and Story was given to serve as guidelines for developing resumes. Following the training, the commission continued to plan the interviews for the next youth commission. Mr. York stated this is his last Planning Commission presentation. The last two years have been excellent and he learned a lot while enjoying his time as a Youth Planner and is appreciative of everything. The Commissioners expressed their best wishes to Mr. York on the next chapter in his life and that it has been a pleasure to work with him; the enjoyment of his presentations; and for being a true professional. Mr. York stated he would be studying politics, philosophy, economics, and law at the University of Richmond. In response to questions from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. York stated the interview questions for the mock interviews were based on the company the Youth Commissioner decided to choose. The acronym S.U.C.C.E.S. came from a trainer with Alternatives, Inc. who helped with the HYC training. The teachers seemed to be moderately interested in the HYC recruitment process. Some helped with the collection and handout of applications and interest sheets. Flyers and handouts were also available. In response to a question from Vice-Chair McCloud, Mr. York stated he did feel he had made an impact on the outreach to other youth during his tenure. He was able to recruit some of his friends from school by sharing some of his experiences and some of them have taken on leadership roles. VII. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS A. Planning Commission by-laws amendment Sr. Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated the amendment is related to weather cancellations. When it snowed last winter the question came up about what is to be done with cases that have already been advertised if the meeting is cancelled due to weather-related conditions, and would these items roll over to the next meeting or would they have to be re-advertised. There is a process in the Virginia Code that allows meetings to be cancelled in the event of inclement weather and roll the items forward without further advertisement. This amendment will clarify the language and make it consistent with the code. As the Commission’s by-laws require the amendment change be read, Ms. Brown read them as follows: ARTICLE IV MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION PCMinutes 20150604 Page 20 a. REGULAR MEETINGS. Regular The meetings of the Commission shall will be open to the public except as allowed by the Virginia Code, as amended. They shall be held in the City Hall of the city of Hampton, or such other place as designated by the Secretary, at 3:30 p.m. on the first Thursday in each month. The regular meetings of the Commission shall be held as designated above unless such date falls upon a legal holiday, in which case, the meeting shall be held on the next succeeding Thursday, which is not a legal holiday, and at the same hour, except as otherwise provided by special resolution by of the Commission. The second paragraph will be struck out in favor of the new language under subsection b called “Cancellation or Re-Scheduling of Meetings”. b. CANCELLATION OR RE-SCHEDULING OF MEETINGS. 1. The Commission, by resolution adopted at any regular meeting, may fix the day or days to which any meeting shall be continued in the event that weather or other conditions make attendance at the meeting hazardous, as set forth in Section 15.2-2214 of the Virginal Code. The Commission shall cause a copy of such resolution to be inserted in a newspaper having general circulation in the locality at least seven days prior to the first meeting held pursuant to the adopted schedule. 2. If such a resolution is adopted by the Commission upon a finding by the Chair, or the Vice-Chair if the Chair is unable to act, that weather or other conditions are such that it would be hazardous for members to attend a meeting, the chair, or Vice-Chair if applicable, may cancel a meeting. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Commission and the press as promptly as possible. In the event of such cancelation, all hearings and other matters previously advertised for the canceled meeting shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement is required. The only other changes are to add changes to the letters of the subsections as a new section was added, and on subsection d, “MEETINGS” was added so it reads “d. SPECIAL MEETINGS”. The Commission will be asked to act on this amendment at the July 9 meeting. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Brown stated if something happens during a meeting this by-law would also apply. VIII. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. IX. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION PCMinutes 20150604 Page 21  Commissioner Southall reminded everyone that the Planning Commission will not be meeting the first Thursday in July, but the second Thursday in July, July 91h, because of the holiday. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6: 29 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Terry ' Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: X Gam, Go yTette LaRue Cfa'airman PCMinu[ es 20150604 Page 22