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, OCTOBER 1, 2015, AT 3:00 P.M. Commissioners Gaynette LaRue, Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Teresa Schmidt, Vice-Chair Andre McCloud, and Chairman Tommy Southall were present. Commissioner Mary Bunting was absent. The Commissioners discussed Use Permit Application No. 14-00020 by PI Telecom Infrastructure, LLC regarding the construction of a communications tower. Two questions asked were if any unfavorable responses have been received and why is the property in question located on a lot with two zoning designations. Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill explained that the property being located on two lots was due to how long ago some of these lots were recorded. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated that the Use Permit for this request would be tied to the commercial portion of the property. Mr. O’Neill explained that the applicant plans to spend more time working with the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District (CCBID) to find another location for the tower. City Planner Alison Alexander stated the applicant would be requesting a deferral of their application to a later date to afford them an opportunity to find a better location. A larger tower, such as this one, is needed in order to boost area coverage. Other companies would be able to also co-locate on this tower. AT & T had checked into this lot years ago, but did not pursue their request. This request is the result of a capacity issue because of the amount of coverage needed in this area. In response to Chairman Southall’s question about the tower property elevation, Chief Planner Donald Whipple explained it could possibly be non-tidal wetlands, but the lot elevation is not low. Ms. Alexander stated the property is situated on a lot with a 10-foot elevation. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander stated the applicant has held two community meetings with the Coliseum BID and aesthetics is the main opposition to the request. Chairman Southall stated that it is his understanding the CCBID has stated they could see future development in that area. There was discussion on how much background information the cell tower request generated. Mr. O’Neill explained that most of the information covers questions that have come up over time. There is one requirement that cell tower transmission not interrupt local police and fire communications. Tower applications still have to go through a complete process for approval and it is up to staff to make a recommendation for either approval or denial. Worksession Minutes 20151001 Page 1  Mr. O’Neill explained the main elements of soils, hydrology, and vegetation, that result in an area being designated as wetlands. Commissioner McCloud stated the amount of information provided with this cell tower request was something the Commissioners had requested in the past. This information is now provided in the staff report for the Commissioners in their Planning Commission packages. Commissioner Campbell stated the Commissioners are fortunate that staff provides them the technical information behind the requests. Chairman LaRue stated she and Chairman Southall attended a Planning training session recently given in Newport News. She would like to take time at a later date and discuss some of the things that are done differently by the Newport News Planning Commission. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown explained the role of the Board of Zoning Appeals in response to a question from Chairman Southall. Mr. O’Neill stated there is a separation between the legislative and the quasi- judicial. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Whipple stated the October Planning Commission meeting would include the final presentation of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 023-2015, the Coliseum Central Master Plan (2004, as amended). Mr. O’Neill informed the Commissioners that information regarding the Arts and Cultural District was in their Planning Commission package. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Worksession Minutes 20151001 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, OCTOBER 1, 2015 AT 3:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Tommy Southall called the Planning Commission meeting to order. II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioners Gaynette LaRue, Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Teresa Schmidt, Vice-Chair Andre McCloud, and Chairman Tommy Southall as present. Commissioner Mary Bunting was absent. III. MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Carlton Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Teresa Schmidt, to approve the minutes of the September 3, 2015 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Williams, Campbell, Schmidt, McCloud NAYS: None ABST: Southall ABSENT: Bunting PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Mr. Terry O’Neill, Secretary to the Commission and Director of the Community Development Department, 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. 14-00020: by PI Telecom Infrastructure, LLC to construct a communications tower at 231 Pine Chapel Road [LRSN 7001239]. The property is split-zoned Limited Commercial [C-2] District and One-Family Residence [R-9] District. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this area. This property is also in the Coliseum Central overlay [O-CC] district. City Planner Alison Alexander stated the applicant has asked to defer this application request for up to 60 days in order to select a location that is more amenable to the community. As the case has already been advertised and is open to a public hearing, it is required that a vote be taken to grant the applicant a deferral at this time. Planning Commission20151001 Page 1  Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown stated the comments for the hearing should be limited to whether or not this application should be deferred. The application in its entirety should not be heard since the applicant is requesting a deferral; any speaker may speak on the issue of the deferral. A date for the deferral will be set and readvertized should the Commission choose to vote to defer. The public hearing will be heard on the date of the deferral. Raymond Tripp, Executive Director of Coliseum Central Business Improvement District (CCBID), 4410 East Claiborne Square, Suite 212, stated the reason for the deferral request is because Verizon and the CCBID are working together to find an alternate solution to their problem with the services they are trying to provide for their customers. After discussion the Commission approved the following resolution for deferral: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a request for a sixty day deferral by PI Telecom Infrastructure, LLC for a 120’ flush mount monopole communications tower at 231 Pine Chapel Road [LRSN 7001239]; WHEREAS: the applicant requests this deferral to further work with the community to find an amenable location for the communications tower; and WHEREAS: one member of the public spoke in favor of granting this deferral. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission defers the hearing of Use Permit 14-00020 to the December 3, 2015 agenda. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 176-2015: Ordinance To Amend And Reenact Chapter 10 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Signs” By Amending Article 1, Section 10-5 As Part Of The Adoption Of A New Ordinance For Outdoor Seating. Approval of this amendment would allow menu display signage in conjunction with outdoor seating. This item is proposed in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance Amendments 167-15, 171-15, 172-15, 173- 15, and 175-15 as well as a proposed city code amendment related to administrative encroachments for outdoor seating, all in support of the recommendations of the Phoebus Master Plan (2007, as amended). This Planning Commission20151001 Page 2  application is also being concurrently advertised for the October 14, 2015 City Council meeting. City Planner Alison Alexander presented Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 176- 2015. This amendment goes along with the recent work on the Phoebus amendments and outdoor seating. The Commission has recently voted on Phoebus zoning changes. The outdoor seating changes will go to City Council on October 14, 2015, but they are City Code changes that do not need to come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Alexander stated ZOA 176-2015 works with the outdoor seating and needs to come before the Commission. Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance governs signs. Specifically, this amendment will exempt menu display signs; these are being permitted in conjunction with outdoor seating. Signs shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area and four (4) feet in height. The signs are not to be lighted. This amendment accompanies a city code amendment being brought forward in October to allow for an administrative encroachment process for outdoor seating. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 176-2015. In response to a question from Commissioner LaRue, Ms. Alexander stated that sandwich-board signs are already permitted under the sign ordinance and are allowed to go out each day on the sidewalk. At this time, the ordinance does not allow this type of sign. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander stated this ordinance is to go along with outdoor seating. Outdoor seating is being motivated by the proposal to allow these signs in Downtown 1 and 2 Districts (in Downtown Hampton business districts) and in Phoebus where older, commercial, historic areas are located where buildings are closer to the street and there is not a lot of room to do outdoor dining on the property so businesses would like to use the sidewalks. These signs do not take up a lot of room and this would make the encroachment process easier. In response to a question from Vice-Chair McCloud, Ms. Alexander stated there is no lighting allowed because of trying to keep the signs simple. The restaurants should have lighting for their outdoor seating. Mr. O’Neill stated these proposed signs are movable and there is no need for permanent wiring. The business owner needs to deal with where the signs are placed to allow for adequate lighting. There were no speakers. After discussion the Commission approved the following Zoning Ordinance Amendment. WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day an Ordinance To Amend And Re-Enact Article 1 Of Chapter 10 Of The Planning Commission20151001 Page 3  Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Signs” By Amending Section 10-5 Pertaining To Signs Exempt From Regulation In This Ordinance; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) identifies the commercial cores of Phoebus and Downtown as mixed-use districts; WHEREAS: the Phoebus Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan recommend development that enhances the traditional pedestrian-oriented atmosphere; WHEREAS: the ordinance regulates sign height, illumination, and allowable area; WHEREAS: this amendment is part of a package of amendments to create an administrative encroachment process for outdoor seating; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Gaynette Larue and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 176-2015. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 023-2015, Coliseum Central Master Plan (2004): by the City of Hampton to consider amendments to the adopted Coliseum Central Master Plan (2004). The geographical plan boundary is bound by the Billy Wood Canal and Tide Mill Creek to the north; Newmarket Creek and Interstate 64 to the south; LaSalle Avenue, Newmarket Creek, and the western portions of the Riverdale neighborhood to the east; and Queen Street, the eastern portions of Aberdeen neighborhood, and the eastern portion of the Northampton neighborhood to the west; and includes the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District (CCBID) boundaries. Updated residential and commercial market analyses and hotel and Coliseum re-use studies were utilized to shape the recommended Plan amendments which include: redevelopment policies, proposals for site development, streets, and open space, and implementation strategies. Planning Commission20151001 Page 4  Chief City Planner Donald Whipple presented the update of the Coliseum Central Master Plan (2004, as amended); with this 2015 update the process is coming to a close after a year’s worth of work. The Commission received a briefing on this update at the September 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Whipple stated the report contents cover the Executive Summary, the Planning Process, the Analysis, the Redevelopment Policies, and the Frameworks for Growth, the Initiative Areas, and the Plan Implementation. The current focus is on the Initiative areas and the comparison between today and the 2004 Master Plan. The analysis covers the real estate market, development patterns, the street network, the open space and pedestrian connectivity, and transportation. Virginia localities are mandated by state law to create comprehensive plans within their communities. Comprehensive plans typically have a twenty plus year time- frame for the implementation of recommendations in the plan and are more general in nature. Master plans differ from comprehensive plans in that they have a shorter time horizon for implementation, typically five to ten years, provide more specific recommendations that lead to actionable projects such as residential and commercial development, and can spur economic reinvestment. It has been at least eight years since the adoption of each of the City of Hampton’s Master Plans, which are formally adopted addendums to the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended). During that time the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District (CCBID) has experienced new development and seen changes in economic trends and demographics, so it is not only necessary but imperative to revisit this Plan. In 2013, the City updated the Phoebus Master Plan (2013 as amended) in response to the significant changes at Fort Monroe, and the potential impact upon Phoebus. In an effort to continue updating the Master Plans, the City of Hampton and UDA alongside the District stakeholders (property owners/residents, business owners, City leaders, CCBID, and the greater community) embarked upon updating the Coliseum Central Master Plan (2004). The geographical area of the Plan is bound by the Billy Wood Canal and Tide Mill Creek to the north; Newmarket Creek and Interstate 64 to the south; LaSalle Avenue, Newmarket Creek, and the western portions of the Riverdale neighborhood to the east; and Queen Street, the eastern portions of Aberdeen neighborhood, and the eastern portion of the Northampton neighborhood to the west; and includes the CCBID boundaries. In January of 2015, the City of Hampton began the public input process with a design charrette, a meeting with the stakeholders to explore future land use recommendations. Various stakeholder meetings took place between that time and April 2015, with a checkpoint meeting in May 2015 with the CCBID to ensure they were consistently kept abreast of the planning process. Community feedback was solicited regarding updated concept plans for the District in a public meeting on June 2015. Throughout the process, there were on-going opportunities for online public feedback Planning Commission20151001 Page 5 through a special page on the City’s webpage. During this public input process, the community emphasized the importance of improved pedestrian and vehicular connectivity; a wider variety of housing and entertainment options; and, improved access to open space and recreational amenities. In addition to incorporating the community’s feedback into the revised Coliseum Central Master Plan, market studies were updated to reflect the shifts seen in the national residential and commercial markets. Additionally, hotel and Coliseum re-use studies were utilized to shape the recommended Plan amendments which include: redevelopment policies, plans for site development, streets, and open space, and implementation strategies. The updated plan also includes development that has occurred since the original adoption in 2004. Overall, the proposed amendments reflect refinements that better meet the new market conditions and provide greater detail for redevelopment opportunities. The next steps in the planning process include: City Council briefing on October 28th, and City Council public hearing and action on November 12th. Furthermore, in conjunction with this Plan update, staff has also been working on zoning ordinance amendments that will assist in implementing many of the policies and strategies from the Plan. Staff anticipates bringing these amendments before the Planning Commission and City Council late Fall 2015. Staff recommends approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 023-2015. In response to questions from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Whipple stated no new hotel rooms have been added. The site that housed the Holiday Inn has not had any building done on the site and the Quality Inn has been renovated into a Holiday Inn Express with the only addition being an indoor swimming pool. No additional rooms have been added. Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill stated City Council and the CCBID Board have clearly directed staff that the hotel situation is a strategic and important issue for the District. They are trying to move this forward to make those properties an asset to the tourism and convention focus of the District. In response to Commissioner Williams’s question about the aquatics center, Mr. Whipple stated the idea is still there. Steps are being taken to make it a reality. If that plan does not happen there are still plans for some other amateur sports facility. Mr. O’Neill stated the study on the aquatics facility has been completed and City Council has directed staff to explore partners that might be interested in the facility as it is expensive to run. The amateur sports venue will continue to be pursued for this location due to its close proximity to the Coliseum and the Convention Center. In response to a question from Commissioner Schmidt regarding the extension of Saville Row into the Riverdale Shopping Center, Mr. Whipple stated it is something that there is interest in pursuing. One of the fundamental frameworks in this area is to see how to break it down into smaller blocks and make the area more connected. Planning Commission20151001 Page 6  Commissioner Schmidt stated she believes that concept would add to the success of Riverdale Shopping Center. Mr. O’Neill stated there are still plans to try and connect major pieces like Riverdale to other major pieces like the Convention Center. It is not too much beyond forward thinking to envision a hotel on the Riverdale property where people could walk to the Convention Center and make an area where pedestrians would be comfortable to walk. Chairman Southall stated he sees that the current proposal is less aggressive, more inviting, and not as overwhelming. It should invite more investors. Mr. Whipple stated the guiding principles are still there, but some of the buildout representations show what Chairman Southall stated. Mr. O’Neill stated the review of the Master Plans allows for going into greater detail in these geographic areas and for adjustment more quickly than on the greater plans. The Coliseum Central Master Plan was first adopted in 2004 when everything was booming and aggressive. It did not seem like so far a stretch as monies were more available. Market studies are the key ingredient in these plans and the studies have shown that plans cannot be as aggressive as they were in the original plan. These plans are supposed to be economic flypaper and they are supposed to be attracting people’s ideas and investments. They are not attractive If not practical and reflective of what people want to invest in. The reason the plans are redone so frequently is to keep them refreshed and allow for them to be adjusted quickly. Raymond Trip, Executive Director of the Coliseum Central Business District, stated the CCBID appreciates the hard work and effort staff has put in on this Master Plan and its revisions. They have listened to community input and even adopted some of this input in the plans. This type of relationship builds good projects. This plan represents what can be done in the District. Coliseum Central BID endorses this plan. After discussion the Commission approved the following Comprehensive Plan Amendment 023-2015. WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Community Plan Amendment No. 023-2015 by the City of Hampton, to amend the Coliseum Central Master Plan (2004, as amended); WHEREAS: the proposed amendments are based upon a regular review of the City’s Strategic Master Plans; WHEREAS: the Plan assigns general land use recommendations and is used as a policy guide for both public and private actions that encourage development in accordance with the overall community vision; Planning Commission20151001 Page 7  WHEREAS: an updated commercial real estate market study and hotel feasibility study were commissioned for the Coliseum Central study area along with a reuse study of the Hampton Coliseum; WHEREAS: the market studies generally show a continued market for commercial development, specifically restaurants and entertainment, and urban-type residential developments in proximity to dining and entertainment uses; WHEREAS: the hotel study reflects the needs and demand for convention quality hotel rooms to support the needs of the Convention Center, Coliseum, and sports tourism venues; WHEREAS: the recommended amendments to the Master Plan recognize the implementation projects since adoption in 2004 and reflect the updated market studies and the current market demands within the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District (CCBID); WHEREAS: the recommended amendments focus on a more flexible development pattern and form that supports changing market conditions, walkable mixed-use districts, and Coliseum Drive as the District’s “Main Street;” WHEREAS: the recommended amendments reflect increasing the City’s quality hotel room inventory as a priority and exploring Coliseum Central as a sports tourism destination; WHEREAS: community input, including the CCBID stakeholder group, was gathered through several public input design sessions, presentations, and online information and surveys; WHEREAS: the community and CCBID continue to support the overall vision contained in the 2015 Plan Update and anticipates continued action steps toward plan implementation; and WHEREAS: the CCBID Executive Director, representing the CCBID, spoke in support of and endorses the proposed Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Gregory Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend to the Honorable City Council approval of Community Plan Amendment No. 023-2015. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: LaRue, Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Southall Planning Commission20151001 Page 8  NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Bunting V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. Coliseum Central Urban Core District (CC-1) – Donald Whipple, Chief Planner Chief Planner Donald Whipple presented a brief overview on the creation of a new zoning district for Coliseum Central. Staff has been working on changes in the Coliseum Central area to mirror some of the recommendations that are coming out of the Master Plan. Focus has been on the Coliseum Drive area. The District has wanted an update of and a better design standard manual provided for the District that would result in quality and enhanced materials, and overall help improve the aesthetics of the District. In Virginia one of the only ways to do that is through the Zoning Ordinance. This is an incentive-based zoning, similar to what is done when a rezoning with proffers attached to it is heard. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell regarding the gateway signs for the Coliseum area, Mr. Whipple stated this is more than the entrance signs. One aspect is to put all of the public improvements that happen within the district on paper so it explains things like the type of lighting fixtures and type of entrance signs that are used. This will be a guiding document to describe a set of standards for others to use to keep things consistent throughout the district. The part that involves zoning is much bigger in that it covers a larger part of the District and impacts both public and private development. B. Fort Monroe National Monument – Kirsten Talken-Spaulding, Superintendent Kirsten Talken-Spaulding, Superintendent at the Fort Monroe National Monument, explained this monument was created by presidential proclamation in November 1, 2011 which makes it a little more special. Ms. Talken-Spaulding presented a brief on the updates at Fort Monroe since that time. The briefing covered the foundation documents on Fort Monroe. All of this information is available on the Park website. Planning in US National Parks is done in the same way as the City Planning is done. The reason for this is to keep a level of standards and conditions wanted in the National Parks. It behooves us as a nation to make sure it is done in a way that is understood by those they serve. Planning also gives a framework for feedback. Planning Commission20151001 Page 9  The planning process has multiple benefits: Provides a logical, trackable process toward decisions  A framework for involving others  Gathering and sharing knowledge  An informed and engaged public  Provides an opportunity to address emerging issues, changing park conditions, or other new things headed their way  Identifies priorities for addressing the multitude of tasks facing a park This was a combined process where the Park Service worked with the Fort Monroe Authority (FMA), the City of Hampton, and the pubic that came out. When a new park comes in, as Fort Monroe did, it creates a new set of challenges and opportunities. Not necessarily burdened with the past, but also not illuminated by past information. It gives an idea to look at the new things that have come onboard, and what is known or not known. The National Park Service mission is “. . .to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” The Park Service is the only Federal agency where “fun” is part of their mission. They look toward the next generation and all people to be able to come and enjoy their national parks units. They plan for the long road. The planning process has multiple benefits:  Provides a logical, trackable process toward decisions  A framework for involving others  Gathering and sharing knowledge  An informed and engaged public  Provides an opportunity to address emerging issues, changing park conditions, or other new things headed our way  Identifies priorities for addressing the multitude of tasks facing a park The Foundation Document:  Describes the core mission of the park unit  The underlying guidance for management and planning decisions in a national park unit  A single, shared understanding of the purpose and significance of the park, and fundamental resources and values Planning Commission20151001 Page 10  The Foundation Document:  is not a NEPA decision that involves a range of alternatives  does not describe how to manage, but rather what to manage  does not establish desired conditions for resources; rather it sets forth NPS policy-level resource conditions to be achieved The Foundation Document is two-part: Part One  Park Description  Park Purpose  Park Significance  Fundamental Resources and Value  Other important Resources and Values Interpretive Themes Part Two  Key issues  Future planning needs  Data needs Questions asked of the public were: 1. What is most important about Fort Monroe? 2. What are the greatest threats to Fort Monroe? 3. How have you used Fort Monroe in the past? What uses would you like to see at Fort Monroe? 4. What should the American people know about fort Monroe? What are its most important stories? The Park Service is known as the largest, non-traditional, educational arm of the Federal Government. The Park Service had a scholastic round table from many institutions such as ODU, William and Mary, Hampton University, and some scholars from the New York area and Richmond that gave excellent feedback in developing the foundation document. There are over 400 units within the National Park System and each has their own Foundation Document. Fort Monroe’s is different because it includes its establishment. The historic overview section summarizes its rich history. Planning Commission20151001 Page 11  The purpose of Fort Monroe National Monument states: “The purpose of Fort Monroe National Monument is to preserve, protect, and provide for the appropriate use of the historical, natural, and recreational resources of Old Point Comfort, strategically located at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and to interpret its storied history in the European colonization of our nation, exploration of the bay, slavery in America and the struggle for freedom, and the defense of our nation.” There are eight significant factors of Fort Monroe with the first being its strategic location. Fort Monroe talks to us as a nation about what freedom is, how slavery came to the English speaking colonies, and how it began its demise at the same place at Fort Monroe. Before the highway systems the rivers and oceans were our roadways, and coastal defenses developed over time. Fort Monroe played a part in who we are through names like Abraham Lincoln who stayed at Fort Monroe. Fort Monroe is also in close proximity to a large urban population. Fort Monroe has sandy public beaches, dunal areas, historic trails, and diverse open spaces which offer rare opportunities for water and land-based recreations, including water access points. The fundamental resources and values of Fort Monroe Monument are: 1. Fort Monroe landscapes, buildings, structures, and features managed by the National Park Service 2. Fort Monroe archeological sites 3. Old Point Comfort shoreline 4. Views associated with Fort Monroe 5. The Contraband Decision, the path to the 13th Amendment, and human rights at Fort Monroe 6. Fort Monroe and the celebration of self-emancipation, freedom, and liberty 7. Old Point Comfort as a strategic location for defense There are other important resources and values of Fort Monroe National Monument that the Park Service does not manage. Fort Monroe was designated as a National Historical Landmark in the 1960’s, but the Park Service does not manage the Casemate Museum. The lighthouse at Fort Monroe is still an active navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard, and is part of Homeland Security. The flag at Fort Monroe is the first flag on US soil that members abroad see coming into port. There are four broad interpretive themes of Fort Monroe National Monument. Planning Commission20151001 Page 12  Part two covers the layout and designs of Fort Monroe. The tables point out what is seen as data needs, what needs research, threats to Fort Monroe, and how to put money and time into Fort Monroe. In response to a question from Commissioner LaRue, Ms. Talken-Spaulding stated some of the property at the north end does not connect to Buckroe because of the convoluted ownership of the property. Some land is managed by the Army, and some by the FMA and the National Park Service. The Park Service did not get the northern end where it connects with Buckroe. The Army lands past the RV Park are still a part of the clean-up. Phoebus is the gateway community at this time to Fort Monroe. C. Dutch Dialogues – Matt Smith, City Planner Mr. O’Neill explained that Hampton participated in a program called Dutch Dialogues Hampton Roads in June. This was a partnership of Hampton, the City of Norfolk, people from the Netherlands, and other experts, to begin to talk about ways of addressing critical issues to the region such as sea level rise, reoccurring flooding, and catastrophic events. It was an enriching experience to participate in. The mayors and city managers of Norfolk and Hampton pledged to take a leadership role and continue the momentum from that event and to collectively collaborate between the two cities and the region. With that as a backdrop, Hampton staff has met internally and has also met with the City of Norfolk staff and have made several presentations. Mr. O’Neill has wanted to share their presentation. City Planner Matt Smith, Gayle Hicks from Public Works, and Gail Harrison (one of the citizen members) devoted five days at the Slover Library during this event. City Planner Matt Smith mentioned it was an appropriate time to discuss what flooding, sea-level rise, and climate change means to Hampton Roads as Hurricane Joaquin is spinning off the coast. This workshop focused on water management and brought to Hampton Roads a prestigious team of global leaders and disciplines that relate to water management. Split into three teams, focus was on Tidewater Drive in Norfolk, Newmarket Creek in Hampton, and a regional team. The regional team focused on the big picture relative to the challenges and opportunities of flooding and sea-level rise in Hampton Roads, and what may be experienced, and what could be done with that knowledge. The Planning Commission20151001 Page 13 workshop also focused on how Hampton Roads can work together and better relate on those issues. The group of people, with some from the Netherlands that were not that familiar with Hampton Roads, was surprised at how much the water influenced people’s daily lives around here. The Peninsula and Norfolk are surrounded by water. Mr. Smith presented an older map of Norfolk that shows what area was underwater or wetlands. What can be gleaned with this map is that water is trying to reclaim these areas. Brights Creek in Hampton used to go from the Hampton River to Armistead Avenue and now continues to the War Memorial Stadium on Pembroke Avenue. This area continues to flood to this day. Looking at Hampton Roads the area is generally low, between 8 feet and 13 feet in many areas. Thirteen feet above sea-level was considered ultimately safe for the plannable future from sea-level rise. If the urban areas, the military bases, and transportation structures are placed over the elevation map, a lot of them are in the low, vulnerable areas, and subject to sea-level rise and flooding. This is also complicated by what scientists think is going to happen with sea-level rise. There is a potential to see from a two-foot to five-foot sea-level rise by the turn of the century. Hampton Roads is also influenced by major storm events that can be costly. Hampton Roads needs to prepare for things like hurricanes and nuisance flooding. The regional team made recommendations about how the region can work together. The primary recommendation was that the cities of Hampton, Norfolk, and Newport News, are on the frontline of this and the city manager’s need to form a pact to address this issue. The secondary recommendation is that the Planning District Commission takes a larger lead. Both groups are geared to the fact that the State and Federal government may contribute, but they will not solve the problem for us. Hampton chose Newmarket Creek as their portion to focus on for the Dutch Dialogues; an interesting site that was undeveloped in the not too distant past. By the 1990’s it was almost totally developed. That development has changed how the creek and the basin function. Development has created impervious area over much of Newport News and Hampton and that exacerbates flooding during rainfall which runs into and overwhelms the system. There are a lot of things that can be done to correct problems and solve more than one issue. Planning Commission20151001 Page 14  The team decided to look at Newmarket Creek in three sections. The first is the Narrow Creek between Hampton and Newport News. This creek is heavily engineered and is no longer a normal creek. There is a dam that directs the water during normal periods that leads to a ditch out to the James River. During heavier flows water is expected to go around right angles which can cause flooding problems to parking lots and businesses. The team decided to restore the creek to a more natural function in hopes it would solve some of the flooding problems and be a catalyst for development that could be a nice, natural amenity that people would want to build around, that businesses would be attracted to, and people would want to live near. The second section of the creek is below Mercury Boulevard and is called the Residential Section. It is important to know how the system functions to understand what was proposed. The creek in this section is influenced by both tidal and rainfall water. Newmarket Creek is tidal up until Aberdeen Road and when the tide comes in it can cause flooding and it also takes up storage area where rainfall could go. There is a three prong effect to deal with this which is to regulate the water that goes into that section of the creek; reduce runoff in general; and a system that will enlarge the capacity and will add value to people who live around the creek. The third section of the creek is the Bay Creek which focuses on protection. Several years ago a recommendation was made to build a storm gate across Mercury Boulevard where it crosses the creek to keep exceptionally high storm tides from coming into the basin and not allowing the storage area for rainfall. That was a critical recommendation by the Dutch team and is a necessity for resolving the flooding problems on Newmarket Creek. LaSalle Avenue could potentially be used as a levee to protect a larger area of Riverdale which could tie into a levee that protects Langley Air Force Base. There is potential to think of the larger protection scheme to protect a lot of area in the northeastern section of Hampton. One thing the team looked at were the structures that would be potentially protected by using LaSalle. The decision would have to be made to determine if it would be cost effective and benefit enough people. The overall message the group is trying to convey is that Newmarket Creek along with Mercury Boulevard could be used in a cohesive manner to connect a lot of areas of Hampton from that gateway around Newport News to the neighborhoods along Mercury Boulevard and the creek to the Coliseum to Downtown and over to Fort Monroe. There is some precedent for this. Boston has a park system designed by Frederick Olmstead called the “Emerald Necklace” that functions a lot like a restored Newmarket Creek might function for Hampton and connect different areas of the City Planning Commission20151001 Page 15 and provide amenities for the citizens. It would also increase the value of the areas around the park system. Guidelines from the Dutch Dialogue are to:  Work with the system, not against it – understanding presents opportunity  Don’t accept solutions that only work – Solutions must work and add value  Be careful with water – Retain, store, drain The group also wanted to see how decisions are made as a city relative to being more resilient. Primarily resilient cities need to be nimble, well-connected, healthy, financially strong, green, smart, visionary, and have a robust infrastructure. When decisions are made positive aspects need to be captured of as many of those things as possible. The next steps are to build partnerships: Newport News, Poquoson, US Army Corps of Engineers, VIMS, Langley AFB, NASA, and the Dutch Dialogue experts. Also to convene a Newmarket Creek Team and build on the concepts from the Dutch Dialogues to develop a plan for the entire basin, identify priority projects, and seek funding. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Smith stated that plans cover addressing strategies for tidal flooding as well as flooding from rainwater runoff. In response to a question from Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Smith stated an important part of these discussions was that a cohesive plan is needed. Unintended consequences may result if things are done in a piecemeal manner that would exacerbate problems. Something fixed in one place could make things worse in another. There are things done to address flooding but as far as strategy that implements the ideas that came out of the Dutch Dialogues, that may not come about quickly because things need to be addressed together. It is a more complex system and requires a more complex solution. One of the key ideas from the workshops was to use BMP’s such as the retention ponds and use them as a recreational amenity that would add to the neighborhood and be used by the citizens. Solutions need to have multiple benefits. Planning Commission20151001 Page 16  In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Smith stated the Regional team addressed solutions for the protection of Hampton Roads. There were solutions considered as to possibly close off the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay in protection from storms. The problem with that is that it would probably only work for a little while because it would connect into the Eastern Shore which would likely flood and the military has expressed dislike to that strategy for being trapped in the Bay. The general consensus was that a lot of little changes will add up to a big change. Mr. O’Neill stated going forward broader issues will need to be addressed. The workshop only lasted five days and not much time was given to come up with ideas on which to focus and possible solutions that would not only apply to that project but could be more broadly used when looking at water management, sea-level rise, and flooding issues. All of this is subject to Council’s endorsement and the notion coming out of this is building off some of the planning already done from the Waterways Plan and encompasses much of the plan and concepts. This was not just a Newmarket Creek project, but this was the project they worked with to understand what the Dutch and others feel is an approach that should be taken. In response to a question from Vice-Chair McCloud, Mr. O’Neill stated staff did not get to go into detail about drainage issues in the Public Works plan for neighborhoods. As much as could be done in five days was done and Mr. Smith could not go into that level of detail with the limited amount of time they had. A public presentation was given at the end. What was learned was that in going forward as the Dutch advised was that the drainage issue was too narrow an approach. What needs to be done is solve the drainage issue, but in addition provide recreational opportunities for the neighborhood, provide or enhance economic opportunities for the neighborhood, and design this in a way to create transportation options. This is a multi- dimensional problem which the Dutch by necessity have had to do as they are a small country, have little land, and because most of the land in the Netherlands is below sea- level they have built a levy to keep the North Sea out, which was designed as a linear park that has a road and bike paths on it to create transportation. They have taken one problem and the solution has multiple facets. If this can be perfected, Hampton has to go back and try to apply this to the issues it has, not to just Hampton and its neighborhoods, but to other regions. In answer to a question from Commissioner Schmidt, Mr. Smith stated a lot of things were on the table and the Dutch had mentioned storing water above ground for a later release; retention areas such as bio-swales, rain gardens, or storing water in rain barrels. Planning Commission20151001 Page 17  In response to a question from Chairman Southall about having a plan in place, Mr. O’Neill stated Hampton is early in their plans for this issue. To keep the momentum rolling, plans are to continue developing a holistic plan for the Newmarket Creek basin to keep the concepts and principles alive from the Dutch Dialogues and do this in partnership with Newport News so it runs from Back River to the James River. This would be used as the first teaching experience in terms of how to do this the way the Dutch do it. Based on that to then spread our wings and create this resiliency or plan for the whole City that has actionable items in it. Mr. O’Neill stated he wants products to show and demonstrate to the community what can be done. The third level will be the regional approach because sea-level rise, flooding, catastrophic preparedness or avoidance has to be done regionally because Hampton cannot just build a wall around itself. Hampton wants to start with a specific project area like the Newmarket Creek basin; then go to the City as a whole identifying other actionable items and projects; and then have a regional approach. Hampton is moving forward in trying to assemble its team and as more is learned and they get better at it, spread their wings. D. Youth Planner Report – Bryauna Kralik, Youth Planner Youth Planner Bryana Kralik gave the October Youth Planner Report. The Hampton Youth Commission’s first meeting of the month was held on September 14th and was entirely centered on teambuilding. Along with the Commission’s teambuilding activities, the Youth Planners also held fall interviews for seven additional members to the Commission. Both events were successful and the candidates were able to join the Commission for the remainder of the meeting following the interview. The Youth Planners and staff worked hard to ensure the Commissioners and candidates were comfortable and had fun. The Commission also elected their Executive Team for the year, this includes: the chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary. The Hampton Youth Commission’s second meeting of the month was held on September 21st. To continue the teambuilding element of the previous week’s meeting, the Youth Planners and Executive Team collaborated in order to plan a meeting focused on learning characteristics of fellow commissioners. They focused on the Fun Theory brought about by Volkswagen a few years ago and on teambuilding. Several Commissioners prepared for and attended the Virginia Statewide Neighborhood Conference. The conference was held on September 24 – 25, 2015 at the Sheraton Waterside Norfolk Hotel. During their time at the conference, the Youth Planners and Commissioners attended the Youth Café. The workshops included: understanding one’s inner and outer strengths, firearm safety in the home, fire safety, and touring colleges in Norfolk, Virginia. They HYC also attended a networking session Planning Commission20151001 Page 18 aboard the Spirit of Norfolk where they got to speak with people around the State and across the country about things they do in their communities. Ms. Bralik stated she was awarded first place in the Youth Individual Effort Award at the Virginia Statewide Convention for her work on helping to coordinate activities on the Youth Commission’s activities on transportation last year. In an effort to have a productive year and start off on the right foot, the Commission also attended their mandatory Annual Retreat, which was held on Saturday, September 26, 2015 at Alternatives, Inc. The objective of the retreat was to get to know one another, learn about the HYC’s purpose and to select committees. The three committees for next year are: Special Events, Transportation, and Youth are Prepared. Commissioner Schmidt congratulated Ms. Kralik on receiving her award. Commissioner LaRue also congratulated Ms. Kralik and asked if there was anywhere in Hampton that could be identified as a place to have a fun thing like the musical stairs from the Volkswagen Fun Theory could be located. In response to Commissioner LaRue’s question, Mr. Kralik stated that Community Development director Terry O’Neill had told them that one of the rules was that the HYC could not copy any of the videos they had seen, but they are looking to do some other events in either downtown Hampton or the Peninsula Town Center. Mr. O’Neill explained this project is an outgrowth of one of Council’s priority initiatives to create more fun things to do around the City. The HYC has been challenged to create a fun project and YouTube videos were a suggestion as a place to get some ideas. The objective is to have them do something like this in a youth, fun way. Chairman Southall stated he always looks forward to the HYC report. Earlier this week he and Commissioner LaRue had the privilege to meet with other Planning Commissioners around the State. He took this opportunity to brag about Hampton’s youth. The HYC’s youth makes it easy to do. Their civic engagement is unheard of in a lot of other localities. Their enthusiasm is appreciated and it is encouraging and hopefully adults will learn from it and get engaged. VI. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. VII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION There were no matters by the Commission. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission20151001 Page 19  There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Ter Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: r L- 7 69 Tommy Southall Chairman Planning Commission20151001 Page 20