Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT THE WORK SESSION OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE LAWSON CONFERENCE ROOM, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, 22 LINCOLN STREET, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2016 AT 3:02 P.M. Chairman Southall called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. A call of the roll noted Commissioners Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Teresa Schmidt, and Chairman Tommy Southall as being present. Commissioners Gaynette Larue, Andre McCloud, and Mary Bunting were noted as absent; however, Commissioners McCloud and Bunting arrived after the roll call. Staff in attendance were Director of Community Development Department Terry O’Neill, Deputy Director of Community Development Department Steve Shapiro, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown, Zoning Administrator Jeff Conkle, Chief Planner Michael Hayes, Senior City Planner Alison Alexander, City Planner Lucy Stoll, City Planner Porter Stevens, Back-up Recording Secretary/Senior Administrative Assistant/DSA-II Aqiylah McGill, and Recording Secretary/Administrative Assistant Kristie Graves. The Commission and staff discussed the following agenda items, and staff provided the following information: 504 N. King Street Rezoning and Use Permit: This is a proposal to rezone the property from General Commercial to Downtown Business District and permit the development of a micro- brewery, micro-distillery, restaurant, and live entertainment venue in the former Armory building at 504 N. King Street. The Zoning Administrator briefed the Commission on the parking section of the Zoning Ordinance based on a question posed regarding the insufficient parking provided at the location. Off–site parking credits have been awarded, and parking spaces are available in a public parking lot off-site and within five hundred (500) feet of the building to accommodate the required number of parking spaces for the venue. There were two community meetings held for the public and for the Pasture Point Neighborhood Association. People in the neighborhood were concerned about the outdoor live entertainment and security. The Pasture Point Neighborhood Association and Downtown Hampton Development Partnership were in support of the redevelopment of the former Armory building. Questions regarding the maximum capacity of the building and the hours of operation for outdoor live entertainment were addressed. Further questions would be answered during the presentation. Franciscus Homes Inc. Rezoning: This is a proposal to amend the proffered conditions for a multi- family development proposed at 1611 Power Plant Parkway. The major change will combine some five (5) unit buildings to create ten (10) unit buildings. The five (5) unit buildings include garages and the ten (10) unit buildings provide outdoor parking. Although the elevations for the larger buildings differ, the height will remain the same. These changes will not affect the overall layout of the development. Further questions would be addressed during the presentation. Comfort Zone Restaurant Use Permit: This is a proposal to allow the Comfort Zone Restaurant to operate live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant at 2165 Cunningham Drive in the Coliseum Central district. There were concerns about the late night hours, and the venue’s close proximity to a residential neighborhood compared to a previous use permit for live entertainment. The applicant requested the specific business hours to allow availability during the entire business day; the hours are consistent with hours for live entertainment use permits that have been granted in the past. Applications for venues in certain districts are granted some latitude based on what the City plans and policies suggest. The applicant is working with staff to address concerns regarding capacity, evacuation, and parking. Further discussion will occur at the public meeting. Work session adjourned at 3:30 p.m. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 1 AT THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, 22 LINCOLN STREET, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2016 AT 3:32 P.M. l. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Tommy Southall called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioners Gregory Williams, Carlton Campbell, Andre McCloud, Teresa Schmidt, Mary Bunting, and Chairman Tommy Southall as being present. Commissioner Gaynette Larue was noted as absent. Staff in attendance were Director of Community Development Department Terry O’Neill, Deputy Director of Community Development Department Steve Shapiro, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown, Zoning Administrator Jeff Conkle, Chief Planners Michael Hayes and Donald Whipple, Senior City Planner Alison Alexander, City Planners Tolu Ibikunle, Porter Stevens, and Lucy Stoll, Youth Planner Janaria Lickey, Back-up Recording Secretary/Senior Administrative Assistant/DSA-II Aqiylah McGill, and Recording Secretary/Administrative Assistant Kristie Graves. III. MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 WORK SESSION & PUBLIC MEETING A motion was made by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud to approve the minutes of the September 1, 2016 Work Session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Bunting, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: LaRue A. PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH PROCLAMATION A Community Planning Month proclamation was presented by Commissioner Schmidt to the Community Development Department’s Planning & Zoning Administration Division. The proclamation was presented from the City of Hampton in conjunction with the celebration of National Community Planning Month. Director O’Neill offered his personal thanks to the staff for their efforts recognized in the proclamation. He also stated he receives compliments on the staff from his colleagues as he travels throughout the country. He complimented staff on their professionalism and working relationship with the Commission, City Attorney’s Office and City Council. He feels fortunate to have worked all these years with the best staff and is honored to be a part of it. IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Director O’Neill read the 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 manner. Director O’Neill suggested that the two related public hearing items be part of one presentation. A separate motion and vote will be required for each item. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 2  A. RZ16-00010, 504-520 N KING ST, LLC, 504 N KING ST Director O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Rezoning Application No. 16-00010: by 504-520 N King St, LLC to rezone 1.2± acres at 504 N. King St. [LRSN: 13004388] from General Commercial (C-3) District to Downtown Business (DT-1) District with proffered conditions. Approval of this application would permit reuse of the property as a brewery, distillery, and live entertainment venue. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this area. The Downtown Master Plan (2004, as amended) recommends a mix of uses in the Armory District and specifically notes the Armory Building should be renovated as a live performance venue. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street or from Alison Alexander, 757-728-5238 or aalexander@hampton.gov. B. UP 16-00007, 504-520 N KING ST LLC, 504 N KING ST Director O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Use Permit Application No. 16-00007: by 504-520 N King St, LLC to operate Live Entertainment 2 at 504 N King St [LRSN: 13004388]. The property is zoned General Commercial (C-3) District. This application is being advertised concurrently with Rezoning Application No. 16-00010 to rezone the property to Downtown Business (DT-1) District, which permits Live Entertainment 2 subject to the approval of a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this area. The Downtown Master Plan (2004, as amended) recommends a mix of uses in the Armory District and specifically notes the Armory Building should be renovated as a live performance venue. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street or from Alison Alexander, 757- 728-5238 or aalexander@hampton.gov. Senior City Planner Alison Alexander presented the staff report on the subject applications, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. She stated staff recommends approval of the rezoning application with 12 proffered conditions, and approval of the use permit application with 12 conditions. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander stated that during the community meeting there was some concern about the location of the outdoor live entertainment. She stated that the concern was addressed by the applicant and she had not received any related correspondence by email or telephone. She was not aware if there were any speakers present at the public hearing. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander confirmed that both parking lots were city public parking lots and that approval, if granted to the applicant, would not prohibit the use of either parking lot by any other member of the public. She stated that the parking lots are generally open and there are not specific spaces reserved for customers of the Armory. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander explained that the Downtown Master Plan is used as a guide. The rezoning process is used in order to allow the WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 3 uses desired in the application. As part of the proffers, we like to include what uses will be allowed in the future. The applicant has proposed restricting the location to the use of a micro- brewery, micro-distillery, live entertainment, and restaurant, and the City is comfortable moving forward because that is in keeping with what the Downtown Master Plan proposes. In response to a question from Commissioner Schmidt, Ms. Alexander confirmed that the neighbors of the Armory are aware of the proposed live entertainment and the proposed hours of operation and there was no concern expressed. Randy Thomas, 926 Baldwin Avenue, Norfolk, Managing Member of 504-520 N. King Street, LLC, requested that the hours of operation for live outdoor entertainment be extended to 10:00 p.m. He stated that the subject was discussed at the Pasture Point community meeting and it was recommended that it be extended, and the attendees were comfortable with the suggestion. In response to a question from Commissioner Schmidt, Mr. Thomas confirmed that they were requesting the change to the hours of operation for each night of the week. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Alexander stated that the Pasture Point Neighborhood Association took an informal vote and was in favor of extending the hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. She did not receive a formal letter and did not know if anyone from the Pasture Point Neighborhood Association was attending the meeting in support of it. Ms. Alexander also referred to the City’s noise ordinance. A person is in violation if after 10:00 p.m., sound can be heard more than 50 feet away, or prior to 10:00 p.m. sound can be heard over 100 feet away. This is a condition of the use permit for live entertainment and has been discussed with Mr. Thomas. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Alexander explained that Planning staff is making a recommendation that outdoor live entertainment end at 8:00 p.m. each night. This recommendation is uniform to previous applications that are adjacent to residences. She confirmed that the neighborhood was ok with the hours being later than 8:00 p.m., although she cannot confirm that every resident was present. Janice Booker, 515 Wine Street, Hampton, stated that her property is directly behind the Armory. Her parents built the house in 1956, and she and her brother are in the process of becoming owners of record of the property. Ms. Booker remembered that in 1956 the Armory was used by the National Guard for training and also used by Fort Monroe. On weekends the building was leased out for private dances that ended at 1:00 or 2:00 a.m., and the noise from the dances was a negative impact on the use of their property. Ms. Booker says she is opposed to the proposed use of the Armory. She attended the first public meeting on September 9 th, and says that the information shared regarding a specific area of the property is not consistent with what they were told at meeting. She says she contacted Mr. Thomas via email on August 16 th asking for additional information. Ms. Booker read Mr. Thomas’s email response that he would respond to her request at a later time because the site plan was still being modified; Mr. Thomas never responded to her request. She also stated she was not aware the developers had plans to meet with the Pasture Point Neighborhood Association. She felt the residents who view the Armory as an attractive entertainment venue for the neighborhood lived closer to the East Hampton bridge and would not be impacted by the noise, traffic, and parking. She reiterated that she is absolutely 100% opposed to this use of the Armory. Although she is not opposed to development of downtown Hampton, she said this is an inappropriate use of the property. Ms. Booker felt that if the Armory is redeveloped in this manner it would bring guaranteed noise pollution and lower property values to zero. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 4  In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Booker said she would still be opposed to this use of the Armory if the live entertainment was restricted to indoor use only. She answered that she would be opposed to the use of the facility that has any noise coming on their property. She further explained that their neighborhood already has noise from Interstate 64, which is a further distance down N. King Street. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander clarified that after 10:00 p.m., if noise can be heard from more than 50 feet away, it is a violation of the noise ordinance. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown further added that it is also a violation if you hear noise inside the confines of a dwelling unit regardless of the distance, which includes her home or anyone else’s home. Commissioner Campbell questioned why the Planning staff would approve the live entertainment venue if noise levels would more than likely be heard by the residents behind the Armory, and violates the noise ordinance. Director O’Neill explained that one of the primary responsibilities the staff has in evaluating the applications is to ensure they are in compliance with City codes, ordinances, policies, and plans. This particular use, as articulated in the staff report, verbal comments, and presentation, is very specifically identified as the preferred use in the Downtown Master Plan for this property, in addition to a reuse of an historic building. Staff’s job is to evaluate a use as it relates to those particular guiding policy documents, and that was clearly consistent. All uses have to comply with the City’s regulations; if they violate the City-wide noise ordinance, that’s a violation that then has to be pursued and prosecuted. When Council adopted the live entertainment permits process, they built in a review of the application after 12 months to ensure that the operations that are presented and approved are actually operating under the auspices of all of the codes and ordinances, and the conditions of the permit for which they were approved. He also added that the use permit could be revoked under certain circumstances if the operators are not compliant. In the past, there had been restaurants and live entertainment venues that have had noise concerns spilling over onto adjoining properties and Council did not have the ability to review those venues after 12 months and determine if they should continue. Ms. Booker further added that she appreciates the City’s procedure for reviewing an operation that is already in place but thinks that the history the neighborhood has experienced under the old Armory indicates that there is already the reality of noise pollution. She feels the property does not need to be developed in this manner and reviewed in 12 months if it is known from the beginning. She said she was not living in Hampton in 2004 and 2006, and questioned how much community and residential consideration was given to those plans with regard to selected uses of the property. She felt she spoke for other neighbors who were at the meeting; they want development and want to see the city come alive again but feel the development has to be compatible with their lives as residents. She felt it was appropriate to find other uses for this property that benefit the City and are operated in harmony with the lives of the people who live directly behind it. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Booker clarified that she is opposed to the application if it combines the micro-brewery, restaurant, and live entertainment. She said if it is the restaurant and micro-brewery, then it should come back to the community to see if there is any negative impact on them. She said the presentation to the community did not give a choice; it was all three and that is why she is opposed to the entire development. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 5  In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Thomas said that he was trying to be consistent with other venues that provide outdoor live entertainment. He was not looking to have loud music playing until 10:00 p.m.; he would like to have performers performing until it gets dark and have them packed up by 10:00 p.m. Since it does not get dark until 9:30 p.m. or 9:45 p.m., he requested the time be extended until 10:00 p.m. He said having the time for outdoor live entertainment end at 8:00 p.m. does not necessarily create a hardship but it does limit the ability to have live entertainment available during normal hours. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Thomas confirmed that the hours of indoor live entertainment are until 1:00 a.m. He elaborated that during the spring and fall months, and during the weekend especially, people prefer to be outside enjoying the good weather, congregating, and listening to music. He was not speaking about a large major amplified concert outside on a regular basis but was mostly thinking of acoustical sets or local musicians performing playing outside to enjoy the weather. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Alexander verified that 48 people would be able to sit outside. Commissioner McCloud expressed his concern with the outside live entertainment during the weekdays ending at 10:00 p.m. With children living in the community, he felt it would be a problem. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Thomas did recall the email from Ms. Booker. He elaborated that he was working with the Planning staff and hired Timmons Group to work on the site plan. The parking lot was redesigned, at his expense, to move the outdoor area from the adjacent property line to the side property line. He also had a request regarding elevations, drainage, and other items, but that he has still not received the results from Timmons Group. Ms. Booker also requested plans and more details on the project. He was able to get the Planning Commission the basic concept drawings but he does not have site elevations and all of the engineering. He said it is quite costly and he has done all of this at his own expense and risk but he cannot give her all of the information she has requested. He said that with regard to the building they are receiving historical tax credits and he has been working with Richmond. That was just completed last week and they have decided to move forward with the current design they have. Richmond had asked them to detach the addition and move it to the back of the site. He felt that was not good for anyone involved. He said that while he was trying to accommodate Ms. Booker, he still had information that had just recently been vetted out within the past two weeks. He apologized for not responding to her but said it had been a very busy time trying to get organized for the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Campbell thanked Mr. Thomas for the explanation as to why he had not responded to Ms. Booker’s email request. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Thomas assured the Commission that he is not trying to build a night club. He has built four local breweries and they are in industrial areas and in neighborhoods. He felt that what they want to do is very socially responsible from a neighborhood point of view. He said it usually increases the values of the properties. They also do not want to create a problem for the City of Hampton; they are trying to improve the property, create a family-oriented environment. They want to have live music. He believed that the challenge with that development and the reason it has been vacant for so long is that it is a huge expense regardless of what is done with the building. He stated he had been very involved in the brewery industry and felt developing the property into either a restaurant or distillery alone would not support the investment. He said the only way was if it WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 6 were a large corporation creating a venue, and having the ability to fund it out of pocket. Mr. Thomas said he has a very unique experience in building breweries and distilleries, understanding the design, and what it takes to develop them. If the elements can be combined into one property, Hampton would have a totally unique venue that is unlike any other on the eastern shore. He is aware of the concerns that come with having live entertainment, and he is working with the City to address those concerns. They are putting in a responsible sound system, developing the back of the site, and agreed to increase the height of the sound barrier fence as high as the City will allow and agreed to make the barrier as sound attenuating as possible. Mr. Thomas said they’ve also agreed to have a green space buffer, and relocated the patio/stage away from the property line, which would eliminate the immediate vicinity of music. They are trying very hard to accommodate everybody’s concerns but in order to make the development work, the live entertainment piece is very important. He stated if they would look at how the outdoor entertainment piece ties in; it would be a very unique site for this area. The venue will have outdoor seating, outdoor entertainment, and people would have the ability to come in to a brewery, a distillery, and a restaurant as opposed to a food truck that creates their own issues. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Thomas elaborated on the indoor entertainment area. He said that it is a theatrical stage that is built into the building. There is a basement under the stage but no structure above the stage. The only place the stage could be relocated to is the front of the building, and then all of the stairs would have to be eliminated. With the Armory being a historical building, they do not like for it to be altered. He said he had designed the entire facility so as to retain all of the spaces in their original configuration. His goal is to restore the building to almost the original condition but it does have to be modified to be used for the functions that are proposed. In doing research on armories and what their original intention was, Mr. Thomas stated they were designed to house the National Guard as well as be a social gathering space. He said they are going back to ground zero for what the building was intended to be. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Thomas believed the Armory building had been vacant for 23 years. Director O’Neill believed the National Guard vacated the building in the early to mid-90s. It has been vacant over 20 years. Commissioner Schmidt commented that as far as the outdoor live entertainment, 10:00 p.m. on a weekend night was not bad; but 10:00 p.m. on a week day, work night was too much in her opinion. There are families nearby that have children. She said that she didn’t mind the extension for weekends but she felt that it was overstepping bounds for the neighbors moving the time to 10:00 p.m. on weekday nights. In response to a question from Mr. Thomas, Commissioner Schmidt said that she couldn’t speak for the Commissioners as far as supporting the extension to 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday. Commissioner Schmidt shared that she was very excited about the project and loved the idea of using old buildings and that too many buildings had been torn down in the past. She said that it was a refreshing thought to have an old building in downtown Hampton restored and she appreciated it. Commissioner McCloud agreed with Commissioner Schmidt that the requested extension of live entertainment hours were not good for the neighborhood and he felt the extension should not be granted. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 7  Commissioner Williams stated that he understood Ms. Booker’s concern and was surprised that there weren’t more people in the area that came forward to speak at the public hearing. He remarked that based on the response from the public meeting there were no real objections and only one person from the Pasture Point neighborhood spoke at the public hearing with an objection. In response to Commissioner Williams’s comments, a person from the audience stated that Ms. Booker was representing a group of about 6 Pasture Point residents who were present at the meeting. They were all in agreement that they did not want to see the Armory micro- brewery, micro-distillery restaurant in the area. The person said that Ms. Booker addressed his concerns. Chairman Southall agreed with Commissioner Schmidt that 10:00 p.m. during the week days was too late. He said that he could support Friday and Saturday nights at 10:00 p.m.; people go out and eat later on Friday and Saturday nights than they would during the week. He said he hopes that since the days of the Armory, the noise ordinance and general ordinances as to the behavior of patrons have become more restrictive. He thought that a lot of the problems Ms. Booker had experienced with the Armory in the past may be curbed by other restrictions that have been put into place since then. The Chairman then thanked Ms. Booker for speaking at the public hearing. Commissioner Campbell stated that he takes to heart any time the public comes forward with concerns, especially as it related to noise. He tries as much as possible to put himself in the person’s position, if it would be an environment in which he would like to live. Knowing that the Armory has been vacant for such a long time and is in disarray, he felt this would probably be one of the best uses for the property, with the restricted hours as was presented. Commissioner McCloud commented that he has always been a neighborhood person, never wanting to go against the neighborhood because they are the people who have to live with it. He felt that there are positives with having that establishment; however, he always considers how he would feel if it was in his backyard, and that is why he is so opposed to the outside entertainment at late night hours. If that is going away, he votes for the Armory. There being no additional questions or speakers, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a request by 504-520 N. King St, LLC to rezone 1.2+ acres at 504 N. King St [LRSN: 13004388] from General Commercial (C-3) District to Downtown Business (DT-1) District with conditions. Approval of this application, in conjunction with a use permit, would permit the development of a micro-brewery, micro-distillery, restaurant, and live entertainment; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use and low density residential for this area; WHEREAS: the Downtown Hampton Master Plan (2004, as amended) recognizes North King Street as the front door to Downtown and recommends the armory structure be restored as a live performance venue; WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 8 WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) also encourages the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings, encourages nurturing small and startup businesses, as well as expanding tourism and entertainment opportunities; WHEREAS: twelve (12) proffered conditions address among other things: permitted uses, conceptual site layout, and materials; WHEREAS: one member of the public spoke against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Teresa Schmidt, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Rezoning Application No. 16-00010, subject to twelve (12) proffered conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Bunting, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: LaRue The Planning Commission also approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by 504-520 N. King St, LLC for indoor and outdoor Live Entertainment at a micro-brewery, micro- distillery, and restaurant at 504 N. King St. [LRSN: 13004388]; WHEREAS: the property is zoned General Commercial (C-3) District, but is seeking a rezoning to Downtown Business (DT-1) District, which allows live entertainment with an approved use permit; WHEREAS: the Downtown Hampton Master Plan (2004, as amended) recognizes North King Street as the front door to Downtown and recommends the armory structure be restored as a live performance venue; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) encourages nurturing small and startup businesses and expanding tourism and entertainment opportunities; WHEREAS: staff recommends twelve (12) conditions be attached to the use permit addressing location, hours of operation, and capacity; WHEREAS: one member of the public spoke in opposition to the use; NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Greg Williams, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 16-00007, subject to twelve (12) conditions. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 9  A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Bunting, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: LaRue C. RZ 16-00011, FRANCISCUS HOMES INC & SOUTH MOYOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC, 1611 POWER PLANT PKWY Director O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Rezoning Application No. 16-00011: by Franciscus Homes, Inc. and property owner South Moyock Development, LLC. to rezone 28.05+ acres at 1611 Power Plant Parkway [LRSN: 13004389] to amend the proffered conditions while maintaining the Multiple Dwelling (MD-2) District for development of multifamily residences. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends medium density residential land use for this location. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street or from Mike Hayes, 757-728-5244 or mdhayes@hampton.gov. Chief Planner Michael Hayes presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. He stated staff recommends approval of the rezoning application with 15 proffered conditions. In response to a question from Commissioner Schmidt, Mr. Hayes confirmed the siding for the buildings will remain the same, a substance superior to regular aluminum siding. He directed further questions regarding the applicant’s reasons for requesting the change from Commissioner Schmidt to the applicant. Larry Cumming, Kauffman & Canoles, 2236 Cunningham Drive, representing Franciscus Homes, Inc., gave further details on Mr. Hayes’s presentation, comparing a picture of the old building plans to the new plans. The maximum number of units is the same, with some 5 unit buildings combined into 10 unit buildings. All of the amenities and requirements are the same, other than the building structures. He pointed out the location of the 10 unit buildings which replaced the double 5 unit buildings. He noted that the street structure is the same as previously, with the main road, views, and overlooks remaining the same. He pointed out the focal points between the buildings, which now total 6. In response to a question from Commissioner Schmidt, Gary Werner, President of Franciscus Homes, Inc., 40 9th Street, Virginia Beach, explained that the 10 unit building offers more diversity with regards to age and income. The previous application included 120 garage townhouses ranging in price from $220,000 to $250,000. They felt that they would not have as many buyers compared to the 10 unit building, which has some smaller units and would be priced from $180,000 to $230,000. He felt the 10 unit buildings offered a greater option with regard to income and family styles of the prospective purchaser. The 10 unit building has 5 townhouses and 5 flats; 3 are on the first floor and are handicapped accessible. He stated that they have a tendency to sell to senior couples and single seniors with those floor plans. He thinks the introduction of these units gives them a broader area to market and feels it is good business. They vetted the idea with staff and are proud of the site plan initially produced and are committed to leaving it unchanged. The main boulevard is heavily landscaped to screen the WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 10 parking bays. The rotary is a new addition. The north-south paseos that run through the property for pedestrian connectivity have been maintained. One of the proffered conditions, a focal point at the intersection, has been added. They are planning a community gardening plot on the walking trail towards the kayak launch; the kayak launch design is expanded. They plan to expand the pool area within the allowable limits of the setbacks. Overall he feels they have done a good job in working with staff to maintain all of the things that are right about the site plan. As previously mentioned, he thinks the addition of the new model type adds diversity to the community on age and income. He thinks it makes for a better community as a result. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Director O’Neill responded that a previous application changing the zoning to MD-2 was approved by Council. He elaborated that changing the proffers on a rezoning application is typical. In most cases, the applicant, as part of the application, will have a set of conditions or proffers as well as proffering a site plan, elevations, etc. He pointed out that the site plan had changed substantially and the introduction of the different buildings has a different footprint and slightly different elevation. All of those items require the application to come back before the Planning Commission and Council for approval because the changes did not comply with the proffers and proffered plan and elevations of the last application. In response to a question from Commission McCloud, Mr. Werner stated that the change in the building plan does not impact the number of parking spaces within the community. The garage style townhouse offered 2 parking spaces, 1 within the garage and another immediately in front of the garage. The 10 unit buildings have surface parking rather than garages. The ratio of unit type to parking space remains the same and still provides ample parking. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Director O’Neill confirmed that the application is for a rezoning. Mr. Hayes explained that because the proffers changed, the proffers become part of the zoning for the particular piece of property. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Director O’Neill responded that the property does not revert back to the original zoning. The Planning Commission’s approval is recommending changing what Council previously approved. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Hayes corrected an error in the presentation. He stated that the property is currently zoned MD-2 and will remain zoned MD- 2 if the application is approved. The only changes that will occur relate to the proffers that allow the 10 unit type. Director O’Neill clarified that the motion would be to approve the application subject to the 12 conditions attached to the application. There being no additional questions or speakers, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day an application by Franciscus Homes, Inc. and the property owner, South Moyock Development, LLC. to amend the proffered conditions while maintaining the Multiple Dwelling (MD-2) District to allow for a second building type; WHEREAS: the subject property is located at 1611 Power Plant Parkway [LRSN: 13004389]; WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 11 WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends medium density residential land use, which the Plan further specifies is between 9 and 15 units per acre; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan also promotes the efficient use of land, the protection and enjoyment of environmental features, a diverse mix of housing types, and high quality design; WHEREAS: the proposed changes to the proffers amend the conceptual plan, building elevations and building description to permit up to five ten unit buildings and retaining at least fourteen of the five unit buildings previously proffered; WHEREAS: the proffer statements set a minimum unit size of 1,206 square feet; WHEREAS: the remainder of the fifteen proffered conditions remain largely the same, including the general layout of the site, a maximum of 125 units, building materials, improvements to Power Plant Parkway to better access the site, and on-site amenities, including a pool, access to New Market Creek, and features within courtyard spaces; WHEREAS: the proposed density is 13.2+ units per acre; WHEREAS: the proposed development, with the exception of the water access, would be constructed outside of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation District and the AE Flood Zone areas; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Rezoning Application No. 16-00011, subject to fifteen (15) proffered conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Bunting, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: LaRue D. UP 16-00008, CITY OF HAMPTON, 35 AND 47 WATER ST Director O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Use Permit Application No. 16-00008: by the City of Hampton to operate a public pier at 35 and 47 Water St [LRSNs: 12001133, 12001132]. The property is zoned Parks and Open Space General (PO-1) District. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this site. The Phoebus Master Plan (2013, as amended) recommends this site should be redeveloped as a public waterfront park for the Phoebus community, and specifically suggests the construction of a small dock/pier for small boats and rentals. Copies of WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 12  documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street or from Porter Stevens, 757-727-6256 or cpstevens@hampton.gov City Planner Porter Stevens presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. He stated staff recommends approval of the use permit application with 4 conditions. Mr. Stevens mentioned that he received a letter from the Partnership for New Phoebus, which is a neighborhood organization in Phoebus supporting this proposal. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Stevens responded that there was no community meeting scheduled. He felt that because the application was renewing an expired use permit, and they had indication the Phoebus Partnership was supporting the proposal; they did not feel a community meeting was necessary. The Phoebus Partnership is the main neighborhood organization for Phoebus. Director O’Neill elaborated that City staff meets with the Partnership for New Phoebus monthly. Part of the agenda for that meeting is to review these projects and other items. The proposal has been discussed with the Partnership over the last six months. Staff was comfortable that the Phoebus Partnership had shared it with their board, and had talked about it at their meetings. The forthcoming letter supports the application. In response to a question from Commissioner Schmidt, Mr. Stevens confirmed that the dock is public and will not be staffed. In response to a question from Chairman Southall, Mr. Stevens stated that he was not familiar with the process that was used to choose the specific location of the dock on the property. He suggested that it may have been a particular feature of the landscape that indicated it was the best place to put the dock. Director O’Neill volunteered that staff could check this issue with Public Works. He remembers a conversation to move the dock further away from the bridge allowed better access to the pier with regard to navigation. In response to a question from Chairman Southall, there were no objections from the adjacent property owner. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Director O’Neill explained that the dock will be part of a waterfront park. He stated that the City acquired the property years ago. As staff reviewed the Phoebus Master Plan, a dock was identified as the preferred use of that location. In response to a question from Commissioner Schmidt, Director O’Neill said that the dock would be for a small boat or kayak launch with a facility that would be open to the public. The ideal use was particularly for sail boaters docking near Fort Monroe or a nearby body of water. The boater could dinghy to this dock and walk to a restaurant. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Director O’Neill confirmed that the dock would be managed by the Parks & Recreation Department. There being no additional questions or speakers, the Commission approved the following resolution: WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 13 WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by the City of Hampton to operate a public pier at 35 and 47 Water St [LRSNs: 12001133, 12001132]; WHEREAS: the proposed pier had previously been authorized by UP 1078-2011, which has expired; WHEREAS: the site is currently zoned Parks and Open Space General (PO-1) District, which permits a public pier with an approved use permit; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends a mix of uses for this property, and the policies of the Plan call for promoting the appropriate use and reuse of waterfront land and promoting public access, both physical and visual, to the water; WHEREAS: this proposal also conforms with the Phoebus Master Plan (2013, as amended), which sets out a long term vision for this site to become a waterfront public park and gathering space for the Phoebus community, including a dock for small boats and rentals; WHEREAS: four (4) conditions are attached to address, among other things, traffic, building capacity, and a revocation clause; and; and WHEREAS: no one from the public spoke for or against this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Carlton Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Teresa Schmidt, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 16-00008, subject to four (4) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Southall NAYS: None ABST: Bunting (because this is a City application) ABSENT: LaRue, Williams Commissioner Bunting abstained from voting because the City of Hampton is the applicant. E. UP 16-00009, COMFORT ZONE RESTAURANT, 2165 CUNNINGHAM DR Director O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Use Permit Application No. 16-00009: by Comfort Zone Restaurant to operate Live Entertainment 2 at 2165 Cunningham Drive [LRSN: 7001532]. The property is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District, which allows for live entertainment with a use permit. The property is also located in the Coliseum Central Overlay (O-CC) District. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for this area. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 14  may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street or from Lucy Stoll, 757-727-6301 or lucy.stoll@hampton.gov City Planner Lucy Stoll presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. She stated staff recommends approval of the use permit application with 12 conditions. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Stoll explained that the Kool Smiles dental office is located adjacent to the subject property. The subject property was previously a Goodwill store. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Charlene Smith, Owner/Operator, 8 Sanlun Lakes Drive, stated that the current hours of operation were Tuesday through Thursday, 11:00 a.m. to 12 a.m., Friday and Saturday, 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. She is requesting the same hours for this application. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Stoll confirmed that the capacity at the current location at Riverdale Shopping Center is 350. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Director O’Neill stated that the new location is about two (2) blocks from the current location, across from the old Sports Authority. Ms. Stoll pointed out the site location on her presentation. In response to a question from Commissioner Schmidt, Ms. Stoll stated that the applicant did not hold a community meeting but is planning to hold a meeting for her customers. Ms. Stoll is not aware if a community meeting will be held for the neighborhood. A neighborhood community meeting is not required; although it is recommended by staff, it is the applicant’s decision to hold a community meeting. Ms. Smith stated that Ms. Stoll was informed that there were 2 community meetings held. Prior to submission of the live entertainment use permit application, she held a meeting on a Thursday night to advise customers where the business was looking to relocate because there was concern about the business moving. Although there were no issues expressed regarding the location, there were concerns about parking. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Smith confirmed that the meeting was with her patrons but not with the community. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Ms. Smith stated the maximum occupancy for her current building is 500. Her current location is 8,400 square feet and the new location is about 16,000 square feet. Ms. Smith confirmed that she now has enough space to accommodate her patrons. Director O’Neill stated that the official building occupancy according to the issued Certificate of Occupancy is for 350 people; the building capacity is not completely based on square footage. Building Official Steve Shapiro can answer any questions related to building capacity calculations. It is the Building Official’s responsibility to determine what the capacity is based on the building code. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Shapiro explained that a plans examiner uses 3 numbers in the calculation to determine a building’s capacity: WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 15  1) Overall square footage of the building – the building code gives square footage per occupant; 2) Egress – number of doors to see how many people can safely exit the building in an emergency; and 3) Plumbing facilities – number of sinks and water closets in the building. The smallest number of the 3 determines the occupancy based on building code. Director O’Neill advised that Ms. Stoll has a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Williams commented that he was curious as to how the square footage for the new location is more but the maximum occupancy is less. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Director O’Neill clarified that the limitations for this application is not based on the square footage of the building but on the availability of parking, which relates to zoning ordinance requirements. He explained that staff considers a number of factors with regard to the maximum amount allowable for the use of the building, including the Building Official’s review, zoning ordinance requirements, etc. In this case, parking is the limiting factor. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Director O’Neill confirmed that the amount of shared parking for this location could effect this application. Commissioner Bunting explained the shared parking options. The applicant could apply to the Zoning Administrator for credit for on-street parking that is within 500 feet. To get credit for shared parking in the parking lot or other spaces within 500 feet, the Zoning Ordinance requires that a parking study be completed and a legal agreement be made noting that the spaces would be available for use of the patrons. This has been explained to the applicant. Director O’Neill confirmed that the shared parking options were explained to the Commission and in writing, per Ms. Smith’s request. Staff would be available to assist Ms. Smith with the process. In response to a question from Commissioner Bunting, Director O’Neill stated that staff worked with Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown and the Zoning Administrator to redraft the condition that would allow an administrative change in the number if there was more available parking through any other approvable avenues; in that case, it would not have to come back before the Planning Commission or City Council for public hearing. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Director O’Neill responded that based on the last review of the building plan using the Building Official’s analysis doesn’t take parking into consideration and generates a capacity of 630. Commissioner Schmidt commented that she was happy Ms. Smith was able to find a new location in Hampton. She said that she would probably support the application but shared her concerns with Ms. Smith about not holding a community meeting. As a Councilmember, her decision may change if she hears complaints from neighbors regarding noise. Allyson Lee, 1216 E. Little Creek Road, Suite 200, Norfolk, representing Ms. Smith as her attorney, gave further details on questions raised by the Commission. Ms. Smith was required to have 2 double-doors and has 3 double-door exits. Once she receives proper approval, the location will have 16 restrooms so she will be compliant with as much capacity as possible. Ms. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 16 Lee’s concern, because the maximum occupancy at Ms. Smith’s new location was lower than the old location, her profit would be affected. Ms. Lee stated that based on previous conversation, she was under the impression that Ms. Smith only needed a letter from the owner confirming that all parking would be available to her. The letter would satisfy the capacity she is seeking. All of the other businesses close at 6 p.m.; her patrons would be coming in at night. There is public parking at Peninsula Town Center that she feels would be able to accommodate the additional parking Ms. Smith needs. She is also in negotiations with Cinema Café for shared parking if she is able to create a walkway with appropriate lighting. She has completed a number of renovations at the new location because she wants to stay in Hampton. Ms. Lee and Ms. Smith feel that each time Ms. Smith complies with what she is asked to do, there is something additional that needs to be done. She said Ms. Smith learned today that she had to complete a parking study but was told yesterday that she only needed a letter from the owner. Ms. Smith wants to run her business and maintain or increase the capacity but feels that she has to jump through hoops. Her business is successful and caters to an older crowd. There is no outdoor entertainment that will be disruptive to the neighborhood. The walls are insulated and music cannot be heard from the outside unless you are directly in front of the business. Ms. Smith would like to open the new location the middle of November. She cannot do anything inside of the location until she receives her Certificate of Occupancy; the work is at a standstill. Ms. Smith is responsible for two rents, the old location and the new location. Ms. Smith feels that the rules change each time she does something, and then something else is needed. Commissioner Bunting addressed the parking study. She said that she misunderstood and thought that a letter from the owner would be sufficient. She was not aware of City Ordinance, Section 11-8, Parking Credits, Exemptions and Reductions, which specifically states that in order for other parking credits to be applied, a parking study must be completed. The Ordinance cannot be waived. Commissioner Bunting apologized, stating she tried to expedite the matter. The letter that was received was not sufficient; the letter needs to be from the owner committing the parking spots to Ms. Smith. The parking study would protect Ms. Smith’s investment so she is not competing with someone else for the parking spots later on and also assures that all businesses at that location would have adequate parking. In response to a question from Ms. Lee, Commissioner Bunting reiterated that Ms. Smith could apply to the Zoning Administrator to receive parking credit for the on-street parking spots at Enfield; that does not have to wait for the parking study to be completed. The parking study would look at specific areas which are within 500 feet of her location. Peninsula Town Center’s garage is more than 500 feet from the location. Cinema Café is within 500 feet but there will need to be a legal agreement with the owner. In response to a question from Ms. Lee, Director O’Neill advised Ms. Smith to look at any parking that is within 500 feet of her location; if the spaces are private, there has to be a legally binding agreement that stands for 20 years. In response to a question from Ms. Lee, Senior Assistant City Attorney Brown clarified that their concern is that so long as Comfort Zone is in operation at this location, the agreement would need to cover that timeframe and that they would work with any provisions. Director O’Neill reiterated that there is a process that needs to be followed to ensure the parking spaces are available and meet the requirements of the Ordinance; the legal instruments must be in place. In response to a question from Ms. Lee, Director O’Neill can provide a list of companies that can provide the parking study. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 17  Commissioner Bunting commented that she was pleased that staff was able to amend the condition to allow the administrative adjustment for parking, and stressed the need to expedite completion of the Zoning Administrator permit for the on-street parking credits and parking study. Staff understands that Ms. Smith is relocating and they want to work with Ms. Smith to expedite the process. In response to a question from Chairman Southall, Ms. Smith stated that the exit doors that are on the apartment side are emergency exits only. Ms. Lee explained that this was a staff only area but there is a lit exit sign for use in the event of an emergency; they are able to exit through those doors. There is another set of doors that lead to an office area. In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Director O’Neill advised that Peninsula Town Center parking is private. Gaylene Kenoyton, President, Hampton Branch of NAACP, 10 Buckroe Avenue, stated she supports Ms. Smith and the Comfort Zone, that Ms. Smith runs a good business and gives back to the community and the Hampton City School system. Ms. Kenoyton said that Bishop Cutler, Head of the Minister’s Coalition, strongly supports Ms. Smith as well as other ministers who patronize the restaurant. They have volunteered to speak with the surrounding churches to assist Ms. Smith. She said that Ms. Smith attended the NAACP meeting earlier in the week and presented her circumstance to the group. There were a number of neighborhood residents in attendance. She hopes that the City will continue to work with Ms. Smith to help her business continue to succeed. Edwin Boone, 48 Snow Street, commended Ms. Smith for wanting to keep her business in the City of Hampton. He felt that it was urgent for the City to continue to help Ms. Smith and to expedite the process. Michelle Hammond, 143 Pocahontas Place, stated that the military utilizes the Comfort Zone frequently for business purposes and if the Post felt it was an unsafe location; soldiers would not be allowed to go there. She spoke that Ms. Smith was a good person and friend, and was confident that the parking issue would be resolved. Nathan Watts, 1226 Chesapeake Avenue, said that he has known Ms. Smith for a long time, and she has a business that should be encouraged to stay in the community. He said that he goes to the Comfort Zone twice a week to socialize with his friends, and her business is more like an adult lounge as opposed to a club. He said he supports her business because it is credible and upstanding. Dennis Singleton III, 118 Ward Drive, is one of the security personnel for the Comfort Zone. He says that the security is very good and the patrons feel safe. They abide by the rules that Ms. Smith has. They do not allow anyone in who does not have identification and if a person is not 30 or older, they are not allowed in. He stated that they have a dress code that is strictly enforced. If there is a problem with a patron, the person is escorted out of the premises. He said that several of the security personnel were trained by Roger Tucker who was Director of Security at Coliseum Mall. They worked under Mr. Tucker at the Coliseum and Peninsula Town Center until Mr. Tucker’s death, and then worked at the Comfort Zone. The security personnel are trained in judo and hand to hand combat and also train with the Hampton Police Department. Mr. Singleton stated that the Hampton Police frequently patrol the location and say that they don’t often have problems at the Comfort Zone. He thanked the Commission and hoped the process would be speedy. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 18  Commissioner Williams commented that he and his wife go to the Comfort Zone. He said that there has never been a problem. He shared that a number of people were concerned that Ms. Smith would be moving her business from Hampton. He is glad that she found a location and hopes the parking issue would be resolved. He suggested that she check with the church across the street because he has used the parking lot after hours for meetings. He encouraged her to continue what she is doing to make the location successful. Commissioner Campbell reiterated Mr. Boone’s comment stressing the importance of having the Comfort Zone remain in Hampton. He said he and his wife have been there and enjoyed the food, company, and atmosphere. He is excited that the Planning Commission as well as the Planning staff are doing everything in their power to get the Comfort Zone opened at the new location as quickly as possible. Chairman Southall remarked that he’d heard from a coworker prior to the application coming before the Commission that the Comfort Zone had to relocate. He commented that he had no problems with the new location and that hopefully she would be able to resolve the parking issues so she could increase the maximum capacity. He believed that the staff is excellent and would work with her. He asked that she provide the information they need expeditiously so it can be processed. There being no additional questions or speakers, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day a proposal by Comfort Zone Restaurant for live entertainment 2 in conjunction with a restaurant 2165 Cunningham Drive [LRSN: 7001532]; WHEREAS: the property is zoned Limited Commercial (C-2) District, and falls into the Coliseum Central Overlay (O-CC) District which allows for live entertainment 2 with an approved use permit; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends mixed use for the site and provides policies calling for expanding entertainment opportunities within the city and nurturing small and start-up businesses; WHEREAS: staff recommends a restriction to the building capacity based on the limited parking provided by the tenant’s shopping center; WHEREAS: staff recommends twelve (12) conditions be attached to the use permit addressing, among other things, the location of live entertainment, hours of operation, dancing, capacity, and sound; WHEREAS: staff recommends the fourth condition be amended to reflect that the approval of parking credits and/or reductions may increase the maximum capacity of the site during hours of live entertainment and that this may occur after approval of the use permit; and WHEREAS: five members of the public spoke in favor of this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Mary Bunting and seconded by Commissioner Teresa Schmidt, WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 19 BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 16-00009, subject to twelve (12) conditions, the fourth condition as amended. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Bunting, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: LaRue F. ZOA 197-2016, AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 3, USES PERMITTED Director O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 197-2016: Ordinance To Amend And Re-Enact Chapter 3 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Uses Permitted” By Amending Section 3-2 Pertaining To Automobile Wrecking In The Use Table and Section 3-3 Pertaining To Additional Standards On Permitted Uses. Copies of documents or information concerning this proposal may be obtained from the Community Development Department located in City Hall at 22 Lincoln Street or from Jeff Conkle, 757-728-5239 or jconkle@hampton.gov. Zoning Administrator Jeff Conkle presented the staff report on the subject amendments, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. He stated staff recommends approval of the subject zoning ordinance amendments. In response to a question by Chairman Southall, Mr. Conkle explained that “fully enclosed” typically means that the fence surrounds the entire site where the automobiles are being stored. Stacking automobiles higher than the fence has been mentioned previously and is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. He said that he could not comfortably say that this amendment would stop people from stacking automobiles higher than the fence height. In response to a question from Commissioner McCloud, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown responded that without researching she is not aware of an ordinance that addresses stacking the vehicles higher than the fence height. Commissioner McCloud felt that there should be an ordinance that addresses the problem of stacking vehicles. If a person can stack the vehicle, they feel there is no purpose in enclosing the fence. Mr. Conkle commented that research was completed recently and the previous wording of the ordinance does not prevent someone from stacking. The Planning Commission has been briefed previously on the problems. This ordinance change is limited to going back to how the use was meant to be regulated. Director O’Neill suggested that staff research the issue of stacking vehicles and present the Commissioners their thoughts on how the ordinance can be strengthened. There being no additional questions or speakers, the Commission approved the following resolution: WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 20 WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day an Ordinance To Amend And Re-Enact Chapter 3 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Uses Permitted” By Amending Section 3-2 Pertaining To Automobile Wrecking In The Use Table and Section 3-3 Pertaining To Additional Standards On Permitted Uses; WHEREAS: this amendment proposes to fix an error in the ordinance resulting from the adoption of the Use Table in 2014; WHEREAS: this amendment will clarify that outdoor automobile wrecking in the M-3 district requires a use permit and that this use is also subject to an additional standard where permitted; WHEREAS: this amendment will also clarify that indoor automobile wrecking is subject to an additional standard where permitted; WHEREAS: this amendment will result in the ordinance reading the way it did prior to the error in the Use Table adoption; and WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke with regard to this amendment. 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 Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 197-2016. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Williams, Campbell, McCloud, Schmidt, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: LaRue, Bunting V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. BRIEFING ON CPA 16-00002, BIKE WALK HAMPTON Senior Planner Alison Alexander briefed the Planning Commission on CPA 16-00002 Bike Walk Hampton. Ms. Alexander stated that the Pedestrian & Bike Plan would be on the agenda for Planning Commission in November and on City Council’s agenda in December. The City received a grant from the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment to complete a survey for the Pedestrian & Bike Plan. The Plan focuses on the 7 Master Plan Areas and centers around 3 bicycle user groups, Competitive user, Recreational user and Transit user and pedestrians. The Plan includes program and policy recommendations and specific project/facility recommendations totaling 30 miles that are outlined through Strategic Corridors. The Plan is broken down by prioritization and implementation criteria. There are benefits with having a Pedestrian & Bike Plan: Economic, including proven property value increases and savings on transportation costs; Environmental; and Health benefits. The goals of the Plan are: 1. Create a plan to meet the needs of all user groups; WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 21  2. Connect local and regional destinations and resources with active transportation options; 3. Design a framework of corridors for improvement; 4. Provide direction and guidance on appropriate bike and pedestrian facilities; 5. Develop programs and policies to respond to the public’s needs; and 6. Prioritize project recommendations for achieving implementation. Staff began the project by review the existing conditions, the challenges to bike and pedestrian transportation, such as narrow bridges, lack of connectivity and amenities, high traffic roadways, etc. as well as opportunities for bike and pedestrian transportation, e.g. Buckroe Beach and Fort Monroe. Hampton currently has 9 miles of bike lanes that are not connected. In designing the Bike & Pedestrian Plan, various circumstances were taken into consideration, like the land uses, the different destinations and resources, bus stops and crash data. Staff has engaged the community through steering committees (in-house and citizen), public meetings, the Hampton Youth Commission and a community survey. The Bike Walk Hampton event was held on Saturday, September 24th at Carousel Park to further engage the community. The Plan’s policy recommendations have been created by looking at the community input and existing conditions. The program recommendations were composed largely from the community survey information. There is a toolkit of different types of improvements and users. Bicycle users are divided into 4 different types: experienced, moderate, beginners, and those who will not ride at all. This Plan is geared toward the moderate and beginner riders. There are a number of facilities outlined in the Plan. Staff has considered the different types of facilities, both on-road and off-road, as well as intersection treatments. They have been applied to the strategic corridors which are broken down into very specific project recommendations based on the Master Plan areas. The project recommendations were then ranked based on certain criteria including if the project is located in a Master Plan area, is on a transit corridor, and cost and source to implement the project. The next steps involve expansion of the current Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan, implementation of the program, policy and project recommendations, and exploring connections to the Capital Trail. Staff will continue to engage the community through outreach events. In response to questions from Commissioner Campbell, Ms. Alexander stated the study was funded by a grant from the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, which is a State transportation office. Bike lanes can be incorporated when Public Works is repaving roadways so it does not cost the City additional money. The best example of the Bike & Pedestrian Plan implementation is LaSalle Avenue between Chesapeake Avenue and Kecoughtan Road where bike lanes have been added. The goal has been to complete as many projects and recommendations that specifically require repaving and/or restriping. B. YOUTH PLANNER REPORT Junior Youth Planner Janaria Lickey presented the Youth Planner report for the month of September. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20161006 Page 22