Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT THE WORK SESSION OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE SUPERINTENDENT’S CONFERENCE ROOM, JONES MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL, 1819 NICKERSON BOULEVARD, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017 AT 3:00 P.M. Chairman Tommy Southall called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. A call of the roll noted Commissioners Gaynette LaRue, Jimmy Gray, Pete Peterson, and Chairman Southall as being present. Commissioners Christopher Carter and Gregory Williams and were noted as absent; however, Commissioner Carter arrived after the roll call. Staff in attendance were Secretary to the Commission/Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown, Planning & Zoning Administration Division Manager Michael Hayes, (temporary) Deputy Zoning Administrator Matt Smith, Chief Planner Donald Whipple, City Planner Tolu Ibikunle, and Back-up Recording Secretary/Senior Administrative Assistant Aqiylah McGill, and Back-up Recording Secretary/Administrative Assistant Shaelee Jones. The Commission and staff discussed the following agenda items, with staff providing the following information: Director O’Neill introduced and welcomed to the Planning Commission Councilman Jimmy Gray who is replacing Teresa Schmidt and Ruthann Kellum, who is replacing Gaynette LaRue or Gregory Williams. Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 17-00002 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17- 00003: These are requests by the City of Hampton to consider amendments to the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) to update use policies and associated map for the Magruder Boulevard Corridor and Langley Research and Development Park, and to amend and re-enact Chapter 3 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled “Uses Permitted” in the Use Table. The City and Economic Development Authority (EDA) have been in conversations with the Langley Research and Development Park Association regarding expanding the list of permitted uses within the park. Staff and the EDA recommends approval of the proposal with the 55 uses. Property owners submitted a letter objecting the proposal. They are not in agreement with the changes to the permitted uses in the proposal. Property owners generated a list of uses totaling 81 uses. The City supports designating approximately 15 acres of land for commercial support uses for restaurants, banks, etc. The proposal has given the property owners more flexibility that they had before and modifications to the land use plan have given them uses they did not have before. The property owners are requesting a wide range of retail and commercial uses as found along Mercury Boulevard. Rezoning Application No. 16-00012: This is a request by Marlyn Development Corp. and AH&H Corp. to rezone 16± acres located at 1300 North Mallory Street from Multiple Dwelling (MD-4) with conditions to One Family Residence (R-4) with conditions for a single family subdivision of up to 41 single family residences. There are a number of differences between this proposal and a previously submitted proposal. There are now over 50 different elevations. The concept plan has been changed to show a mulch trail going down to the water, which is referenced in the proffers. There is a proposed connection to Tulip Street, as a right-of-way for emergency vehicles only, which will be regulated by a physical barrier. The concept plan shows 41 lots which are 60’ wide. The front yard setback has a proposed minimum of 20’ rather than the 15’ minimum as permitted by R-4. The side yard setbacks will be 25% of lot width and are not required to match on each side. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 1 The waterfront referenced on the proffered plan is not accessible for the public. The waterfront is not a beachfront area but provides access to the natural environment. The ordinance requires streets over 1,000’ in length to have a secondary connection for public safety and public service delivery, unless there is a physical reason it cannot be provided. The right-of-way must be built to Public Works design standard in terms of cross section and width of the street. It requires approval from the Public Works Director after showing how a different plan would meet the same needs and is appropriate. Bollards or a gate would require Public Works approval to block a right-of-way. The concept plan is not approvable under the Subdivision Ordinance without a waiver from the Public Works Director. In the earlier proposal, residents opposed a connection to Tulip Street but stated issues that would be relieved by the connection. The proffers are voluntary and provided by the applicant; the City cannot require them. A minor modification can be made at the City Council public hearing or the applicant can request a deferral at today’s Planning Commission meeting. The meeting would have to be re-advertised and brought back before the Planning Commission; the proffers cannot be amended at today’s Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission can vote for approval or denial of the rezoning application. Work session adjourned at 3:38 p.m. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 2 AT THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE FORUM, JONES MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL, 1819 NICKERSON BOULEVARD, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017 AT 3:30 P.M. l. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Tommy Southall called the meeting to order at 3:42 p.m. II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioners Christopher Carter, Gaynette LaRue, Jimmy Gray, Pete Peterson, and Chairman Southall as being present. Commissioner Gregory Williams was noted as absent. Staff in attendance were Secretary to the Commission/Director of Community Development Terry O’Neill, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown, Planning & Zoning Administration Division Manager Michael Hayes, (temporary) Deputy Zoning Administrator Matt Smith, Chief Planner Donald Whipple, City Planner Tolu Ibikunle, Senior Youth Planner Virgil Thornton II, and Back-up Recording Secretary/Senior Administrative Assistant Aqiylah McGill, and Back-up Recording Secretary/Administrative Assistant Shaelee Jones. III. MINUTES – MAY 18, 2017 WORK SESSION & PUBLIC MEETING A motion was made by Commissioner Gaynette LaRue and seconded by Commissioner Pete Peterson to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2017 Work Session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Carter, LaRue, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams 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. A. RZ 16-00012 – MARLYN DEVELOPMENT CORP AND AH&H CORP, 1300 N. MALLORY STREET Director O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the agenda item. Rezoning Application No. 16-00012: by Marlyn Development Corp. and AH&H Corp. to rezone 16.48± acres at 1300 N. Mallory Street [LRSN: 12005714], the former nursing home site between N. Mallory Street and Mill Creek, from Multiple Dwelling (MD-4) District with conditions to One Family Residence (R-4) District with conditions for a single family subdivision. Approval of this application would permit up to 41 single family residences. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends high density for this site, and the Buckroe Master Plan (2005, as amended) recommends a combination of a new nursing home facility and single family homes with community access to the waterfront. Copies of WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 3  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. Planning & Zoning Administration Division Manager Michael Hayes presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. He stated that staff recommends denial of the rezoning application. Attorney Larry Cumming, Kauffman & Canoles, 2236 Cunningham Drive, representing the applicant, explained that the proposed development was being presented again before the Planning Commission per the request from City Council to make changes to the previous plan. Mr. Cumming requested rebuttal time to respond to opposing speakers. Mr. Cumming gave a presentation on the history and changes to the proposed development. He stated that the proposed development is materially different and improved compared to what the community wants, is a significant improvement over the current proposed development and is more consistent with the Buckroe Master Plan and Buckroe Bayfront Pattern Book (2007, as amended). Mr. Cumming stated that the Shelton property is at the extreme Southern end and edge of Buckroe and has a different environment and different style of homes. Because a portion of the property is wetlands, it is not buildable for streets and there are significant limitations to what can be done on that area of the property. Mr. Cumming questioned if the homes pictured in the pattern book are consistent with the current homes in the community. Mr. Cumming also stated that the applicant is complying with all requirements of the R-9 zoning with the exception of the setback requirement, which is closer to the R-9 than R-4 zoning. Because the property is very narrow, it is difficult to have sizeable homes on both sides with the full setbacks and full rear yards. Additionally, Mr. Cumming commented that the community did not want a connecting street between the proposed development and Tulip Street. Because of the City ordinance requirement, access between the property and Tulip Street is restricted to emergency vehicles only by means of a barrier and right-of-way design acceptable to the Hampton Fire Department. Mr. Cumming offered a list of subdivisions in Hampton that have over 1,000 feet of roadway with only one access point. Mr. Cumming listed positive aspects of the proposed development:  Average sales price – $350,000 compared to average of $115,000 for existing homes in adjoining neighborhood  All utilities and power lines underground  Sidewalks on both sides of the street to provide accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists  Off-street garage parking  Half of the homes will have a front porch  All homes will be elevated two (2) steps up from finish grade  At least one (1) street tree per home  Siding of homes will be the same premium finish  Garage doors will have windows and decorative hardware  Lots fronting on Mallory will have rear entry garages  Homes will have a variety of exterior of designs and colors  Total development value – $17,000,000 with annual tax revenue of $210,000 In response to questions from Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Cumming answered that technically the rezoning request is for the R-9 zoning district with the exception of the 20’ minimum setback. In order to have the 20’ setback, the applicant had to request a rezoning to WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 4 R-4, but follow the R-9 zoning standards. Mr. Hayes further explained that the R-4 zoning district was developed to allow for smaller lots with smaller setbacks to allow for the type of development as in Hampton’s historic neighborhoods. The R-4 zoning district offers better design standards with regard to site layout and homes, increased density, and effectively offers more flexibility. The R-4 zoning district will have to be either in a master plan area or in an area that has similarly sized and designed lots and neighborhoods. The 2-step elevation works toward the pattern book’s requirement of 3 feet of elevation and is not intended to meet the flood zone requirement. The development would need to meet the flood zone requirements on a house by house basis. In response to questions from Commissioner Gray, Mr. Hayes responded that the properties adjacent to the north and east of the proposed development are zoned R-13 and R- 11. They are both single family districts and the lot size is larger than the R-9 district. The R-13 zoning allows minimum 80 foot lot width and minimum 12,000 square feet lot size. Homes built in the R-13 and R-15 zoning districts do not have to comply with the pattern book or design review by Planning staff. In response to a question from Commissioner Gray, Mr. Cumming stated that the applicant added elevations from another builder, Chesapeake Homes, to the application. The applicant has not finalized a contract with Ryan Homes for the development. Commissioner Peterson stated a number of concerns he had with the rezoning application and proposed development. He felt that the applicant was picking and choosing certain elements from the R-4 and R-9 zoning districts to make a new zoning district. Mr. Peterson stated that it conflicts with the reason the City has zoning standards and changes to the R-9 standard can be made with a variance. Mr. Peterson noted Mr. Cumming compared the property’s previous development of 275 units with the proposed development of 41 units. He pointed out that both developments consist of different housing and the City would not prefer 275 units built on the property if it was not some type of assisted living facility. Mr. Peterson added that he lives in Farmington which has only one (1) egress, and that he would hate for the City to make that mistake again. He mentioned an incident where a tree was blocking the street and he was not able to leave the development and wanted another way out. He added that just because the City has other streets with one (1) egress should not drive the reason it should be done again. Mr. Cumming responded that the applicant is not receiving any benefits of the R-4 zoning. He referred back to Mr. Hayes statement that R-4 is an incentive zoning that permits you to have a higher density but other standards that need to be met. The applicant has given up all of the R-4 benefits because they are required to build to an R-9 standard. Mr. Cumming stated that the lot sizes are small and barely able to fit a normal sized home. Commissioner Peterson remarked that the applicant has applied for R-4 zoning because of the elements it provides the setbacks the applicant needs to build the houses. Mr. Peterson reiterated that the City has zoning ordinances to be followed; an applicant could appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. Mr. Peterson stated that he was having a hard time with all the R-9 requirements but the applicant is still seeking an R-4 zoning. Mr. Cumming commented that the City’s current plan calls for high density on the property, which is 15 units or more per acre, and yielding approximately 250 units. He stated that a person could place 250 units on the property and be consistent with the community plan in terms of high density. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 5  Commissioner Peterson corrected that units would be stacked as opposed to laid out over the property. He further commented that if something happened and Mallory Street was blocked, no one could get in or out of the complex. Although emergency vehicles could access the development, the emergency exit is not accessible to the residents on Tulip Street if that street was blocked, and Mr. Peterson saw that as a problem. In response to questions from Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Cumming explained that there will be a mulch walking trail to Mill Creek for the community to use. The developer has agreed to pay $10,000 to the homeowner’s association to enhance the trail as the community desires. Regarding the dominance of the garage on the front façade of the house, Mr. Cumming answered that for high dollar properties; the developer builds what people want and will buy. The applicant has not been able to find any developer who will build detached garages in the back. He also pointed out that most of the houses in the neighborhood do not have garages or driveways, they park on the street. In response to a comment from Commissioner LaRue, Mr. Cumming responded that economically he could not see a developer reconfiguring the design the City wants with a recessed or detached garage in the back for $350,000 – $360,000. He says that he understands the desire of the City but does not see a way it can happen. Mr. Hayes clarified that it is possible to build homes with recessed attached garages. He cited house built in the Infill Housing Overlay District; which requires the garages be set back at least 18 inches from the front of the house. The requirement is not that the garages be detached. In response to a question from Chairman Southall, Mr. Hayes answered that a home could be designed to meet the requirements of the pattern book and have an attached garage. The key is for the overall design to create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The front of the house or front door can be brought forward, or porches added to the house to take the focus off of the garage. Marshall Brown, 30 Hughes Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed development citing flooding as his main concern. Lucille Payne, 1204 Pansy Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development citing flooding, wildlife, increased traffic, parking problems and noise as her concerns. Mary Lee Bassett, 299 Hughes Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed development citing erosion, flooding, pesticide use, and the desire to provide senior housing in the community as her main concerns. Mary Martin, 1340 N. Mallory Street, spoke in support of the proposed development. Patrick Joseph Laughlin, 1327 N. Mallory Street, spoke in support of the proposed development. Randy Crowther, 1223 Tulip Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development citing concerns for the wildlife, flooding, and inadequate infrastructure. William E. Holtzclaw, 300 Hughes Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed development citing lawn and parking concerns and concerns with the developer Ryan Homes. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 6  Steve Gildea, 1339 N. Mallory Street, spoke in support of the proposed development. George Payne, Jr., 1230 Tulip Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development citing concerns with high density housing, the desire to provide elderly housing in the community and for the wildlife. In response to a question from Chairman Southall, Mr. Payne pointed out on the Concept Subdivision Plan that the wood line comes up to lot 10. As rebuttal to the public’s comments, Mr. Cumming stated that he understood that flooding is a site plan evaluation issue and he believes is not a basis for approving or denying a rezoning application. He assured the neighborhood residents that the City’s site plan reviewers made sure that the runoff is not enhanced in the neighborhood but captured on the site. There is a retention pond on the plan to capture the runoff and not damage the adjoining neighborhood. Mr. Cumming said that this waterfront cannot be compared to that of the boardwalk at Virginia Beach and the environmental laws prevent that property from getting like that. This property is not a location for a beachfront park. 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 Marlyn Development Corporation and property owner AH&H Corporation to rezone 16.48+ acres at 1300 N. Mallory Street [LRSN 12005714] from Multiple Residence (MD-4) District with conditions to One Family Residence (R-4) District with conditions for the purpose of developing a single family subdivision; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends high density residential for this area; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan recognizes developable waterfront land as a limited and very valuable resource within the city and regionally, and such property provides opportunity for economic development, environmental protection, and public open space; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan provides general objectives and policies related to increasing the diversity of housing stock and the city’s share of higher value housing relative to the region; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan encourages high quality site and building design appropriate for the waterfront, respects existing neighborhoods, and enhances community interaction and public safety; WHEREAS: the subject property is specifically highlighted in the Mallory Street initiative of the Buckroe Master Plan (2005, as amended); WHEREAS: the Buckroe Master Plan includes in its design principles support for the unique coastal character of architecture in Buckroe, development of an infill strategy that respects the varied character of the community, and strengthening Buckroe as a coastal town in the City of Hampton; WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 7 WHEREAS: the central recommendation for this area in the Buckroe Master Plan is the creation of a public park along Mill Creek and a pattern of new houses that connect seamlessly to the adjacent neighborhood; WHEREAS: the Buckroe Bayfront Pattern Book (2007, as amended) provides further guidance on how to appropriately develop and build within this area to achieve the policies stated in the Buckroe Master Plan and in the Hampton Community Plan; WHEREAS: the R-4 Zoning District was adopted with the purpose of facilitating development in keeping with the character of the City of Hampton’s historic neighborhoods; WHEREAS: development in the R-4 Zoning District should be designed in a way to encourage pedestrian activity and embrace crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles; WHEREAS: the applicant proffers using the R-9 dimensional standards for all but the front yard setback; WHEREAS: the front yard setback would be a minimum of 20’ compared to the R-4 minimum front yard setback of 50’ for lots without alley access and the R-9 minimum of 30’; WHEREAS: the proffers also include a maximum of 41 homes, the conceptual layout, that the elevations of homes directly beside and across the street from each other will vary, added details to garage doors, and a certain quality of vinyl siding; WHEREAS: the proffered connection to Tulip Street does not meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance nor the Public Works Design and Construction Standards; WHEREAS: modifications to the Design and Construction Standards can only be granted by the Public Works Director upon finding that the proposed alternative provides the same level of service and quality as the design and construction standards, or some unique geographic feature makes it impractical to meet the Public Works Design and Construction Standards; WHEREAS: if City Council accepts the proffer statement and referenced conceptual plan as submitted, a conflict between the zoning and the Design and Construction Standards will exist; WHEREAS: the proffers only guarantee half of the homes would have front porches and do not guarantee any homes are built with brick, stone, or standing seam metal roofs as depicted in some of the proffered elevations; WHEREAS: the proffered elevations do not meet the recommendations of the Buckroe Master Plan nor the Buckroe Bayfront Pattern Book; WHEREAS: the proffered layout is not oriented toward the waterfront and natural areas; WHEREAS: the homes may be built on slabs and not elevated to the Buckroe Bayfront Pattern Book’s recommended three foot minimum; and WHEREAS: three members of the public spoke in support of the application, and six members of the public spoke in opposition. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 8 NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner James W. Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Christopher Carter, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council denial of Rezoning Application No. 16-00012. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Carter, LaRue, Gray, Peterson NAYS: Southall ABST: None ABSENT: Williams, (Vacant Position) Commissioner Peterson remarked that his two (2) reasons for denying the application were that the applicant was requesting one (1) zoning but using the criteria from another zoning to get the zoning he wants and that there needed to be access from the site on Tulip Street. Commissioner LaRue stated that she felt that the proposed development was an interesting and major investment project but was not right for that particular property. Commissioner Gray agreed with the previous Commissioners’ comments. He added that the City needs new homes averaging $350,000 but the location does not fit with the concept plan. He could not approve the application without the access to Tulip Street. Chairman Southall felt that the developer had done all he could to satisfy the residential complaints and staff’s concerns. He commented that 42 homes on a single street is more pleasant than 275 homes that are three (3)or four (4) stories high overlooking other properties; the City may end up with something worse that what we are fighting against. The concerns with flooding are understandable, through site plan reviews, the flooding will be mitigated with the retention pond. The proposed development meets the requirements of R-9 zoning with the exception of the setback but one-half (½) of the property is unbuildable. If the City wants developers to come in and build on properties, they have to be given some latitude in order to do so. Most cities offer millions of dollars in incentive to build elaborate neighborhoods but the City of Hampton does not have that type of money and has to rely on private investments. We must allow the investor to take the risk, calculate what is right and wrong, what works and what doesn’t; otherwise he wouldn’t be in business. Chairman Southall reminded the public that the motion to deny will be forwarded to City Council, where the final decision will be made. The Planning Commission’s decision is a recommendation to City Council. Notification of the City Council agenda will be in the Daily Press newspaper. If members of the public would like to be heard, they should attend the City Council meeting. Director O’Neill added that the item will most likely be on the City Council agenda for July 12, 2017 meeting. B. UP 17-00006 – SUPERIOR PAWN COMPANY I LLC, 100 W. MERCURY BOULEVARD Director O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Use Permit Application No. 17-00006: by Superior Pawn Company I LLC to permit a pawn shop at 100 W. Mercury Boulevard, which is bound by Mercury Boulevard WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 9  and Doolitle Road [LRSN: 8005717]. The property is currently zoned Limited Commercial District (C-2) and is covered by the Flood Zone Overlay District (O-FZ) – (X500); all of these districts allow for a pawn shop with a use permit. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) and the North King Street Master Plan (2007) recommend commercial land use for this site. 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 Tolu Ibikunle, AICP, 757-728-5237 or tibikunle@hampton.gov. City Planner Tolu Ibikunle presented the staff report on the subject application, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. She stated that staff recommends approval of the use permit application, subject to six (6) conditions. The applicant was available to answer questions Jay Dunbar, 2724 Linden Lane, Williamsburg, VA, explained that he has been a business owner in Hampton since 2012. Mr. Dunbar is requesting to move his pawn shop business because he needs a larger location for his business. The new location has been renovated and he would like to open it by August 1st. His shooting range and firearms dealer business will remain at 104 W. Mercury Boulevard, where is has been since the 1980s. Mr. Dunbar purchased the combination pawn show and shooting range in 1996. He is excited about having his business in Hampton and says he would love to move to Hampton if he could find the right suitable property. 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 Superior Pawn Company I LLC to permit a pawn shop at 100 W. Mercury Boulevard [LRSN: 8005717]; WHEREAS: the subject property contains .26+ acre, with an existing building that contains 3,748+ square feet; WHEREAS: the current business operation is located at 104 W. Mercury Boulevard, and the applicant is pursuing a use permit application to operate a pawn shop in order to relocate the existing business to the subject property at 100 W. Mercury Boulevard; WHEREAS: the property is currently zoned Limited Commercial District (C-2), which permits a pawn shop with an approved use permit; WHEREAS: the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends commercial land use for this site and most of the properties lining W. Mercury Boulevard, and the North King Street Master Plan (2007, as amended) recommends commercial uses for the subject property; WHEREAS: staff recommends six (6) conditions be attached to the use permit, including: location, hours of operation (Sunday-Saturday 8AM-8PM), business operations must occur in an enclosed building, no outdoor sales of merchandise, licensing requirements, and other standard conditions typically attached to a use permit; and WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 10 WHEREAS: no members of the public spoke during the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Christopher Carter and seconded by Commissioner Jimmy Gray, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Use Permit Application No. 17-00006, subject to six (6) conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Carter, LaRue, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams, (Vacant Position) Chairman Southall added that the recommendation will be forwarded to City Council. 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. C. CPA 17-00002 – HAMPTON COMMUNITY PLAN (2006, AS AMENDED) Director O’Neill read the public hearing notice on the next agenda item. Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 17-00002: by the City of Hampton to consider amendments to the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) to update the land use policies and associated map for the Magruder Boulevard Corridor; certain parcels within Langley Research and Development Park (LSRNs 6000997, 6000998, 6001009, 13000970, and 6000976), known as 3200 Magruder Blvd., 121 Floyd Thompson Blvd., and 3221 and 3217 Commander Shepard Blvd., respectively; and certain parcels at the intersection of Commander Shepard Boulevard and Wythe Creek Road (LSRNs 6001195, 6001196, and 6001197), known as 11 Wythe Creek Road, 3404 and 3406 Commander Shepard Blvd., respectively. The proposed changes would acknowledge designated commercial nodes along the Magruder Boulevard Business Corridor and change the land use designation for the specified parcels referenced above from Business/Industrial to Commercial land use. 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 Donald Whipple, 757-728-5235 or dwhipple@hampton.gov. D. ZOA 17-00003 – 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. 17-00003: by the City of Hampton to Amend Ad Re-Enact Chapter 3 Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Uses Permitted” By Amending Section 3-2 Pertaining To Uses Permitted In The Use Table. Approval of this amendment would permit certain additional retail, sales, service, and office, institutional, recreational, agricultural and animal-related, and industrial uses in the Limited Manufacturing (M-1) District. The amendment would also bring permitted uses in other districts into alignment WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 11  with these changes to the M-1 District by permitting certain additional retail, sales, service, and office, recreational, and industrial uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) District, Limited Commercial (C-2) District, Residential Transition (RT) District, Downtown Business (DT-1) District, Downtown Waterfront (DT-2) District, Langley Flight Approach Hampton Roads Center (LFA-3) District, and Light Manufacturing (M-2) District. This item is being proposed in conjunction with Community Plan Amendment No. 17-00002. 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 Matt Smith, 757-727- 6077 or mssmith@hampton.gov. Chief Planner Donald Whipple presented the staff report on the subject applications, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes. He stated staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance amendments. Mr. Whipple added that letters were submitted from the Economic Development Authority (EDA) and the Langley Research and Development Park Association supporting the proposed amendments. In response to questions from Chairman Southall, Mr. Whipple responded that there are 17 new uses added to the M-1 District, bringing the total uses permitted to 55. They are listed as: Permitted By-Right Custom clothing maker Computer equipment repair Public college/university Business school Dance school Brewery/distillery Manufacturing of boats/sail-making Manufacturing/processing/treatment of baked goods, dairy products Manufacturing/processing/treatment of seafood Manufacturing/processing/treatment 4E (assortment of light manufacturing uses) Small artisan shop (crafts) With Use Permit Private college/university Community recreation center Active playground Indoor shooting range Kennel Veterinarian office/hospital Chairman Southall commented that he was not sure how some of the uses fit into a manufacturing class, such as a dance school. With such limited resources that we have, if the City wants to recruit manufacturing businesses, we have very limited land to do so. The Chairman also noted some by-right issues with C-3 Zoning District. He is concerned that the lesser uses will consume the property, and the major uses that come with the larger jobs do not have the resources to come here. In response to a question from Chairman Southall, Mr. Whipple responded that the uses added were a compromise on both sides, between the Association and staff. For example, a public and private school were already allowed in M-1 District with a use permit, so they thought it was appropriate to add dance and business school and it was recommended by the WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 12 Association. Director O’Neill added that staff looked at the zoning for other business parks in the region and property owners wanted to be competitive with the other business parks. Carol Zeno, 5624 Old Providence Road, Virginia Beach, is the co-owner of 18, 20, 20A, and 20B Research Drive, and co-owner/operator of Universal Laboratories, 20 Research Drive. Ms. Zeno is also the President of Langley Research and Development Park Business Association. She stated that they had been working with City staff for approximately 1 (one) year on adding additional uses to the business park to increase business activity in the park. Private owners own the majority of the property in the park. They tried to put together uses that would work without interfering with the businesses currently operating and want to be able to rent empty spaces within the park and increase property sales opportunities in the park. At the June 13 th meeting with the City, the presentation did not include some uses that had been previously agreed upon at the last EDA Transaction Committee. Ms. Zeno also stated that if those uses were listed, she knows of 6 (six) well established businesses currently operating in Newport News that would move into the Langley Business Park by the end of the year. These are small businesses that would bring new tax revenue to the City that are not buying another property but filling voids inside some of the empty buildings within the park. The property owners are asking if the City staff can take another look at the additional uses that were requested and reinstate them. In response to questions from Commissioner Peterson, Ms. Zeno responded that the six (6) businesses will make permanent use of the space. She would prefer not to share the name or type of business but their use is included in the list of uses that were taken off as of June 13, 2017. Brian Wachter, 237 Mill Stream Way, Williamsburg, owns Bihrle Applied Research Inc., 81 Research Drive and is a member of the Board of Directors of Langley Research and Development Park Business Association. Mr. Wachter thanked the City staff for working with the Association on amending the permitted uses for Langley Business Park and gave a brief history on the development and evolution of the park. He believed that the nature of the park has shifted toward an industrial park and would prefer it return to its roots as a research, development and manufacturing park. Mr. Wachter added that he was not aware of any efforts by the City to recruit research and development businesses and would like the city to look at how to fill the vacancies and make the park more attractive and viable. He felt that if the park is not continuing in the research and development use, additional uses should be permitted to make the park more viable and open to other businesses. Mr. Wachter stated that the expansion of permitted uses moves in the right direction but does not go far enough. He feels that the M-1 zoning seems reasonable as long as it is aligned with the additional approved uses; he is not sure why some of the agreed upon uses were approved and others were not and requested the City amend the proposed permitted uses. Laura Sandford, 6 Tomahawk Road, representing the EDA, supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She stated that the EDA believes the changes, while increasing business opportunities which support existing businesses, will not fundamentally change the nature and character of the park. In response to a question from Commissioner Carter, Ms. Sandford answered that the EDA constantly tries to entice businesses as best as they can. She said that having that park for the higher paying jobs in those industries is a perfect match for what the EDA does on a daily basis. In response to a question from Chairman Southall, Ms. Sandford responded that she agreed with Mr. Whipple that City staff, EDA, and business owners came to a compromise to WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 13 give the landowners uses they could utilize. They wanted to expand the uses but also felt that the park was enticing as it is. Director O’Neill added that looking at the two (2) categories, the major difference in opinion between the City staff, EDA, and property owners on allowed uses is in the commercial retail section. The manufacturing, office research type uses are similar with minor differences, and line up well with M-2 with a few exceptions. The major differences in opinion between staff, EDA, and property owners is how far the City goes in allowing retail, commercial type uses be permitted in the park. Director O’Neill stated that City staff and EDA wanted to allow some of the commercial retail uses because they felt they were valuable assets to serve the people who work in the park. They don’t think it is appropriate that those retail commercial uses would be appropriate on each parcel in the park. According to Director O’Neill, the plan amendment if approved, states strategic locations (15 acres) for those types of uses but not on every parcel in the park. Craig Read, 1 Manhattan Square, representing 104 Research Drive, has worked as a commercial broker in Hampton for the past twenty (20) years. Mr. Read stated that the lack of certain venues in the City of Hampton and the length of time for a use permit causes business to go to Newport News. He felt that the Langley Business Park should be redeveloped with multiple type uses like Peninsula Town Center. He supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment but would like the zoning ordinance amendment to be deferred. In response to a question from Commissioner Gray, Mr. Read responded that he did not mind give and take on the list of permitted uses but he did not feel that there was a compromise. The Association was never asked about the uses being removed from the list they agreed upon. Chairman Southall commented that the City may call on Mr. Read’s expertise. He said that he has asked Planning staff to work with the Planning Commission to look at up and coming trends, items that the City does not have ordinances for and inviting startup businesses to the City. In response to a question from Commissioner Carter, Mr. Read answered that the Association wrote the City a letter with a list of additional uses and their reason for the additional uses. Director O’Neill commented that City staff would not have spent time and effort in both the meetings and research if they were not earnestly trying to pursue the task that the EDA has asked them to do. He is confident that he made it very clear that in the process the Association was not going to get what they wanted for a variety of reasons. M-1 has to fit within the categories that exist and we cannot pick and choses uses. Each category has an intent statement and we cannot pull uses out of other categories. City staff tried to find a happy medium but had to answer to the EDA’s objective and also meet planning and legal principles. Director O’Neill indicated that the City staff would go back to EDA for direction going forward, draft the proposal and share the proposal with property owners so they were aware of what staff was going forward with. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Brown elaborated on the legal aspects of the amendment. She informed that no one from the City Attorney’s Office gave a legal opinion on the matter. The legal limitations are derived from the State Code and the Constitution, primarily the Equal Protection Clause. When drawing district lines and classifying M-1 or M-2 as a district, the City has to have a rational basis for classifying areas different from another; that is what the WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 14 intent statements are for. Ms. Brown added that the intent statement also comes into play when deciding the uses for each district; there has to be a reason based on permitted policy objectives that the State Code gives us. Uses have to fit within the context of the zoning district. In response to a question from Mr. Read, Director O’Neill explained that the community plan was the general guiding policy for land use decisions in the city. Director O’Neill clarified that a use permit does not take nine (9) months; it is generally a 90-day process. Community Development staff reviews all building plans and submitted documents. Many developments that come in have to get a use permit, and they begin the process of submitting site plans and buildings plans; the use permit process can be done in parallel to the plans review process before the development can get permits to begin construction. If the applicant understands the process, they see it is not a big delay. Geoff Hinshelwood, 4901 Fennell Lane, Suffolk, owns property at 18 and 20 Research Drive and has had a business at that location since 1994. Mr. Hinshelwood shared that he wants to bring new businesses to the park. He felt that the market drives the businesses that come into the park and research and development businesses are going to NASA. There are businesses in the park that are not compatible with the permitted uses. Mr. Hinshelwood suggested renting space to a daycare, bank or other businesses that the employees need so they do not have to take their business to the Coliseum District, Poquoson or York County. He would like to table the discussion. Commissioner Carter suggested that City staff, EDA and property owners discuss the permitted uses further. He added that we want the business owners to stay in Hampton. Commissioner Peterson questioned if they would be able to come to agreement after working for one (1) year and not being able to come to an agreement. He noted that the property owners do not want M-2, yet eight (8) of the changes they want in M-1 are in M-2. He believed that staff tried to compromise with the property owners. Commissioner LaRue stated that she was not comfortable voting on the zoning ordinance amendment without knowing more of what happened after the June 13 th meeting. Multiple people have commented how the list of approved uses that were agreed upon changed after that meeting. She stated that the Planning Commission has very little information on what the process has been and has not been a part of that process. Commissioner LaRue said that she was in favor of expanding the uses and increasing the number of uses allowed but she does not know enough about what is going on to be able to make a decision today. Commissioner Gray commented that he thought there was an agreement but it has changed. The property owners do not necessarily want all 81 uses but there are a number of uses they think should be added to the final list. He believed there should be another opportunity for the City, EDA and property owners to come to a compromise and bring it back before the Planning Commission with everyone involved in agreement with that final list. Director O’Neill stated that he believed there was a general consensus from staff and property owners that the plan amendment should go forward as a separate action. The plan amendment furthers the opportunity for property owners to pursue commercial land uses. He commented that the real issue is the list of uses not the plan amendment. Director O’Neill suggested that the zoning ordinance be deferred for further work. WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 15  There being no additional questions or speakers, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: the Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Community Plan Amendment No. 17-00002 by the City of Hampton to consider amendments to the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) to update the land use policies and associated map for the Magruder Boulevard Corridor; certain parcels within Langley Research and Development Park (LRSNs 6000997, 6000998, 6001009, 13000970, and 6000976), known as 3200 Magruder Boulevard, 121 Floyd Thompson Boulevard, and 3221 and 3217 Commander Shepard Boulevard, respectively; and certain parcels at the intersection of Commander Shepard Boulevard and Wythe Creek Road (LRSNs 6001195, 6001196, and 6001197), known as 11 Wythe Creek Road, and 3404 and 3406 Commander Shepard Boulevard, respectively; WHEREAS: the proposed changes would acknowledge designated commercial nodes along the Magruder Boulevard Business Corridor and change the future land use designation for the specified parcels referenced above from Business/Industrial to Commercial land use; WHEREAS: these parcels, designated for commercial uses, are intended to support and serve the convenience needs of the occupants and users of the Park; WHEREAS: the amendments better reflect current market trends and enhance the Langley Research and Development Park’s competitiveness in the region; WHEREAS: staff worked closely with the Langley Research and Development Park Association and the Economic Development Authority Board to reach a compromise on the proposed solutions; WHEREAS: the Economic Development Authority supports the proposed amendments to the Hampton Community Plan; WHEREAS: members of the Langley Research and Development Park Association support the proposed amendments to the Hampton Community Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Jimmy Gray and seconded by Commissioner Christopher Carter. BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 17-00002. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Carter, LaRue, Gray, Peterson, Southall NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Williams, (Vacant Position) A motion was made by Commissioner Jimmy Gray and seconded by Commission Christopher Carter to defer Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 17-00003 until the September 21, 2017 Hampton Planning Commission meeting: WS & Public Meeting Minutes 20170622 Page 16