PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Ralph A. Heath, III Commissioners: Andre McCloud, Amy Thorstad, Timothy B. Smith, Charlie Sapp, and Jesse Wallace

Transcription

1 AT A PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8 TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON NOVEMBER 13, 2006 AT 3:30 P.M. PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Ralph A. Heath, III Commissioners: Andre McCloud, Amy Thorstad, Timothy B. Smith, Charlie Sapp, and Jesse Wallace ITEM I. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Chairman Young as being absent. ITEM II. MINUTES There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, a motion was made by Commissioner Amy Thorstad, and seconded by Commissioner Charlie Sapp, to approve the minutes of the October 9, 2006 meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABST: ABSENT: McCloud, Thorstad, Heath, Smith, Wallace, Sapp Young ITEM III. STAFF REPORTS A. Youth Planner Report Mr. Will Bane, Youth Planner, stated during the month of October, the Youth Commission facilitated a design charrette in partnership with the Teen Center s design firm Rancorn Wildman Associates, to discuss space use in the new building. Over 75 young people attended to give input on the center. The Youth Commission is currently working diligently on tabulating this new data, and will add it to the extensive data they have collected in the past. He stated once again, the City of Hampton has been invited to attend the National League of Cities Showcase of American Cities Conference for its innovative work in youth civic engagement. This year, the conference will be held in Reno, Nevada. Three Youth Commissioners, Morgan Saunders, Jasmine Martin, and Gregory Hines will be attending. In addition, he will be attending, along with Cindy Carlson, the Director of Hampton Coalition for Youth, and Remington McNeil, City Planner. Together, they will represent the City of Hampton, and are excited about sharing innovations that are occurring here in Hampton first. He thanked the Commission for their time and was available for questions. B. Interdepartmental Presentation on Flooding in Hampton Ms. Gayle Hicks, Senior Civil Engineer, presented an overview on flooding and drainage in Hampton. Mr. Thomas Jordan, Senior City Planner, presented an overview

2 on the function of Land Development Services regarding how drainage and stormwater management is evaluated throughout the land development and approval process. Ms. Elizabeth Marotta, City Planner, summarized the Planning Department s role in evaluating drainage and stormwater management, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. North King Street Master Plan Update Ms. Constance Mason, City Planner, updated the Commission on the North King Street Master Plan process. Staff will be meeting with Urban Design Associates on Thursday, November 16 th from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. to complete the third phase of the planning process. Staff will meet with Councilman Joe Spencer and Councilwoman Angela Leary from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. A Steering Committee meeting will begin at 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. All meetings will take place in the IDA Conference Room of the Ruppert Sargent building. A public meeting will be held that evening at John Tyler Elementary School, 57 Salina Street, beginning 7:00 p.m. D. Buckroe Master Plan Amendment Staff Briefing Mr. James Freas, Senior City Planner, updated the Commission on the amendment to the Buckroe Bayfront Initiative. Staff received a great deal of participation during the charrette held October 3 5, Approximately 112 maps were generated by the public. He stated going into the design charrette, staff had a number of objectives addressing both the issues of park redesign, as well as revitalization of the Buckroe neighborhood. The park consultant identified a number of conditions on October 5 th for evaluating the park portion of the Bayfront Initiative redesign. The existing park runs from Buckroe Avenue to Old Point Comfort Avenue bordered by North First Street. Four options were presented: Option A: Opens the view to the water along the Pembroke Avenue corridor as you approach the park and the bay with added green space. There is approximately 13 acres of park land and 19 acres of developable land; Option B: Opens the view to the water along the Pembroke Avenue corridor, and has 15 acres of park space, 16 acres of developable land, a one acre park space along the new Resort Boulevard, and two acres of land on either side of Pembroke Avenue with the new improvements; Option C: Includes 20 acres of green space, and 11 acres of developable land, which includes commercial use; and Option D: Same as Option C, but the difference is a large single parking lot. The next step is to continue to refine and analyze the options in order to provide the Commission a future recommendation. Two public hearings are scheduled for the proposed Plan, which is December 11 th and January 8 th for a recommendation to City Council. City Council will hear the recommendation on January 10, and 24, ITEM IV. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION A. Marple Run Preliminary Subdivision. 2

3 Ms. Elizabeth Marotta, City Planner, presented the preliminary subdivision of Marple Run, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The property was subject of a rezoning in July 2006 to One-Family Residence District (R-11) with five conditions. The property is consistent with adopted codes and ordinances, conditions of Rezoning Application No. 1227, and the goals and objectives of the Hampton Community Plan. Staff recommends approval of Marple Run preliminary subdivision plat. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day the proposed Marple Run preliminary subdivision plat dated October 31, 2006; and WHEREAS: The proposal is for a acre single-family subdivision consisting of up to 23 lots zoned One Family Residence District (R-11) located on the southern side of Semple Farm Road beginning approximately east of the intersection of Semple Farm Road and Reservoir Lane for an average width of and an average depth of ; and WHEREAS: One additional parcel will be provided to manage stormwater from the subdivision and the southern portion of the property is reserved as Residual due to the presence of wetlands; and WHEREAS: The preliminary plat is consistent with the recommendations of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended), which designates this area for rural residential use; and WHEREAS: The preliminary plat is consistent with conditions attached to the property via Rezoning Application #1227. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Timothy Smith and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend approval of Marple Run preliminary subdivision plat. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABST: ABSENT: McCloud, Thorstad, Heath, Smith, Wallace, Sapp Young ITEM V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Mr. Terry O Neill, Secretary to the Commission, stated before the public hearing items are presented, he wanted to recall the Commissions attention to the request by 3

4 T*Mobile Communications, LLC to defer action on the request for a communications tower at Burbank Elementary School. Staff concurs with the request for deferral. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Ms. Marotta stated the applicant has requested deferral in order to have more time to work with the community on finding a site that the community, the applicant, and the city school staff can support. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Amy Thorstad, and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud to defer Planning Commission action by T*Mobile for a communications tower to the January 8, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABST: ABSENT: McCloud, Thorstad, Heath, Smith, Wallace, Sapp Young Mr. O Neill read the next public hearing item advertised in the Daily Press on September 21, 2006 and September 28, A. Rezoning Application No by James Crocker to rezone acres at 78 Butler Farm Road from One-Family Residence District (R-11) to One-Family Residence District (R-9) with conditions to facilitate the development of 15 single family homes. R-11 permits single family residences at a density of units per acre. R-9 permits single family residences at a density of units per acre. The Hampton Community Plan recommends low density residential at this site. The Commission chose to dismiss the staff report presentation, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Staff recommends to the Planning Commission approval of Rezoning Application No After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Rezoning Application No by James Crocker to rezone 78 Butler Farm Road from R-11 (One Family Residence District) to R-9 (One Family Residence District) for the development of 15 single family homes; and WHEREAS: The R-11 district permits single family dwellings at a density of 3.5 to 4.5 units per acre and the R-9 district permits single family dwellings at a density of 5 to 6.5 units per acre; and WHEREAS: The rezoning does not increase the residential density; rather, it decreases required lot sizes so that the developer can better implement a storm water management area and preserve existing non-tidal wetlands; and 4

5 WHEREAS: Nine conditions including building elevations, landscaping, and a conceptual site plan were established to ensure quality and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS: The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended), recommends low density residential use in this area; and WHEREAS: There were no speakers from the public regarding this application. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Amy Thorstad, and seconded by Commissioner Charles Sapp, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning Application No with nine conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABST: ABSENT: McCloud, Thorstad, Heath, Smith, Wallace, Sapp Young Mr. O Neill read the next public hearing item. B. Rezoning Application No by Spivey Disposal L.L.C to rezone 4.3+ acres at 228 Salters Creek Road from Light Manufacturing District (M-2) to Heavy Manufacturing District (M-3) with conditions for the use of a Material Recovery Facility. M-2 permits all commercial uses and some manufacturing uses. M-3 permits more intense manufacturing uses, outdoor storage, and commercial uses (excluding retail). The Hampton Community Plan recommends business/industrial at this site. This application is accompanied by Use Permit Application No AND C. Use Permit Application No by Spivey Disposal LLC to operate a Material Recovery Facility at 228 Salters Creek Road. The site is zoned Light Manufacturing District (M-2) and the applicant has applied to rezone the site to M-3 (Heavy Manufacturing District) which allows this operation with an approved Use Permit. The Hampton Community Plan recommends business/industrial uses at this site. Mr. Brian Wheeler, representing Spivey exposal, 228 Salters Creek Road, stated the property has a large warehouse that stores construction debris. Spivey would like to be able to dump the material inside the building, sort it, take the recyclable material out and send it to the recycle centers, and take the debris to a landfill. 5

6 In response to a question by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Wheeler stated all construction material will be contained inside the building. In response to a question by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Wheeler stated they will be extracting concrete, dirt, brick, wood, metal, cardboard, and anything that has recycle value. In response to a question by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Wheeler stated the material that will be transported to the landfill would be materials such as insulation. There is a new process for recycling carpets, sheet rock, etc. Ms. Remington McNeil, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Hampton Community Plan (February 2006, as amended), and the Greater Wythe Area Plan, Phase II, recommends industrial land use at this site. The Plan encourages redevelopment of existing sites within the city and promotes waste reduction, recycling, and other methods to extend the life of the landfill facility. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will evaluate this facility for quality and conformance with DEQ standards. The applicant met with the Greater Wythe Planning Team and approximately 25 people were in attendance. The Greater Wythe Planning Team voted and endorsed the proposal. Staff recommends to the Planning Commission approval of Rezoning Application No. 1236, with one condition, because it conforms to the Hampton Community Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Ms. McNeil stated the Greater Wythe Area Plan does not make any specific recommendations to the proposed site, but because it is north of West Pembroke, the Plan identifies the proposed area as industrial use. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Ms. McNeil stated M-2 is Limited Manufacturing District. Mr. O Neill commented to Commissioner McCloud that there is recognition of commercial and industrial zoned properties north of Pembroke Avenue. The primary concern by the Greater Wythe Area Planning Team is if the property is going to be developed for those uses. The property has materials inside a building versus outside material storage that accumulates dust and other kinds of impact. In staff s evaluation, everything will be enclosed inside the building. Mr. Neal Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum Fence Company, 1666 West Pembroke Avenue, stated Spivey has been excellent neighbors for many years. They have operated their business there since the early 50 s. He believed it is in the best interest of the city that the Commission endorse the proposal. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Ms. McNeil stated the use on the proposed site does not open the door to other M-3 uses on the proposed site. 6

7 In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Ms. McNeil concurred that if someone else wanted to bring an M-3 use at the proposed site, they would have to come before the Commission. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Ms. McNeil stated in regards to the uses in the M-3 District, the applicant proffered that the proposed use would be the only use submitted on the site. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolutions: Rezoning Application No WHEREAS: The Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Rezoning Application No by Spivey Disposal L.L.C to rezone 228 Salters Creek Road from M-2 (Light Manufacturing District) to M-3 (Heavy Manufacturing District) for a Materials Recovery Facility; and WHEREAS: A Material Recovery Facility sorts and extracts recyclable debris on site. The recyclable material is removed from the waste stream and nonrecyclable remains are transported to a local landfill; and WHEREAS: The M-3 district permits a Material Recovery Facility with an approved Use Permit (Use Permit Application No. 1017); and WHEREAS: The Use Permit establishes operational conditions while the Rezoning Application evaluates the appropriateness of the land use; and WHEREAS: The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) and the Greater Wythe Area Plan, Phase II, recommend business industrial uses in this area; and WHEREAS: The applicant proffered that an enclosed Material Recovery Facility is the only M-3 use permitted on site; and WHEREAS: In response to a Commissioner s question, the use must occur completely inside the building; and WHEREAS: In response to a Commissioner s question, the rezoning would not set a precedent for future land use changes, as all applications are evaluated on their own merits against adopted public policy; and WHEREAS: There was no public opposition expressed regarding this application. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Charles Sapp and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, 7

8 BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning Application No with one condition. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABST: ABSENT: McCloud, Thorstad, Heath, Smith, Wallace, Sapp Young AND Use Permit Application No WHEREAS: The Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Use Permit Application No by Spivey Disposal L.L.C to operate a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) at 228 Salters Creek Road; and WHEREAS: A Material Recovery Facility sorts and extracts recyclable debris on site. The recyclable material is removed from the waste stream and nonrecyclable remains are transported to a local landfill; and WHEREAS: The site is zoned Light Manufacturing (M-2); a Material Recovery Facility is permitted in the Heavy Manufacturing (M-3) district with an approved Use Permit; and WHEREAS: Rezoning Application No. 1236, which requests to rezone the property from M-2 to M-3, accompanies this application; and WHEREAS: Eight conditions, including the restriction of operations within an enclosed structure and a limitation of waste materials to construction and demolition debris were established to ensure the character of this district is not compromised; and WHEREAS: The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) and the Greater Wythe Area Plan, Phase II, recommend industrial use in this location; and WHEREAS: There was no public opposition expressed regarding this application. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Andre McCloud and seconded by Commissioner Charles Sapp, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Use Permit Application No with eight conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: 8

9 AYES: NAYS: ABST: ABSENT: McCloud, Thorstad, Heath, Smith, Wallace, Sapp Young Mr. O Neill read the next public hearing item. D. Rezoning Application No by Donald W. and Suji M. Sowalskie to amend conditions of Rezoning No. 854 to allow the development of up to 32 fee-simple townhouses. The acre parcel is located at 1531 North King Street and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1) with conditions. Existing conditions require the property is developed for office and retail use. C-1 permits commercial uses such as retail shops, offices, restaurants, gas stations by-right, and also allows townhouses at a density of up to ten (10) units per acre. The Hampton Community Plan recommends high-density residential at this site. The North King Street Corridor Study recommends low density commercial for this area. Mr. Donald Sowalskie, 221 Woodburn Drive, applicant, stated he is requesting an amendment to build 32 townnhouses at the intersection of North King Street and Boeing Avenue. The current zoning is C-1, and the original plan was to build office and retail space on the proposed lot; however, he believes this section of North King Street is more suitable for residential. He stated one year ago, he began the application process with Rezoning Application No which was presented in February 2006, but because the Planning Department wanted him to delay the rezoning until Urban Design Associates (UDA) completed their North King Street Corridor Study, he agreed to wait until June During his wait, UDA performed their study, met with the residents several times, and provided the Planning staff with their recommended site plan for his property. Since the plan was impossible to implement due to wetlands and other issues, and because he did not like UDA s or Planning staff s recommendations, he presented his original plan. In June 2006, the Planning Commission recommended denial, and the community did not like the plan because the entrances were located on Boeing Avenue and spoke unanimously against the plan. The site plan he is presenting to the Commission today was presented to the North King Street neighborhood on August 17, The original plan that was submitted is Plan A; the new plan is Plan B; and the city s recommendation is Plan C. Each and every citizen s concern that was presented to the Planning Commission in June 2006 was incorporated into Plan B. These concerns were traffic on Boeing Avenue, drainage, busing of children at school bus stops, building setbacks, large three-story buildings lining Boeing and North King Street, trees, vegetation, run-off, and water filtration before entering Little Back River Road. His plan addresses the concerns and was unanimously accepted by the residents at the August neighborhood meeting. The citizens like the plan and they want Plan B; however, Planning staff recommends denial. He stated the Planning staff wants the entrance on Boeing Avenue which the community does not want and will not support. After his meeting with staff, he was informed that his property entrance and street would not be maintained by the city. He questioned if he must place a street connection to Boeing Avenue to allow ingress and egress of traffic from Boeing Avenue to Hampshire Drive, Joseph s Crossing, Sperry 9

10 Court, and Logan Court, and would the city have to maintain his street if they use it as a short cut to North King Street. He does not have any objections to placing street connections to Boeing Avenue, but he knows the neighborhood would dislike him for it. By forcing an entrance on Boeing Avenue, his development will be disliked from the beginning by the neighbors. This will make it difficult to integrate his community with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Sowalskie stated the other main concern Planning staff has is the orientation of his buildings. He stated staff s concern is by turning the buildings inward, so they do not front on existing city streets (i.e., King Street and Boeing Avenue), he is turning his back on the rest of the neighborhood and telling them to stay out. His property address is 1531 North King Street and the property frontage is on North King Street and not Boeing Avenue. His entrance through North King Street and his street through the townhouse project provides the best layout and gives each homeowner the maximum amount of front and rear yard space. His buildings for the most part, front on his street. If there is a city ordinance that requires him to front his buildings on already existing streets, then he will change his site plan to comply. He stated the city wants him to line Boeing Avenue and North King Street with three-story buildings that will be setback off the street thirty feet. This will look similar to the large buildings across the street from the Franklin building. His building layout also allows him to maintain many of the existing trees. Keeping the mature trees in the neighborhood will integrate into the older more established adjacent neighborhoods. In addition to helping drainage, the existing trees will buffer the denser development from the single-family homes and existing streets. He stated under the city s plan, most of the trees along Boeing Avenue and North King Street would be removed. His plan provides more buffer area between his buildings and the wetlands. In addition, unit #1 in the city s plan is too close to the wetlands to build, and unit #11 does not have room for a driveway. This will reduce the total number of units to 28 unless the city allows him to place the BMP back where he has it on his original plan and allow him to add four units in the center green area. He stated 30 units is the minimum number he needs to make the project worth attempting. Anything less than that would cause him to develop the property as office and retail which was approved in the last rezoning twenty years ago. He stated there are residents present to speak today, and he sent the neighborhood a survey last week. He read some of the comments from the surveys to the Commission, most of which support Plan B. He introduced Mr. Scott Stamm, Site Engineer, to address flooding and drainage issues. Mr. Scott Stamm, Site Engineer, 4605 Pembroke Lake Circle, Virginia Beach, Virginia, stated throughout the process, they have worked with the neighborhoods that had two major concerns: drainage and traffic. He stated currently, Boeing Avenue and Sperry Court drainage does drain through Mr. Sowalskie s property and at the center of the property along Boeing Avenue. At that point, the existing storm drainage system is broken and full of debris and sediments. There is no formal drainage way through Mr. Sowalskie s property. The proposed project would provide drainage as a means to get the water from North King Street to Boeing Avenue through the property with a proper drainage easement. The second major concern is traffic on Boeing Avenue. The city s Traffic Engineering staff conducted traffic counts on Boeing Avenue as it exist now and 10

11 with the proposed project. Boeing Avenue is at a level of service A which is the best level of service for traffic and will remain a level of service A with the entrances on Boeing Avenue. However, the neighborhood outcry does not support entrances on Boeing Avenue, but support Plan B with a single entrance off North King Street. He stated they have done everything they can to align the entrance with the existing service road, but unfortunately, the ultimate plan for North King Street is to relocate or do away with the service road. They attempted to align the road with the North King Street Master Plan; however, wetlands impact that portion to its current location. Ms. Elizabeth Marotta, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) recommends high density residential for the proposed property. The North King Street Corridor Study (1995) augments the Hampton Community Plan and it recommends low density commercial for the site. The city is in the process of updating this recommendation via the development of the North King Street Corridor Master Plan, which shall ultimately amend the existing policies. An evaluation of the proposal indicates that a townhouse development would be an appropriate use for the proposed site if the layout and other design considerations further adopted policy objectives and recommendations related to creating a great neighborhood. Although the proposed development offers acceptable uses, density, and architecture, it lacks an appropriate transportation network and fails to provide the kind of sustainable site layout and building orientation that would integrate the development into the neighborhood, and thus contributes to building a great neighborhood for the City of Hampton. Staff therefore recommends denial of Rezoning Application No as being in opposition to the goals and objectives of the Hampton Community Plan (2006, as amended) and other city policies. In response to a question by Commissioner Sapp, Ms. Marotta stated with the limited entrance using Mr. Sowalkie s proposed development, the residents of Boeing Avenue or Joseph s Crossing would have no access to the back of the site, but with staff s proposal, there is an alternate route which residents could access. She stated any time you can increase access and connectivity, it is a benefit from a safety perspective. In response to a question by Commissioner Sapp, Mr. O Neill stated the Subdivision Ordinance falls short of requiring two entrances to the development, largely because of geography. Hampton has a lot of waterfront as a lot of the Peninsula, with one way in and one way out which is by geography rather than design. The ordinance has fairly strong language, and supports the notion that multiple ways in and out of any project in any neighborhood is always a plus if it meets other goals and objectives. In response to a question by Commissioner Wallace, Ms. Marotta concurred that the proposed layout does not make good use of the land or function as a neighborhood. The proposal is a development, but it does not contribute to a great neighborhood. Neighborhoods are the strength of our communities, and whenever there is an opportunity to strengthen a neighborhood or integrate a development into a neighborhood, it helps staff with their goals and objectives. 11

12 In response to a question by Commissioner Smith, Mr. O Neill stated the point staff is trying to make is to avoid isolating elements of the neighborhood. Neighborhoods are made up of people who live and interact with one another, and have friends and acquaintances, and children who play with one another. He stated neighborhoods only function when those social interactions are happening in a positive way. While physical elements do not cause that to happen, there is a long and well researched body from Planning and Urban Design Associates (UDA) principles that say there are certain physical characteristics that facilitate neighborhoods from interacting, socializing, and doing what people in neighborhoods do in good neighborhoods. The example he can give is people in neighborhood blocks or side by side blocks, and what it would look like in terms of aesthetic appeal, as well as those living in the houses getting to know each other. If all of the houses were flipped around when you drove down the street, what you would see is the back yards. The point is that orientation of buildings to streets to public places is important in creating neighborhoods that staff believes are the best places to live. He stated we, as planners and urban designers, over the past forty plus years have come to study neighborhoods that don t connect and interact with one another. The great building of cul-de-sacs that began in the late 60 s which was the rage for a while, is coming back to show us that it is not the best way to build neighborhoods from a public safety, traffic, and social interaction perspective of neighborhoods. That is what staff is trying to avoid. Unfortunately, it is not a pleasant situation for us as professionals where you are in opposition to what the neighborhood wants because that is not their intentions. Staff strives very hard to be in accord with finding creative solutions to make it a win/win scenario, but in this case, the neighborhood does not want the project connected to Boeing Avenue, and there is no specific reason for it. From the city s traffic engineering perspective, that studied the area, there is no traffic capacity or evidence why the streets could not be connected, other than the fact that there is a fear something may happen. He stated as we move through the development of Hampton s neighborhoods that we embrace the idea that diversity is a healthy choice. Just because it is not a single-family residence, it can be embraced by our neighborhoods, which is a good thing, rather than something we should try to avoid at all cost. He believed that integrating the proposed project into the proposed existing neighborhood in those ways is really the heart of the issue. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Sowalskie stated the value of the homes is approximately $250,000. Ms. Jennifer Congleton, 16 Joseph s Crossing, stated she supports Plan B. She stated at one point and time, there was a one way in and out which was taken out where the two roads no longer connect shown on the map. She stated in Plan A, one of the entrances comes out from across someone s driveway, and it would increase traffic. Mr. Paul Edmondson, 12 Boeing Avenue, stated he resides directly across from the proposed site. He stated if curb cuts are installed on Boeing Avenue, traffic would increase by 40%. Traffic will block the driveways, and for that reason, the neighborhood is opposed to curb cuts on Boeing Avenue. The neighborhood is in favor of Plan B, and he asked those in attendance to stand who favor Plan B. He stated there is no statistical 12

13 evidence stating that an opening onto Boeing Avenue would make one big happy family. He concluded that traffic would sacrifice the neighborhood s quality of life. Mr. James Scott, 10 Sperry Court, stated traffic will increase in the proposed area. He stated you can only get one car through Sperry Court without having to back up to allow another car to pass by. In regards to the isolation of neighborhoods, the neighborhood across the street on North King Street is isolated by blocking the through streets. He stated the city did one thing, and now they are talking about doing something else. Mr. James Hannah, 5 Sperry Court, stated Joseph s Crossing was developed with one way in and one way out. In regards to isolating neighborhoods, a fence was built from Boeing Avenue down to the other end of the property and houses are backing the neighborhood. As a result, two neighborhoods are already separated. All of the houses located between the streets of North King Street, the Little Back River Road intersection and Langley, have been cut off with one way in and one way out, and they are not connected to Little Back River Road. His concern is with the one entrance and exit, and he supports Plan B. Mr. W. A. Bud Porter, 33 Hampshire Drive, stated Boeing Avenue is a street that was most likely built in the 40 s and it connects to Logan and Sperry Court. He lived in great neighborhoods as a child, and lived on Sperry Court when he completed college. He stated the road is the same size from 1963 as it is today. Two cars parked on either side of the road only allow one vehicle to drive through. If an opening is constructed onto Boeing Avenue, the city will endanger the children and grandchildren, and they will either be injured or killed. He stated the neighborhood does not have any side walks from North King Street to Boeing Avenue. There is no way for the children to get to school except to walk in the middle of the road. Parents and grandparents drive their children to North King Street and Boeing Avenue, and they park near the bus stops to wait for the school buses to pick them up. They also park near the bus stop in the afternoon, which creates a traffic jam when entering and exiting the neighborhood. He stated the applicant who supports the project listened intently to the neighborhood. The applicant went back and put into effect what he thought the residents could live with. He asked the Commission to think about their children, grandchildren, and the children to come. He stated one injury and one death do not make a great neighborhood. In response to a question by Commissioner McCloud, Mr. Sowalskie stated the proposed houses do face North King Street and Boeing Avenue. In response to a question by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Sowalskie stated the active front and visual front are two different things. In response to a question by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Sowalskie stated the neighborhood s primary objective is the entrance on Boeing Avenue, and the wall of buildings along Boeing Avenue and North King Street. 13

14 In response to a question by Commissioner Thorstad, Mr. Sowalskie stated the fence is a proffer that he has offered to the city in hopes to approving the project. In response to a question by Commissioner Thorstad, Mr. Sowalskie stated the fence is included in Plan B; however, in Plan B, there are sidewalks at the entire length of Boeing Avenue up to North King Street. There is also an eight foot wide sidewalk connecting Boeing Avenue into his proposed project. He has offered the city to re-route the school bus into his street, around and through his street, and making a stop at the end of the sidewalk so the children would not have to walk all the way down North King Street to congregate. This way, the parents would not have to carry the children in cars during cold and inclement weather. They would be able to catch the bus at the corner of his property. In response to a question by Commissioner Thorstad, Mr. Sowalskie stated the fence will be located at the perimeter of the property going down North King Street and along Boeing Avenue. The fence is only for appearances; it is not a privacy fence. The eight foot sidewalk area would be fenced with pillars on each side. There could also be an emergency entry if he asked for a curb cut which would provide a handicap type entryway from Boeing Avenue to his property for wheelchairs. In response to a question by Commissioner Wallace, Mr. Sowalskie stated he is not prepared to provide an answer not to connect the road to Boeing Avenue until the improvements could be made. He could give it considerable thought. Commissioner Thorstad commented if the townhouses were added and fronted on Boeing Avenue, the back yards would be to the rest of the development. The new development that is being proposed is wrecking a sense of neighborhood within that development. She stated in Plan A, the backyards are on Boeing Avenue, and she understands the way they will face, but Plan B makes more sense because all the residents of Boeing Avenue are not necessarily looking across the street into someone s back yard. There is a nice opening, and you are also creating a sense of community within the development itself. Ms. Marotta stated in regards to dual frontage, the examples of elevations show units with dual frontage so they can have a relationship to the Boeing Avenue neighborhood and they would also be creating their own relationship to each other. In response to a question by Commissioner Thorstad, Ms. Marotta stated the pictures are conceptual elevations. She stated Mr. Sowalskie has not proffered that the townhouses would have dual frontage because the units do not have a significant relationship to Boeing Avenue, but the conceptual architecture and styling is what staff supports. Commissioner Thorstad stated she is having a difficult time trying to understand that Plan B is not conducive to a great neighborhood. 14

15 Mr. Porter stated in Plan B, the neighborhood would have sidewalks and green space. There would be ten units that face Boeing Avenue. He does not understand how five units out of 32 units could make a great neighborhood facing one way or the other. He stated Boeing Avenue cannot handle the traffic, but perhaps in years to come, the city can fix it. He stated as Commissioner Wallace commented, maybe we need a compromise, but the neighborhood cannot have traffic coming into Boeing Avenue now because there is no solution to stopping the children from being hurt. With Plan B, the neighborhood will receive sidewalks, green space, and the applicant gets to build his project and the neighborhood is happy. He stated everyone has stated unanimously that Plan B is what they want. No one opted to any other plan. Mr. Edmondson stated he lives in a rancher directly across from the proposed site, and the units do not blend with his street. Looking up at a 2½ building is not quality of life for him and that is not what he wants to look at. He stated the way it is set up in Plan B, he is not looking at the buildings directly. In response to a question by Commissioner Smith, Ms. Marotta stated the houses adjacent to the proposed site are single story. In regards to diversity contributing to a great neighborhood where single-family and multi-family are mixing, there are neighborhood areas, for example, Bailey Park, which has two story single-family units, and in the middle, it overlooks the adult living facility. She stated in this case, the scale of the building is 2 to 2½ story townhouses. Mr. O Neill stated to the Commission to keep in mind the property is currently zoned commercial, and the only way to insure the kind of scale Mr. Sowalskie is asking for is to take the commercial zoning off his property. He stated what Mr. Sowalskie is proposing to build, he has the right to build whether the Commission approves the rezoning or not, which is the bundle of rights he now has. Currently, Mr. Sowalskie is permitted to build something at that scale. It is a difficult issue to address unless the Commission want to go back to square one and say the property should not be commercial, but single-family residential, which is the only way to address his issues. Commissioner McCloud stated he understands Mr. O Neill s comments, but the neighborhood does not seem to have a problem with the building as long as Plan B is followed. What he is hearing is the neighborhood does not want traffic on Boeing Avenue. Mr. Sowalskie stated in regards to building setbacks, and getting away from the wall of building appearances on Plan A and Plan C, the three-story building with an A-frame roof is going to be set back 30 feet off the sidewalk, and everything else is setback 50 feet. In addition, by setting the buildings back, they are able to save a lot of mature trees which help with drainage and absorption of the tidal waters. If the buildings were developed along North King Street and Boeing Avenue, he would be stripping the property of all vegetation and starting over again. If this happens, it would cause flooding problems. He stated using Plan B would not only save trees, but it would look nice from the street and work well. 15

16 After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Rezoning Application No by Donald Sowalskie to rezone one parcel totaling acres at 1531 North King Street; and WHEREAS: The property is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1) with existing conditions that limit uses to office and retail; and WHEREAS: The applicant is requesting to amend the existing conditions to allow up to thirty-two (32) new for-sale townhouses; and WHEREAS: The Hampton Community Plan recommends high density residential for this corner; and WHEREAS: The Hampton Community Plan recommends strengthening Hampton neighborhoods by encouraging the appropriate expansion of the transportation network, encouraging the diversity and variety of housing types, and by supporting connectivity between developments; and WHEREAS: The proffered conceptual site layout provides one means of ingress/egress at North King Street, an internal loop street, and units facing onto the loop; and WHEREAS: The application includes seven proffered conditions that address building elevations, building materials, fencing, and refuse pickup; and WHEREAS: Several members of the neighborhood spoke at the public hearing and expressed opposition to any vehicular access from Boeing Avenue and supported the applicant s proposal, including limiting access to North King Street and keeping the proposed units from fronting on Boeing Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Amy Thorstad and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission does recommend approval of Rezoning Application #1238. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABST: ABSENT: McCloud, Thorstad, Heath, Smith, Wallace, Sapp Young 16

17 A motion was made by Commissioner Timothy B. Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud to extend the Planning Commission meeting past 6:00 p.m. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABST: ABSENT: McCloud, Thorstad, Heath, Smith, Wallace, Sapp Young Mr. O Neill read the next public hearing item. E. Use Permit Application No by T*Mobile Northeast LLC, to install building mounted antennas on the Embassy Suites hotel located at 1700 Coliseum Drive. The site is zoned Limited Commercial District (C-2)/ Special Public Interest- Coliseum Central District (SPI-CC) which permits building mounted antennas with an approved Use Permit. The Hampton Community Plan recommends antenna placement on tall buildings or structures. Mr. Steven Waller, Consultant for T-Mobile Northeast LLC, stated he works out of the Virginia Beach headquarters located at 5029 Corporate Woods Drive, Suite 225. He stated T-Mobile is attempting to meet two goals at the proposed site. The first goal is to provide additional capacity to reduce the number of dropped calls reported in the area due to high traffic levels along the I-64 corridor. The second goal is to increase the demand for quality in building voice and data services within the subject residential and commercial areas nearby. He stated one of the top priorities is to identify sites where existing structures can handle the co-location of wireless antennas. T-Mobile is proposing to do a stealth roof top installation near the top of the hotel with flush mount antennas painted to match the colors of the building in two sectors. In the third sector, the antennas would be concealed within the Embassy Hotel sign. The equipment cabinets will be concealed behind an existing wall that extends above the roofline of the building. Ms. Remington McNeil, City Planner, presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Hampton Community Plan requires wireless providers to seek co-location opportunities first on tall buildings and second on structures. The applicant has shown that co-location is not a feasible option within their desired coverage area, making Embassy Suites the next preferred site. Staff recommends to the Planning Commission approval of Use Permit Application No. 1014, subject to two conditions because it is consistent with the Hampton Community Plan. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Hampton Planning Commission has before it this day Use Permit Application No by T-Mobile Northeast to install three building mounted antennas on the roof of the Embassy Suites Hotel at 1700 Coliseum Drive; and 17

18 WHEREAS: The property is zoned Limited Commercial District (C-2) and Special Public Interest-Coliseum Central (SPI-CC), which permit building mounted antennas with an approved Use Permit; and WHEREAS: The Hampton Community Plan includes a tower placement hierarchy which requires wireless providers to first seek co-location opportunities on existing towers and then on tall buildings or structures. The applicant has shown that co-location on an existing tower is not a feasible option; and WHEREAS: Two antennas will be flush mounted to the building and one antenna will be installed behind the existing Embassy Suites roof sign; and WHEREAS: Two conditions were established to ensure the screening equipment, antennas, and all mounting assemblies match the background building material; and WHEREAS: The addition of antennas will require design review and approval from the Coliseum Central Design Review Committee; and WHEREAS: Additional antennae in this area helps provide cellular services to citizens and guests in the Coliseum Central area, including those guests of the Coliseum or Convention Center; and WHEREAS: There were no speakers from the public regarding this application. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Charles Sapp and seconded by Commissioner Andre McCloud, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission recommends approval of Use Permit Application No with two conditions. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABST: ABSENT: McCloud, Thorstad, Heath, Smith, Wallace, Sapp Young Mr. O Neill read the next public hearing item. F. Use Permit Application No 1018 by the City of Hampton for a city park on approximately 2.14± acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of River Street and Pembroke Avenue, including properties with LSRN numbers , , , , and , and that property beneath Interstate 64 between River Street and the Hampton River. The site is zoned One 18

19 Family Residence District (R-11) which allows public parks with an approved Use Permit. The Hampton Community Plan recommends Public/Semi-public uses at this site. The Commission chose to dismiss the staff report presentation, copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Staff recommends to the Planning Commission approval of Use Permit Application No Ms. Christina Bauhof, 323 Center Street, stated she is a board member of the Pasture Point Neighborhood Association. The association has worked with the Neighborhood Office over four years developing plans to revitalize Pasture Point as part of the housing venture. The only concern is when the property is completed, that it be policed and maintained properly so that it will become an asset to the neighborhood. She is also a member of the project management team for the park and the neighborhood representative. In that role, she has kept the neighborhood up to date on the progress of the park at the bi-monthly association meeting and the newsletter which comes out three times a year. After discussion, the Commission approved the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Planning Commission had before it this day a proposal by the City of Hampton, to approve Use Permit 1018 to allow a public park at the corner of River Street and Pembroke Avenue; and WHEREAS: The Downtown Hampton Master Plan recommends this park as part of the Open Space framework that connects public facilities, community assets and open space together as a public greenway; and WHEREAS: The Pasture Point Neighborhood is experiencing revitalization with reinvestment into the older housing stock by new homeowners. River Street Park is a key component to this revitalization by providing views and experiences of the Hampton River within an urban neighborhood; and WHEREAS: Public input was gathered during the fall of 2004 until the summer of 2005; and WHEREAS: There were no members of the public present to speak in opposition to the Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, on a motion by Commissioner Sapp and seconded by Commissioner Timothy B. Smith, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Planning Commission respectfully recommends the Honorable City Council approve Use Permit A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: 19