Chesapeake Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 P.M.

Transcription

1 City of Chesapeake Department of Planning Post Office Box Chesapeake, Virginia (757) FAX (757) PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 P.M. Call to Order: Chairman Kish called the Public Hearing of November 12, 2015, to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Invocation: Commissioner Hutchinson offered the Invocation for the evening. Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Van Laethem led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. Roll Call: Present John Kish, Chairman Marty Williams, Vice-Chairman Jason Morris, Secretary Hollis Ellis, Commissioner Dr. Sandi Hutchinson, Commissioner Adam Perry, Commissioner George Van Laethem, Commissioner Absent Stephens Johnson, Commissioner Department of Planning Staff Present Karen Shaffer, Assistant Planning Director Beverly Hanson, Recording Secretary and Office Coordinator Timothy Howlett, Planning Administrator Mark Hobbs, Senior Planner Milissa Story, Senior Planner Darryl Griffin, Senior Planner City Attorney Staff Present Catherine Lindley, Assistant City Attorney Department of Public Utilities Staff Present Keith Slicer, Engineer Department of Development and Permits Present Jay Tate, PE, Development and Permits Director

2 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mrs. Hanson presented the October 14, and October 28, 2015 Public Hearing minutes into the record for Commission action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: MINUTES for the October 14, and October 28, 2015 Public Hearing were APPROVED. ITEMS FOR CONTINUANCE OR WITHDRAWAL: CPL(M) PROJECT: Culpepper Landing PUD Modification APPLICANT: Culpepper Landing, LC PROPOSAL: A request to revise and modify the Master Land Use Plan and the Land Use Criteria to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 1095 to 1149 and change the composition of the dwelling units to decrease the number of detached single-family homes from 740 to 654 and increase the number of rowhouses from 355 to 420 while keeping the number of affordable rowhouses at 75; to modify the cash proffers resulting in a total reduction of approximately $2,681,898.00; to include a lot development phasing provision and to allow the Architectural Review Board to approve swimming pools within the first 35 of the 100 conservation buffer where a hardship is proven. PROPOSED COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Low Density Residential with something less than 4 dwelling units per acre EXISTING COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Low Density Residential with something less than 4 dwelling units per acre LOCATION: Terminus of Mill Creek Parkway and Appaloosa Trail west of George Washington Highway South and north of the Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge TAX MAP SECTION/PARCELS: , BOROUGH: Deep Creek (Continued from the October 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CONTINUED to the December 9, 2015 Planning Commission Public Hearing. (7-0; Van Laethem/Williams, Johnson excused) Mrs. Shaffer stated that the applicant had requested a continuation to the December 9, 2015 Public Hearing. The applicant revised numerous aspects of this application and

3 Page 3 requested a continuance to allow city staff additional time to complete the review and provide the applicant with the opportunity to address any outstanding issues. Staff had no objection to the request. Commissioner Van Laethem moved that CPL(M) be CONTINUED to the December 9, 2015 Public Hearing as recommended by staff. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused. CONSENT AGENDA: R(C) PROJECT: The Crossings at Oakbrooke APPLICANT: Chesapeake ILAL Investors, LLC AGENCY: Williams Mullen PROPOSAL: A conditional zoning reclassification of 13.13± acres from R-15s, Residential District (4.91± acres) and A-1, Agricultural District (8.22± acres) to O&I, Office and Institutional District. PROPOSED COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Institutional (Group Care and Group Housing) with approximately 22 dwelling units per acre. EXISTING COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Office/Research LOCATION: Clearfield Avenue TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: portion of BOROUGH: Washington (This item was approved for concurrent advertising and will be heard by City Council on November 17, 2015) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that R(C) be APPROVED with the following proffers: (7-0; Williams/Hutchinson, Johnson excused) 1. The applicant/owner agrees that the property subject to this rezoning, R(C)-15-18, (the Property ) will be used exclusively for Group Housing for the Elderly (as defined in the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance) and a Group Care Facility (as defined in the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance) and associated accessory uses and buildings. The Group Care Facility will be limited to individuals aged 55 and older and individuals suffering from Alzheimer s disease. The subject property shall be developed in a manner that is generally consistent with the rezoning exhibit dated October 15, 2015, as determined by the Director of Planning or designee. The applicant/owner further agrees that the maximum number of units shall be 185. The maximum number of units for Group Housing for the Elderly shall be eighty five (85) and the maximum number of units for the Group Care Facility shall be one hundred (100).

4 Page 4 2. The applicant/owner agrees to make a cash contribution to the City of Chesapeake for Capital Improvements to emergency service facilities for the portion of the project that represents Group Housing for the Elderly. The amount of the voluntary cash contribution shall be $993 per unit of Group Housing for the Elderly (a maximum of 85 units). The applicant/owner agrees to make the proffered cash contribution prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each unit, or building containing units of Group Housing for the Elderly. The applicant/owner acknowledges and agrees that the cash contributions may be deposited into the City of Chesapeake s Lock Box, also known as the General Fund Reserve for Future Capital Needs and shall be subject to City Council approval prior to appropriation and used for capital improvements as permitted by the Chesapeake Proffer Policy, the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia. The cash proffers may be used for alternative improvements approved by the City Council under Section of the Code of Virginia, including major repairs and renovations of public facilities, to the extent permitted by state law. The cash proffer shall be allocated as follows: Emergency Services $ The applicant/owner agrees that the principal building on the Property shall be generally consistent with the building elevations entitled The Crossings at Chesapeake prepared by Gaylen Howard Laing Architect, date stamped September 10, 2015 on file with the Chesapeake Planning Department as determined by the Planning Director or designee. The internal design of the building shall include a commercial kitchen, group dining rooms, nurse s station on each floor, and administrative offices. 4. The applicant/owner agrees to record a vehicular non-ingress/egress easement on a form acceptable to the City Attorney along the Property s entire frontage of Clearfield Avenue and Kempsville Road except for the approved intersection for Clearfield Avenue, the right turn lane depicted on the rezoning exhibit dated October 15, 2015, and the remaining frontage of the overall parcel not included in the rezoning application R(C) The non-ingress/egress easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. 5. The applicant/owner agrees to dedicate, at no cost to the City of Chesapeake, one-half of the ultimate right of way width for Clearfield Avenue and Kempsville Road along the frontage of the Property included in this rezoning application R(C) The right of way dedication shall provide for an ultimate width of Clearfield Avenue and Kempsville Road as depicted on the rezoning exhibit dated October 15, 2015, including a 25 feet franchise utility easement, and shall occur by deed or plat before the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. During site plan review the dedication shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development and Permits in order to achieve the ultimate width. The recorded deed or subdivision plat shall include a statement that, The owner/applicant and its assigns shall not be entitled to a claim of

5 Page 5 damages solely related to improvements in the dedication area or damages to the Property solely by reason of the right-of-way dedication pursuant to Proffer #5 of R(C) The applicant/owner agrees to install and maintain a modified landscape buffer yard along the Property s Clearfield Avenue frontage that is subject to this rezoning application as generally depicted on the rezoning exhibit dated October 15, 2015 on file with the Planning Department. The buffer yard shall be a minimum width of 35 feet and shall provide plant materials equal in quantity and quality as provided in front of Oabrooke Technology Park, to be approved by the Landscape Coordinator, Department of Development and Permits prior to Final Site Plan approval. 7. The applicant/owner agrees to dedicate, at no cost to the City, a signage easement for the placement of a monument sign for The Oakbrooke Business and Technology Center as depicted on the rezoning exhibit dated October 15, The easement shall provide for the construction, access and maintenance of the monument sign and shall be dedicated to the City before the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The monument sign shall be subject to the requirements of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance, and any necessary amendments to permit the monument sign, and to the architectural requirements and design criteria applicable to The Oakbrooke Business and Technology Center. 8. The applicant/owner agrees that no land disturbance shall be permitted in that area depicted on the rezoning exhibit dated October 15, 2015 as the Existing Edge of Woods (wooded area to remain undisturbed) except that pervious walking paths may be constructed and maintained by the applicant/owner. 9. The applicant/owner agrees to construct and maintain the 30 Paved Access/30 Ingress/Egress Easement depicted on the rezoning exhibit dated October 15, 2015 on file with the Planning Department as a nonexclusive private ingress/egress for the benefit of the property subject to R(C) and UP The 30 Paved Access and associated entrance may be relocated, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development and Permits or designee, to accommodate future development of tax parcel # A conceptual site plan prepared by Hassel and Folkes, PC and entitled The Crossings at Oakbrooke, dated October 15, 2015, a copy of which is on file with the Chesapeake Planning Department, has been submitted to the Chesapeake Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council for illustrative purposes only and to provide support for this rezoning action. No rights shall vest nor any cause of action shall arise from the submission, review or acceptance of this conceptual site plan. In order to obtain preliminary or final site or subdivision approval, changes in the conceptual site plan will be necessary to accommodate environmental, engineering, architectural, topographic, or other

6 Page 6 development conditions, and to meet the requirements of applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. All preliminary and final site and subdivision plans are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, or designee and/or the Director of Development and Permits or designee. A copy of the final approved site plan shall be placed in the file with the Planning Department and the Department of Development and Permits and shall supersede any previously filed conceptual site plan. Mrs. Hanson read R(C) into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mrs. Hanson stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that R(C) be APPROVED with the proffers as listed in the official agenda. Commissioner Williams moved that R(C) be APPROVED with the proffers as listed in the official agenda and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hutchison seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused. UP PROJECT: The Crossings at Oakbrooke APPLICANT: Chesapeake ILAL Investors, LLC AGENCY: Williams Mullen PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit for a Group Care Facility and for Group Housing for the Elderly, with a height exception to allow a 4 story building, instead of a 2 story building and to allow a building height of 65 feet instead of 35 feet as required, when adjacent to existing single family detached residences and to allow private access to O&I, Office and Institutional District through R-15s, Residential District and A-1, Agricultural District. ZONE: O&I, Office and Institutional District (Proposed) LOCATION: Southeast corner of Clearfield Avenue and Kempsville Road TAX MAP SECTION/PARCELS: portion of , portion of BOROUGH: Washington (This item was approved for concurrent advertising and will be heard by City Council on November 17, 2015) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that UP be APPROVED. (7-0; Williams/Hutchinson, Johnson excused)

7 Page 7 Mrs. Hanson read UP into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mrs. Hanson stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that UP be APPROVED as listed in the official agenda. Commissioner Williams moved that UP be APPROVED as listed in the official agenda and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused. R(C) PROJECT: Bumann Construction Rezoning APPLICANT: Bumann Construction, Inc. PROPOSAL: A conditional zoning reclassification of 0.85± acres from B-2, General Business District (0.56± acres) and R-8s, Residential District (0.29± acres) to M-1, Light Industrial District. PROPOSED COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Light Industrial/Logistics EXISTING COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Business/Commercial LOCATION: 719 Wilson Road TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: BOROUGH: South Norfolk PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that R(C) be APPROVED with the following proffers: (7-0; Williams/Hutchinson, Johnson excused) 1. The applicant/owner shall record a plat vacating interior property lines for tax parcel prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 2. The applicant/owner shall remove or relocate the existing shed located in the southwest corner of the property that is in violation of the setbacks imposed by the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. The conceptual site plan submitted by MSA and date-stamped September 15, 2015 a copy of which is on file with the Chesapeake Planning Department, has been submitted to the Chesapeake Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council for illustrative purposes only and to provide support for this rezoning action. No rights shall vest nor shall any cause of action arise from the submission, review or acceptance of this conceptual site plan. In order

8 Page 8 to obtain preliminary or final site or subdivision approval, changes in the conceptual site plan will be necessary to accommodate environmental, engineering, architectural, topographic, or other development conditions, and to meet the requirements of applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. All preliminary and final site and subdivision plans are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning or designee and/or the Director of Development and Permits or designee. A copy of the final approved site plan shall be placed in the file with the Planning Department and Department of Development and Permits and shall supersede any previously file conceptual site plan. Mrs. Hanson read R(C) into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mrs. Hanson stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that R(C) be APPROVED with the proffers as listed in the official agenda. Commissioner Williams moved that R(C) be APPROVED with the proffers as listed in the official agenda and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused. R(C) PROJECT: Aldi Grocery Store APPLICANT: Aldi (N.C.) LLC AGENCY: Williams Mullen PROPOSAL: A conditional zoning reclassification of a 2.76± acre portion of a site totaling 4.99± acres from C-2, Conservation-Recreation District to B-1, Neighborhood Business District, a retail grocery store. PROPOSED COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Business/Commercial EXISTING COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Medium Density Residential with something less than 10 dwelling units per acre LOCATION: 1269 Cedar Road TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: portion of BOROUGH: Pleasant Grove PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that R(C) be APPROVED with the following proffers: (7-0; Williams/Hutchinson, Johnson excused)

9 Page 9 1. The applicant/owner agrees that the permitted use of the B-1 zoning district on the subject property shall be limited to a grocery store (SIC 54) and food store (SIC 54). 2. The applicant/owner agrees that the building constructed in the B-1 zoning district on the subject property shall be substantially similar to the building elevations dated stamped October 26, 2015, as determined by the Director of Planning or designee. 3. The applicant/owner agrees to record a vehicular non-ingress/egress easement on that portion of the subject property zoned B-1 along all of the public road frontage except for approved entrances. The form and sufficiency of the easement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and shall be recorded before the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 4. The applicant/owner agrees to restrict truck deliveries between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The applicant/owner is solely responsible for ensuring truck deliveries are made between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant/owner shall post a sign which must be posted at the loading area of the grocery store stating indicating that All deliveries are restricted to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 5. The applicant/owner agrees to install and maintain a landscape buffer in the B-1 zoning district along the subject property s frontage on Las Gaviotas Boulevard, except for the approved entrance. The buffer shall consist of a Buffer Yard D with no fence or berm as set out in Section 19 of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance. The buffer shall be installed before the issuance of the final site plan. 6. The applicant/owner agrees to record a cross reciprocal access easement in connection with tax parcel # in order to establish a shared access to Cedar Road. The design and dimensions of the access easement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development and Permits or designee during site plan review. The easement shall be recorded before the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy on forms acceptable to the City Attorney. 7. The applicant/owner agrees to dedicate the ultimate right-of-way width for Cedar Road as provided for by the 2050 Master Transportation Plan on the property subject to this rezoning, at no cost to the City. The dedication shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development and Permits or designee during site plan review. A deed of dedication shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney and shall be recorded before the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.

10 Page The applicant/owner agrees to install a public sidewalk, at no cost to the City, along the entirety of the subject property s frontage on Cedar Road. The sidewalk shall be installed before the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy pursuant to a plan approved by the Director of Development and Permits or designee. 9. The conceptual site plan submitted by Kimley-Horne and Associates, Inc., a copy of which is on file with the Chesapeake Planning Department, has been submitted to the Chesapeake Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council for illustrative purposes only and to provide support for this rezoning action. No rights shall vest nor shall any cause of action arise from the submission, review or acceptance of this conceptual site plan. In order to obtain preliminary or final site or subdivision approval, changes in the conceptual site plan will be necessary to accommodate environmental, engineering, architectural, topographic, or other development conditions, and to meet the requirements of applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. All preliminary and final site and subdivision plans are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning or designee and/or the Director of Development and Permits or designee. A copy of the final approved site plan shall be placed in the file with the Planning Department and Department of Development and Permits and shall supersede any previously filed conceptual site plan. Mrs. Hanson read R(C) into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mrs. Hanson stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that R(C) be APPROVED with the proffers as listed in the official agenda. Commissioner Williams moved that R(C) be APPROVED with the proffers as listed in the official agenda and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused.

11 Page 11 UP PROJECT: Kingdom Love Full Gospel Baptist Church APPLICANT: Paul L. Dickens PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a church within an existing building. ZONE: R-6, Residential District LOCATION: 2007 Atlantic Avenue TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: BOROUGH: South Norfolk PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that UP be APPROVED with the following stipulations: (7-0; Williams/Hutchinson, Johnson excused) 1. The applicant/owner shall submit a lighting plan in compliance with Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance Section for the installation of fullcut-off light fixtures to exterior walls and parking lot areas to eliminate glare and light trespass. Such plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development and Permits or designee and shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a new zoning permit/certificate of occupancy. 2. The applicant/owner shall restripe the subject site s existing asphalt parking lot to comply with the requirements of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to providing a sign limiting the use of two (2) of the van accessible parking spaces to disabled persons in wheelchairs. The applicant/owner shall restripe the parking lot and obtain all other required permits and approvals prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. The applicant/owner agrees that minor site layout changes to the presently approved final site construction plan for the subject site will be required to comply with adequate site circulation and fire access, as determined in the sole discretion of the Director of Development and Permits or designee. 4. A maximum of 50 seats shall be permitted in the largest assembly area (sanctuary). Mrs. Hanson read UP into the record for Commission review and action.

12 Page 12 Staff Presentation: Mrs. Hanson stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that UP be APPROVED with the stipulations as listed in the official agenda. Commissioner Williams moved that UP be APPROVED with the stipulations as listed in the official agenda and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused. UP PROJECT: Clairmont at Jolliff Height Increase APPLICANT: Kotarides Builders PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit to exceed the maximum height of 35 feet to 39 feet in height. ZONE: R-MF-1; Multifamily Residential District LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Jolliff Land Parkway and Pennsylvania Avenue TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: BOROUGH: Western Branch PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that UP be APPROVED with the following stipulation: (7-0; Williams/Hutchinson, Johnson excused) The apartment buildings shall be constructed to a maximum of 3 stories and in substantial conformance with the building elevation datestamped February 9, Mrs. Hanson read UP into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mrs. Hanson stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that UP be APPROVED with the stipulation as listed in the official agenda. Commissioner Williams moved that UP be APPROVED with the stipulation as listed in the official agenda and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hutchinson seconded

13 Page 13 the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused. UP PROJECT: RNR of Virginia APPLICANT: RNR of Virginia, Inc. PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit to operate an automotive retail and related automotive services (tire store) within existing shopping center on 2.7 acres. ZONE: Greenbrier PUD, Zone 3 - Business LOCATION: 1420 Battlefield Boulevard North, Suite L TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: BOROUGH: Washington PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that UP be APPROVED with the following stipulations: (7-0; Williams/Hutchinson, Johnson excused) 1. The proposed business hours shall be Monday through Saturday, 9 am to 7 pm, with no Sunday hours. 2. The garage doors in the rear of the building shall be closed whenever vehicles are being serviced within the building. 3. No outside work shall be performed by the subject business on the subject site. 4. There shall be no outside storage or display of any merchandise associated with the subject business on the subject site. Mrs. Hanson read UP into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mrs. Hanson stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that UP be APPROVED with the stipulations as listed in the official agenda. Commissioner Williams moved that UP be APPROVED with the stipulations as listed in the official agenda and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused.

14 Page 14 S(V) PROJECT: Pleasant View Estates Sidewalk Variance APPLICANT: SBC General Contracting, LLC AGENCY: Hassell & Folkes, PC PROPOSAL: A subdivision variance from Section (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance to require sidewalks on only one side of a new street. LOCATION: 929 Mount Pleasant Road TAX MAP SECTION/PARCELS: , BOROUGH: Butts Road PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED. (7-0; Williams/Hutchinson, Johnson excused) Mrs. Hanson read S(V) into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mrs. Hanson stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that S(V) be APPROVED as listed in the official agenda. Commissioner Williams moved that S(V) be APPROVED as listed in the official agenda and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused. REGULAR AGENDA: UP PROJECT: The Called Church EFM, Inc. APPLICANT: The Called Church EFM, Inc. PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit to allow a church to operate in an existing building. ZONE: B-2, General Business District LOCATION: 941 Canal Drive TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: BOROUGH: Deep Creek

15 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that UP be APPROVED with the revised stipulation: (7-0; Ellis/Perry, Johnson excused) No more than 92 seats shall be permitted in the largest assembly center. Mrs. Hanson read UP into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mrs. Story stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that UP be APPROVED with the stipulation as listed in the official agenda. Proponent: Bishop E.W. Jackson, Sr., The Called EFM, Inc. 941 Canal Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of UP representing The Called Church EFM, Inc. Mr. Bishop requested an amendment to the stipulation stating that the 30 seats be changed to 90 seats. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Van Laethem asked staff if there would be adequate parking to accommodate the additional seating. Staff said that the parking was sufficient for 92 seats in the assembly area. Chairman Kish was concerned about the fire code and fire protection. He said, from a fire standpoint, that the Fire Department would require a Fire Code Operational Permit to be obtained at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Kish asked the Director of Development & Permits if at the time of final construction plan review how many people would actually be in the assembly building and would a permit be issued for that number of people. The Director of Development and Permits stated that there would be no final construction plan required for that building since it was existing. He said what would be required from an existing tenant space would be whether or not the use would be changing. If so, they would be required to obtain a building permit making sure the building codes were in place for that particular use. Commissioner Ellis moved that UP be APPROVED with the revised stipulation for 92 seats and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Johnson was excused.

16 Page 16 R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) PROJECT: Eastwyck Crossing Apartments APPLICANT: Coleman Holdings LLC AGENCY: ShepelleWatkinsWhite Consulting & Law PLLC PROPOSAL: A conditional zoning reclassification of 18.1± acres to reconsider proffers under the existing zoning of R-MF-1, Multifamily Residential District. PROPOSED COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Medium Density Residential with dwelling units per acre. EXISTING COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Medium Density Residential with 16 dwelling units per acre. LOCATION: Terminus of Miller Avenue TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: BOROUGH: Washington (Continued from the October 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) be APPROVED with proffers which resulted in a tie vote and automatically CONTINUED to the December 9, 2015 Planning Commission Public Hearing. (3-3-1;Van Laethem/Ellis; Williams, Kish, Hutchinson opposed, Johnson excused, Morris abstained) Mrs. Hanson read R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mr. Hobbs stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) be DENIED as listed in the official agenda. Proponent: James R. Bradford, 3452 Cricket Hollow Lane, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP Mr. Bradford stated that in 2008, he was the Agent and represented the design of the rezoning exhibit. Shepelle Watkins-White, ShepelleWatkinsWhite Consulting Law, PLLC, 870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 405, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing the applicant. Opponent: Barry Lipscomb, 6376 Colby Way, Virginia Beach, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing the Framingham Village Homes Association.

17 Page 17 Scott Reynolds, 2005 Ramsay Court, Virginia Beach, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing Eastern Virginia Mountain Bike Association. Kristen Billingsley, 2312 Miller Avenue, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing herself. Rogard Ross, President of the Friends of Indian River, 3800 Rivercrest Place, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP Tom Kennedy, 216 Sparrow Road, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing himself. Those who spoke in opposition were concerned about the traffic impact, noise issues, and the height increase. They said they wanted access to the trails and enjoyed the existing vegetation and natural wildlife. They stated that medium housing was good for the City but they did not want the higher density. They felt that the proffers were not adequate and that the number of units should be limited to 216. They also said this development was not compatible with their surrounding neighborhood. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Perry asked the Agent if the additional height exception was not granted would that effect the design of the 3-story building or would the roof slope be the only change. The Agent replied that the height exception was designed for long term maintenance purposes on the roof. Commissioner Ellis verified with the Agent that the 40 foot trees and buffers around the perimeter of the property would remain. Commissioner Van Laethem stated that with or without the height exception, the windows on the 3-story building would remain on the same level and that the height exception pertained to the roof only. Commissioner Hutchinson asked staff to clarify why the staff recommended approval for the Crossings at Oakbrooke as it compared to this application which was recommended for denial. Mr. Hobbs explained that the Crossings at Oakbrooke was not an in-fill development and that there were major right-of-ways that separated the Crossings at Oakbrooke from the subject property. He said it was an entirely a different corridor and said comparing the two areas was not at all accurate. He said this application was definitely an in-fill development with residential on both sides. Commissioner Hutchinson asked staff to address the Level of Service (LOS) concern for the School Administration. Staff replied that this application failed the LOS which was at 127%.

18 Page 18 Commission Van Laethem asked staff if the School Administration indicated that they would not be able to support the increase in students. Staff replied that the School Administration gave a range of options of ways that they could accommodate the increase in students. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that one of the options was to add exterior mobile units. Staff said that was one of the common options that was listed. Commissioner Williams said that a traffic study was done on Military Highway between Greenbrier Parkway and Providence Road which was not close to where this traffic would dump out. He said it would be dumping out into College Park Apartment complex. He wondered how the City could comment concerning the Level of Service (LOS) of roads, when the entrances of the development would not be in the City of Chesapeake. Mr. Hobbs replied that in accordance with the City s Level of Service Policy (LOS) the department of Development and Engineering analyzed a road segment that was closest to this development. He also said that there had been communication between Development Engineering and with the City of Virginia Beach with the first rezoning and that the discussion was on-going. Chairman Kish asked the Director of Development and Permits about the traffic study that was performed on Military Highway between Providence Road and Greenbrier Parkway. Mr. Tate stated that was the closest City of Chesapeake Master Transportation Plan roadway that was in the vicinity and that it was a unique situation. Chairman Kish verified that this application was mailed to the City of Virginia Beach for their notification and review. The Director of Development and Permits stated he did not know what kind of analysis the City of Virginia Beach did concerning this application and said he was not aware of any recent discussion. Commissioner Williams asked the City Attorney s Office if the applicant allowed a trail to come onto his property, would he assume liability for anything that happened along that trail. The City Attorney s Office said he would but as the proffer was currently written, the trail was supposed to be given to the City, if the City elected to take it. Commissioner Van Laethem moved that R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) be APPROVED with the proffers as listed in the staff report due to this application was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; that the height variance was not a significant issue; that the LOS issue with Schools could be overcome by Chesapeake Public Schools and that the next level School could be assumed with no problem; and that the proffers and stipulations offered were adequate to provide protection to the applicant and the City. Commissioner Ellis seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of which resulted in a tie vote and automatically CONTINUED to the December 9, 2015 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Commissioners Williams, Kish, and Hutchinson voted against the motion. Commissioner Johnson was excused and Commissioner Morris abstained.

19 Page 19 UP PROJECT: Eastwyck Crossing Apartments APPLICANT: Coleman Holdings, Inc. AGENCY: ShepelleWatkinsWhite Consulting & Law PLLC PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit for a height exception to allow multi-family dwellings to be 38 feet in height instead of 35 feet as required. ZONE: R-MF-1, Multifamily Residential District LOCATION: Terminus of Miller Avenue TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: BOROUGH: Washington (Continued from the October 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that UP be APPROVED which resulted in a tie vote and automatically CONTINUED to the December 9, 2015 Planning Commission Public Hearing. (3-3-1;Van Laethem/Ellis; Williams, Kish, Hutchinson opposed, Johnson excused, Morris abstained) Mrs. Hanson read UP into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mr. Hobbs stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that UP be DENIED as listed in the official agenda. Proponent: James R. Bradford, 3452 Cricket Hollow Lane, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP Mr. Bradford stated that in 2008, he was the Agent and represented the design of the rezoning exhibit. Shepelle Watkins-White, ShepelleWatkinsWhite Consulting Law, PLLC, 870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 405, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing the applicant. Opponent: Barry Lipscomb, 6376 Colby Way, Virginia Beach, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing the Framingham Village Homes Association. Scott Reynolds, 2005 Ramsay Court, Virginia Beach, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing Eastern Virginia Mountain Bike Association.

20 Page 20 Kristen Billingsley, 2312 Miller Avenue, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing herself. Rogard Ross, President of the Friends of Indian River, 3800 Rivercrest Place, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP Tom Kennedy, 216 Sparrow Road, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15) and UP representing himself. Those who spoke in opposition were concerned about the traffic impact, noise issues, and the height increase. They said they wanted access to the trails and enjoyed the existing vegetation and natural wildlife. They stated that medium housing was good for the City but they did not want the higher density. They felt that the proffers were not adequate and that the number of units should be limited to 216. They also said this development was not compatible with their surrounding neighborhood. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Perry asked the Agent if the additional height exception was not granted would that effect the design of the 3-story building or would the roof slope be the only change. The Agent replied that the height exception was designed for long term maintenance purposes on the roof. Commissioner Ellis verified with the Agent that the 40 foot trees and buffers around the perimeter of the property would remain. Commissioner Van Laethem stated that with or without the height exception, the windows on the 3-story building would remain on the same level and that the height exception pertained to the roof only. Commissioner Hutchinson asked staff to clarify why the staff recommended approval for the Crossings at Oakbrooke as it compared to this application which was recommended for denial. Mr. Hobbs explained that the Crossings at Oakbrooke was not an in-fill development and that there were major right-of-ways that separated the Crossings at Oakbrooke from the subject property. He said it was an entirely a different corridor and said comparing the two areas was not at all accurate. He said this application was definitely an in-fill development with residential on both sides. Commissioner Hutchinson asked staff to address the Level of Service (LOS) concern for the School Administration. Staff replied that this application failed the LOS which was at 127%. Commission Van Laethem asked staff if the School Administration indicated that they would not be able to support the increase in students. Staff replied that the School Administration gave a range of options of ways that they could accommodate the increase in students.

21 Page 21 Commissioner Hutchinson stated that one of the options was to add exterior mobile units. Staff said that was one of the common options that was listed. Commissioner Williams said that a traffic study was done on Military Highway between Greenbrier Parkway and Providence Road which was not close to where this traffic would dump out. He said it would be dumping out into College Park Apartment complex. He wondered how the City could comment concerning the Level of Service (LOS) of roads, when the entrances of the development would not be in the City of Chesapeake. Mr. Hobbs replied that in accordance with the City s Level of Service Policy (LOS) the department of Development and Engineering analyzed a road segment that was closest to this development. He also said that there had been communication between Development Engineering and with the City of Virginia Beach with the first rezoning and that the discussion was on-going. Chairman Kish asked the Director of Development and Permits about the traffic study that was performed on Military Highway between Providence Road and Greenbrier Parkway. Mr. Tate stated that was the closest City of Chesapeake Master Transportation Plan roadway that was in the vicinity and that it was a unique situation. Chairman Kish verified that this application was mailed to the City of Virginia Beach for their notification and review. The Director of Development and Permits stated he did not know what kind of analysis the City of Virginia Beach did concerning this application and said he was not aware of any recent discussion. Commissioner Williams asked the City Attorney s Office if the applicant allowed a trail to come onto his property, would he assume liability for anything that happened along that trail. The City Attorney s Office said he would but as the proffer was currently written, the trail was supposed to be given to the City, if the City elected to take it. Commissioner Van Laethem moved that UP be APPROVED as listed in the staff report due to this application was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; that the height variance is not a significant issue; that the LOS issue with Schools can be overcome by Chesapeake Public Schools and that the next level School can be assumed with no problem; and that the proffers and stipulations offered are adequate to provide protection to the applicant and the City. Commissioner Ellis seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of which resulted in a tie vote and automatically CONTINUED to the December 9, 2015 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Commissioners Williams, Kish, and Hutchinson voted against the motion. Commissioner Johnson was excused and Commissioner Morris abstained.

22 Page 22 UP PROJECT: Ross s Retreat APPLICANT: Charles & Katherine Ross PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit to allow guest lodging or tenant occupancy of 2 studio rooms in a single family detached residence. ZONE: A-1, Agricultural District LOCATION: 3000 Mount Pleasant Road TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: BOROUGH: Butts Station PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: CONTINUED to the December 9, 2015 Planning Commission Public Hearing. (5-2; Perry/Williams; Kish, Van Laethem opposed, Johnson excused) Mrs. Hanson read UP into the record for Commission review and action. Staff Presentation: Mrs. Story stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that UP be DENIED as listed in the official agenda. Proponent: Charles Ross, Applicant, 3000 Mount Pleasant Road, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of UP representing himself. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Perry asked the applicant if he had complained or filed any complaints about the jet noise to the U.S. Navy. The applicant replied he had not. Commissioner Perry stated he had a few questions about the Military s ruling and wanted to request a continuance until a representative from the U.S. Navy could be present. Mrs. Shaffer stated that the City of Chesapeake had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Navy in The Memorandum of Understanding set forth the process where the City staff and the Navy staff evaluated applications that were deemed not compatible in the Fentress Overlay District. That was done with meeting the applicant to present his case, then staff deliberated and reviewed the code and made findings as to whether or not the proposed use was considered compatible. That information was relayed to the Planning Commission. That process was to take the place of an actual Navy representative being present to Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Perry asked staff how this application was incompatible independent of the coding hotel/motel.

23 Page 23 Mrs. Shaffer said the single family structure was opening up to renting out their rooms for a commercial basis and would be marketing their home by placing a sign on the property and that removed it from the residential category into a different category. The Zoning Ordinance used the Standard Industrial Classification Manual in structuring what uses were permitted or conditional in classifying uses. The Manual stated that Bed and Breakfast Inns were classified as a hotel/motel. The AICUZ Tables reflect hotel/motel listed in the tables, however, those tables show it as not being compatible in the Accident Potential Zone 2. The AICUZ Tables only apply to applications that were discretionary, such as rezonings and use permits that would come before Planning Commission and City Council for land use approval. Commissioner Williams sated that city water and sewer were not available or required. He wondered what the impact would be once the Health Department re-evaluated the property if the zoning became commercial. Mrs. Shaffer said whenever there was a change in use the City would require that the City Health Department approve the increased use of the onsite septic and water systems which would be done at the time of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Morris asked staff if this application were to be approved, could signage or other things be handled through stipulations. Mrs. Shaffer stated that the Committees role was to determine whether or not the proposed discretionary land use was consistent with the AICUZ Tables and The Fentress Overlay District. She said staff s findings was that it was not compatible with the AICUZ Table within the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Morris felt that he would like to have a meeting with the U.S. Navy to receive their feedback and said he would support a continuance for thirty days. The City Attorney stated that the U.S. Navy would only be looking at the use and if it would be compatible with the noise issues which were reflected in the City s Memorandum of Understanding. In her opinion, she did not think the U.S. Navy would have an opinion on signage or other such factors. Commissioner Van Laethem explained that this was not just a noise zone but also a crash zone area which made the decision for staff s recommendation for denial. Commissioner Perry requested the item be continued for thirty days for further research and discussion and to give others the opportunity to provide comments and answer questions. Commissioner Williams felt he needed more clarification and what impact this application would have on the U.S. Navy. He also wanted to know what the City had done to cooperate with the U.S. Navy in order to make sure Fentress Airfield remained open. He stated that the applicant said it would not be a burden on him if this application was continued so that was the reason why he would support a continuance. Commissioner Van Laethem said he would not support a continuance and did not think it would change staff s recommendation. He said this was a safety issue and that it dealt with the crash zone.