Pine Grove West CITY COUNCIL PACKAGE FOR OCTOBER 20, 2015

Transcription

1 Docket Item "C" CITY COUNCIL PACKAGE FOR OCTOBER 20, 2015 R(C) Pine Grove West Page 1 2 Application Summary 3 12 Proffer Statement Planning Commission Draft Minutes Staff Reports: September 2, August 4, Fiscal Impact Analysis Environmental Site Assessment - Phase I, Executive Summary Proposed Property Acquisition for Right-of-Way Exhibits Architectural Elevations 64 Rezoning Exhibit/Site Plan 65 Aerial 66 GIS Parcel Exhibit

2 APPLICATION SUMMARY R(C) Pine Grove West 1 LOCATION: PROPOSAL: 5052 & 5064 Portsmouth Boulevard A conditional zoning reclassification of 11.51± acres from A-1, Agricultural District (10.71± acres) and R-15s, Residential District (0.80± acres) to R-TH-1, Townhouse Residential District. SUBMITTED: ACKNOWLEDGED BY COUNCIL: STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATES: , , , , RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with proffers VOTE: 6-2 ATTACHMENTS Proffer Statement, Draft Minutes, Staff Reports, Fiscal Impact Analysis, Environmental Site Assessment Phase I - Executive Summary, Rezoning Exhibit/Site Plan, Aerial, GIS Parcel Exhibit

3 2 APPLICATION SUMMARY R(C) Pine Grove West APPLICANT: Jolliff Road Properties, LLC Attn: Bob Arnette 901 Port Centre Parkway, Suite 5 Portsmouth, VA bobarnette@coastalva.org Members: Bob Arnette, Managing Member Matt Howard Tom Sheets OWNER: Alice J. Wilkins Portsmouth Boulevard Chesapeake, VA No address OWNER: Go Mama Enterprises, LLC Attn: Jeffrey L. Moore 5064 Portsmouth Boulevard Chesapeake, VA No address Members: Jeffrey L. Moore, President OWNER: Potomac Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventist Attn: William Miller 606 Greenville Avenue Staunton, VA darylh@pcsda.org Officers: William K, Miller, President Jorge Ramirez, Vice President/Administration David VandeVere, Vice President/Finance AGENCY: Hoggard/Eure Associates, PC Attn: Mr. C. Raeford Eure 901 Port Centre Parkway, Suite 5 Portsmouth, VA raeford@hoggard-eure.com

4 3

5 4

6 5

7 6

8 7

9 8

10 9

11 10

12 11

13 12

14 Chesapeake Planning Commission DRAFT September 9, 2015 Public Hearing Minutes 13 R(C) PROJECT: Pine Grove West Rezoning APPLICANT: Jolliff Road Properties, LLC AGENCY: Hoggard-Eure Associates, PC PROPOSAL: A conditional zoning reclassification of 14.32± acres from A-1, Agricultural District (11.26± acres), R-15s, Residential District (2.12± acres) and B-2, General Business District (0.94± acres) to R-15s, Residential District (0.25± acres), R-TH-1, Townhouse Residential District (11.95± acres) and O&I, Office and Institutional District (2.12± acres). PROPOSED COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Medium Density Residential with something less than 7.68 dwelling units per acre EXISTING COMP LAND USE: Office LOCATION: 5052, 5060 & 5064 Portsmouth Boulevard TAX MAP SECTION/PARCELS: , portion of , BOROUGH: Western Branch (Continued from the August 12, 2015 Public Hearing) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that R(C) be APPROVED with the following proffers: (6-2; Van Laethem/Johnson, Kish, Morris opposed, Small excused) 1. The applicant/owners agree that the development of the property subject to this rezoning, R(C) (the property ), will be in substantial compliance with the plan entitled Concept Plan, Pine Grove West for: Coastal Virginia Developers, date stamped July 30, 2015, on file with the Planning Department, as determined by the Director of Planning or designee. 2. A conceptual site plan entitled Concept Plan for Pine Grove West, dated July 30, 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 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.

15 14 Chesapeake Planning Commission DRAFT September 9, 2015 Public Hearing Minutes 3. The applicant/owner shall provide dedications for the Portsmouth Boulevard widening project as follows: a. The applicant/owners shall dedicate the right-of-way and easements as shown on the exhibit entitled, Project Parcel #002, plat showing proposed property acquisitions for proposed right of way, proposed permanent drainage easements, proposed nonexclusive utility easement, and proposed temporary construction easement for the City of Chesapeake to be acquired from tax parcel owned now or formerly by Go Mama Enterprises, LLC and dated November 25, 2014, at no cost to the City. The drainage easement shown on said plat shall be dedicated jointly to the City of Chesapeake and to the City of Suffolk at no additional cost, and the non-exclusive utility easement dedication shall at no additional cost be inclusive of a dedication jointly to the City of Chesapeake and any private utility entities to be relocated to said easement as part of the Portsmouth Boulevard Corridor Improvements Project. The dedication of right-of way and easements shall be completed by execution of deeds on forms prepared by the City Attorney s Office and private utility entities within 30 days of the applicant/owners receipt of a written request from the Director of Development and Permits or designee. The applicant/owners agree that the deeds recording these right-of-way and easements shall include a statement that, The applicant/owners and its assigns shall not be entitled to a claim of damages to the residual property for improvements in the dedication area or damages to the residue by reason of the right-of-way and easement dedications and/or electronic and telecommunication relocations associated with the Portsmouth Boulevard Road improvements. b. The applicant/owners shall dedicate the right-of-way and easements as shown on the exhibit entitled, Project Parcel #005, plat showing proposed property acquisitions for proposed right of way, proposed permanent drainage easements, proposed nonexclusive utility easement, and proposed temporary construction easement for the City of Chesapeake to be acquired from tax parcel owned now or formerly by Charles W. Wilkins & Alice J. Wilkins and dated November 25, 2014, at no cost to the City. The drainage easement shown on said plat shall be dedicated jointly to the City of Chesapeake and to the City of Suffolk at no additional cost, and the non-exclusive utility easement dedication shall at no additional cost be inclusive of a dedication jointly to the City of Chesapeake and any private utility entities to be relocated to said easement as part of the Portsmouth Boulevard Corridor Improvements Project. The dedication of right-of way and easements shall be completed by execution of deeds on forms prepared by the City Attorney s

16 Chesapeake Planning Commission DRAFT September 9, 2015 Public Hearing Minutes 15 Office and private utility entities within 30 days of the applicant/owners receipt of a written request from the Director of Development and Permits or designee. The applicant/owners agree that the deeds recording these right-of-way and easements shall include a statement that, The applicant/owners and its assigns shall not be entitled to a claim of damages to the residual property for improvements in the dedication area or damages to the residue by reason of the right-of-way and easement dedications and/or electronic and telecommunication relocations associated with the Portsmouth Boulevard Road improvements. c. The applicant/owners shall dedicate the right-of-way and easements as shown on the exhibit entitled, Project Parcel #004, plat showing proposed property acquisitions for proposed rightof-way, proposed permanent drainage easements, proposed nonexclusive utility easement, and proposed temporary construction easement for the City of Chesapeake to be acquired from tax parcel owned now or formerly by Potomac Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventists and dated November 25, 2104, at no cost to the City. The drainage easement shown on said plat shall be dedicated jointly to the City of Chesapeake and to the City of Suffolk at no additional coast, and the non-exclusive utility easement dedication shall at no additional cost be inclusive of a dedication jointly to the City of Chesapeake and any private utility entities to be relocated to said easement as part of the Portsmouth Boulevard Corridor Improvement Project. The dedication of right-of-way and easements shall be completed by execution of deeds on forms prepared by the City Attorney s Office and private utility entities within 30 days of the applicant/owners receipt of a written request from the Director of Development and Permits or designee. The applicant/owners agree that the deeds recording these right-ofway and easements shall include a statement that, The applicant/owners and its assigns shall not be entitled to a claim of damages to the residual property for improvements in the dedication area or damages to the residue by reason of the rightof-way and easement dedications and/or electronic and telecommunication relocations associated with the Portsmouth Boulevard Road improvements. 4. The applicant/owner shall provide the following at no cost to the City: a. The applicant/owner shall record a shared ingress/egress easement on the entirety of the west side of tax parcel to provide shared access to Portsmouth Boulevard with tax parcel to insure that future development shall have adequate access. The ingress/egress easement shall be 15 in width or as approved by the Director of

17 16 Chesapeake Planning Commission DRAFT September 9, 2015 Public Hearing Minutes Development and Permits or designee at the time of final site construction plan submittal. The applicant/owner shall also record a non-ingress/egress easement for all other parcels subject to this rezoning along the entirety of all parcels with frontage that abuts Portsmouth Boulevard. All of the easements referenced above shall be recorded on the initial subdivision plat or re-subdivision plat for this development. b. The applicant/owners shall provide a one foot non ingress/egress easement on along the entire length of tax parcel , and a portion of where it adjoins the right-of-way of Portsmouth Boulevard as seen on the exhibit entitled, Concept Plan for Pine Grove West and date stamped July 30, The easement, including but not limited to the alignment and sufficiency of said easement, shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development and Permits or designee to provide for the implementation of an Access Management Plan for Portsmouth Boulevard. The easements shall be recorded on the subdivision plat. c. The applicant/owner shall provide and construct a City Standard Road in a 50 right-of-way as depicted in Volume 2 of Chesapeake s Public Facilities Manual along the entirety of the common boundary between tax parcels and as shown on the rezoning exhibit entitled, Concept Plan for Pine Grove West and date stamped July 30, The layout is subject to minor changes at time of final construction plan review at the discretion of the Director of Development and Permits, to comply with City Standards and design policies. The alignment and sufficiency of the road and right-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development and Permits or designee and shall be constructed or bonded prior to the issuance of the 24th certificate of occupancy on the property subject to this rezoning. 5. The applicant/owners agree to limit the development of the subject property to no more than 110 single-family attached (townhouse) units. 6. The applicant/owners agree to make a cash contribution to the City of Chesapeake for capital improvements to public school facilities, public transportation facilities, public libraries, and public emergency service facilities. The amount of the voluntary cash contribution shall be $1, per residential dwelling unit. The applicant/owners agree to make the proffered cash contribution prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each residential dwelling unit, or building containing residential units. The applicant/owner acknowledges and agrees that the cash contribution may be deposited into the City of

18 Chesapeake Planning Commission DRAFT September 9, 2015 Public Hearing Minutes 17 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: Schools $848.00; Libraries $576.00; Emergency Services $ The applicant/owners shall install a 15-foot landscape Buffer Yard D along the entirety of the Hampton Roads Parkway Road frontage adjacent to the property. This buffer shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development and Permits or designee and shall be installed or bonded for installation prior to the recordation of the subdivision plat. 8. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy on the Property, the applicant/owners shall record private covenants and restrictions to establish a Property Owners Association to own and maintain all private common areas, open space, landscape buffers, private streets and alleys and stormwater management facilities within the subject property. The private covenants and restrictions shall include the Design Standards (a), (b), (c) and (d) below. The enforcement of the design standards below shall be the sole responsibility of the Property Owners Association. a. The side or rear of a building located adjacent and visible from a public street shall be designed so as to possess as much detail as the primary façade oriented toward another public street. Visual interest shall be provided through window and door details, varied rooflines, consistent textures and color and similar considerations. b. Architectural motif and exterior elevations shall be in substantial conformance with the building elevations dated August 26, 2015 on file with the Planning Department. Further, the motif and elevations shall be compatible in terms of the overall structure and its relationship to other structures based on location, size and quality within the single family attached development. The selection of the materials shall be harmonious with the architectural motif. Exterior walls with the same color scheme as adjacent or nearby homes will be permitted on a frequency of only every fourth dwelling unit. The arrangement of color shall vary on all adjacent buildings. Preferred exterior finish materials are fiber-cement siding, Carolina Beaded Vinyl, brick, stone and wood. There shall be a minimum 4-inch width corner trim board, window trim and door trim.

19 18 Chesapeake Planning Commission DRAFT September 9, 2015 Public Hearing Minutes c. Roofing shall be of any architectural grade product with weight of 250 pounds per square (100 square feet) or greater will be acceptable, with a minimum of 25 year warranty. d. Exposed roof vent stacks shall be located for minimum visibility and shall be either painted black or another color matching the roof. 9. The applicant/owners rely on the exhibit entitled Concept Plan for Pine Grove West, date stamped July 30, 2015, which is a survey depicting the boundary lines between the Cities of Chesapeake and Suffolk. The applicant/owners assume any and all risk associated with relying on the boundary line depicted on the referenced exhibit. Mrs. Hanson read R(C) 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) be DENIED as listed in the official agenda. Proponent: Grady Palmer, Agent, Williams Mullen, 999 Waterside Drive, Norfolk, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C) representing the applicant. James R. Bradford, 3452 Cricket Hollow Lane, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C) representing the applicant as a land consultant. Renae McConnell, 5700 Churchland Boulevard, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C) representing herself. Patrick Reynolds, 2001 Old Greenbrier Road, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C) representing himself. Chip Wirth, Wirth Development Corporation, 5000 Portsmouth Boulevard, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C) representing the applicant. Patti Martin, 5060 Portsmouth Boulevard, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C) representing Western Branch Seventh Day Adventist Church. Stanford Jones, 3701 County Street, Portsmouth, Virginia, appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C) representing Western Branch Seventh Day Adventist Church.

20 Chesapeake Planning Commission DRAFT September 9, 2015 Public Hearing Minutes 19 Opponent: Charles Ferguson, 3017 Miars Green, Chesapeake, Virginia, appeared before the Commission in opposition to R(C) representing Miars Plantation Home Owner s Association. The citizen who spoke in opposition stated this project had a negative business and city impact. He said this application was bad for the City and Western Branch and thought it would be more favorable to Suffolk given their tremendous business growth. He felt the townhouse residents would become Suffolk customers and employees at Chesapeake s expense. He stated that this was not more roof tops for Chesapeake, but was a cost to Chesapeake. He stated that the wise use for Portsmouth Boulevard provided office space development for new businesses for Chesapeake. He said the Portsmouth Boulevard expansion was about to begin and he felt that was what the developers were waiting for. He commented that the City needed business opportunities in Western Branch as was described in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the Planning Commissioners to support the city tax payers and business opportunities for future development along Portsmouth Boulevard and wanted to see the Comprehensive Plan succeed and be successful. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Williams stated that some of the proffers were associated with the building criteria and wanted to know if that would be a problem for the applicant. Mr. Wirth said after meeting with the residents they had two major concerns. They wanted the developer to proffer (1) design elevations and (2) they wanted to see a Home Owner s Association to make certain the property would be maintained. Commissioner Williams asked when would this project begin and when would it be completed. Mr. Wirth stated this would be a phase development with models available in approximately 1½ years. Commissioner Morris stated this project was consistent with the adjacent neighborhood but it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and wanted to know if there was anything about this proposed use that would prevent that vision from being attained with regard to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wirth said this project seemed like the perfect spot for a continuation of the northern development with no impact on schools or traffic. Commissioner Hutchinson agreed that we needed roof tops which would be good for businesses but stated the existing roof tops that were already there were not shopping in that area. She was not sure that additional roof tops would make a difference. Commissioner Morris stated there was an issue with roof tops for the business community. The Comprehensive Plan solves the roof top problem through development of currently zoned residential property. Rezoning applications help push in the direction of infill development. He said the Comprehensive Plan was specific about avoiding decreasing the City s inventory of Office and Institutional development.

21 20 Chesapeake Planning Commission DRAFT September 9, 2015 Public Hearing Minutes Commissioner Van Laethem asked the Director of Development and Permits to comment on the proffer about the widening of Portsmouth Boulevard. Mr. Tate said developing the front parcels was where the value was. As far as transportation was concerned this was an outstanding application for transportation purposes because there was no way that the City combined with the State and money available, that the City would have never gotten that kind of highway constructed. He said the desire of pieces with the configuration of parcels made that area a challenge unless the developer could have built it all together. Commissioner Hutchinson asked how much acreage would be left for Office & Institutional with this development. The agent stated that 2 acres would be remaining of O & I with the access management. Commissioner Ellis asked the Director of Development and Permits what the schedule was for right-of-way acquisition and the starting the construction for Portsmouth Boulevard. Mr. Tate said the right-of-way acquisition was currently underway and would start construction within the next year. Commissioner Van Laethem moved to approve this application because the development was compatible with the existing zoning surrounding the proposed rezoning, extends the current zoning pattern evidenced by the adjacent residential neighborhood, and because there was no reasonably viable economic use of the subject property under its current zoning. For those reasons, he moved to approve this application with the proffers listed in the staff report. Commissioner Williams asked staff to display a map called Development Applications and Approved Residential and stated it was a map of the area concerning this application. He stated that the property behind the property in question was called Jolliff Landing Townhomes and had 80 units already approved; to the east was Clearmont at Jolliff Landing with 304 units already approved. He said that was a total of 384 units that had been approved and ready for construction. He said the total combined including this application was 494 units. He said all the components for Level of Service (LOS) have been met. He did not see a viable use for this property other than this application. He stated that he was not certain that this 2 acre parcel would be enough to bring in substantial amount of business that would offset the benefits to this development. He stated that the term roof tops concerned him and said these are homes with families, not roof tops. Commissioner Van Laethem said he agreed with Commissioner Williams comment concerning roof tops and felt these were families and future residents of our City. He stated that there were no LOS issues of any of the three categories. He also said the dedication of Portsmouth Boulevard said the applicant had done a significant job to improve that particular area on a transportation basis. He said the dedication of that land comes with a money value that saves the tax payers the money they would have to obtain to get that dedication for that road. He also stated the vast majority of homes that were built in the City of Chesapeake did not pay for themselves and said that small business are the generator of jobs in our society.

22 Chesapeake Planning Commission DRAFT September 9, 2015 Public Hearing Minutes 21 Commissioner Morris stated that this was Agriculture and that the City had control of what would happen on this property. He felt that there should be some future control for the City to exert over how this developed. He felt there did not have to be any action right now however, he did think it was a great project but said there was opportunity cost with moving forward. COMMISSION VOTE: Commissioner Van Laethem moved that R(C) be APPROVED with the proffers as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-2. Commissioners Kish and Morris voted against the motion. Commissioner Small was excused.

23 22

24 23

25 24

26 25

27 26

28 27

29 28

30 29

31 30

32 31

33 32

34 33

35 34

36 35

37 36

38 37

39 38

40 39

41 40

42 41

43 42

44 43

45 44

46 45

47 46

48 47

49 48

50 49

51 50

52 51

53 52

54 53

55 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, PHASE I

56 55

57 56

58 57

59 58

60 59

61 60

62 61

63 62

64 63

65 64

66 65

67 66 Pine Grove West Rezoning R(C) APPLICANT: Jolliff Road Properties, LLC AGENCY: Hoggard-Eure Associates, PC PROPOSAL: A conditional zoning reclassification of 14.32± acres from A-1, Agricultural District (11.26± acres), R-15s, Residential District (2.12± acres) and B-2, General Business District (0.94± acres) to R-15s, Residential District (0.25± acres), R-TH-1, Townhouse Residential District (11.95± acres) and O&I, Office and Institutional District (2.12± acres). PROPOSED COMP LAND USE / DENSITY: Medium Density Residential with something less than 7.68 dwelling units per acre EXISTING COMP LAND USE: Office LOCATION: 5052, 5060 & 5064 Portsmouth Blvd TAX MAP SECTION/PARCELS: , portion of , BOROUGH: Western Branch