PRESENT - Granicus

Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service

Planning Commission Minutes Chesterfield, Virginia 23832

June 18, 2013

PRESENTDr. William P. Brown, Chairman

:

Dr. Edgar V. Wallin, Vice Chairman Mr. Russell Gulley Mr. J. Dale Patton Mr. Reuben J. Waller, Jr. Mr. Kirkland A. Turner, Secretary to the Commission,

Planning Director ALSO PRESENTMr. William Dupler, Deputy County Administrator

:

Community Development Dr. David Pritchard, Implementation Coordinator

for the Comprehensive Plan, County Administration Mr. Carl D. Schlaudt, Planning Manager,

Community Development Mr. Michael E. Tompkins, Assistant Director,

Development Review Section, Planning Department Mr. Greg E. Allen, Planning Manager, Development

Review Section, Planning Department Ms. Jane Peterson, Planning and Special Projects Manager,

Development Review Section, Planning Department Mr. Steven F. Haasch, Planning Manager, Plans and

Information Section, Planning Department Ms. Pamela Nichols, Clerk to the Commission,

Plans and Information Section, Planning Department Ms. Tara McGee, Assistant County Attorney,

County Attorney’s Office Mr. Robert Clay, Planning and Special Projects Manager,

Development Review Section, Planning Department Ms. Teresa C. Davis, Planning and Special Projects Coordinator,

Development Review Section, Planning Department Ms. Darla W. Orr, Planning and Special Projects Manager,

Development Review Section, Planning Department Mr. Ryan Ramsey, Senior Planner, Development

Review Section, Planning Department Mr. Charles Horneck, Intern, Development

Review Section, Planning Department Mr. Alan Coker, Senior Planner, Development

Review Section, Planning Department Ms. Sytira Saunders, Planner, Information Management

Section, Planning Department

P a g e 2 0 6 _ 1 8 _ 1 3 C P C M i n u t e s D r a f t . d o c

Mr. James Banks, Assistant Director, Transportation Department

Mr. Scott Smedley, Director Environmental Engineering Department

Mr. Randy Phelps, Principal Engineer, Utilities Department

Mr. Stuart Connock, Chief of Parks/Planning and Construction Services, Parks and Recreation Department

Ms. Megan Bourke, Budget and Management Analyst Budge Management Department

Dr. Cynthia O. Richardson, Director of Planning, School Administration

Deputy Chief Mark Sacra, Fire Administration, Fire and EMS Department

Captain Charles Knowles, Acting Captain Fire and EMS Department

Firefighter Greg Smith, Fire and Life Safety Fire and EMS Department

Mr. Dave Wolverton, Microcomputer Analyst Information Systems Technology

ASSEMBLY AND WORK SESSION

.

Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley, Patton, Waller and staff assembled at 3:30 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room, Chesterfield County Administration Building, 10001 Iron Bridge Road Chesterfield, VA, for a work session.

I. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS, CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION .

Mr. Kirk Turner advised the Commission of a request to amend the agenda to include a new Item IX; Discussions Regarding Restrictive Covenants. On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Dr. Wallin, the Commission resolved to amend the agenda as follows:

I. Requests to Postpone Action, Emergency Additions, Changes in the Order of Presentation.

II. Review Upcoming Agendas. (Any rezoning, conditional uses or conditional use planned developments scheduled for future meetings.)

III. Review Day’s Agenda. (Any items listed for the 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Sessions.)

IV. Work Program – Review and Update.

V. Planning Commission Follow-Up Items List.

VI. Comprehensive Plan General Steps Implementation Update – Phase I.

VII. Tower Siting Policy.

VIII. Community Development Information System Presentation.

IX. Discussion Regarding Restrictive Covenants. X. Recess.

AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley, Patton and Waller.

http://chesterfieldva.granicus.com/MediaPlayerFrameHandler.php?view_id=&clip_id=889&meta_id=92254�



II. REVIEW UPCOMING AGENDAS .

Ms. Jane Peterson apprised the Commission of the caseload agendas for July, August and September 2013. In response to Mr. Gulley’s question, Ms. Peterson stated the applicants, for the July cases that are impacted by the Board’s Cash Proffer Policy, did not indicate a deferral beyond the July’s public hearing.

III. REVIEW DAY’S AGENDA .

Mr. Greg Allen presented an overview of, and staff’s recommendation for, a request to be considered at the 4:00 p.m. Public Meeting. Ms. Jane Peterson presented an overview of, and staff’s recommendations for, requests to be considered at the 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing.

IV. WORK PROGRAM - REVIEW AND UPDATE. WORK PROGRAM

There were no comments on items listed on the work program. V. PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOW-UP ITEMS LIST. FOLLOW-UP ITEM

There were no comments on items listed on the follow-up list.

VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GENERAL STEPS IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE - PHASE I . IMPLEMENTATION STEPS UPDATE

Dr. David Pritchard provided an update on the Comprehensive Plan General Step Implementation. He stated many of the Phase 1 items are nearing completion; and staff is moving forward with Phase 2 Prioritization and in the process of recommending start dates for the thirty-five (35) projects to include the Ettrick Special Area Plan. The Commission discussed the process for Special Area Plans and determining factors for the remaining prioritization projects; accountability and billable hours for each project. It was also noted that the factors surrounding the decision to start with the Ettrick Special Area Plan were based on the number and how quickly activities will be progressing in the Ettrick area. In response to a question by Mr. Gulley, Mr. Kirk Turner stated there was general consensus from the Board of Supervisors to move forward with the Ettrick Special Area Plan. He stated staff is seeking input from the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission; therefore, at the appropriate time, staff will ask the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the prioritization list and that recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. In response to comments by the Planning Commission, Dr. Pritchard stated staff will coordinate with him in identifying the next project; and the projects will be decided based on objective criteria.








http://chesterfieldva.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=345&meta_id=96879�


In response to a question by Mr. Waller, Mr. Turner stated staff is constrained with the amount of resources of today; however, staff wants to dedicate the time needed to deliver a good product but there is uncertainty on how the project will impact other departments. He further stated staff is attempting to refine the Special Area Plan process to deliver a product that is more usable and easier to understand and the Ettrick Plan will serve as a prototype. Dr. Pritchard informed the Planning Commission that some chapters of the draft Water & Wastewater Facilities Plan are completed and staff plans to meet with the Board and Planning Commission to discuss the draft plan in its entirety beginning in July. In response to Mr. Gulley’s question relative to the long range water plan, Dr. Pritchard stated, Mr. Roy Covington has guaranteed that the long range water plan will be included in the draft Water & Wastewater Facilities Plan. Dr. Pritchard also updated the Planning Commission on the Revitalization Strategy progress and Properties Zoned Contrary to the Recommendations of the Land Use Plan – Part B.

VII. TOWER SITING POLICY. TOWER SITING

It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss this item following the 4:00 p.m. public meeting. VIII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM PRESENTATION (CDIS) DOCUMENT

It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss this item following the 4:00 p.m. public meeting. IX. DISCUSSION REGARDING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS

.

It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss this item following the 4:00 p.m. public meeting. X. RECESS .

The Commission recessed briefly at 4:15 p. m., for the afternoon’s public meeting and continuation of the work session.

4:00 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING

.

I. CALL TO ORDER

.

Dr. Brown, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m., in the Public Meeting Room, Lane B. Ramsey Administration Building, 10001 Iron Bridge Road, Chesterfield, VA.

II. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION

.

There were no requests to postpone action, emergency additions or changes in the order of presentation.






III. REVIEW MEETING PROCEDURES

.

The Planning Commission agreed to forego review of the meeting procedures. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

:

• May 21, 2013.

5-21-13 CPC DRAFT MINUTES

Dr. Brown noted the following statement, “equivalence of a flag lot” on page 10 should be corrected to read “equivalent

of a flag lot”.

On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Dr. Wallin, the Commission resolved to approve the May 21, 2013 Planning Commission minutes as corrected. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley, Patton and Waller.

V. PUBLIC MEETING

.

A. 13PR0207: In Clover Hill Magisterial District, REDCO PROPERTIES C/O BRAD MERCER requests site plan and architectural approval for BOJANGLES HICKS ROAD in a Community Business (C-3) District on approximately 2.6 acres located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Hicks Road and Mt. Gilead Boulevard. Tax ID 758-692-7262. 13PR0207 - STAFF’S ANALYSIS

Mr. Bard Mercer, the applicant’s representative accepted staff’s recommendation. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public meeting. Mr. Gulley expressed appreciation to Ms. Natalie Spillman and the representative for Bojangles; and stated the representatives did an excellent job in addressing the concerns of the community to include the 360 Corridor Committee. On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Patton, the Commission resolved to approve Case 13PR0207 subject to the following condition and review comments:

CONDITION

Revised plans must be submitted to staff, prior to administrative release, which accomplish the following review comments. (P)




REVIEW COMMENTS

1. To improve sight distance at the Mt. Gilead Blvd/Hicks Rd intersection, provide the following improvements along the site’s frontage to Hicks Rd:

a. Remove trees within the existing right-of-way between the residential

driveway and the right-in/right-out access. Note removal of the trees on the plan.

b. Lower and re-grade the Hicks Rd shoulder between Mt. Gilead Blvd and

right-in/right-out. (T) 2. Landscape plan (C8.1), revise as follows to minimize any potential impact to the Mt.

Gilead Blvd/Hicks Rd sight distance: a. Relocate three (3) “PRU CER” to the other side of power pole. b. Shift the group of “ILE COM/ILE RED”, between power pole and residential

driveway, away from the right-of-way. (T) 3. Show a note on the utility plan in the vicinity of the dumpster pad which states:

“Connections from potential dumpster pad drain lines to the sanitary system are prohibited.” (U)

4. It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with and/or acquire all applicable

Federal and/or State permits in relationship to environmental features including but not limited to wetlands, surface waters (e.g. VSMP permit for construction sites, ground water and air quality). Final approval of these plans will not relieve you of your responsibility. Wetlands documentation must be received by this department prior to issuance of the land disturbance permit. (EE)

5. It has recently come to our attention that the State storm water pollution prevention

plan (SWPPP) requirements concerning the 10-year storm peak attenuation and water quality compliance which varies from Bay Act compliance may become an issue during the State site inspection process. County construction plan approval does not relieve the owner/developer of responsibility for compliance with State regulations – E.G. 4VAC50-60-80 Flooding, 4VAC50-60-60 Water Quality, etc. Technical assistance from DCR is available and recommended. (EE)

6. Clarify if the roof drains will be directly connected to drop inlets or if splashblocks will

be used. The response to previous comment #9 was unclear. (EE) 7. Provide runoff calculations to support the culvert calculation for structure E1, shown

on sheet C7.5. (EE) 8. The following points of MS-19 analysis will be required in order to meet State

requirements and must be included on the MS-19 table:


a. The existing storm sewer system through the Kroger site b. The existing Kroger basin system c. The existing storm sewer system through the Mt. Gilead Church property,

and d. The receiving channel immediately downstream of the Mt. Gilead storm

sewer outfall.

The County’s approved site plans show that the Kroger storm sewer system and basin are sized to handle the runoff from the Bojangles parcel. County plans also show that the Mt. Gilead storm system is adequate for the runoff. While the photos of the receiving channel at the outfall of the Mt. Gilead storm system will support the stability claim of the outfall, a cross-section detail and analysis of the receiving channel must also be provided. (EE)

9. Replace the wording for Erosion Control Minimum Standard #1 on sheet C2.6 with

the updated MS-1, found at: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/documents/eslawrgs.pdf. (EE) 10. Due to the large area of proposed grading on the undeveloped portion of the site, silt

fence alone will not be adequate to protect downstream facilities from sediment-laden runoff. A sediment trap should be specified to handle a majority of the construction runoff. Provide details, elevations, and calculations in the erosion control plan. (EE)

11. Prior to issuance of a land disturbance, documentation of the owner’s acquisition of

the nonpoint nutrient offsets must be provided in a certification from the offset broker documenting the number of phosphorous nonpoint nutrient offsets acquired and the associated ratio of nitrogen nonpoint nutrient offsets at the offset generating facility. (EE)

12. It is the responsibility of the owner to provide one additional set of plans to the

Environmental Engineering department and obtain an “Approved for Construction” stamp on two additional sets for the owner to keep on-site. (EE)

13. The name, “Walk-in Address”, and telephone number of a local registered agent

representing the owner for service of process must be provided prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit. (EE)

14. Prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit, a copy of the AutoCAD .DWG or .DXF

must be submitted to Carole Cliborne of Environmental Engineering. The AutoCAD file may be submitted on a CD, DVD, or via e-mail. The file must contain the following, each clearly in separate layers:

a. Proposed building footprint;


b. All impervious area (parking lots, driveways, roads, etc.); c. The storm sewer system and all culverts; d. All jurisdiction wetland area and/or waters of the U.S./State; e. Streams and other water bodies; f. Locations of field verified resource protection area designations to include

water bodies with perennial flow, tidal shores, tidal wetlands, non-tidal wetlands which are connected and contiguous to tidal wetlands or perennial flow;

g. Location of perennial flow origins and their associated GPS coordinates

(NAD83 State Plane VA South Feet); h. Location(s) of break point(s) in surface flow and/or non-contiguous wetlands

and their associated GPS coordinates; and i. Flood plains.

All AutoCAD files must be saved as a .DWG or .DXF in AutoCAD version 2009 or earlier and referenced directly to the Virginia State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone in the NAD83 Datum. The CD, DVD or e-mail must be labeled with the State plan name, site plan number, engineering firm and contact name and phone number. (EE)

15. A land disturbance permit is required for this project and substantial or full approval is

required prior to its issuance. A land disturbance permit is a prerequisite to a building permit. (EE)

16. A land disturbance permit is required for this project and the following are required

prior to issuance:

a. Substantial or full site plan approval. b. A letter must be received from a qualified wetlands expert stating:

1. There are no wetlands impacted on this project, or 2. All applicable Federal and State wetland permits have been acquired

(copies of the permits must be submitted)

c. Copies of the Virginia Stormwater Management Permit (VSMP) registration statement and permit fee form (as developed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation) must be submitted.


d. Posting of an erosion and sediment control surety (amount to be approved by EE – Please see the new erosion and sediment control bond form, updated 1/5/2012 on the County Environmental Engineering website). (EE)

17. Put a revision date on the resubmitted plans. Resubmit ten (10) full sets and one (1)

copy of the site plan sheet to the Planning Department. For your next review, use the spaces below each review comment to describe how you have addressed each review comment. Be sure to indicate which sheets show the required changes. Provide a transmittal letter to describe any change to the plans not caused by the staff review comments. (P)

18. Correctly coordinate ‘Sheet List Table’ with appropriate sheets and label sheets as

identified for the final site plan set for approval. (P) 19. Identify the sight distance easement on the landscape plan, as the easement may

impact the placement of the proposed three (3) prunus cerasifera ‘thundercloud’, as shown in the front setback. (P)

20. Prior to receiving a temporary certificate of occupancy permit, a form of surety (bond

or letter of credit) in an amount equal to the cost of completing the required landscaping shall be provided to the Planning Department. The surety shall also cover an amount equal to fifty (50) percent of the total installation cost for replacement of all unhealthy or dead plants or pollard trees indentified by the one year inspections by the Planning Department. If all plantings have been installed prior to the temporary certificate of occupancy permit, a landscape maintenance guarantee may be submitted in lieu of a bond or letter of credit. (P)

21. Submit a revised lighting plan and lighting cutsheet. All exterior lighting shall be full

cut-off fixtures mounted on a fixed arm, with a flat lens mounted horizontally. (P) AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley, Patton and Waller.

CONTINUATION OF WORK SESSION

.

VI. TOWER SITING POLICY

.

Mr. Robert Clay provided an update on the Tower Siting Policy based on the April 16, 2013 work session where the Planning Commission recommended modifications and additions to the recommended Practices and Possible Conditions for incorporation into an amended Tower Siting Policy. He stated staff provided the following two (2) documents for the Planning Commission’s review: Tower Regulation/Plan/Ordinance Comparison and Zoning or Site Plan Tower Application Requirements. Mr. Clay then explained Item 1 was revised to add language to read “discourage the use of sectored arrays in residential areas.” Mr. Gulley suggested sectored arrays should be prohibited in established residential neighborhoods and suggested replacing the word “discourage” to “prohibit”; however, the majority of the Commissioners supported the use of “discourage”.


Mr. Waller stated he does not believe residents are as concerned about an array versus a flush mount; however, the emphasis depends on how array size is defined. Dr. Wallin agreed that defining sector arrays was more important than prohibiting and stated conditions could be imposed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Clay continued the presentation with pictures of tower sites that shows different arrays and stated without defining sectored array, it will be hard to enforce; therefore, staff plans to provide an agreeable definition for arrays. He further explained that the telecommunications industry defines an array as anything less than twelve (12) feet from the tower pole. Mr. Patton inquired about collocating with Electrical Power Company. In response to a question by Mr. Gulley, Ms. McGee stated laws or policy changes are not retroactive; however, in those cases which require flush mounted but at the time of approval there was no definition for flush mounted; it will be hard to pursue enforcement. She stated after the adoption of the definition for flush mounted, the definition will be binding and will be persuasive for future enforcement; however, she cannot say that the newly adopted definition makes previously approved requests illegal if larger arrays are installed. Mr. Clay presented other examples of towers within the County; and asked for clarification with respect to developed or zoned residential areas; Dr. Brown suggested the following wording to be included in the policy “properties already developed.” Mr. Gulley questioned the course of action for a sectored array installed in an agricultural area that could potentially be developed for residential use. Dr. Wallin stated it is also important to examine all factors and impacts on neighborhoods when considering tower requests and consideration should be done on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Patton stated he does not feel comfortable arbitrarily including language relative to fall zones without knowing the impact it will have on existing towers; and directed staff to provide information on existing fall zones in residential areas. Staff responded to questions by the Commission relative to language to include in the new policy; and comments were expressed relative to the need for the County to move forward in drafting a new policy. Mr. Clay explained staff’s recommendation for Item 8; and Ms. McGee explained staff’s recommendation for Item 14 relative to removal of unsafe structures. Mr. Clay then provided an update on the recommended Chesterfield practice listed in Attachment 2. Ms. McGee provided an explanation on recent issues and decisions in the law regarding telecommunications towers and land use decisions; and stated while there were a number of recent decisions and opinions in the area of telecommunications laws, the decisions do not appear to require any changes in the County’s current land use processes or consideration.


VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM PRESENTATION (CDIS)

.

Ms. Sytira Saunders advised the Commission that the Planning and Information System Technology Departments were pleased to announce the completion of the Rezoning Phase of CDIS, which includes two (2) integrated, web-based programs related to the zoning process. She demonstrated the program and stated the External Application allows customers to submit rezoning applications and attach required documents electronically, as well as, the program allows applicants to track the status of their application through the public hearing process and submit amendments if needed. She explained the second program known as the Internal Interface gives staff the ability to electronically review rezoning applications, route pending cases to nineteen (19) reviewing departments and agencies, and input hearing results and fees. Mr. Gulley inquired about safeguards to regulate the resubmission of revised proffers once the application is accepted and approved by staff; and directed staff to explore a lock-out process to ensure proffers are not revised beyond a specified time.

VIII. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS

.

Mr. Kirk Turner stated in response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission relative to the restrictive covenants, staff revised the document Tips For Managing Your Zoning Application

to expand on the tip for Consideration of Restrictive Covenants, Deed Restrictions and Other Contractual Agreements. He stated a copy of the revised document will be displayed on the Planning Department’s web site; and staff will include a paper copy in the pre-application conference packets.

It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss this item at their July 16, 2013 work session.

TOWER SITING POLICY

Mr. Clay advised the Commission that staff anticipates presenting the draft Tower Siting Policy at the August work session.

IX. RECESS

.

There being no further business to discuss, the Commission recessed the Afternoon Session at approximately 5:30 p.m., agreeing to meet in the Executive Meeting Room for dinner; and to reconvene in the Public Meeting Room at 6:00 p.m. for the public hearing.

5:00 P.M. DINNER - EXECUTIVE MEETING ROOM

.

During dinner, there was general discussion on topics related to the Planning Commission.

6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING

.

I. INVOCATION

.

Dr. Brown presented the invocation.


II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.

The Commission led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

III. REVIEW AGENDAS FOR UPCOMING MONTHS

.

Mr. Kirk Turner apprised the Commission of the caseload agendas for July, August and September 2013.

IV. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF

PRESENTATION

.

There were no requests to postpone action, emergency additions or changes in the order of presentation.

V. REVIEW MEETING PROCEDURES

.

Mr. Kirk Turner reviewed the meeting procedures. VI. CITIZENS’ COMMENT ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS

.

There were no citizens’ comments on unscheduled matters. VII. PUBLIC HEARING

.

Mr. Waller exited the public hearing to discuss a request with the applicants. • DEFERRAL REQUESTS BY INDIVIDUAL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS

.

A. 13SN0110

: In Matoaca Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD DD, INC. requests rezoning from Residential Townhouse (R-TH) to Community Business (C-3) with conditional use to permit multifamily and townhouse residential uses plus conditional use planned development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements and amendment of zoning district map on 85.4 acres fronting 460 feet on the south line of Hull Street Road, across from Cosby Road. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Medium-High Density Residential use (minimum 4.0 to 8.0 dwellings per acre), Suburban Residential I use (maximum of 2.0 dwellings per acre) and Neighborhood Business uses. Tax IDs 717-669-2537; and 717-670-1030, 1751, 2877 and 8050.

13SN0110 - STAFF’S ANALYSIS

Mr. Larry Horton, the applicant’s representative, accepted deferral of Case 13SN0110 by Dr. Wallin to the September 17, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the deferral.

There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing.



Dr. Wallin commented that the deferral would allow the applicant time to work with staff to finalize the proposal and meet with area residents. The following motion was made at Dr. Wallin’s request. On motion of Dr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission, on their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, resolved to defer Case 13SN0110 to the September 17, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing.


C. 12SN0107: In Midlothian Magisterial District, Douglas and Susan Sowers request conditional use to

permit special events and retail sales plus conditional use planned development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements relative to paving and amendment of zoning district map in an Agricultural (A) District on 256.2 acres located in the southwest corner of County Line and Hallsboro Roads. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Phased Suburban Residential use (maximum of 2.0 dwellings per acre). Tax IDs 704-702-7350 and 705-703-1168. 12SN0107 - STAFF ANALYSIS Ms. Carrie Coyner, the applicant’s representative, accepted deferral of Case 12SN0107 by Mr. Waller to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. Mr. Jamie Chafin, representative for approximately sixty-five (65) families in the surrounding area, supported the deferral and noted a ninety (90) day deferral would be more appropriate. He stated the deferral will allow the applicant time to respond to concerns expressed at several community meetings.

There being no one else to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. The following motion was made by Mr. Gulley on behalf of Mr. Waller’s request. On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Patton, the Commission, on their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, resolved to defer Case 12SN0107 to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing.

AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley and Patton. ABSENT: Mr. Waller.

D. 12SN0154: In Dale Magisterial District, Dominion Investment Partners, LLC requests rezoning from

Residential Townhouse (R-TH) to Residential Multifamily (R-MF) plus conditional use planned development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements and amendment of zoning district map on 29.9 acres fronting in two (2) places for a total of 1,135 feet on the north line of Genito Road, across from Genito Lane. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for High Density Residential use (minimum 8.0 to 12.0 dwellings per acre). Tax IDs 747-681-7089, 747-682-7022 and 8276; and 748-681-0499. 12SN0154 - STAFF ANALYSIS




The applicant was not present, but did consent in writing to deferral of Case 12SN0154 by Dr. Brown to the September 17, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the deferral.

There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. The following motion was made at Dr. Brown’s request. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission, on their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, resolved to defer Case 12SN0154 to the September 17, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley and Patton. ABSENT: Mr. Waller.

E. 13PD0228: In Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation requests

substantial accord determination to permit a special purpose park and amendment of zoning district map in Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) Districts on 13.6 acres fronting 50 feet on the northern terminus of Wood Duck Lane, northwest of Fox Knoll Drive, also fronting 310 feet on the west line of Howlett Line Drive, 1,030 feet north of Fox Knoll Drive. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Conservation Recreation and Suburban Residential II uses (2.0 to 4.0 dwellings per acre). Tax IDs 807-646-5621 and 8773. 13PD0228 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Mr. Stuart Connock, the applicant’s representative, accepted deferral of Case 13PD0228 by Mr. Patton to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the deferral.

There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. The following motion was made at Mr. Patton’s request. On motion of Mr. Patton seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission, on their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, resolved to defer Case 13PD0228 to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing.


F. 13PD0229: In Dale Magisterial District, Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation requests

substantial accord determination to permit a special purpose park and amendment of zoning district map in a Residential (R-12) District on 2.5 acres lying 270 feet off the southern terminus of Branchs



Woods Lane. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Suburban Residential II use (2.0 to 4.0 dwellings per acre). Tax IDs 786-670-Parts of 4173 and 4249. 13PD0229 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Mr. Stuart Connock, the applicant’s representative, accepted deferral of Case 13PD0229 by Dr. Brown to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the deferral.

There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. The following motion was made at Dr. Brown’s request. On motion of Dr. Brown seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission, on their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, resolved to defer Case 13PD0229 to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley and Patton. ABSENT: Mr. Waller.

G. 13PD0230: In Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation requests

substantial accord determination to permit a special purpose park and amendment of zoning district map in an Agricultural (A) District on 15.2 acres fronting 650 feet on the north line of Battery Dantzler Road, 40 feet west of Battery Dantzler Court. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Industrial use. Tax IDs 804-655-4988 and 7181; and 804-656-6427. 13PD0230 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Mr. Stuart Connock, the applicant’s representative, accepted deferral of Case 13PD0230 by Mr. Patton to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the deferral.

There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. The following motion was made at Mr. Patton’s request. On motion of Mr. Patton seconded by Dr. Wallin, the Commission, on their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, resolved to defer Case 13PD0230 to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing.


L. 13SN0527: In Dale Magisterial District, Balzer and Associates requests rezoning from Residential

(R-7) to Community Business (C-3) and amendment of zoning district map on 10.7 acres located in the southwest quadrant of Jessup and Iron Bridge Roads. Density will be controlled by zoning




conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Suburban Residential II use (2.0 to 4.0 dwellings per acre), Neighborhood Office and, under certain circumstances, Community and Regional Mixed uses. Tax IDs 775-686-5943, 8044, 8720 and 9744; 776-686-1206, 1722 and 1746. 13SN0527 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Mr. Andy Scherzer, the applicant’s representative, accepted deferral of Case 13SN0527 by Dr. Brown to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the deferral.

There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. The following motion was made at Dr. Brown’s request. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Dr. Wallin, the Commission, on their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, resolved to defer Case 13SN0527 to the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley and Patton. ABSENT: Mr. Waller.

Mr. Waller entered the public hearing.

• CASES WHERE THE APPLICANTS ACCEPT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION AND THERE

IS NO PUBLIC OPPOSITION

.

H. 13SN0520: In Bermuda Magisterial District, Fountain Square Condominiums LLC requests amendment of zoning (Case 95SN0309) relative to modification of cash proffers and amendment of zoning district map in a Community Business (C-3) District on .6 acre located in the southwest corner of Fountain Square Plaza and Chester Village Drive. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Neighborhood Mixed use. Tax IDs 788-655-8553, 8854 and 9964. 13SN0520 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Ms. Carrie Coyner, the applicant’s representative, accepted staff’s recommendation and noted the applicant’s proposal includes a cash proffer payment similar in amount to existing conditions of zoning and permits credit for parking improvements to serve the Chester Village Library and proposed art center. She further stated, conditions have been proffered to elevate the quality of building design materials so as to contribute to a durable and sustainable housing product. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing.




Mr. Patton echoed Ms. Coyner’s comments and stated the residential component of the request has been reduced and the parking issue has been resolved. On motion of Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 13SN0520 and acceptance of the following proffered conditions:

PROFFERED CONDITIONS

The Applicant hereby amends Proffered Condition D of Case No. 95SN0309 to read as follows: D. Cash Proffer

. The applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each dwelling unit for infrastructure improvements within the service district for the property:

a. $7,200 per dwelling unit. At the time of payment, the $7,200 will be allocated for roads.

Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as otherwise permitted by law. Should Chesterfield County impose impact fees at any time during the life of the development that are applicable to the property, the amount paid in cash proffers shall be in lieu of or credited towards, but not in addition to, any impact fees, in a manner as determined by the County. If upon the mutual agreement of Chesterfield County and the Applicant, the Applicant provides parking lot improvements to serve the Chester Library (the “Improvements”), then the cash proffer amount in this Proffered Condition shall be reduced by an amount not to exceed the cost to construct the Improvements so long as the cost is equal or greater value than that which would have been collected through the payment(s) of the cash proffer as determined by Chesterfield County. Once the sum total amount of the cash proffer credit exceeds the cost of the Improvements, as determined by Chesterfield County, thereafter the Applicant shall commence paying the cash proffer as set forth in this Proffered Condition as adjusted for the credit. For the purposes of this proffer, the costs shall include, but not be limited to, the cost of engineering, relocating utilities, construction (including labor, materials, and overhead) (“Work”). Before any Work is performed, the Applicant shall receive prior written approval by Chesterfield County for the Improvements and any credit amount. (B & M)

The Applicant hereby adds the following additional proffers for this case:

1. There shall be a maximum of thirty seven (37) dwelling units. (P) 2. The buildings shall have an architectural design generally as shown on the elevations

by Poole and Poole Architecture, LLC, and dated April 26, 2013. (P) 3. Eighty percent (80%) of the building façade, excluding windows and doors, shall be

brick or stone materials. (P)


4. Varied roof designs and materials shall be used on building sections across the north and south facades to emphasize the visual distinction between each building section and to provide the appearance of no flat roofs for those sections. (P)

5. Balconies shall be provided on the second and third floors for at least four (4) of the

dwellings on the north elevation of the building, oriented towards Fountain Square Plaza. These balconies shall be covered and architecturally compatible to the attached elevations and shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in depth and sixty (60) square feet in area. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of remaining dwellings on the north facing elevation shall have balconies that are uncovered and that project from the building depths of two (2) to three (3) feet to provide an outdoor living space. (P)


I. 13SN0522: In Matoaca Magisterial District, Garland T. Harris, Jr. requests conditional use to permit a

business (motor vehicle and lawn mower repair) incidental to a dwelling and amendment of zoning district map in an Agricultural (A) District on 3.9 acres known as 20109 Matoaca Road. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Suburban Residential II use (2.0 to 4.0 dwellings per acre). Tax ID 778-615-9133. 13SN0522 - STAFF ANALYSIS Mr. Garland Harris, the applicant, accepted staff’s recommendation. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. Dr. Wallin stated Mr. Harris communicated with the surrounding neighbors; that there was support for the request at the community meeting; and the business has operated for approximately twenty-seven (27) years. On motion of Dr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 13SN0522 and acceptance of the following proffered conditions:


1. This conditional use approval shall be granted to and for Garland T. Harris, Jr., exclusively, and shall not be transferrable nor run with the land. (P)

2. This conditional use approval shall be granted for a period not to exceed ten (10) years

from the date of approval. (P) 3. Other than the applicant, there shall be no employees engaged in this operation. (P)



4. Hours the use may be open to the public shall be restricted to between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. This use shall not be open to the public on Sunday. (P)

5. All repair activity associated with this use, including storage of materials, shall be

accomplished within the existing garage and shed, as depicted on the plan submitted with this application. No additions or exterior alterations related to this use shall be permitted to these structures. (P)

6. A. The driveway (beyond that which serves the existing residence) and parking

areas for vehicles awaiting repair or pick up shall be surfaced with at least six (6) inches of 21 or 21A stone. All parking and storage areas shall be located east of the VEPCO right-of-way, north of the driveway, and no closer than fifty-five (55) feet to the northern property line.

B. Views of the parking and storage areas from the adjacent properties and

Matoaca Road shall be minimized. Existing vegetation and fencing shall be counted toward this requirement. Within thirty (30) days of approval of this request, the applicant shall submit a plan depicting this requirement for review and approval by the Planning Department, along with a phasing plan for the installation of these plantings or fencing. (P)

7. No signs shall be permitted to identify this use. (P)

AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley, Patton and Waller. J. 13SN0523

: In Matoaca Magisterial District, Chad Moudry and Dawn Moudry request conditional use to permit a two-family dwelling and amendment of zoning district map in a Residential (R-12) District on .3 acre known as 15812 Longlands Road. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Suburban Residential I use (maximum of 2.0 dwellings per acre). Tax ID 713-665-8378.

13SN0523 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Mr. Chad Moudry, the applicant, accepted staff’s recommendation. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. Dr. Wallin complimented the applicants for their communication with the surrounding neighbors; and noted a community meeting was held. On motion of Dr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Patton, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 13SN0523 subject to the following conditions:



CONDITIONS

1. Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited to: the occupants of the principal dwelling unit, individuals related to them by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship, foster children, guests and any domestic servants. (P)

2. For the purpose of providing record notice, within thirty (30) days of approval of this

request, a deed restriction shall be recorded setting forth the limitation in Condition 1. The deed book and page number of such restriction and a copy of the restriction as recorded shall be submitted to the Planning Department. (P)


K. 13SN0526: In Matoaca Magisterial District, Donald M. and Suzanne C. Rudd request amendment of

zoning (Case 07SN0378) relative to right-of-way dedication plus conditional use planned development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements relative to setbacks and amendment of zoning district map in Neighborhood Business (C-2) and Community Business (C-3) Districts on 4 acres known as 14350 Beach Road. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Convenience Business use. Tax ID 721-656-4435. 13SN0526 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Ms. Carrie Coyner, the applicant’s representative, accepted staff’s recommendation. She stated setback exceptions for Crump’s Store and fueling station will allow the structure to be classified as conforming, which will permit repairs and maintenance to the structure. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. On motion of Dr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 13SN0526 subject to the following condition and acceptance of the following proffered conditions:

CONDITION

1. The Textual Statement dated June 6, 2013 shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)


The Applicant hereby amends Condition 3 of Case No. 07SN0378 to read as follows: 3. Prior to site plan approval for any additional development or redevelopment on the

property, excluding structural changes or maintenance to the existing building/structures, as determined by the Transportation Department, forty-five (45) feet of right-of-way along the north side of Beach Road, and forty-five (45) feet of right-of-way along the east side of Winterpock Road measured from the centerline of that part of the roadway



immediately adjacent to the property, excluding areas encumbered by the existing underground tanks, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. (T)

The Applicant also hereby offers the following proffered condition:

1. Any repairs, maintenance or structural alterations to the existing store shall be

contained within the existing footprint and any exterior alterations shall substantially maintain similar architectural characteristics and visual appearance of the existing building, as determined by the Planning Department. (P)


M. 13SN0528: In Midlothian Magisterial District, A Sense of Pride requests conditional use to permit a

family day-care home and amendment of zoning district map in a Residential (R-40) District on 1.2 acres known as 3141 Waterton Drive. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Low Density Residential use (maximum of 1.0 dwelling per acre). Tax ID 738-720-5736. 13SN0528 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Mr. Waller stated in discussion with the applicants, it was decided in the best interest for the applicants and the Planning Commission to defer the request to the July 16, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. Mr. Paul and Christine Begin, the applicants, accepted deferral of Case 13SN0528 by Mr. Waller to the July 16, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the deferral. There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. On motion of Mr. Waller, seconded by Dr. Wallin, the Commission, on their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, resolved to defer Case 13SN0528 to the July 16, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley, Patton and Waller.

N. 13SN0530: In Bermuda Magisterial District, Dean E. Hawkins, ASLA requests amendment of

conditional use planned development (Case 08SN0267) relative to reduction of buffers and setbacks for parking and drives and amendment of zoning district map in Community Business (C-3) and General Business (C-5) Districts on 7.9 acres fronting 1,590 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, 190 feet south of Milhorn Street. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Neighborhood Office use. Tax IDs 800-634-0291; 800-635-0431, 0545, 0561, 0676 and 1091. 13SN0530 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Mr. Dean Hawkins, the applicant, accepted staff’s recommendation.




Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. Mr. Patton stated a community meeting was held; and noted that with the zoning of the adjacent Wendover Hills Subdivision, it was recognized that the depth of the request property was insufficient to accommodate commercial development and provide the required buffering adjacent to the residential development; therefore, the Board of Supervisors imposed a buffer condition on the Wendover Hills’ property. On motion of Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 13SN0530 subject to the following condition: CONDITION The Textual Statement submitted with the application and identified as “Textual Statement:

Amend CUPD (08SN0267)” shall be the Master Plan relative to rear yard setbacks and for buffers adjacent to Wendover Hills subdivision to the west. (P)


O. 13SN0534: In Matoaca Magisterial District, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors proposes

conditional use planned development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements to permit the gross floor area for a detached accessory building (garage) to exceed the gross floor area of the primary dwelling and amendment of zoning district map in a Residential (R-7) District on 1.1 acre known as 21626 and 21630 Beverley Street. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Suburban Residential II use (2.0 to 4.0 dwellings per acre). Tax IDs 785-608-3723 and 3831. 13SN0534 - STAFF ANALYSIS

Mr. Kirk Turner, agent for the Board of Supervisors, accepted staff’s recommendation. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. On motion of Dr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 13SN0534 subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

1. The location and size of the detached garage addition shall be as generally shown on

the plat dated May 7, 2013 prepared by Townes and attached to this report. The gross square footage of this addition shall not exceed 840 square feet. (P)



2. The gross square footage for all other accessory structures on the lot shall not exceed 322 square feet. (P)


P. 13SN0535: In Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors proposes

rezoning from Community Business (C-3) and Residential (R-7) to Corporate Office (O-2) with conditional use to permit a fire station and amendment of zoning district map on 1.5 acres fronting 310 feet on the east line of East Hundred Road, 160 feet north of Walnut Drive. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Neighborhood Business use. Tax IDs 824-646-9457; and 825-646-0952 and 1748. 13SN0535 - STAFF ANALYSIS Mr. Kirk Turner, agent for the Board of Supervisors, accepted staff’s recommendation. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. No one came forward to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. There being no one to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. On motion of Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 13SN0535 subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

1. Dedication. Prior to site plan approval for any use(s) other than the fire station, as determined by the Transportation Department, 100 feet of right-of-way along the north side of East Hundred Road (Route 10) measured from the centerline of that part of the roadway immediately adjacent to the property, excluding areas encumbered by the existing building, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. (T)

2. Road Improvements. In conjunction with additional development or

redevelopment, excluding the fire station use, as determined by the Transportation Department, the following road improvements shall be provided:

a. Construction of an additional lane of pavement along the westbound

lanes of Route 10 for the entire length of the property frontage. b. Construction of additional pavement along the westbound lanes of

Route 10 at the approved access to provide a separate right turn lane. c. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, any additional

right-of-way (or easements) required for the improvements identified above. (T)



3. Phasing Plan. Prior to any site plan approval for use(s) other than the fire station, a phasing plan for the required road improvements, as identified in Condition 2, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. (T)

4. Permitted Uses. Uses shall be limited to those uses permitted by right or with

restrictions in the Corporate Office (O-2) District, plus fire stations and rescue squads provided that:

a. Exterior sirens or public address systems shall be permitted. b. All garage-type doors shall be screened from view of adjacent property in R,

R-TH and R-MF Districts or properties currently zoned A and shown on the Comprehensive Plan for residential use, unless garage doors are architecturally compatible with area residential or agricultural properties. (P)

AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Gulley, Patton and Waller. • CASE WHERE THE APPLICANT ACCEPTS STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION AND THERE

IS PUBLIC OPPOSITION.

B. 13SN0510: In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Tamera A. Moats requests conditional use to permit a family day-care home and amendment of zoning district map in a Residential (R-7) District on .4 acre known as 4356 Ketcham Drive. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Suburban Residential II use (2.0 to 4.0 dwellings per acre). Tax ID 764-688-9224. 13SN0510 - STAFF’S ANALYSIS Mr. Robert Clay provided an overview of the request and staff’s recommendation for approval noting as conditioned, the family day-care home should be compatible with surrounding residential development; and similar family day-care homes have been approved in other neighborhoods throughout the County and have operated without any apparent adverse impact on area residents. He also noted a community meeting was held to discuss the request and concerns were expressed relative to the use setting a precedent for other commercial uses within the neighborhood; and the impact the use would have on covenants and restrictions for the subdivision. He further stated the conditions are consistent with the list of conditions the Planning Commission previously adopted for day-care homes. Ms. Tamera Moats, the applicant, accepted staff’s recommendation; and presented a petition of support and approximately 200 letters of support from area residents. She stated she has been operating a state licensed family day-care home at this location for the past two (2) years without any adverse impacts on the neighbors or the surrounding neighborhood. She stated as a result of recent State law pertaining to day-care licensing, she contacted the County to verify zoning requirements and at that time, she was notified of the conditional use approval requirement. She also stated that a representative from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) visited the property and determined there is sufficient on-street parking to support the family day-care home and incidental to the on-street parking there was a substantial paved driveway to the actual residence. She stated the request will not set a precedent for other commercial uses in the area as currently there are fifty-five (55) active business licenses issued to residents within the Creekwood Subdivision; and 177 licenses have been



issued to residents since 1984. She stated the request is not detrimental in any way to the neighborhood and residents have not and will not see any changes in the day to day activities. Ms. Moats also asked the attendees supporting the request to stand. It is noted that approximately twenty-five (25) attendees stood in support of the request. Dr. Brown opened the floor for public comments. Ms. Diana Peterson stated Ms. Moats is a wonderful person; however, she is concerned that approval would set a precedent for other commercial uses in the area. She further stated she has been a resident of the Creekwood Subdivision for thirty-five (35) years and the residents have worked hard to maintain the residential integrity of the neighborhood. Ms. Samantha Agee, the applicant’s sister, stated the day-care has operated for two (2) years with no complaints or adverse impacts on the neighborhood. She stated Ms. Moats’ adjacent neighbors supported the request and the day-care is quiet and controlled. She further stated the use will not set a precedent for other commercial uses in the area because currently there are other businesses within the Creekwood Subdivision. Ms. Sheri Stephens supported the request and stated it will be a great lost to community if Ms. Moats was forced to move to another location in order to financially provide for her family as a single mom. Corporal Teresa Pennison with the Virginia National Guard expressed support for the request. Ms. Pennison stated she has a special needs child and Ms. Moats’ assistance with her special needs child affords her the opportunity to continue to perform her responsibilities as a paramedic for the National Guard. Mr. Mike Hancock stated he lives in the Creekwood Subdivision and he was happy to see that Ms. Moats’ was trying to operate her business in accordance with the Department of Social Services and the County. He stated the focus should be placed on the fact that Ms. Moats is a single mom with three (3) children and that she provides a needed service for the neighborhood. He further stated that the thirty-five (35) year old practices should change to meet today’s demands. Mr. Michael Biby stated the use will not set a precedent for operating a business within the subdivision because there are already existing businesses operating within the Creekwood Subdivision. He further stated the request site maintains the residential character of the neighborhood unlike other businesses within the neighborhood. Ms. Lynette Clements, President of the Board of Directors for Creekwood Subdivision, stated her comments are not necessarily on behalf of the Board of Directors; and explained that the Board of Directors voted to oppose Ms. Moats’ request in a five (5) to two (2) vote; and she was one (1) of the two (2) votes for support of the request. She stated Ms. Moats has operated the family day-care for four (4) years at the current location with no action taken by anyone in support of the covenants, although Creekwood does hope to maintain their properties as single-family dwellings. She stated no one has provided proof that the request could set a dangerous precedent and in fact, the extended process that the County has used in the Planning Department provides adequate safeguards to ensure each request is considered on its own merits. She further stated that Ms. Moats’ conduct of her day-care is consistent in terms of what a neighborhood should sound like, as well as smell and taste. She encouraged the Planning Commission to support the request on the grounds that the


request is reasonable; and Ms. Moats has operated the business for four (4) years without any danger to the neighborhoods. Mr. Bruce Weart, member of the Board of Directors for Creekwood Subdivision, stated the Board of Directors voted to enforce Creekwood’s covenants and bylaws which states a business cannot be conducted from a residence house excluding lawyers, realtors and insurance salesmen, as those businesses do not generate traffic into the neighborhood. He stated the decision to enforce the covenants and bylaws is not personal or directed at Ms. Moats. He stated the covenants and bylaws are there to protect the homeowners in which Ms. Moats is not. He stated approval of the request would be an infringement on the rights of the homeowners in the neighborhood; and would set a precedent for other commercial requests. He stated if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request, it would force further legal actions from Creekwood. He stated he also advised Ms. Moats months ago that the proper course of action for a request of this nature is to make a motion, which will be voted on by everyone in the neighborhood, to change the bylaws to allow such businesses in the neighborhood; however, no one has moved on that recommendation which could have resolved the issue months ago. Ms. Kristen Keatley supported the request and stated Ms. Moats has operated the business for four (4) years. She stated the County’s Ordinance defines “home occupation” as incidental and secondary to the use of the property for dwelling use and that Ms. Moats has completed the necessary steps to operate a family day-care home. She stated she believes there has been a misrepresentation from the Board of Directors for Creekwood Subdivision and the community as far as the voting process. She further stated the bylaws does not state no business use but actually reads “single-family residential purposes and for purposes incidental thereto.” Ms. Brenda Mason supported the request and stated family day-care homes are permitted by right in residential districts up to five (5) children with the limitations. She stated she understands the Creekwood Board of Directors’ decision to uphold the bylaws; however, the home based businesses without customers impacts the neighborhood with giant delivery trucks delivering packages. Ms. Tara McConnell stated the only objection to the request is the fear that approval could set a precedent; and stated throughout the process, changing the bylaws was never discussed. She also encouraged Creekwood residents to research whether there are other exceptions to the bylaws; stated unfortunately the attention associated with this request could set a precedent in a negative manner. In rebuttal, Ms. Moats stated she has operated the use without any adverse impacts on the neighborhood and she has support of the homeowner, adjacent neighbors and homeowners. She stated day-care homes up to five (5) children are permitted by right in residential districts with limitations; however, in July 2012, the Department of Social Services incorporated into their licensing procedures approval from localities to operate the business for more than five (5) children. There being no one else to speak, Dr. Brown closed the public hearing. Mr. Gulley stated day-care requests are of a sensitive nature and complex due to the neighborhood’s covenants and restrictions. He followed-up by stating he prefers that restrictive covenants are determined prior to the submission of an application because if a case is approved which conflicts with the restrictive covenants, the Homeowners’ Association (HOA) could seek legal actions to protect the


restrictive covenants. He further stated restrictive covenants are designed to restrict traffic associated with businesses from the homes. He stated at the community meeting, Ms. Jane Peterson explained that the request was more than submission of a piece of paper but in fact was a request for a conditional use approval to permit a family day-care home in a Residential (R-7) District to bring the use into compliance with zoning requirements. He stated the main issue with the request is whether or not the request is compatible with the land use for that neighborhood. Mr. Gulley also stated subsequently to the community meeting, he was contacted by area residents who indicated they were misinformed about the petition and requested to have their names removed from the petition; and subsequently to that same meeting, he was notified that the Homeowners Association’s attorney advised the Board of Directors in order to maintain the restrictive covenants, the Board of Directors should oppose Ms. Moats’ request. He explained that as a member of the Planning Commission, he normally supports the decision of HOA because generally the homeowners rely on the HOA Directors to protect their interest and their neighborhoods. He stated a HOA normally provides a copy of the rules and regulations to new residents; therefore, every resident should follow the same rules and regulations. He further stated, it is the Planning Commission’s responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of the County’s citizens; and considering the impact the request could have on land values, he cannot support the request. Dr. Brown expressed concern that there is inconsistency in enforcement of the rules and regulations for the Creekwood Subdivision and stated there are businesses within the subdivision that are more intrusive and generate more traffic than a family day-care. He stated it appears the HOA is not consistent in enforcing the restrictive covenants and therefore he will support the request. Mr. Patton stated it is not the charge of the Planning Commission to decide the viability of covenants and neighborhood restrictions. He stated he is not questioning the covenants, anyone’s integrity or intent; but he believes the applicant is an asset to the neighborhood; therefore he will support the request. Mr. Waller stated he agrees it is not the Planning Commission’s charge to decide civil matters involving the applicant and the HOA; and if the day-care use was for five (5) children, the Planning Commission would not be involved because the Zoning Ordinance permits the keeping of a maximum of five (5) children at any time, by right without the approval from the County. He further stated he is more comfortable with a three (3) or five (5) year time limitation rather than ten (10) years. Dr. Wallin stated the case is difficult and complex; however, he is more inclined to support the request if there was a five (5) year time limitation rather than ten (10) years; and approval of the request will not set a precedent as similar requests have been approved throughout the County. Ms. Moats proffered to decrease the time limitation from ten (10) years to five (5) years. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Patton, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 13SN0510 and acceptance of the following proffered conditions: PROFFERED CONDITIONS

1. Non-Transferable Ownership: This conditional use approval shall be granted to and for Tamera A. Moats, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P)


2. Expansion of Use: There shall be no exterior additions or alterations to the existing structure to accommodate this use. (P)

3. Signage: There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use. (P) 4. Number of Children: This conditional use approval shall be limited to providing care,

protection and guidance to a maximum of 12 children, other than the applicant’s own children, at any one time. (P)

5. Hours of Operation: Hours and days of operation shall be limited to Monday through

Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. There shall be no Saturday or Sunday operation of this use. (P)

6. Time Limitation: This conditional use approval shall be granted for a period not to

exceed 5 years from the date of approval. (P) 7. Employees: No employees shall be permitted to work on the premises other than

family member employees that live on the premises. (P) AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin, Patton and Waller. NAY: Mr. Gulley.

IX. CITIZEN COMMENTS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS.

There were no citizen comments on unscheduled matters.

X. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, it was on motion of Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Waller, that the meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. to Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 3:00 p.m., in the Public Meeting Room, 10001 Iron Bridge Road, Chesterfield, Virginia. ______________________________________ Chairman/Date

______________________________________ Secretary/Date

Documents

PRESENT - Granicus