[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[4:23] Good afternoon. I guess technically it is a few minutes afternoon. Welcome to the Tuesday, May 21, 2024,
[4:31] just for County Planning Commission work session. We will begin by asking if there any request to postpone
[4:39] action emergency additions changes in the order of present motion. Mr. Chair, if I may we have an environmental
[4:48] engineering item that we'd like to add to the agenda as to see and this would be additional
[4:56] floodplain amendments and I can speak to that once the time comes.
[5:06] Second, so we have a motion in the second to add item to see the agenda and Mr. Robinson
[5:13] will explain the details on that one when it's appropriate.
[5:16] Thank you.
[5:17] any other changes or additions we did a motion a second but we didn't do the
[5:27] roll call you're right sorry that's why you're here
[5:34] Mr. Pracharsky I Mr. Sloan Miss Hardin I Dr. Hilton Mr. Owens
[5:42] Mr. Chair will is unanimous the motion passes thank you madam Clark appreciate the
[5:47] there. So with that, we will move on to our next item, which will not put anybody to sleep.
[5:55] I didn't mean that at all. I'm sure Rachel will keep us thoroughly entertained with our update
[6:01] on ZILMOD, the Zoning Ordnance Modernization Project 20PJ 0107, a review of Article 4
[6:09] Development Standards. Yes, sir, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission,
[6:14] Mr. Gillies. We are here today to dive into your third month of Zomod Draft 2. We are covering
[6:22] article 4, the development standards article. As you can see on your screen we've already
[6:27] covered those articles that are in gray and those without a color are upcoming. But we do
[6:34] anticipate that we're going to cover development standards over the next three months or so.
[6:39] So you'll see us in this article for a little while.
[6:44] Before we dive into article four,
[6:47] we wanted to just highlight some of the topics
[6:51] that we covered, or that we felt like needed
[6:53] a little bit more discussion from last month,
[6:56] when we talked about article three and nine,
[6:59] the use, uses use restrictions in definitions.
[7:03] And feel free to add anything to this list
[7:05] that you would like as well.
[7:08] What we're doing is creating a parking lot.
[7:11] That's the image on the back of the screen.
[7:13] And so each month as we go through topics,
[7:16] we'll have various things that we want to put in the parking lot
[7:19] to come back to.
[7:21] And so we'll review these issues with you
[7:23] and then the ultimate plan is for us to dive deeper
[7:26] into these items, probably in the September October timeframe.
[7:30] So this will allow staff to do additional research
[7:33] that's needed on these topics.
[7:34] So in our discussion last month on Article 3 and 9, there was a request to revisit all of our
[7:40] hospitality related uses at a later date. So we are planning to arrange a discussion on short-term
[7:46] rentals, bed and breakfast and accessory dwelling units.
[7:51] A question last month arose about how the ordinance would address businesses such as the
[8:04] plans to make that correction and add that to draft three, so that one will come off of this list pretty quickly.
[8:13] In addition, during the meeting last month, the question was asked about how a crisis management facility would be treated in ZOMOD.
[8:21] Staff met with Kelly Fried in mental health support services and determined that these facilities would be covered under the medical clinic in ZOMOD.
[8:30] So no further action would be needed on this item, but we did get clarification from her what this would be and we looked at that in the context of Zomot and do feel it with fit there.
[8:43] The last item from our discussion on uses to be placed in the parking lot of items is private street width.
[8:49] with the continued concern of moving fire and rescue equipment through two narrow of street
[8:55] staff is working with v dot c dot and fire to determine a recommendation to be placed in zoma
[9:01] and we do have meetings internally scheduled to cover this topic and we'll be reporting back to you.
[9:08] You have any more on articles three or nine right now.
[9:16] This slide is just to remind you that in
[9:18] March when we covered articles one and two on the zoning districts.
[9:23] You did have a few items that you wanted in the parking lot and staff is continuing to
[9:27] research these items along with additional assistance from other departments.
[9:33] And we wanted to check in with you to be sure you didn't have any more items that you wanted
[9:37] to add to the parking lot for articles one and two.
[9:44] Okay.
[9:47] Last month, you indicated that you wanted to spend a little bit more time on the Board of
[9:51] opening appeals topic that we did not dive into very deeply.
[9:56] So we have child family daycare, home occupation, and RV parking, as all restricted uses in
[10:03] the current ordinance.
[10:04] Today, if the applicant cannot meet the restrictions, the Board of Supervisors may grant a
[10:10] conditional use.
[10:11] So in other words, the pathway is through the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors.
[10:15] So in ZOMOD, these four uses are still proposed to be restricted, however, in an if and
[10:21] applicant cannot meet those restrictions,
[10:24] though might has prescribed a different pathway
[10:26] than today. That pathway is proposed to be a
[10:30] special exception through the board of zoning appeals.
[10:33] We would like to note that one of these uses on the screen
[10:36] is a new use to zomide the family daycare for adults.
[10:40] So what this means is that those cases with no longer come
[10:44] to you with the planning commission but would be transferred to the BZA
[10:47] for their review and approval.
[10:51] So we'll take a little look at the child family daycare use, which is restricted as an example.
[11:00] When we look at the use restrictions, we see that the maximum number of children permitted with restrictions is four,
[11:06] excluding the provider's own children and any children residing in the home.
[11:11] So should the applicant want to keep, let's say, six children.
[11:15] They would now go through the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Special Exception.
[11:18] This would be the same for the other four listed uses on this slide.
[11:23] We wanted to see if you had any discussion on those items.
[11:35] So we'll move into article four development standards.
[11:38] And we do have a team of speakers today.
[11:40] We have Drew Knoxson, Jeff Lampson, and Thomas Jenkins to cover the various topics.
[11:46] We're going to talk about amenity space, general provisions, building design and signs.
[11:51] We also have our consultant Mark White with us.
[11:55] Joining via teams if you have any additional questions, he's happy to help with answers.
[12:00] I'm going to turn it over to Drew Knox and he'll take us through general provision.
[12:15] Dr. New Mr. Chair, members of Commission and Director Gillies.
[12:19] Once again, this is getting into our development standards.
[12:23] We're going to really hit mostly a many of these space today.
[12:26] I just wanted to go through the kind of first intro to the development standards section,
[12:30] which was just our general provisions.
[12:31] And I'm really just going to skip over that and just go pretty brief with this.
[12:36] It has a purpose statement, has our applicability of, you know, the project
[12:40] that applies to new site subdivision plans, that sort of thing.
[12:44] And then it goes into underground utility lines and structures that require, you know,
[12:50] to meet the zoning ordinance.
[12:51] And that's actually something we have in our ordinance today.
[12:54] So there's really no change to that part of the general provisions.
[12:57] What we really want to start with is the amenity space section.
[13:03] This is a pretty long presentation, so I apologize for that, but I will say this is one of our most crucial sections of ZOMOD.
[13:11] So it's very important to us. We spent many, many hours on this.
[13:14] You all recall there was a common area amendment about two years ago.
[13:18] We've taken a lot of that common area amendment and brought it forward into ZOMOD, but we've also added a lot of items.
[13:23] more qualifying items.
[13:26] So I'm going to run through those as well.
[13:31] So first, with the amenity space,
[13:33] the purpose here is really to provide standards for amenities
[13:38] as required by each of the zoning districts.
[13:41] It promotes resource protection by incentivizing open space
[13:45] and providing for open space in most single-family districts,
[13:48] which is an improvement over today's residential ordinance requirements.
[13:52] It encourages neighborhood compatibility through transition.
[13:55] The section provides greater recreational opportunities for new developments.
[13:59] It protects property values and finally the section provides flexibility by offering an extensive menu of items the satisfy the requirements of this section.
[14:09] And I will just point you to we are starting that page 185 on your clean zone mod draft.
[14:19] So what is the menu space? Well, you know we covered all the individual zoning districts over the last few months and talked about percentages.
[14:26] for each of the districts, but we didn't really go into detail about what amenity space
[14:30] actually is or what the calculation for those different districts is. By definition, amenity
[14:36] spaces land within a development or project design developed and maintained for use and enjoyment of
[14:41] residents, visitors, and or the general public.
[14:48] And where does amenity space apply in ZOMOT?
[14:51] amenity space is applicable to all new zoning cases, subdivision plats, and site plans as of the
[14:56] option of this ordinance. It's required as a percentage of the...
[15:00] The net-developable area of a project under the applicable zoning district required it. Just to remind you that net-developable area or net acreage is the gross site area minus any resource protection areas RPA.
[15:16] We're the zoning district or the section requires amenity space.
[15:20] The following categories count towards the total amenity space requirement.
[15:24] The amenity space should be designed to improve and installed with the first phase of any project development
[15:28] unless a phasing plan is approved by the planning department.
[15:33] We do have a few exceptions to where amenity space applies or doesn't apply.
[15:37] Few of those exceptions are any single family residential subdivision containing less than 20 lots
[15:42] unless it's part of a larger subdivision development or master-pointing community.
[15:48] Any development requiring site-point approval of less than two acres, unless part of a larger project.
[15:54] Zomot also exempts some of our free-standing commercial and employment uses, as they're typically smaller,
[16:00] have fewer employees and attract fewer visitors.
[16:02] For example, a many storage or a gas station, there's a kind of free-standing uses that are not part of a larger commercial park or employment park,
[16:11] which really don't need to have amenities based.
[16:15] It also wouldn't apply to plans approved
[16:16] or any lots recorded before ZOMOD is adopted.
[16:22] Is there a factor that one in the last slide, please?
[16:27] On the second bullet in many of these space,
[16:29] requires a percentage of net-developal area.
[16:33] I know there's been some legal challenges
[16:36] around this and other municipalities.
[16:38] So I just wanted to talk about this one for a moment.
[16:42] When we're talking gross versus net, are we treating a amenity space the same way we would treat units per acre when we're calculating density per case?
[16:53] No sir, so far today, acreage gross acreage is what we use to calculate density and that could include RPA that could include wetlands that can include even water.
[17:04] the lake, you know, the reservoir.
[17:06] We've had cases where that factored into gross acreage.
[17:11] This is just calculating that gross acreage,
[17:14] but you subtract out the RPA areas.
[17:16] So really, we are calculating the amenity space based
[17:19] on the true buildable area.
[17:21] Now, that excludes some steep slopes and things like that,
[17:24] but mostly we look at RPA when we talk about
[17:26] what's buildable land and what's not buildable land.
[17:28] Because that that often includes flood plains, wetlands,
[17:31] and other areas as well.
[17:32] exactly. So thank you for that. So I bring that up because not for while on this slide,
[17:40] but I guess maybe for that parking lot that we were just discussing. I would like to dedicate
[17:46] some time, maybe with environmental engineering here, to discuss how the amenity space
[17:53] calculation might be able to include some of the RPA, like if there's a trail or a way
[17:58] we can activate it or have it be something that the community does, in fact, enjoy.
[18:04] I'd like to look into maybe, not going all the way from gross calculation to net,
[18:08] and maybe there's a compromise somewhere in the middle for that.
[18:12] When we get into a qualifying items in a few moments, we will actually talk about some areas
[18:17] are able to be counted in RPA, and that's 100 foot width. I'll get into a little more detail in a few moments,
[18:23] but we have considered that there's some considerations in the existing common area ordinance.
[18:27] where we did that amendment two years ago that we brought it over as well.
[18:31] Thank you.
[18:32] Thank you.
[18:34] One of the things we tried to do with using the net acreage for the calculation
[18:39] of how much amenities space was to not burden the development too much with unusable area.
[18:46] We are, as he just alluded to, if there's a way they can work a trail into some of that
[18:52] area or some sort of amenity element, we're giving them credit for that. So it's kind
[18:59] of an almost an extra incentive if they can figure out how to put a trail through the RPA.
[19:05] It's land that they're not getting used to count against, you know, towards that requirement,
[19:10] but they can use some of that land to meet that requirement. So you try to make that a kind of
[19:22] our PA area is much as possible.
[19:25] And before we go, one of the things we heard
[19:27] at the advisory committee meeting this week,
[19:29] Frank, I know you heard it was the group,
[19:32] I think, would like to add wetlands into their tubes,
[19:34] not just our PA areas, but wetlands excluded from the net,
[19:38] So that might be a draft three improvement,
[19:39] if you all are open to that as well.
[19:45] Excellent.
[19:46] Chair.
[19:47] Mr. Chair.
[19:48] Mr. Chair.
[19:50] That brings up an interesting point.
[19:53] And if I'm prevent an us from getting into a deeper discussion,
[19:56] You know, just tell me to stop.
[20:00] We'll go back to the definition of a menidious space.
[20:03] I don't know if definitions come.
[20:12] So we talk about being maintained for the use
[20:16] and enjoyment of the residents.
[20:20] How do we draw a nexus
[20:23] for the enjoyment
[20:25] of residents and visitors to wetlands and BMPs?
[20:33] Are we, sort of the residents?
[20:37] I mean, most of us know what flows into a BMP
[20:40] are we suggesting that a BMP is an amenity that we would want the residents of a community
[20:46] to literally enjoy the BMP.
[20:51] So with BMPs and I'm going to talk about that in a few moments as well.
[20:54] We do have some criteria for allowing areas around BMPs to be immunatized in residential areas
[21:00] and in commercial areas, entire BMPs, be counted depending on the kind of improvements
[21:06] you install with them.
[21:07] So, and you'll see some photos, we have some examples of photos of areas where BMPs really are a central amenity
[21:14] and then other examples where BMPs are kind of walled off and really unusable and don't have
[21:19] a trail around them or anything like that to really call it any sort of amenity.
[21:24] In wetlands, we've talked about the wetlands. It's kind of like the RPA. I suppose if you were to build a
[21:31] trail close, stuff the wetlands and kind of surround a wetland area with the trail, people can kind of
[21:37] to enjoy that natural area, you could put up ecological educational signage and things like
[21:44] that to tell people about the importance of wetlands. So I think there's some possible
[21:49] opportunities for that sort of thing.
[21:57] With regards to BOMP's, I've always wondered this because I've seen dry BOMP's and wet
[22:03] BOMP's, does environmental make that decision to make those wet or dry? And the reason
[22:08] One way I ask is, aminitizing a drive B on P is like an aminitizing a snake pit.
[22:14] When you aminitize a wet B on P, it's upon, you can aerate it, it's nice to look at.
[22:20] So, is there some standard, the environmental looks at to say this is going to be a drive B
[22:24] on P versus a wet B on P?
[22:26] I can probably give you an answer to that, but it's probably best for environmental engineering
[22:30] actually answer that question.
[22:32] Okay, thank you.
[22:33] And nothing else, those who like snake bits.
[22:35] Just one.
[22:38] Sure, if I can piggyback.
[22:40] I'm going to slow it over here.
[22:42] The words use an enjoyment.
[22:44] Maybe use, I can see how that would be misleading.
[22:47] So maybe it's more appropriate to just use the word enjoyment.
[22:50] Because I would look at.
[22:53] Go to a state park.
[22:54] And if you're respectful to park, you stay on the trails.
[22:57] And you do not walk into the areas.
[22:59] They do not want you going in.
[23:00] But you're still enjoying that natural beauty.
[23:02] that is around the trail. So you can still enjoy a wetland or enjoy a BMP without local
[23:09] using it, but just having you surround.
[23:13] Great. Great comments.
[23:15] That's one reason we, in some instances, we've had a 100 kind of, wow, to include that as
[23:24] part of the community. The idea is, this is maybe a worst case scenario, but the idea where
[23:31] maybe you'd have some sort of observation deck that looks out over, you know, 300 acre wet ones.
[23:38] Should that developer get credit for those 300 acres just because they put observation tower up.
[23:43] We felt that was a bit excessive.
[23:45] The idea of giving them some credit as to where to draw that line of credit is something we're working on.
[23:52] In conversations, we had on common area, back two years ago, we'd all kind of landed on the
[24:00] 100th of being a reasonable amount of ability to see into the wooded area or the RPA or wet
[24:08] wetlands area and give them credit for that enjoyment aspect where a property might be adjacent
[24:18] to a huge floodplain or RPA, we wanted this still see more improvements and possible within
[24:26] the project and not give away the farm so to speak by that's all the amenities space you're
[24:34] going to get for that particular project is a viewpoint of 300 acres of RPA.
[24:40] It does. I appreciate that train of thought and completely agree with you. We don't need to
[24:43] go all the way back to gross, but somewhere between that and gross we have a formula that
[24:47] can be used to give some credit but not for credit.
[24:52] Yeah, and Mr. Chair, and I guess where I am, I mean,
[24:57] I know we don't with amenity space, you know,
[25:00] previously and, you know, we tried to handle it with them
[25:03] the context of the existing zoning ordinance.
[25:07] I use just one of those opportunities, though, you know,
[25:12] for certain items, right, and you know, let's just be
[25:17] really not, you know, it's the development community that is kind of spearheading the inclusion
[25:22] of these types of spaces and so forth.
[25:26] And you know, in certain situations where if we're going to call it an amenity, and
[25:31] they're truly going to amenitize the space, and we can do that without violating any other
[25:39] rules of the road, that's one thing.
[25:41] But I just thought, well, I'm not saying go this direction,
[25:47] but are there certain items where we just simply want to be
[25:51] upfront than whatever reasons if it's something that planning
[25:57] or ultimately the Board of Supervisors feels,
[25:59] we want to give some sort of a credit to a developer for the inclusion
[26:04] of a possible land as far as certain calculations concerned.
[26:08] Okay, let's just be up front and do that.
[26:13] But then labeling, using the label, amenity space.
[26:17] And again, it kind of sticks out to me under this, you know, with a BMP.
[26:22] You know, we can monetize around a BMP.
[26:24] We can do things to make it more attractive.
[26:27] But there's probably no reality where we would ever want to encourage
[26:31] the citizens of the county to go swimming in, truly enjoying the BMP.
[26:36] All right, that would be bad at multiple levels.
[26:42] Okay, do we want to label it a amenity space?
[26:45] I'm just throwing it out, I think.
[26:47] If we're going through all these different categories and definitions,
[26:50] and not to get into a definition discussion,
[26:54] but maybe there's an opportunity to create some sort of
[26:57] category that allows the developer for some calculation planning
[27:03] them to develop work out, but without us truly calling it an amenity as we're defining
[27:10] amenity space. Great.
[27:16] But with that, we're going to go into all those qualifying items
[27:19] for amenity space. This is a quick list in front of you right here, but I'm going to go into a few
[27:25] examples with a little more detail and some visuals as well. So you can kind of see what each one
[27:30] of these items looks like. Our first one is farming in forestry, which would allow the preservation
[27:37] of agricultural character, and some of our more rural zoning districts, this applies to our
[27:42] RCSR, SN and AR districts only. And this is actually an example from nearby. This is the
[27:49] Chickahomani Falls development out in Handover County, where they have a community forum that
[27:56] actually can be used by anybody in the larger residential community. It's a really nice concept. And
[28:02] this is not even really in a rural area, but they've done it really well here. I can imagine, you know,
[28:07] AR district having something like this and being really successful.
[28:13] Best management practices, what we are just talking about.
[28:15] So what counts?
[28:16] The areas surrounding stormwater best management practice BMPs, if they include extra landscaping
[28:22] and trail improvements are eligible.
[28:25] For residential BMPs maintained by the county, the surface area inside slopes are actually
[28:30] excluded.
[28:31] So you can see in this kind of diagram here, everything inside of that red area would not count
[28:36] because that's all part of the side slopes as well as the water surface and then also no
[28:42] an area enclosed by a fence for count. And so I'll give you a quick example of that.
[28:48] Here's a view of a BMP where you can see the fencing slide side slopes and the water surface area.
[28:54] You can't access. There's no trail around any part of this. There is a little bit of landscape,
[28:59] and you can see a couple trees landscaping within the fence area. But this is an example
[29:03] one that really wouldn't count and the area around it wouldn't typically count either.
[29:07] Now if you were to add some improvements to it, some benches, a nice trail,
[29:11] some of the hard-scape areas of purgler or something, this could turn into a really nice
[29:15] amenity space. Put a fountain in the middle of the pond too. It could be great.
[29:19] So now I'll show you an example of one we would count. So in this example there's no fence
[29:25] surrounding it. Instead we have landscaping with a walking path around the entire perimeter of it.
[29:30] We have a little foot bridge, you can see down the bottom left, and there's a little, a little gazebo out there.
[29:37] This is in the summer late development. So this is in the county.
[29:42] The next part is that many of these spaces can even be placed above underground BMPs, but only the area that's the surface area that a many of these space can count, not the full underground BMP if there's no many of the above it.
[29:55] We're going to see one of the first of these in the county with the Rockwood Square.
[30:00] Shopping Center redevelopment. There's some areas where dog park and even some sport courts pickable courts are going to be placed on top of underground BMPs.
[30:10] I'll be true before you go on. I just wanted to let you know, at the advisory committee meeting, there was a pretty lengthy discussion with the team there.
[30:18] The difference between how we treat commercial BMPs and residential BMPs, as you know the county, has a policy whereby residential BMPs we take on and do the maintenance and and do those on our own, the commercial BMPs are done on the private side.
[30:35] And what you find is that the commercial BMPs are much more easily amenatized that if you think of some of the shopping centers, they usually do a pretty good job putting fountains and things around them.
[30:47] So, if they do monetize them in commercial areas, the entirety of the BMP counts, the water surface area.
[30:53] We have a nice one out here on Route 10. If you know where that bank is, at the corner of 10 in Lowery,
[30:59] there's a little bridge across the BMP, there's a little sitting area. All of that would count as a Mindy space under ZOMOD.
[31:06] And that's different from how we treat the residential BMPs.
[31:09] As we treat them now, just in how they're designed in the residential areas, if they're walled off, we're not going to count them.
[31:15] if they are immunatized, like you showed the BMP on that last example, that one would count.
[31:21] So the team did, the advisory team did think that, you know, it would be nice if both
[31:26] residential and commercial BMPs could be counted the same way, but that would be predicated
[31:31] upon us treating them the same way. So treating the commercial ones like the residential ones.
[31:37] So that's one of the things where we're going to continue having discussions with our partners in
[31:41] on for their policy and what is acceptable to them on residential BMPs and what's not because
[31:47] if the county does not want to maintain those items within that fence line or those amenities
[31:53] then we're not going to count that space if they don't want to do that so that's some ongoing
[31:57] discussions we still need to have.
[32:01] So kind of cut to the chase on the residential BMPs
[32:05] Is there a scenario where is there any scenario on the residential side where the county and the taxpayers of
[32:16] Chester County are paying to maintain it that we would classify it as an amenity space and give the developer credit for
[32:28] it
[32:29] Yeah, no, not not as it's written today
[32:33] Correct, so any any that we would
[32:36] So, any BMP that we would give credit to a developer for their various calculations would
[32:46] be predicated under the fact that they are obligated in perpetuity to manage that BMP.
[32:57] And we will ensure that at no point in time can that developer wave their hands and turn
[33:03] backer over to the county to take over after we've given them credits for it.
[33:12] That's part of the rub and what we're still working on. I think in a perfect world we'd
[33:17] like to see it where there could be some sort of set up within the HOA that would maintain
[33:24] the BMP requirements and so forth into perpetuity. I think the unfortunately some of the history
[33:32] Chesterfield has been that even in some of those situations, the H.O.A. has not had the funds to be able to maintain it properly and then, you know, the county had to come to the rescue and try to repair or help maintain that BMP.
[33:49] I think that's the concern environmental engineering has is you can be in the long run, be additional requirement for them, maintenance requirements for them.
[34:02] I still think we should be able to get to some sort of way that we could address a long-term
[34:12] maintenance of a well-designed, well-omenetized BMP that could be the responsibility of the
[34:22] HOA, the developer initially, and at some point that we overall HOA, but we still have some work
[34:30] to do with environmental engineering and county administration as to the long-term trend for
[34:42] BMP maintenance.
[34:44] That makes sense.
[34:45] I mean, we'd love to get there.
[34:47] Well, I was just going to say, because I'm aware, I am aware of zoning cases that have occurred
[34:54] over the past, you know, and these, these unfolded probably actually before your 10, where
[35:03] we had a case that went through zoning, dirt was moved, made it to the entire process,
[35:11] multiple BMPs on the project, and it was, we're going to take care of it, there are
[35:17] amenity space by law, through some fountains up, and I mean, I'm pretty sure the last
[35:22] C.O. and the neighborhood was signed and next thing I know, you know, I'm hearing from back then Mrs.
[35:30] J. Cole that,
[35:33] or five, massive BMPs were being turned back over to the county to have to maintain.
[35:40] And to me, that's a taxpayer subsidized credit to the development community that I'm not comfortable.
[35:48] Mr. Chair, I can speak on this slightly.
[35:50] So, I want to say a couple years ago, some of our community came from being Mr. Carroll concerning
[35:56] the BMP in their neighborhood, and they were treating it as an amenity, as Lake and
[36:01] why not.
[36:02] But the BMP needed cleaned out.
[36:04] Now, what people may not be aware of in this room is the HOAs or whoever is in that neighborhood
[36:10] has to pay a stormwater management fee per BMP fund that's supposed to be for the maintenance
[36:15] of the BMP funds and they're supposed to be cleaned out on a regular basis by the county.
[36:19] And that's part of the agreement between environmental engineering and the county.
[36:23] So the county does accumulate money over a period of time to do the clean operation of these.
[36:29] However, their clean-out operation is an necessity based not a need-based.
[36:35] So if the BMP is filling up a sediment and it's draining properly and behaving how it's supposed to,
[36:41] the county is not going to clean that out until the sediment gets to a point where it is in a freeing with that operation.
[36:47] So, how some of her came to me, Mr. Carroll, was they wanted some of the sediment cleaned out so it would appear cleaner, but it's in reality, it's a BMP, it's not an amenity and people have to understand that.
[37:00] So, I think the choice is when we look at these BMPs is if people want them to be an amenity, they're going to have to take control and do the maintenance to keep it as pristine as they want it to be to be an amenity.
[37:12] Otherwise, it's a BOMP, it's going to operate the way it's supposed to, it's going to be
[37:16] murky, it's going to have sediment in it, and it's going to be there what it's supposed to be for,
[37:21] which is the whole of the water, allowed to be treated, allow stuff to settle and let it drain off.
[37:26] So that's one of the things I just wanted to kind of put it out there with my experience with this.
[37:33] That's it.
[37:37] Okay, any other questions on this?
[37:40] Okay, fun rolling then.
[37:44] Next, we'll talk about a buffers that are not required by ordinance.
[37:48] For example, the plan on the screen shows a 50 foot buffer that's provided between a new subdivision that was containing 5500 square foot minimum lots and then adjacent to existing neighborhoods with much larger lots.
[38:05] The ordinance today does not require a buffer between two single-family districts.
[38:10] However, in this particular case, this buffer was offered to minimize the impacts of those
[38:15] much smaller lots, next to much larger budding lots, and these established neighborhoods.
[38:19] A sample of the Zoning Condition associated with this project is shown down at the bottom
[38:24] here.
[38:25] I know Mr. Sloan is very familiar with this particular case traditions of America.
[38:30] We think that should be credited if it's not something you're required to do, and it's
[38:34] offered up as an additional protection.
[38:36] I think that's a good thing.
[38:37] The second provision here in the buffer section address is situations where a development goes above and beyond the typically required buffer.
[38:47] So let's say for example, a project offers up a 70 foot wide buffer instead of the 50 foot wide buffer is required.
[38:55] We would allow a credit for that additional 25 feet above the 50 foot requirement.
[39:02] Next we'll go to community gardens.
[39:04] These are pretty obvious, site operated and maintained by individual group or, you know,
[39:09] individual to cultivate trees, herbs, fruits, vegetables, flowers, other foliage for personal
[39:14] use, consumption, donation, or even off-site sale, vitamins, growing the site, and I'll
[39:19] say that again, off-site sale, not sale, in the residential communities.
[39:23] This is an example from Chesterfield, the towns at Nottingham, a really nicely designed one
[39:28] with a given a garden tool shed and some of these
[39:31] have greenhouse as to, so really nice humidity spaces.
[39:37] Next is a courtyard.
[39:38] This is a contiguous open area that's surrounded
[39:40] on at least three sides by building walls
[39:42] with entryways and sidewalks.
[39:44] These are typical of our town home communities
[39:47] and some of our two over two condo communities.
[39:53] Frontage landscaping.
[39:55] We're looking at these either buffers
[39:58] or perimeter landscaping, long major roads like collectors
[40:01] or materials, and that's if, you know, they meet the landscaping and screening standards of
[40:06] those buffers or perimeter landscape areas, but include sidewalks or shared use paths.
[40:11] I will say I'll note that we do want to work on this one a little bit more in draft three.
[40:15] So far, we have sidewalks as being included, and we are thinking of looking at just counting
[40:20] shared use paths in these areas as opposed to sidewalks, because a shared use path is going to be
[40:25] an upgrade over a typically required five foot feed-out sidewalk. So also, we want to look at
[40:30] additional landscape and that could be placed in the right of way if you dot's going to approve that.
[40:35] As ways to kind of soup up these areas a little more to make them true amenities and not just allow an amenity credit for something that's really required.
[40:45] A green, this is a common open space that's really kind of an unstructured recreational or special events kind of area that can be programmed.
[40:54] You could have celebrations or neighborhood gatherings here.
[40:57] Really just green with some, you know, maybe a trail going around to their sidewalk and some trees.
[41:04] This example is actually from Western Henrico County.
[41:08] I've driven past you many times and seen, you know, citizens from this community out there golfing or walking their dogs
[41:13] and it's just kind of a nice open green for that.
[41:19] Next a green way.
[41:20] Really, this is just a connection of multiple of our amenity spaces in Zoma.
[41:25] And the thing is, it's just in more of a linear fashion and connected by one or more trails.
[41:31] The example here, so I keep using Mr. Sloan's great examples.
[41:35] This is from the White Oak Greenway in Kerry, North Carolina.
[41:39] You can see on the map here, this greenway connects natural areas.
[41:43] It connects neighborhoods. It connects parks, larger parks.
[41:46] It connects schools, libraries, all sorts of things.
[41:49] So that's a really greenway.
[41:51] And if you think about a larger master plan community,
[41:55] think of Rosalind, you know, the Rosalind overlay.
[41:57] We envisioned a larger linear park or greenway
[41:59] through that development.
[42:04] Next to herbscape pedestrian areas,
[42:06] these are typically located adjacent to,
[42:10] are more urban style buildings
[42:12] and are U.R. districts or mixed use districts.
[42:15] These should not encroach on a required sidewalks
[42:18] or bikeways, but they really are designed
[42:22] to serve and support adjacent uses through improvements like seating areas, planters and
[42:25] fountains. I think the important thing to note about these hard-scape pedestrian areas is
[42:30] it's a little more than just a sidewalk. They're often a wider, they're behind the sidewalk,
[42:35] they're adjacent to buildings, they're adjacent to green spaces. They have fixtures that are
[42:39] more permanent, even though sometimes you can use them for temporary outdoor dining, moved chairs
[42:44] and tables out. The good thing is you can accommodate multiple uses in these spaces. Once again,
[42:50] wider than your typical sidewalk.
[42:51] These are larger kind of patio areas.
[42:56] The next one is dedication, a land for public facilities.
[43:01] A good example here is the Tomahawk Creek Middle School,
[43:03] that's pictured.
[43:05] That was actually something that was dedicated
[43:07] as part of the larger centerpoint development.
[43:10] We also have some precedent in the Rosalind overlay
[43:13] where we are allowing a linear park or greenway
[43:16] to be dedicated and also count
[43:18] towards each development tracks, common area requirement.
[43:22] I will note also that for dedications like this,
[43:25] a road would not count.
[43:27] So we're not going to allow roads to be cut out of this dedication.
[43:32] Next, there are LED or low impact development.
[43:34] These are typically special stormwater treatment systems
[43:37] that are not typically utilized here in Chesterfield.
[43:40] We don't really see these often.
[43:43] They're often more costly than your typical stormwater basin,
[43:45] can really be a nice amenity space as you see in this example and kind of kill two birds of
[43:50] one stone. Your treat your stormwater, but also creating a nice separation and landscape area.
[43:58] Next, we have some allowance for parking areas, but they are specifically the parking areas
[44:02] that are associated with an amenity space. So the example here shows the Amberly neighborhood.
[44:08] You can see we have a clubhouse in a pool. By ordinance those are required to be parked,
[44:13] which is sometimes really arbitrary in a subdivision,
[44:18] where you've got a lot of parking,
[44:19] it's just the neighbors mostly walk in there,
[44:21] but we do offer those parking areas.
[44:23] If there are events and things people want to drive to them,
[44:25] or if you're on the other side of the neighborhood,
[44:27] they want to drive to.
[44:28] But we are allowing a credit for that.
[44:34] Also in parking areas, landscape areas
[44:36] with connecting walkways or other amenities could count.
[44:39] This is actually an example at a chest peak Virginia,
[44:43] done in the Hemp the Road area.
[44:44] We have this really nice landscape kind of paper walkway that connects two sides of a large shopping center together
[44:50] Provides a little out, you know, we'll space for some trees and landscaping between all the parking areas
[45:00] Pedestrian biking paths, not including sidewalks. These really connect internally or externally. These can be paved or unpaved, pretty self-explanatory here. These are all examples from the boulders area in Chesterfield.
[45:14] Another one is a pedestrian pass throughs. We have very few of these in the county so far, but as we, you know, see more kind of mixed use developments like spring line pop up, we could see a lot more of these.
[45:26] We have some requirements for them to help break up bulky masses of buildings in our ordinance in our U.R. and M.E. districts.
[45:33] These are really paved walkways that are allowing direct access from one side of a building to another.
[45:38] They're intended for public use typically.
[45:41] And they really connect, you know, parking areas to shopping areas or parking areas to green spaces and that sort of thing.
[45:47] This is an example out of Maryland in Rockville.
[45:49] Really nice when you can see the public art and kind of decorations and some storefront windows in there
[45:55] People put tables and tears out there for outdoor dining
[45:57] They even do art shows in these with little easels with art on. It's pretty nice
[46:03] The next door plazas these are hard-scaped in hard-scaped areas with seating and other amenities such as landscaping fountains and public art
[46:11] They function as gathering places and can also incorporate a variety of non-fermented activities
[46:16] Like vendors, you know farmers markets and things like that
[46:20] This examples from our mill works in the Lothian.
[46:25] Next, active recreation.
[46:28] This includes a lot of different items.
[46:29] It can be playgrounds, swimming pools, club houses,
[46:32] dog parks, pavilion's community rooms, all sorts of
[46:35] sport and athletic courts, pickable courts, tennis courts,
[46:39] all sorts of things.
[46:40] And these are all actually examples from Chesterfield County.
[46:44] The bottom one is from the bottom left is
[46:46] Townsets with Creek, top right is from charter colony.
[46:49] the bottom right is from the boulders like side apartments.
[46:55] Next, passive recreation. You know, we talked about pathways a little earlier, but this is sort of a accessible open space.
[47:06] It's just a really just a forest and a neighborhood. It's an area where trees were preserved, but it's accessible to the community. You see the red arrow there. It is a 10 foot wide asphalt path to allow access to this.
[47:18] path to either dead end at that spot or it can curl around through there and give you nice walking
[47:22] areas. These are kind of great areas we had grown up as kids when you could go out and
[47:27] the random woods in your neighborhood and build a tree house or chase each other around
[47:31] dig holes and stuff. So kind of a nice feature to have that you know seen the disappear these days.
[47:39] Next recreational equipment and trailer parking. This is something where if improved you know
[47:44] but screen properly and not very visible,
[47:48] we'd like to be able to monetize it.
[47:50] This is actually an example from the Wood Lake neighborhood.
[47:53] This is their boat and storage area.
[47:56] And once again, talking about the screen,
[47:57] you'll know how setback this is,
[48:00] you can see there's an angled driveway,
[48:02] so when you drive by, you can not see into this,
[48:05] which is great.
[48:05] You don't even know it's there.
[48:07] But we think we should give some credit for that.
[48:09] I think that's also a good solution to some of our
[48:12] parking issues with people parking in their front yards. So if they had more places in their
[48:16] community to park them, my help with that code enforcement issue, we'd run into as well.
[48:22] Getting back to that resource protection, the RPA discussion we had earlier.
[48:28] This is an example of how we count that. So we are counting 100 foot of an RPA if you bring a trail
[48:36] into it. Also note that we did bring that over from our previous common area, amendment 2 years ago.
[48:45] So this is not really a change. Another thing to point out is if you had an RPA,
[48:51] let's say you have 100 feet of RPA and one side of the stream and 100 feet on the other side.
[48:55] If you were to put a trail on both sides of that stream, you could get that full 200 foot credit.
[49:01] But I just want to point to this example here. This is once again. I'm going to use this example
[49:04] a couple of times today, because it's pretty good one.
[49:07] The Rockwood Square Shopping Center redeveloped
[49:10] and the whole southern portion of that along the Hornet's
[49:12] run stream was able to have a shared use path placed in it
[49:16] because there's some old sewer easements in that area.
[49:20] And there was a kind of natural clearing there already.
[49:23] And so they're able to almost get the very, you know,
[49:27] the full percentage of that RPA.
[49:29] There's some little kind of yellow areas to the south
[49:31] that are outside of that 100 foot arc,
[49:33] but otherwise they got most of the credit for this.
[49:36] And it's going to turn into a really nice,
[49:38] somewhat of a greenway system for that area.
[49:43] Next rooftop amenities, this is something
[49:44] that we didn't really consider before.
[49:48] Obviously, community accessible spaces
[49:50] that are designed to facilitate social interaction
[49:53] on the upper floors or rooftops of buildings.
[49:56] Think of terrorist spaces, restaurants, pools,
[49:59] community gardens, that sort of thing.
[50:01] The example in the top right is actually
[50:03] the dominion building at downtown Richmond.
[50:05] They did a fantastic job on that. It's just beautiful.
[50:10] Next roundabouts and I'm not going to say these are all roundabouts. We are not just counting roundabouts. These must have some sort of public or component or multiple methods of amenities like walking paths, sidewalks, trails,
[50:25] Fountain's landscape and that sort of thing.
[50:28] So you won't see your typical roundabouts
[50:30] be counted towards amenity space.
[50:32] It's going to have to be something
[50:33] improved substantially more than that.
[50:38] Is there a slump?
[50:50] Apologies.
[50:52] I know I should probably know the answer to this,
[50:54] but I don't, perhaps Commissioner Owens has some expertise
[50:57] in the space.
[51:00] So developer comes in, we've got a road network
[51:02] that we're going to turn over to the state.
[51:04] This is sitting in the middle of it. Who's responsible for the ongoing maintenance of it?
[51:09] It would have to be the developer, but they would have to have a
[51:12] easement from BDOT to do that. Just like we've seen signage for neighborhoods like
[51:17] over there in Brandermill, we've seen signage in the middle of Roundabout,
[51:20] and seen what are true at Arboretum. They have to get an easement from BDOT for maintenance,
[51:27] and it also typically says that a BDOT has to come in there and do work. They can plow through your
[51:32] time take it out and you as the HOA or developer are responsible to reinstall it.
[51:47] Do we require a developer to get the easement from VDOT for any guaranteed period or they
[51:57] required to maintain that easement for any particular period of time for us to get credit
[52:04] to it?
[52:05] It would have to be continuous for them to be credited for meta-de-space.
[52:09] I actually do not know something about this.
[52:11] I've got to.
[52:13] So, these particular things are in the V dot right away.
[52:16] So, if you, as an outside entity, outside of V dot, want to monetize it or do anything like that for these,
[52:22] you have to put up a surety bond and a surety bond is kept in perpetuity from the time you put anything on that,
[52:29] other than just the dirt and grass, until you remove it and put it back into an original state.
[52:33] So if you wanted to do some kind of public art or something like this, they would tell you the amount of the
[52:38] Shirty bond that you have to put up and give you permit to do the work, and then that Shirty bond will stay in their
[52:44] perpetuity until you decide to take this artwork off and return it back to the grass state.
[52:49] That's my understanding as well.
[52:51] And as a county, we have the processes in place so that all of this is required to occur
[53:03] to justify the credit
[53:07] for all of the stuff that we're doing on the front end.
[53:10] Correct.
[53:10] You'd have to go through the plans or your process and beat up,
[53:13] but have to actually agree to this.
[53:17] Otherwise, they'd be in violation of their
[53:18] Mending space.
[53:19] Exactly.
[53:19] If they're counting it, because if that goes away,
[53:21] then they don't meet their requirement.
[53:23] They're more in their violation of zoning.
[53:29] As we go through this, just,
[53:32] I'm just recollecting on what I've seen over the past nine years
[53:39] and intentions don't always turn into reality,
[53:43] so that's why I ask these questions,
[53:45] because I have seen cases that have come before this body
[53:50] and were approved, and were approved.
[53:54] And, you know, some of it's at the fault of the commission,
[53:55] because we allowed for general, unspecific language
[54:01] and what we saw built on the ground
[54:03] isn't what was envisioned or even sold
[54:06] during the zoning process.
[54:08] So as we go through these things, what are we labeling as an amenity? Or is it simply, you know, we're doing something to trade off space, you know, whatever the antenna is I just want to make sure that
[54:22] Right, you know, you have an opportunity to get really specific in this stuff and so if we need to
[54:29] It should be noted, you know, a lot of the details of what is being counted as amenity space would be happening at the site plan level, not at the zoning level.
[54:39] Could show a conceptual plan showing this amenity, you know, over on the right side of the property, but as it
[54:46] And maybe before they finish all their design, it's moved, it's location or maybe they're
[54:54] using something else, is meet that amenity space requirement.
[54:59] Some of that is going to happen at the site plan level of detail, not at the zoning level.
[55:07] You'll be agreeing to having that, having to meet that percentage of amenity space with
[55:14] zoning that they're requesting with so-mind, the make sense, so I mean it's not going to be
[55:22] not every detail will be provided you all at the time of zoning as to where and how they're
[55:27] going to do their amenities space. They're just on the hook to do 10% or 5% or whatever's in the
[55:33] ordinance for that particular zoning district to meet that amenities space requirement and they have
[55:38] a whole list of menu of elements that Drew's going through to kind of pick from to do what
[55:47] they want to do.
[55:49] All right.
[55:49] Mr. Chair.
[55:51] All right.
[55:51] But any since you're up in the door, I'm going to walk through it.
[55:54] I would just keep holding my door.
[55:57] So I have now sat up here for nine years and I've seen pictures of that.
[56:03] This is going to be the amenity space working provide to the folks of our development.
[56:07] around about. Okay, there's bottom one. I don't mean literally the round, but we are
[56:15] presented with beautiful amenity space round about blah, blah, blah,
[56:21] fast forward four years that developments under construction in the amenity space is
[56:26] forced in land in the back. It's not that.
[56:35] So the intent of us when we're handling
[56:37] certain things from a zoning standpoint and what we're sold on as what we're trying
[56:45] to pass from a zoning case and the members of the Board of Supervisors truly do depend
[56:51] upon us to do everything at our level to make sure whatever is being conceptually presented
[56:57] to the citizens of the county is what actually gets built or as close as we can, obviously
[57:05] we come into situations where we want to put an amenity space here, and we come back and
[57:11] probably previously know that's actually wetlands, we really can't amenitize whatever it
[57:15] is.
[57:16] And there's some tweets and justments are one thing, but there have been scenarios and I can
[57:21] take you to cases where it comes in the front door with lots of great renderings, but it
[57:31] out the back door with whatever leftover land the developer didn't need, that becomes the
[57:40] amenity space. And so as we go through this process, I want to make sure that we look at things
[57:47] sometimes through those lenses. What are the unintended consequences? You know, we don't need
[58:01] of the MPs, with walkways and fountains and everything else, and that's what's sold to the public.
[58:10] And if we're going to count that stuff as a truly amenity space, it's not something that the cost of the maintenance should ever come back on the taxpayers for.
[58:22] And you know, it's a little bit of a question, granted, I'm not going to go down here, but if the developers getting credit for something,
[58:30] but then the ongoing cost of maintaining it gets transferred to the HOA, which then is
[58:37] an affordability issue for the folks living there,
[58:42] these are the things that concern
[58:43] me with us.
[58:46] I want to help assure you, the idea that if someone came in with a conceptual site plan that showed
[58:54] item A is kind of the focal point of their project and that was their amenity kind of feature
[58:59] that they were really pushing, and then at time of site plan, that particular item has completely
[59:06] disappeared from their proposed site plan. I would think that renders another review of
[59:14] that project in that zoning case to amend that concept plan who be now what they're proposing
[59:20] if it was sold to be that was the major element of their case. So again, it's apples and oranges
[59:28] to some extent. And we have to, maybe we have to do a better job from a staff perspective
[59:33] if there is something that is a substantial change from what was shown in the conceptual
[59:38] site plan, to what actually is being brought in by the site at the site high and time that
[59:44] we've missed something.
[59:48] That's on us maybe to do a better job and inform you all and make that
[59:54] in a minute. I don't know how to necessarily um
[1:00:00] Cardify, zomod to get more to what you're speaking of. Other than we are going to be trying to get a realistic, conceptual plan of what they're proposing at the time of zoning.
[1:00:16] but as you say, things, there will be opportunities, chances are that there will be construction
[1:00:24] elements or topographic elements that may make for some tweaking of that design sum
[1:00:31] extent.
[1:00:31] We don't want to, it's because they move it, you know, a couple of feet, have to require an
[1:00:37] amended site plan, but or a concept plan, but I do think you don't want to lose the kind
[1:00:44] The major element that's being proposed or sold to the planning commission or to the general public
[1:00:51] is kind of evaporates at time of sight plan.
[1:00:54] We got to catch that.
[1:00:56] Again, I'm this issue.
[1:00:58] I'll stop and we can move on.
[1:01:00] But again, at this point, my perception is we are giving Zomod a lot of, since some respects,
[1:01:12] there's flexibility, but there's also a lot of rigidity to it.
[1:01:17] So I just want to make sure that we have thought through that someone doesn't come before
[1:01:24] this body on the zoning side with a quote unquote conceptual plan.
[1:01:30] In the new world, they don't have to come with to us with as many details as we've gotten
[1:01:34] accustomed to seeing in the past, okay?
[1:01:37] And then something gets to site plan, and at the end of the day, the only tool site plan has at its disposal is whatever the requirement is of the developer, you know, my concern is it gets to site plan and we've got an aggressive developer, and they say I am obligated to 10% amenity space.
[1:02:07] And this is where I'm putting it.
[1:02:09] Is site plan literally in a position
[1:02:11] then to be able to say now?
[1:02:16] Or when we find ourselves down the road going,
[1:02:19] well, we never leave out through this very carefully.
[1:02:21] And we're going to have to approve these because under the new ordinance,
[1:02:26] there's a space requirement, not, you know,
[1:02:30] we're going to have to make sure that there's
[1:02:32] proper conditions on how the amenities are going to be
[1:02:34] and that kind of stuff. So again, we can move on, but I just want to make sure I'll be in really
[1:02:40] upfront where I am on these issues.
[1:02:42] I think it's a valid point. And honest answer is I think you're going to see in some of the
[1:02:48] more remote areas where there isn't a lot of, if it was just a fairly rural or remote location,
[1:03:00] there may not be as many details that are being proposed with that straight zoning.
[1:03:04] But if it was an end-fill project where there were neighbors and there were more concern as to where all the elements were going to actually fit within their
[1:03:13] hundred acres of development or what have you, they're going to have to be providing more of those details before that case is ripe enough to bring before you all for a public hearing.
[1:03:24] And you know, they would be the responsibility of the applicant to bring as many details as necessary to satisfy your
[1:03:34] your concerns about how that project might be developed over time and the supervisors, of course, too.
[1:03:44] I think you're going to see generally kind of a mix of that, but we'll probably be leaning towards trying to get as much detail as we can,
[1:03:53] of the general layout that's being proposed with the cases that come forward.
[1:04:00] So, while we're looking at these roundabouts, so let me present this to you, I'm a developer and I have 19.5 acres of land I'm developing and I need a half acre to get another wallet put on that land.
[1:04:12] adjacent to me in the public right away is one of these intermediate roundabouts, the ones I like to come Lego roundabouts, lacking yellow blocks that they've bolted to the ground.
[1:04:23] So I decided, hey, I want to get this other half acre credited so I can get another lot on this.
[1:04:30] So I'm going to put my profits that I'm going to fix up this round about off-site from my property.
[1:04:36] And I want that round about towards my cash profit as an offset.
[1:04:40] And now that I've included that as a mini space, I want that half acre to count towards my land.
[1:04:44] So I get my extra lot now without actually having to have an extra half acre because I'm going to be able to claim that as a mini space.
[1:04:52] because I've developed it.
[1:04:54] Does the roundabout that they're doing have to be contained within the confines of the land
[1:05:00] that they are developing?
[1:05:01] Because the one we're talking about in referencing Brandermill is not within the confines
[1:05:05] of the neighborhood.
[1:05:06] However, if you have an entire neighborhood, excuse my crude drawing here, if I was a weatherman,
[1:05:11] we'd have a blue screen here.
[1:05:12] But here is the property.
[1:05:14] If we're in the middle of the property and put it around about, that would 100% be in
[1:05:18] a minute space if we fixed it up.
[1:05:20] Here's our property.
[1:05:21] and I have one of those Lego roundabouts here and I go, hey, I want to fix this up and make it
[1:05:25] mountable and I want to put a piece of art in the middle of it. I want that counter this
[1:05:30] part of my mini space. Does this allow for that, or does it have to be in the confines of the
[1:05:36] area that they're developing as part of their lives? I think it could go, it could go both ways,
[1:05:40] honestly. I think if they're building the roundabout and they own the land under it,
[1:05:46] And then they extract that street out of the land that becomes V dot right of way, that was their land to begin with and they've dedicated it all.
[1:05:54] I have no issue with that whatsoever.
[1:05:56] I think if there is an existing roundabout that is in the middle of right of way, it is right of way today owned and maintained by V dot.
[1:06:04] I would say they wouldn't be able to get credit for that.
[1:06:07] All right, so we need to make sure we stipulate in these things here that are things that can be done in public right away, such as these roundabouts,
[1:06:14] that it needs to be in the confines of the land being developed by the developer so that they don't try to gain some land towards their
[1:06:25] developable space by a miniatizing and existing area and some of our development community are pretty crafty.
[1:06:34] So I just, I think that's, that's a very good comment.
[1:06:45] Any other questions on roundabouts?
[1:06:49] All right, excellent.
[1:06:50] what keep going. This is a square, a pretty self-explanatory as well.
[1:06:56] It can be used for events and gatherings. It's often surrounded by streets and
[1:07:01] or buildings. Can have a combination of lawn areas, landscaping, seating areas,
[1:07:07] always pedestrian accessible. This is a new port news. If you want to go to
[1:07:11] example of one, here it is.
[1:07:15] Now I'm going to go into the next portion. We're going to
[1:07:17] talk about strategic community space and Mr. Sloan kind of for an answer to
[1:07:22] question about can I just set aside some woods in the back of my neighborhood? This is what would have
[1:07:28] caught that developer. We have a requirement for strategic amenity space. This is your more
[1:07:33] your more improved kind of space within that larger amenity space area you're devoting. So this is a
[1:07:39] a portion of the amenity space requirement that provides a centralized or other strategic location
[1:07:44] within the project that has good pedestrian access conveniently serves the majority of the development.
[1:07:50] We're going to call this SAS for short SAS should provide the community residents with an opportunity for high quality
[1:07:56] aesthetic and are active out the amenities can be indoors as well if you have your clubhouse or indoor kind of workout rooms and that sort of thing.
[1:08:05] We like to think of this as the central focal points of developments.
[1:08:07] There really contain greater improvements once again than your typical amenity space.
[1:08:12] More active recreational uses. It can be a pool or clubhouse like you see here.
[1:08:16] However, not asking specifically for pools or buildings in all situations, we have an extensive menu of items for satisfying the strategic amenities space.
[1:08:26] So we had some concerns from the committee that were requiring everybody to put in a pool on a cloud house, but that's not the case.
[1:08:33] You still have a full menu of items, which can get you to satisfy the SAS requirement.
[1:08:39] Hey, NASA question.
[1:08:43] So when you talk about a mini space, what about, let's say you have a neighborhood you
[1:08:49] have to pay in order to be a part of the pool, so the pool doesn't come with HOA membership.
[1:08:55] How does that handle with a mini space? Do we get down to that level?
[1:08:59] Are you saying the pool does not, it's not part of the HOA?
[1:09:03] Right, it's not not a part of A to A. So, for instance,
[1:09:08] a sample, Bartdale, Bartdale started out as having their pools part of the
[1:09:11] HOA and the ladies, the pool split off. So, that pool became a private entity.
[1:09:17] On the way to become a member of that pool was to pay. Right.
[1:09:20] And it never included residents.
[1:09:22] Yes, we actually have a section about ownership and maintenance that talks about that.
[1:09:27] You have to go through first, you have to be approved by the director of planning to be able to cut that free.
[1:09:31] And we have to also take a look at your overall plan and then say, okay, if you lose this
[1:09:36] amenity space, are you losing the only required amenity space you have in your community?
[1:09:40] So a couple different factors we have to look at, but I would not say that if there's a private
[1:09:44] venue like that, it's not part of the HOA's purview, that should not be counted.
[1:09:52] Yeah, so just be interested in the kind of seat of language on that, because I know that somebody
[1:09:57] could get it through.
[1:10:01] I would say, like, site plan and get it through us and then, you know,
[1:10:08] 10, 15 years later, you know, as part of Dell, and it's some other neighborhoods that are
[1:10:16] kind of going through that also, how they would use that. The other thing was, I think it was
[1:10:28] of woodlake, I think we had their community meeting and they're, they have a new development
[1:10:34] that's coming on and they're going to possibly use the woodlake pool in HOA in order to,
[1:10:46] so is that a equation that kind of see, you know, with the existing development, then a new
[1:10:55] development, how that is there a ratio that's going to speak to that?
[1:11:02] No, actually you have to provide your amenity space in your project and satisfy the requirements
[1:11:07] of that particular zoning project.
[1:11:10] So you can't say that I'm going to use my neighboring communities pool to satisfy my requirements
[1:11:16] for amenity space.
[1:11:18] Now we do have some options that you're going to hear about later down in a few more weeks
[1:11:22] about the proper adjustment that allows certain things, but that's for public facilities, it doesn't count
[1:11:29] this in that situation. So, you know, we can't have a new development say that we're going to have
[1:11:34] our amenities space satisfied, but there may be a situation where you become in addition to woodlake
[1:11:40] and woodlake already has, you know, 50 times the amenities space they need. They have an over abundance
[1:11:47] of the many of these space. We can't look at that, but typically you have to provide them on your
[1:11:52] site. Okay. So the other thing, and just to make sure people understand this, and if I'm wrong,
[1:11:58] correct me, if we have the developer agree to this, they do their strategic community space,
[1:12:03] they have a pool in a clubhouse, and the community is built out fully, gets turned over to
[1:12:07] the residents. A year later, they decide they can't keep up with this pool in clubhouse anymore,
[1:12:12] and they decide to sell it, they have satisfied the zoning at that point, and that becomes
[1:12:17] a private transaction, and that doesn't apply to the zoning anymore.
[1:12:21] So they have to satisfy the zoning, but once the zoning is satisfied, this amount of
[1:12:26] these space can be sold off, transitioned, something can be done after it's satisfied.
[1:12:31] That's for our ownership and maintenance section comes in the play.
[1:12:34] They have to get approval from the director of planning to do that.
[1:12:37] We have a couple of different stipulations, and they're going to go over, since we've had
[1:12:41] a few questions on that. I was going to kind of breeze through that, but we can talk about it a little more when we get to that slide.
[1:12:46] Okay, thank you.
[1:12:47] Thank you.
[1:12:48] Yes, sorry to raise some ways to outgrow.
[1:12:50] But I think it's important. Thank you so much.
[1:12:53] Absolutely. Oh, great questions. I appreciate it.
[1:12:57] Okay, so getting back into that strategic community space that kind of more improved,
[1:13:01] centrally located space for talking about.
[1:13:04] All zoning districts accept the following ones require it, so the districts that it's not required in are the RCS or NBEG and WD districts and they're multiple reasons for that, but they are exempt from it.
[1:13:19] Here are the requirements for how to calculate that the SAS strategic community space.
[1:13:24] These are in our residential zoning districts.
[1:13:26] CCC SN and SU have 0.01 acre of SSP a lot.
[1:13:31] So densities of driver here.
[1:13:34] TR base is 30% of required.
[1:13:37] Amenity space, TR option.
[1:13:39] 1 is 50% of the required immunity space.
[1:13:41] UR base, 30% UR option, 150% UR option.
[1:13:46] 2 is 75% because it is a more urban kind of context.
[1:13:50] So you have less immunity space, but more strategic immunity space.
[1:13:54] AR is also back to that that same is the first SNS use at 0.01 acre of SAS per water unit.
[1:14:04] Getting into the mixed use commercial employment districts,
[1:14:07] MU base is 30% of the overall immunity space,
[1:14:10] MU option 150, MU option 2 75% CC base.
[1:14:14] We have no requirement for it.
[1:14:16] That's the only part of CC that does not require it.
[1:14:19] The other two options do.
[1:14:21] option one and two, 30% percent percent, EC base. There's no strategic
[1:14:27] community space, EC option one, it's 15%.
[1:14:32] I'm going to discuss just a
[1:14:34] little bit how those calculations have actually changed a little bit. Those
[1:14:37] figures and numbers have changed since draft one to draft two. So I'm going to
[1:14:40] go through that few moments as well. So what qualifies this strategic
[1:14:45] community space? Well, we went through a long list of items that qualifies
[1:14:48] a community space. Many of them can be slightly more improved as you see in
[1:14:53] list, I'm not going to go through all of these, just to save us some time, but we have multiple
[1:14:58] improvements that can be done to some of these.
[1:15:00] Regular amenity space items to turn them into that strategic amenity space. And once again, the location
[1:15:05] of that is important. Must be in a strategic location, central location, somewhere that takes
[1:15:10] advantage of a great view of a lake or water body, something like that, entrance to a large
[1:15:15] neighborhood, things like that. This service for trust.
[1:15:21] Do clubhouses count as amenity space? Yes, sir. So if a clubhouse also had a rooftop area, you
[1:15:31] get double for that right because you already get credit for that building or how is that going to work
[1:15:37] if structures also have rooftop? Yeah, I would think we would just count it as one building. The rooftop
[1:15:44] is meant to monetize a building that's not typically an amenity like a residential apartment building
[1:15:50] with a rooftop pool deck and that or a mixed use building or commercial building like that
[1:15:55] example for the dominion building where they added that. It's not already an amenity. It's part
[1:15:59] the amenity space required for that building. I wouldn't think we would double count that.
[1:16:06] Wouldn't a clubhouse be strategic or would it not? Yes, sir. There'd be strategic.
[1:16:11] Do I? I think I'm just missing it for else. Double check.
[1:16:20] Active recreation is what it's counted under.
[1:16:25] Well, we'll note that for Dr. A3 that can clarify that
[1:16:27] with the clubhouse counts too.
[1:16:30] Yeah, because that active recreation,
[1:16:32] if you see in the chart on the in ZOMOD and amenity space,
[1:16:36] there's a little asterisk by it,
[1:16:38] and those items are what count towards SAS versus just AS.
[1:16:42] And it's right next to there.
[1:16:45] Have the questions on this?
[1:16:47] Excellent.
[1:16:56] No longer able to change this slide.
[1:17:00] Thank you.
[1:17:04] That's a better idea.
[1:17:06] Mr. Chair, thank you.
[1:17:07] I'm sorry.
[1:17:08] Drought you were going on to another piece with SAS.
[1:17:12] So in a more urban, higher density residential area,
[1:17:17] is there any scenario where we won't require strategic amenities?
[1:17:23] I don't believe so.
[1:17:25] Unless it's one of those districts that does not require the SAS.
[1:17:30] What's best to do?
[1:17:31] Correct.
[1:17:32] Less than two acres, those kind of outs we have the exemptions.
[1:17:35] So how would planning staff respond to, let's say, a small in-fill case brought to us, perhaps, by better housing coalition, where the goal was to put as many high quality affordable houses on a parcel land, and we would all be in agreement that to add certain space, and so no HOA.
[1:18:05] right. And we want to keep the caught the ongoing cost to the resident, you know, nice streets,
[1:18:14] yards maintain, but that's it. When I want mountains, we don't want tickleball courts, we don't want
[1:18:20] liking trails, we don't want any of that. But it's a good affordable housing project that we want
[1:18:30] you get through. How do we get that case through with little to no amenity space and no strategic
[1:18:36] amenity space in an area that requires it? We have we have the under 20 lots portion that we
[1:18:44] talked about before, so if it's a small infill site has less than 20 lots, you're good. If it's
[1:18:50] you know more of a multi-family type product, the less than two acres, you don't have to provide it.
[1:18:55] There is also the proper adjustment process we're going to be talking about and you know over
[1:18:59] next few months too, where there's some opportunity there. So there's a couple different avenues.
[1:19:05] We also have a couple zoning districts with larger watts that don't require it too. But if you're
[1:19:09] talking about a small site, we're probably going to have to deal with those other the less than 20
[1:19:14] watts, the less than two acres kind of criteria. Also, I think, you know, Plaza and squares could be,
[1:19:21] you know, a fairly minimal expense. Could be a large green space with a, if there's no
[1:19:28] I'm going to get to that in a moment actually, but since you're bringing it up, why not talk about it now?
[1:19:34] We do have an option for dedication to a public entity.
[1:19:39] So you could build it and then dedicate it to Chesterfield County
[1:19:43] as something that parks in recreation or another department maintain.
[1:19:47] So there's that option as well.
[1:19:49] Therefore, they don't have to have an HOA to maintain it.
[1:19:54] We've also talked about considering maybe for draft three looking at some exceptions for affordable housing projects,
[1:20:01] but you'd have to be careful and define those in a kind of narrow fashion, so that we thought about that too,
[1:20:07] because one of the things we did here from the committee was that these amenities do add costs to the project,
[1:20:13] and those are of course passed on to the homeowner.
[1:20:16] So that is something we can think about if that's what the commission would like is to explore an exception for affordable housing projects,
[1:20:23] To a amenity space.
[1:20:27] I think that this is important. I'm sure Commissioner Owens has
[1:20:32] vast experience in here, but I mean I'll speak to a speak to a neighborhood like Rivers Band
[1:20:39] Where we struggle, right where the association
[1:20:44] Just because we want to look nice the fights that we have had to have with V dot
[1:20:49] To be able to move the grass and the median on Rivers Bend Boulevard
[1:20:56] So, Vida didn't always free willing to want to go do this stuff, right?
[1:21:00] I mean, that's part of my concern, just because we've met mapped out a path.
[1:21:06] There's always the possibility that this thing gets through zoning and everything else.
[1:21:09] And Vida says, no, we're not doing that. We're not going to grant you the easement.
[1:21:12] Because with the easement becomes the liability of the guys mowing the grass,
[1:21:17] they throw a rock and hit somebody passing car by.
[1:21:20] But also it's a neighborhood where, you know, when everything was new and shiny, it was great.
[1:21:27] But home under dues are being increased at exponential rates because now it costs $80,000 to redo the swimming pool.
[1:21:36] Make sure the tennis courts are up to par, you know, all the stuff, right, even passive equipment.
[1:21:44] It comes at significant cause and these neighborhoods that are well-established get to these thresholds,
[1:21:53] where it's just not realistic for them to be able to maintain them then to Dr. Hilton.
[1:21:59] You start getting legitimate conversations because of affordability issues.
[1:22:04] They're saying we're either going to shut down the pool, we're going to shut down the clubhouse,
[1:22:07] we're going to get rid of the tennis courts because we literally can't afford to maintain those anymore.
[1:22:12] So we put lots of things in place to create credits on the front end.
[1:22:19] That over time, that cost transfers to somebody else, right?
[1:22:26] And when we especially go back to the place of anything in the affordable space,
[1:22:33] we got this thing cannot be passed unless we have a clear way of quite frankly,
[1:22:38] stripping out as much cost as we possibly can to enable somebody to put that money into a high-quality
[1:22:46] home that it would be passed on to somebody at a affordable price.
[1:22:50] I just, we can't have a zoning ordinance that embeds so much cost at the county level.
[1:22:58] We'll always have the developments that are perfectly fine doing that because they're being
[1:23:02] sold at price points that justify the cost and that kind of stuff.
[1:23:05] But, you know, the mid to lower in, the housing we need for police officers and everybody else,
[1:23:13] we have to be able to be in a place where we're going to say we're going to build a good quality
[1:23:17] house on a nice street, maybe a sidewalk. That's it, because we can keep all of the incidental
[1:23:25] calls to a minimum. We can ensure quality, you know, quality development, but all this other stuff,
[1:23:32] But at the same time, being able to figure out how we can do density without offering the extra space.
[1:23:39] You know, that's part of the dilemma we're having is, you know, how small can that lot get?
[1:23:46] We still have quite enjoyment of your particulars, you know, a lot.
[1:23:56] clear-foot lot. The idea of having an area that kids could go kick-a-ball and other than their
[1:24:03] small backyard or their small front yard. The idea of trying to get some sort of common open
[1:24:11] space, amenity space, as we're calling it, is something we felt was an important element
[1:24:20] of ZOMOD where we've tried to expand the menu of a
[1:24:26] amenity space and even to some extent strategic amenity space to have lower cost
[1:24:32] kind of elements to be added that could be
[1:24:36] you know done and not be swimming pools or club houses
[1:24:40] or tennis court expenses it would be you know just
[1:24:45] a field or having a trail around the perimeter.
[1:24:52] So, as these lots get smaller, the need for
[1:24:57] having some of that common space staff felt was an important thing to try to include in
[1:25:05] Zoma. I'd be interested in where that, in your opinion, where that line should be drawn,
[1:25:12] and maybe that's where we need to craft, you know, a better definition of where, you know, many
[1:25:20] space should be required and not be required, is it a lot size? Is it a townhouse configuration?
[1:25:31] At some point, the private space, be simple, space you own is get so small. You got to have
[1:25:37] something else I think for kids to recreate and for people to walk around their neighborhood
[1:25:44] other than the sidewalk. Maybe as a different opinion you guys have. That's part of what
[1:25:49] we need to figure out. We're real quick on that. I'd be careful there because I think
[1:25:58] you're
[1:25:59] imposing what you personally believe. But they trust your field county everywhere we go.
[1:26:08] There are neighborhoods that were built in the 50s, the 60s, the 70s and the early 80s.
[1:26:14] They didn't have club houses, they didn't have pools, they didn't have concrete line
[1:26:17] ditches, they didn't have asphalt driveways, they are Cape Cods, I mean when housing was
[1:26:24] really expensive, the plan was you built a 900 square foot to a 1200 square foot either
[1:26:31] two bedroom or three bedroom basic rancher that had a great room, a kitchen off the back
[1:26:36] most people today put a great big honking deck on the back of it because that was their
[1:26:41] amenity space. Or they built the Cape Cod where the bedroom was down stairs and the two
[1:26:47] rooms upstairs were unfinished so as the families grew in income they could finish the upstairs
[1:26:53] of the houses. You know in the 70s and when housing costs were through the roof and interest rates
[1:26:59] were through the roof that's what was built. You ride around those neighborhoods today back up
[1:27:05] in on elementary, behind Thomasdale High School in and around where Monica is,
[1:27:12] medical record. Those neighborhoods are in abundance. The vast majority of those
[1:27:17] neighborhoods are still in fantastic shape. There's pride of ownership, there's pride of
[1:27:22] community, all those other things. None of those neighborhoods have what we're talking
[1:27:28] about here, and those neighborhoods thrive today.
[1:27:34] So I'm very leery that we are saying this is what everybody needs to have when maybe
[1:27:45] not everybody wants it.
[1:27:48] So again, not to keep being the kind of stops this thing, but we have to be careful of
[1:27:58] But somebody calls their home and they feel good about, they make the choice to seek that home out and buy it.
[1:28:07] And I think we have to be a little prescriptive, especially in an environment where home prices are what they are.
[1:28:14] And there's not a lot of daylight and sight.
[1:28:16] We have to figure out and we can't have this ordinance anything, even remotely, about this ordinance prohibit that or slow that down.
[1:28:26] So, to the extent that we're being prescriptive on everything,
[1:28:32] we need to think through that.
[1:28:36] So, can I...
[1:28:37] Okay.
[1:28:38] So, you know, one of the things I kind of agree with Commissioner Sloan here,
[1:28:44] you know, not every neighborhood needs to have an HOA,
[1:28:47] not every neighborhood needs to have 2,500 square foot houses.
[1:28:50] Some people could deal with a 7,000 square foot lot with a 1,500 square foot house with no garage.
[1:28:55] some people want those kind of starter homes that play into the affordable housing
[1:29:01] role.
[1:29:03] Affordable housing is not just making a house as 3,000 square feet affordable for somebody.
[1:29:07] It's making a house that costs what it costs, be able to be affordable, and that's kind
[1:29:12] of outside of that.
[1:29:14] When you add these amenities and create HOAs to fund them, they become accelerators of,
[1:29:22] nobody, nobody kill me for this. They've become accelerators on an unregulated tax to the homeowners and by that
[1:29:29] I mean each year as expenses go up the HOA fees go up. So you end up with your paying your personal property taxes and then you have your HOA fee
[1:29:38] You have to pay and so sometimes having this in any space is a good thing
[1:29:43] But sometimes when it falls on maintenance to somebody, some people just want to buy a house and live
[1:29:49] And sometimes there are some neighborhoods that could really just be a neighborhood that houses for people to live in that don't have comments based that have to be maintained.
[1:30:00] I think we have that missing. We talked about missing middle, about different models of houses. There's just missing middle of just having a neighborhood people can buy a house and live in it.
[1:30:10] So,
[1:30:14] I'm in awe that we even have this conversation.
[1:30:16] Okay, carried away.
[1:30:19] I mean, you know, we talk about affordable housing. I mean, like, I probably get hit more than anybody about, you know, this is affordable housing, you know, scenario.
[1:30:30] And it's just like, how do you make sure you get it in a user, you know, and this kind of gets
[1:30:38] at the heart of it.
[1:30:39] You know, if you factor in, you know, for instance, interest rates into this, and then
[1:30:46] H.O.A., I mean, you know, this would get away from somebody real quick, you know, in terms
[1:30:52] of affordability and it's something that I've kind of been saying all along but kind of
[1:31:00] one of those things I've kind of been saying it quietly because I didn't know if anybody
[1:31:03] would agree with me. You know, I do think people need to have a page driveway, I think
[1:31:09] you need to, you know, make sure that people are not parking boats in their, you know,
[1:31:15] driveways and RVs and stuff like that. You know, you need to have some standards and I
[1:31:22] I think that, you know, HOAs, help with that, but I also think, you know, community
[1:31:27] enhancement and coding for some in and other departments within the county can police
[1:31:35] that themselves.
[1:31:38] So, I'm encouraged to hear us have this conversation.
[1:31:43] You know, my major thing is that we allow smaller lot sizes and get into, you know, doing
[1:31:50] away with the many of these spaces and all that, like, how are we going to really ensure
[1:31:58] that target who are, you know, teachers, firefighters, police officers? I mean, even
[1:32:05] people in our own planning department, we're going to ensure that, you know, that are doing
[1:32:10] the planning, how are we going to make sure that they're able to afford a living house in the
[1:32:22] But the affordable housing issue is not something that we're going to just solve by eliminating
[1:32:28] amenity spaces.
[1:32:30] I think accessories dwellings might be a part of that where we're helping subsidize, possibly
[1:32:37] you know, a space over the garage with a, you know, one bedroom studio, you know, where
[1:32:47] a kid is not related or a working professional that's not related to the homeowner lives there.
[1:32:55] I mean, I think this kind of conversation and going to many different directions and I'm glad
[1:33:00] that we're having it. Is it a time in place? Probably no, but I'm glad we're having it. I'm glad
[1:33:07] that we have some
[1:33:12] good ideas as we move forward.
[1:33:18] I just want to join in on that and so I'm going to agree with my fellow commissioners I've been concerned we we have to have standards and we we do want to have the best possible community we can build but I have been getting more and more concerned
[1:33:35] that we're not letting the market
[1:33:39] have any say in what comes in the Chastro County and that we're building these.
[1:33:47] We, unintentionally, but we, we seem to be putting regulations in place that might say
[1:33:52] you are prohibited from building a home in Chastro County that's under half a million dollars.
[1:33:58] And I know that's not our intent, but it feels like that's what we're doing.
[1:34:04] And we're hearing that from the steering committee that we're putting so many
[1:34:09] rules and regulations in place that the people who are out there doing this for
[1:34:14] living are telling us look we can build that but we have customers that
[1:34:20] can't afford a half a million dollar home and you're not letting us build
[1:34:24] to that market that there's such a demand for so I think we need to figure out
[1:34:29] a way to have standards but not price out anybody who can't afford a million
[1:34:36] at home. We just have to be readily careful about that. I think everything we're talking about,
[1:34:42] we absolutely need a path where people can choose to have all these wonderful things,
[1:34:51] but we shouldn't as government be forcing it on them without them having any say, because this
[1:34:56] is a requirement that just will county saying, you know, you can't afford this, don't come.
[1:35:03] we just need to be very careful. I know that's not our intent, but you know,
[1:35:08] the King of unintended consequences over here. I think this is an unintended
[1:35:11] consequence of us as government dictating too much that people just can't
[1:35:18] afford right now, and maybe not for the foreseeable future. I just want to join
[1:35:23] and with my fellow commissioners. I think we're all in agreement here in Mr. Harden
[1:35:28] if you kind of say a few words as well.
[1:35:31] I think that.
[1:35:34] I only give one quick response to that.
[1:35:36] That's that we do have multiple residential districts
[1:35:39] where there's some options you don't have to have a
[1:35:41] minutey space.
[1:35:42] And then the final one is that we have had some internal
[1:35:44] discussions about, you know, what lot size can we get
[1:35:48] down to before we start requiring a minutey space?
[1:35:50] You know, today the standard 12,000 square feet.
[1:35:53] If you are, you know, 11,999, you have to give up
[1:35:58] have square foot of commentary. So we, we'll look at those numbers for sure and try and see
[1:36:05] where we can tweak things as well.
[1:36:08] And as a personal anecdote, I mean talking about meeting
[1:36:11] the parks, I mean chest field is amazing and the number parks we have, you know, the community
[1:36:15] amenities, but growing up is a cute who played hockey on the street and I know streets are dangerous,
[1:36:22] but it's also why alleyways are not a horrible thing. I'll say it out loud, alleys are not a horrible
[1:36:27] thing because that becomes, in my opinion, an amenity for kids to go out and play.
[1:36:34] So I think there are other ways to get a community out together and being inventive,
[1:36:40] you know, using their imagination is playing with us having to program how they play,
[1:36:45] kids will figure it out if we just give them that freedom and that free space to explore.
[1:36:51] Great, thank you. We'll go into the ownership and meet and support
[1:36:56] since we had a couple of questions about that.
[1:36:59] So as you can see, it talks about, you know,
[1:37:01] you do have to have an HOA.
[1:37:02] You have to have these amenity spaces recorded
[1:37:04] by Covenant Deed or similar legal instrument.
[1:37:08] They can be conveyed or dedicated to the county,
[1:37:10] like we talked about before,
[1:37:12] Rosalind's a case where we're gonna see
[1:37:13] some of that happen with their linear park system.
[1:37:16] They also have to establish some sort of organization
[1:37:18] for ownership and maintenance,
[1:37:20] and so that may be the HOA or some other group.
[1:37:23] That organization shall not be dissolved
[1:37:25] or disposed of a band, then the amenity space areas without first getting approval from the director
[1:37:32] planning. So they could study Dr. Hilton's point about what if they want to sell off the pool
[1:37:36] to a private entity? Well, we've got to get approval for that. We have to say, okay, you don't have
[1:37:41] any other amenity space, we can't really approve that sale and that sort of thing for going on,
[1:37:47] that transfer. Also that this section also complies with our landscaping and screening standards
[1:37:54] and 19.233B. So those are some of the things that they have to deal with for maintenance
[1:37:59] as well as that landscape view.
[1:38:03] So there exists this scenario where we have a neighborhood that is 20 years down the road,
[1:38:14] the citizens of the neighborhood have aged, and they have a lot of active amenities based.
[1:38:21] for those clubhouses, 10 hell.
[1:38:23] It's good, cool, clubhouses, tennis courts, that kind of stuff.
[1:38:29] The HOA is operated by the residents of that neighborhood.
[1:38:37] That HOA, at the vote of the residents of the neighborhood,
[1:38:43] come to the determination they can no longer afford
[1:38:46] to operate the amenity space.
[1:38:48] they want to close it down and the director planning says no, you can't close it down.
[1:39:00] I think that's a pretty extreme situation to describe,
[1:39:05] but obviously this is draft one, a draft two,
[1:39:09] and we'll have to look into other maybe solutions to that.
[1:39:13] I don't think it was our intent to be draconian and require a pool stay open,
[1:39:18] along, beyond its usefulness or effectiveness within the neighborhood, I don't think we have a fair answer for you at this time as to how to handle that particular situation other than we would consider all the elements of that particular neighborhood and hopefully come up with a reasonable solution to how that neighborhood would go on.
[1:39:46] the idea of us forcing a neighborhood to continue to operate a pool that they don't want
[1:39:51] to operate or it's too expensive for them.
[1:39:53] Two operators is not a position I think we would take, but again, we don't have that codified.
[1:40:02] So we'll have to look into that a bit more.
[1:40:04] And this is one of the concerns brought up by the committee the other week as well.
[1:40:07] So we did want to circle back with them and get them to assist us with how this can be written.
[1:40:14] I
[1:40:20] guess I was a little caught off guard to say that was an extreme scenario, because if the director
[1:40:25] of landing saying no to a request is extreme, why would we even have it in there that they would ever come to you like no should be an acceptable answer I would think.
[1:40:39] But I guess that means really need to think through, if they're coming to you, they're probably in dire straits and there's a legitimate reason.
[1:40:50] But we're not even an extreme answer to me means we need to think through how much of a safeguard
[1:40:56] that actually is against us building stuff that we cannot discolay in main team.
[1:41:06] And I think all the new buildings are perfect, I mean you, we've learned this along
[1:41:12] about 60, you can't just fund the building of even landscape.
[1:41:19] You're not going to put a $10,000 towards landscaping unless you know you can maintain
[1:41:25] that into the future or it actually becomes worse than just having concrete, which be
[1:41:31] that would maintain.
[1:41:33] So we just need to be very careful that we have not just the plant problem funded at the time
[1:41:38] of the zoning, but that work prepared to have them come to us and say, we can no longer
[1:41:44] for you, what are you going to do and you prepared to say no, I guess, and what is our, what
[1:41:51] is our, I don't actually have to do it.
[1:41:53] Well, Mr. Chair, in granted, yes, my scenario was extreme, but I would say anybody that has
[1:42:01] exposure to development.
[1:42:05] Let's just say during 2008.
[1:42:09] The reality is until a development is completely built out.
[1:42:17] The developer could represent either the entirety of or the majority of the voting block of an HOA.
[1:42:26] So you could have a development that was approved for 500 homes, there could be 150 under
[1:42:33] roof, we go through dire economic situations, the developers on the verge of perhaps
[1:42:39] going out of business, and he comes to you and says, I need to shut down these amenities
[1:42:43] because of the current economic situation that we're having. It's not an extreme scenario.
[1:42:51] And it's a basic affordability. You're not to say how you would handle it. I'm just saying,
[1:42:55] And there are a multitude of these scenarios, and I guess one last question for Rob is,
[1:43:03] I mean, can the county, how comfortable are we legally that the county can be in the middle
[1:43:09] of the decision of private parties to sell their property based on the terms of, I mean,
[1:43:16] these have to be proffered conditions.
[1:43:20] Mr. Sloan, we do that now.
[1:43:23] The current zoning ordinance in 19.1303 requires that if you have common area for a lot subdivision
[1:43:32] that you create in HOA in one of the conditions that have to be put, it has to be put in
[1:43:39] the declarations is that the HOA cannot dispose of any property or dissolve its existence
[1:43:46] without the prior approval of the director planning.
[1:43:52] So, in situations where we've had developments that were based off golf courses and those golf courses went away
[1:44:00] and they were replaced by conservation easements.
[1:44:06] The director planning approved all of those real estate transactions.
[1:44:10] It would have depended upon when that particular subdivision was plated and approved.
[1:44:20] I mean, the requirements that we have now, I think have been in place,
[1:44:26] I mean, someone can correct me if, you know, better, at least 10 or 15 years,
[1:44:32] but before then, they wouldn't have been there as a protection.
[1:44:36] enough. Thanks.
[1:44:40] Great.
[1:44:41] The other questions on this portion?
[1:44:47] I just want to do a summary of our changes that we've incorporated into draft two since draft one.
[1:44:54] One of the big things we did and this came out of our testing of cases, you know,
[1:44:58] we actually took, um, exist.
[1:45:00] 16 and proposed zoning cases that are in the pipeline today. And we did some measurements using some drafting software and our GIS software to try and see, you know, what percentages of the site area using our news of mod terms like net acreage and that sort of thing how this calculations work out how they fit.
[1:45:19] We did quite a number of different cases and projects.
[1:45:23] We did some outside of the county as well, which I'll show.
[1:45:26] So I'm going to give just a few examples here in a moment.
[1:45:29] But what they did is they really, they really
[1:45:33] showed us that a lot of our residential districts
[1:45:36] are really heavy-handed and some of our commercial ones too.
[1:45:39] So we have amended and adjusted a lot of the numbers.
[1:45:43] We decreased the commercial employment substantially,
[1:45:46] especially when you're talking about, you know, some of those industrial districts employment districts that really don't need a
[1:45:52] amenity space or not much of it. So we decrease those.
[1:45:59] We adjusted all the residential districts.
[1:46:02] We adjusted the mixed use districts as well in commercial districts.
[1:46:07] So, one thing that we did is, before with our single family districts, we had a 30% strategic
[1:46:15] community space requirement and that was 30% of the required amenity space and what we found
[1:46:23] was that was really heavy-handed. We were taking a percentage of the net acreage and then taking
[1:46:27] another percentage of that and our case testing was showing that in pretty much every case it was failing.
[1:46:33] So we dropped that down. What we did is we came up with this calculation for 0.01 acre per
[1:46:40] louder unit. And so what that did is it took a project, a residential, single-family subdivision
[1:46:47] which you think of, they're typically larger, they're more land-heavy, but have lower density.
[1:46:53] What this does is it uses the density as the driver for that strategic amenity space,
[1:46:59] as opposed to using land, which could be a massive chunk of land and trying to take 30 percent
[1:47:05] of that. And we found that we were either meeting that or the cases that did not meet that
[1:47:11] were very close. So we could have probably gotten in there with a little bit more SAS.
[1:47:18] We also maintained the percentages of SAS that 30 percent and other percentages for townhomes
[1:47:23] multi-family. That made sense to keep that percentage of the overall
[1:47:28] amenity space as SAS because those are typically smaller sites but higher
[1:47:33] density. So it worked out better with those to actually have the percentage as
[1:47:37] opposed to that point on one measure we did for single-family districts. We also
[1:47:42] increase the percentage of SAS for UR and MU districts and the idea is that those
[1:47:47] are smaller sites they're more compact, they're more urban, they're more dense. So we
[1:47:53] one of the see the more improved kind of higher value
[1:47:56] amenities like plazas or hard-scape pedestrian areas,
[1:48:00] things like that.
[1:48:01] But we also still, while some of those other items
[1:48:03] like the front-age landscape being
[1:48:05] or trails and RPA, things like that,
[1:48:07] can still count here and there.
[1:48:10] Roof top amenities, obviously,
[1:48:11] that's something that's going to come in the play
[1:48:12] hopefully more in the U-R and M-U district as well.
[1:48:18] Here's another thing we looked at.
[1:48:19] We looked at those 200 foot sound setbacks
[1:48:22] along limited access highways.
[1:48:23] We've had quite a few cases. We had chartered a colony a couple years ago that came in and wanted to put a
[1:48:29] a disc golf
[1:48:30] Course and part of that area where there are power lines. It was already cleared. It was open. Why not use it for an amenity space?
[1:48:36] We did limit it to only half of a setback. So if you get down to
[1:48:40] 100 feet of setback, you can no longer cut into that because you've already cut the limited access highway
[1:48:47] 200 foot setback in half. But if you had say 180 feet, you can cut it down a little
[1:48:53] This is not addressed in the Common Area Amendment a couple years ago that charter colony case really got us to start thinking about that right around the same time that amendment was going through what we just didn't address the time so we've incorporated it here.
[1:49:08] Are there any extent are there any are there any things that would change that opinion so let's say charter colony built built built a big sound wall literally a big sound wall.
[1:49:21] within that would we grant an exception to allow more encroachment in that area
[1:49:26] and count if there's something structural there?
[1:49:30] I don't believe so. Sometimes that's actually one of the criteria that they have to use to get approval from c.v. to reduce that.
[1:49:37] But at that point, if they're reducing it below 100 feet and width, we're not going to give them the credit.
[1:49:43] But if they build a sound wall and they only eat up 50 feet of the sound set back, we can still give them 50 feet.
[1:49:53] Next tree preservation areas, we counted these, these are those areas we see in some of our really successful neighborhoods like
[1:50:01] Brandon Mill and Woodlake where there's strips of common area between the backs of lots that provide a nice tree buffer.
[1:50:09] So we wanted to encourage this in some of our single family areas. They're really, they're really helpful for neighbors who back up to each other and want a little bit of privacy.
[1:50:17] You know, a six to seven foot fence usually doesn't cut it, but a 15, 20 foot swath of mature
[1:50:24] trees is nice. And you can go watered in that too. So we wanted to encourage that as a way of
[1:50:29] tree preservation as well.
[1:50:33] Next we talked earlier about how only areas around residential
[1:50:36] BMPs could be counted as a many of these space. What we didn't include in draft one was
[1:50:41] structures that are placed above the BMPs. Even though the surface, you know, the water surface
[1:50:46] maybe not counted. If you were to put a bridge or a dock or a pavilion like you see here across
[1:50:54] it, we could count that area. Now it's just going to count the, you know, it's going to be limited
[1:50:58] to the width of that structure. You know, you have a 12-foot wide bridge as you see in this photo,
[1:51:03] it's going to count 12 feet by the length of it and that's it. A private dock that is for just a
[1:51:09] personal lot, that's not going to count. So we're not going to allow that. If you do that in, you know,
[1:51:18] Another change of graph 2 is that the entire BMP including the water surface and our non-residential
[1:51:24] developments we thought should be counted if amenetized.
[1:51:28] And you see some photos here that the top right one is a pretty famous BMP and Newport News,
[1:51:33] the city center at Oyster Point.
[1:51:35] I mean, that entire thing is the amenity for sides of walking trails and sitting areas around it.
[1:51:40] People have a nice view from the buildings.
[1:51:42] They have a nice view from all these areas along the edge of it.
[1:51:45] They have fountains, they shoot fireworks off there, they have, you know, they color the fountain,
[1:51:50] they're in St. Patty's day and stuff like that. So it really is the amenity in that sense.
[1:51:55] And then if you look at what I feel crossing the picture down below, that's an excellent example
[1:52:00] of when we've done here in Chesterfield. Has walking past where you can walk the whole perimeter of it,
[1:52:05] has fountains in the mill. You've got multiple businesses that are developing above it. So you can
[1:52:10] out over the water. And that's what makes sitting at, you know, the brewery there or Wong's
[1:52:16] talk out, that's what makes it just wonderful to sit out there and just enjoy the waterfront.
[1:52:25] Another one, in the more urban areas, we've added an allowance for crosswalks. However,
[1:52:30] they're only counted where they're clearly donated with pavers. They can be raised crosswalks,
[1:52:35] but we're not just allowing people to paint stripes on the ground and count that. They have to
[1:52:39] these more permanent improvements. Like I said, you see these near more mixed use areas. Once again,
[1:52:45] to the right, when I feel crossing is a good example of those pavers, they look really nice there.
[1:52:52] And if you think about it, a lot of crosswalks are going to give you a little bit of a
[1:52:55] amenity space, but each one of those is going to help you a little bit these more urban areas where you have
[1:53:00] less land, and you've got to really meet that higher quality manner space. Next, catwalks, pedestrian
[1:53:07] bikeway bridges or tunnels over under roads or railroads. These are something we didn't
[1:53:11] consider before that you count. They have to be a separate structure for the sole purpose
[1:53:17] of walking and biking. We're not going to give you credit if you build a bridge for a road and then
[1:53:22] you have a sidewalk alongside. That's the typical thing. You shouldn't get credit for that.
[1:53:26] But these separate structures like you see here, we've got rock and slanting in the top right.
[1:53:31] We've got the WNoD trail up and hurned in Virginia with the bridge over.
[1:53:35] So that's a really great one.
[1:53:37] We've also given you a massive credit for that
[1:53:39] because these are such a high dollar.
[1:53:41] We've given you a credit of 10 times for that.
[1:53:44] Now, it's just the surface area, the width
[1:53:46] and length of the bridge.
[1:53:47] You're not counting a buffer area outside of that.
[1:53:51] But because these are so expensive,
[1:53:52] we don't expect a lot of developers
[1:53:54] are going to install these.
[1:53:55] A lot of these will probably be more county projects,
[1:53:57] but where they can, they should get a good credit for that.
[1:54:00] Because they are something we would like to see more
[1:54:03] especially pedestrian bridges across
[1:54:05] a mid-Lothian turnpike near stone bridges,
[1:54:07] something like that.
[1:54:08] This would be really important.
[1:54:11] Another one, dedication to land.
[1:54:14] We had talked about different items like park schools,
[1:54:19] fire stations, police stations, things like that.
[1:54:22] What we left out was transit stations.
[1:54:24] So we added transit stations.
[1:54:26] We also changed the language a little bit
[1:54:28] that addresses dedication before.
[1:54:30] we said it could only be dedicated to the county, but now we're talking about you can
[1:54:35] dedicate it to any public entity. So V dot DCR, DPRT, that sort of thing. We'll give
[1:54:41] you a credit for that. So if we, you know, if we have a mixed use development, like
[1:54:45] Spring line at District 60 and they want to build a new bus stop in that, you know, as part
[1:54:51] of that development incorporated and have the little pull off the shelter, that's something
[1:54:55] they should get some credit for. It's a very small credit, but you know, every little bit
[1:54:59] going to help in these more urban situations.
[1:55:04] The next one is we found an interesting way to
[1:55:10] sort of calculate projects where we had multiple districts in one project, multiple zoning
[1:55:16] districts, or multiple options. We really had a challenge as to how to break them apart to
[1:55:23] calculate each part and what each one's amenity space would be because each of these options
[1:55:27] and this picture here. These are three different options in our TR district. Option one,
[1:55:34] which is multifamily to your base, which are the alley-loaded townhomes and then the street
[1:55:39] version, which are the front-loaded townhomes, with garages and driveways out front
[1:55:42] on the street. They'll have different requirements. So the challenge here was to decide how
[1:55:49] do we calculate that in a way that makes sense. With a lot of these projects, you can't just
[1:55:54] a site or subdivision size because a lot of times that site or subdivision include some of
[1:56:00] the amenity space within that project. So you can't just use that subdivision boundary.
[1:56:05] What we did here, we came up with a calculation where you use the ratio of the number of units
[1:56:11] with an each district or option to the total number of units on the Met project acreage.
[1:56:17] And we have a really good sample calculation in Zoma down on the very last page of the
[1:56:21] is a melody space section that gives you an example of how to calculate that. And we did a
[1:56:27] couple of test cases. This is once again the rockwood square case, which has been a great
[1:56:30] test case for us, worked out really well here. And we came out much higher than the typical
[1:56:37] melody space requirement, if you broke the pieces apart. But we also found that it wasn't punitive
[1:56:42] either. And the cases we tested, it wasn't requiring more than you would if you broke it up
[1:56:47] in the three different subdivisions. If you had those perfect boundaries that, you know,
[1:56:51] or lines of streets or that sort of thing.
[1:56:53] So worked out really well for that calculation.
[1:56:56] I'm showing here just on the final part of the test that
[1:56:59] you know, the requirement was for 4.13 acres of a
[1:57:03] many of these space, you got almost six.
[1:57:06] For SAS, it was 1.7 acres and they provided over 4 acres
[1:57:11] of strategic amenities space.
[1:57:13] So it met the test easily.
[1:57:15] Now I'm just going to go through a couple other test cases that we had.
[1:57:19] I won't talk too much about the numbers, I'll just kind of go through these, but Cambria
[1:57:23] Cova was a great example of one of our older sort of cluster developments, you know,
[1:57:28] smaller lots with a requirement for common area.
[1:57:33] You can see the red areas in the middle, that's our strategic amenities space, our SAS.
[1:57:38] That was like a clubhouse area, a playground, some other amenities, and that's kind of
[1:57:44] centrally located.
[1:57:45] If you look to the north of that, there's a long strip of kind of green area and that's where they put a trail into the RPA.
[1:57:52] So they got that 100 foot credit through a big portion of the RPA because that trail swings around connects to multiple cul-de-sax,
[1:58:00] and then connects directly to your strategic amenities base area.
[1:58:03] So this is a really good example for how that works in some of our single-family districts.
[1:58:07] Let's say this was like a, you know, our SN district or something like that. It would it would work out well with the SN district.
[1:58:17] Take that one out. Next one is Winterfield Park.
[1:58:20] I know you all are familiar with this in mid-Lothian.
[1:58:23] This actually had this had single family, small lot single family units, 5,000 square foot minimum lots and then smaller town home lots as well.
[1:58:34] This was also two different options.
[1:58:36] This could be SUOps and two, which are alley-loaded, single-family, and then TR-based alley, which
[1:58:42] is a kind of real-loaded townhome projects.
[1:58:47] And this one worked very well.
[1:58:49] Also, we had a good strategic amenity space in the middle of that red area.
[1:58:53] We had some trails to go through the RPA and connect over to another street to the West.
[1:58:58] So they're able to really take advantage of that and worked out well with our all our calculations.
[1:59:03] Next year is another recent case, the Steinmark Center case.
[1:59:07] This is a great example of what would be our CC option 2 that kind of mixed used in our CC
[1:59:13] district.
[1:59:14] This is also what we would consider the UCO, the urban quarter overlay, which has a 10% amenity
[1:59:20] space requirement.
[1:59:22] But with this case, they did a great job of putting in some strategic amenity spaces in
[1:59:26] the red.
[1:59:27] And then some more normal kind of passive spaces towards the back, there's a BMP that they're going to run a trail around and use that, maybe put a dog park factor or some things like that, so this one worked out really well.
[1:59:41] For some out-it-town examples, Libby Mill is a really great example, has a little bit of every kind of a mini-d-space you can imagine, has trails,
[1:59:48] It has central areas, it has a BMP in the middle with a decking area over it, it has some
[1:59:56] courtyard that are more improved, it has a clubhouse and pool area.
[2:00:00] Area that's incredibly looked, it's beautiful. I mean, they did a great job on all their amenities here. And this one worked really well for our MU district. We actually got it to, we tested it on our two higher intensity MU districts. So option two, our community mixed use and then our regional mixed use and it worked out for both. So this is a great example for our MU district of how many space works out.
[2:00:29] This was a really interesting example, and this is kind of showing us that you could have a big box shopping center and a CC district here under ZOMOD and have amenity space that works.
[2:00:43] This is over in James City County, just kind of near the Williamsburg Pottery Factory of people familiar with that.
[2:00:50] And, and this was a good example, like I said, a big box retail where they put in a giant
[2:00:55] amenity space in the middle. It's like a central green. And people go out there and take
[2:00:59] their sandwiches from the sandwich shop or, you know, their food from the Harris teeter and go
[2:01:03] out there and eat and people walk their dogs there. It's really nice. I mean, it's really made
[2:01:09] this, not just the shopping center, but something more enjoyable to come visit. So you're not
[2:01:13] just taking your gallon of milk and going home. This is somewhere we can spend some time and
[2:01:17] it. They also have a trail along that main arterial to the south so that's something that was
[2:01:22] credited because it weaves in and out of that parameter landscape set back down there.
[2:01:28] So that's the end of our testing. I just have a couple more real quick ones to go to.
[2:01:33] Our final change I wanted to note was the addition of a sample calculation for how a
[2:01:38] typical development would calculate their many these space and strategic many these space.
[2:01:43] This is really done to help customers and citizens better understand the calculations
[2:01:47] and how it works. So we took a, you know, a development took all the, the factors like
[2:01:51] Medaic Ridge and RPA and, and number of units and that sort of thing, and did a calculation.
[2:01:56] So, this is down at the very bottom in the amenity space section just to give people an example.
[2:02:03] I just want to say before I yield the floor for the next section, I know this has been pretty long
[2:02:07] and I apologize for that.
[2:02:10] I did want to note that we did hear some concerns from the advisory committee
[2:02:14] that the overall amenity space requirements are a little too stringent still may impact housing affordability
[2:02:19] like some of you all brought up today. We'll say we are requiring a many of these space for the larger
[2:02:24] lots as well as some of our commercial employment districts that is certainly a new paradigm for
[2:02:30] test of field counting. Like I said before 12,000 square foot lots in below once you get below
[2:02:35] 12,000 that's when it kicked in. Now it's a little higher than that but something we can certainly look at.
[2:02:41] I did want to say however we are still providing that large menu of items so there are many different ways
[2:02:46] you can satisfy the requirements.
[2:02:48] It's not all that high value,
[2:02:50] kind of SAS that's going to be counted.
[2:02:55] I would say also that our goal in this section
[2:03:00] is really to create places.
[2:03:02] And that's part of the big part of this amenity space section.
[2:03:06] We want to create places, not just subdivisions.
[2:03:10] We have a lot of subdivisions today
[2:03:12] with no community amenities like some of you brought up.
[2:03:15] and no public parks in proximity.
[2:03:18] And so one of the issues we're having at the county level too
[2:03:21] is land becomes more and more expensive and more scarce
[2:03:24] as development and other things take it up.
[2:03:26] It becomes challenging for the county
[2:03:28] to provide additional park land.
[2:03:31] So in conclusion of this, creating amenities
[2:03:33] within developments can help fill some of those gaps
[2:03:37] in a park system, also supplement that system.
[2:03:40] This is a really important component.
[2:03:42] Really appreciate it, and I will now turn it over
[2:03:44] to Mr. Jeff Lampson.
[2:03:47] Thank you,
[2:04:11] Drew.
[2:04:12] My microphone on, all right, we are back.
[2:04:15] And Mr. Lampson, I guess we will continue with Zoma.
[2:04:19] And everybody's coffin fits.
[2:04:21] Might be able to give everybody a break.
[2:04:22] It was a rough 15 minutes.
[2:04:26] I think they're right.
[2:04:33] Yes, come on, Senator Petrovsky,
[2:04:35] members of the Commission, Director Gillies.
[2:04:37] We're here today to talk about Bill and its standards
[2:04:38] for building design for draft two, Zomaude.
[2:04:42] We may recognize some of these standards
[2:04:43] from the existing zoning ordinance, and also many of these are taken from standard
[2:04:49] proffers from zoning cases over the recent past.
[2:04:53] We have had responses from the advisory committee that informed us that we had maybe gone too
[2:04:58] far, so we had scaled back some of these requirements and their application of their
[2:05:02] of their of.
[2:05:07] So getting to this particular section here, we have county-wide standards, and we've recognized
[2:05:14] here that we have a couple of these props are at a place that our place will be moved to the
[2:05:18] residential section as engrages will be too. So we have claddy materials which will be in
[2:05:24] a countywide standard and parking decks which will may also be likely to move to commercial
[2:05:30] and make sure you standard.
[2:05:34] So first up is the direct vent fireplace which is some new modern
[2:05:38] convenience that we have and these have been occurring unfortunately on front edge is some of the
[2:05:44] buildings, so that was a detraction from the nice front elevations that we've been getting,
[2:05:51] so this is to address that concern to have these boxes placed on the sides and the rear.
[2:06:00] Clad in materials, no buildings have been covered with or exposed to view having end painted
[2:06:05] or unfinished concrete block or unfinished corrugated metal. An unfinished sheet metal,
[2:06:09] this is a current standard in the ordinance and in the plies and all, overlay districts in one
[2:06:17] in the block, corrugated metal,
[2:06:19] underneath the seat metal and plight,
[2:06:20] the county was standard.
[2:06:24] Moving on to attach for us,
[2:06:25] which will be moved to the residential section.
[2:06:30] We concerned about the front edges of the street
[2:06:33] for the amount of garage doors that we see,
[2:06:37] the standard would limit the door opening
[2:06:40] of the garage to 50% of the overall elevation
[2:06:45] or front elevation there.
[2:06:46] We recognize this is a standard that may not be very difficult to meet with townhomes and
[2:06:52] we're going to need an ever-parrowing townhome product, so we're going to have a valuable
[2:06:57] weight how that may apply and may not be 50% and maybe 60% or something, we're still looking
[2:07:02] into that.
[2:07:03] We also heard from the steering committee that they did not like the prohibition on the
[2:07:11] garage being behind the front facade either, so there was quite a bit of discussion.
[2:07:16] I'm sure you remember Mr. Petroski around the garage is the percent was one how much percentage of the front facade and then to the placement of the garage.
[2:07:26] We want it behind the front facade. They felt that that was too too far. So just to let the group know.
[2:07:34] So can we actually talk about that for a second? Because I am curious again.
[2:07:39] I might err on the side of government, getting as involved as little as possible as long as we're keeping the community safe.
[2:07:50] And what is the impetus for us mandating garage size?
[2:07:57] I mean, why do we dictate that rather than letting the private market have say in that?
[2:08:06] Many of these issues have been taken from surveys that we've done in the community, and they have
[2:08:11] indicated us that some of these homes and developments that are dominated by garages on the front are not as attractive as they'd like to see.
[2:08:21] Anybody else have any anything to add to that?
[2:08:24] How I just kind of reinforce what Jeff just said that we, you know, the appearance, the
[2:08:31] autocentric aspect of having a high percentage of your front yard being driveway and
[2:08:38] a protruding garage door or portion of your garage was something that most instances has not been
[2:08:50] popular look and trying to create a bit more of the ability to camouflage or hide the garage a bit
[2:09:07] with certain techniques. One technique is to set it back a bit from the front front the side.
[2:09:13] The other is to try to incorporate maybe some improvements or elements around the door itself
[2:09:20] or put it on its side.
[2:09:22] So it's just trying to create a bit more attractiveness
[2:09:25] of the neighborhood and some of the popular comments
[2:09:29] that have been made over the years in reference
[2:09:31] to some of you.
[2:09:34] OK, so I may be in the minority, but when it comes
[2:09:37] to popularity or attractiveness, to me,
[2:09:41] that's quite subjective.
[2:09:44] And if there's no safety or quality or something
[2:09:49] that we can, I guess, quantify, and we're just saying that we think something is more or less
[2:09:56] attractive, then I'm not sure the ordinance is the place for that because this is, I mean,
[2:10:01] this is law.
[2:10:02] This is, we're saying it must be attractive by our perception of what attractiveness means.
[2:10:10] But if we don't have this in there, there's nothing preventing a case by case scenario
[2:10:15] saying, well, for this development, we would prefer a certain percentage of this in that
[2:10:19] but locking it down 100% county-wide seems, it quite frankly, it seems like government
[2:10:25] overreached.
[2:10:27] Mr. Chair, I would concur, and I actually, I'm a mess on which here it was, but if we go back
[2:10:34] far enough, there was actually, there was actually previous commissions tried to go through
[2:10:40] like having design books and stuff like that.
[2:10:45] And I think getting into the specifics of architecture
[2:10:49] and design and being prescriptive on how something
[2:10:55] should look, I think a lot of times in the past,
[2:11:00] we've kind of always kind of felt that we
[2:11:04] want to ensure that the materials are of quality and kind
[2:11:08] will last and you know minimum widths of vinyl and stuff like that. But I think we've had
[2:11:14] some willingness areas where there's high density and so forth to you know discuss repetition
[2:11:22] and architectural design but kind of holding up on the prescriptive nature of exactly how
[2:11:26] something should work and you don't want all of that. I think that kind of stuff I think I can
[2:11:33] So,
[2:11:39] I have ID2, it just seems to me that this is something that would be better suited
[2:11:48] in the HOA and architectural review documents for the particular development and not a county
[2:11:57] wide issue.
[2:11:58] So, my personal opinion on that.
[2:12:05] This next example is in the demonstration of how it would not apply, so this is a side-facing,
[2:12:11] which does not face the streets to propose all this garage with, would be only for street-facing,
[2:12:24] really.
[2:12:31] We looked up the earlier relatives,
[2:12:39] and so this is a standard that would require accessories, structures, and garages to be architectural, compatible with the primary dwelling unit.
[2:12:46] Of course there would be some instances where we need to examine this more closely in terms of perhaps the height of this structure would be
[2:12:54] have to be compatible and we recognize there maybe some sheds and things like that nature that if they're not visible from the street would not be able to submit something to this requirement.
[2:13:09] So, screening of the HPA equipment, propane tanks, generator screening, foundation planings,
[2:13:17] and we've just mentioned the elevation repetition, portraits and stupes and corner side units.
[2:13:23] This is an example of how the HVAC equipment can be screened with a little whiteboard fence.
[2:13:30] The requirements for landscaping and any screening is initially to be done at times of CO,
[2:13:36] is not something that the county would pursue as an enforcement issue to long-term.
[2:13:44] Now, the Asian plantains would be required along with the front facade and corner
[2:13:49] stop-fasads, anything that faces a street,
[2:13:56] and then the elevation and repetition where we
[2:13:57] don't have in the units located adjacent to each other directly across the street, on the same
[2:14:03] road, and a variation of the front elevation shall not be used simply by mirroring the facade.
[2:14:10] Here on the lower right, lower left, demonstration that we're talking about with the dominance of, in this example, actually the garage doors, as well as the repetition of the same product all the way down the street.
[2:14:26] Sorry.
[2:14:27] You can finish your sentence before we go to the next slide.
[2:14:30] Sure.
[2:14:30] The upper right is just two single family residents that were built identical next to each other.
[2:14:37] So, this is another item where I feel like, in general, I think this is great, you know,
[2:14:43] we don't want them and not me.
[2:14:46] But when we're thinking about county-wide 100% has to follow these rules that we're putting
[2:14:54] in place, there are some areas where, let's say it's red brick, where...
[2:15:00] It's a very classy look to just be continuous. Is there a way for, you know, a classy red brick continuous type of development to go in or are we really saying that just blanket statement, no repetition? How do we handle that?
[2:15:18] Certainly with the quality of standard of a brick if there was some way to modify the perhaps the details of the brick over the windows or some type of modification.
[2:15:27] I think everywhere that I can think of where we have a.
[2:15:31] Continuous masonry elevations down the street with a townhouse development in New York or other places, there's a variety included in.
[2:15:38] Between these buildings, especially when they're sort of close to each other.
[2:15:42] But certainly, we can entertain quality as an issue that could be taken into account, maybe
[2:15:48] to offset or allow for more repetition of front doors, could be, and as many ways to comply
[2:15:55] with this, doesn't have to be a totally different standard.
[2:15:58] It could be the same model as modified slightly with the doors or the front porch's, the
[2:16:03] roof lines, different minor changes to the building, allow for the variation.
[2:16:10] I guess we're getting as, do we need variation in 100% of our developments across the
[2:16:17] county?
[2:16:17] Because I almost feel like then we, we go to the other stream, we're forcing variation.
[2:16:24] And sometimes it's not appropriate, and it's like it's too blanket to say that everything
[2:16:30] must have a variation and you can not just have a common looking, you know, row of homes.
[2:16:38] I don't know if, if I'm alone on this one, I just, again, I want to make sure that we're not over prescribing and forcing something that maybe is not 100% of the time required.
[2:16:50] Mr. Petroski, is your issue with the materials or with the actual elevation like the house plan?
[2:16:57] Because what we're talking about here is house plan. You could have a whole neighborhood of red brick but of different house plans.
[2:17:03] This is this is speaking to, you know, I have like the top example there on the same house plan over and over and over all the way down the street, you know, regardless of what material you put on is the same.
[2:17:15] Craig, and I guess I'm saying there are places and I think somewhere along the lines I've seen, I can't think of that man, but it was red brick or white brick and the material doesn't matter, but those are examples of there have been communities where there was a row of homes that were absolutely identical.
[2:17:33] And it didn't mean they were low quality, it didn't mean they were unsafe.
[2:17:37] It just meant that that was aesthetically pleasing to somebody.
[2:17:42] And again, it's a subjective thing to say that, just for County,
[2:17:46] can never have something look that way because we think that's not attractive.
[2:18:02] You drop in these communities and is that, they all, that's not the way we want to
[2:18:10] prove it from ever.
[2:18:12] I mean, obviously, the one on the bottom is nothing but repetition, but with the exception
[2:18:19] to apply the two on this and looks like they've all been sold and they're people living
[2:18:23] in there and they like them exactly and that neighbor doesn't offend me personally.
[2:18:34] I guess there's a common theme and I want to keep, you know, hammering that drum, but I,
[2:18:39] I'm of the belief that we should be careful how much we put into a county-wide 100% everybody
[2:18:47] must follow this prescription of what, you know, just what county is saying, you have to do it
[2:18:55] an hour away because this is what we have found attractive, just want to be careful of that.
[2:19:02] Moving forward, we have ways to comply, which provide options that the developer may choose from.
[2:19:10] This is part of the Boarding Repetition by simply mirroring the same building.
[2:19:17] The ways that we can achieve the Boarding Repetition by providing the portals and entries can vary.
[2:19:26] different massacred, very roof-line sighting projections
[2:19:31] and other style considerations can be taken into effect.
[2:19:37] Here are two buildings that are probably the same model,
[2:19:41] slightly modified, the one on the left has a greater setback.
[2:19:46] But you can see the basic form of these buildings is pretty much the same.
[2:19:50] But they've changed the materials, changed the window trim,
[2:19:54] and the siding shutters in the roof is been slightly modified?
[2:20:04] We found it just having some subtle ability to vary the sod and to kind of creates a
[2:20:12] little more interest and long term sustainability in the neighborhood.
[2:20:21] What do you mean by sustainability?
[2:20:22] I think, you know, the idea that if getting away from just, you know, the cookie cutter street, that particular street, I would, I would, I think historically has been proven not to be as continued to be as long lasting as a owner occupied, consider as situation as as maybe one that had a little bit of variety within the street.
[2:20:49] I think most of the builders have come to the conclusion
[2:20:53] that creating basically the houses on either side
[2:20:57] or across from each of these particular design house,
[2:21:01] providing a little bit of difference in that plan
[2:21:04] creates a little more uniqueness of the neighborhood
[2:21:08] and as a more marketable in the long.
[2:21:10] All we're trying to do is kind of keep some
[2:21:12] of those basic elements in place.
[2:21:17] We've tried to really limit the number of elements that we're imposing as building designs
[2:21:24] within Zoma.
[2:21:26] If you all feel it's governmental overreach, then I guess this is a good time to kind
[2:21:30] of share with us where you think that's happening.
[2:21:33] So,
[2:21:39] we've, we've, from a staff perspective felt there are a lot of fairly simple and
[2:21:47] affected ways for builders to provide a little bit of variety within the elevation with
[2:21:56] the options that Jeff has just listed, and that doesn't really burden them in reference
[2:22:02] to affordability or constructability of their houses, but it gives us at least a little bit
[2:22:10] of uniqueness or change in the neighborhood.
[2:22:15] Yeah, and I concur with having that option.
[2:22:17] I do want to take a step back because Jeff, you don't get the present to us all that often.
[2:22:21] So I wouldn't take it either because there is a ton that's been presented by Drew and Drew,
[2:22:27] you're used to us pushing back on you.
[2:22:29] So it's old hat.
[2:22:29] But there's been so many great things in these slides,
[2:22:34] these bullet points, and we're not stopping on the bullet points
[2:22:37] where we agree with.
[2:22:39] So I do want to stress that most of what you've presented,
[2:22:43] a lot of the work you put into it, it's fantastic.
[2:22:46] We love it, but we're only being vocal when we disagree.
[2:22:50] And that's because you said, Andy, this is the time to do that.
[2:22:53] This is the only time the five of us are allowed
[2:22:56] to have a conversation together.
[2:22:57] So I don't want this to come across as we're just hating your work. We're being negative.
[2:23:03] But this is our literal only opportunity to have this kind of honest dialogue together with all of us in the same room.
[2:23:11] So I do want to stress that Jeff, there is a fun and hear that we really appreciate what you've done.
[2:23:16] We welcome the conversation.
[2:23:18] And again, we did step back a little bit from the requirement on this particular section of the options,
[2:23:25] where we had you shall choose three or four of these, now we say you may be accomplished with
[2:23:32] these. So it's kind of more open-ended and how it's going to be enforced.
[2:23:39] Thank you.
[2:23:42] And example, we were just oops, I don't know why.
[2:23:49] Here's example here is the exact same model
[2:23:53] and just a different applications of the exterior treatment.
[2:23:59] A good example of the single family
[2:24:01] I'm going to tell you what you've already, excuse me, Jeff.
[2:24:05] Mr. Hardwood.
[2:24:06] Well, and yeah, my thought on this is this is totally appropriate in every subdivision,
[2:24:14] every new development, is going to have its own character and their vision for that particular
[2:24:21] neighborhood and I think these are our lovely designs and and probably very appropriate in
[2:24:32] individual neighborhoods. My concern is a blanket countywide where it may not be in a subdivision
[2:24:41] in a homeowners association but it's it's just not a blanket thing that I'm comfortable with but
[2:24:50] like I said within the individual development as they have that they express their vision for
[2:24:58] how they want to develop, I think that's totally appropriate, but more with more areas specific.
[2:25:08] Thank you. So a lot of these data came from the continual standard and proper list that's been
[2:25:12] offered in what's the zoning cases today. So we took a lot of these just from what's been
[2:25:20] and include some of them here.
[2:25:26] An example is using porches to a private variety.
[2:25:33] There's your brick, if we can make that all brick,
[2:25:35] I think that would still be attractive.
[2:25:41] So here, porches and stupes.
[2:25:43] And this is, apparently, says applies to alleys and townhomes.
[2:25:46] I'm not sure that's the correct way we want to apply this.
[2:25:49] It may be better for any porches to have
[2:25:53] either a continuous brick foundation or brick peers.
[2:25:57] Here's an example of how the brick peers would be enclosed with a verbal material between the brick peers, and here's an example of the brick foundation on the forces themselves.
[2:26:13] Sure. So, did we get to brick, because we want the look of brick, or we're looking for the quality of brick, is it a quality solution, so if it's quality solution, would we not say brick and or structural steel cast iron pillars, those types of things.
[2:26:38] be in masonry standard, sure.
[2:26:41] So are we asking for masonry or here?
[2:26:44] Sorry, masonry or veneer, because I know a lot of builders, the front ends up being a veneer.
[2:26:50] Right, so the veneer should be stone or brick, that time.
[2:26:54] Again, cast quite wide breadth.
[2:26:58] What is the quality issue?
[2:26:59] I mean, it's durable, long-lasting.
[2:27:02] There's a traditional employed material in the discipline area.
[2:27:08] So if a developer came in, so if a developer came in and wanted to use aluminum, aluminum
[2:27:16] peers, ornamental, aluminum supports for the front portures and things like that, that
[2:27:24] wouldn't rot, wouldn't deteriorate, but it's not brick.
[2:27:28] That wouldn't comply with the standard, obviously.
[2:27:32] That's a problem.
[2:27:33] You have an example of an aluminum support,
[2:27:39] or this is an example of, yes, it could be anything, I don't understand that.
[2:27:44] We can look at, I can go to where they used on back decks and on larger front portures, but
[2:27:53] I can probably point some, actually I'm pretty sure if we were to ride around in the fan
[2:28:00] In some of the rowhouses, they use cast iron ornamental pears
[2:28:05] as opposed to work. So again, just kind of building upon the theme that's here, if we want
[2:28:13] something there from a quality standpoint, quite frankly, the ordinance ought to convey,
[2:28:20] it has to be material that won't have that kind of thing, but to say brick over something else,
[2:28:26] that's a equal quality. And I just say, because we went to a time period, right, when you could put
[2:28:35] You know, when vinyl siding was first coming out, you had vinyl siding, you had aluminum
[2:28:39] siding and you had brick.
[2:28:41] We were a heavy county on brick because the quality of brick was much better than the
[2:28:49] original vinyl and the whole aluminum thing, right?
[2:28:56] But, you know, we went through years there where we started getting hearty plank, we started
[2:29:02] getting vinyl, that was much thicker in nature
[2:29:06] started meeting higher quality standards.
[2:29:10] And so again, being prescriptive,
[2:29:12] that you must use brick versus vinyl,
[2:29:16] because at the time vinyl wasn't of the quality,
[2:29:20] when that's codified, we gotta go in and fix it down the way.
[2:29:24] And it doesn't leave building change and design and consumer,
[2:29:28] what they want to purchase,
[2:29:31] doesn't leave us much room there.
[2:29:33] So I'm perfectly fine with our ordinance embracing the idea
[2:29:36] of you got to use materials that are going to last
[2:29:38] or quality and sustainability or whatever we want to do there.
[2:29:43] But just saying it has to be brick.
[2:29:49] I'm not sure we want to get it.
[2:29:50] That's just my opinion.
[2:29:52] So I'm going to back up on actually,
[2:29:53] you gave me an opportunity to talk about technology
[2:29:55] which I love.
[2:29:56] So, if we're enforcing durability,
[2:30:00] And safety and the qualities of the material, as opposed to the specific materials, because we also have that newly 3 printed home on Route 60.
[2:30:10] So we are coming up with new technologies that might be more durable and safer than brick.
[2:30:16] And we are saying we're not going to accept that. So I think we want to focus on the quality of the material, not the material.
[2:30:23] I think the enclosure of the porch area, the slide that's up there now, if we could show
[2:30:29] it on the screen, maybe.
[2:30:31] This is part of what we're trying to control is to have it be a more kind of solid foundation
[2:30:41] construction around the edge of the porch.
[2:30:45] If we need to re-word it to include other options other than Masonry, I think we can work
[2:30:52] that for draft three. I do think the idea of trying to enclose the porch so that it doesn't
[2:31:00] have kind of a vacant open section underneath the porch, especially on the front facade is an
[2:31:12] important aspect we need to try to control. I don't know. You all feel about that. So that's part
[2:31:22] And you reduce the void under the deck, by, you know, really shrubs in front of it.
[2:31:31] So it was done in the 70s, and I'm not advocating we get back to the 70s, by the way.
[2:31:38] Passive solar was a horrible idea,
[2:31:44] but they built and they sold.
[2:31:49] But if it's a visual concern, and again, some other folks would maybe somebody older,
[2:32:01] I'm not going to get it.
[2:32:02] But not everybody would be opposed to that one.
[2:32:05] The top picture?
[2:32:07] Okay.
[2:32:08] And do you all feel that as government overreach for us to try to control the hat?
[2:32:17] I mean, I'm saying open that definition up to include more durable quality materials whatever those are will figure out a language of that, but the idea where it's still the requirement that it's somehow enclosed and you can't
[2:32:37] just see underneath the porch from the front from the driveway.
[2:32:43] Yeah, I mean exactly, so the fact you can see under the porch doesn't bother me, I guess I go back to if they if they can prove it's durable and they can prove it's safe.
[2:32:58] Those to me are criteria that we should absolutely make sure.
[2:33:01] So if that's an unsafe porch or in 10 years that's going to start, you know, sinking into the ground because it was built poorly, we don't want that.
[2:33:10] But if they can demonstrate that they've pulled off a durable quality, sustainable, safe structure, seeing under it, I think that goes back to the subjectiveness that I don't think I have the right to tell a landowner that they can't do that.
[2:33:34] So I, I kind of feel this, I, my starter home will be my forever home due to all of our
[2:33:45] shrink swell problems. It was built in the mid-80s. And, you know, the the Masonry, the brick
[2:33:54] facade has cracked and cracked again. And so our front porch is basically built like that top one.
[2:34:03] And we have finally addressed it with lattice.
[2:34:09] It's everything's wood with lattice and plantings
[2:34:14] to meet our subdivision requirements.
[2:34:18] So I don't know.
[2:34:19] You know, I'm in compliance with my subdivision,
[2:34:23] our H-O-A architectural review,
[2:34:27] as best as I can be.
[2:34:28] And yeah, I don't know that it by specifying it must be brick.
[2:34:36] I'm not comfortable with that.
[2:34:43] Okay.
[2:34:44] Well, I'm going to follow your response and contrary to that, if I may.
[2:34:49] Is that you accepted these proffers on many, many zoning cases over the years.
[2:34:54] For many developers and builders who have complied with these brick peers and purchase and foundations.
[2:35:01] So, Jeff, your spot on, I like the ability that we can have that conversation.
[2:35:06] So we can have the brick, and we absolutely should always have a path so that we can
[2:35:11] have it.
[2:35:12] But this is saying, we'll never have the choice to not have it.
[2:35:16] So it's having a choice, I think, is what's important to us.
[2:35:19] We're not saying we don't like brick.
[2:35:20] We love brick.
[2:35:21] We also like options.
[2:35:23] If I, and then make a comparison about what we're thinking about right now, 15 years ago,
[2:35:28] If you had an allergy and you had Clareton, you had to take Clareton, you had to go get it from
[2:35:32] the pharmacy with prescription.
[2:35:34] Now it's available over the counter.
[2:35:37] We're taking what's prescription and looking at the over-the counter options now.
[2:35:42] So it's another stage of evolution and zoning.
[2:35:45] Just looking at it, while these things may have worked in the past, maybe it's time to
[2:35:51] look at maybe we're not, maybe we're doing too much and some places maybe we're not doing
[2:35:56] enough.
[2:35:56] So, that's why we're kind of discussing this.
[2:35:59] I don't think it's a slam or anything like that
[2:36:01] and how we've done things in the past,
[2:36:03] but how we've always done things in the past is changing.
[2:36:06] So, this is what written what, in 1970,
[2:36:10] this is 50-year-old's only ordinance.
[2:36:11] A lot of things have changed.
[2:36:13] So, I agree.
[2:36:15] I do think one of the things we were trying to do
[2:36:18] when we started, Zomad, was to try to take some of the
[2:36:23] more regular negotiation that you all might have had
[2:36:26] cases and tried to incorporate, codify that into the case, into the case so that it was something
[2:36:34] you didn't have to, you know, ask for, demand, whatever, where you want to use for that.
[2:36:40] But the idea that it was already kind of baked into that zoning district and we were trying
[2:36:45] to include is what we thought were the basics in the ingredients that we felt, we could put
[2:36:53] into those zoning districts with these building design standards.
[2:37:00] We do have, we're going to be talking about it in the future sessions, the adjusted
[2:37:05] proper method so that if someone came in and they had a great affordable housing project
[2:37:11] and they were trying to get away from maybe some of these standards that those, some of those
[2:37:16] adjusted proper options could be brought up with that specific case.
[2:37:22] And it would be more of an exception or that was being made for that specific case because it was affordable or whatever, you know, argument they were making for that deal.
[2:37:34] That's kind of the position staff was trying to make with this.
[2:37:37] What I'm hearing kind of today was, you know, that maybe shouldn't be put into it and we should allow that to be just at the preference of the developer.
[2:37:48] So we're just trying to get our hands around as to how far to go into putting in some of these general standards into the different zoning districts and
[2:38:03] try to be quit.
[2:38:13] I think when we're looking, I think when you're in your team we're looking at this
[2:38:21] and I don't want to take which you just set out of context because I know you did mean anything by it.
[2:38:25] we shouldn't, we should not be approaching ZOMOD.
[2:38:32] At the standpoint, if we want to build something affordable,
[2:38:36] we need exceptions to get us there.
[2:38:40] You just said, well, through this week we can,
[2:38:43] we stacked where you can ask for all these exceptions,
[2:38:46] so we can do affordable.
[2:38:48] You gotta turn the bus around.
[2:38:51] If a develop in Jeff most of those proper conditions,
[2:38:54] The developer came to us, they may have had some nudging by staff that this will help the case get along because let's just face it, staff does good job of that.
[2:39:06] But a lot of times it's because the developers, the developers, the developers that come to us and they want to build the next magnolia green or the next whatever big development with all of the amenities and the price points and I kind of stuff.
[2:39:20] This stuff isn't going to apply to them because they're going to meet or exceed with the
[2:39:26] zoning ordinance that's asking for for the higher independence. We shouldn't worry about this,
[2:39:32] right? But we also shouldn't base the ordinance around that type of construction.
[2:39:39] The ordinance should be built to where we can build in Chesterfield County, a quality home,
[2:39:47] There's a whole, Dr. Holton said, the whole affordable housing conversation is massive.
[2:39:55] Our swim lane is zoning, land use and so forth, so the zoning ordinance is our place
[2:40:03] to set forth the standards by which we can build housing of all types, but if we're looking
[2:40:13] it's so mod and to say to build either one of those houses, requires the use of exceptions
[2:40:22] for us to get there, then we're in the wrong place, go back to the drawing board.
[2:40:32] So I thought, do we even see anybody bringing in the sad home for a starter home or affordability
[2:40:37] anymore?
[2:40:38] I mean, did you be impossible?
[2:40:40] Is it affordable to build a small home and make a profit on it?
[2:40:44] I don't know.
[2:40:44] Okay, we eliminate our seminar and our non-Zoning and then they build it on the smaller lot and build a 2500 square feet on a smaller lot and so I don't think the option is there
[2:40:56] for that if we
[2:40:58] Said look if you want to smaller a lot you've got to build a smaller home and you've got to make it to where it's affordable
[2:41:03] That would be how we need to approach it
[2:41:06] I think right now they they try to cram as much as they can in the building envelope on the lot and I think that's one of the reasons
[2:41:12] it's contributing to affordable housing not being theirs because they want to go up and out
[2:41:17] and reduce setbacks and we end up with, you know, 2,500 square foot homes on, you know,
[2:41:24] where you reach out your side window and you can have five of your neighbor next door in the morning
[2:41:27] when you're drinking coffee. So that's kind of where we are.
[2:41:31] I'll be in there really.
[2:41:34] Let's just take a look at that.
[2:41:37] You know, the idea about the smaller lot's sizes, you know,
[2:41:43] you have small, you
[2:41:44] can have small lot's sizes, but that doesn't mean that the price of the house is changed.
[2:41:48] You know, so I think that, you know, we got to have more depth conversation that brings
[2:41:56] to
[2:42:01] the table,
[2:42:06] more concrete, and I look at where I be when I say it. It's like a
[2:42:10] assurance that it's going to be affordable. And I know that it's hard to do that within
[2:42:18] the confines of Zoning. So I mean, you say you want a small lot size,
[2:42:28] but next thing you know
[2:42:29] houses are, you know, $450, $500,000. And, you know, what you approve to be affordable housing
[2:42:37] or attainable housing becomes unattainable or unaffordable. And so I just wish that we had
[2:42:45] some policy that could help ensure that the target is met when we say affordable or attainable
[2:42:56] And I noticed that's the ongoing issue not only in just the field, but probably across the nation.
[2:43:03] It's how do you do that?
[2:43:06] And maybe Steve, I hate to pin it on you.
[2:43:12] But maybe some research or reach out to some consultants or somebody that maybe help us out.
[2:43:20] Because if not, we're going to have people
[2:43:25] at a price out of our community.
[2:43:28] And that's that's that.
[2:43:30] And I'm not saying that for a public applause or anything,
[2:43:34] it's just, it's going to be reality.
[2:43:38] And I think also our seniors,
[2:43:40] we have to really look for options for them
[2:43:43] as they age and place and making sure
[2:43:46] that they have the right style of housing
[2:43:48] if it's their physical needs.
[2:43:54] And so I think that, you know,
[2:43:56] it's a larger question, you know,
[2:44:00] and even if you get into affordability in terms of,
[2:44:04] for rent products, you know,
[2:44:05] that's why I'm a huge fan of the Maggie Walker Foundation,
[2:44:09] huge fan of better housing coalition and project tones,
[2:44:15] another number of organizations that are out here trying to do everything that they can to make sure
[2:44:22] that people in our community are well taken care of. And I know I missed a larger list of other
[2:44:29] agencies because it's going to take out a bit suit to get us there in terms of the number of agencies
[2:44:35] to help out. So we can't do it all alone. The government can't do it by themselves. You know,
[2:44:41] me that we need public-private non-profit partnerships in order to really ensure that our
[2:44:48] county is a reflection of who we need to be.
[2:44:55] So, yep.
[2:45:01] Assuming that this were adopted as part of the zoning ordinance, these new standards, how would this affect existing property owners who had to undertake a major rehab of their house with, like if you're having to redo your porch, or, you know, make some kind of modification, because of aging in place, would they then have to do so?
[2:45:29] to put in the brick facade and all of that, or would this be lit to add on a case by case basis?
[2:45:38] If the ordinance was in effect required, there's to be brick peers instead of
[2:45:44] or if it were six months, six posts on this courts, then yes, it would be required to comply.
[2:45:50] I will say that it's owned both of these houses, and now it was going to rent them the section eight.
[2:45:55] I would have to do a lot of work to this house on top of what would qualify for federal
[2:46:01] assistance.
[2:46:02] One of the bottom is well maintained.
[2:46:04] It has a break and it stood the test of time, one on the top, as you can see, the poster
[2:46:10] leaning is to be some work to do to make this an issue either way.
[2:46:20] So, yeah, we would, if Zomod passed, or even with existing ordinance, we would be requiring
[2:46:26] them to meet the standards that we have now in place for that porch add-on or what have you.
[2:46:34] If we need, we'll take a closer look at some of this as we move forward with draftry.
[2:46:47] Thank you, Commissioner Arden, because I had been looking at this through a lens of how does
[2:46:51] this effect zoning cases, but you make a fantastic point that the ordinance isn't just about
[2:46:58] our zoning cases, this is going to affect every landowner who just wants to modify their
[2:47:04] existing homes, so we just really need to be careful about how far reaching this is.
[2:47:08] These are the homes that people would have purchased in the 80s, 90s, early 2000s, and hopefully
[2:47:15] They don't have the today's mortgage, but major repairs, major renovations upkeep would be a hardship on them, especially if they're older or on fixed incomes.
[2:47:36] Sorry Jeff, I do want to get back to something you said a little bit earlier, I was just waiting my turn.
[2:47:46] I appreciate that you've made the point that you and your staff have tried to look at all of the conditions from previous cases,
[2:47:55] and just incorporate them into this to make our lives easier, make the application process faster for the developers,
[2:48:00] for your staff and you truly are always looking out for ways to make the lives of everybody around you
[2:48:06] better and easier. So I sincerely appreciate that and I know that is your intent.
[2:48:14] What maybe is a result of that and that those are all good things but what I worry is
[2:48:22] when we're doing a case by case basis and we're having those negotiations it's often about
[2:48:28] All right, well, you know, if we give here, take there,
[2:48:32] give there, and it is, it's a balance.
[2:48:35] And a lot of times the consideration is,
[2:48:37] well, we want it to be quality, but we also don't want
[2:48:40] them to be a million dollar homes.
[2:48:42] So if we take everything that we've been negotiating
[2:48:47] and fake that into the base, the bar,
[2:48:51] now we're starting at a much higher price point,
[2:48:55] then we were in our previous negotiations
[2:48:57] to try to get better quality without being cost prohibitive.
[2:49:02] So while I'm going to say any intent,
[2:49:04] I am cautious to bake in all of our standard negotiations
[2:49:11] into the lowest common denominator.
[2:49:13] And now we're going to negotiate from there up,
[2:49:17] which, again, it's just going to become cost prohibitive for too many people.
[2:49:26] All right, Jeff, I think you can go.
[2:49:27] Your point was to all take him as hard.
[2:49:29] that surely want to price people out of making improvements and help to their homes.
[2:49:36] So this is a to address corner-side units on the sides.
[2:49:41] Units sometimes the developer doesn't pay as much attention as you do to the front.
[2:49:47] This top-right picture is sort of a bland side view.
[2:49:52] Which would be enhanced with landscaping and showing on the bottom left of the applications and trees and some shrubs.
[2:49:57] It kind of minimizes that blank wall.
[2:50:02] I'm using an example of a side of a town home where they used wide moldings on the windows
[2:50:07] and it helps to match the front.
[2:50:10] A little more aggressive here is a window pattern on the side of this town home was required
[2:50:18] to have a symmetry for the zoning elevations and they put these faux windows in where the windows
[2:50:25] weren't fitting into the interior of the layout.
[2:50:31] So, multifamily standards for architecture, mechanical screening, building length, and also get into commercial standards.
[2:50:39] Today, we have a requirements and multifamily architecture to have harmonious proportions of avoidemoteness in the sods.
[2:50:45] The sods have artificial variety, and these residential characters can be attained with balconies terraces,
[2:50:53] regulation doors of windows, scrolls, shrill, and textualy, so-to-sodes,
[2:50:56] architectural ornamentation, various roof lines, and other apartments such as lighting,
[2:51:00] fixtures, and plantings. This isn't this ordinance today. We're posing here to have a little
[2:51:05] bit more teeth and the ability to break up the building mass by having more offsets
[2:51:12] front and back, and also break up the horizontal, the vertical mass by a horizontal
[2:51:18] a layered design. So here's an example of how this is a prime example of how this would apply
[2:51:25] with the offsets of the building, breaking up the mass of the building and the horizontal
[2:51:32] variations of breaking up the verticality of the building. More examples of the existing
[2:51:39] multifamily and sister field where this three layered design helps to break up the mass of the building
[2:51:44] in the off-sets as well, help to minimize the mass.
[2:51:51] Mechanical units, screening from multi-family dwellings,
[2:51:54] we multi-family apartments, which we currently
[2:51:57] have no standards, I don't know if we have
[2:51:59] as the zoning case requirements,
[2:52:01] to allow us to require screening of those.
[2:52:04] We go back a couple of slides, I'm sorry.
[2:52:06] I just want to make sure, this is a great conversation
[2:52:09] where I have it.
[2:52:11] And I don't want to keep buttoning them,
[2:52:13] but I do want to try to get a feel for where you guys are.
[2:52:16] And I think I understand where you are with single family development and maybe the government
[2:52:25] over each on some of the elements and so forth.
[2:52:28] I'm multi-family.
[2:52:29] You feel the same way.
[2:52:31] In the idea here is trying to create a little more variety to try to get some break-up
[2:52:36] of verticality and we've gone too far and trying to do that too.
[2:52:40] And that's what I just want to know, does that kind of stop at single family or do we need
[2:52:47] When we deal with multifamily, sometimes we're having to really close to get, you know, from a staff perspective to get in the attractive building in place and putting it, making it into the district does seem to help staff and hopefully you know if you feel that's government over each week, you kind of need to know that too.
[2:53:13] and somebody out there is going to call me a hypocrite.
[2:53:17] I actually don't feel the same when it comes to multifamily.
[2:53:20] And the reason being is when we're talking about single family,
[2:53:25] right, single family.
[2:53:27] And we're talking about literally the cost of homeownership
[2:53:30] and things like that.
[2:53:33] I just have a little bit more of a fundamental belief
[2:53:36] that consumer choice in having some market forces
[2:53:38] that play there are more important.
[2:53:42] And when we're talking about the cost and position,
[2:53:49] the cost of putting recommendations around
[2:53:53] approaches and stuff versus something of equally high quality, perhaps.
[2:53:59] There's big cost differences that boil down to one family
[2:54:02] in a mortgage, that kind of thing.
[2:54:05] We're talking about a single family home.
[2:54:07] Um, this, you know, very often these projects take up multiple city blocks, they're big
[2:54:13] imposing facilities and, um, um, that, that we may not find the same willingness on the
[2:54:23] part of a developer to want and add, I mean, in our, again, personal experiences, we found
[2:54:30] where certain developers aren't as accepting of putting small balconies on and some of the
[2:54:36] because they're concerned about what's going on inside those walls, very often the tenants,
[2:54:41] or the renters are concerned with what the inside of their apartment looks like,
[2:54:45] and it's just not as much consumer driven input on what exterior's look.
[2:54:52] I mean, for some yes, but for some no.
[2:54:54] So I think to have to be a little bit more forward in variations and some of the elements on,
[2:55:04] large or multi-family, big, and housing structures, I feel a little bit different about that.
[2:55:13] So, Mr. Doug, I appreciate you moving us back to this slide because that's a great question.
[2:55:17] And I lean toward Commissioner Sloan here because this is a commercial product, not a residential
[2:55:25] product. So, you do have the, you know, the economies of scale where you're building the masses
[2:55:32] and it's divided by more residents and those residents are rentals.
[2:55:38] So at the end of the day, this is a business being run.
[2:55:41] There's not equity being built up by our citizens in a product like this.
[2:55:47] So there are enough variances to help this commercial product
[2:55:52] is different than somebody trying to start a home in our community
[2:55:56] that I think does have different considerations.
[2:55:59] Now, there might still be some things in here that maybe we could dial it back a little bit,
[2:56:04] but for the most part, I don't currently have any angst over what you're proposing
[2:56:09] for multi-family.
[2:56:14] Do you need the rest of you to have a opinion on that?
[2:56:18] Yeah, I agree with everybody.
[2:56:21] I definitely don't want to see HVAC units on the front of buildings.
[2:56:26] I think that doesn't look well.
[2:56:30] There's example of that in another locality that I pass by quite frequently and I despise
[2:56:36] the look of that, I don't think it looks good.
[2:56:41] So I think that also, if it's viewed, I think it needs to have a screen on it also, so I think
[2:56:52] And one thing we got to think about is as these apartments age, how they look as they age.
[2:57:00] And it's hard to attract new development next to
[2:57:08] a project that's old that doesn't look good.
[2:57:13] So, and we could make sure that architectural standards are in place throughout the life cycle of that building.
[2:57:20] And I think we'll have a easier time in future generations with redevelopment, so that's
[2:57:32] my major concern.
[2:57:41] So, yes, we're talking about the Canclet Unit Screening here to an example of the HVAC units
[2:57:47] on the back of this apartment building, as you can see in the far distances of screened up
[2:57:52] close to you can see the outlines of the units, but they're pretty well screened by this
[2:57:56] lattice which allows the air flow.
[2:58:00] So with maximum building length, we currently have no standards for that for multi-family as well.
[2:58:07] This proposals are 250 feet maximum length in the traditional transition residential district and 400 feet in the urban residential district.
[2:58:17] And to provide breezeways to allow for customer access through the building from front to rear.
[2:58:25] The access would be lighted in decorative and design, playing a director may have put
[2:58:28] all the alternatives that allow for pedestrian circulation.
[2:58:31] It's an example of a fairly large building that has a passageway through the building
[2:58:37] in the middle of these two sections.
[2:58:43] We move on to commercial standards now.
[2:58:47] Architecture within projects, architectural themes, established promote consistent architectural
[2:58:51] treatment of buildings.
[2:58:52] This is in the ordinance today.
[2:58:54] This has this word a little bit differently.
[2:58:55] This is written graphic description,
[2:58:58] an exterior color material style,
[2:59:00] and building scales are maybe submitted for approval.
[2:59:04] And within Project Architecture,
[2:59:05] we'll treat building materials, colors,
[2:59:07] and style shall be compatible.
[2:59:09] That's pretty much what we have today
[2:59:12] for commercial standards.
[2:59:14] The architectural theme is required to
[2:59:18] for my consistent compatible colors,
[2:59:20] break up the mass of the buildings,
[2:59:22] allow for a pedestrian scale environment
[2:59:23] the parking in the buildings and allow buildings within the same block and directly across the road
[2:59:28] have a compatible architecture.
[2:59:32] Here's an example of an architectural theme has consistent
[2:59:36] architectural treatment and materials throughout the project. It has a nice interaction between
[2:59:43] the outside and inside with the outdoor patios versus another benefit. Here's an example of
[2:59:52] The variety of materials that can be pulled together to provide a consistent overall look, and this is the project again on 360 year.
[3:00:02] I've got a question. I have a question. So the theme of this one and the one farther up through 60 would, if across the street got developed, across from charred and mission barbecue and all of that, would those have to be consistent with what's across the street, are you talking about more across the street as in kind of the alleyway on the street?
[3:00:29] the same side of the highway.
[3:00:32] We looked to have some consistency with the buildings of this kind of building here so much
[3:00:36] similar in style to the Hancock Village across the street. It's different because it's
[3:00:44] not so much machinery,
[3:00:47] but that was a benefit to help the scholars sort of the intellectual style
[3:00:50] of this corridor and this section of the corridor. As far as the development would require
[3:00:57] We're on a read it up that whole site and if that's something else, we wouldn't necessarily make this style.
[3:01:03] I would like to have the colors compatible or it wouldn't force this on anybody else.
[3:01:09] Okay.
[3:01:10] That's a question.
[3:01:11] That's the tie-in somehow.
[3:01:12] The tie-in doesn't have to be in modern style.
[3:01:15] And that'll have to be there.
[3:01:16] Go right in the form.
[3:01:18] What kind of building?
[3:01:19] I think that's a good example of pulling certain elements from one side of the street and trying to
[3:01:28] And it's clear that they've done this. I know this property and right across from Hancock Village.
[3:01:33] It's pretty clear that that's compatible, but yeah, across the street from the other, you know,
[3:01:39] it still woods, though, didn't know if that would or partially wood.
[3:01:44] It isn't it, or am I getting, maybe getting it. Is it right across from Benfish?
[3:01:49] Oh, the other problem with yes. Oh, okay. All right.
[3:01:52] Yeah, I think there's wood closer to the bridge you're talking about.
[3:01:58] And that's part of the, thank you.
[3:02:03] So this is actually a Hancock village.
[3:02:05] This is a requirement from a mechanical equipment screen, which we already have in the ordinance.
[3:02:10] You can see the rooftop units on this building, which we're screened by the parapet wall around it.
[3:02:16] So it's very well integrated to the architecture of the building.
[3:02:19] So instead of seeing these, the top of the top of this roof line, we see nice clean architectural lines.
[3:02:25] and just in track of building on
[3:02:32] the ground level, you have a variety of examples of
[3:02:37] add example and another counting hours where junction boxes and utility boxes were put
[3:02:43] on the building and not properly addressed to the left. There are similar mountains on the
[3:02:57] Dunkin' Donuts had a challenge with their mechanical equipment and our planners are able to work a good solution to bring this problem out of use.
[3:03:09] So an interest is to, along the corridors, it is to residence on districts.
[3:03:16] In the mixed use districts today, we require those buildings to be architectural in nature at the interest of the communities.
[3:03:22] On the upper right here is the old friendly buildings that have been converted to a barbecues.
[3:03:28] Thousands of interesting deer run, the bottom is a building that is a village of in Lothian.
[3:03:35] Access to neighborhood north of the Lothian farm plant.
[3:03:45] The commercial horticultural horticultural also integrates many of the architectural and site standards for the 360 west corridor, which require pedestrian elements to be included.
[3:03:56] those exteriors moving into the next use district.
[3:04:01] There's an example in Chester where they brought a storefront on the bottom floor with the
[3:04:09] apartments above,
[3:04:14] parking decks can be tricky and expensive so we're going to be somewhat
[3:04:21] acknowledged at the back that these structures which are very expensive and still need to be
[3:04:26] compatible of the buildings. Here's your operating buildings building, as you can see, is also
[3:04:33] made of concrete panels, and it kind of reflects this pattern on the deck that
[3:04:38] it efficiently. You can look at closely. You see this corner of the building reflects
[3:04:42] the curvature of the office building, and it also picks on some of the characteristics
[3:04:47] of the grid pattern on the building integrated into panels of the parking deck.
[3:04:58] For example,
[3:04:58] to make sure it's district that we're dining integrated to the element on the ground floor
[3:05:06] restaurant, restaurants of apartments above,
[3:05:11] now the employment district standards are obviously
[3:05:14] we have large buildings that need to be addressed some way, and here's the surface pattern
[3:05:19] that helps to break up the long nearer view of the project, and some way it's keeping the
[3:05:25] fills in that'll look a lot better as well. Here's an example of employment district standard
[3:05:31] where the operating as the mechanical equipment was on the lovers,
[3:05:41] and that will
[3:05:42] conclude the building design aspects of this presentation. Any questions?
[3:05:47] I want Jeff, do we have anything around solar panels and how those could be on top
[3:05:54] of buildings? We do not currently have any ordinance requirements for how that's done,
[3:05:59] except we want them to be integrated into the roof and not angled differently than the roof.
[3:06:05] So that's what we look forward, and the application of solar panels on the roofs, and they're
[3:06:12] in the same plane as the roof line, which I'm sorry, Frank, what are our ordinances said
[3:06:18] if anything about placement of solar panels on rooftops?
[3:06:22] We have, it's under the uses, it's a restricted use in all districts, and I think we talk about
[3:06:29] a distance off the roof, I believe there's restrictions with it, and we can go into those
[3:06:36] at another time where we can go into that now if you want, it's listed with the use matrix.
[3:06:41] No, we don't have to go into it now, I was just making sure we...
[3:06:44] But the roof amount of we encourage everywhere, it's if they're ground-mounted,
[3:06:47] we have a little bit more to them.
[3:06:50] If you're asking if we're requiring screening of the roof-mounted solar panel,
[3:06:56] we do not.
[3:06:57] I just want to screening orientation, like, can't be facing a main arteriologist.
[3:07:02] I was just wondering now just to hide off the roof I think is what we have on roof mounted and then for the ground
[3:07:08] I know we have some other standards. We have anything in there about parking lot solar panel canopies
[3:07:15] So that's why the loading that
[3:07:32] So before I get into my sections I believe we're gonna let Mark White are consultant Sean in a bit
[3:07:39] Okay. Certainly.
[3:07:43] Thomas, you had the slides I put together up.
[3:07:50] There we go.
[3:07:51] Just a few comments.
[3:07:52] This was a great discussion on design
[3:07:54] and I appreciate the direction you all gave us,
[3:07:59] especially when it comes to single family.
[3:08:01] But this came up just in a lot of the similar comments came up
[3:08:07] last week when we discussed this with the committee.
[3:08:12] And just some justifications we put together for why we even regulate design in the first place,
[3:08:18] because we're occurring question, and it's similar to things that Mr. Trasky, Mr. Sloan, brought up today.
[3:08:27] You know, why not let the market just control everything?
[3:08:32] And these are just some thoughts on why we do this.
[3:08:35] And it's not a static to me.
[3:08:39] I try not to justify any of this on a static.
[3:08:42] There are a lot of other considerations
[3:08:44] that are even more important than that.
[3:08:46] And one is that everything you build in the county affects
[3:08:50] the public realm.
[3:08:51] It's everything that everybody sees in experiences
[3:08:55] when they drive or walk through a community.
[3:08:59] We are introducing for the first time a mixed use
[3:09:02] district, which is a different pattern of development
[3:09:04] than the counties seen before, and if you don't have the right design standards in place
[3:09:10] it just doesn't function the same way. And so that's that undergirds a lot of you know
[3:09:19] what's in the design, the building design standards, and the amenity space. That's why, for
[3:09:25] example, the amenity space, we expanded those to 22 different options. That's a bigger
[3:09:31] set of options. I've done, you know, I've done zoning codes in over 36 states for about close
[3:09:38] to 35 years for over 150 chemis. I've never seen a set of options that large in RICO County
[3:09:45] has seven options, for example, in their open space requirements, which also apply to just to
[3:09:54] both residential and commercial. We call it a amenity space, because it's just not accurate to
[3:09:59] open space, you know, urban
[3:10:01] places, not with most people
[3:10:03] think of a open space, but it
[3:10:05] isn't a amenity for that
[3:10:06] community. And once that
[3:10:08] development occurs, it's not
[3:10:10] you're not going to go back and
[3:10:11] redo it. And you know, it's
[3:10:13] and it's also not to say that
[3:10:15] without the standards, everything
[3:10:17] is going to be bad. And that
[3:10:18] you know, the comments earlier
[3:10:21] that a commissioner hardened
[3:10:22] and others talked about where
[3:10:25] you have some older communities
[3:10:26] that were built without the
[3:10:27] in their occupied people are happy there, they've made improvements, they've held their
[3:10:33] value, but we want to make sure that it's been a big part of this whole project that
[3:10:40] development that comes our way meets the county's expectations without constantly having
[3:10:48] to negotiate everything. And in fact, in our first or second meeting with the committee several
[3:10:54] years ago. That's something we got unanimous agreement on. Let's make sure that when we want
[3:11:01] something, you can look at the ordinance and know what the county expects up you, that we can
[3:11:06] know what the county expects of us as applicants before we go talk to the Planning Commission
[3:11:12] in Board of Supervisors. And that's what we're getting to, I think Mr. Sloan picked up on this
[3:11:19] earlier when he said well this is all this is all flexible but we've all made it precise
[3:11:24] well that's exactly what we're trying to get to we're trying to hit the best of both worlds
[3:11:29] the number one request I get from the development community is you know quit negotiating
[3:11:34] everything and quit with this these ambiguous standards just tell us what you want
[3:11:41] and that's exactly what we've tried to achieve in the ordinance we know we're not there yet
[3:11:46] your your comments and your direction and really helpful so we appreciate that.
[3:11:52] Secondly, a lot of this follows directly from your conference of plan policies relating
[3:11:56] to things like accessibility, community identity, the character of Chesterfield County
[3:12:02] connectivity.
[3:12:04] We're drew shows you some examples of amenity space that are just connections between places
[3:12:10] that we're trying to create an easy way for people to do the right thing, and that's one way
[3:12:18] to do it, in quality, which is an overriding set of policies in your comprehensive plan.
[3:12:25] In addition to the plan, we did a lot of public outreach early on, and the number one thing
[3:12:33] we heard from the community was things like open space, make sure that's a part of all
[3:12:39] development. We've responded with the standards. We know there's long-term maintenance issues
[3:12:44] and we'll come back to you with some of those. You know, some responses to some of the really
[3:12:52] good concerns that were raised earlier, but we want to make sure those spaces are created to
[3:12:58] begin with because we lose that opportunity once that subdivision occurs. And we want to get there
[3:13:04] without having to just determine those conditions on a case-by-case with CUPD review.
[3:13:12] And as it came up earlier with building design, this all follows the history of development,
[3:13:19] not just from the past 15 years ago, it's happened over the last couple years.
[3:13:25] The strategic amenity space standards that were adopted.
[3:13:28] these are very recent things that were fought for, that were vetted, and we didn't want to lose them.
[3:13:36] And then the marketplace, I feel a lot of the, you know, personally, you know, as a consultant,
[3:13:43] I feel a lot of the same, same ways, you know, Mr. Petroski feels what he says, you know,
[3:13:49] let's, let's set the market control and we're trying to do that as much as possible while moving
[3:13:54] development in the direction of the county conference of plan to make sure that, making
[3:14:01] sure that development aligns that the outcomes explained and adopted in your conference
[3:14:07] of plan.
[3:14:07] Policies, we want to get people as a broad and opportunity to comply as we can.
[3:14:13] We want to give them as many options as they can without having to come in and negotiate
[3:14:19] everything.
[3:14:20] and we want to accommodate a broader range of uses, a broader range of housing types, for
[3:14:26] example, but with better design. And this is an example. And again, maybe you're not
[3:14:33] offended by the image on the left. If you go to the next slide, for example, maybe you're
[3:14:40] not offended by the image on the left. That's a duplex with no design standards. The one on
[3:14:50] parking in the back and a prominent front porch and a walkway that connects the building
[3:14:55] in the street.
[3:14:57] I can tell you the image on the left was another...
[3:15:00] In your community, I worked in some years ago where these were built because the zoning district just said you can build dueplexes, but they didn't regulate design. And when they saw this, their solution was, well, this was before we worked with them. I want to clarify, but they just said, well, in this district, we're not going to allow dueplexes anymore, which to me seemed very extreme. Now we've lost a housing type to the marketplace. We've lost a housing type that's affordable to a lot of people.
[3:15:30] And the reason we lost that housing type is we didn't have an appropriate and reasonable set of design standards that would make something like that acceptable to the public.
[3:15:43] I also wanted to jump in quickly on something, you know, Mr. Hilton brought up.
[3:15:48] So really good questions about how we address affordability.
[3:15:50] I'm also the former board chair of a non-profit CDC that build affordable housing in my community
[3:15:59] that I live in.
[3:16:00] I've dealt with this whole issue for years and years in the Virginia, the Code of Virginia
[3:16:05] addresses one type which is very surgical and makes sure that once you build something like
[3:16:12] this, once you build that missing middle housing, that's up a scale that's typically affordable,
[3:16:19] But you know, we don't know, housing on small lots can also be very expensive.
[3:16:24] It can have a high level of design and building materials and things like that, and maybe the
[3:16:30] the income levels in the community are high enough that developers can build on those small lots
[3:16:35] and sell them at prices that are unaffordable to a lot of people who work here now,
[3:16:40] who teach school and fight fires and fight crime and those sorts of things.
[3:16:45] And we want to make sure there's room for those types of units.
[3:16:48] So, you know, one level of this is inclusionary zoning, and, you know, some, there's several different statutes.
[3:16:56] We'd have to go back and see which one applies to Chesterfield County.
[3:17:00] It makes sure that once those units are made available, that they are marketed and sold or rented to people at certain income levels.
[3:17:10] That need those affordable units.
[3:17:11] It's also a very complicated system.
[3:17:13] Obviously, that process of making sure those units remain affordable is complex from the staff perspective.
[3:17:22] I mean, we'd have to have staff people taking time to make sure that we monitor that.
[3:17:30] It's also intrusive from the developer side.
[3:17:34] They have a number of other hoops to jump through to make sure that they comply with those inclusionary zoning requirements.
[3:17:42] It's an Virginia, I believe, the statute that we'd operate under would only allow that if it's incentive based.
[3:17:49] So we would have to tie that to increases intensity, maybe to reductions in amenity space requirements, or building design requirements, or so forth.
[3:17:59] And you know, you know, I know Mr. Sloan doesn't like something that requires exceptions, but this would be something that you wouldn't have to go through the proper exception process to get.
[3:18:09] It's just an alternative set of standards in the ordinance and if you qualify for that then these other things kick in and they solve the problem that Mr.
[3:18:18] Hilton addressed earlier, which is making sure that those houses on the small lots are not at the end of the day unaffordable to the people we intended them to be affordable too, but it also does involve a very high level of supervision.
[3:18:34] Another alternative is just to say if you include different product types as part of your
[3:18:41] plant.
[3:18:41] If your plant includes town homes, doplexes, fourplexes, triplexes, et cetera.
[3:18:50] If you have certain, you know, whatever other kinds of standards we want to attest to
[3:18:57] those, maybe they're on alleys, et cetera.
[3:19:01] Then we ratchet back on, maybe building design this amenity space and that sort of thing.
[3:19:08] And at that point it's what you all have talked about earlier. Once you comply with zoning, then you're done.
[3:19:14] We're not going to supervise who they're rented to, what their incomes are, and et cetera.
[3:19:19] So those are just two ways that just popped into my head when Mr. Holden made those comments because affordability is such a big issue.
[3:19:27] in Chesterfield County as it is all over the country right now.
[3:19:32] So, those are some things to think about and we can take a deeper dive if you all would like
[3:19:37] because, yeah, we're responding to county policy, we're responding to things to get asked for.
[3:19:44] In the past, but we also realize they have an impact, they can have unintended consequences.
[3:19:51] That's why we've been testing these, but we also very much appreciate your comments.
[3:19:55] I don't take any of this as a negative.
[3:19:59] I appreciate all of Mr. Sloan, all Mr. Pratarsky's,
[3:20:03] all the other commissioners comments that you've been making,
[3:20:06] because that's what's going to get us to an ordinance
[3:20:08] that works better at the end of the day.
[3:20:12] So those are my, that's my two cents,
[3:20:14] and if you all have any feedback on that,
[3:20:18] I'd appreciate it otherwise I'll turn it over to Thomas
[3:20:20] and he'll get into the dimensional standards.
[3:20:23] Thank you. Thank you, Mark. And this is Frank. I do have, I guess, one question or comment.
[3:20:31] I appreciate all of that, especially how much you were digesting everything we've been saying
[3:20:36] and that felt full response to it all. When it comes to having the standards, I agree with you,
[3:20:44] we definitely need to know you've arrived in Chesterfield and there is a certain standard here
[3:20:49] with our first choice community and everything we're striving for.
[3:20:53] You touched on it with the comprehensive plan.
[3:20:55] We have areas, the you're probably familiar with at this point,
[3:21:00] the village of Midlothian, Chester Village,
[3:21:02] even Rockwood, and the spring line in District 60
[3:21:06] that we've been talking about recently,
[3:21:09] where those are small areas where we've defined,
[3:21:13] okay, here's a elevated set of standards for this area,
[3:21:16] that you know you've arrived. It's a sense of place that each, you know, District 60 has its own rock, what has its own
[3:21:22] Chester.
[3:21:25] So, because we have those, I don't want to call them special places, because that means the
[3:21:31] rest of Chester is not, but we have those higher standards of place-making, let's say, where we really have
[3:21:41] driven a vision of what we want in those areas.
[3:21:45] I guess what I'm wondering is, for the rest of the county
[3:21:48] that's not in those small areas with quarter plans
[3:21:52] or village plans,
[3:21:55] could we possibly have a slightly lower bar
[3:21:59] for our standards while still keeping
[3:22:02] just a field standards?
[3:22:03] And I guess maybe it's a horrible analogy,
[3:22:06] but you know, you have a bowl of lucky charms.
[3:22:08] While it might seem like a good idea to make it all marshmallows when you do that, it actually
[3:22:14] becomes pretty horrible.
[3:22:15] You need to keep those other non-marshmallow aspects of the bowl or the county, or you're
[3:22:23] just trying to make all of Chesterfield to a high-of-a-designed standard bar, I guess, and
[3:22:31] diluting everything because now everything is special.
[3:22:35] Does that make any sense?
[3:22:36] But that makes a lot of sense.
[3:22:40] No, it makes a hundred percent sense.
[3:22:42] And one of the iterations we've gone through,
[3:22:45] just in drafting these, is when we set up the zoning
[3:22:50] to six of the way we did, we have a baseline.
[3:22:54] Typically the baseline is the lowest density.
[3:23:00] And you know, our thinking was on the larger lots, for example,
[3:23:05] And I'll just use building design.
[3:23:07] What are these building design animosity spaces, an example?
[3:23:11] On those larger lots, building design is in as much a concern, because the buildings are already
[3:23:18] set back further, they're usually not as prominent on the lot.
[3:23:22] A many space also is in as big an issue, because their large lots, it's going to be harder
[3:23:29] to create spaces that people could walk to, for example, and those requirements were
[3:23:35] were tagged just to the options and the options were there and they're baked into the
[3:23:44] dimensional standards and the district standards as an incentive for developers to build
[3:23:51] to that higher level of design and to provide a higher level of amenity space, for example,
[3:23:59] in consideration, they get more development potential.
[3:24:04] And so that's what we'd baked in it and also tagging them to different districts.
[3:24:08] We still have a lot of that in this draft.
[3:24:11] I mean, some of the districts don't require some of the higher level standards that you mentioned.
[3:24:18] But that's something I think we can go back and take another look at.
[3:24:22] I mean, I hear what you're saying.
[3:24:24] A mixed-use center doesn't require the same type of place making standards that a large
[3:24:30] lot development in your lower density residential communities have, nor do the neighborhood
[3:24:38] commercial places in those areas require the same kind of standards, and like you said,
[3:24:46] we're not saying those places aren't just as important as the rest of the county, it's just
[3:24:51] people choose to live there for different reasons.
[3:24:54] They people in those communities want larger lots and they're comfortable driving, you know,
[3:25:00] for most of their trips and they're probably more concerned that they have a parking lot,
[3:25:06] you know, that has a space for them when they get there, then the folks who choose to live
[3:25:11] in a mixed-use center who want to place it's walkable and they're not, they're not looking
[3:25:15] for what the customer and the other place is looking for.
[3:25:18] So I think we have a, excuse me, we have a lot of that already
[3:25:22] built into the giraffe, but that's something we can continue to go on.
[3:25:26] So I appreciate that comment.
[3:25:28] Thank you, Mark.
[3:25:35] I'm going to set your turn to be picked on all right.
[3:25:40] I'm going to go through two sections.
[3:25:43] First of which is the mentioned standards were on page 195 of the
[3:25:46] clean version and 220 of the red line version.
[3:25:51] Much of the information in this section is the same as we do today in the current ordinance.
[3:25:55] This section includes some of the very foundational requirements that state the obvious,
[3:26:00] such that minimum yards, parking, and open space for a building apply only to that building,
[3:26:05] and not to any other building.
[3:26:07] Commissioner Owens, this would answer your earlier question about the roundabout on an off-site project.
[3:26:12] There's a clause here that would require open space or a many space to be within the project.
[3:26:20] And also a requirement that clearly says that setbacks to be measured horizontally and rounded to the nearest tenth of a foot.
[3:26:29] This section also has some of the basic requirements for single family lots, which includes requirements set all lots front on a public street,
[3:26:36] that you only have one single family dwelling for a lot unless you go through a zoning process, and that no lots shall have access to a thoroughfare,
[3:26:46] airplane road unless approved through a subdivision waiver.
[3:26:52] The dimensional standard section also lists various setback encroachments, which allow things
[3:26:56] like terraces, balconies, and landings, etc., to encroach into a setback.
[3:27:00] Here you see on the left a house with front stairs encroaching into the front setback and
[3:27:04] on the right.
[3:27:05] You have a bay window on a towel on them encroaching into the front setback.
[3:27:09] None of this has changed from the existing ordinance we've brought it all over intact.
[3:27:15] There's also a short section on accessory structures, which spells out permitted setback
[3:27:20] encroachments for ease, which is a three feet into setbacks, setbacks from acquired buffers
[3:27:27] for accessory structures, which is five feet, and then setbacks for a swimming, for
[3:27:31] detached swimming pools, which is a six foot side setback.
[3:27:38] Changes to this section include the following.
[3:27:39] We've removed the lot area reduction for developments where land was dedicated for a bikeway,
[3:27:45] a buffer, or tree preservation area in the upper swith pre-water shed.
[3:27:49] The rationale here is that Zomod already allows lot sizes much smaller than the existing ordinance,
[3:27:54] and so further reductions, shouldn't be on that or not warranted.
[3:27:57] Bikeways, profit buffers and tree preservation areas are all also components of required many space.
[3:28:04] And accordingly, Zomod would not provide additional lot area reduction when required many spaces provided.
[3:28:11] So the existing ordinance also includes the ability to get a setback reduction when the
[3:28:17] ultimate right of way for a road is expanded to accommodate a bikeway.
[3:28:22] We brought that into Zoma, but in draft one that was only limited to multi-family office,
[3:28:26] commercial and industrial districts.
[3:28:28] So in draft two, this setback reduction to accommodate a bikeway is now available to all
[3:28:33] zoning districts.
[3:28:34] And here you see a commercial site with a very small setback due to the presence of the bikeway
[3:28:39] an expanded right away. So I believe I've made it intact through
[3:28:44] dimensional standards with no comments. Any questions there before I move on to
[3:28:48] signs? I don't know how you got. I'm just going to slow them to walk. Good work.
[3:28:53] Thrilling stuff. All right, science. We're on page 225 of the clean version in
[3:28:59] 267 of the red line. Much of the sign chapter is directly copied from our existing
[3:29:04] ordinance, we recognize that much time was spent on getting this workables. So it's important to maintain the progress that's been made.
[3:29:12] As we do go through it, I'm only going to highlight changes from the existing ordinance, but if you have questions about any type of signage, don't hesitate to interrupt me.
[3:29:20] Starting off in the applicability section, we've clarified that this section also applies to any signage hung inside a window, but visible to the exterior.
[3:29:29] The existing ordinance only applies to signs located exterior to a building and the rent of center example here on the left-hand side
[3:29:37] If those signs were pasted on to the inside of the window the current current ordinance does not apply to them and this clarification fixes that
[3:29:46] In the section on prohibited signs we've added lighting around the perimeter of a window as a new type of prohibited signage
[3:29:53] And we're also working on a not-to-exceed brightness value for lighted signage
[3:29:58] And that's an ongoing effort
[3:30:00] Plan 2, include in draft 3. Can you describe the perimeter lighting as that around the windows?
[3:30:13] Yeah. It's a type of sign that we've heard from some of the commissioners and board members as glaring and offensive.
[3:30:23] I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but that's my word.
[3:30:27] And so we've attempted to add that to the list of prohibited signs.
[3:30:32] I think of rope lights around the square of the window and they just
[3:30:36] Blair out. They're moving sometimes.
[3:30:39] Okay.
[3:30:40] But they could still have.
[3:30:42] They would still be able to have like an open and closed sign.
[3:30:45] Yes.
[3:30:46] Okay.
[3:30:47] And I'd go further into that later on.
[3:30:48] Thank you.
[3:30:51] All right, there are no substantial changes to the sections on sign permits and approvals
[3:30:57] and the section on sign setbacks.
[3:30:59] We have changed how we refer to the different types of signs and different types of communities.
[3:31:03] For example, non-residential was used or is used today as a catch-all term.
[3:31:08] It refers to anything without a dwelling.
[3:31:10] We've replaced that with commercial industrial or office for clarification.
[3:31:17] Again, another theme of the section is reducing the proliferation and impact of overly bright
[3:31:21] signs in order to be enforceable in this topic.
[3:31:24] We can't just say overly bright or overly clearing.
[3:31:27] We've got to have a measurable standard and so we're researching the available technology
[3:31:31] to be able to accurately measure sign brightness.
[3:31:34] We hope to bring some additional changes for you in draft three.
[3:31:41] In the building mounted sign section, staff proposes a new way to calculate the permitted sign
[3:31:46] area.
[3:31:47] The existing ordinance calculates sign area based on the linear feed of building
[3:31:51] frontage.
[3:31:52] And there are several different categories with several different multipliers to determine
[3:31:56] how much signage is allowed on various types of buildings.
[3:31:59] And so to simplify all of that, this draft proposes a simple calculation that allows
[3:32:04] a sign area of up to 10% of wall area, but not to exceed 450 square feet.
[3:32:09] This is borrowed from the Charlotte North Carolina zoning ordinance.
[3:32:13] This example here shows a panera with a wall area of 1,020 square feet, which would be
[3:32:20] allowed 112 square feet of signage, which is an increase over the 70 square feet of signage
[3:32:24] allowed under the current ordinance.
[3:32:27] We tested this new method against numerous different buildings, and found that generally
[3:32:30] allowed a little bit more signage for most buildings, but that established a maximum amount
[3:32:35] of signage for the largest buildings.
[3:32:37] So if the commission is comfortable with this methodology, but not the larger scope of signage,
[3:32:42] we can easily reduce that 10% value to 8% or something like that.
[3:32:46] So a question on the wall area, that's actually just the wall, not the windows that's in the wall,
[3:32:52] or does it include the whole front?
[3:32:53] It would be the facade.
[3:32:55] The whole facade.
[3:32:56] Okay, thank you.
[3:32:56] And we have a separate section on what can go in the windows.
[3:32:59] I think it's the next slide.
[3:33:03] So, in this example, do we clarify that 10% is your basically drawing up, you know, imaginary,
[3:33:17] perimeter around that pair of bread, so they're not arguing that, like, every pixel of that
[3:33:22] sign and the transparency between the letters doesn't count as signage, like do we have a, do we have
[3:33:28] ways to measure the extent of signage that we've brought everything from the current
[3:33:32] And do we didn't change how we measure the actual sign itself just the a lot of area by measuring the building can you help walk me through what that
[3:33:42] Yeah, I don't have it in front of me right now
[3:33:46] I just want to make sure because they are becoming more
[3:33:51] You know, they're not they're not the bulky squares erecting as you just feel like that Panera that could just be lettering
[3:33:59] And that's what I want to make sure
[3:34:04] It incorporates all of that finiricide with the area of the sun.
[3:34:10] That was my assumption.
[3:34:12] I just wanted to make sure.
[3:34:13] Yeah, no, no.
[3:34:16] No, no, no.
[3:34:17] No, no, no, no.
[3:34:18] No, no, no, no.
[3:34:19] Correct.
[3:34:19] Correct.
[3:34:19] We've drawn all of the rectangle around the whole side edge and that.
[3:34:23] Exactly.
[3:34:24] That's the measurement that we're using.
[3:34:26] And then we're using the overall gross measurement, the height of the building and the width
[3:34:30] of the building.
[3:34:32] So it's that gross facade as the growth of the sun.
[3:34:35] was rectangle of a signage, and that has to be within the 10% of what we're talking about
[3:34:42] here.
[3:34:42] Does that make sense?
[3:34:43] It does.
[3:34:44] I've never read that part of the ordinance, and I'm just maybe I'm getting two of the
[3:34:49] weeds of signs, but signs do always seem to come back and bite us, but you know, if, in this
[3:34:55] exam, not to pick up a penair, but you're using them as an example, if that logo above
[3:35:02] Panera was up a little higher, and Panera Bread was shifted down.
[3:35:11] How do we work if they try to argue?
[3:35:12] Well, that's two different signs with two small rectangles around it, or we say,
[3:35:16] no, that's one big sign with a big rectangle.
[3:35:19] And that changes the math on this 10%.
[3:35:22] I guess it could a little bit, but we would, in most cases,
[3:35:26] and have the artwork from Panera and Bread all in one large rectangle.
[3:35:34] And if they spread that out a bit more of the rectangle, we'll get a little larger, I don't, I don't.
[3:35:40] And if it's one point that they made the art person, we might draw a small rectangle around it,
[3:35:47] and then the rest of the panera bread would be a different.
[3:35:50] But for the most part, we just try one rectangle around the whole kind of sign message.
[3:35:58] correct which makes sense I guess I'm just worried about getting a case-by-case argument
[3:36:03] if somebody's quote unquote logo is a bunch of small images all over the wall and they're
[3:36:09] saying well no it's actually 10 small squares not the entire wall like do we have anything
[3:36:15] to settle that argument on which is the actual sign area our interpretation of where that
[3:36:25] messages, it's kind of what we use now. The only need to make more explanation of how we draw
[3:36:32] that rectangle we have. I don't think we've had that as a real problem for us, but okay. Yeah, I'm not
[3:36:39] proposing we do anything differently. I just wanted to understand it myself because it is on
[3:37:01] So, my favorite topic, signs, exactly, it's been walked away at the wrong time.
[3:37:06] It's the back time, it's strategically returned.
[3:37:10] And I'm sure this will get council's attention.
[3:37:13] So, we've got panerabred, nice logo up there.
[3:37:16] We've got drive-through, conforms to the square footage,
[3:37:18] 10% of wall area.
[3:37:21] But, I'm assuming there's a windows below.
[3:37:24] There's six and a half windows.
[3:37:25] So, what if they took six of the windows and put a P and A and N and E or A and then
[3:37:30] B or E, A, D underneath of it?
[3:37:32] They're inside the building shining out.
[3:37:36] So, what is our position on?
[3:37:37] You may have been out when I covered this.
[3:37:40] I'll go back to that.
[3:37:42] But there's a clause in the existing ordinance on sign applicability.
[3:37:48] And what signs are subject to the sign ordinance?
[3:37:50] Well, it does include today signs that are taped to the inside of window facing outwards.
[3:37:55] And we have written in this document that we include those types of signs.
[3:38:00] Currently, the ordinance only reads signs on the located, physically, the exterior buildings.
[3:38:04] We did expand the scope of what's applicable to those that are visible to the exterior through a window.
[3:38:11] And we also have a window-mounted area requirement in the ordinance today, 25%, I'll get to that in the next slide that we carried over and put into this ordinance.
[3:38:22] If I'm reading your question correctly, Mr. Sloan, if they had a 25% of that, one of those windows that's a P and 25% that's an A and no spell it out, that could be a legitimate way of doing window signage.
[3:38:42] that's your question. It could only use 25% of that window area or their P or their A or whatever
[3:38:51] there's fell in out. But we are limiting the amount of window space that you can put
[3:38:59] signage.
[3:39:02] And I don't know if you are out of the room. We have addressed the perimeter lighting
[3:39:07] around. Go back to the exhibit. I think I'm, let's see, this one here. Yeah, this, we are prohibiting
[3:39:18] the use of the perimeter kind of lighting around the sign as that's using the entire 100%
[3:39:27] of the window and you can't do that. Okay, so if we looked at the one on the right,
[3:39:36] so if we looked
[3:39:37] I can't tell if there's separate one, but in theory, the neon signs, because they're less than 25% of that
[3:39:45] window, we would probably be okay with those.
[3:39:49] I haven't gotten to that yet.
[3:39:51] Okay.
[3:39:51] Today we would be, because they're 25%.
[3:39:55] Okay.
[3:39:57] Because again, it's a question, it's truly a question, not trying to direct.
[3:40:01] So we got the one on the right, neon, whatever, but then I also think about driving by my local
[3:40:08] food line or curger, you know, where it's got, you know, by one doesn't eggs get one for
[3:40:15] twice as much, to how we would handle those on the street.
[3:40:22] We have to, we would still be trying to limit the amount of window signage to just 25% of the
[3:40:29] section.
[3:40:32] Let's see.
[3:40:34] That's where we are this far.
[3:40:37] So, another change we propose in the building on its sign section is establishing a maximum
[3:40:42] percent of the window area that may be a lighted sign.
[3:40:45] So currently, as we've discussed, we have a 25 percent limitation on just ordinary window
[3:40:52] signage lighted, not lighted. But in response to hearing some of the concerns over the past year
[3:40:57] two on lighted signage, and the brightness that comes from that, one effective way to limit that
[3:41:03] is to limit a smaller subsection of the window to lighted signage, say it's 5 percent, 10 percent.
[3:41:09] We don't have an exact value yet in this document, but we plan to do some testing to see
[3:41:13] what's appropriate, what's within reason, and to add that in draft three.
[3:41:23] Mr. Chair, for me, I'm glad you're all going to look into that.
[3:41:32] Again, I speak for anybody else, but just driving by the view, right, you've got some lighting that's
[3:41:39] literally behind the letters, and so there's an elimination, right, but then you can have something that literally
[3:41:44] It looks like a lighted sign, billboard, where it's all lit up and everything else.
[3:41:52] Given the same square footage, I'm curious to see how we would handle maybe the different
[3:41:59] types in those situations.
[3:42:02] Because it's strictly a square footage kind of thing,
[3:42:08] I look forward to seeing how you
[3:42:09] guys work through that.
[3:42:10] The photos here are the view and the living scene are a little misleading to the window
[3:42:15] signage, I should have put another photo in here of Winder
[3:42:19] signage, but photo is here reference, another change to
[3:42:22] building management, which is increasing the building
[3:42:25] management from multi-family buildings, which is quite
[3:42:28] small today. And Zoma recognizes some of the good examples
[3:42:33] out there that have got exceptions, and Zoma proposes up to
[3:42:37] 300 square feet of building management for a multi-family building.
[3:42:40] But I do hear your comments on the Winder signage, and we'll
[3:42:42] make sure we go on top of that for draft free.
[3:42:46] So, where we're kind of headed in draft 3 is we'll have to find this better as, you know,
[3:42:53] maybe the traditional window sign is paper or vinyl or whatever they use could be 25%.
[3:43:01] But if they wanted to do, you know, a electric, illuminated sign within that window, it would
[3:43:09] maybe 10% or 15% well we put a lesser percentage that you could use if you were just going
[3:43:16] to eliminate it because we found that creates too much brightness. There's that whole issue
[3:43:25] and we were trying to control that we're having a difficulty from a Caucasian standpoint of trying
[3:43:32] to find a good way of measuring and controlling glare
[3:43:36] or brightness without the biologist's sophisticated equipment.
[3:43:42] The idea of, you can only have so much of your window
[3:43:46] exposed with a lighted sign.
[3:43:48] It seemed to simpler way of handling the problem
[3:43:52] and being able to enforce it easier in the future.
[3:43:59] Makes sense to you all.
[3:44:01] I'm with Commissioner Sloan. This is top one, so I'm sure we keep working out of it.
[3:44:06] You just made me think, this could be an example of where variance does matter in the sense
[3:44:13] that could we treat white light differently than we treat 10 neon different colors on the same
[3:44:22] So, if it's too varied, maybe that triggers, you know, it's too much, you've got to
[3:44:30] tone that down.
[3:44:31] So here being example where we just limit the amount of variation on color.
[3:44:35] When it's a lit up sign, it's a neat idea, and we'll have to be very specific to a measurable
[3:44:41] standard, but we'll do the research and see what exists, what technology exists to measure
[3:44:47] that.
[3:44:49] Let's share, I think when we had so much fun with the sign ordinance before, we came to a pretty good place where, and Rob, correct me if I'm wrong, we'll count.
[3:45:00] The bill was more comfortable with us kind of putting our hand on the scale as far as brightness and
[3:45:07] lumens as opposed to content and some of the other factors.
[3:45:14] Any with a broad berrier force?
[3:45:17] But accurately, when you're talking about sign regulation, you can pretty much do whatever
[3:45:23] you want as long as it's reasonable.
[3:45:26] accept for regulating content. The only content, the only content
[3:45:34] distinctions that could be made in the sign of ordinance is a difference between
[3:45:38] commercial and non-commercial.
[3:45:41] Correct, but limiting the number of colors in your
[3:45:45] palette. That's not content though, right? Correct. You know, as long as you, you're
[3:45:51] going to need to, I mean, you can't be arbitrary and capricious, obviously. So you
[3:45:55] We need to be able to advance a reasonable explanation why this particular regulation is necessary
[3:46:04] or beneficial.
[3:46:06] But as long as you do that, you should be fine.
[3:46:10] Like, 10 colors are distracting to the right light on the view.
[3:46:20] I can throw that out there for consideration.
[3:46:25] While we have your attention around, I know you love getting above not conversations.
[3:46:29] Should we be considering a four o'clock or eight since we did advertise that we would be hearing a case at four o'clock?
[3:46:37] Yes sir
[3:46:39] Thomas in the next minute or so if you can get to a clean stop then we'll bring you back up got four slides. I'll just
[3:46:45] Wait, this way. Okay
[3:46:50] Exactly don't underestimate how long we can make you stay up there for four slides
[3:48:32] A call to order our 4 p.m. public hearing, we have a, do we have any requests to postpone
[3:48:42] action emergency additions, changes in the order of presentation for our 4 p.m. public hearing.
[3:48:51] Seeing none, director Gillies, will you review the meeting procedures for us?
[3:48:56] Yes, sir.
[3:48:57] Planning Commission makes final decision on approvals for certain site plans, schematic plans,
[3:49:03] tentative subdivision plants, developments standard modifications and appeals of the director's decision.
[3:49:09] If the Commission approves or denies the request, there is no further public hearing.
[3:49:15] Following to this afternoon's meeting, you may obtain information on any case for which there is final action by calling the planning department at 748-1050.
[3:49:24] We have one case today.
[3:49:26] Thank you, Director Gilles.
[3:49:29] So our one case today is 080S 0145 E9 LLC in the Bermuda District, and we will have this
[3:49:40] case presented to us by Mr. Curtley.
[3:49:49] Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
[3:49:50] Who was at the board?
[3:49:52] Today, we're here to discuss K-0 T-S or 145, a major change to E-non-station for the
[3:49:59] very flat.
[3:50:00] We're looking at an addition of a stormwater management drive-on and to address drainage
[3:50:05] related impacts to the adjacent properties there.
[3:50:07] This case is back before the CPC because this was originally approved back in 2008 by the
[3:50:12] CPC.
[3:50:20] So again, this map is showing the applicant proposing drive-VMP in the northwest quadrant of
[3:50:27] the site.
[3:50:28] adjacent to the Hupo line to the north for Pizzlats 57-59 to the south and adjacent property long.
[3:50:37] adjacent properties along this appendage funding south were the long 2500-burges were in
[3:50:43] and 2600-burges were in. Staff is recommending approval based on our review and the additional
[3:50:50] conditions that were added to the staff report.
[3:50:58] The subject property is 26 acres and located at
[3:51:00] 25.25.01, per meter 100 grade, located within the Northeast Quadrant of the intersection of E9
[3:51:07] church rate and east 100 grade.
[3:51:13] Here you can see an aerial of E9 station currently, sections
[3:51:17] 1 and section 2 are under construction and section 3 is the area to the north where you can still see
[3:51:24] the wooded area just under the OATS label.
[3:51:33] So this is the purpose preliminary plot. I have a zoom
[3:51:36] but you can see the BMP added to the corner adjacent to lots of 50-57 and 59.
[3:51:44] And here is a zoom in showing you the dry pond and the outfall is associated with this
[3:51:49] that heads down this appendage of that is right next to the real way into the POR and fits properly.
[3:52:04] The staff recommends approval of the irrigation of a stormwater, management of stormwater,
[3:52:08] of drive-points, subject to the conditions and those
[3:52:10] contained in the staff report.
[3:52:12] Recommended conditions address drainage and downstream flooding,
[3:52:16] and will be in force of the time of construction
[3:52:18] plan review and during construction.
[3:52:20] As of the previous approval, conditions address drainage
[3:52:23] flowing in the direction of the adjacent pitch
[3:52:24] property to the east.
[3:52:26] Additional conditions are recommended by environmental engineering
[3:52:29] to address flooding issues.
[3:52:51] Thank you.
[3:52:53] Mr. Curtley, do any commissioners have any questions?
[3:52:56] in this case.
[3:53:00] Seeing none, I will open the public hearing and begin by asking Commissioner Sloan,
[3:53:05] were there any public comments online or through the portal?
[3:53:11] No, Mr. Chair, there were not.
[3:53:13] Thank you, Commissioner Sloan.
[3:53:15] Is there anyone present who would like to speak in either support or opposition to this request?
[3:53:21] Need to ask for the applicant first?
[3:53:27] Would the applicant present and would they like to speak?
[3:53:35] I'm getting a no for that, okay?
[3:53:38] Thank you.
[3:53:40] So is there anyone present to would like to speak
[3:53:43] and opposition or support of this request?
[3:53:49] Seeing none, I will close the public hearing
[3:53:52] and being of this case is in the Bramuda district.
[3:53:54] I will hand it off to Commissioner Salon.
[3:53:56] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[3:53:59] I do have one request of staff, and speaking with members of staff, at least it's been made
[3:54:08] very clear to me that if through some negotiations with the applicant, we can get an agreement
[3:54:16] to make the base of the drainage ditch concrete, that is something that we would really like
[3:54:26] to see the developer work with us on.
[3:54:28] So I've during the site plan process,
[3:54:31] we could ask really nicely and whatever we can do
[3:54:37] to get them to work with us on that,
[3:54:38] I think it would help out.
[3:54:39] Yes, sir.
[3:54:40] We'll do that.
[3:54:42] Thank you very much.
[3:54:43] And with that one request, I would ask planning commission
[3:54:46] to join me in recommending approval of case 080s 0145
[3:54:54] in on LLC and the Bermuda District, subject to the conditions in the case.
[3:54:59] I'm just a player of the patient, you're actually included in that document.
[3:55:07] I'm willing to modify my motion to simply approve the case instead of recommending a part of it.
[3:55:13] Second.
[3:55:15] Okay, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Sloan, any second by Commissioner Harden, any discussion?
[3:55:25] Madam Clerk, please take a look.
[3:55:28] Mr. Fracharsky.
[3:55:29] Hi.
[3:55:30] Mr. Sloan.
[3:55:31] Hi.
[3:55:31] Mr. Harden.
[3:55:32] Dr. Hilton.
[3:55:34] Mr. Owen.
[3:55:36] Hi.
[3:55:36] Mr. Chair of the vote is unanimous.
[3:55:38] The motion passes.
[3:55:39] Thank you.
[3:55:41] And that concludes our cases for the 4 p.m. public hearing.
[3:55:47] So at this time, we will go back to our work session.
[3:55:53] And I guess towards your Thomas for four more slides before we let him go.
[3:55:58] All right, so moving on from building nine signs into freestanding signs.
[3:56:05] For freestanding signs, we currently have a reasonably complex table that dictates signs
[3:56:10] size and height based on use, zoning district, and project size.
[3:56:14] We did our best to preserve this structure and translate it into the new ZOMOD districts while
[3:56:19] making minimal changes.
[3:56:21] We did allow more signage for property in an agricultural district to a farm use and we did decrease the
[3:56:28] signage for village entrance signs a bit.
[3:56:31] We've also allowed two square feet of signage to be mounted on fuel dispensers to accommodate
[3:56:35] a growing trend seen with that type of use.
[3:56:39] Another improvement for the user is that there were several significant requirements for signs that
[3:56:44] were buried in the table footnotes.
[3:56:46] I think there are nine foot notes in that table with some important items in there and we've
[3:56:51] moved those to a more prominent position within the section so they stand out more to
[3:56:55] the reader.
[3:56:57] This is chair.
[3:57:00] As a relates to increased area for formulas, for foreign use, is that specific to agricultural
[3:57:07] Please zone properties.
[3:57:09] Believe it's agricultural zone properties with.
[3:57:13] As opposed to residentially zone properties,
[3:57:18] that have some sort of an agricultural
[3:57:20] bias.
[3:57:21] I understand where you're coming from.
[3:57:22] It says agricultural district with a farm use.
[3:57:25] Thank you.
[3:57:33] All right, temporary signs.
[3:57:35] What we previously called limited duration signs is now temporary signs.
[3:57:39] Temporary signs are defined by their construction,
[3:57:41] which is if they are not permanently installed in the ground or to a structure and can be readily removed or or located elsewhere.
[3:57:51] Think about a real estate sign with a sheet of plywood held up by two four by four posts.
[3:57:57] The existing ordinance has 14 different categories of such signs based on land use and location.
[3:58:01] Each with varying sizes and time limits and Ted Barkley really want to thank him for his advice in some of the modifications we made here.
[3:58:09] help to kind of contextualize how this ordinance had gotten to be the way it was and helped guide us in making the changes here.
[3:58:17] Biggest change here was consolidating the varying time limits and sizes into a more standardized format.
[3:58:24] Most temporary science here are proposed to be 32 square feet in area, which is the size of a sheet of plywood.
[3:58:30] 7 feet in height and subject to a 120 day limitation or display limitation within one calendar year.
[3:58:37] We did hear from the advisory committee that they'd like to have another category of temporary
[3:58:42] signage added, one that would allow them to advertise lots for sale on an off-site location
[3:58:47] such as a farm.
[3:58:49] And so we'll look at that as a draft three modification if the commissions come to what
[3:58:55] that type of signage.
[3:59:03] So right now you're talking about temporary signs, temporary signs are defined as being 32 square
[3:59:11] do smaller signs, say, two feet by three feet or, you know, the typical, political sign or open house sign or whatever it is, is that another category there?
[3:59:24] No, that broadly, there are 32 square feet and seven feet in height, but there are some smaller exceptions.
[3:59:31] Like for individual residential lots, still the two by three, I think it's four signs.
[3:59:35] We did preserve those distinctions where useful.
[3:59:45] And then outdoor advertising signs.
[3:59:47] No changes were made to this section at all.
[3:59:49] We still have the July 24th,
[3:59:52] 26 deadline for sign monetization.
[3:59:55] I understand we're about 30 to 40%
[3:59:58] through that sign monetization product.
[4:00:03] Yes. And that's the date that reflects that.
[4:00:08] We feel like we're on schedule to meet that this time without any more extensions.
[4:00:12] We're at 30 to 40 percent. Can't answer anything beyond that.
[4:00:17] All right.
[4:00:21] Well, that concludes signs. Unless you have any further questions or things you didn't see
[4:00:25] or things you have questions about.
[4:00:37] Not so quick. You were so close.
[4:00:46] So the ordinance that we pass is very
[4:00:48] It's very defined to scope application the territory where it's applicable to the home
[4:00:56] on your arms.
[4:00:58] The only issue at hand is the underlying phasing that we asked a couple of the outdoor
[4:01:06] advertisers as far as the conversion and stuff like that, right?
[4:01:11] That's not the way I understand it, yes.
[4:01:16] So if
[4:01:19] we just wanted to say we're okay leaving in place what we've got in place, not expanding
[4:01:25] and not changing it, we could simply adopt that as part of the work, part of the ordinance
[4:01:32] and do away with an expiration date, correct.
[4:01:40] So you're stating that we would basically transfer everything that's in 19.1 as we have
[4:01:47] reference to the overlord signs and advertising signs.
[4:01:55] We've made them into 19.2 ZOMOD, but we would eliminate the deadline requirement for so many
[4:02:03] signs within the sign modernization area that we could leave it, is that what you're suggesting?
[4:02:09] Because that's what the sunset was in there was to try to keep moving forward with the removal
[4:02:15] of so many of the more out of date or deteriorating signs from the sign modernization area.
[4:02:24] Right, but if we, and truly a question, not, and I'm not seeing it, we've got to spend
[4:02:31] more time on it.
[4:02:31] But if we simply said, or if the board ultimately said that, look, the idea of modernizing
[4:02:39] the signs, whether it's done by 2026 or 2023, the county's not really at risk because
[4:02:46] there's no door open that allows for additional territories or the scope to increase it's
[4:02:55] if we got to the place and we simply said look the plan was is this fundamentally a good plan we
[4:03:03] want that those main corridors modernize and we adopted into the new zoning ordinance we would
[4:03:13] simply just simply lifting a July 24th, 2026 expiration date, theoretically they could kind of do it
[4:03:21] whenever they wanted to. But, correct. But there's no risk that there's no snow.
[4:03:26] Yeah, snowy. And it was kind of built in suspenders before we were trying to make sure we were kind
[4:03:31] of holding their feet to the fire to get a significant number of those and equated and deteriorated signs.
[4:03:39] Go on, remove and that was the technique that we, maybe if we had a conversation on
[4:03:46] mass them to maybe move the needle a little bit faster, because I mean personally when
[4:03:52] I look at personally for me and I don't want to speak for any other commissioner where
[4:03:57] they have modernized, it's night and day and I think that whole modernization effort is really
[4:04:05] I mean like the one here. I'd love to see that everywhere and I would hate for us to sunset it
[4:04:15] and not have completed what we originally wanted to complete and then we're left with what we've got
[4:04:21] and there's no incentive to modernize anymore. I was just at some point if we wanted to,
[4:04:28] if there was a support for it or we crossed that bridge and theory we could just simply pick it up
[4:04:33] market in there, and the expiration would go away.
[4:04:38] Yeah.
[4:04:39] I think the reason we put in was that if they didn't meet that,
[4:04:42] quote, our requirement that we had for replacement of
[4:04:45] a number of signs, they could no longer do more sign,
[4:04:49] you know, do more replacement.
[4:04:52] So if you wanted to lift that part of the
[4:05:10] All right, just a couple more slides left, so we are on track because we finished today's
[4:05:17] topics. Thank you for that. Thank you for your attention. I know it was a very long day. So in June,
[4:05:23] we will continue on with our development standards. You can see the topics we will cover in
[4:05:27] in Article 4. We broke it amount in June and July. And then in August, we'll transition to
[4:05:34] five, 10 and 11, in September, Article 6, 7 and 8, and that should complete your review of
[4:05:42] ZOMI Draft II. And at that point, we intend to come back and chat a little bit about that
[4:05:47] parking lot list of items, and so we'll be back around hopefully September, October,
[4:05:53] because you have slated on your agenda through October to review ZOMI.
[4:06:00] We did want to just remind
[4:06:01] that we're continuing to do outreach on ZOMOD, so social media pushes our website is updated every month
[4:06:08] after you're meeting. We post a link to the presentation so we can come back and watch it and we're
[4:06:13] trying to get the word out as much as we can about ZOMOD so that people can learn during this process.
[4:06:20] We do have the comment portal open for ZOMOD online. If you want to review the draft ordinance
[4:06:26] or encode platform, you can use the QR code on the screen.
[4:06:30] It'll take you right there.
[4:06:31] And as you review the draft, just put in your context information
[4:06:34] in the comment that you have.
[4:06:36] And it goes straight to us.
[4:06:37] If you have any questions, we're here for you
[4:06:40] and for anyone watching online.
[4:06:43] Thank you.
[4:06:55] Just try to delay a little bit.
[4:06:57] How long is the comment portal going to be open?
[4:07:00] Is that very limited or is it going to be open for a while?
[4:07:03] So right now, we don't have an end date.
[4:07:06] We just knew that you all would be reviewing through October.
[4:07:09] So in our minds, when you're finishing up your review,
[4:07:13] we'll probably begin to do the 30-day notice that it'll be closing.
[4:07:18] But we can discuss that if you'd like to set a date for that closure as well.
[4:07:22] And closing it at one point will be helpful for us to be able to kind of at least
[4:07:29] mark a time where we're taking all the comments from draft two and start to make draft three.
[4:07:34] So we've got to cut it off at some point.
[4:07:36] It's not that we all start at another portal process
[4:07:39] for draft three at a later date, but the idea
[4:07:42] that we kind of, from a staff perspective,
[4:07:44] kind of need to stop taking comments at one point,
[4:07:47] kind of, and then start figuring out,
[4:07:50] make sure we have, trying to integrate as many
[4:07:54] of those comments as possible into draft three.
[4:07:59] Thank you.
[4:08:03] We'll now move on to our next item for discussion.
[4:08:06] Item B, the initiation of Code Amendment
[4:08:08] relative to Chesapeake Bay Preservation Active Requirements for Climate Adaptation and the Chore
[4:08:14] Tree Preservation 24 PJA 0104, and I guess Mr. Smedley will be presenting this one.
[4:08:23] Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
[4:08:25] Members of the Commission.
[4:08:26] As Mr. Petrosky mentioned, this is to initiate changes to the Chesapeake Bay portion
[4:08:33] of our zoning ordinance, the legislature pass on regulatory guidelines a couple of years ago,
[4:08:44] and DEQ had some time to put together those changes related to climate resiliency, mainly
[4:08:51] entitle areas, but these are being implemented over all the resource protection areas of the
[4:09:03] code. The state code requires that this be done by September of this year. The DEQ has said
[4:09:11] that they're not going to do any enforcement on it for another year, but we'd still like to
[4:09:15] try to get it done by that September deadline just to be in compliance with the state code.
[4:09:21] So we would like to try to come to you in July with those code amendments as we get those finalized
[4:09:28] working with DEQ, so I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have for what I know at this point in time.
[4:09:38] So let's just make specifically asking us to hold a public hearing in July.
[4:09:43] That's what we are shooting for, but right now it's just to initiate the process.
[4:09:49] So, okay.
[4:09:53] Makes sense?
[4:09:59] Okay, with that, can I have a motion to initiate
[4:10:02] the Code Amendment Relative to Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
[4:10:05] requirements for climate adaptation and maturatory
[4:10:08] presivations to 4PG-0104?
[4:10:11] So, may I have a question?
[4:10:13] Second, a motion by Commissioner Owens,
[4:10:16] or by Commissioner Sloan, and a second by Commissioner Owens.
[4:10:19] Madam, will you please take the roll call?
[4:10:21] Mr. Fitzgeraldski?
[4:10:22] Aye.
[4:10:23] Mr. Sloan?
[4:10:24] Mr. Harden? Aye.
[4:10:25] Dr. Hilton? Aye.
[4:10:27] Mr. Owens?
[4:10:28] Aye.
[4:10:28] Mr. Chair, the vote is unanimous for approval.
[4:10:32] Thank you, Madam Clerk. Our next item is to discuss a motion to set a public hearing for
[4:10:37] June 18th, 2024 to consider an ordinance amendment to chapter 19.1 of the county code in order
[4:10:44] to address comments provided by FEMA on the recently adopted floodplain ordinance amendment.
[4:10:51] It's just medley, you have the floor again.
[4:10:53] So you might recall adopting those changes back in April to the floodplain ordinance that were requested by DCR.
[4:11:01] The board subsequently adopted those ordinance changes. It was sent to FEMA.
[4:11:06] FEMA came back and requested that we change the word exception to variance in our ordinance.
[4:11:15] So that's what this public hearing and changes will be in the June meeting.
[4:11:21] So, pretty minor, but the word exception is in there a few times that is to be modified.
[4:11:30] I'm sure there's any questions for Mr. Smith.
[4:11:34] Seeing none, can I have a motion to set a public hearing?
[4:11:37] For June 18th, 2024 to consider an ordinance amendment to chapter 19.
[4:11:41] One of the county code in order to address comments provided by FEMA on the recently adopted flood plain ordinance amendment.
[4:11:49] Samay.
[4:11:50] Next second.
[4:11:51] We have a motion by Commissioner Harden and a second by Commissioner Hilton.
[4:11:55] Madam Clerk, please take the roll call.
[4:11:57] Mr. Bajrowski.
[4:11:59] Aye.
[4:11:59] Mr. Sloan.
[4:12:01] Ms. Harden.
[4:12:02] Dr. Hilton.
[4:12:03] Mr. Owens.
[4:12:04] Mr. Chair of the vote is unanimous.
[4:12:06] The motion passes.
[4:12:08] Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[4:12:10] Moving on to our next agenda item to review the cases.
[4:12:14] we will skip our review at the 4PM case, considering it has already occurred, and jump right
[4:12:20] into Mr. Data, who will present our 6PM cases.
[4:12:26] Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm here with the commission, Director Gilles. We have nine
[4:12:32] cases this evening. First one, very pleased we've been bringing forward to you. It's case 23
[4:12:36] S, A, 0, 0, 0, 3, it's in the telecomedisterial district. This is the Western area high school
[4:12:42] substantial cord request, which is a substantial cord determination to determine whether
[4:12:49] it proposed new high school to be located on approximately 108 acres on the properties
[4:12:54] known as 17500, 18000, and 18000, and 18000, and 18000, Duval Road, is substantially
[4:13:02] in accordance with the county's conference plan. Staff recommends approval, and this has been
[4:13:06] in your discussion agenda.
[4:13:10] Next case, we have 23SN-0111.
[4:13:13] This is in the Bermuda Ministry of District.
[4:13:15] We have the Rivers Bend RV storage case, which is a request to amend the Zoning Approval
[4:13:19] Case 95SN-0109 to permit parking and storage of recreational equipment in a residential
[4:13:26] R15 district on 2.77 acres, known as 11949 Hogan's Alley.
[4:13:32] Staff recommends approval, and this has been placed in your consent agenda this evening.
[4:13:35] Next, we have the Dogwood Creek case.
[4:13:39] This is a case 23SN-019, it's in the Motorocomadestrial District.
[4:13:45] It's a request to be done from agricultural A to residential R12 district with the conditional
[4:13:51] use to permit neighborhood recreational facilities for property-fronting approximately 1,080 feet
[4:13:58] on the south side of Gemto Road and 1,530 feet west of Tuckmore pond drive.
[4:14:04] staff is recommending approval and this has been placed in your consent agenda this evening.
[4:14:09] Next we have case 23SN 0123. This is in the mid-Lothian Magisterial District. This is the
[4:14:15] eastern Malothian Caritown tobacco case. It's a request for conditioning used to permit a recreational
[4:14:21] substance use with the conditioning used by a development. In the community business C3 district on
[4:14:26] 1.24 acres known as A004 Malothian Turnpike. This afternoon, this afternoon, excuse me,
[4:14:33] You received an in-dendum for this case that provides a revised set of conditions and a building layout plan
[4:14:39] relative to
[4:14:42] Retail uses and
[4:14:44] Recreational substances on the property staff is recommending denial of this request and this has been placed near discussion agenda
[4:14:51] We have case 23 SN
[4:14:53] 0 1
[4:14:55] 2 5 in the clover hill magistral district is at the foreign wood's case. It's a request to resume from
[4:15:00] Your cultural A, your residential R12 district, plus condition you explained available to permit exceptions to ordinance for requirements on 15.3 acres, known as 50 or zero claypoint road, staff recommends approval.
[4:15:15] And this has been placed near discussion agenda. Next we have case 23SN zero one three three. This is in the clover.
[4:15:22] The Hill Industrial District is the Richmond Animal League,
[4:15:24] rezoning and exceptions case is the quest to rezone.
[4:15:27] From light industrial I1 to community business,
[4:15:31] C3 district with conditionings planned development
[4:15:33] from an acceptance to ordinance requirements
[4:15:35] on 4.45 acres known as 11401 International Drive,
[4:15:40] 717 and 801 Branchway Road.
[4:15:43] Staff recommends approval,
[4:15:45] and this has been placed in your consent agenda.
[4:15:48] Next, we have case 22SN-0147.
[4:15:52] It's in the Dale Medicine District.
[4:15:54] This is the Rockwood Grove application,
[4:15:56] which is a request to resume from agricultural A.
[4:15:59] Residential R7, corporate office O2,
[4:16:03] and community business C3-2, residential townhouse R-T-H district
[4:16:07] with conditionally used to plan development
[4:16:08] to permit acceptance to ordinance requirements
[4:16:11] on property known as 97-1holstery Road.
[4:16:13] staff does recommend approval and this has been placed near discussion agenda and we have
[4:16:20] the case 23 SN0043. This is in the Bermutum Administrative District. This is the Bensley
[4:16:26] Aggrehood case, which is a request to resume from residential R7 to residential R12, district
[4:16:34] plus conditional use and a condition used plan development to permit acceptance to ordinance
[4:16:39] requirements on a property known as 2600 swine for road. Now the district commissioners
[4:16:44] to deferral to the Plain Commission's regularly scheduled meeting on July 16, 2024.
[4:16:51] And lastly, we have case 23SN-0121. It's a Matokamadestero district. This is the studio
[4:16:58] I'm training case, which is a request for conditionally used to permit a fitness training
[4:17:04] studio incidental to a dwelling. And amendment of a zoning district math in a agricultural aid
[4:17:10] District known as 17600 Elco Road, staff recommends approval, and this has been placed in
[4:17:16] your consent agenda.
[4:17:17] I'd be happy to answer any questions on this evening's agenda.
[4:17:21] Commissioners, have any questions from us to Donald?
[4:17:26] Yep.
[4:17:28] Next item is the approval of the Planning Commission meeting minutes from April 16th, 2024.
[4:17:37] I have a motion.
[4:17:41] Second, we have a motion from Commissioner Owens and a second from Commissioner Sloan for the approval of the April 16th, 2024 planning commission minutes.
[4:17:50] Madam Clerk, please take the roll call.
[4:17:53] Mr. Patrasky?
[4:17:54] Aye.
[4:17:54] Mr. Sloan?
[4:17:55] Aye.
[4:17:56] Ms. Harden?
[4:17:57] Dr. Hilton?
[4:17:58] Aye.
[4:17:59] Mr. Owens?
[4:18:00] Aye.
[4:18:01] Mr. Chair of the vote is unanimous for approval.
[4:18:03] Thank you.
[4:18:04] Our next item will be the planning commission work program update from Mr. Hosh.
[4:18:09] After noon, members of the commission, Mr. Gillies, go quickly over your list of projects that are outstanding.
[4:18:15] Of course, ZOMOD, you are in the guts of ZOMOD now, so congratulations.
[4:18:19] And we look forward to working with you, great discussion.
[4:18:22] So, I'd like to have that back and forth.
[4:18:23] So, thank you for helping us refine the ordinance and make it a little bit better.
[4:18:28] Along with that, we are also working on the subdivision ordinance just to remind you of,
[4:18:32] we are going through that document as well, making sure that it aligns with the proposed
[4:18:37] zone-mod ordinance so that the two of those things were canned in hand, you know, come time
[4:18:41] for adoption. And then as you discussed today of the floodplain management district ordinance,
[4:18:49] reopening that for for some additions there, Mr. Smellie presented that. And then of course,
[4:18:54] in the shade of the Chesapeake Bay Act, Coles Residence and mature trees,
[4:18:57] ordinance as well, so both of those environmental oriented ordinances will be moving forward soon.
[4:19:05] And then in your comp plan projects housing diversity strategy, we continue to meet with our regional partners.
[4:19:11] We're going to be setting up with plan RVA who's got some initiatives underway along with PHA.
[4:19:16] You all may have seen the announcement by Henrico County on some of their housing efforts that they're proposing for their county.
[4:19:23] So I'll be interested in the CPHAs upfront and central on that.
[4:19:27] So look forward to a good discussion with Javan on that.
[4:19:30] Eastern 60 Coder Plan.
[4:19:31] It was good to see you, Mr. Pachowski and Ms. Harden last night.
[4:19:34] I'm sorry, we didn't have a bigger turnout.
[4:19:36] We're going to continue some efforts to get the word out to the public
[4:19:39] about that excellent effort there.
[4:19:42] So can you stay tuned with that?
[4:19:43] We'll start moving into the gathering input phase
[4:19:46] of what people think the Coder should be,
[4:19:49] and what they want to be for the future.
[4:19:51] So can you work with you all on that?
[4:19:53] Of course, chapter 10, the land use plan chapter needs to be updated in hand-in-hand with ZOMOD,
[4:19:59] so as we start, I think we've got the districts in a good place.
[4:20:03] Hopefully we can start looking at the land use plan and making sure that land use plan categories
[4:20:07] and the ZOMOD categories are complementing each other.
[4:20:10] And then the bikeways and trails plan update, we are moving forward with a consultant on that
[4:20:15] to prioritize and redefine some of those bike projects and where they should go
[4:20:19] and narrowing those down a little bit,
[4:20:21] so I hope to bring that to you some point in a near future.
[4:20:25] And then we're excited to kick off another area plan
[4:20:27] on the corridor, Mr. Owens.
[4:20:30] And I don't know if it'll, I don't think it'll touch
[4:20:31] your district in Cloverhill, Miss Harden,
[4:20:35] but probably the Western Hull Street corridor planned,
[4:20:37] look forward to doing that this summer, so stay tuned there.
[4:20:40] And then long term in the future,
[4:20:42] the Northern Route 10 corridor plan,
[4:20:44] we're still looking toward that, Dr. Hilton as well.
[4:20:47] And with that, we have to answer any questions anyone has
[4:20:49] your projects. Thank you. Any questions from staff? I just wanted to say that was a great
[4:20:57] presentation last night and thanks to staff for all your hard work and going into that.
[4:21:04] It's very well done. Yeah, Drew Brett did a great job. Sorry they're not here right now, but thank
[4:21:09] you for that.
[4:21:13] Thank you. Okay is there any other business that the commissioner staff would like to
[4:21:19] discussed during our work session today.
[4:21:22] Okay?
[4:31:07] Good evening and welcome to the evening session of the May 21st, 2024 planning commission meeting.
[4:31:13] We're pleased to have the QR code available. Anyone who's interested may scan the QR code that has been provided in download the agenda and all the staff reports for tonight's meeting.
[4:31:23] We'll leave that on the screen for a few moments if anybody wants to, I see some phones out.
[4:31:28] and that you are code.
[4:31:36] It looks like everybody has the agenda downloaded, who wants it.
[4:31:41] So moving along, tonight's invocation
[4:31:43] will be given by Commissioner Owens.
[4:31:47] Good evening.
[4:31:49] About a year and a half or so ago,
[4:31:51] Will Smith calls it an upper world with this slap
[4:31:54] that was kind of heard around the world.
[4:31:56] But Will Smith can also teach us a few lessons.
[4:31:59] It is graduation season for universities, colleges,
[4:32:02] and high schools.
[4:32:03] Along with that is the realization by quite a few people that the structure life that they live will not be the same anymore.
[4:32:11] Some will go under the careers, some will take on full-time jobs, some will continue on to college to get their degrees.
[4:32:17] But let's talk about how Will Smith will teach us some lessons.
[4:32:20] If you get a chance and don't do it now, but do it later, go to YouTube and do a search for Will Smith Skydiving.
[4:32:27] And it's a video where he talks about his first time getting ready to skydive and how he was in complete fear and it kept him up all night all the way to the point when he got to the door of the plane and
[4:32:38] He was completely scared of death and then when he went out of the plane it was just complete bliss and
[4:32:45] He realized himself that
[4:32:46] He had no no reason to fear because he was fearing something that was unknown
[4:32:52] So as many of us move on to the things we're doing on our life like those are graduating
[4:32:56] We all have fear inside of us, and when we realize that the fear really isn't something that we need to have, life becomes happier and the anxiety that we have about some things disappear.
[4:33:08] In the book, who moved my cheese? That was about fear of change.
[4:33:12] But it was still about fear. Challenge your fears and overcome them. The worst thing that can happen is you might fail.
[4:33:19] But if you do that in fear, you haven't even better chance of failing.
[4:33:23] So please join me with the pledge.
[4:33:24] I
[4:33:29] pledge allegiance to the flag of being nice.
[4:33:48] Thank you commissioner Owens.
[4:33:50] Next, we will entertain any request to postpone action emergency additions or changes in the order of presentation.
[4:33:58] Do any commissioners want to make any changes or additions to this evening's agenda?
[4:34:03] Okay, I'm seeing none.
[4:34:05] We will move on.
[4:34:06] The next item is our review of the meeting procedures.
[4:34:10] Director Gillies will you please review the meeting procedures for us?
[4:34:14] Yes, sir.
[4:34:15] On a controlled basis, the Planning Commission will be hearing in-person public comments from
[4:34:21] citizens tonight, presentations by individual individuals, is limited to three minutes, and presentations
[4:34:28] by groups are limited to five minutes.
[4:34:32] For security reasons, no flash drives or documents are permitted to be passed out.
[4:34:37] The Citizens' comment period gives citizens an opportunity to voice their concerns.
[4:34:43] It is not a time to engage in dialogue with the commissioners.
[4:34:47] To provide more opportunity for public comments, the Planning Department has been taking
[4:34:51] citizen comments regarding the public hearing items on tonight's agenda through the public
[4:34:56] comments portal on the Chesterfield Planning Department's website since May 14, 2024.
[4:35:03] In addition to the portal, we receive telephone messages and emails specifically directed to the planning department.
[4:35:11] All these comments, the portal comments, telephone and emails received by 5 p.m.
[4:35:23] My 5 p.m. Monday, May 20th, 2024 have been provided to the commissioners.
[4:35:30] The Planning Commission makes recommendations on conditional uses, conditional use, plan developments, and rezoning cases.
[4:35:39] If a case is withdrawn, there's no public hearings regarding that request.
[4:35:43] If the Commission recommends approval or denial of these items tonight, the item will be afforded to the Board of Supervisors for Final Action.
[4:35:50] Following tonight's meeting, you may obtain information on the date and time of the Board of
[4:35:56] Supervisors public hearing on the conditional use, conditional use, plan development and
[4:36:01] re-zoning requests by visiting the agenda center at www.cesterfield.gov slash agenda
[4:36:08] center or by calling 804-748-1050 and providing the case number.
[4:36:15] Thank you, Director Gilles. Next is our citizen comment period on unscheduled matters and
[4:36:21] bobbing the services policies and affairs of the county government regarding planning
[4:36:25] or land use issues. Director Gilles, will you please read that statement for us?
[4:36:31] Yes sir.
[4:36:34] In this portion of the meeting, only specific public comments involving the services policies and
[4:36:40] affairs of county government regarding planning and land use matters may be presented.
[4:36:45] These comments may not address any matter of business that is subject to the commission's agenda today.
[4:36:52] The Senate's in comment period shall be limited to 15 minutes, and each speaker may not exceed three minutes.
[4:36:59] Any comments on unscheduled manners submitted to the website portal telephone or emails received by 5pm Monday, May 20, 2020,
[4:37:08] have been provided to the commissioners tonight?
[4:37:11] Thank you, director Gillies. We do not have anyone signed up for unscheduled matters, but is there anyone present who would like to speak on please approach?
[4:37:26] Mr. Chairman, there is another commission. Mr. Gillies, my name is Greg Allen.
[4:37:32] I want to speak tonight about what happens when mistakes are made during the zoning process.
[4:37:36] You know, one, there may be a legal issue that comes up, but there may also be a difficulty
[4:37:43] in achieving your vision that you had for your projects when it's actually built, a point
[4:37:49] strongly made, I missed your slurn, this afternoon in our discussions.
[4:37:53] So I want to use an example from last month.
[4:37:57] This is the Benton Woods Zone in case.
[4:38:01] It didn't address certain requirements for common area.
[4:38:04] Now, the common area for this plant, I just want to orient you what is shown here with
[4:38:09] the loss in the gray area is left over land, not in lots, in part of it is common area.
[4:38:16] But the common area plan called for a strategic common area, something you've been talking
[4:38:20] about today, to be 2.1 acres in size is what was needed for the amount of loss that were
[4:38:26] reduced, the sizes that were reduced.
[4:38:29] Now, if you look up here in this
[4:38:36] area here, it talks about how there needs to be that 2.1 acres,
[4:38:41] and down below it lists a focal point, which happens to be this area right here.
[4:38:45] There's 0.5 acres.
[4:38:48] It makes a point that there are some other areas called a play field area that has to that,
[4:38:55] but let's just take a look at that play field area.
[4:38:58] And first, for the benefit of the audience, I want to give a definition of strategic
[4:39:02] common area because that's the key.
[4:39:04] And I quote it from the ordinance, strategic common area should provide the community
[4:39:08] residents with an opportunity for high quality aesthetic and or active outdoor amenities.
[4:39:15] So when you look at this plan, you first off have to realize how small these lots are.
[4:39:20] These lots range from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet.
[4:39:23] So this scale of things really starts to change.
[4:39:26] these aren't regular 12,000 square foot lots.
[4:39:30] The other area that they claim is their strategic common area.
[4:39:35] Is this little area right here?
[4:39:40] It's wedged in behind these small lots.
[4:39:44] I guess to above it, a call to sack lot in the back.
[4:39:48] And then all this area here, well this is the sound set back
[4:39:52] from Chip and Ham Parkway.
[4:39:53] You can't be cleared or graded.
[4:39:55] So it has to stay in the sports condition.
[4:40:00] So much of this area, if I actually color it in,
[4:40:04] this is all Columbia gas, gas line easement.
[4:40:10] OK, so what we have here is what's called supposed
[4:40:13] to be a strategic common area.
[4:40:15] It's squeezed in between all these lots
[4:40:17] and the sound set back area.
[4:40:21] It's shaped in an odd shape, triangular shape,
[4:40:24] and at least half of it's overlapping,
[4:40:26] a commonwealth gas easement. I'm sorry Mr. Alie time is up. Okay, I have just two sentences left.
[4:40:33] All right, so since common area is the legal requirement, excuse me, the common area requirement.
[4:40:39] For reducing a lot of sizes, it's supposed to include a certain amount of strategic common area.
[4:40:44] I say that this plan doesn't do it in that when it comes through plan review,
[4:40:49] they may lose some lots in trying to achieve strategic common area.
[4:40:53] Okay, but the point is is that this common area plan was not part of your packet, so you
[4:41:01] never saw it. You were making decisions not based on all the information. These should
[4:41:07] be a part of your packet, and they should be proper. Thank you so much. Thank you Mr. Allen.
[4:41:13] Is there anyone else present who'd like to speak on unscheduled matters?
[4:41:20] Seeing none, we will
[4:41:21] move on to the public hearing portion of the evening.
[4:41:26] Now we will consider the following proposals in this order, requests for withdrawals or
[4:41:31] deferrals, cases where the applicant accepts the recommendation and there is no public
[4:41:35] opposition, code amendments, and cases where the applicant does not accept the recommendation
[4:41:40] and or there is public opposition.
[4:41:43] All of these items, except for withdrawals or subject to a public hearing, either staff or
[4:41:48] Commissioner will be asked to report any citizen comments received through the portal.
[4:41:52] Those comments are part of the public record and can be viewed by the public by going to the
[4:41:56] planning page of the Chester County website.
[4:41:59] The comments are located at the bottom of the upcoming agenda meeting section.
[4:42:04] This evening we have one deferral case for consent items and for discussion items we will
[4:42:09] begin with our deferral case, Mr. Donna, will you please present that for us?
[4:42:18] Yes.
[4:42:18] Good evening, Mr. Chair.
[4:42:19] There was a commission for Uli's, and we do have one case receiving this on the deferral
[4:42:24] agenda.
[4:42:24] We have case 23SN, 0043, this is in the Bermuda Magisterial District, this is the Benzley
[4:42:30] Agrehood case, which is a request to resound from Residential R7, 2 Residential R12, District
[4:42:35] plus conditional use and condition use plan development to permit acceptance to ordinance
[4:42:39] requirements on property known as 2600 swine for road.
[4:42:43] District commission is recommending deferral to the planning commission's regularly scheduled
[4:42:47] meeting on July 16th, 2024, we happy to answer any questions on the deferral.
[4:42:53] Thank you, Mr. Dada. Any commissioners have any questions from Mr. Dada?
[4:42:59] I'm not saying none, thank you.
[4:43:02] With the applicant like an opportunity to speak to the deferral,
[4:43:10] it does not appear so.
[4:43:12] With that, I will open the public hearing and I will first turn to Commissioner Sloan since
[4:43:18] This is in the brimuted district and ask if there were any comments on the public portal in relation to the deferral of case 2, 3, S and 0, 4, 3.
[4:43:29] Mr. Chair, yes, and members of the Commission were also provided copies.
[4:43:33] We did receive numerous emails and phone calls into the department, essentially in support of the deferral.
[4:43:42] Many folks in the community are asking for us to come back out to the community to provide an update once we receive update of
[4:43:50] Prophors from the applicant.
[4:43:53] Thank you, Commissioner Sloan.
[4:43:55] With that, I will open the public hearing if anyone present would like to speak in either support
[4:44:00] their opposition to the request for deferral on this case.
[4:44:04] Hello, my name is Renee Albert, and I would like for you to support Mr. Sloan on the
[4:44:11] the community really does not know what's going on, so we would really like a community, another community meeting and I'll really hope you all support his deferral.
[4:44:24] Thank you, Ms. Eldred. Anyone else present who would like to speak?
[4:44:30] Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and turn this over to Commissioner Sloan.
[4:44:38] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[4:44:40] And I do want to offer just a couple of comments just to kind of bring everybody up to speed.
[4:44:46] There is a significant amount of disinformation.
[4:44:51] I can tell everybody if you want to find out if you want to do a search on things that probably aren't exactly true.
[4:44:59] Go to the internet.
[4:45:00] There's a lot of that out there. And if you want to double down on that, go to social media.
[4:45:07] So I just wanted to take an opportunity to dispel some of the rumors that are out there and make sure we're all on the same page with us.
[4:45:16] This case has been around for quite a while now, and with combination of mine and staffs,
[4:45:24] deferral requests, and kind of the way the procedures of the Planning Commission work,
[4:45:31] this case will come to the full public hearing probably in July, but technically the worst
[4:45:38] possible scenario is it will come to the Commission in August.
[4:45:41] There's a time limit that kind of starts today with a deferral that's not supported
[4:45:46] by the applicant.
[4:45:49] First and foremost, I want to say that the applicant, as well as the planning staff, myself
[4:45:53] and other people, have been in constant communication over this case on a weekly basis.
[4:46:02] There is, you know, complete and open dialogue.
[4:46:05] There are rumors out there that the county is not talking to the applicant, the applicant is
[4:46:09] not talking to the county.
[4:46:10] No, that's true.
[4:46:12] Not even close to being true.
[4:46:14] I will tell you, and just so everybody in the room understands, when it comes to a zoning
[4:46:23] case, the applicant, the person applying for the zoning case, the applicant, is the only
[4:46:33] party that can negotiate various aspects of the case with the planning staff, the applicant,
[4:46:42] And only the applicant can provide voluntary
[4:46:46] Prophors, on a case, tenants, other folks associated
[4:46:53] that may have a relationship with an applicant down the road,
[4:46:57] they cannot negotiate independently of the applicant.
[4:47:02] So only the applicant can make statements to the community
[4:47:07] can provide documentation in writing to the county
[4:47:10] for proper conditions how they want to shape the case, so forth and so on.
[4:47:16] There's been quite a bit of back and forth over the past 90 days, and where the case sits
[4:47:20] right now, county staff is waiting for the applicant to submit what we believe to be the
[4:47:28] last and probably most up-to-date set of Prophors on the case.
[4:47:32] The applicant has expressed a willingness to change some of the proper conditions in the case.
[4:47:38] We're not exactly sure what those are.
[4:47:41] What I have promised to the community, because over the past several months, I have actually
[4:47:46] acted as the liaison on trying to keep community organizations, a prized of current status
[4:47:51] of the case and so forth.
[4:47:53] So once we receive, once we receive the latest round of updated profits from the applicant
[4:47:59] and staff has had plenty of time to review those, make sure everything's legal and eyes dotted
[4:48:06] he's cross, I will be asking the staff to organize a community meeting where the staff can
[4:48:15] present the most up-to-date staff report to the folks in the community that are most affected.
[4:48:25] The applicant is, we would love for the applicant to participate in the process, I'm sure
[4:48:30] they will, but this will be a staff directed exercise to make sure that the most up-to-date
[4:48:36] today's information is provided to be provided to the community.
[4:48:42] So that's what we hope to achieve over the next 60 days.
[4:48:46] And as they used to say that we're trying to get this train
[4:48:49] in the station and either get the passengers on or off,
[4:48:52] but we're trying to bring it home.
[4:48:54] So with that long-winded narrative, Mr. Chair,
[4:48:56] I do ask the Commission to support me in the recommendation
[4:49:02] of deferral for case number 23, SN0043, and the Bremuda district, the Bensley Agra
[4:49:08] Hood, to our regularly scheduled meeting of July 16th, 2024.
[4:49:15] Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Sloan and a second by Commissioner Owens.
[4:49:19] Madam Clerk, will you please take the roll call?
[4:49:21] Mr. Petrosky?
[4:49:23] Aye.
[4:49:23] Mr. Sloan?
[4:49:25] Ms. Harden?
[4:49:25] Aye.
[4:49:26] Dr. Hilton?
[4:49:27] Mr. Owens?
[4:49:28] Aye.
[4:49:29] Mr. Chair, the motion is unanimous and that motion passes.
[4:49:32] Madam Clerk. We will now move on to our consent items where the applicant accepts the staff
[4:49:38] recommendation and there is no public opposition. If there is opposition, the case will be
[4:49:43] placed at the beginning of the discussion items. Mr. Dino. Yes, the first case is case 23SN-011. This is
[4:49:50] the room for mutimed material district. This is the river's been RV storage case, which is a request
[4:49:55] to amend Zoning Approval Case 95SN-0109 to permit parking and storage of recreational equipment
[4:50:04] and a residential R15 district on 2.77 acres known as 11949 Hogan's Alley.
[4:50:10] A recreational equipment storage facility for the exclusive use of the Rivers Bend community
[4:50:16] with previously granted Zoning Approval in 2019 with case 20 or excuse 19SN-0621 for
[4:50:25] property, the conditions of the zoning, granted a three-year time limit for the use.
[4:50:30] And this is the case before you this evening is a renewal of this zoning approval.
[4:50:35] Staffricum is a approval, so there's the conditions in your staff report.
[4:50:39] Next up, we have Case 23SN0121, this is in the Mathematical Mathisterial District, this is the
[4:50:44] studio M training case.
[4:50:46] It's a request for conditionally used to permit a fitness training studio incidental to
[4:50:50] dwelling in a memory of the Zone District map
[4:50:53] in the agricultural aid district known as 17600 Elco Road.
[4:50:59] Previous zoning case, 18SN 0841 authorized the business
[4:51:03] through a conditional use, which has since expired.
[4:51:06] The applicants are questioned to amend the conditions
[4:51:07] of the original case to allow for expansion of the business,
[4:51:11] but to continue to limit the use
[4:51:13] to the existing accessory structure on the property.
[4:51:16] Staff recommends approval of this
[4:51:18] this subject to the conditions in your staff report.
[4:51:22] Next case, we have 23SN, 0133.
[4:51:26] This is in the Clover Hill Medical District.
[4:51:28] This is the Richmond Animal League Resonating and Acceptance case.
[4:51:31] It's a request to resume from Light Industrial I1.
[4:51:35] Two community business C3 District with Conditioning Use Plan Development to permit acceptance
[4:51:39] to ordinance requirements on 4.45 acres, known as 11401 International Drive, 717 and
[4:51:46] 801 branch weight road.
[4:51:49] Continue to use the site for commercial uses,
[4:51:51] including a veterinary clinic in commercial kennel
[4:51:54] is proposed.
[4:51:55] The staff recommends approval
[4:51:57] against subject to the conditions in your staff report.
[4:52:00] And then lastly on the consent agenda this evening,
[4:52:02] we have case 203SN-0119.
[4:52:06] It's in the Matoka, Magisterial District.
[4:52:07] This is the Dogwood Creek case.
[4:52:09] It's a request to resume from agricultural A
[4:52:11] to residential R12 district with conditional use.
[4:52:15] To permit a neighborhood recreational facility for property-fronting approximately 1,080 feet on the south side of Janto Road,
[4:52:25] 1,500 feet west of the Tukmar Pong of Tukmar Pong Drive.
[4:52:30] A community comprised of 293 single family detached residences,
[4:52:35] with the associate of neighborhood recreational facilities is proposed.
[4:52:38] The staff recommends approval,
[4:52:40] subject to the conditions in your staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions on the consent agenda.
[4:52:46] Thank you, Mr. Donna, do any commissioners have any questions from Mr. Donna?
[4:52:52] Would any of the applicants like an opportunity to speak to their cases?
[4:53:06] Mr. Chair, my members of the Planning Commission, my name is Will Schumack. I'm with the law firm of Wood Rogers
[4:53:11] and I just wanted to take a moment to thank Ryan Ramsey, other members of the province and staff that have worked on this
[4:53:20] This case is going to allow Richmond Animal League for its vision of meeting the future
[4:53:27] needs of this community, but to leg it to four leg it.
[4:53:31] And we really appreciate all the hard work that went into this and the guidance.
[4:53:34] So thank you very much.
[4:53:36] Thank you, Mr. Schumack.
[4:53:38] Anyone else present who'd like to speak?
[4:53:40] Applicants.
[4:53:42] So with that, I will open the public hearing and begin by asking staff or commissioners if there
[4:53:48] any comments that you'd like to report from the portal email or voicemails received quite
[4:53:54] a bit of support for Studio training.
[4:53:57] Thank you.
[4:54:02] I received two letters of support for the Dockwich Creek.
[4:54:06] I also did that as well.
[4:54:10] Thank you.
[4:54:11] Is there anyone present who would like to speak in either support or opposition to any of these
[4:54:17] four cases that only consent to gender?
[4:54:22] Seeing none, I will close the public hearing, and I will entertain a motion to recommend approval
[4:54:31] subject to the conditions in the four-staff reports for Case 2 3 S and 0 1 1 1 in the
[4:54:37] Bremuda District, Guerrero's Ben RV Storage, Case 2 3 S and 0 1 2 1 in the Matouka District,
[4:54:45] Studio M Training, Case 2 3 S and 0 1 3 3 in the Clover Hill District, Richmond, Adamally,
[4:54:50] rezoning in exceptions in case 2, 3, S and 0, 1, 1, 9 in the
[4:54:55] matolic of District, Dogwood Creek.
[4:54:58] So moved.
[4:55:00] Second, we have a motion by Commissioner Owens and a second by Commissioner
[4:55:04] Hilton.
[4:55:05] Madam Clerk will you please take a roll call.
[4:55:08] Mr. Petrovsky.
[4:55:09] Hi.
[4:55:10] Mr. Sloan.
[4:55:11] Ms. Harden.
[4:55:12] Hi.
[4:55:12] Dr. Hilton.
[4:55:14] Mr. Owens.
[4:55:15] Mr. Chair.
[4:55:16] The vote is unanimous and that motion passes.
[4:55:19] Thank you.
[4:55:19] Madam Clerk, next we will move on to our discussion items and the first one will be presented
[4:55:26] by Rich Saunders.
[4:55:27] I believe.
[4:55:28] Thank you.
[4:55:31] Good evening, Chairman Petrosky.
[4:55:32] Members of the Commission and Director Gillies.
[4:55:36] I present to you case 23, SA003.
[4:55:40] This is in the Meto-Comatisero District and it's a substantial accord determination that's
[4:55:45] requested by the Planning Department to permit a new public high school.
[4:55:49] A new public high school is proposed on the north side of Duval Road, approximately 0.3 miles west of its intersection with Otterdale Road.
[4:55:58] Staff recommends approval of the proposal as it beats the following guidance that's provided in the county's comprehensive plan for high school sites.
[4:56:06] The first is acreage sites are recommended to be approximately 80 acres. The site is 108 acres.
[4:56:15] Second is capacity, a recommended for 2400 students and the proposed capacities 2400.
[4:56:22] The third criteria is direct access to at least one, but preferably two major arterial roads.
[4:56:29] There is access to one arterial road in Duval Road, which will be improved to four lanes.
[4:56:33] There's also going to be access to a second to be built for Lane Collector Road, and then the fourth criteria is that high school site would not be located within an existing developed residential area, and the site is not located within a developed residential subdivision.
[4:56:52] Here's a zoning map. You can see the property which is 108 acres is currently zone residential. It's surrounded by properties that are zone agricultural and also residential.
[4:57:02] Although public high school is permitted by right use in residential, the county charter requires
[4:57:08] a determination that such uses in substantial accordance with the comprehensive plan.
[4:57:14] Next, this is an aerial land use map of the property. You can see the property outlined in white.
[4:57:20] The land use plan designates the area for single-family uses.
[4:57:26] This is the map of the five-year
[4:57:28] facilities plan, which proposes a new Western 360 area high school, generally the location
[4:57:35] is shown north of Route 360, South the Genitor Road, and west of the Swift Creek Reservoir.
[4:57:44] The map is intended to show the general location of the proposed public school facilities
[4:57:47] and does not articulate specific sites for new facilities.
[4:57:53] This is a general layout plan of the proposed high school, showing the approximate location
[4:57:57] of buildings, parking areas, access drives and athletic fields. The new school would be served
[4:58:03] by a dual road which will be improved to four lanes and a new north-to-south collector road,
[4:58:08] which will also be four lanes.
[4:58:12] Here's a little bit of information on site selection criteria
[4:58:16] in addition to meeting the comprehensive plans, communities, facilities plan. The site was selected
[4:58:23] over many others that were considered some of which are highlighted in this analysis.
[4:58:29] sites 10 and 11 generated significant discussion at the community meeting that was held in March
[4:58:35] 20. Ultimately, these two sites were eliminated from consideration due to access limitations,
[4:58:42] environmental features, infrastructure costs, and the planned expansion of Hornar Park.
[4:58:47] Planning staff further supports site 13 over 10 and 11 because of its proximity to existing
[4:58:53] residential areas that the high schools serve because of its location on the east side
[4:58:58] at the proposed expansion of Hoi Parkway where residential density is greater and because
[4:59:04] the removal of site 11 preserves industrial zone land that will have convenient access to the
[4:59:10] expansion of Hoi Parkway. As I said, there was a community meeting that was held at Cosby
[4:59:16] High School in March the 20th. The format of the meeting was open was an open house format
[4:59:21] and there was information that was provided from planning, schools, transportation and economic development.
[4:59:28] Citizens that were in attendance were provided with forms that they were able to provide common on.
[4:59:33] The Department of Transportation also provided a link to an online survey for their overall capital improvement projects within the vicinity.
[4:59:42] There was quite a bit of feedback provided in some of the highlights of concerns where just the overall proximity to Cosby High School.
[4:59:49] It's approximately three miles away from the current cost-be-high school site.
[4:59:54] There was concern with the condition, the current condition of roads, particularly with
[4:59:58] auto-dale and deep-all routes.
[5:00:00] There was desire from some residents for improvements to do ball road to extend west of the high school site.
[5:00:08] And then there was just general feedback about alternative sites and also traffic congestion.
[5:00:14] To conclude with staff recommendations, staff is still recommending approval of this request as the proposed location complies with the community facilities plan,
[5:00:23] which is an element of the county's comprehensive plan, and satisfies the criteria of location, character and extent, is specified in the code of Virginia.
[5:00:30] That concludes my presentation.
[5:00:33] Mr. Saunders, do any commissioners have any questions?
[5:00:37] Yes, I have a couple of questions.
[5:00:40] This is currently zoned for residential.
[5:00:43] So should this be found in substantial accord?
[5:00:46] How many residential units will be removed from that site?
[5:00:50] How many residential units would be eliminated?
[5:00:53] Didn't write down the memorabilitation.
[5:00:55] I think it's 311 that we're in that particular zoning case.
[5:00:59] before. So, a little over 300 units.
[5:01:04] I was just double check and I'm going to make sure.
[5:01:07] Thought I saw the number 600 somewhere.
[5:01:14] See, 21S and 0675.
[5:01:18] Allow for the development of public facilities and single-family development
[5:01:20] with up to 600 lots.
[5:01:23] 21S and 0675.
[5:01:25] That was there.
[5:01:25] You're correct with that being for the upper mag E's case.
[5:01:29] Okay. So this is only a small portion of the upper mag.
[5:01:31] So this is a wrap for you.
[5:01:32] This is mostly the cold creek number that Andy was referring to.
[5:01:36] Thank you.
[5:01:39] And then I think I'm okay with you.
[5:01:41] I have a couple of questions for CDOT.
[5:01:44] Okay.
[5:01:45] We're running.
[5:01:56] Good evening.
[5:01:59] So a couple of questions.
[5:02:00] The development of the North South collector road and the widening of the devol.
[5:02:04] Are those scheduled to be done prior to the school being open and giving certificate of occupancies?
[5:02:09] Yes.
[5:02:10] Okay.
[5:02:10] So those will be completely developed and won't come after.
[5:02:13] It's not going to be the chicken in the egg situation, whichever one is supposed to come
[5:02:17] first will be there.
[5:02:17] That's correct.
[5:02:18] All right.
[5:02:19] Are there plans with other developments that are happening east of the school that they
[5:02:25] are going to be required to extend the four, is CDOT want to ask them to extend the four lanes,
[5:02:31] pass the high school as part of their cases whenever they bring their cases forward?
[5:02:36] When are there plans?
[5:02:37] Yeah.
[5:02:37] So whenever there's cases west of the high school site on Devol Road, they'll be required to widen and improve their front edge along Devol Road.
[5:02:45] This is west.
[5:02:47] All right.
[5:02:48] That's all I have.
[5:02:51] Thank you.
[5:02:51] Anybody else for?
[5:02:53] All right.
[5:02:54] As Mr. Smithley here.
[5:02:57] Show.
[5:02:57] We don't have environmental here.
[5:02:59] Okay.
[5:03:00] I don't think he stayed.
[5:03:02] Okay.
[5:03:03] All right.
[5:03:03] That's the only question that I have so far.
[5:03:06] Thank you.
[5:03:07] is the applicant present and would they like an opportunity to speak?
[5:03:12] We are the applicant. Somebody could speak on behalf of the vote.
[5:03:16] Hello. All right.
[5:03:18] Mr. Owens has spoken.
[5:03:21] Okay, so I will open the public hearing and start by asking Commissioner Owens if there
[5:03:26] were any comments online from.
[5:03:29] So we've had some comments at both the meeting and I've had some direct contact with
[5:03:32] residents, those comments, both I've had good comments of people who are excited about the
[5:03:38] high school coming in. We've had a few people that are not happy with the location.
[5:03:44] So
[5:03:44] it's been a mix of four and against a lot more for positive.
[5:03:53] With that, I will ask if there's
[5:03:56] anyone present who would like to speak in the Hebrew or opposition to case two, three,
[5:04:02] SA003 in the Metallica District, the Western Area High School Substantial Accord.
[5:04:16] Good evening again, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission and Mr. Gillies.
[5:04:20] I'm only got here because there were a number of residents who had to attend the Cosby High School
[5:04:25] Graduation tonight and could not be here.
[5:04:27] And we're frustrated that they couldn't, so I'm speaking to them.
[5:04:32] And in three minutes, there was really a lot of time to review the true cost of site 10 versus site 13.
[5:04:38] But I just wanted to cover a few of the issues that residents have.
[5:04:43] The beauty of Site 10, which is really part of Hornet Park, is that it co-locates the school with Hornet Park.
[5:04:51] And therefore, the fields and athletic facilities can be shared between the school and the park.
[5:04:56] Whereas over on Site 13, those fields will be additional items that will have to be built in that land use for that purpose.
[5:05:05] The road costs would seem to transfer from one site to the other, just depends upon how you want to build the road network at the time.
[5:05:14] And, site 10 would allow the road network at Hornet Park and Westerley to be completed.
[5:05:19] Site 10 is clearly the more central to the expected school district for the Westernery High School.
[5:05:26] And, in fact, is where the site was shown on the comprehensive plan.
[5:05:30] And lastly, I am concerned about the neighborhoods that are being built along the South
[5:05:35] Line of Devol Road, two of those Lower Magnolia Green, as well as Doug Sauer, who will
[5:05:41] be building two more.
[5:05:44] They will become cutthrews, if in fact, this tight location on F of Site 13 with the Western
[5:05:50] Area High School being right on Devol Road, all this neighborhood will be cut through for the traffic
[5:05:56] coming from Lower Magnolia Green.
[5:05:57] there won't be any reason to kind of go around the bend,
[5:06:00] auto-dale, to hear, they'll just cut through those neighborhoods.
[5:06:04] People buying in those neighborhoods had no idea
[5:06:06] this was going to happen to them, and it will be a night and day change
[5:06:10] in terms of the traffic on these quiet secondary roads.
[5:06:14] Thank you.
[5:06:17] Anyone else present who would like to speak?
[5:06:23] Seeing none, I will close the public hearing
[5:06:24] and hand this over to Commissioner Oads.
[5:06:27] Yes, so I think of the sites, there was extensive study done
[5:06:30] And this site here turned out to be the best of them based on the reports that were provided.
[5:06:37] So I would like to make a motion that this side is substantially in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
[5:06:43] The motion by Commissioner Owens, or actually, is there any discussion?
[5:06:49] We have a motion by Commissioner Owens and a second by Commissioner Sloan.
[5:06:53] Adam Clark, will you please take the roll call?
[5:06:56] Mr. Petrosky?
[5:06:57] Aye.
[5:06:58] Mr. Sloan?
[5:06:59] Aye.
[5:06:59] Ms. Harden?
[5:07:00] Aye.
[5:07:01] Dr. Hilton?
[5:07:02] Aye.
[5:07:02] Mr. Owens.
[5:07:04] Mr. Chair, the vote is unanimous and that motion passes.
[5:07:08] Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[5:07:09] Our next case, we will invite Mr. Saunders.
[5:07:12] I believe back up to discuss case 2, 3, S, and 0, 1, 2, 5 in the
[5:07:17] Clover Hill District, Arnam Woods.
[5:07:19] Thanks again, commission.
[5:07:22] This case, again, is 23, S, and 0, 1, 2, 5 called
[5:07:28] This is a request to rezone from a agricultural to R12 to permit up to 46 slots on 15.37 acres.
[5:07:38] The density of the proposal is 3.0 units per acre.
[5:07:42] Exceptions to ordinance requirements of requested for lots eyes, lot width, coverage,
[5:07:47] building setbacks and required road furniture.
[5:07:53] This is just an overview of the site.
[5:07:54] You can see the zoning map, currently it's zone agricultural, surrounded by both agricultural
[5:08:01] and residential districts,
[5:08:06] areas that are area properties are zone residential in our
[5:08:09] culture to the north and south, and then residential to the east and west, next slide.
[5:08:16] The first image on the left shows the properties being primarily vacant with single family
[5:08:20] dwelling that's located near the road furniture.
[5:08:23] The reapportion of the property is predominantly wooded while the front portion of the property
[5:08:27] largely an open field with a pond along the southern property line.
[5:08:32] A joining properties to the north and south are also large lots and prove the single family
[5:08:37] dwellings.
[5:08:38] So, a joining properties to the east are a residential properties that are part of the parish
[5:08:42] branch subdivision to the west of the property across Claypoint is Crenshaw Elementary
[5:08:47] School.
[5:08:48] The second image on the right shows the comprehensive plan land use, which calls for suburban
[5:08:53] residential too.
[5:08:55] This slide shows the proper concept plan that details the general intent of the community lay out in common areas.
[5:09:03] The applicant is seeking to develop up to 46 lots.
[5:09:07] In addition to the proposed single-family loss that the applicant proposes a focal area that's situated towards the front of the development.
[5:09:14] That would be adjacent to the pond, as well as additional open space throughout the development.
[5:09:21] The focal point area towards the front would be approximately 7.75 acres. It will include a hard
[5:09:27] scape area with benches and other amenities to facilitate gatherings. All residential lots will
[5:09:34] be served by a driveway that will have all street parking. The entirety of the development as you
[5:09:40] can see would be surrounded by common area and a buffer that would vary in width from 20 to 50 feet.
[5:09:49] This shows the conceptual images that were included in the Prophors.
[5:09:54] Other conditions include high-quality building materials,
[5:09:59] and time and not in the requirements requirements
[5:10:01] for enhanced garage doors and front-loaded units.
[5:10:05] These lots would have driveways, front-walks,
[5:10:08] screening for HVAC units, and whole-house generators.
[5:10:12] The exposed portion of any foundation shall be brick or stone,
[5:10:14] and if any dwelling units constructed on a slab,
[5:10:17] Frickerson must be used around the base of the front and sides of the dwelling unit at a minimum of 24 inches above grade to give the appearance of a foundation.
[5:10:27] The applicants proposal include several modifications to development standards in the R12 district.
[5:10:33] These are further outlined in the staff report.
[5:10:38] Staff feels that exceptions will have a minimal impact on area properties and the request is conditioned with an integrated plan.
[5:10:44] That's no less beneficial to area properties.
[5:10:46] The
[5:10:50] proposed development provides quality design and architecture that results in an attractive and harmonious community that will complement this surrounding development.
[5:10:58] As conditions this request, again, will be no less beneficial to adjoining property owners and provided in your data plan.
[5:11:05] Design standards of the development include a focal point gathering area, open space, and time and not in your requirements and sidewalks and both sides of residential streets.
[5:11:13] We just go to the last slide real quick.
[5:11:15] And then I just wanted to highlight they didn't include the applicant, the common area exhibit.
[5:11:20] So minimum common area in strategic amenity areas are being provided with the development which will be confirmed during plans of you.
[5:11:29] Thank you Mr. Saunders. Any questions from Mr. Saunders or any staff on this?
[5:11:37] Is the applicant present would they like an opportunity to speak?
[5:11:50] Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission to Director Gilles. My name is Ann Miller.
[5:11:55] I am a planner with Ballzarn Associates representing the applicant this evening.
[5:11:59] I do want to thank Rich Saunders and Commissioner Harden for working on this case with us,
[5:12:03] and we're pleased to bring it to you with the recommendation of approval from staff this evening.
[5:12:08] I'm just going to touch on a few things, but staff's presentation was great.
[5:12:13] But as Rich pointed out, we are, the proposal includes a maximum of 46 D-touch single-family
[5:12:20] dwelling units on 15.37 acres, so that does equate to the three units per acre, which is
[5:12:26] right in line with the comprehensive plan that calls for two to four in this area.
[5:12:31] The lot size is proposed during the response to the housing market, and similar to another
[5:12:34] subdivision in the area that the applicant has already developed known as Cosby Estate's
[5:12:39] at Turner Farm. The proposal assurance concept plan does include the common area as he pointed out
[5:12:47] including the focal point in the existing pond which will have a trail around it, but it also
[5:12:53] does have buffers around the entire development. So as you all know buffers are not typically required
[5:12:59] between subdivisions or properties known to agricultural, but it is being offered in this case because
[5:13:05] applicants feel it'll be an asset to the future residents and the existing neighbors.
[5:13:10] The common area including the buffers will be maintained by the HOA.
[5:13:15] So the internal roads will be public with sidewalks and street trees on both sides to create a cohesive
[5:13:21] and attractive streetscape. The proposal includes one safe primary access to a major roadway,
[5:13:27] claypoint road, the applicant is providing transportation improvements and cash
[5:13:31] offers to address its impacts.
[5:13:34] The location of the access to the subdivision
[5:13:36] is proposed at the southern end of the road
[5:13:39] front edge as requested by the transportation department
[5:13:42] to provide distance from the signal at Claypoint
[5:13:44] Road and Bailey Bridge Road.
[5:13:47] We are providing subred to the north and south
[5:13:49] of the development for future connections
[5:13:51] if those properties were to be redeveloped.
[5:13:54] Those subreds are provided an importance
[5:13:56] with local and state connectivity requirements.
[5:13:58] We are not proposing any connections to any existing subdivisions with this proposal as shown on the concept plan.
[5:14:09] The applicants did have a traffic said they completed, even though it was not required,
[5:14:13] and that has been shared with county staff.
[5:14:16] They will continue to work with C.N.B.D.
[5:14:18] to ensure that an adequate safe primary access is provided to the subdivision.
[5:14:26] Finer homes is the proposed developer and they have developed numerous subdivisions in this county.
[5:14:31] They are always willing to work with the county and neighbors even after in the entitlement process.
[5:14:36] To bring quality, well-designed subdivision to life and this will be no exception.
[5:14:41] Because of their experience and reputation, we believe this is a wealth that that subdivision
[5:14:45] and will provide a needed housing choice within this area.
[5:14:49] We agree with staff's recommendation and assessment and all the conditions in the staff report
[5:14:53] And we asked for your recommendation of approval this evening.
[5:14:58] I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[5:15:00] Thank you, Ms. Miller. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?
[5:15:06] Thank you.
[5:15:09] With that, I will open the public hearing and commissioner Harden, since this is in
[5:15:13] Clover Hill, I will start with asking if you received any comments online or be a
[5:15:18] phone.
[5:15:18] Yes, I did. Since Friday, we received either eight letters or voice
[5:15:26] mail messages through the county portal.
[5:15:30] This was from a peer city from eight individuals.
[5:15:34] The issues that were raised and all of these were requesting denial.
[5:15:41] The issues that were raised were concerns with the traffic,
[5:15:46] concerns with the environment,
[5:15:48] possibility of overturning the school, concern was expressed about the location of the
[5:15:58] entrance, and several people seemed to be under the impression that this was a townhouse
[5:16:06] development, which it is not.
[5:16:11] but then the other comments dealt with,
[5:16:15] they just did not wanted this area to stay agricultural
[5:16:19] and did not want development here,
[5:16:21] wanted it up close to spring run.
[5:16:24] Thank you for sharing that Commissioner Harden.
[5:16:26] With that, I will open her,
[5:16:28] I will ask if there's anybody present
[5:16:29] who would like to speak in opposition or sport of this case.
[5:16:36] If you can stay church.
[5:16:36] Hi, good evening.
[5:16:38] Good evening.
[5:16:38] My name is Gael Yos.
[5:16:40] I've been living in that same little area since 1977.
[5:16:47] It has been zone agricultural from day one since I've been living there.
[5:16:52] And we've had farm animals there and we've had gardens there.
[5:16:57] It's a nice area.
[5:17:00] Quiet.
[5:17:01] Yes, we do have a subdivision on one side, the plantara.
[5:17:05] I'm sure you're very aware of that subdivision.
[5:17:08] How large it is.
[5:17:10] In that area, as they're proposed, there is a traffic light and it only goes two ways.
[5:17:21] It goes from claypoint road to the stop light that it veers off and goes to North Bailey Bridge
[5:17:29] and veers left to claypoint and I'll live right down claypoint, off the Seedor Springs road.
[5:17:38] Yes, she has alluded to Ms. Harden. We are concerned with the number of people are the schools that we already have. They're very overcrowded as well.
[5:17:55] We have two churches on claypoint road.
[5:18:00] We have the one elementary school on claypoint road.
[5:18:06] And we have a high school for the down on North Bailey Bridge.
[5:18:12] So right there in that area two houses down from the stop light
[5:18:18] for where this proposed development may be.
[5:18:22] We're very concerned of the traffic flow because we're getting that traffic going in all directions, people coming home down below North Bailey Bridge as you know we have a huge development another development called I'm sorry it just my memory just goes blank here.
[5:18:53] Well, anyway, it's two developments down that area as well.
[5:18:59] So with all the said, we're considering the impact with the sewage system, the water system,
[5:19:09] the road itself, it's only two lanes, going one way or the other, has there been any traffic
[5:19:16] I mean, any studies done for the current traffic pattern that we have and timed it to see how many
[5:19:28] total cars are going in that intersection there almost across the street from the proposed site.
[5:19:38] We're concerned of the impact that what it can bring as far as the traffic
[5:19:47] Again, going out of that development, I'm sorry.
[5:19:52] And also, will this mean incur cost?
[5:19:56] Has the county put together what the cost would be involved into when the roads may be wide
[5:20:01] in the roads or the sewage or the water?
[5:20:04] And our tax is going to go up when this occurs.
[5:20:07] All of those questions we have, but we don't have answers for.
[5:20:13] I would like to have some studies done and some of the things that I just mentioned and get back
[5:20:20] with this community and have another meeting and share the impact that it's going to, what it will be.
[5:20:29] Not only to the community residents, but to everyone that are traveling on that road as well.
[5:20:37] Thank you, Monsieur.
[5:20:39] Thank you so much.
[5:20:41] So, anyone else present who would like to speak?
[5:20:51] Mr. Chairman, we're going to go along one more time.
[5:20:53] I might speak against this case.
[5:20:55] I just want to go in up some considerations,
[5:20:58] especially given our conversation this afternoon.
[5:21:01] Can this plan concept plan be shown on the screen?
[5:21:07] Okay, so this is 46 slots,
[5:21:09] and we talked about how hard it is for an HOA
[5:21:13] to survive, especially the small ones.
[5:21:16] And so from my historical perspective, the one thing that I have seen of the 30 years
[5:21:21] that I served the county was that the neighborhoods from our past, the only thing
[5:21:27] they did have for a minute to areas was common area often just forested.
[5:21:33] Those HOAs could easily go defunct, so to speak, because there really was no maintenance
[5:21:39] to those forested areas.
[5:21:41] It was an easy thing to let happen, and the neighbors didn't suffer from it at all.
[5:21:47] So when you look at these new subdivisions, you start to look at, well, how can you reduce the
[5:21:53] impact of this neighborhood? Because as we see in neighbors, our very concerned about how it's
[5:21:59] changing their lives. But the more forced area you put into these buffers, you know, if I was
[5:22:04] looking at this case, I would have asked the developer, could you put 10 more feet into that 30 feet?
[5:22:10] These are still very deep lots for the small houses are going on them, and if you could, that means that when people see these things developed, they're going to see more of the force of air remaining, especially on the primitives.
[5:22:22] And those are the things that don't really need maintenance by nature away.
[5:22:28] So looking at the long term change that we're looking at these small lots, one of the best ways to do is to try to reduce the impact and save as much force at areas we can.
[5:22:38] Thank you.
[5:22:40] Anyone else present who would like to speak?
[5:22:47] Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing
[5:22:50] and ask the applicant if they would like an opportunity for a rebuttal.
[5:23:04] Just want to touch on the things I heard. The transportation analysis is in your staff report
[5:23:11] and there are some upcoming ray projects in the area that C.D.A. has outlined and was discussed
[5:23:16] started our community meeting, but I won't go into that.
[5:23:21] The developer will pay for their own improvements
[5:23:24] along the road front edge and the turn lane,
[5:23:27] the left turn lane, and they'll also pay $9,400 per single family
[5:23:33] lots per the cash proper policy.
[5:23:35] So those will be paid to the county.
[5:23:39] And we are connecting to public utilities.
[5:23:43] Utilities has looked at this.
[5:23:44] and have any comments and are supported of the case, we're also designing the on-site wastewater
[5:23:50] collection system to provide direct access to do to adjacent properties. And then within the
[5:23:56] residential development there are connection fees for utilities. So again another cost that the
[5:24:01] developer will pay to the county. So I just wanted to touch on those two things as well as environmental
[5:24:07] engineering that they've also reviewed the case and it'll have to meet all the Virginia storm
[5:24:11] management program regulations. So, but happy to answer any questions if you all have any.
[5:24:18] I do. Yes. So, I recall that the first iteration of this development before the
[5:24:28] the community meeting, the entrance was has been relocated since then. Correct, and that was based on
[5:24:37] or maybe that was from the initial discussion with staff.
[5:24:43] But can you talk about why the,
[5:24:45] I know that there was some concern
[5:24:47] where it had been that having a here
[5:24:52] or might lessen any kind of backup problems
[5:24:56] and congestion problems,
[5:24:58] could you address what all's gone into that
[5:25:00] and your discussions with V dot and C dot?
[5:25:03] Yes, sure.
[5:25:04] So as Commissioner Hardin has indicated, you know, originally our engineer kind of had the location of the
[5:25:13] actually the entrance further up here to align across from the school. But then after initial
[5:25:19] conversations with the Transportation Department, they asked us to move it down further to the Southern
[5:25:24] entrance to kind of move away from the school and move further from the light at claypoint and
[5:25:29] really broad road. So that's why we have it located here. We are providing the left turn lane
[5:25:35] into the subdivision. So as I previously mentioned, we did a traffic study, and then actually
[5:25:41] contemplated these 46 slots, but also the possible build out of the overall agricultural
[5:25:47] company, like properties that they were to be built out in the future. And with over closer to
[5:25:53] And during 29 months, a left-term lane would be warranted for her B. requirements and a right-term lane would not.
[5:26:00] We understand the county has different thresholds and so we are providing a left-term lane for their requirements and then working with them to provide a right-term lane or some type of right-term improvement for only 46 slots.
[5:26:13] But there's something that the applicant did ahead of time, a traffic study to kind of have those conversations and make sure that they can provide an insurance location and improvements.
[5:26:23] the best possible location.
[5:26:29] I don't have any other questions from Ms. Miller and Ms. Shualdo. I did have a question for staff.
[5:26:36] So the comments about the schools possibly being overburdened.
[5:26:41] I know that was addressed in the staff report. Would you be able to go over that for the folks in the audience?
[5:26:47] Sure. Yeah. Let me pull up the school section report.
[5:26:51] Of course, I had it up earlier.
[5:26:52] And then we would be able to collect it as well.
[5:26:56] So the three schools at the subdivision would
[5:26:59] feed into our Crenshaw Elementary,
[5:27:01] Bailey Bridge, Middle, and Manchester High,
[5:27:05] based on the information that we got from budget,
[5:27:08] the current capacity at Crenshaw is at 90%.
[5:27:13] And this development would add nine students to that school.
[5:27:19] Bailey Bridge is at 88% currently.
[5:27:21] this would add five. Manchester High has currently shown at 101%
[5:27:27] this would add seven students. But it's forecasted to be at 94% by
[5:27:32] 2028 likely due to the Western area of high school being constructed.
[5:27:39] They did, we did note from Bailey Bridge middle that show in that it would
[5:27:42] be forecasted to be at 104% by 2028. But from feedback from schools, they
[5:27:49] said that these numbers could perhaps change with the construction of the new middle school as well.
[5:27:55] But these the numbers provided by the schools that the nine additional students that
[5:28:00] cringe saw the five at Bailey Bridge and I didn't catch the number at Manchester that is what
[5:28:08] they're considering to be likely at full build out. Generate yeah those are the numbers that was
[5:28:19] very few at each school. Correct. Yeah. And I did get some feedback. I think at the community
[5:28:26] meetings and folks were concerned about overcrowding at Manchester High because of the number
[5:28:30] of trailers, school trailers. And I spoke to school about what those are being used for and
[5:28:35] those are for the ROTC program. Just as an information on that.
[5:28:43] Anything else? And just to clarify,
[5:28:45] this is all single family homes.
[5:28:49] Single family detached.
[5:28:51] Single family detached.
[5:28:53] And no town homes.
[5:28:56] And the homes that the the photos that were shown were
[5:29:01] Crawford is.
[5:29:03] What type of houses would likely be seen in that area.
[5:29:07] Correct.
[5:29:15] Yeah.
[5:29:15] Thank you.
[5:29:18] Okay.
[5:29:19] So with that.
[5:29:20] because the cases in the Clover Health District.
[5:29:24] Ms. Harden, I will turn it over to you the lead our discussion and motion.
[5:29:30] The commissioners have any additional concerns that haven't been addressed here.
[5:29:37] All right, well, hearing none.
[5:29:40] I recommend that I would like to make a motion that the commission recommends for approval.
[5:29:50] with the conditions specified by staff that we approve case number 23S.
[5:30:00] In 0, 1, 2, 5, in the clover hill magistral district, known as pharma woods.
[5:30:10] The motion, we have a second. Any further discussion?
[5:30:15] Any none? Madam Clerk, we have a motion from Commissioner Harden and a second from Commissioner Sloan.
[5:30:21] Will you please take the roll call?
[5:30:24] Mr. Petroski.
[5:30:26] Mr. Sloan.
[5:30:28] Ms. Harden?
[5:30:29] Aye. Dr. Hilton?
[5:30:31] Mr. Owens.
[5:30:33] Mr. Chair.
[5:30:34] The vote is unanimous and that motion passes.
[5:30:36] Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[5:30:38] Our next discussion item is case 22SN-0147 and the Dale District Rockwood Grove.
[5:30:43] And I believe Mr. Donna Hull will be presenting this.
[5:30:48] Hello again.
[5:30:50] Yes, this case was deferred last month.
[5:30:52] Mr. Ramsey is the case manager.
[5:30:54] He went through the case in great detail.
[5:30:56] What I'm going to do this evening is going to revisit where we left off.
[5:30:59] through the general overall proposal we have before us and talk a little bit about the changes
[5:31:06] that have been made to the case since last month. To refresh everyone's memory, this is
[5:31:11] case 22SN-01-47. It's in the Dell Metacereal District. This is the Rockwood Grove case.
[5:31:17] It's a request to resume to residential RTH with conditional use plan development,
[5:31:22] from its acceptance relative to ordinance requirements. This is a site that's 35.41 acres.
[5:31:28] It's address at 97.01.
[5:31:31] Hulstree Road, it's located on the south side of Hulstree Road in approximately 1400 feet east of the intersection with courthouse road.
[5:31:39] There are exceptions associated with this request.
[5:31:41] There's exceptions to to permit an office tracked within the Sewing District, also a bikeway construction exception.
[5:31:50] And request a modified buffer requirements and development standards for the proposed townhouse development.
[5:31:55] another development consists of a mix of townhouse dwellings associated recreational amenities
[5:32:00] and there is an office track included in the project. So move on to next time.
[5:32:10] If you continue
[5:32:11] to
[5:32:17] appreciate it. Okay, so again this applicant is seeking to develop the townhouse development
[5:32:24] neighborhood. It does have an office track. The residential density for the property would be limited
[5:32:29] to a maximum of 260 townhouse units and the proposed residential development contains
[5:32:35] amenities such as active and passive recreational opportunities for residents, as well as an easement
[5:32:40] for a future bike way along Horn of Run. Other amenities include an outdoor hardscape,
[5:32:47] a space, a cover pavilion, there's a dog park and also a few other passive gathering areas
[5:32:55] that we have throughout the development. Now, so what changed when we
[5:33:05] We have a couple of things that changed in the case.
[5:33:09] We had from the case being deferred in the last month.
[5:33:14] We had two different proffers that were revised.
[5:33:18] We had one of the proffers and the textual statement.
[5:33:22] The proffer 19s were changed, which there was a lot of discussion last month as to the
[5:33:26] way for the roadways.
[5:33:28] It was verbally agreed to last month about all the roads being 32 feet wide.
[5:33:34] they went ahead and added that to the, to the, to the proper case, so that's included.
[5:33:41] There's also a change to item four within the textual statement which advises the,
[5:33:46] which increases the buffer in the planting requirements along a whole street road from,
[5:33:52] it was one and a half times perimeter landscape scene at it's two times.
[5:33:56] So that's, that's the step in the right direction.
[5:34:00] So those are the two changes that we had in the proposal.
[5:34:02] our recommendation still remains approval. From staff, we are some of the rationality discussed
[5:34:09] last month, we stick by. We have the project contains a small amount of office space,
[5:34:16] in addition to the residential uses, as generally consistent with the conference of planned land
[5:34:22] land use, planned designation for corporate office as well as the medium high residential.
[5:34:27] The proposal offers an infill development opportunity serving as a transition between the
[5:34:32] the Oxbridge Square shopping center and the fallen creek farm subdivision to the east.
[5:34:38] The residential densities consistent with the plans of recommendation, supporting medium high density.
[5:34:43] residential uses between rockwood, rockwood core area to the west, and of course the existing single family uses to the east.
[5:34:51] The applicant's conceptual plan also provides an important roadway connection through the property,
[5:34:57] providing vehicular and a pedestrian length to Paulette Road to the Oxbridge Drive to Oxbridge Drive
[5:35:05] and of course the shopping center on the west side there. And so greater connectivity is provided
[5:35:11] with the development of this project. And then lastly, the development will provide a high quality housing
[5:35:18] option within the locking distance to existing and proposed commercial and makes use of development
[5:35:23] core within development within the core area of the Rockwood special focus area plan.
[5:35:29] And so with that, I'll be happy to answer your questions.
[5:35:32] Mr. Dono, any questions for Mr. Dono or any other staff?
[5:35:40] The applicant like an applicant.
[5:35:58] Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
[5:35:59] Members of the Commission.
[5:36:00] My name is Jeff Geiger here on behalf of the applicant.
[5:36:05] I want to thank you.
[5:36:07] Thanks.
[5:36:07] Thanks.
[5:36:08] Mr. Dono, Mr. Ramsey, for continuing to work with us on this case since the last
[5:36:15] hearing before the commission. I think in my last presentation we really went through the
[5:36:22] in detail the give and take the push and the pull that went through creating the layout that's
[5:36:31] before you. And we went through several different iterations of different uses they are shown here
[5:36:37] on the slide just as a refresher, but with a lot of input from transportation and planning from
[5:36:43] neighbors, we've arrived at what the layout that's before you. As a result of this
[5:36:51] given take, we've seen a reduction, a significant reduction in the density that
[5:36:57] was originally proposed.
[5:37:02] As Mr. Donhoe mentioned, we have taken the
[5:37:06] that will provide the sufficient space for parking on both sides of the street and the
[5:37:13] 20 feet clear.
[5:37:17] As I mentioned last month, one of the things that we were cognizant of from
[5:37:23] the beginning and throughout the process of going through the iterations was thinking about
[5:37:31] our neighbors to the east. And we always planned for the required 50 foot buffer. Even as we
[5:37:44] It was promised to be a natural buffer.
[5:37:47] It was promised that we would not do any disturbance within it.
[5:37:51] And then we received a final request.
[5:37:55] The way we had originally oriented the townhouses,
[5:37:59] created or oriented the backyards towards them.
[5:38:03] And the residents came and spoke to the county.
[5:38:06] The county staff came to us and said,
[5:38:08] Could you look at changing the orientation of the buildings so that they weren't looking at the back of the buildings we said sure we can do that
[5:38:18] We did that even if it meant losing density as
[5:38:24] We have discussed
[5:38:26] Last month an important part of this case is a road connection over to Oxbridge
[5:38:33] We
[5:38:34] The thoroughfare plan originally showed in alignment on the left side of the slide
[5:38:39] We appreciate the work that the Transportation Department did with us in understanding the
[5:38:47] concern to the neighbors and working with us on a different type of alignment that will slow
[5:38:52] down any vehicles that might head towards the existing neighborhood, but really coming up with
[5:39:01] a design that channels anybody using that road up the whole street and not to that subdivision.
[5:39:08] There may be folks here who disagree with me, but I would submit to the Commission.
[5:39:13] We think this connection, the salignment, will ultimately benefit the current residents
[5:39:19] in the subdivision, because it will give them the opportunity to access the light at
[5:39:24] Oxbridge.
[5:39:25] It will no longer have to make a left, an unprotected left on the whole street.
[5:39:33] Even though the county wanted this connection to Paulette, the applicant heard what the residents were saying about the concerns they had.
[5:39:44] While state law doesn't allow us to eliminate it, there are things we can do to protect and address their concerns.
[5:39:52] One of those things that we did was to prohibit construction access to this road.
[5:39:57] That way they were assured any of the vehicles that are being used in the creation of this community would not be using the roads in their community.
[5:40:06] We will put up a temporary barricade and we will have a sign.
[5:40:13] Another aspect of conversation from last month's discussion was what exactly is the buffer along a whole street?
[5:40:24] And it's hard to tell what the buffer is really going to look like when we're looking at a 2D piece of paper.
[5:40:32] It looks flat and we think it's going to be flat.
[5:40:37] And so one of the things that we said to ourselves to better inform the community, to better inform you,
[5:40:42] is to create this cross section that shows how we are going to use the topography within this 50 feet
[5:40:49] to help shield our residents fromholstery.
[5:40:53] It will be planted, as Mr. Dhanahu indicated,
[5:40:57] and then that natural topography
[5:40:58] will be used to create that burn.
[5:41:02] There is no additional dirt provided.
[5:41:05] It's just the way the dirt, the earth, lies there today.
[5:41:12] Another conversation topic from last month was,
[5:41:16] what are we doing to help the future residents
[5:41:19] who are going to be living close to the substation?
[5:41:23] I'd love to be able to go to Dominion and say, hey, can you put up a screening fence?
[5:41:29] Unfortunately I can't.
[5:41:32] Our preference would be we just plant it.
[5:41:37] Put a lot of plants in there and make sure it will never be seen.
[5:41:42] But again we're back to that tug and pull and competing interest.
[5:41:46] And we had to balance competing interest.
[5:41:49] two things on the slide I'd like to point out to you. First, there is an existing trunk line.
[5:41:58] That DPU operates for water service. DPU doesn't let us put big trees in there. We can probably put some shrubs.
[5:42:06] But okay, we knew it was there. We could plan around it. No problem.
[5:42:12] During our review process, DPU comes to us and says, you don't need it for your commute.
[5:42:19] but we need it for Chesterfield. We need more easements space for a second
[5:42:25] trunk line that in the future we want to run through here. We need you to give us
[5:42:31] an easement. Next to the existing one. I don't really have a choice to be
[5:42:38] awesome. I gotta do it. And I gotta put it there. I'd love to say to DP you, go
[5:42:46] Talk to Dominion. Why don't you run the easement through the substation? It's underground? Why not?
[5:42:55] Well, I think I have that choice. So we have to balance the competition.
[5:43:02] We're going to give the county what it wants.
[5:43:04] We're going to give the residents what we think we need, which is more plantings.
[5:43:08] We're doing the best we can with the facts that we have.
[5:43:13] Another topic of conversation that came up with the last meeting was, hey, you've got
[5:43:19] a dog park and a melody space within the transmission line easement.
[5:43:26] What happens if the minion doesn't approve it?
[5:43:30] We went and looked just to the north, rockwood park, county's park, if you've been there,
[5:43:39] I think you know what improvements are within these parking lots, dog parks, other things.
[5:43:48] In fact, it was during our review process that staff came to us and said, hey, we put a dog park in the transmission line.
[5:43:57] Why don't you look at doing something similar so that we can add to the amenities and find a way to activate this space that would otherwise be used?
[5:44:05] We said, sure. It's a great idea. We can copy what you did. We'll use the same materials,
[5:44:11] the millions approved at once though, prove it again. We work with Dominion day in and day out.
[5:44:17] We know exactly what they will approve and what they want to prove. And we are comfortable
[5:44:22] that they will approve this. We know they will. If, for some reason, it doesn't get approved,
[5:44:32] That's our risk.
[5:44:34] We still got to move it somewhere.
[5:44:36] Still got to provide it.
[5:44:38] Propheor's obligated.
[5:44:48] Other improvements I want to remind you about.
[5:44:51] We do have sidewalks on both sides of the street.
[5:44:55] We plan on providing the street trees that are required on the outside of those side.
[5:45:00] At walks,
[5:45:03] we will be improving or actually limiting the use of the existing meeting cut on
[5:45:10] whole street where our entrance comes out the whole. Transportation department doesn't want us
[5:45:15] providing a left out onto a whole. We will be closing that option and you will not be able to
[5:45:22] make that left out. Again, from the transportation department goal, they want those vehicles
[5:45:28] funneling over to Oxbridge where they have a controlled safe left movement onto hull using
[5:45:34] that light.
[5:45:37] As I explained at the last meeting and I think I've done touched on a little bit
[5:45:41] here. This case before you is a balance of many, many competing interests that you see in these
[5:45:48] times of infill developments. We are implementing the vision within the comprehensive plan.
[5:45:56] we aren't doing it perfectly. Since the comprehensive plan was adopted we've
[5:46:01] changed the way we work, the need for office spaces and there anymore, but we're
[5:46:06] still finding a way to provide the other types of infrastructure improvements
[5:46:10] connectivity quality that the county's looking for. Again I think this case is a
[5:46:18] great example of an applicant listening to many different voices. We can't do
[5:46:24] exactly what everybody wants, but we've balanced it in a way that addresses the concerns
[5:46:30] that have been raised from multiple angles.
[5:46:35] With that, I would ask that the Commission recommend approval subject to the Prophet
[5:46:41] Conditions set out in your staff report, be happy to answer any questions that the Commission
[5:46:47] may have.
[5:46:48] Thank you, Mr. Geiger.
[5:46:50] Do you commissioners have any questions for the applicant?
[5:46:52] I
[5:46:58] will now open the public hearing and first ask Commissioner Hilton since this is in the
[5:47:06] Dale District to address any concerns that will receive the email on like portal or phone.
[5:47:15] I got a one or two comments there on the portal, but I think those folks are here.
[5:47:23] So if I hear a see them present, then I'll just let them speak for what they put into the portal.
[5:47:32] Thank you, Commissioner Hill.
[5:47:34] Is there anyone present who would like to speak in either support or opposition of case 22SN 0147 in the Dale District?
[5:47:43] Rockwood Grove, please come forward.
[5:48:00] And when you get to the podium, please just start by stating your name.
[5:48:03] Thank you.
[5:48:03] Hi. Good evening, sir. My name is Jamie Carson. I'm a resident of Fallen Creek Forms. And I have a few things to propose. Number one, I think y'all should consider the traffic and the lack of sufficient infrastructure along that section of road on whole street.
[5:48:22] I shouldn't have to be the voice of reason, but somehow I think I can't have to be right now. You cannot continually build and build and build.
[5:48:31] and expect it not to be a mess on Hall Street.
[5:48:35] I mean, it's just, it's just terrible.
[5:48:37] And to want to funnel the traffic
[5:48:39] in the name of connectivity through my neighborhood,
[5:48:43] I just didn't sign up for a thoroughfare
[5:48:45] when I purchased my item.
[5:48:47] I don't want you to allow the connection of Paul that we have.
[5:48:50] We already have access to Oxford and Fordham Lights.
[5:48:55] We don't have to use that lunches to light.
[5:48:58] Oh, right. So I just don't think our neighborhood deserves this. We're a quiet established neighborhood.
[5:49:10] I'm also against a 50 foot buffer. I think it needs to be long wider and I think it needs to have a fence. Once again, we are a quiet established neighborhood.
[5:49:21] And I don't like all of the traffic and noise and crime that comes along with high density
[5:49:29] development.
[5:49:31] When I moved to this county, most everybody I've talked to, they moved to this county because
[5:49:37] it was the county, they didn't want to live in a high density area, they didn't want
[5:49:42] the population, they didn't want the crimes, they didn't want the traffic, and now it's turned
[5:49:47] exactly what I moved away from and I don't know of anyone that's impressed or happy with the direction
[5:49:55] the county has been taken with all this development. And I don't think that y'all really care and
[5:50:02] I'm sure the Board of Supervisors probably won't care but I think that y'all need to realize that
[5:50:08] the residents support this county with their taxes. Y'all raised my assess value every year on my home
[5:50:14] And yet this year apartment communities got a break and a lower
[5:50:20] assessment because they have to maintain properties and have
[5:50:25] vacancies. Well if they have vacancies then why are we building an
[5:50:28] apartment everywhere there's 10 trees? I have to maintain my
[5:50:32] property. I don't get an assessment break and I don't think there's any
[5:50:37] body in this county that would disagree with what I just said. I seriously
[5:50:42] want you to deny this entire operation. I know something's gonna go there because y'all can't
[5:50:48] leave a few trees there, you know, we can't have our deer and be happy. But there was just
[5:50:54] an article in three days ago in the Richmond Times dispatch. And I'll quote, since 2020,
[5:51:01] Chesterfield County has added more residents than any other county or city in Virginia.
[5:51:06] I'm sorry, your time is up.
[5:51:11] Let that sink in.
[5:51:13] This is a counting.
[5:51:15] Thank you for your time.
[5:51:16] Thank you, Ms. Carson.
[5:51:24] My name is Wikki Lee.
[5:51:26] I said this is the last meeting.
[5:51:28] I don't know why we have to have so many people and houses right there.
[5:51:33] There's an average of two cars per household and that's going to have 500 cars right there.
[5:51:40] You can see it right there.
[5:51:42] And somebody's going to die trying to pull out.
[5:51:45] There was just a bad accident just a couple weeks ago.
[5:51:48] Got a flat tire in my waist car when she ran through the debris.
[5:51:53] And just put half acre lots, residential, single family homes in here.
[5:51:58] That's, I know something's going to go there.
[5:52:01] And it needs to fit with what is already there.
[5:52:05] And that's what's going on.
[5:52:06] And I see all these other plans that we were seeing tonight.
[5:52:09] and they look like they're putting single family homes in where there's already single family homes.
[5:52:16] They're not trying to shove townhouses and office space into the space.
[5:52:21] But you're trying to do it in my neighborhood and I don't know why. It's not needed.
[5:52:26] And it's very dangerous.
[5:52:28] Thank you.
[5:52:29] Thank you, Mr. Lee.
[5:52:40] Good evening. I'm Jerry Turner.
[5:52:41] I'll start our list, talk about the studies that VDOT does, that's fully the study on
[5:52:52] on lunch after.
[5:52:54] And they did come out and put a counter, count the cars, they put it a quarter mile back
[5:52:58] up the road.
[5:53:00] It didn't count the 3,400 cars that go to the daycare center in the morning or all the cars
[5:53:06] that go into the office complex, all the 3,400 cars come in the afternoon, the
[5:53:11] going to pick up the kids from the daycare. So I put very little faith in the studies
[5:53:19] or so-called studies that Vida does.
[5:53:26] I guess the big thing is, like you said, something
[5:53:29] is going to go there. We just got to hope this for the best for the county.
[5:53:43] I started to
[5:53:44] put sidewalks in because the trucks tore them up. So he didn't want to build any. Well now
[5:53:49] I understand he's going to put sidewalks in there. Maybe they'll be a little bit of sidewalks.
[5:53:54] Hopefully they'll the sidewalks will be better than this construction. So
[5:54:00] bottom line is this this really doesn't fit this area but you're going to put something there.
[5:54:07] It's just I'm hoping you can't limit it to which I'll do allow go in there. Thank you.
[5:54:20] Good evening, commissioners. I'm Caroline Emmons and I would like to reiterate some of the points that my neighbors made. And also I believe you all are in receipt of a letter that a number of neighbors and falling Creek farms prepared. So just to hit on a couple of those points.
[5:54:34] I am disappointed, frankly, that the applicant has not addressed some of those concerns which seem reasonable to me and I'd like to reiterate as others have said this project will basically shoehorn into a small space on top of long established neighborhoods.
[5:54:46] a different kind of development.
[5:54:48] I'm not anti-housing and I recognize that there's a need for that, but it should be done as the
[5:54:52] applicant said improper balance.
[5:54:54] So I'd just like to reiterate a couple of the points that were made in that letter.
[5:54:57] We would like to request a 75 foot buffer between falling creeks farms and the Rockwood Grove
[5:55:03] development.
[5:55:04] And to borrow his words, hey, can we get a screening fence?
[5:55:07] Thank you for that.
[5:55:08] My regards to Dominion, we would like to see a screening fence between falling creek
[5:55:12] farms and the Rockwood Grove development.
[5:55:14] And we also, you know, the only amenity that we have seen from the Rockwood special focus
[5:55:19] area plan is the bike and walking path.
[5:55:23] We had seen that plan and veiled with some fanfare and so far there was one amenity that
[5:55:28] I think we were excited about to get to Rockwood park more easily and to have that rock that
[5:55:33] rock would groove, walking and bike trail.
[5:55:36] And I don't understand why the applicant is not being required to complete that.
[5:55:40] We also understand, and you all would know this better than I, that they are not an appropriate
[5:55:44] number of visitor parking spaces in this proposal. I ask you to look at that and to see if
[5:55:49] there is a problem there to correct it because we know that those visitors will be spilling into our
[5:55:53] neighborhood if there's an adequate parking and we ask you to use your expertise to double check on that.
[5:55:58] And then finally, we'd like to note that the issue of connectivity has been brought up several times.
[5:56:03] There is an existing connectivity road on the north side of whole street. It's Amberdale Road
[5:56:07] And it already exists.
[5:56:09] It would address some of the problems that have been raised
[5:56:12] in regard to moving traffic all of the whole street.
[5:56:14] We don't think that traffic should be moved into a neighborhood.
[5:56:17] We think that Amber Dale is there.
[5:56:18] Apparently that may have been an original intention for that road.
[5:56:21] And we hope that you'll take a closer look at that.
[5:56:23] We think these are reasonable and modest requests.
[5:56:26] I hope that you will defer this proposal
[5:56:27] until they can be addressed.
[5:56:29] Thank you very much.
[5:56:31] Thank you.
[5:56:38] Well, well, thank you for hearing me.
[5:56:39] I'm David Madison.
[5:56:40] I live on Sharingham Road, which is, we'll be right next to the development,
[5:56:48] and I'm spoke
[5:56:50] before, I'm concerned about the 50-foot buffer, I would like the 75-foot buffer at least.
[5:56:57] We moved there because of the woods behind our house, the wildlife behind our house, and
[5:57:02] it also buffers the noise from the whole street.
[5:57:05] The other thing that I want to request is that the applicant hiring arborist to make sure
[5:57:13] that the trees are not destroyed, when the construction vehicles come in, and even with
[5:57:20] a 75-foot buffer, the tree canopy, the tree roots, goes as far as the canopy, and with
[5:57:27] the construction vehicles, or if they dump gravel or anything within that canopy, that will
[5:57:33] the tree. Now, it costs 10 times more to knock a tree down after development than before development.
[5:57:42] So if they're going to run over the roots and destroy the trees, they should just go ahead and knock all
[5:57:46] the trees down and plant new native trees that are healthy. Otherwise, hire an arborist to make sure
[5:57:54] that those trees and the tree roots are not damaged. That's it. Thank you.
[5:58:10] Hi, I'm Lily Patison,
[5:58:11] And his daughter, we live right up next to where this is all happening.
[5:58:19] This is practically in our backyard, and I'm mostly here to reiterate some of what everybody
[5:58:25] else has said, second and third, what they have said, and to bring some of my concerns.
[5:58:33] I'm not excited to have a construction crew in my backyard for, I believe it was quoted seven
[5:58:41] years that it would take to make this entire thing. If that's changed since then, I apologize,
[5:58:47] but yeah, I'm not excited for that to be the next seven years of my life. I love my backyard,
[5:58:55] I love the nature, I love being able to get away from how ugly the rest of Chesterfield is
[5:59:02] because it is not nice to look at. I drive around and I feel depressed all day and I come home
[5:59:09] and I sit in my backyard and feel a little bit better because I can look at some pretty trees.
[5:59:15] I am also not excited about the loss of habitat for the sake of pest control.
[5:59:24] Reducing habitat that kills off species like snakes and bats and other types of creatures
[5:59:31] it will have impacts on the amount of mice, mosquitoes and other sorts of pests that spread
[5:59:39] disease the amount that there will be and it will be an issue. I'm worried about the noise.
[5:59:46] I'm worried about the traffic with Hall Street being so high density, high traffic, constant crashes
[5:59:53] all the time. I'm worried about the safety. I'm worried about having people.
[6:00:00] Practically, in my backyard all day, I'm worried about myself and my neighbors who have pets and cats and things that like to run around outside that might be killed by these construction crew people.
[6:00:18] And I think I might have come to the end of my list for now, but there's a lot. Thank you.
[6:00:24] Thank you, Mr. Pethis.
[6:00:32] My name is Mike Foley.
[6:00:34] I live at 41, 21, 21, and I'm Manchester Drive and the Dale District.
[6:00:38] My wife's a teacher of over 27 years at Manchester Middle School.
[6:00:43] We moved up here permanently in 1997 because we were in Virginia Beach.
[6:00:47] In Virginia Beach was turning into Fairfax without the amenities of the culture.
[6:00:52] So we moved up the Chesterfield permanently in 97 after living here two years from 1989 to 1985.
[6:00:58] The biggest concern I have, and I know the project is probably going to be approved as is,
[6:01:04] is that this is a dangerous precedent that will set a theme for the county where existing
[6:01:12] old established neighborhoods are going to have shoehorned into their areas, townhomes and apartments.
[6:01:18] I have nothing against townhomes apartments where they belong, say like in Charter County,
[6:01:22] where there's empty space, where there's no contested zoning, no concerns from the residents
[6:01:29] because that is a perfect fit. Ideally, this will be single family homes, there's some
[6:01:34] of the attach homes. I don't think that's going to happen. But in a sense, I think you're destroying
[6:01:38] the essence of the communities of May Fair and falling creek and Oxford Road by putting this
[6:01:44] in. I foresee that our property values going down because the reason we bought our house and we
[6:01:49] in this area is it's lack of density. It's quiet. Our road was not an autobahn. There were not a lot
[6:01:56] of people walking through our neighborhood. It was almost like living in a park. And now that we have
[6:02:01] this town home development, and it is a higher end development. Don't let anybody fool you that
[6:02:06] it is as low rent, there's such an aid or low income. In fact, it's not really affordable housing at all.
[6:02:12] But I feel this is going to destroy the essence of our community. We won't see it tomorrow.
[6:02:16] But in 10 or 20 years, this will look like the areas of just field that have been
[6:02:21] abandoned for more quieter and more secluded living.
[6:02:25] I foresee my property value is going down.
[6:02:27] I perceive people who want to move into our area decline.
[6:02:31] Our houses don't stay for sale for a long time.
[6:02:34] My house across the street for me sold in two days.
[6:02:38] The villagers came to my house and came to my house and came to my house and
[6:02:40] came to ask, do we want to sell?
[6:02:42] And it's not junk homes people, it's people looking for homes in our community because ours is a desirable community.
[6:02:49] Since this attraction is going to take six to seven years, this will not be readily apparent.
[6:02:55] However, in the long run, I will see this not be a depressed community,
[6:03:00] but most of the people either die in their homes because their first or second generation,
[6:03:05] and the people generally will eventually move out and move away,
[6:03:08] possibly taking their income and their taxable property out of the county. So I hope you guys
[6:03:14] make the right decision. I hope this isn't a dangerous present for the rest of the county,
[6:03:19] as you shoehorn and keyhole small areas into these developments that just, this doesn't make sense.
[6:03:26] I do approve of the amendments and the changes that have been made. I appreciate communication
[6:03:32] between us and the developer. I hope you all read the very long, professional document
[6:03:38] that was sent to you by the concerned members of community that had helped from
[6:03:42] former members of the planning board and the county. And seriously, consider the implications
[6:03:47] and recommendations of that before you make a rash decision for something that will be very
[6:03:51] permanent and very affected, effective to the right time. Thank you very much, Miss Mason. Thank
[6:03:58] you for the board. I hope you make a careful close consideration of this
[6:04:01] development. Thank you, Mr. Foley.
[6:04:12] My name is Tommy Hamilton and I live in Follin Creek
[6:04:15] Farms, but there was just one point I didn't hear brought up. Which is why I stood up
[6:04:21] the stand even though this is not easy for me to do. Basically, there's a whole community that's
[6:04:27] not represented on this map. You're not seeing it. It's May fair states. It goes very deep. It
[6:04:34] one's a long courthouse road. And there's no connection from that community to courthouse road,
[6:04:41] the one exit. Well, there's one main exit, which is Oxbridge Road. The other exit would come
[6:04:50] through falling quick farms, which is kind of a to the side. But the main exit is Oxbridge Road.
[6:04:57] So adding to that, I just wish you could see the whole how deep that goes and how much traffic
[6:05:03] comes out of there and disappointed there's no residents from that neighborhood here because I think
[6:05:08] it's going to affect them even more than us in some ways. But I just wanted to note that road
[6:05:17] is leads to a very deep community and you're not seen it on the map here that's displayed to you.
[6:05:23] So I just wish you could look into that further. So that is it. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Hamilton.
[6:05:35] Good evening, Chairman. Members, I have a couple of pictures I'd like to share and unfortunately
[6:05:41] I didn't put them on a disc. May I?
[6:05:46] Actually, we are prohibited from handouts coming up here, but may you state your name for us?
[6:05:53] Laura, thank you.
[6:05:54] Thank you.
[6:05:57] Because I want you pictures of Paul at which is the road they want connectivity to.
[6:06:04] I realize that development needs to take place.
[6:06:07] I live on sharing him, which means that I intersect with Paulette.
[6:06:14] The developer has been generous enough to say, he will develop Paulette,
[6:06:19] giving the appearance of an entrance to his property.
[6:06:24] We don't need connectivity to fall in the creek.
[6:06:28] I currently have the option going out the back to get to Fordham or Oxbridge.
[6:06:35] These apartments will have the same opportunity to go out,
[6:06:40] Oxbridge, instead of going on the hall street,
[6:06:43] they can turn left connectivity to Lynchester or Fordham.
[6:06:48] When the developer said that it is the law,
[6:06:51] that you have to open call it.
[6:06:54] I know that we talked about this in 1980.
[6:06:57] They said, yes, we needed connectivity,
[6:07:00] but this is 2024, gentlemen.
[6:07:02] Falling Creek is an old, established neighborhood. We don't need an entrance to this complex.
[6:07:12] Something will be built. I would have preferred single family homes.
[6:07:19] That's between the developer and those of you sitting here.
[6:07:22] What I don't want is the intrusion into an already developed neighborhood, a long standing.
[6:07:33] Developing the road on Pollette sounds all well and good from the developer, but it adds no benefit to us.
[6:07:42] Lastly, gentlemen, ladies,
[6:07:46] a rather sensitive topic, but it's important to me because if you allow connectivity, you're allowing things into the neighborhood.
[6:07:55] and this is sensitive and I do apologize. One of the things when I moved in to falling
[6:08:01] creek, as a parent, I looked at the National Sexual Registry, which is open to all of us.
[6:08:10] And we have our sex offenders in the neighborhood. I moved in knowing it. I ran the search
[6:08:19] again recently. There are some motels, I won't name any names, but there are motels that
[6:08:28] Jason to this. We have now in the last two months acquired a new offender. Not only is
[6:08:35] he on the national sexual registry for battery sexual assault rape, but also for murder.
[6:08:42] That concerns me. Yes, offenders need to live someplace and we have our share of motels right
[6:08:48] here on that section of courthouse.
[6:08:52] But you're giving connectivity, walkability, nicer, nicer.
[6:08:58] Sorry, your time is up.
[6:09:00] Thank you.
[6:09:00] Miss Inc.
[6:09:12] My name is Renee Alder,
[6:09:14] and Mr. Turner asked me to speak, so I will.
[6:09:17] Saw a couple of things in here.
[6:09:20] I haven't looked at the case wholeheartedly,
[6:09:22] like I normally do, because it's out of my district,
[6:09:24] but they went private sidewalks, which puts the burden back on the HOA instead of V-Dive,
[6:09:34] in summer is not known. They're not using the, or not, they're not putting in the shared use
[6:09:41] path, which quite frankly, that would be a plus anywhere to be able to walk down by the creek.
[6:09:50] And if I'm not mistaken, I think it was today I heard that the development on the other side is doing that along the creek on the other side of courthouse.
[6:09:59] I forget the name of the road for the development.
[6:10:03] But one of the things that concerns me the most is 16 foot wide townhouses.
[6:10:12] Even in your staff report, it says it has not been properly addressed, I forget the exact language, but it has not been properly that it, I guess, is to how you're going to plant in front where they're going to be, or they're all going to be grouped together, it says 25% of the project.
[6:10:35] Where are there 16 foot townhouses going to be and will they be just like a silent bro?
[6:10:43] And one of the other things I'm really curious about that I haven't been able to find, there's a lot of acreage in that transmission easement.
[6:10:55] And I was just kind of curious whether or not the density included that acreage that is obviously not buildable.
[6:11:05] Maybe that's something that even in Zoma, if you've got something like that that's obvious
[6:11:10] not buildable, you cannot include that in your acreage for your property, just a fight.
[6:11:18] So, I would also think that maybe for the connectivity to a pilot, everybody's concerned
[6:11:25] about traffic, make them put in some speed bumps before it hits a pilot, so they have to slow
[6:11:32] down before they hit my next ride. Just a thought. Thank you.
[6:11:36] Thank you, Miss Elder.
[6:11:42] Mr. Chairman Greg Allen one more time. Okay. So I think there's
[6:11:47] two potential legal issues here and one of implementation. The first is the confusion
[6:11:52] over the spuffer along the whole street. So when it was going to be multifamily, that was
[6:11:57] one standard. I think it was forgotten that when it changed over to townhouse, it became a
[6:12:03] different standard. So that 50-foot buffer is required to be three times per meter landscape
[6:12:09] B under our residential townhouse in single-family standards. Okay, on next to that road.
[6:12:19] We have two times landscape C, it's not quite the same as three times landscape B. I don't know if
[6:12:23] there's an exception being asked, but that's the rule that should be applied. It's also only putting
[6:12:28] the landscaping in the first 25 feet. Well, you really can't even do 2 times C or 3 times
[6:12:33] B and 25 feet. It needs to be the entire 50 feet to fit it in. But on another issue, in terms
[6:12:41] of what your vision, Mr. Dr. Hilton is, these are 14 town homes that are backing up to
[6:12:58] But if I look into other districts like Matoko with Greenwich Village and Midlothian with
[6:13:08] Conny Park townhomes, those townhomes are basically double-fronted so that on the back side, when all that traffic is driving by,
[6:13:19] they see something that's high quality.
[6:13:20] Well, what you're going to see here is 14 low quality rear ends of town homes and right across
[6:13:26] street, you have the high quality amperally. This is going to be a disconnect visually.
[6:13:30] And I'm not sure that's what we want for Chesterville County, for that much traffic
[6:13:33] going by and saying, man, what does it dump on that side versus what that side shows?
[6:13:38] So, the other issue is about the bike path.
[6:13:43] That amount of theory is not activated unless it goes in.
[6:13:46] So I haven't seen a common area plan that provides the calculations for how much a minenti
[6:13:54] error they actually have, but this is also a lot of your reductions.
[6:14:00] On average, this is about 500 square feet less per lot than what the ordinance requires.
[6:14:06] So this should be even a calculation for the lot of your reduction in the minenti area and so
[6:14:12] forth is required for that.
[6:14:14] The last thing, the implementation issue, when you put those treat trees within the remaining 20
[6:14:20] feet from the sidewalk to the houses, what you're really talking about is you're going to have a lot
[6:14:25] of roots that are going to be going into their front yards and if they have any irrigation or anything
[6:14:30] else, it's just right on top of their homes. Those trees, as they get larger and larger, are going to
[6:14:36] feel crowded up against those townhouses. And these are two story townhouses. The whole purpose
[6:14:41] about getting those trees into the street median on the back of curve is to move them again,
[6:14:47] 10 feet further away with some root protection provided by the fact that you have the side
[6:14:52] walk, which my last sentence here is if we're really talking about affordability, you get
[6:14:58] this side walks into the right way.
[6:15:00] Do you not need to be a part of the HOA's expense? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
[6:15:05] Is there anyone else present who would like to speak and support our opposition of this case?
[6:15:13] Seeing none.
[6:15:15] Who would want more?
[6:15:27] How you all doing this evening?
[6:15:28] My name is Jack Kinney.
[6:15:32] I feel like the villages have come out with their shovels and pitchforks. After the Frankenstein monster
[6:15:37] up to here and all those comments,
[6:15:41] but traffic is going to be bad and I know this is not
[6:15:44] the only issue.
[6:15:46] Traffic is going to be bad eventually everywhere all the time, no matter what goes there.
[6:15:51] I don't know how you're going to solve that problem unless you give out less driver's license.
[6:15:55] I'm for this project.
[6:15:58] I can't give you a lot of reasons why I'm for it except for the fact that something's
[6:16:04] going to have to go there hopefully something that will benefit the county make it a better place
[6:16:09] and I hope that what does go there will not disturb the existing neighborhoods and I'm sure
[6:16:14] that's a real issue that they're concerned about. But just to cut cut it short and make it sweet,
[6:16:21] I'm not opposed to this. I'd like to see it go in. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Kenny.
[6:16:30] Anyone else present would like to speak? In this case,
[6:16:37] we're seeing none. I will now close the public hearing and invite the applicant back up for a review.
[6:16:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[6:16:57] As you can see from the different layouts we provided you,
[6:17:02] we did start with departments. They're gone. When we had departments, we were told,
[6:17:07] we went to condos. We were told, condos, don't want condos.
[6:17:12] do townhouses, then townhouses. Townhouses is what we can do and meet the needs of all the other inputs
[6:17:20] that we have.
[6:17:25] State law does require us to connect to Paulette. It's a secondary street except
[6:17:29] and requirements.
[6:17:32] Your transportation department asks us to improve Paulette. We will do that.
[6:17:38] But that will also be with the protections that we talked about before.
[6:17:44] We get a lot of requests for
[6:17:45] bumps. As we know, V dot doesn't let us do it. Reason, this no-cloud's got to get through.
[6:17:53] And when the snowplows ding up those speed bumps, V dot's got to come out repair.
[6:18:03] We are providing
[6:18:06] sidewalks. When Mr. Allen was a part of the staff, we brought him to concern from the industry
[6:18:12] that V dot makes us put in the sidewalks first. Even if the house isn't there and then we tear him
[6:18:20] we've got to put them in the second time. The proper language before you gives the applicant
[6:18:26] flexibility. It's not a requirement, but if because of the requirements we need to move them
[6:18:32] out of the right away we have the ability to do so. We don't have to come back before you. But
[6:18:38] we can also put them in the public right away. It's not at zoning giving us the entitlements
[6:18:44] we need to make the decisions based on final engineering. And the regulatory constraints that
[6:18:51] we face.
[6:18:58] We talked about last month that a county's request or the county's requirement
[6:19:04] for a bike path, multi-use trail. There were some in the community who did not want it.
[6:19:11] One person in attendance was here because of it. They didn't want the path to be bringing people
[6:19:18] into their neighborhood because it wasn't going to go anywhere. It wasn't going to connect anything.
[6:19:23] It's not going to connect the Rockwood anytime soon, but when the county has the ability
[6:19:29] and the funding to create that system for the Rockwood area, the easements there come
[6:19:34] on and put it in.
[6:19:36] So as the residents do get the benefit of being able to use the path to get to Rockwood Park.
[6:19:45] From the discussion, as you know, we are providing a parking on both sides of the street,
[6:19:51] there is sufficient parking. In fact, we probably have more parking than we mean.
[6:19:59] We talked
[6:20:00] about last time concerns about whole street. We reached out to VDOT. One of the things we
[6:20:04] heard was slow down the track. Could you help us slow down the traffic on whole? It's 55 miles
[6:20:09] an hour. But on either side of us is 45. Can we get it down to 45? We tried. We wanted
[6:20:17] to help them. We could,
[6:20:26] as I showed you in the cross section to address Mr. Allen's concerns
[6:20:30] about the architecture. If you're driving on a whole street, you're going to be looking
[6:20:34] into a burn.
[6:20:39] Also, why is it that they're going to be ugly? Why do we assume that?
[6:20:50] One person may like, it's not always what another person likes.
[6:20:55] We've got great development
[6:20:57] in Chesterfield. We do quality work in Chesterfield. That's what this project will bring.
[6:21:05] And, from our perspective, what's important is the residents who will be living a long
[6:21:10] whole street, they are going to be protected from whole street.
[6:21:13] We want to protect them from the noise, that's why we are going to use the topography.
[6:21:20] We are going to plant the trees within 25 feet, within the whole 50 feet.
[6:21:26] I may have to add more plants within the 50, and that's okay.
[6:21:34] As we've planted trees within the back of the curve in the sidewalk, one of the downsides we have started to see is the tree route start pushing up the sidewalk.
[6:21:48] So we have to kind of decide what's the best side to put it.
[6:21:53] If we have to do a 32 foot wide road and then we have to do the sidewalk and give us the flexibility to put the trees on the other side of the sidewalk.
[6:22:05] The roots are going to play no matter what.
[6:22:08] We cannot put trees in and then we don't have roots, but from our perspective, it's better
[6:22:14] on that side.
[6:22:17] At the end, the appearance will still be the same.
[6:22:21] Side walks on both sides, parking on both sides, trees on both sides of the road.
[6:22:36] As you heard at the last meeting, this property owner has been here for a very long time.
[6:22:44] The residents next door,
[6:22:47] they came after he lived through their construction.
[6:22:55] Neighbors haven't always been great.
[6:22:56] He's had to pick up trash, but he's lived with him.
[6:23:00] We hope these neighbors experience the same thing.
[6:23:04] Quality residents from a quality development.
[6:23:11] These are residents who may decide to start a family.
[6:23:15] who may want a yard, they may be the buyers of the homes next door.
[6:23:22] They may be the one to continue to reinvest in the community.
[6:23:27] This is the opportunity to create new housing that people can move into and enjoy living
[6:23:36] in gesture view.
[6:23:39] With that, one other comment I'd like to share.
[6:23:44] I think is staff and Commissioner Hilton can attest.
[6:23:50] We've had a lot of input, community meetings where we had 100 people, 100 different people in attendance.
[6:23:59] We had residents from other neighborhoods.
[6:24:03] We worked hard. They're not here because we worked hard to address their concerns.
[6:24:10] We can't do everything perfect.
[6:24:12] But we think we've done everything we can to do it right.
[6:24:16] We ask that you recommend approval to the board.
[6:24:21] I'd like to answer any questions to the commission they have.
[6:24:25] Your commissioners have any questions for the applicant?
[6:24:28] I'm sure.
[6:24:30] Mr. Kaga, I have one question.
[6:24:32] Speaker came up and the suggestion was made that in the implementation of this case.
[6:24:43] there could either be an act of illegality or a legal challenge to the implementation aspects
[6:24:52] as it relates to landscaping, densities and so forth.
[6:24:58] I'm just curious as the applicant's representative, which are responsible.
[6:25:02] I have no concern with what's in the case.
[6:25:05] As Mr. Allen noted, it's an exception.
[6:25:16] So
[6:25:20] this case is in the Dell District, so I will turn it over to Commissioner Hill to leave the discussion.
[6:25:30] So I just want to thank all the residents who came out to the community meetings.
[6:25:38] I know this case more from being a rental case into kind of what we have today, and I don't think any case is perfect.
[6:25:51] I'll be the first to say that, I think as we grow as a county, we'll have to make some
[6:25:58] modifications in terms of transportation,
[6:26:03] schools and other aspects of our county, so we really
[6:26:10] have to weigh the pros and cons as I like to say from Mr. Holland, and kind of where this
[6:26:17] is right now. I think it's really good. We need to increase the number of residential roofs
[6:26:25] that we have in order to attract the commercial space that we need in order to have the
[6:26:34] plan development that we have envisioned for the Rockwood area. So with that subject to the
[6:26:46] This is in the case, the staff report, I like to make a motion and we recommend approval to the board of civil advisers of this case.
[6:26:59] So we have a recommendation, motion and recommend approval for case 22SN-0147 in the DAL District, Rockwood Grove.
[6:27:08] Do we subject to the conditions in the staff report? Do we have a second?
[6:27:18] Any further discussion?
[6:27:19] Okay,
[6:27:24] we have a motion from Commissioner Hilton and a second from Commissioner Sloan.
[6:27:29] Madam Clerk will you please take a roll call.
[6:27:33] Mr. Petrosky?
[6:27:35] Aye.
[6:27:37] Mr. Sloan?
[6:27:39] Ms. Harden? Aye.
[6:27:42] Dr. Hilton?
[6:27:43] Aye.
[6:27:44] Mr. Owens?
[6:27:45] Aye.
[6:27:47] Mr. Chair, that's four eyes and one day, a motion dash pass.
[6:27:53] Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[6:27:54] Our next case, case 2, 3, S, N, 0, 1, 2, 3, and the Mid-Lothian District Eastern Mid-Lothian
[6:28:00] Kerry Town, Tobacco will be presented by Mr. Ellis.
[6:28:05] Good evening, Mr. Chair.
[6:28:06] Yeah, Harold, let's hear of them just a couple seconds.
[6:28:09] Thank you.
[6:29:04] Mr. Ellis from proceed.
[6:29:06] Thank you.
[6:29:08] Good evening, Mr. Chair.
[6:29:10] Commissioners, Mr. Gillies.
[6:29:12] Test 23SN 0123 in the mid-Lothian District.
[6:29:17] Eastern mid-Lothian carried out tobacco is a request to permit a recreational substances
[6:29:22] retail off-site use with traditionally used plant development to permit a use exception
[6:29:28] for recreational substances retail on-site use and a community business district.
[6:29:35] Property contains 1.24 acres in a zone of community business,
[6:29:39] a joining properties are zone to community business to the north, east and west,
[6:29:44] and properties to the south or zone general business.
[6:29:49] Submit properties outlined why and the image is above,
[6:29:52] the aerial image illustrates the sites developed with an existing commercial building
[6:29:56] and associated parking.
[6:29:58] Surrounding properties are developed with
[6:30:00] The next of commercial uses, the land use plan designation for the property is community business.
[6:30:09] This is the existing building on site.
[6:30:11] A retail business then is carried down tobacco plans the operator retail recreational substances business on the property.
[6:30:18] The applicant's proposal includes on and off site retail sales of recreational substances.
[6:30:24] Recreational substances include the sale of tobacco, hemp, and credit and products, as well as accessory vaping and smoke and products.
[6:30:34] This is the applicant's proposed conceptual plan.
[6:30:37] The properties developed with a 24,000 square foot building, which you saw, which is previously occupied by a furniture store and then later an antique shop.
[6:30:47] The applicant intends to renovate the building to operate a retail business that would sell recreational substances for on and off site use, as we discussed.
[6:30:54] A portion of the building would be improved to accommodated indoor smoking lounge, which is considered an on-site recreational substance use.
[6:31:03] Other proposed uses within the building would include a kitchen in retail office areas, a humid or sales area for cigars, warehouse area, as an accessory use, and an area for other permitted uses, which would be those permitted in the C3 district, but not to include a recreational substance business as a primary use in that area.
[6:31:24] The zoning ordinance provides specific limitations for the retail recreational substances use.
[6:31:33] Unless otherwise modified or conditioned by the Board of Supervisors at the time of
[6:31:38] zoning approval, recreational substances both retail off-site and retail on-site are substitute
[6:31:46] the following limitations and requirements. They must be located at least 2000 feet from the
[6:31:56] at least 2,000 feet from the property line
[6:31:58] of an existing recreational substance use.
[6:32:01] And the hours of operation should be limited to 9 AM-8 PM Monday through Sunday.
[6:32:08] And this case, the applicants requests would modify these special
[6:32:11] limitations standards to permit the proposed
[6:32:13] on and off site recreational substances business within 200 feet
[6:32:17] of a public school, as well as within 200 feet
[6:32:20] of an existing recreational substance business.
[6:32:23] The properties located approximately 1,992 feet
[6:32:27] From AM Davis Elementary School and approximately 350 feet from smokers vibe, which is at 8,07 view for court.
[6:32:37] Additionally, the applicant is requesting to have hours of operation from 9 a.m. to midnight Monday through Sunday for the smoking lounge and humid or uses.
[6:32:47] The off-site retail uses will be further restricted from 9 a.m. to 8 a.m. Monday through Sunday.
[6:32:54] Should the Planning Commission recommend approval or the Board of Supervisors approve the request?
[6:32:58] conditions have been developed to help address potential impacts of the use relating to
[6:33:03] advertising, security, and sign improvements as detailed the book.
[6:33:10] The applicants proposal fails to meet this special limitation of the recreational
[6:33:13] ordinance as defined in the zoning ordinance.
[6:33:17] The proposed location of this use would locate a recreational substances business near an existing
[6:33:23] school and concentrate the use with other existing recreational substance businesses.
[6:33:29] and the area and result in increased hours of operation from those allowed coordinates.
[6:33:34] Staff finds that there are no likely conditions that would fully mitigate the impacts of this use
[6:33:39] on area properties and accordingly recommends denial of the request.
[6:33:43] A community meeting was scheduled for this request on April 22,
[6:33:47] the meeting was canceled as no citizen signed up to attend.
[6:33:51] On May 14, the applicant submitted a revised building layout plan
[6:33:54] were off-site retail uses for the general sale of recreational substances was removed.
[6:34:00] The proposals only off-site recreational substance use will be the Humidor and or cigar
[6:34:05] stales.
[6:34:07] Staffs prepared in a dendom were conditions 2 and 4 have been modified to address the applicants
[6:34:11] for revised proposal and hours of operation for the revised uses.
[6:34:16] We have to answer any questions.
[6:34:19] Do any commissioners have any questions for staff?
[6:34:25] Would the applicant like an opportunity to present?
[6:34:35] Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission.
[6:34:37] My name is Jeff Geiger here on behalf of the applicant.
[6:34:45] We are here today because a small business entered into a lease.
[6:34:55] Unfortunately, after that small business entered into the lease,
[6:35:02] the amendment to the ordinance took place.
[6:35:08] We looked at how we could exit the lease.
[6:35:13] Unfortunately, there is not an opportunity to leave the lease.
[6:35:18] So the small business is trying to see if the commission in the board
[6:35:25] would allow a vision for an element of its business.
[6:35:36] We understand
[6:35:40] the traditional line of business for this small business of
[6:35:43] Vapestore.
[6:35:44] It's not appropriate in this location,
[6:35:49] but another line of business for this small business
[6:35:52] is providing the space for people who enjoy tobacco to smoke indoors.
[6:36:02] There are people who do enjoy that as their recreation, their form of entertainment.
[6:36:09] And they have fewer and fewer places to do it.
[6:36:15] So what we have seen are businesses created to provide this space, where the smokers
[6:36:23] who enjoy tobacco as part of their relaxation and their enjoyment can come and have indoor
[6:36:28] space to socialize, talk about various products that they enjoy and to share smoke.
[6:36:38] These smoking lounges are currently in our Richmond region.
[6:36:44] There's one at Stony Point.
[6:36:46] There's one at Short Pump and there's one at Northside.
[6:36:52] The applicant would like to use a portion of this building for the same purpose.
[6:37:00] This is the updated layout that shows how the applicant would like to use the space.
[6:37:08] In pink, you can see the humidor.
[6:37:12] This is not your typical humidor.
[6:37:15] They have cedar wood, they have the equipment in order to keep the humidity at the appropriate
[6:37:22] level in order to store a significant amount of inventory of cigars within the humidor.
[6:37:32] So, that cigar, a fixionados, can come, peruse the different types of cigars that they have,
[6:37:40] buy the cigar and have the opportunity to enjoy the cigar while smoking in the
[6:37:46] lamps. They may also buy a box and take it home to enjoy at home. They choose to
[6:37:54] come to the lounge. We will have food service available for them. We will have
[6:38:00] high-end leather chairs to provide that cigar-efficient, efficient, efficient
[6:38:06] an auto-environment that is attractive to people who enjoy smoking cigars.
[6:38:14] They will socialize, talk about the cigars, talk about the different types of tobacco and
[6:38:18] what they enjoy.
[6:38:21] Smoking lounge could be used by others who want to bring in a different type of tobacco product.
[6:38:30] So they could smoke a different type of product that they enjoy.
[6:38:37] As I mentioned, recognize that the traditional fake business, it's not appropriate here,
[6:38:45] it does leave us with a leftover space.
[6:38:49] And so we would like to rent it to a tenant, another tenant, a small shop tenant,
[6:38:53] who would use the space for another permitted use within the district.
[6:38:58] Could be a nail salon, barber, could be a grocery store, could be an ethics store.
[6:39:06] anybody who would like to use the space. And then the back in the warehouse space, the small
[6:39:13] business would continue to maintain its inventory that it uses to supply product to its 26 other
[6:39:23] locations across the Richmond region.
[6:39:31] The slide here just goes through the different uses
[6:39:33] that I've explained.
[6:39:37] And this is the type of signage that you would see on this location.
[6:39:47] With that, be glad to answer any questions. That's a commission may have,
[6:39:52] but would ask that the commission recommended approval of the conditional use request before you
[6:39:58] subject to the conditions set out in the staff report. Thank you Mr. Gagger. Do you
[6:40:08] So what are the products that they're planning on selling is the cigars only in cigars
[6:40:12] accessories or are they planning on doing vape juice or anything else what are the actual
[6:40:16] products that they're looking at? They will be selling on site the cigars within the
[6:40:23] humidor's.
[6:40:28] All right what is the store they have up the street? Are they maintaining that other
[6:40:32] stores well? I mean I'm asking they don't they have a store just up the street? We have one in
[6:40:38] and Luffy and Village, is that what you're referring to?
[6:40:42] Okay, no, my normal patient.
[6:40:44] You are thinking as Mr. Ellis mentioned,
[6:40:47] there are two other stores not affiliated.
[6:40:49] In here by that are not owned by this company.
[6:40:51] Okay, thank you.
[6:40:55] All right, and then the hours,
[6:40:57] they're looking to do hours outside of the times
[6:40:59] that we specify it in the ordinance.
[6:41:02] Are they open to reduce those hours
[6:41:04] to the time that's actually in our ordinance?
[6:41:06] The reason why I ask is, we just pass the ordinance.
[6:41:10] The first case coming up after the ordinance, looking for exceptions, you can see where the commission is here.
[6:41:17] Not up. I do understand.
[6:41:24] That's why I led with, we're not here because we're acting after the fact.
[6:41:34] Unfortunately, the small business got caught.
[6:41:38] I understand, I mean, the school situation, I looked at that 1902 feet, eight feet, I mean,
[6:41:44] based on how you're measuring it, I mean, that was a different one, but the other shop,
[6:41:49] I think was what, 390 feet away, so you can kind of see where we're going from there.
[6:41:54] Okay, that's my question.
[6:41:56] Mr. Owens, Mr. Chairman, may I address Mr. Owens' question on the hours?
[6:42:01] I
[6:42:05] think that we would ask that the Commission consider that the new ordinance was adopted,
[6:42:11] I think, in response to concerns about how these traditional vape shops advertise,
[6:42:19] present themselves to the public.
[6:42:22] We are not doing that.
[6:42:25] I think the hours were there in consideration of a vision of a business operation that we're
[6:42:31] you can see that we're not asking for.
[6:42:35] And there are other businesses like us are open later,
[6:42:40] and offer the opportunity for people to come and enjoy a cigar at night.
[6:42:46] And so that's the reason for the request.
[6:42:50] The request is just for the lounge in the humidor.
[6:42:59] Any other questions?
[6:43:00] I had had a question if I could ask for me.
[6:43:06] In the end, it appears the use of the smoking lounges.
[6:43:13] It seems a bit vague to me, still as to what materials can be smoked within.
[6:43:19] So if you could kind of elaborate as to just strictly tobacco, that could be smoked within that lounge,
[6:43:27] or is this going to be open to a wider variety of material?
[6:43:35] And I think that it's a...
[6:43:37] I think we all assume it's a tobacco cigar,
[6:43:40] but the idea of limiting this to just a tobacco product,
[6:43:44] I think, was part of the argument that you were trying to make earlier,
[6:43:48] that it did not include vapor, other hemp type products.
[6:43:53] I have this location, could you collaborate on some of that?
[6:43:57] Yes.
[6:43:58] I think that's a great question.
[6:44:00] And Angle, I did not think about prior to your question.
[6:44:04] The intent here is for tobacco products to be smoked within the lounge.
[6:44:11] And tobacco products to be sold within the humidor?
[6:44:16] Correct.
[6:44:18] Segar products within the humidor.
[6:44:23] May have to revise some of that.
[6:44:25] Yep, we're happy to these conditions are imposed by staff and we're happy to work with staff on
[6:44:35] better wording for that. The intent is for tobacco. We're not looking for hemp type products.
[6:44:55] It could be your conditional uses by ordinance can be.
[6:45:00] Poll backed. Mr. Robinson, may I have that right?
[6:45:08] Thank you, Mr. Gaga.
[6:45:09] So with that, I will open the public hearing, and being this is in the mid-Lothian district,
[6:45:14] I will quickly address that there has been zero comments engagement. We schedule the community
[6:45:22] meeting, but we've had no feedback from the public, but I'm anticipating something tonight.
[6:45:27] So I will turn to the audience and ask if there's anyone in attendance who would like to speak
[6:45:31] in either opposition or support of this case.
[6:45:39] I don't will have to say I'm not necessarily in opposition, but as Mr. Owen said,
[6:45:46] you've just passed this ordinance.
[6:45:49] And if there's something I don't really remember what the ordinance was quite frankly,
[6:45:53] but if there's something in there that this ordinance is prohibiting,
[6:45:59] You need to deny it.
[6:46:02] We have baked shops on the highway that are just popping up left and right that are within
[6:46:09] or two close and we're having to deal with that now because of the way they've been opening up.
[6:46:17] But we need some semblance of unity.
[6:46:25] If you're going to have an ordinance, you need to enforce it, and you need to be enforced
[6:46:32] across the board for whatever reason this is not being approved and staff did say denial.
[6:46:42] So, I feel for the guy, he did get kind of caught in this ordinance, but the ordinance
[6:46:47] was passed for a reason, so you need to look at that reason and determine whether or not
[6:46:52] You want to enforce it.
[6:46:55] Thank you, Miss Seljud.
[6:47:04] I'm Jerry Turner.
[6:47:06] I don't smoke.
[6:47:08] I don't object to people smoking.
[6:47:11] But you got a staff that has recommended the now.
[6:47:16] Y'all pay these people to do this research
[6:47:18] until advise you what you all need to do.
[6:47:22] And they just recommend the now.
[6:47:25] You need to listen to them.
[6:47:26] Thank you.
[6:47:27] Thank you, Mr. Turner.
[6:47:28] So, anyone else present who would like to speak?
[6:47:32] I think our audience is run dry.
[6:47:35] Seeing none, I will ask the applicant
[6:47:38] if they would like a rebuttal.
[6:47:42] Actually, I have to close the public hearing first.
[6:47:44] And now,
[6:47:48] Mr. Chairman, appreciate the opportunity.
[6:47:50] And I appreciate Mr. Eldridge's comments.
[6:47:52] Mr. Scherner's comments.
[6:47:57] In working this case, we've looked at the definition
[6:48:00] that you've created, and your intent, I think,
[6:48:05] was to regulate vape shops,
[6:48:13] but it's pretty broad in the way you've
[6:48:15] written it and you've captured another type of tobacco related business, a smoking
[6:48:24] lounge.
[6:48:27] I think the ordinance was written to allow us to come to you and ask for
[6:48:33] additional use for those times that we may be there might be a business that has an idea
[6:48:43] that's different than the vape shop and we want to provide a service that's demanded by consumers.
[6:48:55] I think we're honoring what you did and we're asking for permission to say we're different
[6:49:04] And we'd like to have an exception that is authorized within the amendment that you passed.
[6:49:14] We recognize that a vape shop is not allowed here.
[6:49:17] We remove that.
[6:49:19] We're prepared to move forward with the smoking lounge.
[6:49:25] Happy to answer any other questions.
[6:49:27] If you have any.
[6:49:28] Thank you Mr. Geiger.
[6:49:29] Anybody have any further questions for the applicant?
[6:49:34] Thank you.
[6:49:35] Okay, since this case is in the middle of the district, I will lead the discussion, and I do appreciate the applicant
[6:49:44] submitting the addendum
[6:49:45] being agreeable to Dork Gilles suggestion and
[6:49:49] overall just being
[6:49:51] very cooperative. That being said, I cannot support this case as it is presently
[6:49:58] but I do
[6:50:00] I do have the desire to continue to work with this applicant
[6:50:03] because I'm hopeful that we can find a path to a resolution that could be a good compromise for everybody involved.
[6:50:12] So I do not yet want to deny it, but I just cannot support it as written today.
[6:50:16] So I would ask my fellow commissioners to join me in a motion to defer case two,
[6:50:27] three,
[6:50:27] I can carry 10 to back go until our next scheduled planning commission hearing, which is
[6:50:33] presently scheduled for June 18th, 2024.
[6:50:37] I'll second that.
[6:50:38] Okay.
[6:50:39] We have a motion and a second.
[6:50:40] We have any further discussion?
[6:50:43] Mr. Chair.
[6:50:44] I just want to offer very quick comment that I too.
[6:50:47] The cases at Stan's stay, I would not support it.
[6:50:52] And unfortunately, for the applicant, there are, there are, there are people
[6:50:57] that I've preceded him in this space, the smoking lounge space,
[6:51:04] that caused us as a body
[6:51:07] to have to react and, you know, I would never want to put, you know, our irony and us
[6:51:14] people on the spot, but there was a smoke shop in our district where patrons ended up walking
[6:51:22] into the firehouse because they were looking for food,
[6:51:27] because the environment was completely
[6:51:29] unregulated, there were no restrictions, and it fell under a lot of the situations that
[6:51:36] were liable in the ordinance.
[6:51:38] So it's a much broader issue other than concern about advertising and so forth.
[6:51:44] There were a lot of mental health was brought in on the issue, substance abuse, and there were
[6:51:51] more to that. So, you know, I would encourage the applicant to work with, you know, with
[6:51:59] Chairman Petrovski to really figure out how a lot of protections can be put in place
[6:52:07] so that many of the issues that we have had to deal with, the taxpayers had to pay for.
[6:52:13] We don't have those mistakes moving forward.
[6:52:18] Thank you, Commissioner.
[6:52:20] So, in response to the staff recommending denial, staff has to recommend dial because the
[6:52:25] ordinance says they have to, so that's one of the things I just want to stay right there.
[6:52:30] The ordinance says that it's would be a violation of the ordinance, first of all.
[6:52:35] So, that's one of the main things in the denial is it just violates the ordinance.
[6:52:40] Second, I understand where the applicant is coming from for their business and what they want to
[6:52:45] and wanted to be at the back only cigar.
[6:52:49] I think we could work on language for this to put some protections in it, but I don't
[6:52:54] think that something we could work through tonight.
[6:52:56] I think this is, if we take some time, we may be able to work with the applicant and get
[6:53:00] to a location, but it's not a Tuesday night at the last minute, kind of think.
[6:53:06] Thank you, Mr. Owens.
[6:53:08] What else?
[6:53:10] Okay, so we have a motion by Commissioner Trotskin, a second by Commissioner Harden.
[6:53:16] Madam Clark, please take a roll call.
[6:53:22] Mr. Petrosky?
[6:53:23] Aye.
[6:53:24] Mr. Sloan?
[6:53:25] Aye.
[6:53:26] Ms. Harden?
[6:53:26] Aye.
[6:53:27] Dr. Hilton?
[6:53:29] Aye.
[6:53:29] Mr. Owens?
[6:53:33] Did we ask the applicant if they accept the deferral?
[6:53:39] We'll do what we finish.
[6:53:41] Do they have to?
[6:53:43] Well, if they don't accept it, then we're on the clock, but if they do accept it, it changes things.
[6:53:51] With the applicant, can you come up and just dig us acknowledge it on the microphone? Please, thank you.
[6:53:59] We do accept the deferral.
[6:54:00] Okay, aye.
[6:54:04] You're welcome.
[6:54:06] Mr. Chair, the vote is unanimous in the motion passes.
[6:54:09] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[6:54:10] That concludes the evening's public hearings, and our last item on the agenda would be the second comments on unscheduled matters section.
[6:54:21] Is there anyone present who would like to speak on unscheduled? There is.
[6:54:26] Dr. Gillies, can you quickly rehash those guidelines?
[6:54:32] Mr. Turner.
[6:54:35] This portion of the meeting, only in this portion of the meeting on a specific public eye
[6:54:42] to a comment involving services policies and affairs of the county government regarding the
[6:54:47] planning and land use matters may be presented. These comments may not address any matter
[6:54:51] the business that was subject to the commission's agenda to die. And there's a limit of 15 minutes,
[6:54:56] each speaker gets five, three minutes.
[6:54:58] to
[6:55:01] Gilles.
[6:55:03] Mr. Turner, we're ready.
[6:55:05] I'm Jerry Turner.
[6:55:07] The question I've got,
[6:55:09] mainly for the planning department,
[6:55:12] is we see all these projects coming forward with all these
[6:55:17] of students that are going down to all these schools,
[6:55:21] is anybody keeping up with a record of how many people
[6:55:25] or students, y'all are putting into these schools by proving all of these projects.
[6:55:34] Because right down the street where a courthouse is in the host street, they're building
[6:55:40] about 500 parts over there.
[6:55:44] I'm not sure how many I haven't looked to see what they anticipate that's going to do
[6:55:48] to the schools in that part.
[6:55:52] There's a development right behind me that's been approved about five six years ago.
[6:55:59] That's about, I think it's a hundred and twenty houses back there.
[6:56:04] Is anybody in the county keeping up with how many people or how many students are going to be put into all these,
[6:56:11] the schools, if everybody acts on.
[6:56:15] Thank you.
[6:56:16] Thank you, Mr. Turner.
[6:56:18] Anyone else present?
[6:56:19] I would like to speak.
[6:56:30] Good evening. My name is Renee Eldard, and I hope all of y'all appeared no
[6:56:35] me. I do speak on a lot of cases, but I hope you understand that I do this from a point
[6:56:43] of trying to make things better. And because I've been doing it for so long, I guess I have
[6:56:52] perspective that somebody who's this first time they've come before you, they may or may not have.
[6:57:00] So I just want you to know that I don't do this just to hear myself talk. I actually am trying
[6:57:08] to make a project better when I speak. And I'm not doing it out of malice towards anybody or
[6:57:17] disrespect towards anybody. I just think that the knowledge that I've attained over the
[6:57:24] last 25 years, it needs to be said because sometimes it's not said. And I just hope you
[6:57:35] understand that and see me for who I am. And thank you. Thank you, Mr.
[6:57:48] Chair.
[6:57:48] That's good.
[6:57:49] So now we typically don't engage a respond to citizen comments, but I very briefly would
[6:57:56] like to say, you know, Renee, Mr. Turner, Mr. Allen was here, we can't do our job effectively
[6:58:08] without input from citizens just like the two of you.
[6:58:13] I encourage you. Keep coming, keep talking, keep challenging. We may not always agree.
[6:58:23] But I cannot understate or overstate enough the importance that citizens participating in these processes are vitally important.
[6:58:39] And if at any time, you question or you think, you sound like a broken record, whatever it is,
[6:58:46] you may be prompted you to come down, throw that idea at the window.
[6:58:53] I'd like to also make a quick comment, I do read a lot on social media and I see a lot of people
[6:58:59] complain about the zoning and some of the planning that happens in the county and the people
[6:59:04] who are the loudest online are the people you never see at a community meeting, you never see them
[6:59:10] an email. You never see them come speak. You never get a phone call from them. They don't participate
[6:59:16] and they're not part of the process. So you all being here is actually appreciated because you're
[6:59:22] part of the process and if you don't become part of the process and you speak in whatever vacuum you
[6:59:27] live in and nobody hears you, we have no feedback from you. So keep doing what you're doing.
[6:59:33] So,
[6:59:39] since I'm going to avoid breaking protocol, I'm going to treat this as if we've already
[6:59:43] moved on to the next agenda item, other business, and that's what we are presenting
[6:59:48] discussing.
[6:59:49] I will tack on to that, because I will hardly agree.
[6:59:54] I sincerely appreciate not only what you do, but how you approach it.
[7:00:00] Thank you, and please keep it up. Any other other business that you'd like to do?
[7:00:08] Well, no, I'm waiting to do this to make a motion.
[7:00:13] I will.
[7:00:15] I will.
[7:00:16] In the motion, I want to make.
[7:00:16] Intertain the motion and the second to call for the meeting to be adjourned until noon on Tuesday, June 18th.
[7:00:23] Motion?
[7:00:26] Is there any discussion?
[7:00:29] Madam Clerk, we have a motion for a German, but a German by Commissioner Owens, a second by Commissioner Sloan.
[7:00:37] Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
[7:00:39] Mr. Petroski.
[7:00:41] Mr. Sloan.
[7:00:43] Ms. Harden.
[7:00:44] Hi.
[7:00:44] Dr. Hilton.
[7:00:46] Mr. Owens.
[7:00:47] Hi.
[7:00:48] The motion is unanimous for adjournment.
[7:00:51] In adjourn. Thank you, everyone.
[7:01:36] Ladies and gentlemen, today's ceremony marks the first step in building the Lago group's
[7:01:41] right here in Chesterfield County. And I still remember the first beating between our teams and your teams.
[7:01:49] And when I left, I was so proud of thinking this feels right.
[7:01:54] Most of you know we probably know that on somewhat reserve sometimes in my nature.
[7:02:00] But today, I'm going to use a phrase that some of you may use me with if you're moving.
[7:02:08] Everything is awesome here in Chetheville County.
[7:02:14] What a day.
[7:02:15] What a day.
[7:02:17] It's a day for us to, yes, extend thank yous.
[7:02:21] It's a day for us to recognize that it's a package of individual contributions that come together to do amazing things.
[7:02:30] It's a day for us to really smile and see children playing.
[7:02:35] Thinking, breaking out of what otherwise sometimes is a sense that their imaginations have no place to go.