Planning Commission Meeting Packets

SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 19, 2017 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DAVID HAINLEY, DIRECTOR THE REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE SUFFOLK CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL BUILDING IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND OR NEED SPECIAL ACCOMODATIONS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT (757) 514-4060 PRIOR TO 12:00 NOON ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2017. HOWARD C. BENTON CHAIRMAN  AGENDA SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 2:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order A. Invocation B. Roll Call 2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting 3. Public Hearings: A. REZONING REQUEST, RZC2017-003, (Conditional), Hampton Roads Crossing: submitted by John Peterson III, Terry Peterson Investment Thirty, LLC, applicant and property owner, in accordance with Sections 31-304 and 31-305 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk in order to amend the approved proffered conditions and design standards, for property located at 6553 Hampton Roads Parkway, Zoning Map 13G, Parcel C*1A. The purpose of this request is to amend the accepted proffered conditions pertaining to the locational and design standards for mini- warehouse / self-storage facilities at Hampton Roads Crossing. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Nansemond Voting Borough, zoned MUD, Mixed Use Development zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Mixed Use Core Use District. B. REZONING REQUEST, RZC2017-004, (Conditional), Riverfront Parcel 8B: submitted by Melissa Venable, Land Planning Solutions, agent, on behalf of Richard Bowie, RF8B, LLC/RF8B Investment, LLC, applicant, and Clarence Smith, Continental Lakeview Associates, property owner, in accordance with Sections 31-304 and 31-305 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk to change the zoning from O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district, to RU-12, Residential Urban-12 zoning district, for property located at 7101 Bridgeway Drive, Zoning Map 6, Parcel 2G*B. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Nansemond Voting Borough, zoned O- I, Office-Institutional zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Mixed Use Core Use District. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, CUP2017-002, 58 “The Heart of Suffolk” Banquet Center: submitted by Jeffrey and Rennee Townsend, applicant, and property owner, in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Public Assembly not Otherwise Enumerated (Banquet Hall), on property located at 178 E. Washington Street, Zoning Map 34G18 (6), Page 1  Parcel(s) 5. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Mixed Use Core Use District. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, CUP2017-004, Riverbend Church at Bennetts Creek Square: submitted by Melissa Venable, Land Planning Solutions, Agent, on behalf of Bobby Hill, Riverbend Church, applicant, on behalf of Bennetts Creek Professional Center LLC, property owner, in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Place of Worship, Large (at least 6,000 square feet in main sanctuary), on property located at 231 and 241 Meadow View Boulevard, Zoning Map 12V, Parcel(s) D and F. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Sleepy Hole Voting Borough, zoned TND, Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Northern Growth Area, Inner-Ring Suburban Use District. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, CUP2017-006, McCrory Contractor and Trade Shop: submitted by Robert and Linda McCrory, applicant and property owner, in accordance with Sections 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Contractors and Trade Shop (indoor operations and outside storage, including heavy vehicles / equipment) less than 10,000 square feet in area, on property located at 3587 White Marsh Road, Zoning Map 56, Parcels 37C. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Whaleyville Voting Borough, zoned A, Agricultural zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Rural Agricultural Use District. 4. Old Business 5. New Business A. Staff Report Presentation on the Proposed Capital Improvements Plan FY 2019-2028 6. Commissioner’s Comments 7. Adjournment Page 2  MINUTES SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION November 21, 2017 2:00 P.M. The meeting of the Suffolk Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 21, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 442 W. Washington Street, Suffolk, Virginia, with the following persons present: MEMBERS: STAFF: Howard Benton, Chairman Helivi Holland, City Attorney Arthur Singleton David Hainley, Dir. of Planning & Com. Dev. Kittrell Eberwine Robert P. Goumas, Assistant Dir. of Planning Johnnie Edwards Claire Jones, Comp. Planning Manager John Rector Nicole Ward, Current Planning Manager Mills Staylor David Parks, Principal Planner Anita Hicks Michael Reitelbach, Planner I James Vacalis Amy Thurston, Planner I Catina Myrick, Administrative Analyst The meeting was called to order by Chairman Benton and Commissioner Hicks opened with a prayer. The roll was called by Mr. Hainley and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as written. 1 FAMILY TRANSFER PLAT: FAMILY TRANSFER SUBDIVISION PLAT FT03-17, submitted by Whitney G. Saunders, agent, on behalf of Faye Elizabeth Bright, applicant(s) and property owner(s), requesting a family transfer subdivision pursuant to Section 31-514 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The affected property is identified as Zoning Map 42, Parcel 60*4, Holy Neck Voting Borough, zoned A, Agricultural Zoning District. The City’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as being located within the Rural Agricultural Use District. The first item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report by Andrew Reitelbach, Planner I. Mr. Reitelbach stated that this application is to subdivide a 1-acre parcel, which is to be conveyed to Arthur Madison Bright, Jr. A plat and deed of gift have been provided with a restrictive covenant that prohibits the transfer of the property within ten (10) years of its receipt by the Grantee. A letter from the Health Department approving the well and septic system has been provided. The Grantor and Grantee have acknowledged by the sworn affidavit that: 1) The purpose of this subdivision is to gift this parcel from Faye Bright to her natural defined son, Arthur Madison Bright, Jr., who is over the age of 18 and has not previously received a parcel of land under the family transfer ordinance, 2) The recipient has acknowledged that title to the property must be held for 10 years from the date of receipt, other than to jointly hold title with his spouse, and that the family transfer parcel may not be sold, subdivided, or otherwise conveyed during that 10 year holding period and 3) This parcel was created to provide a place of residence for the Grantee separate from the 2 Grantor in order to keep the property in the immediate family. In the event the Director determines that a family subdivision has been used to circumvent the Subdivision Ordinance, the Director shall initiate the vacation of all or part of the plat of the original lot or parcel to the extent necessary to correct the violation. With these findings, staff found that the applicant’s request meets the criteria for a family transfer subdivision and recommended approval of this application. Speaking in favor of this application was Whitney Saunders, 705 W. Washington Street, Suffolk, VA. Commissioner Vacalis made a motion to approve this application, seconded by Commissioner Singleton and passed by a voice vote of 8 to 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, CUP2017-003, Commercial Ready Mix Products, Inc.: submitted by Raeford Eure, Hoggard Eure Associates, PC, applicant, on behalf of Hobbs Adams Investment Group, Inc., property owner, in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish an Outdoor Operation and Storage, Manufacturing / Processing facility, on property located at 304 and 306 Kenyon Road, Zoning Map 33, Parcel(s) 9A and 9B. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Holy Neck Voting Borough, zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Rural Agriculture Use District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report by Andrew Reitelbach, Planner I. Mr. Reitelbach stated that this application is to establish 3 an Outdoor Operation and Storage, Manufacturing/Processing facility. This facility is proposed to be a batch plant for ready-mix concrete, with silos, hoppers, and storage tanks for the production of concrete; a gravel work yard for material storage; waste wash pits; and a small two-story office building. The proposed hours of operation will be from 7 am to 5 pm, though there may be limited night-time service occasionally because of extenuating circumstances. This property is not served by City water or sewer. The Department of Public Utilities reviewed this application and determined that this facility will be required to connect to City water, which can be extended to this property from an existing 20 inch water main on Kenyon Road. The Department of Public Utilities has no objection to using a private septic system to meet the sewage needs of this facility. This septic system would be required to be approved and permitted by the Health Department. Public Works, Traffic Engineering, reviewed this CUP application and has no concerns other than to ensure that the private access road has a hard surface of concrete, asphalt, or something similar, throughout the duration of this proposed use. The UDO requires 0.5 parking spaces for each employee, and the conceptual plan showed 12 parking spaces being provided. The applicant indicated that the proposed structures will be less than 65 feet in height. A paved entrance into the facility from the private access road, a paved parking lot, and a paved work area around the manufacturing plant are proposed in accordance with Section 31-606 of the 4 UDO. The material storage areas will be placed within a gravel work yard. This development will be required to meet the City’s performance standards for industrial areas, in accordance with Section 31-608 of the UDO. Staff reviewed the criteria for this proposed project and this request will conform to the required criteria as described in the staff report. Therefore, it was staff’s opinion that the site in question is appropriate for the proposed use of a ready-mix concrete batch plant; therefore, staff recommended approval of this application with the conditions noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application was Ray Eure, Hoggard-Eure & Associates, Portsmouth, VA. There being no speakers in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Singleton made a motion to approve this application with the conditions, seconded by Commissioner Hicks and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, CUP2017-005, True Word Temple of Faith Ministries: submitted by Joel Nichols, Agent, on behalf of True Word Temple of Faith Ministries, applicant, on behalf of 412 N. Main LLC, property owner, in accordance with Section(s) 31-306 and 31-406 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Place of Worship, Small (under 6,000 square feet in main sanctuary), on property located at 412 N. Main Street, Zoning Map 34G11(A), Parcel(s) 131, 132, and 133. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District zoning district. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Central Growth Area, Mixed Use Core Use District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report by 5 Nicole Ward, Current Planning Manager. Ms. Ward stated that the applicant proposed to convert the existing building, formerly Tony’s Trophies, into a place of worship that will include an approximately 1,680 square feet sanctuary and will seat 71 occupants. The applicant also proposed 20 parking spaces. There is no plan to provide a day care or other accessory uses at this property, and no accessory uses are a part of this request. The applicant also noted in the narrative that this location will be used as a place of worship until the permanent site is complete. In regard to Public Facilities, the Department of Public Utilities noted that existing building is currently served with City water and sewer and the department has no objections to the proposed use. The City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed this application and has no objections to the proposed use and noted that the existing commercial entrances and proposed parking are adequate. The proposed place of worship will conform to the character of the neighborhood, as it is not out of character, as to what is allowed in the CBD district and this use should not have any adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the guidance provided by the UDO and the analysis and findings-of-fact set forth in the staff report, staff recommended approval of this application with the conditions noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor of this application was Linwood Gilchrist, Pastor. He asked for the Commission’s approval of this application. 6 Also, speaking in favor of this application was Richard Campbell, 129 N. Saratoga Street, Suffolk, VA. He stated that he was in support of this application. There being no speakers in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Edwards made a motion to approve this application with the conditions, seconded by Commissioner Hicks and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT OTA2017-003, initiated by the City of Suffolk, for amendments to the Code of the City of Suffolk, Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Article 5, Section 31-506, Minor Subdivisions, and Appendix B, Section B-4, Rezoning Applications, Subsection (f), which pertains to the acceptance of voluntary proffers associated with Conditional Rezoning Applications. The purpose of the text amendment is to provide improved clarity and consistency within the UDO, as well as to bring the UDO into compliance with changes to the Code of Virginia. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report by Amy Thurston, Planner I. Ms. Thurston stated that this is a housekeeping text amendment that consists of two (2) parts - an amendment to Section 31-506, Minor Subdivisions and an amendment to Appendix B, Section B-4, which pertains to the acceptance of voluntary proffers associated with Conditional Rezoning Applications. The purpose of this amendment is to provide improved clarity and consistency within the UDO or to bring the UDO into compliance with changes made to the Code of Virginia. The first part of this amendment involves Article 5, Section 31-506, which describes the general procedure for minor subdivisions. Currently the language in 7 Section 31-506 is not clear in describing what types of subdivisions are classified as “minor” and so the language utilized in the Definitions section of the UDO inserted into this section in order to improve clarification. The types of subdivisions that will continue to be classified as “minor” include the subdivision of not more than 4 lots, including the parent tract or residual parcel, and it cannot involve the dedication of any new street or road or the extension of public facilities or public improvements. Any subdivision consisting of more than 4 lots or public improvements is a “major” subdivision. The second part of this housekeeping amendment is to remove existing language in Appendix B, Section B-4, subsection (f), which pertains to the acceptance of voluntary proffers. In accordance with Section 15.2-2303.2 of the Code of Virginia, localities cannot request or accept a proffer for a conditional rezoning application in which the profferor purports to waive future legal rights against the City or its agents; therefore, the existing language regarding proffers must be removed from the UDO in order to comply with State Code. Staff recommended approval of this ordinance text amendment. The public hearing was opened. There being no speakers in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Singleton made a motion to approve this ordinance text amendment, seconded by Commissioner Vacalis and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. 8 ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT OTA2017-004, initiated by the City of Suffolk, for amendments to the Code of the City of Suffolk, Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Article 4, Section 31-406, Use Regulations, Table 406- 1: Principal Uses Permitted in Zoning Districts, with regard to permitting funeral home uses in the B-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the proposed text amendment is to update and refine the Unified Development Ordinance due to a change in circumstances. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman followed by a staff report by Amy Thurston, Planner I. Ms. Thurston stated that this ordinance text amendment is to amend the Permitted Uses Table 406-1 in the UDO in order to allow funeral homes in the B-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district with the approval of a CUP. The purpose of the amendment is to update and refine the UDO due to a change in circumstances. Due to a proposed expansion of an existing funeral home, it has been brought to staff’s attention that funeral homes are not permitted in the B-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district. In comparison, funeral homes are currently permitted by-right in the B-2, General Commercial, zoning district, AND in the A, RR, RE, RL, RLM, RM, VC, CBD, O-I, and FRRD zoning districts with the approval of a CUP. Funeral homes are compatible with other business uses in the B-1 district. Due to the potential impacts of traffic, demand for public facilities, and potential impacts on neighboring properties, it is recommended that a CUP be required rather than allowing this use by-right. Based on the considerations noted above, staff recommended approval of the proposed ordinance text amendment. 9 The public hearing was opened. There being no speakers in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Singleton made a motion to approve this ordinance text amendment, seconded by Commissioner Vacalis and passed by a recorded vote of 8 to 0. STATUS REPORT: Mr. Hainley reported on the results of the October 18th City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 10  MT: Vacalis MT: Singleton MT: Edwards MT: Singleton PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND: Singleton 2ND: Hicks 2ND: Hicks 2ND: Vacalis MEETING TO: Approve TO: Approve TO: Approve TO: Approve November 21, 2017 w/conditions w/conditions VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: 8-0 FT03-17 CUP2017-003 CUP2017-005 OTA2017-003 PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO X X X X X Benton, Howard C. X X X X X Eberwine, Kittrell X X X X X Edwards, Johnnie X X X X X Hicks, Anita X X X X X Rector, John X X X X X Singleton, Arthur X X X X X Staylor, Mills X X X X X Vacalis, James  MT: Singleton MT: MT: MT: PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND: Vacalis 2ND: 2ND: 2ND: MEETING TO: Approve TO: TO: TO: November 21, 2017 VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: VOTE: VOTE: OTA2017-004 PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO X X Benton, Howard C. X X Eberwine, Kittrell X X Edwards, Johnnie X X Hicks, Anita X X Rector, John X X Singleton, Arthur X X Staylor, Mills X X Vacalis, James THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  STAFF REPORT DESCRIPTION REZONING REQUEST: Rezoning Request, RZC2017-004 (Conditional), Riverfront Parcel 8B (Bridgeway Commerce Park), to request a change in zoning from O-I, Office-Institutional, to RU-12, Residential Urban-12 zoning district. APPLICANT: Richard L. Bowie, applicant, and Continental-Lakeview Associates, LLC, property owner. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 7101 Bridgeway Drive, and is further identified as Zoning Map 6, Block 2G, Parcel B, Nansemond Voting Borough. PRESENT ZONING: The subject parcel is zoned O-I, Office-Institutional, and PD, Planned Development Overlay District. EXISTING LAND USE: The existing property measures 13.73 acres in size and is presently undeveloped. The existing land cover consists of forest and field. PROPOSED LAND USE: The proposed use of the subject property is 70 single-family detached dwelling units. SURROUNDING LAND USES: North – Undeveloped (O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district) South – Multi-family residential (PD, Planned Development Overlay District) East – Office (O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district, M-1, Light Industrial zoning district) West – Single-family residential (RU, Residential Urban zoning district) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a part of the Northern Growth Area, Mixed Use Core use district. CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA DESIGNATION: The property is located within the City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District and is designated as a Resource Management Area (RMA). PUBLIC NOTICE: This request has been duly advertised in accordance with the public notice requirements set forth in Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and with the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. A notice, containing a copy of the staff report, was also provided to the applicant on December 15, 2017. CASE HISTORY: This property is currently vacant and is zoned O-I, Office-Institutional, and PD, Planned Development Overlay District. The property falls within Flood Zone X, as shown on Panel 0039E of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Suffolk, Virginia, Community No. 510156, dated August 3, 2015. In 1987, City Council approved the Harbour View Planned Development-Housing District, which rezoned properties along the Harbour View Boulevard corridor to a mixture of residential and commercial zoning. The Planned Development-Housing District included property owned Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 2 of 13 by Dominion Land Management Company immediately to the south of the General Electric Plant. In 1992, Dominion Lands separated from the Harbour View development partnership to establish the Bridgeway Commerce Park, a light industrial park extending from the Nansemond River to Harbour View Boulevard and along the east side of Harbour View Boulevard adjacent to Interstate 664. The remaining 298.42 acres in Bridgeway Commerce Park was purchased by Suffolk Towers, LLC, who in turn sold 163.82 acres of undeveloped property on the west side of Harbour View Boulevard to Bridgeway Limited Partnership, the developers of the Riverfront community to the south. In 2004, City Council approved Rezoning Request RZ03-03 to rezone properties on the east and west sides of Harbour View Boulevard identified as Bridgeway Commerce Park, which created a new Planned Development Overlay District. The rezoning request also amended the previously approved ‘Riverfront Residential Master Plan’ as part of the Harbour View Planned Development-Housing District. As part of the rezoning request in 2004, the applicant submitted a layout plan for residential and non-residential uses. Within the residential layout, the plan identified the lot layout, density, and housing types on the proposed parcels within the development, including single-family detached, single-family attached, and multi-family dwelling units. The approved rezoning included commercial parcels and residential parcels, 92.28 acres of which was zoned RL, Residential Low Density, and 33.45 acres of land was zoned RU, Residential Urban. Since the rezoning established a new Planned Development Overlay District, a jobs-to-housing ratio was established in accordance with Section 31-410 (c) (3) such that 250 square feet of office space is required per dwelling unit. In 2008, City Council approved Rezoning Request RZ03-03A (Conditional), to amend the master plan of development to permit single-family detached, single-family attached and multi- family residential dwelling units on parcels 8E and 8F. The total number of dwelling units to be constructed on both parcels was not changed from the previously approved maximum of 169 dwelling units under the then existing RU, Residential Urban, zoning district. A previous application for a conditional rezoning of the subject property, RZ07-16, was submitted in June 2016. The request included a proposal to rezone the property from O-I, Office- Institutional zoning district, to RU-24, Residential Urban-24, for the purpose of constructing a combination of (55) single-family attached units and (192) multi-family units for a total of 247 dwelling units, which equated to 18 units per acre. The request was withdrawn by the applicant prior consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 18, 2016. STAFF ANALYSIS ISSUE The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district, to RU-12, Residential Urban-12 zoning district, (Conditional), for a parcel of land identified as 7101 Bridgeway Drive, Zoning Map 6, Block 2G, Parcel B. The subject parcel fronts on Bridgeway Drive, and is surrounded by property zoned O-I, Office-Institutional, RU, Residential Urban, RL, Residential Low Density, and M-1, Light Industrial, zoning districts. Current land uses surrounding the subject property include single-story office development to the east, undeveloped land to the north, single-family attached and detached residential development to the west and multi-family residential development to the south. The subject property contains a Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 3 of 13 total of approximately 13.73 acres and presently consists of undeveloped field and forested land cover. As presented, the conceptual layout of the development proposes to utilize the subject parcel for 70 single-family detached dwelling units in a conventional subdivision pattern. The conceptual layout has not been proffered and is subject to change. Also, this layout has not been reviewed for compliance with regard to the development regulations in the Unified Development Ordinance. This review will occur during the plan review process should City Council so choose to approve the subject rezoning. The applicant has provided a proffer indicating that the development will not exceed 70 total single-family for sale units. Additional proffers related to building materials, elevations, and floor plans were provided. The developer also proffered cash contributions for school impacts, which will be discussed later in this report. CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS In accordance with Appendix B, Section B-4 of the Unified Development Ordinance, rezoning applications must include a statement of the reasons for seeking an amendment to the zoning maps of the City of Suffolk. Supplemental information provided by the applicant indicates that the reason for this rezoning request is based on the belief that the subject parcel provides a residential opportunity to transition from the office use at the intersection of Bridgeway Drive and Harbour View Boulevard to the medium residential density of the Gables community and further to the lower residential density of the Riverfront community. The applicant further believes that the Mixed Use Core use district identified in the Comprehensive Plan is aggressive given the existing development that has already occurred in the area. The applicant did not address the suitability of the existing O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district. 1. Comprehensive Plan Under the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is located in the Mixed Use Core District within the Northern Growth Area. This designation remains unchanged from the 2026 Comprehensive Plan and continues to envision this area as a place for high intensity business, retail, residential, and civic uses. Uses appropriate to the Mixed Use Core include multi-family dwellings, regional scale retail and mixed use in vertical settings, offices, hotels, civic buildings and other uses normally associated with urban areas. The Mixed Use Core is the highest density use district in the City, with a recommended density range of 25-40 units per acre for residential uses and a floor area ratio of 2.0-6.0 for non-residential uses. The subject parcel is adjacent to the Core Support District, which has a lower recommended density range of 13-24 units per acre and a recommended floor ratio of 0.5-2.0 for non-residential uses and 6.0 for hotel and residential uses. This district supports the density and activity of the Mixed Use Core and encourages walkable mixed use neighborhoods at a moderate scale. As stated in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use Core will enable Suffolk to compete regionally and nationally for the most intensive uses by providing both undeveloped and redevelopment sites that are appropriate for high density urban-scale developments. The Mixed Use Core located in north Suffolk is focused on the I-664 corridor and offers greenfield development opportunities that can build upon the successes of the existing high technology businesses. The existing O-I zoned parcels Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 4 of 13 lining Harbour View Boulevard offer opportunities to co-locate employment with residences while maintaining walkable separation between the two uses. The proposed residential density for the subject property is five (5) units per acre, which is significantly lower than the recommended minimum density in both the Mixed Use Core and Core Support use district. The proposed use includes only single-family detached dwellings while the residential developments in place to the west and south contain single-family attached and multi-family units. No mix in residential unit types or commercial development is proposed. The Mixed Use Core and adjacent Core Support use district can accommodate single-family attached and high density single-family detached units when designed for an urban context appropriate to the recommended Place Types. The Comprehensive Plan designates the Inner Ring Suburban use district as the first place where exclusively residential neighborhoods should be located. In addition to recommended densities and uses, the 2035 Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of the design, scale, physical form, and orientation of buildings and their relationship to public space through the recommended Place Types for each use district. The recommended Place Types in the Mixed Use Core include Downtown/Town Centers and Urban Neighborhoods, which are high intensity, mixed use, pedestrian-oriented designs. More specifically, these Place Types consist of an interconnected network of streets and small blocks, lots that have small or no side setbacks in order to foster continuous street frontage, and buildings that are oriented close to the front of lots. Parking is either located on-street, at the rear of lots, or interior to blocks. The conceptual layout, while not proffered, is comprised of an automobile- oriented design that includes disconnected streets terminating in cul-de-sacs and front loaded driveways in a low density suburban layout that does not provide a progressive transition to the higher density mixed residential types immediately surrounding the subject property. As presented, the conceptual layout does not conform to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan Place Types. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan sets specific themes and policies related to land use, transportation, open space, and the environment that should be considered when contemplating a rezoning application. Relevant to this application are the following: Policy 2-1: Keep development focused in designated Growth Areas in the City.  Action 2-1A: Ensure that the City’s land use regulations support higher density/intensity development in focused Growth Areas. As noted, the subject property is located in the Northern Growth Area, Mixed Use Core District, which is envisioned as a place for the highest intensity business, retail, residential, and civic uses. Uses appropriate to the Mixed Use Core include multi-family dwellings, regional scale retail and mixed use in vertical settings, offices, hotels, civic buildings and other uses normally associated with urban areas. The requested RU-12 zoning district, proposed use of the property for only single-family detached units, and density of five (5) units per acre, does not comply with the recommended uses or density of the Mixed Use Core. Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 5 of 13 Policy 2-3: Promote the balance of residential and non-residential land uses.  Action 2-3A: Continue to develop implementation tools that will help achieve an appropriate jobs-to-housing ratio.  Action 2-3B: Continue to promote efforts to facilitate the retention and expansion of office, research and development, and manufacturing activity in Suffolk.  Action 2-3C: Ensure that appropriately located zoned land is available to support the maintenance and continued growth of high technology, office and industrial uses throughout the City. The subject parcel is part of the Bridgeway Technology Center and is well suited for high technology office and institutional development, given its location in a complex with similar uses and its proximity to I-664, the Department of Defense’s Suffolk Complex, and other modeling and simulation technology facilities. As currently zoned, it supplies land for office and institutional employers to locate in close proximity to a primary transportation route while maintaining the balance between non-residential and residential uses and allowing for an appropriate jobs-to-housing ratio in the Harbour View area. The proposed rezoning would result in a loss of 13.7 acres of land that has the opportunity to be developed into office, medical office, research and development, civic, cultural, and manufacturing uses, among others. Given a total site area of 13.7 acres, a maximum floor area ratio of 0.60 permitted in the O-I district, and without taking into account the site layout and configuration, this property has the potential to accommodate approximately 358,000 square feet of non-residential uses. In turn, this translates into the potential to generate approximately 1,400 jobs. Overall, the retention of this site as O-I zoning is important in maintaining the balance of residential and non-residential uses in the Harbour View/Riverfront area. Policy 2-4: Promote compatibility in land use patterns. The applicant did not address the suitability of the existing O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district, at this location. The parcel located adjacent to the east of the subject property is zoned O-I and the parcels located to the north and diagonally to the north-east are zoned O-I; therefore, the subject parcel is situated in a cluster of O-I zoning that lends itself to supporting a mix of institutional/office uses which can provide community services in close proximity to nearby residential communities. The existing O-I zoning reinforces the intent of the Mixed Use Core and Northern Growth Area and it provides employment opportunities within a walkable distance from surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, an existing lake is located between the subject parcel and the parcel to the west that is home to The Gables single-family attached residential community that averages approximately eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This lake provides a natural transition between future office/institutional uses that are anticipated on the subject parcel and the moderate density residential development to the west. Presently, the zoning districts located from Harbour View Boulevard westward to the Nansemond River create a strategic progression from high density to low density residential development. The proposed change from O-I zoning to low density residential zoning at five (5) dwelling units per acre would detract from the strategic progression of densities and uses by Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 6 of 13 placing low density residential between higher density residential uses and existing office development. Policy 4-1: Provide opportunities for residents to adopt a lifestyle that is less dependent on auto travel.  Action 4-1A: Focus development in the two Suburban/Urban Growth Areas based on the densities shown in Chapter 3.  Action 4-1B: Promote implementation of mixed-use development where facilities, infrastructure and markets will sustain investment. As previously discussed, this request does not comply with the recommended density shown in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The accommodation of projected housing needs reflected in the Comprehensive Plan were based on recommended densities at a minimum of twenty-five (25) units per acre in the Mixed Use Core and descending through the use districts to a low of one (1) to five (5) units per acre in the lowest density Suburban use district. The proposed RU-12 district is consistent with the Inner Ring Suburban use district and the proffered maximum number of housing units results in a density consistent with the Suburban use district, as opposed to the Mixed Use Core. If this parcel were considered for residential development only, which is not supported at this location, the proposed density should be significantly higher in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and to create a strategic transition in densities from Harbour View Boulevard to the Nansemond River. As presented, the proposed density would result in a significant loss in the capacity of residential units on this site, which would thereby reduce the City’s ability to accommodate future population growth in close proximity to the I-664 transportation corridor. In addition, the proposed residential development would lessen opportunities for mixed use or other economic development. 2. Unified Development Ordinance The current zoning of the subject property is based on a previously approved Planned Development (PD) and Master Plan, last amended in 2008. As required under Section 31- 410(c)(3) of the Unified Development Ordinance, any Planned Development must comply with specific design elements outlined in Table 410-2. One of the requirements for non-residential zoning districts within the PD is that they must maintain a jobs-to- housing ratio of not less than 1.0 and not more than 1.5 employees for each residential dwelling unit within the Planned Development. In the O-I, Office-Institutional zoning district, the number of jobs generated is based on 250 square feet of building area per employee. As approved under RZ03-03, the previously stated jobs to housing ratio standard was applied to all residential units proposed to be constructed in the Bridgeway portion of the development. At such time, a minimum of 42,250 square feet of development was required to occur in the O-I district for the construction of 169 residential units. Approval of the current request, RZC2017-004, would require an additional 17,500 square feet of O-I floor area to maintain the jobs to housing ratio, for a total of 59,750 square feet of office space. As built, the office use located at 7007 Harbour View Boulevard includes a 71,306 square foot building that satisfies the required jobs to housing ratio for both the previously approved and proposed dwelling units. Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 7 of 13 The purpose statement of the RU-12 zoning district contained in Section 31-403 of the UDO must be considered when contemplating this rezoning. As stated, the RU-12 zoning district is intended as a high density district that allows for a mix of housing types including single family detached and attached dwellings, townhouses, duplexes and apartments at a maximum of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. This district is designed to provide multi-family buffer zones between commercial/industrial areas and low density residential uses. Lastly, the RU-12 zoning district is intended to be located within the Inner Ring Suburban use district, which is located south of Bridge Road outside of the Harbour View area. Section 31-408 of the UDO provides specific RU-12 district criteria that must be considered when contemplating a rezoning:  No application for development approval shall be approved unless the proposed use and/or development conforms to the requirements of Articles 4, 6, and 7 of this Ordinance.  Subdivision plats or site plans may utilize hamlet or cluster use patterns consistent with the requirements of Table 406-1 and Sections 31-411(e) or 31- 411(f).  No subdivision plat shall be approved unless the proposed development is served by the central water system of the City of Suffolk and the central wastewater system of the City of Suffolk, in accordance with Section 31-613 of this Ordinance, and Chapter 90, of the City Code of Suffolk. The conceptual plan submitted with this application, which is not proffered, has not been reviewed for compliance with regard to the development regulations in Articles 4, 6 and 7 of the UDO. This development will require full site plan review in accordance with Section 31-307. Compliance with regard to all design and improvement standards, including but not limited to: parks and open space, landscaping, lot and road layout, and connectivity would be verified during site plan review. 3. Adequate Public Facilities The purpose and intent of the adequate public facilities ordinance is to ensure that public facilities are available to support new development and associated impacts and that each public facility meets or exceeds the Level of Service standards established by the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. No rezoning request should be approved which would cause a reduction in the Levels of Service standards for any public facility impacted. Public Water and Sewer A 10” water main exists along Bridgeway Drive for connection to supply domestic and fire protection service. A City water model will be required to address fire flow requirements as part of the design phase. An 8” sanitary sewer is also available for connection along Bridgeway Drive. The sewer from this site is conveyed to City Pump Station #115/Bridgeway Commerce Park #1. Prior to design, a City sewer model evaluation will need to be done for City PS #115 to determine whether it has sufficient capacity or upgrades are required due to additional flows generated from this project. Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 8 of 13 Any upgrades to City PS #115 will be the sole responsibility of the developer. The Public Facilities Report (PFR) provided by the applicant identifies the anticipated domestic water, fire low, and sanitary sewer demands for the site. Based on this review, the Department of Public Utilities has no objections to the rezoning request as presented. Stormwater Management A Water Quality Impact Assessment and Soils Report were submitted as required for rezoning applications. While the conceptual layout has not been proffered, the applicant should be advised that the relocation of drainage easements on-site will likely necessitate the relocation of active drainage systems. Any relocation will require supporting documentation/calculations proving the relocated systems have been adequately designed and will not negatively impact surrounding roads and properties. Location/relocation of existing drainage systems may have an impact on proposed site layout. There is also concern with regards to on-street parking spaces and adequate lane width as shown on the exhibit, as well as parking and common areas that appear to be located within publicly maintained right of way. Right-of-way dedication may be required to place the existing sidewalk within the publicly maintained right-of-way. The subject parcel is part of Bridgeway Commerce Park Stormwater Master Plan; therefore, the applicant will be party to the association that is responsible for the existing BMP facility. Currently, the site is considered grandfathered, as such, land disturbing activities shall remain subject to the Part II C technical criteria until July 1, 2019. After such time, portions of the project not under construction shall become subject to any new stormwater technical criteria adopted by the State Water Control Board. Within the Master Plan, it is noted that parcel 8B is allowed a maximum of 65% impervious lot coverage. As such, the applicant must comply with this requirement or mitigate any increase in the impervious area beyond what was originally allotted in accordance with state and local standards. Any increase in phosphorus loading or increases in flow rate at any discharge point may negatively impact the current grandfathered status of this development and future developments within the Master Plan. Compliance with regard to applicable stormwater management requirements will be assessed during the site plan review process. Transportation The applicant has provided a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as required for a rezoning application. Based on the proposed 70 single-family detached dwellings, 53 a.m. peak trips and 70 p.m. peak trips were estimated to be generated. In total, 666 daily vehicular trips are expected to be generated by the development. According to the TIA, the existing roadways and intersections located in close proximity to this site can accommodate the minimal increase in traffic volume that would result from the proposed development; thus, no improvements are necessary. The Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the TIA and has no objections to the proposed change in zoning. Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 9 of 13 Schools Under the current O-I zoning, there are no impacts to school facilities within the City; therefore, any new impacts that are projected as a result from the proposed development should be appropriately mitigated by the applicant to ensure that the Level of Service is maintained. The subject property is currently located within the Northern Shores Elementary, John Yeates Middle, and Nansemond River High school districts. A new elementary school and middle school are scheduled to open in the fall of 2018 to provide additional capacity to the northern portion of the City; however, the future shifts in school attendance zones and associated shifts in capacity are unknown at this time. The following table provides a comparison of the existing capacities and Level of Service standards of the impacted schools based on three sources: 1) Section 31-601, Adequate Public Facilities, within the Unified Development Ordinance 2) Chapter 5, Municipal Facilities and Services, within the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, and 3) student enrollment figures documented by Suffolk Public Schools as of September 30, 2017. Please note that the UDO student capacities shown in the second column are based on a Cash Proffer Study that was conducted in 1996; hence, these figures are generous compared to the Level of Service capacities that are identified in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The specified surplus or deficit in capacity is based on the difference between the UDO student capacity less the enrollment as of September 30, 2017 and committed future development. Committed development is comprised of all major residential subdivisions with an approved site plan or final plat. Pipeline development, which is excluded from the estimated deficits/surpluses below, consists of committed development plus all major residential subdivisions that have an approved rezoning or conditional use permit on file, and have yet to obtain an approved site plan or final plat. Table 1: School Capacity and Level of Service Analysis Student Deficit/Surplus Schools 2035 Enrollment (Including Currently UDO Student Comprehensive as of Committed Serving the Capacity Plan Student Sept. 30, Development) Based Subject Parcel Capacity 2017 on UDO Capacity Northern 1,084 592 893 25 Shores Elementary John Yeates 831 615 1,239 -509 Middle Nansemond 1,493 1,399 1,549 -170 River High As shown in Table 1, John Yeates Middle School and Nansemond River High School have significant deficits in student capacity; thus, this development would require the advancement of school capacity at the middle and high school levels. Please be advised that an additional six (6) attached dwellings, forty-four (44) detached dwellings, and 294 multifamily dwellings are currently proposed as pipeline development Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 10 of 13 in the Northern Growth Area. Based on the student generation rates in the UDO, if the pipeline residential units are constructed, they are projected to generate an additional thirty-nine (39) elementary school students, forty-three (43) additional middle school students, and forty-four (44) additional high school students. The adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has established the cost and capacity for a new school at each level, which can be seen in Table 2 on the following page. By dividing the cost of each facility by the established UDO capacity, a cost per student can be calculated. Subsequently, the cost per student to construct each facility can then be compared to the contribution per student that is voluntarily proffered by the applicant in order to determine whether the proffered amounts are sufficient. The applicant submitted a voluntary proffer to advance capacity at the middle school level by offering to provide a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $43,136.00 for each additional student upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each dwelling unit. The proffer further states that once the new middle school is complete, which is projected to open in September 2018, capacity shall be available and proffer payments toward advanced capacity shall no longer be provided. Since the development of 70 single-family detached dwellings is projected to generate eight (8) middle school students according to the UDO generation rates, this would equate to a contribution of $4,929.83 per dwelling unit. Please be advised that it is highly improbable that this contribution would be rendered to the City as it is unlikely that dwellings would obtain certificates of occupancy prior to September 2018. Similarly, the applicant submitted a voluntary proffer to advance capacity at the high school level by offering to provide a cash contribution in the amount of $38,398.85 for each additional student upon the issuance of the occupancy permit for each dwelling unit. No termination date was included as part of this proffer. The proposed development will generate thirteen (13) new high school students according to the student generation rates in the UDO; therefore, a contribution in the amount of $7,112.64 per dwelling unit shall be collected by the City upon the issuance of the C.O. for each dwelling unit. Based on the data presented in Table 2, the proffered amounts to advance capacity at the middle and high school levels on a per student basis are higher than the cost per student calculated from the construction costs of the new schools in the CIP. Therefore, the proffered amounts from the applicant are considered excessive and unreasonable as they cannot be considered directly attributable to the impacts associated with the proposed rezoning. Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 11 of 13 Table 2: Analysis of Proffers to Advance School Capacity Construction UDO Cost Per Voluntary Students Voluntary Cost of New Student Student Proffer Per Generated by Proffer Schools Capacity Student Proposed Per Based on Development Dwelling CIP Based on Unit UDO Florence $24,253,784 1,725 $16,494.95 None 15 None Bowser (There is Elementary sufficient capacity as shown in Table 1) Colonel $31,657,554 991 $31,945.06 $43,136.00 8 $4,929.83 Fred Cherry Middle Future $53,000,000 1,848 $28,679.65 $38,298.85 13 $7,112.64 High School 4. Fiscal Impact Study Based on the Fiscal Impact Study submitted by the applicant, the proposed development is projected to have a positive fiscal impact on both the general fund and the enterprise funds of the City of Suffolk (“the City”) over an initial five-year analysis period and in its stabilization year of 2022. An annual cash flow of $225,000 is projected based on the City’s student generation ratio in the UDO and an annual cash flow of $240,000 is anticipated based on a combination of current population and public school enrollment data. No data is required or provided by the applicant in regard to the fiscal impact of development under the current zoning. 5. Proffered Conditions The applicant has voluntarily proffered the following conditions in support of this rezoning request. 1. The developer will make a cash contribution to the City of Suffolk to advance capacity for additional students at the middle school level. This contribution will be based on the number of students generated by the total number of units shown on the approved development plan under the guidelines outlined in Section 31-601 of the Unified Development Ordinance, as amended, multiplied by $43,136 for each student. This contribution will be made upon issuance of the occupancy permit for each dwelling unit. Once the new middle school is complete, which is projected to open in September, 2018, capacity shall be available and proffer payments toward advanced capacity shall no longer by required. Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 12 of 13 2. The developer will make a cash contribution to the City of Suffolk to advance capacity for additional students at the high school level. This contribution will be based on the number of students generated by the total number of units shown on the approved development plan under the guidelines outlined in Section 31-601 of the Unified Development Ordinance, as amended, multiplied by $38,298.85 for each student. This contribution will be made upon issuance of the occupancy permit for each dwelling unit. 3. Due to the existing adjacent uses, this zoning shall be limited to a total of 70 single family for sale units to be constructed on public streets 4. Residence Buildings shall use cultured stone, brick, cement board as exterior construction materials. All roofing shall be of architectural shingles with a minimum 25 year manufacturer's warranty. 5. Within each individual block no two residential dwellings having the same elevation shall be constructed on the same side of a street within three building lots of each other. Facade reversal shall be considered dissimilar appearance. 6. A minimum of four floor plans shall be offered within the community to include an option for a master bedroom downstairs. RECOMMENDATION After thorough evaluation, staff finds that the proposed rezoning request does not comply with the following goals and policies of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan or the provisions of Unified Development Ordinance. The existing O-I, Office Institutional, zoning district is appropriate for the subject parcel as summarized below. Accordingly, staff recommends denial of Rezoning Request RZC2017-004 (Conditional) with the submitted proffers. Finally, staff believes that the proposed proffers numbers one (1) and two (2), which pertain to the advancement of capacity at the middle and high school levels, are not reasonable as defined in Section § 15.2-2303.4 of the Code of Virginia, and thus recommends that said proffers not be accepted as offered. The existing O-I zoning district reinforces the goals and policies of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons:  The future office/institutional uses anticipated on this parcel will provide employment opportunities within a walkable distance from surrounding neighborhoods.  This parcel is situated in a cluster of O-I zoning that lends itself to supporting a mix of institutional/office uses which can provide community services in close proximity to nearby residential communities.  The existing zoning districts located from Harbour View Boulevard westward to the Nansemond River currently form a strategic progression from high density to low density residential development. The proposed change in zoning would detract from the strategic progression of densities. The proposed RU-12 zoning district is inconsistent with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance for the following reasons:  The proposed use of the property for only single-family detached dwellings is Planning Commission December 19, 2017 RZC2017-004 Page 13 of 13 inconsistent with the recommended types and mix of uses in the Mixed Use Core.  The conceptual layout submitted with this application is inconsistent with urban, pedestrian-oriented designs of the Downtown and Urban Neighborhood Place Types.  The proposed density of approximately five (5) units per acre is significantly lower than the recommended minimum density of twenty-five (25) units per acre in the Mixed Use Core and it is not indicative of the density envisioned for the RU-12 zoning district.  The purpose statement of the RU-12 zoning district specifically states that it is intended to be located in the Inner Ring Suburban use district as opposed to the Mixed Use Core. Attachments  General Location Map  Zoning/Land Use Map  Application Narrative  Conceptual Layout  Proposed Ordinance  Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution  Exhibit B – Proffers  Exhibit C – Property Map  Exhibit D – Rezoning Exhibit/Survey GENERAL LOCATION MAP RZC2017-004 Subject Property Location ! ( s Northern Growth Area Use Districts MIXED USE CORE CORE SUPPORT INNER-RING SUBURBAN SUBURBAN RURAL CONSERVATION RURAL AGRICULTURE Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap VILLAGE contributors, and the GIS user community  ZONING / LAND USE MAP RZC2017-004 CP M-1 RU RL 6*2G*B O-I PD M-1 B-2 s  5857 Harbour View Boulevard, Suite 202 Suffolk, Virginia 23435 O. 757.935.9014 F. 757.935.9015 www.landplanningsolutions.com October 25, 2017 City of Suffolk Planning and Community Development 442 West Washington Street Suffolk, VA 23434 (757) 514-4060 fax (757) 514-4099 RF8B,LLC/RF8B Investment, LLC Re: Rezoning Application Parcel 8B, Bridgeway Drive TPC004 Enclosed please find the Rezoning Package consisting of the following: • (1) Copy signed application & Fee ($1550) • (1) Copy Narrative description of property and statement for seeking rezoning (included below) • (15) Full sized copies and (1) 11x17 copy of the Conceptual Master / Plat • (5) Copies Public Facilities Report • (3) Copies WQIA (included with the Drainage & Stormwater Management Calculations) • (2) Copies FIA • (3) Copies TIA • (3) Copies Soil Report (included in the WQIA) • (2) Copies ESA Parcel 8B is an existing O-I parcel situated in Riverfront at Harbour View, Suffolk, VA; Tax Map # 6*2G*B. The site is east of a Harbour View Association existing regional pond, south east of an RU site and west of both an existing M-1 use and O-I office building that most recently will house a private middle school. Parcel 8B - Rezoning Application October 25, 2017 Parcel 8B is an infill parcel along Bridgeway Drive and we believe it provides a residential opportunity to transition from the office use at the intersection of Bridgeway Drive and Harbourview Blvd. to the medium residential density of the Gable community and further to the lower residential density of the Riverfront community. We further believe that the Mixed Use Core District identified in the Comprehensive Plan is aggressive given the existing development that has already occurred in this area. The Mixed Use Core District would be difficult to achieve considering the surrounding uses and the nature of this site siting between an existing lower density RU development and a single story light industrial and M-1 use. Although, sites north of Bridgeway Drive and sites in closer proximity to Route 664 may be able to accomplish Mixed Use Core we would ask that you consider a re-evaluation of this particular site that sits on the district boundary between Mixed Use Core and Core Support due to the development that has previously occurred to both the East and West of this location. Please note that Terry Peterson Companies has worked diligently with the community and Harbour View Home Owners Association to understand and satisfy their needs in regard to a proposed new community on Parcel 8B. As you will read in the enclosed letter from the Harbour View Association, they are in agreement with the proposal for seventy single family homes. The attached rezoning application reflects their desires which include a specific number of units; additional parking spaces, a walking path and limited exterior building materials. If you wish to further discuss this project please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Melissa Venable Land Planning Solutions, LC Cc: Tuck Bowie Jeffrey Huentelman, PE –2– October 10, 2017 Dear Harbour View Residents, We hope this letter finds you well and enjoying the last days of warm weather and looking forward to the beginning of the autumnal season. This letter is sent to you today to bring you up-to-date with the committee findings for the development of Bridgeway Drive known as Riverfront Parcel 8B (Bridgeway Commerce Park). This property is located adjacent to The Gables and borders Eagle Lake. The existing property measures 13.73 acres in size and is zoned O-I, Office Institutional. As you may remember, the rezoning of this property met with fierce opposition last year when it was proposed that this land be rezoned to RU-24, Residential Urban 24 Zoning District. This original plan included 247 residential dwelling units, most of which were apartments with only a few being part of the Harbour View HOA. After many months of meetings, candid discussions, and successful consensus, the committee which has been representative of the various neighborhoods within the larger Harbour View community has agreed to the following proposal from Terry Peterson Companies: 1) There will be 70 detached single family homes on fee simple lots with public streets. 2) All homes are for sale; no rentals 3) There will be no apartments 4) The development will be subject to City approval 5) There will be additional parking spaces per home and specifically there will be space available for 40 additional cars in designated open spaces. 6) There will be full access to the walking path around Eagle Lake. 7) There will be at least 4, and up to 7, floor plans to include the option for a downstairs master bedroom. 8) There will be multiple front elevations. All exterior finishes will be a mix of Cement Board (Hardie Plank type), with stone and brick options which is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. 9) The community will be part of the Harbour View HOA and pay dues. 10) Subject to permission from the owner of the median strip at the entrance to the neighborhood, there will be an entrance sign placed at the intersection of Harbour View Blvd. and Bridgeway Drive. This property is not owned by the City of Suffolk. In closing, this committee has seen and approved of the site plans and the proposed elevation renderings that have been presented. We believe that this new neighborhood will complement the existing homes in the Riverfront community and be an appropriate use of the property as opposed to commercial development. 5849 HARBOUR VIEW BLVD, SUITE 200  SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23435  (757) 484-4745  FAX (757) 484-3217 www.harbourviewhoa.com  Please keep in mind that the process for rezoning, etc. must go before the City of Suffolk. A change in zoning will have to be applied for and agreed upon with multiple steps along the way. The Planning Commission will have to meet and make their recommendations and City Council will have to approve the zoning change before anything can be built. With this lengthy process, development would not begin until well into 2018. Terry Peterson Companies worked closely with the committee on this project to gain the support and endorsement of the Harbour View HOA through the rezoning process, which we have agreed to provide. Additionally, the committee will recommend that the Harbour View HOA Board of Directors endorse this project. We feel that our committee has represented the larger community well in this long and tedious process. Our goal has been to protect the integrity of our community by agreeing to the use of this space for homes that will provide open space, a scenic view of Eagle Lake, beautiful facades, and multiple options for interior space and design. We appreciate all of the time and energy that this committee and Terry Peterson Companies has put into this endeavor and we are excited to see the results. We hope you agree! Sincerely, Committee Members: Andy Sweet Trenda Robertson Bonnie Robinson Gene Robinson Greg Hogue Fran Newman Frank Capitano Art Collins Rick Buonfigli Michael Templeton Lew Goodman Jim McNeil ORDINANCE NUMBER _______________ AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE AND AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK, TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM O-I, OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT, TO RU-12, RESIDENTIAL URBAN-12 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7101 BRIDGEWAY DRIVE AND FURTHER IDENTFIED AS ZONING MAP 6, BLOCK 2G, PARCEL B; RZC2017-004 (CONDITIONAL) WHEREAS, Richard L. Bowie, applicant, on behalf of Continental-Lakeview Associates, LLC, property owner, has requested the rezoning for certain tracts of land situated in the City of Suffolk, Virginia, which land is designated on the Zoning Map of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, as Zoning Map 6, Block 2G, Parcel B, which land is depicted on Exhibit “C”; and, WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning and amendment to the official zoning map have been advertised and reviewed by the Planning Commission in compliance with the requirements of state law; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a recommendation as stated in Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing before City Council was duly advertised as required by law and held on the 19th day of December, 2017, at which public hearing the public was presented with the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, that: Section 1. Exhibit "A", "Planning Commission Recommendation ", Exhibit "B", “Rezoning Proffers” and Exhibit “C”, “Property Map”, which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated as part of this ordinance. Section 2. Findings. A. Council finds that the proposed rezoning is reasonable, and warranted due to a mistake or change in circumstances affecting the property; and has considered the following factors and finds that the proposed rezoning does not conflict with: 1. the existing use and character of property within the City; 2. the Comprehensive Plan; 3. the suitability of the property for various uses; 4. the trends of growth or change; 5. the current or future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic  studies and other studies; 6. the transportation requirements of the community; 7. the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; 8. the conservation of natural resources; 9. the preservation of flood plains; 10. the preservation of agricultural and forestal land; 11. the conservation of properties and their values; 12. the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the City; and, 13. the expressed purpose of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as set out in Section 31-102 of the UDO, as amended, and Section 15.2-2283 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. Section 3. Rezoning. 1. The conditions proffered in the attached Exhibit “B” be, and they are hereby, accepted. 2. The property as shown on the attached Exhibit “C” is hereby, conditionally rezoned and the official zoning map be, and it is hereby, amended from O-I, Office Institutional Zoning District, to RU-12, Residential Urban-12 Zoning District. Section 4. Recordation. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded, by the applicant, in the name of the property owner as grantor in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk, Virginia. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and shall not be published or codified. READ AND PASSED: ___________________________ TESTE: __________________________ Erika S. Dawley, City Clerk Approved as to Form: _____________________________ Helivi L. Holland, City Attorney  EXHIBIT “A” RESOLUTION NO. 17-12-2 CITY OF SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION A RESOLUTION TO PRESENT A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL RELATING TO REZONING REQUEST RZC2017-004 (CONDITIONAL) TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM O-I, OFFICE-INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT, TO RU-12, RESIDENTIAL URBAN-12 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7101 BRIDGEWAY DRIVE, ZONING MAP 6, BLOCK 2G, PARCEL B WHEREAS, Richard L. Bowie, applicant, on behalf of Continental-Lakeview Associates, LLC, property owner, has requested a change in zoning from O-I, Office- Institutional Zoning District, to RU-12, Residential Urban-12 Zoning District (Conditional); and WHEREAS, the procedural requirements for the consideration of this request by the Planning Commission have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Suffolk, Virginia, that: Section 1. Findings. A. The Suffolk Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning is reasonable, and warranted due to a change in circumstances affecting the property, and has considered the following factors and finds that the proposed rezoning does not conflict with: 1. the existing use and character of property within the City; 2. the Comprehensive Plan; 3. the suitability of the property for various uses; 4. the trends of growth or change; 5. the current or future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies; 6. the transportation requirements of the community; 7. the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; 8. the conservation of natural resources;  9. the preservation of flood plains; 10. the preservation of agricultural and forestal land; 11. the conservation of properties and their values; 12. the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the City; 13. the expressed purpose of the City’s Unified Development Ordinances as set out in Section 31-102 of the Code of the City of Suffolk (1998), as amended, and Section 15.2-2283 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended (“Va. Code”). B. The Suffolk Planning Commission makes the following specific findings to the conditions of the rezoning: 1. the proposed rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the proffered conditions; 2. the proffered conditions have a reasonable relationship to the rezoning; and 3. the proffered conditions are in conformity with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan as adopted by City Council on April 1, 2015. Section 2. Recommendation to Council The Planning Commission recommends to City Council that the request, RZC2017-004 (Conditional), be: ___a. Granted as submitted, and the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance without modification. ___b. Denied, and that Council not adopt the proposed Ordinance. ___c. Granted with the modifications set forth on the attached listing of specific recommendations, and that Council adopt the proposed Ordinance with such modifications. READ AND PASSED: ________________________________ TESTE: ________________________________  Exhibit B RZC2017-004  Exhibit B RZC2017-004  EXHIBIT C PROPERTY MAP RZC2017-004 DR SU M M ER HO US E E OW ST PE R (P AR D SH e) riva at te ) riv DR (P BR IDG EW AY DR 6*2G*B HAR BOU RV IEW NO BL VD RT H s RI VE W R RD AT ER S ED G E LN LAKESIDE (P ri R va D te e) ) at riv (P  EXHIBIT D RZC2017-004 THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK