Docket Item "B" UP-15-42

Eastwyck Crossing Apartments

CITY COUNCIL PACKAGE FOR

OCTOBER 18, 2016

Page 1 – 2 Application Summary 3 – 6 Planning Commission Draft Minutes 7 – 17 Staff Reports: September 7, 2016

18 – 23 December 2, 2015 24 – 29 November 3, 2015 30 – 56 October 8, 2015

57 – 58 Fiscal Impact Analysis 59 Architectural Elevations 60 Site Plan 61 Aerial 62 GIS Parcel Exhibit

1

APPLICATION SUMMARY

UP-15-42 Eastwyck Crossing Apartments

LOCATION: Terminus of Miller Avenue

PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit for a height exception to allow

multi-family dwellings to be 38 feet in height instead of 35 feet as required.

SUBMITTED: 8-10-15 ACCEPTED: 8-14-15

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Denial

PLANNING COMMISSION

HEARING DATE: 10-14-15; 12-9-15; 11-2-15; 9-14-16

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with stipulations

VOTE: 7 – 1 – 1

ATTACHMENTS

Draft Minutes, Staff Reports, Site Plan, Aerial, GIS Parcel Exhibit

2

APPLICATION SUMMARY

UP-15-42 Eastwyck Crossing Apartments

APPLICANT/OWNER: Coleman Holdings, LLC

Attn: I. William Berger 6477 College Park Square, Suite 306 Virginia Beach, VA 23464 222-9410 bberger@larrymore.com

AGENCY: ShepelleWatkinsWhite Consulting & Law PLLC Attn: Ms. Shepelle Watkins-White 870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 405 Chesapeake, VA 23320 842-4833 swwhite@swwhitelaw.com

3 Chesapeake Planning Commission September 14, 2016 Public Hearing Draft Minutes

UP-15-42 PROJECT: Eastwyck Crossing Apartments APPLICANT: Coleman Holdings, Inc. AGENCY: ShepelleWatkinsWhite Consulting & Law PLLC PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit for a height exception to allow multi-family

dwellings to be 38 feet in height instead of 35 feet as required. ZONE: R-MF-1, Multifamily Residential District LOCATION: Terminus of Miller Ave TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: 0200000000060 BOROUGH: Washington (City Council referred this item back to the Planning Commission on January 19, 2016)

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

Planning Commission recommends that UP-15-42 be APPROVED with the following stipulations: (7-1-1, Van Laethem/Johnson, Kish opposed, Morris abstained).

1. The owner/applicant agrees that the proposed multifamily dwellings will not exceed 38 feet in height consistent with building elevations titled Eastwyck Crossings Apartments, date stamped September 23, 2015 as approved by the Director of Planning or designee.

2. The owner/applicant agrees that the proposed multifamily development shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the preliminary site plan, to include but not limited to all open areas and amenities, titled Eastwyck Crossing Apartments, date stamped September 11, 2015 as approved by the Director of Planning or designee.

Mrs. Shaffer read UP-15-42 into the record for commission review and action.

Staff Presentation:

Mr. Hobbs stated that based on the findings in the staff report, Planning staff recommended that UP-15-42 be DENIED. If R(C)-07-34(7/15) is denied, staff recommends that UP-15-42 be DENIED. If R(C)-07-34(7/15) is approved and Planning

Commission is inclined to recommend approval of this use permit, with the stipulations as listed in the official agenda:

Proponent:

Shepell Watkins-White, Shepelle Watkins White Consulting & Law, PLLC, 870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 405, Chesapeake, Virginia appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15), available for questions.

4 Chesapeake Planning Commission

September 14, 2016 Public Hearing Draft Minutes

Ms. Watkins-White stated a portion of the conditional zoning statue as related to land development, and zoning methods related to land uses. She explained that she does not agree that the application is not a compatible use. She discussed the property and its location, and explained the architectural rendering that was passed around to the Commissioners. Ms. Watkins-White explained the proffers that are related to the property including the set back, and referenced the site plan that was provided. She explained the rendering available that depicts the line of sight from the backdoor of a house on Miller Avenue. She stated that ingress and egress will be entirely from the Virginia Beach side of the property, and explained the changes in proffers since the application was before the Commission previously. She then explained the LOS changes.

Andrew Goldrich, 2325 Evangealines Way, Virginia Beach, Virginia appeared before the Commission on behalf of R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15), representing himself.

Opponent:

Rogard Ross, Friends of Indian River, 3800 Rivercrest Place, Chesapeake, Virginia appeared before the Commission in opposition of R(C)-07-34(Rev 7/15).

Mr. Ross stated that he represents the Friends of Indian River community group, and explained that the property is next to Indian River Park. He stated that the park has extended into the property, and the loss would be great. He stated that the overcrowded schools is an issue, and that the proffers listed should be helpful. He said the Friends of Indian River community group would like to be involved in the planning of vegetation and other considerations of the park if the application is approved.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Van Laethem asked Ms. Watkins-White if the eighteen acres being referenced are owned by the City of Chesapeake. Ms. Watkins-White stated that they are owned by Coleman Holdings. Commissioner Van Laethem asked if the proposed property included any of the Indian River Park. Ms. Watkins-White stated no it does not and explained that the proffers are written to accommodate bike trails, and will add to the existing recreational space. Commissioner Van Laethem stated that he was a Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board at the time the Indian River Park was officially accepted, for disclosure purposes. Commissioner Van Laethem asked Ms. Watkins-White if the height exception will affect the height of the windows or if it is purely aesthetic for the roof line. Ms. Watkins-White stated that it is purely aesthetic for the roof line, and window height and location will not be changed.

5 Chesapeake Planning Commission September 14, 2016 Public Hearing Draft Minutes

Commissioner Perry asked Mr. Fox if the application was rejected and the eighteen acres were still treated as a park if it is an eminent domain violation. Mr. Fox stated no that would not be the result of a denial, as the property is already under a current licensed agreement, and not a property interest the City has forcibly taken. Commissioner Kish asked Ms. Watkins-White if current by right on the property would result in $1.9 million positive impact over the next 20 years, and the application results in a $9 million deficit to the City over the next 20 years. How will this be offset? Ms. Watkins-White stated that the analysis is flawed and is based upon a budget that does not currently exist. The analysis is based off of figures from 2007 and not 2016. Commissioner Kish asked since the property is accessed in Virginia Beach, what positive impact it will have on the City of Chesapeake. Ms. Watkins-White stated there will be no City trash or road maintenance necessary, and staff did not consider these aspects of no impact. She stated that the City fiscal impact is not a complete economic analysis. Commissioner Kish asked what the demographic need is in this area for the proposed application. Ms. Watkins-White stated that age-restricted apartments were considered, but were not found to be economically feasible, and identified a need not being met for working class families’. Commissioner Van Laethem asked Ms. Watkins-White to explain the bedrooms sizes, and school generation number. Ms. Watkins-White stated there are 36 one bedroom units, 156 two bedroom units, and 48 three bedroom units. She stated that the one bedroom apartments rarely have children occupying them, and therefore the factor of generation would be less. Commissioner McCormick asked Ms. Watkins-White to explain the school numbers and the basis for them. Ms. Watkins-White stated that there were several staff reports completed, the first one was completed in October of 2015, with an update in November. The report in November follows school board annual counts, therefore the numbers provided for the generation factor for September of 2015 shows a negligible change, and small growth. There was 104.8% LOS capacity at primary school level last year, this year 105.1%. Intermediate school was unchanged at 80.3%, the middle school last year was 127.8%, and this year’s projection is 127.5%. The high school last year was 96.9% and this year is 95.9%. There has been a fluctuation over the last five years but not a large increase. Commissioner McCormick asked if the numbers on the LOS were based upon this year’s numbers.

6 Chesapeake Planning Commission

September 14, 2016 Public Hearing Draft Minutes

Ms. Watkins-White stated that the numbers for this year are not available yet. Chairman Williams asked Ms. Watkins-White if the apartments were listed as income restricted. Ms. Watkins-White stated no that they are intended as a working family community. Commissioner Hutchinson asked Ms. Watkins-White for the rental price points. She stated that there is a generation that has been outpriced of affordable housing. Mr. Goldrich stated that rent for one bedroom will be in the high $800’s, two bedrooms low to mid 900’s, and three bedrooms will be around $1100 to $1200 per month. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that she was previously opposed with aspects of the application such as the fiscal impact analysis, and LOS. However, after revisiting the application and noting the attempt by the applicant to mitigate concerns she is now in support of the project. Commissioner Kish stated that the applicant attempted to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan; however, he agrees with staff in that it does not meet the standards, even with the proffers. He stated that the Indian River Park has been largely maintained by citizens, and the project would substantially effect the surrounding properties. He stated that the application does not meet City standards. Mr. Fox stated that the motion should be restated and the finding supporting the motion identified due to staff’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Van Laethem withdrew the initial motion, and moved for approval of the application, citing compatibility with the surrounding area, and Comprehensive Plan requirements of low density being met. He also stated that the height exception is three feet above limitations, but is not incompatible with surrounding area. Chairman Williams stated that there was a substantial change since being brought back from City Council. He stated that he hopes the relationship between the applicant, and Indian River Park citizens continues

COMMISSION VOTE:

Commissioner Van Laethem moved that UP-15-42 be APPROVED with stipulations. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-1-1, Commissioner Kish was opposed, and Commissioner Morris abstained.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Eastwyck Crossing Apartments UP-15-42

APPLICANT: Coleman Holdings, Inc. AGENCY: ShepelleWatkinsWhite Consulting & Law PLLC PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit for a height exception to allow multi-family dwellings to be 38 feet in height instead of 35 feet as required. ZONE: R-MF-1, Multifamily Residential District TAX MAP SECTION/PARCEL: 0200000000060 BOROUGH: Washington