88SN0066• ~ ;,
REQUEST ANAT,YSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
88SN0066
William B. Duval
1 deae-8~;-X988-6P6
.July 27, 1988 BS
Matoaca Magisterial District
South line of Hull Street Road,
east of North Spring Run Road
REQUEST: Amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 855035) to
permit Convenience Business (B-1), Community Business (B-2), and
General Business (B-3) use exceptions in a Light Industrial (M-1)
District. At the time of zoning approval for Case 855035, a limited
number of B-2 and B-3 use exceptions were granted. The approval of
additional use exceptions, to permit all B-1 and additional B-2 and
B-3 uses, is requested. A commercial/industrial complex is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ON PAGES 2 THROUGH 5.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of a limited number of Convenience Business (B-1) use
exceptions, as noted herein. Recommend denial of the request to permit addi-
tional Community Business (B-2) and General Business (B-3) use exceptions and
deletion of the B-2 and B-3 uses currently permitted. These recommendations
are made for the following reasons:
A. The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Land Use and Transportation
Plan designates the request property for light industrial use.
However, conditions of zoning approval for Case 855035 (Deer Run)
permit a limited number of B-2 and B-3 uses in addition to M-1 uses.
Deletion of all B-2 and B-3 uses and approval of a limited number of
less intense Convenience Business (B-1) uses, if properly condi-
tioned, would be appropriate. Typically, Convenience Business (B-1)
uses are more neighborhood-oriented than the more intense B-2 and
B-3 uses and would serve the residents of Deer Run and other area
neighborhoods, but not routinely attract customers from larger
areas.
B. Through the Conditional Use Planned Development process, the Commis-
sion and Board can ensure that development of the request property
occurs in a manner that is compatible with existing and anticipated
residential development to the south, provides a proper transition,
and is of high quality.
C. The request site is located adjacent to Deer Run Road, which is one
(1) of two (2) entrances into Deer Run Subdivision from Hull Street
Road. Chital Drive, which is currently under construction, will
provide the second access and bisects property that is zoned Conve-
nience Business (B-1) with Conditional Use Planned Development to
permit B-2 and B-3 uses (Parcels A and B on the approved Deer Run
Master Plan, Case 85S035). Parcel A is currently being developed
for a shopping center (Deer Run Village) and it is anticipated that
Parcel B will be developed for a similar use. Since these more
intense commercial uses are already planned at one of the mayor
entrances into the subdivision, the second access should be reserved
for less intense uses which would provide a more attractive en-
trance.
(NOTE: THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF
AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY
STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC) 1. Uses shall be limited to the following:
a. Bakery goods.
b. Banks and savings and loan associations, with or
without drive-in windows.
c. Barber or beauty shop.
d. Book or stationery store.
e. Brokerage.
f. Camera store.
g. Candy store.
h. Cleaning, pressing, laundry, laundromats and coin-
operated dry cleaning, not to include a plant.
i. Drug store/pharmacy.
~. Dry goods store.
k. Dairy products store.
1. Florist shop.
m. Grocery store, with or without gasoline sales.
n. Hardware store.
o. Newspaper or magazine sales.
p. Nursery schools, child or adult day care centers and
kindergartens.
q. Offices; busin s, governmental, medical and profes-
sional.
r. Restaurants, ncluding fast food or carry-out restau-
rants.
s. Shoe repair shop.
t. Tailoring and dressmaking shops.
u. Telephone booth.
v. Variety store.
w. Video, store.
2 88S1~°~56/JULY27W/BSJUL8
{t. l ,
.•-
x. Medical clinics provided that neither the business
nor the building is designed to accommodate ambulance
traffic.
y. Optometrist sales and service provided that:
(1) The sales and servicing of eyewear is done by an
Optometrist as an accessory use in conjunction
with a medical practice; and
(2) Nor more than fifteen (15) percent of the gross
floor area may be devoted to such sales and
service.
z. Temporary construction trailers/buildings provided
that:
(1) The temporary structure shall be devoted exclu-
sively to construction activities on the prem-
ises; and
(2) The temporary structure shall be removed upon
completion or abandonment of construction activ-
ities.
aa. Veterinary offices provided that:
(1) No boarding is permitted;
(2) No outside runs are permitted; and
(3) No overnight care is permitted.
bb. Motor vehicle accessory store provided that:
(1) No motor vehicle repair shall be permitted; and
(2) No parts shall be installed on the premises.
cc. Print shops.
dd. Schools - commercial, trade, music, driving and
training, vocational, and business. (P)
(NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 11 of Case 85S035
and the approved Textual Statement for Deer Run, Conditions for
Parcel E, 1 through 20.)
(STAFF/CPC) 2. The entire property shall be developed in accordance with
the Route 360 Corridor Overlay District requirements. (P)
(STAFF/CPC) 3. Individual stores and shops shall not exceed 5,000 square
feet of gross floor area if located within 200 feet of a
residential district or area currently zoned agricultural
and shown on the General Plan for residential use, and in
no case larger than 8,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Individual projects shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of
gross floor area per acre. All structures, to include
gasoline canopies, shall have an architectural style com-
3 88SN0066/JUZY27W/BSJUL8
patible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. (P)
(STAFF/CPC) 4. Normal hours of operation shall be restricted to between
6:00 a.m, and 12:00 midnight. (P)
(STAFF/CPC) 5. Public water and sewer shall be used. The owner/developer
shall extend public sewer to the site and obtain all
necessary easements at his own expense. (U)
(STAFF/CPC) 6. Within the setbacks along Hull Street Road and Deer Run
Road, all existing vegetation eight (8) inches in caliper
or greater shall be retained. Detailed landscaping plans
depicting this requirement shall be submitted for approval
within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading. At
the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission
may modify this condition. (P)
(STAFF/CPC) 7. Additional lane of pavement shall be constructed along
eastbound Route 360 to provide a third through-lane for
the entire property frontage and a separate right turn
lane for Deer Run Drive. (T)
(STAFF/CPC) 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, 100 feet of
right of way, measured from the centerline of Route 360,
shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield,
free and unrestricted. (T)
(NOTES: a. Except as noted, all conditions of zoning
approved for Case 85S035 remain in effect.
b. Prior to obtaining site plan approval or
building permits, schematic plans must be
submitted for approval.
c. The following condition was imposed with the
approval of Case 855035:
"Parcels A, B, C, D, and F shall be designed
with an internal focus similar to development
which has occurred at Brandermill. Parking and
buildings shall be designed to impart a
character not representative of typical strip
commercial development. At the time of
schematic plan review for these tracts,
particular conditions may be imposed which
further insure that the spirit and intent of
this .condition is met. Schematic plan for these
parcels shall include the entire parcel and not
part of a parcel. Buffers shall be provided
with~Ln each parcel where adjacent to
residentially zoned property. The exact width
ands treatment of these buffers shall be
,~. addxessed at the time of schematic plan review."
4 88SN~ti6/JULY27W/BSJUL8
Given the approved conditions of zoning, the
proposed development must have an internal focus
requiring a site design that will minimize the
impact of on-site activity upon adjacent proper-
ties, minimize the view of parking areas from
public roads and residential development, and
ensure that the development does not impart the
impression of a typical strip commercial comp-
lex. It should be noted that, to comply with
this requirement, parking areas must be located
on the interior of sites with the longest sides
of buildings fronting public roads. At the time
of schematic plan review, specific recommenda-
tions shall be made to ensure compliance with
these requirements.)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Existing Zoning:
Size:
Existing Land Use:
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
Utilities:
Environmental Engineering:
South line of Hull Street Road, east of
North Spring Run Road. Tax Map 75-4 (1)
Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 20).
M-1 with Conditional Use Planned
Development (Deer Run)
9.0 acres
Vacant
North - R-7 and M-1 with Conditional Use
Planned Development; Single family
residential, public/semi-public
(Clover Hill Fire Station), and
commercial
South - R-12 with Conditional Use
Planned Development; Vacant
East - 0 with Conditional Use
Planned Development; Vacant
West - A; Single family residential
24 inch public water line located along
Hull Street Road. Use of public water
intended. (Condition 5)
Lies in Upper Swift Creek sewage drainage
area. Trunk sewer line located along
Spring Run, approximately 3,000 feet south-
east of the site. Use of public sewer
intended. May be necessary to obtain
off-site easements to extend public sewer.
(Condition 5)
Proposed amendment will have no adverse
impact upon these facilities. Approved
5 88SN0066/JULY27W/BSJUL8
conditions of zoning for Case 85S035 remain
applicable for drainage and erosion control
facilities.
Fire Service: Clover Hill Fire Station, Company #7. At
present, fire service capability adequate.
County water flows and fire hydrants must
be provided in compliance with nationally
recognized codes.
General Plan
(Powhite/Route 288
Development Area Land
Use and Transporta-
tion Plan): Light industrial
Transportation: In the traffic analysis that was submitted
for the original Deer Run Development, this
parcel was anticipated to be developed for
light industry with a total trip generation
of 382 average daily trips. This request
will not limit the development of this
parcel to a specific land use or density;
therefore, it is difficult to anticipate
traffic generation. Based on development
of drive-in restaurants and specialty
retail shops, this project could generate
approximately 5,950 average daily trips.
These vehicles will be initially distribut-
ed along Hull Street Road (Route 360) which
had a 1986 traffic count of 18,935 vehicles
per day. Access to Route 360 was limited
by conditions of zoning (Case 85S035) to
the proposed public roads shown on the
original Master Plan (such as Deer Run
Drive). Because this request could sub-
stantially increase traffic generated by
this development, a separate right turn
lane for Deer Run Drive should be con-
structed in addition to the lane of pave-
ment along Route 360 required in the origi-
nal zoning. (Condition 7)
Previous conditions of zoning also require
that, if a traffic signal is warranted
along Route 360, the developer shall fi-
nance full cost of signalization. It is
anticipated that a signal will be necessary
at the intersection of Route 360 and Deer
Run Drive.
The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Land
Use and Transportation Plan identifies Hull
6 88SN 5/JULY27W/BSJUL8
~. ~ ~'
Street Rpad as al• major arterial with a
recommended right 'of way of 120 - 200 feet.
Right of .way dedication should be dedicated
in accordance with this Plan. (Condition
8)
DISCUSSION
On June 26, 1985, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommenda-
tion by the Planning Commission, approved the rezoning with Conditional
Use Planned Development on 428.7 acres to permit a mixed use development
including office, commercial, industrial, and single family residential
uses (Case 855035). A portion of this property, which was zoned Light
Industrial (M-1) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use
and bulk exceptions, is included in this request. Specifically, the
request property was granted the following B-2 and B-3 use exceptions in
addition to M-1 uses:
1. Contractor's offices and display rooms.
2. Boat sales, provided there is no outside storage or display.
3. Carpenter and cabinet shops.
4. Electrical, plumbing and heating shops, sales and services.
5. Business offices.
6. Radio and television broadcasting studios and offices, exclu-
sive of towers.
7. Philanthropic and charitable institutions.
8. Schools, colleges, libraries and museums.
9. Churches.
10. Hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, medical and dental labora-
tories.
11. Building materials, storage and sales, provided there is no
outside storage or display.
12. Contractor's shops and storage yards, provided there is no
outside storage or display.
13. Restaurants.
14. Telephone booths.
15. Paint and wallpaper sales.
16. Telephone exchanges.
17. Government offices.
18. Office/warehouses when the warehouse area does not exceed
twenty-five (25) thousand square feet.
19. Recreational establishments, indoor.
The current request is to amend Case 855035 to permit the following additional
use exceptions:
1. All Convenience Business (B-1) uses.
2. The following Community Business (B-2) uses:
a. Automobile service station.
b. Funeral homes or mortuaries.
c. Health clubs.
d. Laboratories.
7 88SN0066/JULY27W/BSJUL8
e. Liquor store.
f. Printing shops.
g. Repair services, except of motor vehicles.
h. Schools--commercial, trade, music, dance, business,
vocational and training.
i. Theaters, except drive-in theaters.
~. Tool and equipment rental.
k. Other motor vehicle transportation.
1. Motor vehicle accessory stores.
m. Pet grooming shop.
n. Veterinary clinic.
3. The following General Business (B-3) use:
Drive-in establishments.
With this amendment, the uses permitted on the request property would be
the same as those currently permitted on a B-1 zoned parcel west of the
request site (designated as Parcel B on the approved Deer Run Master
Plan) plus Light Industrial (M-1) uses.
The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Land Use and Transportation Plan
designates the request property for light industrial use. However,
conditions of zoning for Case 855035 (Deer Run) permit a limited number
of B-2 and B-3 uses in addition to M-1 uses. Deletion of these B-2 and
B-3 uses and approval of a limited number of less intense Convenience
Business (B-1) uses, if properly conditioned, would be appropriate.
Typically, Convenience Business (B-1) uses are more neighborhood-oriented
than B-2 or B-3 uses and would serve the residents of Deer Run Subdivi-
sion and other area neighborhoods, but not routinely attract customers
from larger areas. Through the Conditional Use Planned Development
process, the Commission and Board can ensure that development of the
request property occurs in a manner that is compatible with existing and
anticipated residential development to the south, provides a proper
transition between Deer Run Subdivision and Route 360, and is of high
quality.
The request site is located adjacent to Deer Run Road, which is one (1)
of two (2) entrances into Deer Run Subdivision from Hull Street Road.
Chital Drive, which is currently under construction to the west (i.e.,
the road will bisect property that is zoned Convenience Business (B-1)
with Conditional Use Planned Development and is shown as Parcels A and B
on the attached Master Plan) will provide one (1) of the two (2) accesses
into Deer Run Subdivision. The B-1 property to the west is being devel-
oped for a shopping center. Since this access will have more intense
commercial uses, the second access at which this request is located,
should be reserved for less intense uses which provide neighborhood
services and would provide a more attractive entrance into the neighbor-
hood. In addition, the heavy) commercial and customer traffic, extended
hours of operation,. intensity of activity, and size and scale of build-
ings associated with B-2 and B-3 uses can have an adverse impact upon
area residents' sense of neighborhood and community. Approval of less
intense commercial uses on the request property, if properly conditioned,
8 88SN~ y/JULY27W/BSJUL8
would ensure that residents of Deer Run Subdivision would be provided
with at least one (1) major entrance that is not through an intensely
developed commercial area while allowing retail and personal services
that traditionally have enhanced a sense of neighborhood and community.
(Condition 1)
The recommended conditions are designed to ensure that any commercial
development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Condition 2
would require compliance with the Corridor Overlay District requirements.
Condition 3 would ensure that buildings have a massing and scale that is
compatible with area residential development. Other conditions are
designed to ensure pedestrian access to the development and limits hours
of operation to ensure that commercial uses do not adversely impact upon
area residents (Conditions 4 and 5). Condition 6 would require the
preservation of existing trees along Hull Street Road and Deer Run Road.
It should be noted that conditions of zoning for Case 85S035 further
ensure land use compatibility by requiring that development have an
interval focus and by requiring a fifty (50) foot buffer adjacent to Deer
Run Subdivision. At the time of schematic plan review for any use,
additional conditions can be imposed to address site and use specific
concerns.
CASE HISTORY
Applicant's Representative and Staff (6/20/88):
A meeting was held to discuss the recommended conditions. The appli-
cant's representative requested modification to Conditions 1, 4 and 6.
Condition 1 was amended to allow additional commercial uses, Condition 4
was amended to allow hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00
Midnight as opposed to the originally recommended limitation of between
6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and Condition 6 was amended to allow the Planning
Commission to modify the requirement relative to preservation of trees
within the setbacks along Deer Run Road and Hull Street Road at the time
of schematic plan review.
The applicant's representative continued to desire permission for a fast
food restaurant which would require further modification of Condition 1.
Planning Commission Meeting (6/21/88):
There was no opposition present. The applicant's representative accepted
the recommended conditions with the exception of Condition 1. Amendment
to Condition 1 was requested to allow one fast food restaurant located on
the Western portion of the property.
The Commission expressed concern that a fast food restaurant may adverse-
ly affect the adjacent residential neighborhood.
9 88SN0066/JULY27W/BSJUL8
On motion of Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Commission resolved
to recommend approval of this request subject to the conditions on pages
2 through 5.
AYES: Messrs. Miller, Kelly, Warren and Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Belcher.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, July 27, 1988, beginning at 2:00 p.m.,
will take under consideration this request.
10 88S~r~66/JULY27W/BSJUL8
• -
~. ,~ ~.
. ,°` ' ~~, ~~ I i 1
r,+~~ '~~~ ~ HARBOUR BLUFF ~ H.ARBOUR -HILL ~.'' • : ~ : • : ~ :' :'
S ~ o •.~•..• ....
HARB URWOOD ~, ~.. `~`.. • . • ~. .. .
1 ~•~ .• ' ..~•.'
~~ e
~ I ~ .~
\ ~ ~o. /~
• ~~ ° ..
NrGTN C\ i ~'~-` , ~ HARBOUR{.i.~~•...~.~.~~~ a '. ~ •~
'°,~ i i-~3 \`/ ~_ :..:iflllillliil 1 Ftt~.~,,~~+.A .... ....•.~P~ '• :.. ... .•.
WATCH HILL w o ~ . • . • ,~••'. ~. !~~~/Nj,• .~ .:•' p~~
.~ ~O . ~ ~•
•\.~••~.•••'.~• 'SOP' ~ 0~::~.~}~' ~~"~%~~
• .r ' ~j~ ; ;, r } 'Q'~ n rat: i
`` ~~~ ,.;fit:;:^.;:;t;~;~:~~;ti~~,~ ~ •
_ ... :.:.:::::.:.:.:.:.•.:.N..... • ~ s.
.,~,... .
~.. .G
~ .\
oq
...... ,
i C APP
• v. C•, / /
• ~ iN
. .. ` ' i
. ','~', • '. • ~. ', ', I
•' ~~ • • ~ ~~ 88SN0066
.~' ~ ,~~~ AMEND C.U.PD. ~'
2 ~
~~~ SH. 0
:-
~ ~ ~~~
~F
~ ~
~. 1~1 1 ..,~.,.. e.l rot a~`~\a~~ .r
1 •, \~ 1' . INI, .~ ~`' `~,.., C ~ .O.•• ~\ < <` ~ .ice
l `~.\' .;~~ BCC` • ~ ,o ~ l ~,= -\ ~,1'~I ~ ~\t ~~, . E' '\ rl • •~'
' ~`~~r~ , j'• ', $~;_ _ ., ,' 1. ~ ;) ~ ~ ~ , t ~ ~ .. . .
~. ~ i j ' ~. ;.. ,, ~; i Z
~,.~ ~ ~ \~,. '! _ ;~ ~ ~~,, ~ _~f. ~.~(. ~ 1. ,/ a
\ / ~ ~ r t
. 1
~ ~ ~~~ ll
l'.1 ' .~;-, ------- 1. .~„~,~,-~; ; , 1 f ..~` 1 1 ~ .~'` ~ ~ . , l~ ,~-~
may, ±.~! ~ ~~ ~ 1~'' ;! \.~ ,
. ~ ~.
'~ ~ 885N00~6-/
.y ..
''~
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF REZONING CASE 88SN0066 - WILLIAM B. DUVAL
- BOARD MEETING OF JULY 27, 1988
T. Jacobson: Next case is 88SN0066 located in the Matoaca
Magisterial District on the south line of Hull
Street Road east of north Spring Run Road at the
proposed and under construction Deer Run Drive.
The applicant is William B. Duval, seeking
amendment to previous conditions of zoning to
essentially allow additional business uses.
Planning staff and Planning Commission recommend
approval subject to the conditions that are listed
on pages two (2) through (5). I would like to
take just one minute. I think I can summarize the
issue here - most of them have been resolved with
the applicant; the site sits at an entrance
to the single family neighborhood - Deer Run
Development that is currently under development.
It sits in stretches on the south side of Hull
Street Road; the library site on Hull Street Road,
planned library site, is located directly across
Deer Run Drive.
G. Applegate
or H. Daniel: Is that a cellular phone?
T. Jacobson: The applicant wishes to put a variety of different
business with which the staff and Planning
Commission agree except for one and that is a
drive-in restaurant. We feel that a drive-in
restaurant located. at the entrance to a single
family neighborhood is not appropriate; therefore,
the Planning Commission recommends that we approve
this zoning application subject to conditions 1-8
with the change in condition l.r. to read
restaurants not including fast-food or carry-out
restaurants. That list of condition 1 sets the
list of permitted uses. Again, if we, the Board
wishes to deny a fast-food restaurant at that
location they need to amend condition l.r. to read
restaurants not including fast-food or carry-out
restaurants.
C. Dicks: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is
Chip Dicks, I represent the applicant and I
appreciate staff's working with us on this
particular site. I think it is important though
to put the overall thing in perspective. The
original Deer Run zoning provided for M-1 (Light
Industrial) uses on this particular parcel and in
retrospect I think it is a fair statement to say
that not only staff but the Planning Commission
and certainly the applicant realized that perhaps
some uses other than M-1 would have been more
appropriate for that particular site so we come
back to you today with some indication to you that
we are willing to back off some of the intensity
of uses that we currently have on that particular
site and to accept a limited number of B-1 and B-2
uses. That limited number is expressed in the
staff report and I think tha those uses are a fair
representation of the type of quality development
that ought to go at the entrance of a subdivision
- residential area. We have received some very
positive indications from the citizens who live in
Deer Run. There was some concern that there was a
rumor going around that we were going to put a
truck stop over there and that, I think, has been
quashed; we're not sure where that came from. But
we have gone over the staff report and proposed
uses with all known citizens from that area who
are concerned and there is one citizen who was
able to stay with us until the end of the day
today to be able to make some comments to you.
I'd further indicate to you that in terms of this
plan of development the conditions and I would
refer you to page 4 of the staff report, condition
number 8.c. In the original case (85S035) it
provides that parcels A, B, C, D, and F shall be
designed with an internal focus similar to the
development which has occurred in Brandermill;
parking and buildings shall be designed to impart
a character not representative of typical strip
commercial development. At the time of schematic
plan review for these tracts, particular
conditions may be imposed which further ensure
that the spirit and intent of this condition is
met. Further, the schematic plan for these
parcels shall include the entire parcel and not
part of a parcel. And then it speaks to buffers.
The reason I think that particular language out of
the original case is important is because when you
talk in terms of internal focus what you're
talking about is taking the more intensive
business uses (i.e., a fast-food restaurant) and
moving those toward the center of this 9-acre
parcel. Also, in the original case, it provides
for a single ingress and egress off of Route 360
which ultimately, at the time of schematic, we
will propose be placed in the center of this
9-acre site. So, I would suggest to you that the
only issue in controversy today is the issue of
the fast-food restaurant. Our original zoning, I
think, clearly provides for restaurants, and I
would argue to you that, and the citizen who is
going to speak to you in a moment in favor of our
proposed rezoning, will indicate to you that in
terms of whether we have a Friendly's or a
Wendy's, it really doesn't make any difference to
the citizens in that particular subdivision and in
fact, in some respects, I think they would rather
have a Wendy's, or some drive-in restaurant, as
opposed to a Friendly's where perhaps maybe there
would not be a drive-in. That's the only issue.
Now, in terms of whether or not a drive-in
restaurant can be accommodated on this site,
gentlemen, I would clearly suggest to you that it
can be with the appropriate internal road network
and the appropriate parking and the appropriate
configuration, all of which again could be handled
at schematic. There is no reason at this point to
deny the request of the applicant to have one (1)
fast-food restaurant on this total 9-acre parcel.
In addition, you will note that one of the
recommended conditions, that we have agreed to, is
a grocery store/convenience store with gas pumps.
And I would submit to you that under those
circumstances that all of those things combined
certainly would indicate that a drive-in
restaurant would certainly be no more offensive to
a local neighborhood than that. At this
particular point, Mr. Chairman, since this is the
only issue really that we are at variance, and I
would like to compliment the staff on its work
with us and we were able to resolve most of our
differences and approach at the staff level which
I think is important to do and we appreciate the
staff's assistance in that regard. At this point,
with further ado, I would like to yield to the
citizen from Deer Run who is here. As I mentioned
to you the other gentleman who was here had to
leave but this gentleman will speak on behalf of
those two (2) individuals and the other
individuals at Deer Run. I'd also indicate to you
that it is our understanding this gentleman and
the other gentleman who was here who is a bank
officer and had to leave, are the organizers of
what will be the Deer Run Civic Association which
has not yet been organized. So at this time, with
your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd call on that
citizen.
Citizen: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, to clear one
thing up I'm not one of the organizers but I hope
to be very much involved with the civic
association. When I came here today I had many
reservations about this rezoning because I had
gone and gotten the plans and we were upset with
the fact we heard there was going to be a truck
stop, twenty-four (24) hour openings, and things
of this nature. After reading this and talking
with Mr. Dicks and Mr. Duval, I believe that
everybody I have spoken with would be truly in
3
favor with it. One of the problems we had with
the construction they. had talked about was we
didn't want certain things in there. One of the
major concerns was a laundromat and they have
assured me, and I believe I can trust them, that
they won't put one in. They have also said that
before they come back with the schematics they
will come to the residents and talk to us and see
what our plans, see if we like what they are going
to do, how they're going to build it, and along
with this, you know, I believe we can all work
together and have this approved and have a nice
area. Talking with the people in my neighborhood
and around the area, we have no problem with the
drive-in restaurant. Sometimes people, there are
a lot of people in there with children, and
sometimes it's a whole lot better to just run
through the drive-in, grab a couple of hamburgers,
french fries or something like this, and go home
rather than try to get ready and go into a place
where you have sit down and eat. So we have no
problems with having a drive-in restaurant up
there. Thank you very much.
C. Dicks: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, we would
proffer at this point that it will be the
applicant's intention not to put a laundromat of
any kind on any portion of this 9-acre parcel.
And we also would proffer that, at the time of
schematic, before we file for schematic, that we
will meet with the citizens in Deer Run and to
explore with them any concerns that they may have
with regard to the details of the site plan.
G. Applegate: I'm not sure I can accept the proffer at this
point but.....
S. Micas: You can make that as a condition.
G. Applegate: Right.
C. Dicks: No problem.
G. Applegate: Do you have anybody else to speak, Mr. Dicks?
C. Dicks: That's all we have, Mr. Chairman.
G. Applegate: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor?
or against? Anyone here who is in opposition?
The matter is before the Board. Colonel
Mayes.....
H. Daniel: The clerk didn't get his name, Mr. Chairman.
µ
`~ J
G. Applegate: Mr. Dicks?
C. Dicks: The gentleman's name?
J. Dolezal: Yes sir.
Citizen: William Funai.
G. Applegate: (Repeating name) William Funai. Alright, the
matter is before the Board, Colonel Mayes.
J. Mayes: Alright, Mr. Chairman. I move approval subject to
the six (6) conditions, the six (6) conditions
being no laundromat and I would be, acceptance of
those conditions, I move approval.
G. Applegate: Let me be sure I got it right. The motion would
be subject to the conditions on pages two (2)
through .....
J. Mayes: Two (2) through five (5)....
G. Applegate: You have eight (8), at least on mine I've got
pages two (2), three (3) and four (4).
J. Mayes: The approval by the Planning Commission said pages
two (2) through five (5) and over here they said
that condition one (1) had been accepted as an
amendment to allow one (1) fast-food restaurant
located on the western portion of the property.
And in their approval, they said two (2) through
five (5).
C. Dicks: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could clarify......
G. Applegate: I'm uh, yes.....
C. Dicks: There is a typographical error on page 2 of the
staff report that indicates that it's, uh, l.r.
that says restaurants including fast-food
restaurant; it was only applicant's intention to
have one (1) fast-food restaurant on the western
portion of that parcel and that was what we had
discussed with staff. The Planning Commission
denied that to two (?) and then supported the
rezoning with the limitation that we could not
have a fast-food restaurant.
G. Applegate: Alright, so what you're, see if understand what
Colonel Mayes is saying is that he is making a
motion to approve subject to condition 1 being
modified, l.r. being modified including one (1)
fast-food or carry-out restaurant?
5
~/ 1
C. Dicks: That would be our request.
J. Mayes: But I am recommending approval of the Planning
Commission's recommendation which says subject to
the conditions on pages 2-5 that does not include
1.
C. Currin: You're skipping all the uses on condition number
1; is that what you said?
J. Mayes: I'm going by the recommendation made by the
Planning Commission.
G. Applegate: Then you're saying that they can't have a
fast-food restaurant?
J. Mayes: Wasn't that eliminated in the, whatever agreement
you made with the Planning Commission?
C. Dicks: No sir, Mr. Mayes. What happened at the Planning
Commission was staff and I had agreed on
everything in the entire staff report and we were
down to one (1) issue and that was staff said that
they would prefer that we not have fast-food - we
wanted fast-food; we submitted that to the
Planning Commission; the Planning Commission
approved us with no fast-food restaurant and we're
back today with citizen support from that area and
our renewed request that we be allowed one (1)
fast-food restaurant on the western portion of the
parcel - the western and the northern corner.
That was the motion made at the Planning
Commission but that motion did not prevail. The
one I believe you're reading from.
J. Mayes: That's what I'm saying, that's why conditions 2-5
does not include a fast-food restaurant.
C. Currin: It's page 2 through 5, not conditions.
C. Dicks: It's pages 2 through 5. ...because you have to
include the conditions because we're not getting
any straight zoning - we're getting limited uses
that are identified on page 2, page 2 and 3.
J. Mayes: Alright, let's go back to page 2 then and see if
fast-food restaurant is included.
C. Dicks: The fast-food restaurant, if I may ass ist you, is
on page 2, item l.r., under restaurant s.
J. Mayes: Right, OK.
C. Dicks:
T. Jacobson:
J. Mayes:
And the staff, I think, would agree that there is
a typographical error.......
Yes.
OK, (quoting condition) "including fast-food or
carry-out restuarant".
G. Applegate: What he's asking then, the Planning Commission did
not give it to him; he wants, I think I'm right
Mr. Dicks, you want that to read including one (1)
fast-food or carry-out restaurant.
C. Dicks: That's correct.
C. Currin: Wait a minute. On page 2 under conditions it says
staff and Chesterfield Planning Commission, does
it not?
T. Jacobson: That's a typo; there should be a not there.
C. Currin: Should be what?
T. Jacobson: There should be restaurants not including
fast-food; that was the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
C. Dicks: It's a typographical error, Mr. Currin, in the
staff report. The staff report should read on
l.r. restaurants not including fast-food or
carry-out restaurants; it was the staff's
intention to prohibit fast-food; it was the
Planning Commission's recommendation.....
C. Currin: You want the word not excluded?
C. Dicks: I want the word, well, but I had agreed with staff
though that we're not asking for unlimited
fast-food restaurants; we're just asking for one
(1) and we had agreed at the Planning Commission
level, if the Planning Commission had approved our
one (1) fast-food restaurant, that we would limit
that to the western portion of the parcel up close
to 360. And I am prepared to limit the location
of the fast-food restaurant in any way that this
Board should feel appropriate.
G. Applegate: Once again, what you're asking for on page 2 in
condition l.r. is including one (1) fast-food or
carry-out restaurant.
C. Dicks: Exactly.
7
~-+
G. Applegate: That's what he's asking for; he was not given that
in the Planning Commission.
J. Mayes: We have a problem here. And the problem is the
cluded in the
i
n
fast-food restaurant is not
Planning Commission's recommendation and I want to
know is included in the staff's recommendation?
T. Jacobson: OK. Let me recommend this for you.
J. Mayes: Is it or is it not?
Jacobson:
T The original staff recommendation was not to have
i
. s
a fast-food restaurant; since there
neighborhood support here for the idea, and if the
applicant agrees to put the fast-food restaurant,
one (1) fast-food restaurant, on the north west
d
o
side of the site, we will, I will recommend he
Change condition l.r. to allow restaurants
that
.
with one (1) fast-food restaurant located on the
north west side of the site and following in the
der condition
other recommendations, strike use, un
l.h., which is the Laundromats and similar uses.
J. Mayes: Mr. Chairman, ....
C. Dicks: We will agree to that, Mr. Chairman.
J. Mayes: Mr. Chairman, I move a thirty (30) day deferral so
that I can get this straighened out.
G. Applegate: deferral by ColonelmMayes.foDoawehhave a3second?
H. Daniel: I'll second it.
G. Applegate: Alright, now we have a discussion. Now, Mr.
Dicks, you were.....
C. Dicks: Mr. Chairman, I think we have an agreement with
staff at this point, if the Board will bear with
me just one moment. With regard to your motion,
Mr. Mayes, I think if we will look on page 2 of
the staff report......
J. Mayes: Do you have an agreement with the Planning
Commission? I am basing my vote here on what the
Planning Commission has recommended and what the
staff has recommended - not a change in agreement
at this stage of the game. I would rather wait
until you make certain that I'm doing what the
Planning Commission has recommended here. The
staff is just making a new recommendation here.
I'm not willing to accept that. right at this
point.
C. Dicks: With all due respect, sir, the reason that the
staff is changing its recommendation is in light
of the citizen support. I think the staff would
indicate to you that the reason that it, uh,
suggested that no fast-food restaurant be allowed
because it anticipated citizens would be opposed
to that. I also think it would be a fair
statement to say that the Planning Commission
supported the staff recommendation upon the basis
that the staff had indicated they felt the
citizens would oppose the fast-food restaurant.
Now that the citizens are here, indicating support
of the fast-food restaurant, .....
J. Mayes: One citizen.
C. Dicks: One citizen, who spoke for the other citizen who
spoke for the other citizens who they had met with
indicated, I think, that there is support and,
certainly, if there was opposition to the fast-food
restaurant, sir, they would be here.
J. Mayes: Mr. Dicks, I would love to agree with you, and I
would love to go ahead and recommend approval.....
C. Dicks: I would love for you to agree.....
J. Mayes: .... but my conscience won't let me do it. I am
going to ask for a thirty (30) day deferral so I
can find out for myself so that when I make the
recommendation I will be perfectly satisfied with
it.
C. Dicks: Yes sir.
C. Currin: May I ask one question? Based on the staff's
recommendation that a fast-food not be put there
based on the assumption, they were assuming that
the people were not for it, right?... that's the
reason you made the recommendation, that's the
reason the Planning Commission agreed with you.
Isn't that correct? Or have you made that
decision?
T. Jacobson: We are not comfortable with fast-food restaurants
at entrances to single family neighborhoods next
to single family lots. There were some tradeoffs
in this particular zoning; we are more comfortable
given the fact today that there is not strong
neighborhood opposition to it - that if that
fast-food restaurant could be located the farthest
'' j
away from the single family houses, it's an
appropriate use at that location.
C. Currin: Right.
J. Mayes: My motion still stands. With the greatest respect
I have for my good friend Mr. Dicks, I've got to
be certain that I'm doing the right thing.
G. Applegate: I'm going to respect your judgment in the matter,
Colonel Mayes, but I feel like I could support
what they're asking for but.....
J. Mayes: I have no problem with that, you know. Let's put
it to a vote and if it fails, it fails. But I'm
going to feel good about it.
G. Applegate: The motion is for a thirty (30) day deferral. All
in favor signify by saying Aye.
J. Mayes: Aye.
G. Applegate: Opposed?
C. Currin: No.
M. Sullivan: No.
G. Applegate: No. OK, the matter is still before the .....
H. Daniel: Abstain.
G. Applegate: ....the matter is now still before the Board. Is
that right?
S. Micas: Yes sir.
G. Applegate: OK.
H. Daniel: Anything takes this long to work out something's
got to be wrong. I don't know what.....
J. Mayes: You all vote the way you want to and I'll vote the
way I want to and .......
C. Dicks: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I would concur
with staff's recommendation to on page 2 to
eliminate laundromats from l.h. and limit l.r. to
restaurants including one (1) fast-food restaurant
on the north west corner of the parcel.
G. Applegate: That would be r. and you eliminate h. and leave
cleaning.
Co
~"
C. Dicks: You eliminate laundromat in h., l.h., because
that's what we've agreed not to ...... and
coin-operated .......
G. Applegate: And coin-operated dry cleaning not to include a
plant.
C. Dicks: That's correct. Well, you need to leave not to
include a plant in there so you don't ...., if you
have a cleaners the intent was not to have a plant
as part of it.
G. Applegate: That's right.
C. Dicks: And we would concur with that on behalf of the
applicant.
G. Applegate: So actually, it's laundromats and coin-operated
dry cleaning, which you strike.
C. picks: That's being struck, yes sir.
C. Currin: That's under l.h.?
C. Dicks: That' s l.h.
C. Currin: l.r. you're including one (1) fast-food ......
C. Dicks: On the northwest corner .....
G. Applegate: To be located on the northwest corner.
C. Dicks: That's correct, sir.
C. Currin: I move for that.
M. Sullivan: Second.
J. Mayes: I want you all to know that you're going contrary
to what the Planning Commission has recommended,
and I'm willing to, willing to recommend approval
of what the Planning Commission recommended. And
if, whoever does otherwise, then it is your
responsibility and not mine.
G. Applegate: Well, Colonel Mayes, then the motion should have
been to send it back to the Planning Commission;
it shouldn't have been to defer it for thirty (30)
days because you can't get concurrence from the
Planning Commission unless it goes back there.
H. Daniel: In view of that, can I make that motion?
J. Mayes: I could find out.
1
H. Daniel: You know, I know we're still under discussion
I don't believe in the
side, but I think that,
f the supervisor from the district
divine right o
to have the f final say on zoning - I think I have
d have
practiced that since I've been here an
te in opposition to a supervisor. I
hastened to vo
think that the supervisor from the district,
do
when they ask for a deferral so the sole purpose
d own mind on a
of clearing their own conscience an
I d
it or not
,
case, whether we agree with
o inion
should offer them that courtesy P
that we
of one supervisor.
Well, the Board has the authority to do what it
d
J. Mayes: pleases and you have four (4) votes to
be from
i
ng
have one (1). My vote is go
conscience.
Applegate:
G The motion is
Let me see ro
the oamended condition
t
. o
yal subject
to move app
laundromats and coin-operated
i
ng
l.h. by eliminat
leaning and to amend r. to include one (1)
dry c
fast-food or carry-out restaurant to be located on
the northwest corner. Is that correct?
T. Jacobson: Yes.
G. Applegate: And all the other conditions prevail as
established by the Planning Commission? And that
is what staff recommends.
T. Jacobson: Yes.
G. Applegate: Is that correct?
T. Jacobson: Yes.
G. Applegate: OK, that's the motion. All in favor signify by
saying Aye.
Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate.
Ayes:
G, Applegate: Opposed?
to abstain because, you know, it doesn't
J. Mayes: I'm going
make sense to me and I'll abstain.
H. Daniel: I abstained also.
G. Applegate: Alright, two ssesabstentions; three (3) favors and
the motion pa
C. Dicks: Thank you, sir.
iz