Loading...
09SN0223,• •'~'~'•_~i~ .h{fr ~f~ ~~. .~{~ +,~..~,f ..~ f.r I~ STAFF' S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 09SN0223 Uphoff Ventures LLC September 23, 2009 BS Matoaca Magisterial District Southwest corner of Commonwealth Centre and Brad McNeer Parkways RE VEST I: Amendment of zoning (Case 98SN0137) plus Conditional Use Planned Development relative to architectural compatibility within a proj ect. Specifically, relief to architectural compatibility is sought for a proposed indoor recreation and dining facility. RE VEST II: Amendment of zoning (Case 98SN0137) plus Conditional Use Planned Development relative to signage. Specifically, relief is sought to allow a roof mounted sign on a proposed indoor recreation and dining facility and to allow business signs to employ colors which may not be used within the project. PROPOSED LAND USE: Commercial uses, including an indoor recreation and dining facility, are planned. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON PAGES 2 AND 3. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Bass, Hassen and Waller. NAY: Mr. Gulley. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Re uest I: Recommend approval of exceptions to architectural compatibility for the following reason: Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service The proposed architectural treatment for the indoor recreation and dining facility would provide an appropriate transition between the Commonwealth Center development and adjacent development to the north and west. Re uest II: Recommend approval of the modification that would permit business signs to employ additional colors and recommend denial of the exception to allow a roof mounted sign on the proposed indoor recreation and dining facility for the following reasons: A. Because Condition 17 of Case 98 SNO 13 7 allowed exceptions to the one (1) sign color for logos or sign faces with copyright and other legal protection or registration, there is no longer a consistent color theme for signs in the Center. Therefore, it would be appropriate to allow a modification to permit business signs identifying this development to employ additional colors. B. Current sign standards of the Ordinance provide adequate identification of proposed uses. C. The proposed roof mounted sign is incompatible with other signage in this project and area development. D. Approval of this request could encourage other businesses to seek similar exceptions. (NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS. 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. With the approval of this request, Condition 7 of Case 98SN0137 shall be deleted for the request property only. (P) (CPC) 2. With the approval of this request, Condition 28 of Case 98SN0137 shall be deleted for the request property only. (P) PROFFERED CONDITIONS (STAFF/CPC) 1. The Textual Statement dated August 4, 2009 shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) (STAFF/CPC) 2. Freestanding business identification signs shall be monument style signs. (P) 2 09SN0223-SEP23-BOS-RPT (Staff Note: This proffered condition modifies Condition 17 of Case 98SN0137 to allow freestanding business signs on the request property to employ colors which may not be used within the Commonwealth Center development.) (Note: Except as modified herein, all other conditions of Case 98SN0137 remain in force and effect.) GENERAL INFORMATION Location: Southwest corner of the intersection of Commonwealth Centre and Brad McNeer Parkways. Tax ID 735-676-7007. Existing Zoning: C-4 Size: 12.4 acres Existin Land Use: Vacant Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North - C-4 with CU; Commercial and vacant South and West - 0-2 with CUPD; Residential or vacant East - I-1 with CUPD; Light Industrial, Commercial or vacant UTILITIES; ENVIRONMENTAL; FIRE SERVICE This request will have a minimal impact on these facilities. Chesterfield County Department of Transportation (CDOT~: This request will not impact area roads. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): The request is to permit changes relative to architectural compatibility and signage for the previous case 98SN0137, Property located on 12.4 acres in the southwest corner of the 3 09SN0223-SEP23-BOS-RPT intersection of Commonwealth Center and Brad McNeer Parkways also know as Commonwealth 300 County project number 08PR0252. The information included with this request does not provide specific information necessary to determine the changes of traffic volumes generated, however, since TIA was originally submitted for VDOT review on April 29, 2008, and Phase I of the site plan 08PR0252 was recommended for approval on July 8, 2008, it is deemed acceptable by VDOT's considered judgment that this activity will not have any impact on existing VDOT maintained facilities. The design of any/all proposed landscape embellishments (ie, landscaping, hardscaping, signage, lighting, irrigation, fencing, etc.) To be installed within state maintained rights of way must be submitted to VDOT for review as separate submittal under Permit Process. VDOT approval of said plan shall be granted prior to installation. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the removal of said embellishments prior to State acceptance. T .ANTI T 1CF. Comprehensive Plan: Lies within the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment which suggests the property is appropriate for regional mixed use where integrated office, regional commercial, higher density residential and light industrial park uses are incorporated into a mixed use center of aggregated acreage under a unified plan of development. Area Development Trends: The area is characterized by a mix of commercial, office and light industrial zonings with commercial, office, light industrial and multi-family residential uses developed as part of the Swift Creek and Commonwealth Center developments. It is anticipated that a mix of commercial, office, light industrial and higher density residential use will continue in the area as recommended by the Plan. Zonin Hwy: On February 25, 1998, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission, approved rezoning of a 96.4 acre tract, of which the request property is a part, to Regional Business (C-4) with Conditional Use to permit outside storage and continuous outside display for development of a regional commercial and retail center. Conditions of approval established development requirements for the project to address architecture, design, signage, pedestrian access, lighting and road improvements. 4 09SN0223-SEP23-BOS-RPT Architecture: Proffered Condition 7 of Case 98SN0137 requires all buildings within the Commonwealth Center development to be compatible in architectural style, materials, colors and details. This architectural compatibility is also a requirement of the Ordinance. The architectural theme of the Center is contemporary classicism. Exceptions are requested to permit a building initially occupied by an indoor recreation and dining facility to be constructed which deviates from this compatibility requirement, except that compatible colors would be employed. This facility would be required to have materials and an architectural style as shown on Exhibits A and B attached. This facility, located at the southeastern edge of the Center, would incorporate abstract classical forms, quality materials and, as noted, a consistent color scheme which will provide an appropriate transition between the Center and adjacent development to the north and west. As such, staff is supportive of this exception. The architectural treatment of all other buildings on the request property, including materials, colors and style, would be compatible with buildings within the Center. (Textual Statement, Item 1) Suns: Proffered Condition 17 of Case 98SN0137 limits all freestanding and building mounted business signage within the Commonwealth Center development to once (1) color, except for logos or sign faces with copyright or trademark protection or that are registered with the state corporation commission. A modification of this proffer is proposed to permit business signs identifying this development to employ additional colors. Because of the exception, as noted above in Proffered Condition 17 of Case 98 SN013 7, to the one (1) sign color for logos or sign faces with copyright and other legal protection or registration there is no longer a consistent color theme for signs in the Center. Therefore, it would be appropriate to allow a modification to permit business signs identifying this development to employ additional colors. Proffered Condition 28 of Case 98SN0137 requires all building mounted business identification signs to comply with Ordinance requirements. The Ordinance prohibits building mounted signs from projecting above the roofline or parapet wall of any building. A roof mounted sign is proposed on the planned indoor recreation and dining facility, as shown on Exhibit A. As conditioned, this sign would be permitted a maximum height of twenty-nine (29) feet above the parapet and ten (10) feet in diameter (Textual Statement, Item 2). This condition also prohibits copy or lighting affixed to the structure, limits sign lighting and exempts the sign from inclusion in the maximum permissible square footage for building mounted signs as required by Ordinance. (Textual Statement, Item 2) Appropriate alternatives exist within the Ordinance to provide adequate identification of the proposed indoor recreation and dining facility without using roof mounted signage. The intent of these Ordinance provisions is to promote the maximum legibility of signs while preventing excessive height, bulk and area that could detract from the character of 5 09SN0223-SEP23-BOS-RPT the project and create visual distractions on roadways. The proposed sign is incompatible with other signage in the project and could set a precedent for similar requests. As such, staff is not supportive of this exception. The Commission has recommended a condition clarifying that in conjunction with the approval of this request, Condition 28 of Case 98SN0137 shall be deleted for the request property. (Condition 2) CONCLUSION This request includes two (2) parts. The first part of this request (Request I) is an amendment to zoning conditions and Ordinance requirements to allow a building initially occupied by an indoor recreation and dining facility to deviate from the architectural theme of the Commonwealth Center, except that compatible colors will be employed. The proposed architectural treatment for the indoor recreation and dining facility would provide an appropriate transition between the Commonwealth Center development and adjacent development to the north and west. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Request I for relief to architectural compatibility. The second part of this request (Request II) is an amendment to zoning conditions and Ordinance requirements to allow a roof mounted sign on the proposed recreation and dining facility and to allow signs to employ additional colors. Because Proffered Condition 17 of Case 98SN0137 allows for exceptions to the one (1) sign color for logos or sign faces with copyright and other legal protection or registration, there is no longer a consistent color theme for signs in the Center. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the modification to permit business signs identifying this development to employ additional colors. Relative to the proposed roof mounted sign, appropriate alternatives exist within the Zoning Ordinance to permit identification of the proposed recreation and dining facility without granting an exception to Ordinance limitations on roof mounted signs. The proposed sign is incompatible with other signage in the project and could set a precedent for similar requests. As such, staff is not supportive of an exception to allow the proposed roof mounted sign. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (8/18/09): The applicant accepted the recommendation for Request I (Architectural Compatibility) but did not accept the recommendation for Request II (signage). There was opposition present relative to the visibility of the proposed roof mounted sign from area residential development; compatibility with other area signs; and precedent for similar sign approvals. Mr. Hassen expressed concern relative to precedent for similar requests but noted that, given the surrounding development, the sign would not be visible from Route 360. 6 09SN0223-SEP23-BOS-RPT Dr. Brown noted that cases are considered on their individual merits and, as such, precedent was not a concern. Mr. Waller expressed support noting that the sign is an integral part of the architectural theme and would be primarily visible from within the Center. Mr. Gulley expressed concerns relative to precedent given that other properties within the project and surrounding area have similar topography and that staff s favorable position relative to architectural compatibility suggested alternative for relocating the bowling pin as on-site artwork would adequately accommodate the needs of the applicant. Mr. Bass stated that this was a unique situation and would not set a precedent; that visibility was important for the project's success; and the roof mounted sign was necessary because of the site's topography. On motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission recommended approval subject to the conditions and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2 and 3. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Bass, Hassen and Waller. NAYS : Mr. Gulley. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, September 23, 2009, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 7 09SN0223-SEP23-BOS-RPT TEXTUAL STATEMENT Uphoff Ventures LLC CASE No.: 09SN0223 August 4, 2009 1. Architectural Compatibility. The architectural treatment of buildings, including materials, color and style, shall be compatible with buildings within the Commonwealth Center (the Project), except as follows: The architecture of the building initially occupied by the family indoor recreation and dining facility shall employ colors that are compatible with the Project. This building shall have materials and an architectural style as shown on Exhibits A and B. 2. Signage for the Family Indoor Recreation and Dinin Fg acilit~ One roof mounted sign, substantially as shown on Exhibit A, shall be permitted on the roof of the Family Indoor Recreation and Dining Facility. This sign shall have a maximum height of twenty nine (29) feet above the parapet and be no more than ten (10) feet in diameter. The sign shall not have any copy or lighting affixed to the structure and shall only be permitted to be uplit from the roof of the building or base of the sign. Light shall be a low intensity single color light that shall not strobe, fade or flash. Such sign shall not be included when calculating allowable square footage for building mounted signs. ~~ ~' ~ ~ '` ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ , i ~ , ~ ~ -~ U z • .~ ~ ~~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~yI ~" ~ I ~ ~ , ~ C ~ ~ .~- ~ i ~~ ~ ~ '~ •~ ~~ r ~ •~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~' . ~ ~ ~~ VW U ~ i ~~ ~ ~ I z~ M ~ _ ~ , I U ~ U , U ` U •` U ` 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~aN ~ i ~ 1 U Q ~ I ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ` ~- , 1 m ::::::::::::::::::.. • i ~ o :::::::::::::::::.. ..: 1 ..................... ..: ................... :;;::~~ ~Y / ~ I w~ ~ ~ r _ . . ~~ N ~ r ~_ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ U N a y ~ f ~\ I / J ~~ ~ ~ / , G __ ~ -~ ~ ~' • ~ 1 Q ~ I ~ ~~~~ f ' W ~ ~ Y ~ ~ z cn ~1 W W ~ ~ 1 +~ ! o~ i ~ ~ a ~y 1 1 °o ~ ~ ~ `° !` ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ p o N ~ M 0 ~ N Z °o U o W M Z ~ o U ~ ~ ~ CO N O a ,~ , 7 - -, J~ , , 1 - -'' June 28, 2009 Re: Uphoff Ventures LLC -Commonwealth 300 Balzer Job. No.: C0700399 County Case No.: 09SN0223 Dear Neighbor, We thank you for your interest in our proposed project Uptown Alleys and in an attempt to address some of the neighborhood concerns that have come to our attention we are willing to state in this letter those commitments to quality in the project that are not part of the rezoning request. These commitments will be conditions of our site plan approval. The operators of this facility are very interested in maintaining a high quality family oriented business and have a commitment to keep a safe secure place for people to bring their families. They will have both interior and exterior security cameras to monitor the facility, as well as, off duty police officers or private security personnel when needed. In addition to keeping this a safe location it is also our intention to keep the level of noise coming from this site to a minimum and our operating hours will be as allowed by county code. Furthermore we will minimize the sound levels coming from our establishment to a maximum of SODba at our shared property line. As part of the site plan we have designed a retaining wall that extends along the majority of the back side of your neighborhood. In addition we have proposed a 6 foot high privacy fence which will extend the length of the property from the existing shops to below the pond on Brad McNeer Parkway (as shown on the attached drawing). In addition to the fence the site plan shows the existing pond to be upgraded to a BMP facility with proper safety benches graded into it and use of a fountain for aeration and mosquito control, in addition to the aesthetics of the water. We have also looked into the neighborhoods concerns over the existing crepe myrtle trees that are along Commonwealth Center Parkway and have found them to be within 25 feet of the curb line and extending from the existing shopping center entrance to about half way through our property frontage. The location is approximated on the attached drawing and the majority of those are on property that was sold to the Navy Federal Credit Union and will be out of our control. However, all of the trees seem to be at the top of the slope and the preliminary grading plan shows no adjustments to the grades in this area, so the crepe myrtles should remain. Should you have any further concerns please contact me at the address below. Sincerely, Jim Kinter Construction Manager Uppy's Convenience Stores, Inc. 4900 West Hundred Road Chester, Va 23139 Uphoff Ventures, LLC 4900 West Hundred Road Chester, VA 23139 Terraces Homeowners C/O Ed GeGennaro 4921 Terrace Arbor Circle Midlothian, VA 23112 August 4, 2009 Dear Neighbors, As a gesture of good will and in an effort to help you solve your security concerns caused by the walking path on your property that connects your property to the surrounding neighborhoods and to Commonwealth Center Shopping Center we offer the following: 1. A Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000.00) contribution toward the construction of the "security" fence on your property. 2. The contribution will be made under the following conditions: a) Payment will be made to the Terraces Homeowners Association. b) Payment will be made for the express purpose of constructing said fence. c) A minimum of two weeks written or email notice prior to the start of construction. d) Payment will be made a net of 15 days following completion of the fence and receipt of a copy of the invoice is provided to us. e) Our offer is good for a period ending December 31, 2010. If you have any questions I can be reached via email at jkinte~~southsideoil.com. Sincerely, Jim Kinter For Uphoff Ventures, LLC Cc: Steve Uphoff Andrew Scherzer Marlene Durfee Wayne Bass •Ilnaolalea~r . :.Bas •ICMITI<1 Y~1 August 17, 2009 RE Uptown Alley Commonwealth Center Chesterfield, Virginia Architects Statement The design of the new two story entertainment and bowling center at the corner of Commonwealth center parkway and Brad McNeer parkway reflects the existing architectural features and aesthetics' of its neighboring buildings and area. It has been lowered into the earth at the northern end to visually deemphasize its mass along the main thorough fair and to gently open up along the sloping landscape to a full two story facade at the prominent south entrance. The earthly materials to be used of colored split and smooth face concrete masonry units, stucco, terne coated stainless steel, aluminum, and glass are meant to visually respond to its surroundings with a timeless and un obtrusive experience. The entertainment center will have two restaurants and areas for bowling on its upper and lower levels. Along the western facade there will be an outdoor terrace and lounge with and exposed sunscreen off axis with the main frame of the building. This is meant to visually reduce the buildings height along this more prominent side and to engage and reach out to the landscape providing a gentle buffer and transition. At night, subtle lighting along the facades and landscaping will softly illuminate the exterior forms so that the building's use of glass can illuminate itself with a lantern like effect. Rising above the roof, the buildings most iconic feature will be a clear stainless steel and aluminum open sculptural frame bowling pin. It's light gleaming and weaving structure is intended to provide a minimal artistic element that attracts inquisitive attention to center yet visually strives towards transparency. At night, its natural metals would glow with a soft warm color projecting up from its base emphasizing its structure and shape. Commonwealth Center Uphoff Entertainment Venue Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Total Jobs Total Payroll Construction Cost Construction Workers 35 70 105 $ 1,840,000 $ 9,000,000 Between 30 and 75 on site for 9 months. Tax Base $ Rate Yearly $ Amount Real Estate Tax 8,000,000 0.95% $ 76,000 Sales Tax 6,500,000 1 % $ 65,000 (County share of State sales tax) Business License Tax 6,300,000 0.19% $ 11,970 N i O '' N. I I ~ T- ,~/ ,\ ?- ~< ~. .~ ,. ,., ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~.` ,~ , ~, J O ~%~ i ,~ ~' '~~ I~ i~ ~~ ~=~~,- ~ ~ ~, - .~~ ~, .` '\ ~\ ~ ~fD \ r j ;, ` ,\ /. -~ ~~ ~- s ~ k~ /.-/- ~~- ~ / .~ `~~ i _ ~- ~ September 17, 2009 Deaz Member of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, The Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce, the largest business organization in the county, and its 600-plus members strongly supports the approval of Uptown Alley, located in the southwest quadrant of Commonwealth Centre and Brad McNeers parkway in the Matoaca District. Mr. Uphoff's project offers Chesterfield County a quality facility that will become a regional destination, drawing in thousands of people from the metro area. Because the property's site elevation is low, we feel the iconic, 29-foot-bowling pin atop the building is necessary to attract business to the indoor recreation and dining complex and is integral to the architecture of the building. Much like the branding McDonald's has created with its familiaz Golden Arches, the Uptown Alley bowling pin will offer a similaz identity to the entertainment center. The 52,000-square-foot Uptown Alley would boast 40 bowling lanes on two floors, two restaurants with outside dining, azcades, and private party rooms. The $17-million project would have 100 employees, attract an estimated 250,000 people a year, and generate more than $150,000 a year in county tax revenues. The Uphoff project appears to be exactly the type of project Chesterfield County needs. The Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce urges this board to approve the sign variance for Uptown Alley. Sincerely, ~~ d~~~ Neal Lappe Chairman, Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce BRANDER;MILL Community Association o~CSNd~.a~ August 24, 2009 Hon. Arthur S. Warren Clover Hill District Supervisor P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23$32-0040 Dear Art, On Tuesday, August 18, I attended the Chesterfield Planning Commission meeting as a representative for the Brandermill Community Association. I wished to address two issues on the agenda for that evening -- the request for construction of a 29-foot bowling pin to be placed on the roof of a new bowling alley and a new ordinance concerning the approval process for Electronic Message Boards. Mr. Andy Schemer, Balzer and Associates Inc., presented the proposal for construction of a 40- lanebowling alley at Commonwealth Centre near the Commonwealth Cinema. As part of this proposal, the owner requested a 29-foot, multi-colored, bottom-lit bowling gin placed on top of this two-story building. Although the County Planning Department approved plans for the building, they recommended against allowing the bowling pin atop the structure. I spoke against this too, stating that our residents may seethe bowling pin from the entrance to Brandennill, from Hull Street, and from Rt. 288. Mr. Wayne Bass, the Commissioner from Matoaca who is strongly supportive of this bowling pin, followed my statement by questioning me on issues to which he lmew I had no answers (such as the height of the cinema, the difference in size between the roof of the cinema and the top of the bowling pin, etc.). I felt that most of his questions were totally inappropriate for a commissioner to ask a citizen. Later when Mr. Scherzer returned to the podium he was asked the same questions. He didn't know the answers either! ARer some discussion and without knowing the total impact of this structure on this area, the commissioners passed this proposal in its entirety by a vote of 4 - l .Only our commissioner, Mr. Gulley, voted against it. The second issue of concern to our community was the ordinance addressing Electronic Message Boards (EMB's). In preparation for speaking before the Commissioners, early Tuesday morning i traveled athree-mile radius of Brandermill including asix-mile stretch of Hull Street Road. Within those six miles I counted 31 shopping centers with 75 entrances off Hull Street. Additionally, there were numerous other entrances, including churches, pharmacies, gas stations, etc., which I did not include. I provide these numbers because, without thoughtful and measured consideration by the Board of Supervisors, this area as well as other highly-populated, highly- commercialized areas around our county may take on the looks of Las Vegas or Myrtle Beach. Our residents who travel this stretch of road daily do not support this ordinance. We hope that future EMB requests will continue to be handled by the Supervisors on a one-by-one basis. {)()! EAS7~ f.3t.)f.1i©ARlr' TF':RF21~C'[~, l,'1I1.)L.:C)1'HI:~'V, ~'tKGI'~[t~ 2;I i2 l:wl)-1)~~-~{}.±~ f=,'1X {2t)Q!?4~-Zf~~~J W W W%.BRAtiDERM1LL.COM Our County is growing and we want to attract the best, including quality businesses and residential neighborhoods. We want our highways, though lined with shopping centers and business parks, to have some aesthetic qualities too. The Board has worked diligently to promote these aims, requiring plantings of trees and flowers along entrances to new centers, establishing berms to "hide" the businesses from the traveler, etc. However, permitting large structures to sit on the roofs of buildings and constructing numerous fiMB's with constantly changing messages dv not promote the image we want to convey to potential businesses or home-seekers. We ask the Board of Supervisors to continue their endeavors to improve our County image, not cheapen it. cerely, 1.-1'~• oy M. Rowe, President Brandermill Community Association cc: James Holland Mazleen Durfee Dorothy Jaeckle Daniel Gecker Russell Gulley wH~nE g~s~N~ss sr.~ars... ~HESTERFIELD~ CHAMBER of COMMERCE ~~~~~ o~~~cro~ ~t.~atrt~~ DiP'r September li, 2009 Dear Member of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, The Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce, the largest business organization in the county, and its 600-plus members strongly supports the approval of Uptown Alley, located in the southwest quadrant of Commonwealth Centre and Brad McNeers parkway in the Matoaca. District. Mr. I,Fphoff s project offers Chesterfield County a quality facility that will become a regional destination, drawing in thousands of people from the metro area. Because the property s site elevation is low, we feel the iconic, 2~`=foot•bowling pin atop the building is necessary to attract business to the indoor re~re~tion and dining complex and is integral to the architecture of the buldrng:'l'ti~uch like the branding McDonald's has created with its familiar Golden Arches; the Ifptown Alley bowling pin will offer a similar identity to the entertainment center. The ,32,000-square-foot Uptown Alley would boast 40 bowling lanes on two floors, two restaurants with outside dining, arcades, and private party rooms. The ~17- million project would have 100 employees, attract an estimated 250,0()0 people a year, and generate more than X150,000 a year in county tax revenues. The t3phoffproject appears to be exactly the type of project Cherfield County needs. The Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce urges this board;#,o approve the sign variance for. Uptown .Alley. Sincerely, ~:~ ~~% <, ~~~ 1Vea1 Lappe Chairman, Chesterfield County Chamber of Ctrmmflrce Memorandum From: Edward De Gennaro, Spokesperson for The Terraces at Swift Creek To: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Subj: Commonwealth 300 Development (Case 09SN0223 amending 98SN0137) Date: 9/23/09 Mr. Chairman and members of the board, as the spokesperson for the adjacent property owners to the Commonwealth 300 project living in the Terraces of Swift Creek community, I regret that I am unable to attend tonight's meeting due to a contractual obligation. I would rather have been present tonight to discuss this case with you. Just the same, I felt it was important to provide some comments about this case and offer some insights from the residents of "the Terraces". I first became aware of this case in January of 2008, just a few weeks after moving into the neighborhood. As a good neighbor, I organized a community meeting with the developer, county planning staff, and Wayne Bass, our county planning commissioner. At that time, this project was already zoned and included abowling/entertainment center as well as retail shops. A number of issues were raised by residents at this meeting including whether abowling/recreation center should be placed adjacent to our residential community, the visibility of the buildings to the residents, noise, people living outside the Terraces walking through our neighborhood to the bowling/recreation center, lighting from this property over the wall separating the properties, safety issues, and the architectural appearance of the bowling/recreation center. Since that initial meeting, there have been two additional community meetings, one that also included our Matoaca District Supervisor, Ms. Durfee. While the residents in the Terraces community would have preferred not to have abowling/recreation center directly adjacent and behind their community, they have accepted the conditions the developer has offered in order to mitigate the impact of this development on our community. For example, the developer has agreed to build a wall with a six foot solid plastic fence on top of it so that residents in the back row of our community will not be able to see any of the buildings in this development from the second floor of their homes, nor will they be able to see the top of the bowling pin sign on top of the bowling/recreation center building. The developer has also agreed to lowering the lighting in the parking lot and to blacking out the back of the parking lot lights so that they do not shine into our neighborhood. One issue that is still a concern for us is the number of people that will walk through our neighborhood to the bowling/recreation center. As you may know, when the Terraces 4921 T~~ace ~i~6o~ ('i~c~e, Ui~i~ria 23112 ~anre: ~804J 739-0522-7084 ~rrai~ i~rfiacas~co,KCast.,ret community was built, the county asked the developer (D.O.Allen) to build a path through the community enabling residents to walk to the shopping center that surrounds us. What has occurred is that individuals living in surrounding properties use this path to cut through our neighborhood. In essence, they are using our private property as a cut through. This was not the original intent of this path; it was designed for the residents of the Terraces. One solution is to build a fence along the path that would keep those using it out of our neighborhood. It was my contention that because the bowling center would create a huge amount of additional foot traffic on this cut through path, this new project should bear the cost of the fence. As a gesture, the developer has offered $5,000 towards this fence. The project will cost more than three times this amount. In my opinion, this is a serious issue that remains unresolved as this case comes before you tonight. Solutions other than a fence may rectify the situation, but that remains to be determined. I ask that you consider helping us develop a solution to this problem as you consider this case tonight. To summarize, the residents of the Terraces would have preferred not to have this bowling/recreation center adjacent to their community. In response to this, the developer has worked for over a year to hear concerns and has attempted to address them through a variety of techniques. Based on these considerations, the Terraces residents are cautiously optimistic that this new project will be harmonious with our community. Since the community never took a formal vote to support or oppose this project, I cannot offer a formal community position. Instead, I repeat that the community is cautiously optimistic that this new project will be harmonious with our community. We are also eager to work with the developer and the onsite personnel of the new bowling/recreation center to ensure a positive relationship. We are also eager to work with the developer and the county to find a solution to the cut through pedestrians using our community's path. Edward De Gennaro ~f921 T~~ace ~i~6a~ Ci~c~e, ~i~iark 23112 ~anre; ~80~fJ 739-0522-708~f ~irai~ iK~acas~ca,~rcast,~ret