92SN0247
i' ~. '-'
e
e
Sept~ber-t9,-i991-ep6
November-i9,-i99i-6P€
d anttary- 21,. -199~ -SPS'
Febrnary-l6,-i99~-BS
March 25, 1992 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
91SN0247
(Amended)
J ames. V. Daniels
Bermuda Magisteria~ District.
North line of West Hundred Road
and west line of Ecaff Avenue
REQUEST: Rezoning from Residenti.a~ (R-7) to Neighborhood Business (C-2),. plus a.
Condi t.ional Use to permit a fast food restanrant on a porti~ of the
C-2 tract..
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Commercial uses are planned. With the approval. of this request, a
fast food restaurant would. be permitted on O. 76 acres of. the request
property fronting West Hundred Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECO~A'1'TON.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL. AND A.CCEETANCK OP THE: EROFFEHEll cnNnrrTnN~ ON PA.GK 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval. for the: following reasons:
A. The proposed zoning.. and land. uses confODJt to the Chester Villa.$t.e Plan
which designates. the property for neighborhood coinmErc.ial uses. and,.
under special circums:T::an~eS,. for additional commercial. uses such as
fast food restaurants.. In this particulaJ: ins1:a.nc.e.,. the. fast food
restaurant would be located along Route 10 and the neighborhood
commercial uses would provide the transition between. the fast food
restam:a.nt and the single: family neighborhood. to the north..
B. The proposed zoning' and land uses. are representative of area
development tl: end s' .
(NOTE.: THE. CONDITI.ONS NOTED WITH. "STAn/cpc" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND
THE. COMMISSION ~ CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A nSTAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF.
CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMEN~ED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION. FOR THE NORTlIERN PORTION OF THE. PROPERTY WHERE. C - 2 ZONING
PROPERTY MUST BE PROFFERED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE BOARD MAY IMPOSE
CONDITIONS ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHERE A CONDITIONAL U?E BAS
BEEN REQUESTED.)
PROFFERED CONDI.TIONS
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
"
(STAFE/cpc)
(STAFF/CPC)
~ R..J
1 .
Prior to obtaining a.. building permit, one. of the following
shall be accomplished for fire protection:
A,. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall pay to the
County $15.0 per 1,.000 square feet of grass float: area
adj usted. upward or downward by the. same percentage. that.
the MaJ:shall Swift Bt']; 1 nine Cost Index increased or
decreased between June 30 # 1991, and the date of
payment.. Wi.th the approval. of the County's Fire Chief.,
the owner, developer or ass'ignee-( s) shall receive a
credit toward the required_ payment for the. cast of any
fire suppression system not otherwise required by law
which is included as a. part of the d.eve.lopment~
OR
B. The owner, developer or ass-ignee( s) sha..l1- provide a.
f ire suppression system. not otherwise required by law
which the County's Fire Chief- detenn-inp~ substantially
reduces the need for County facilities otherwise
necessary for fire protec~
2_
Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) feet of right
of way on the north side of, Route 10 measured from. the
centerline. of that part, of Route. 10 i.mm.edi ::\rp 1 y adj acent to
the property shall. be dedicated., f-ree and tmrestricted,. to
and for the benefit of Chesterfield Caun:ty.
3.
Prior to s.ite plan. app'roval, thirty (30) feet or right of
way on the west side of Ec.off. A..ve.nua me.as.ur.ed. frtml-. the
centerline of that part of Ecaff. Avenue jmmpn';;ltely adj'acent
to the property shall be d.e.dicat.~ free. and um::estrj' c-+ pn ,
to and for the benefit of, Cbes-terfield County.
4e
A. thirty (30) foot wide face, of curb to face of curb access
road with no adjacent parlting sha..ll be. provided towards the.
northern property line from Ecoff~ Avenue to the weste.rn'
property line.. This access road sha.ll. be designed and.
constructed to be shared with adjacent properties, as
determined by the Transportation Department.. Upon request
by the Transpo.r.tation Department, acce.ss easemen:t..(s),
acceptable. to the Transportation De.partmen.t., shall be
recorded for this access road.
5.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any
deve~opment. with access t.O Ecof.f Avenue, an additional. lane
of pavement shall be c.onstructed along Ecoif .~venue for the.
entire property frontage.
2
PC/91SN0247/MAR25G
e
e
l
-'"
e
e
GENER.AL. INFORMATION
Location:
North line of West H.und:c:ed Road and' west line of Rcaff Avenue. Tax Map
115-10 (1) Parcels 2 and 3 (Sheet. 32.).
ExistinR ZoninR:
R--7
Size:
2.73 acres
Existing. Land.- Use:
Single family. residentia~ or vacant
Ad;acent Zonin~ & Land. Use~
North - R-7; Single famlly t:esiden.t.i.al
South - R-7 and B-1 wi.th Conditional Use Planned. Development;- Single. family
resident..ial or office
East - R-7 and B-1; Single famil.y residential or commexc.iaL
West - R-7; Single famiLy resident~
PUBLIC FACTT.T'rT'FS
Utilities:.
Water:
The public water system is available.. Use of the public water system..
is required by Ordinance and intended.. The. results. of a
computer-simulated. flaw test indicate that sufficient flow and
pressure. may not be available to meet the requirements. establ ; ~hpd by
Fire- ~nm;n;~tratian for fire protectian purposes~
Wastewate'I: :
The publ.ic wastewater system: is available. Substantial filling of, the
site may be necessary to insure. th.a.t, the. proposed. struc:tllres can be
served, by gravity wastewater lines. Use or the publ.i.c wastewater
system. is required by Ordinance and. intended. Prel ; m; n;:l-ry plans
indicate specific. uses will generate. wastewat.e..l: flows in excess of
3 J 000 gallons per day. Resul ts of a computer- simulated hydraulic
analysis indicate that sufficient wastewater capacity snould be
available.
DrainaRe and Erosion:
Drains to Proctors Creek via Lributarie5~
or off-site drainage or erosion pr:)blems ~
No existing or an~icipated on-
Off-site :asements ~d drainage
3
PC/91SN0247/MAR25G
improvements may be required to accommodate increased runoff from
development of this property.
Fire Service:
Chester Fire Station" Company #1. County water flows and fire hydrants
must be provided for fire protection purposes in campli~n~~ with natinn~lly
recognized standards (i. e. , National Fi.re Protection Assoc'iatian and
Insurance Services Office).
The proposed zoning and l.and use will generate the need far additional fire
protection services. Cash proffers for fire prot'ection have been received
to address this need. (Proffered Condition 1)
Transportation:
This request will not li.mi t development to a specific land use-; ~ therefore,
it is dif.f.icult to anticipate traffic generation... Based on high tumover
sit-down restaurant and specialty retail. center trip rates,,. development. is
anticipated to generate approximately 1,962 average daily trips. These.
vehicles wil~ be distributed. along Ecoff Avenue whi.ch had a 1991 traf.fic
count of 2,459 vehicles per day and West Hundred Road (Route. 10) which had.
a 1990 traffic count of 22~693 vehicles per day.
The Thorou~hfare. Pl.an identifies Route 10 as a major arterial with a
recommended right of way width of ninety (90) feet. The applicant has
proffered to dedicate forty-five (45) feet of right of way measured fram
the centerline of Route 1.0 in accordan.ce with. that Plan (Proffered-
Condition 2). The applicant bas also proffered to dedicate .thirty (30)
feet of right of way measured... from the. centerline of Ecaff Avenue in
accordance wi th the Zoning Ordinance ( Proffered.- Condition 3) . Tbe
applicant bas also proffered to construct an- add.i:tianal lane of pavement
along Ecof:E A.venue for the entire property frorrtage.. (Proffered Condition
5)
Development of this property must adhere. to the Zoning Orn;n'::In~p. re.l.ative~
to access and inte:rn.al circulation (Article. 7). West of the subject
proper.ty, the Thorou2hfare Plan,_ identifie.s a. north/ south major arterial
located within an. ab;anrtnnpd railroad right of way. To provide. adequa:t.e
access and internal circulation for the properties bounded. by this
north/south major arterial, Ecoff. Avenue and Rou1:e 10, an east/we,st. access
should be developed. through this area.. The applicant has proffered. to
construct this east/west private rQad (minimum wid.th of. thirty (30) feet.,
face of curb to face of curb typica~ section with_ no paIking adjacent to
the. road) along the. northern portion of the subject p'roperty. (Proffered-
Condi.tion 4)
At time of sit.e plan review, specific recommpnn::lt"-i ens will be provided
regarding access and internal circulation.
4
PC/91SN0247!MAR25G
.
.
~ ~
V' --,.
e
e
LAND USE.
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Chester Villa~e Plan~ whiCh design~TP~
the property. for neighborhood commercial use and,. under: spec..ia~
circumstances. fot: additional commercial uses such as fast food
restaUI:ants.
Area Development.. Trends:
Development along. this portion of West lhmd:ced Road. is ~n~T"~~terize.d. by a
mix of residentia1~ office and commercial zoning and.. land uses.
Site Desi~:
The request property- lies. within the ChesteI: Village Fringe.: West and must
conform, to the Village. District requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. which
address access, parking.,. 1andscaping~ architecturaL tr~:l1-mp-n:t., setbacks"
5 igns , utilities,. and screening. of dumps.ters. and load.ing. areas..
With the approval of this request. a fast food. restaurant could. be
developed on O. 76 acres of the, request property fronting. West Hundred. Road-
Other, less intense ccmmerc.ia.l uses,. could. be. developed an the rPm~;nnp.-r of.
the property between the fast food restaurant and area non-comme:.c.c.ial.
development to the north.. It should~ be noted. tb.a:t.. since. the applic.an~ in
conjunction with the Transpot:tati.an Departme:n:t.,. has. de..ve.lapeti an access.
plan for the request property and surrotmding- prope:rty, the Zoning
Ordinance req.u.irpmpnt- that. fast food restam:an.ts- be located.. with.in. a ten
(10) acre project has been met.
Architectm::al.. T1:earm~nt:.
Within the Chester Village Fringe. West,. the architectural. tJ:P;:IhnPTtt of
buildings must be such that the overall cohesive village. character of
Chester, as. reflected in existing buildings- wi.thin. Village. Core and Village:
Fringe Areas, is enhanced. At the time of site. plan l:eview:1 staff. will
requiJ:e that the. development have an a.z:chite.c.tuza.1. st:y1-e. compati.h1e. with.
that of the adjacent bank located at the corner of Ecoff Avenue ~ West.
Hundred.. Road.
Buffers & Screenin~:
Adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned Residential (R-7) and
occupied by single family residences. The. Zoning Ordinance requi.I::es a
minimum. fifty (SO) foot buffer along the north and. west property bOUIldari.es
of the request site. At the time of site plan review, the Planning,
Commission may' modify this buffer if, it can be determined tha.t adequate
screening can be provided in a lesser ':Yidth. In addition, at such. time
that adjacent residential property is zoned or utilized fer a
non-residential use, the buffer ~an be further reduced or e:imina~ed.
5
PC/91SN0247!MAR25G
Conclusions:
The proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Chester VillaJlte Plan,
which designates the. property for neighborhood commercial use and, under
special circumstances, for addi tienal commercial uses. such as fast food
restaurants. As noted. herein,- approval of this request would. restrict the
proposed fast.. food re.staurant to the "est Hnndred Road frontage. of the.
request property, with less intense uses. located between the restaurant and
area non-commercial uses to the north.. In staff I s opinion, such transition
of uses conforms to the Cbes'.ter V~e Plan.
In addition., the development: standards. of the Zoning Ordinance. ensure.
quality development in conf.ot::maI1ce wi.th the Chester Village Dis.b::ict
development requirements, land. use. compatibility, and transition.
Therefore. approval or tnis request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commissi.on Meeting (~/19Jgl):.
At the request of the applicant, the Commission de.ferred this casa for
sixty (60) days. The purpose of the deferral was to allow the applicant an
opportuni ty to address the transport'atian impacts-, as discns.sed herein..
Staff (9}23/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new significant inf.ormation
should be submitted no later than October_ 7, 1991, far consideration at the
Commission's November public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting (11/19/91):
At the reques-t of the appli-cant,. the Comm; ~~-; on npfpTT"ed. this cas~ for
sixty (60) days.
j
Staff (11/20}91):
The applicant was advised in writing. that any new sign; f.; r-:;:wnt. infarma:t.ion
should be submitted, no la,te.J: than Decemhet:- 10, 1991, far. c.ons.ider;lri'n" at
the Commissionls January public hear.ing.
Applicant, (1,2/19/91):
The applicant submitted proffered candi tions to address transportation
issues" as discussed herein.
6
PC/91SN0247/MAR25G
.
.
~ ~,,;
1".. ~-\
.
.
Applicant (12/20/91):
The applicant amended. the request to include a Conditj ()n~' Use. to pe.I:ID.it a
fast food restaurant on 0.76 acres of the. reques.t property" as discussed
herein.
:planning Commission Mee.ting (1/2.1/92):
There was no opposi.tion present.
recommenda.tion..
The
applicant. accepted. the.
On motion of Mr. Cunningbam.~. seconded by Mr. Easter,. the Commission
recommended approval of this request and. acceptanc.e. of. the proffe.1:e4
conditions on page 2.
AYES : Unanimous .
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (2/26/92):
The Bermuda District Superviso-r requested. that this, case be d.efen::ed. to
a~low him to meet with concerned. citizens and the. applicant..
On motion of Mr. Mc.Hal.e,. seconded. by Mr. Warren.t- the.- Board deferred. this
case for thirty (30) days.
PYES :. Messrs. Daniel, Warren,. BarbeI: and. McHale.
ABSENT.~ Mr. Co~bert..
The Board of Supervisors. on- Wednesday,. Marc:h 25., 1.992, beg; nning: at. 7: 00 p.m.,
will. take-~ under cans-i.deration this, request...
7
PC/91SN0247}MAR25G
/
- -e::--.
~... ., ."
~/- . -~-- -
... .JfI' tip
- --
.. .Ai~-
- "'"
.,
".
......
/"'.
/'
f ~
,....-
!
/,
'~l
~f~--:~~"'.~ ..
~,~:,.... .. . ~..'" .._1, ~\,::....c..__.':,.
1o-!&. ,.J.:~..;"'~_
~"'1.'it~~. -to"'P'
'\::"10... 10" .--
~ ~..~.~" .... rz:
\ ~:..~..~~ ~ ....-:.........":.
~'1rI..~,:O ....~~.~., I....
.-~ ::~.-..... -
\ .. .. ~ 011#:;3 ~ · -:.:..""- _;.
,~..;i'" /" <.-/'
'V"'A~ \ c;
"\ \~~\~. .-:', -;:.
" ~.'* ...
, ~..~
\~..~. . \\
'Slt.~
v .. ..~~ ~
-~~/
V':>
. ....
I
\
"
A
v
.......
.'~
,
\
\
\
\ \
'\ \ _'r'
~. rjv~/": · \
'/~\// \\
~-
c~ ~.'. -.~ !'
MI:". Jack McHale
Bermuda District Represen ative
Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield, VA 23832
.
Dear Mr-. McHale:
The subject of thi.s letter is the rezoning r:equest #915N0247 by. James ~.
Daniels. I \olrite to infocm you that I totally oppose that portlon of ~he
cezoning Lequest thac allows a fastfood restaurant as ~ conditional use
within a Neighborhood Commercial i.e.,C-2 rezoning request. As such,
a fastfood cestaurant is a C-3 usage, and it is contrary to the thrust and
the specific recommendations of the Chester village Plan for the 2.7
ac res under cons i de ca t i.on oil
On February 22, 1992, at the Holiday Inn of Chester, I and Albert ~lliott
met with you for an hour:, and your listened to our: concerns regardlng case,
# 91SN0247. As a resul.t: of that meeting, you agreed to request a po~tponenteJ1t
of the case until the March 251 1992, meeting of the Board of SupervIsorsJ
and you agreed to pu t us in con tact w ~ th Mr. ~h i ~ 1 ip Cunni ng ham f . the Beruiuda
Distrlct representative on the Plann1ng Commlss1on. In fact, flve d~ys
later after the close of the February meeting of the Board of SupervIsors,
you personallv introduced me to Mr. Cunningham.
Since then, I have talked on the phone with Mr. Cunningham nearly a dozen
times, and I and several others attended a meeting with Mr. Cunningham and
Mr. James Daniels on Thursday, March 12, 1992. Since Me. Cunningham has
briefed you regarding that meeting, you are aware that Mr. Daniels declined
our suggestion that he eliminate from his rezoning request the amended
portion that seeks a fast food restaurant as a conditional use.
The impass continues. Meanwhile, I have refrained from contacting you in
any way - I respec t. you r time I and I cant inue to deal onl y with Mr. Cunn-
ingham because he is your appointed representative.
However, please do not mistake my respect for your time and my respect for
Mr. Cunningham with a lack of determination or of persistence on my part.
In fact, I am angry over the success to date of case #9lSN0247, and I am
very concerned. The amended request sailed past the Planning Commission and
the Planning Staff. Ms.. Beverly Rogers who prepared the report argued
that. t.he faatfood restaurant on the Weat BuacJred or troat portion of the
lo~ was acceptable since the remainder of Ehe development would shield
the fastfood restaurant from the residences to the north. Likewisel
the transportation impl.ications of all aspects of the rezoning request
considered the effects .north of West Hundred Road only. I say to you
that the Planning Staff Report is flawed. Rot even one word of that
report eza.ines the implications of a fastfood restaurant or any other part
of the rezoning request on the residences of Shop Street, a historic
neighborhood district just one block Bouth of Mest Hundred Road.
Inherent in a fastfoodbperation is volume and constant vehicle traffic
at many hours of the day, at even more hours of the eveningl and quite
possibly several hours of the early morning. The rea~ of the north lots
on Shop S tree tabu t the. rear of the south lots of West Hundred Road.
In many cases, the distance from West Hundred Road and the proposed
fastfood restaurant is less than a half of a football field. The noise
of the customers themselves and the magnitied noise of the outsIde speaker~
wi 11 travel many roul t ipl es of a hal f of a football field.
- ./ \. -
Anot~;r--~ertain implicatAn of a fastfood restauran~t that location is
added traffic south of ~ fastfood restaurant. According to the
transportation map of the Staff Report, the proposed, fastfood restaurant
lies diagonally across.from Buckingham Street. That street was gesigned
as a neighborhood street. I t is narrow .a.nO has a dog-leg shape. Today,
even without a fastfooq restaurant, Buckingham Street is greatly misused.
It is the shortcut between West Hundred Road and Harrowgate Road. Today,
because it is vulnerable to abuse, it is one of a dozen roads in
Ches t erf ield Coun ty thci tis pas ted to preven t through .use b~ truckR.
~t, the Staff Report failed to consider the implicatipns that a
fastfood restaurant at. its northern end .~ould have upon
Buckingham and adjacent streets. I discussed this with Mr. James Banks, the
staff employee responsible for the transportation portion of the Staff
Report. He agreed that his report failed to analyze the implications
of a fastfood restaurant on the roads to its south. He also noted that
even if the traffic implications upon the roads to the south were
analyzedl there was nothing the County could do to prevent fucther abuse
of Buckingham Street.
However, I do know something you can do to prevent unnecesarry abuse of
Buckingham Street and of our historic yet very vulnerable neighborhood.
You need to firmly and -unconditionally say no to anything other than
a strict Neighborhood Commercial rezoning of the Daniels property.
-A- Neighborhood Commeccial ieea,C-2 rezoning may possibly help pceserve
Chester Village. Any rezoning upgrade beyond a straight Neighborhood
Commercial will imperil 'our Shop_ Street neighborhood: and with it the
rest of Chestec Village.
I wrote a long letter. I hope you read it all. I thank you for taking
the time to learn of my'concern over the possible but unnecessary
destruction of my neighborhood.
Finally, I request tha~ you provide the other members of the Board with a
copy of this lettera
Thank you,
--p:-
~ I ( o-~ --1- / .
f~/-;f:
Robert T. Smith
4607 Shop Street
Chester, VA 23931
~cc: Mr. Phillip Cunningham, Bermuda Representative, Planning Commission
'U
- ~~e, the undersigned residents of Shop Street and neighboring streets, state our total
objection to the portion of rezoning request #915H0247 (amended) that allows a
fastfood restaurant as a conditional use within an area that the Chester
Vi11age Plan recommends as Neighborhood Commercial i.e-,C-2. We feel
, that a rezoning from~~esidential R-7 to C-2 is in i~self an intense upgrade
and that any upgrade beyond a strict Neighborhood Commecical i.e., C-2
would imperil our historic but vulnerable neighborhooq_
e
P~~:r~Ql
e
NAME
7~+ I · S M~
{~0,~
~T~
.~
&-d
ADDRESS
-?<' " D r S h (.;) P 5i- C-t'~. V A
~ '3 ~=t(
~.>/ 'f ~ P. ~~.
~ ~<?--g/
7'r/9~$~/~.
. ;2.3~~/
I :<:10 1 ~ .~p
I ~ ..; ~ " tJ~
/Z~~/-j/~l~' h~~ ~
8 ~c.
t-#-}-~
J7il-uC--O' (2{).
~
\
e
PE:rITIaI
e
"I'
/'
1We, the undersigned cesidents of Shop Street and neighbOring streets, state cur total
objection to the portion of rezoning request #91SN0247 (amended) tha t al ~ows a
fastfood restaurant as a conditional use within an area that the Chestec
Village Plan recommends as Neighborhood Commercial i.e.,C-2. We feel
that a rezoning f~om.resicential R-7 to C-2 is in icself an intense upgcade
and that any upgrade beyond a strict Neighborhood Cornmecical i.e~1 C-2
would imperil our historic but vulnerable neighbochood.
~
ADDRESS
e. t.. Mft1lT7AJ
C? ? · ;1{c;;t;;-
J-fl&,o \ SHoP ~ T~
%tdl~e- Sr
e
PE'l"~:r~QI
e
j'
9We, the undersigned residents of Shop Stceet and neighboring streets, state our total
objection to the portion of rezoning request #91SR0247 (amended) tha t allows a
fastfood restaurant as a conditional use within an area that the Chester
Village Plan recommends as Neighborhood Commercial i.e.,C-2. We feel
that a rezoning froffiAresidential R-7 to C-2 is in itself an intense upgrade
and that any upgrade beyond a strict Neighborhood Commecical i.e., C-2
would imperil our historic but vulnerable neighborhood.
RARE
ADDRESS
J1I~ 3~
~R~
f3/2iUJL ~ ~ /tdv;
'I ~ (\
'4 hJ~
4r/02- sLr> ~
~r/ ~ sL:.;:p ~
'150j 6~ $
4~L'V !YJU-r-vi _it
"
~ , ;;
e
~~:r~CIf
e
.,1
~ We, the undersigned residents of Shop Stceet and neighboring streets, state our total
objection to the portion of rezoning request #915R0247 ( amended) t ha t a Ii ow 5 a
fastfood restaurant as a conditional use within an area that the Chestec
Village Plan recommends as Neighborhood Commercial i.ea,C-2. We feel
that a rezoning from~residential R-7 to c-2 is in i~self an intense upgcade
and that any upgrade beyond a strict Neighborhood Commerical i.e., C-2
would imperil our historic but vulnerable neighborhood.
RAilE
C,,'\ e) c+ "T:J I~ Flf e ho..,~
Ji~ '-i:J..
/~ / .
j . .... h ' .. t' L ~1"') '" .
~ l0,psL,Q V~ U: >' '- 0
t !:~.~ t~ ~'LC,a....,.
/ i - 1 '''L _/M"J ~. I~ /' LA.--
/' ~. '~a ,,/ ~"t--V
, '- U'
,-.~ ~ /'7 ~ ../
(.J ; ,: "I . U",---
~,-,14 c.t.. 'if'/ '_?"~ /1
, (-I r J:.. ' )
.'__' ~71..t'-? .7- ~
h l_YJ ,"rl~ )v .J....-...-1rL_/ ~~
'/" ---r'-t'Y' ~'"V c,~. f/.j u-~. )" . ;~ --.r-
.,~.~ ~ ,~~ _..../'. V}~~L;L~'
~ /' ~~ .,r
/' " -....
· If. J
~ ',- (" ;;, ~! d?, 7l., -:-.~.,,-' OJ
/" .A'~. /.' p;; ~I/ ~
. l-r--;-- I, ~ ~
(/~~~"L,._, ,<i, ~ ., 'L
, , ./~" ..~ /1 ,) ~
~~ /1' -:/ 54 I / //~ /1' -----
/' I ~. J L-~~~(...'
f // .'" f '
~.;:. / /
....p.:.t~~,'- LI :~.~~~ r"
4 . ". /' :r-... ,,-- \,../ ';..- ~ _." t;;........ .
"--1 ;1 {,- J- {j 7'
~ ,r-. ~
~. .. .. .' I w'.
, l> · i / ,,,,,-> . .A_ '." '-
.. :. , 1 1 .,.~ . /1 ,,~ . I
~ _"' :.. L/lPf 1'\ V-J ,l,..C- r.~ '-" J-o'
110. _, %' ,."
-.t .. ",.!
" .;.. /1 .,. ..,-~^'--'"
I -. /' " ' k ,.,.,- I -l.-
/{/ (/~~ /'. l-" cry"~
", . '; '-
IJ' " 7 ~.r:i.r LVj1 C - 'LL';",-'~ f..,';J
'" c.7 ,. -
) ".~'" j
F(;:<...v <'--L. L ~,-c- tj <--;-'
en . -t?- r- h.{/....~~
:J/ ,,-,- \ ~
:'!tdt>1.L lu.. <-1't~~V
ADDRESS
f5"3 j ~\/. i-f l.i r\ ire.f j.?d _ (') E 5- i c-' 'i'
;5-37
,;'i(
zt/ dL~~-:'I,ci,-;:~i~ /1'. J
.. A ./' ,.f''' ~-;(;//
Ljt-c) / l.,:,,/ ..,rv., -.:~v
, ,/...;;-
#~2...'( ~~ -U'
I r ,.;
L..j .J ~'-J <-L ..2." t,- Y -' c~+-
~- ,,- / ~ /.::::",- '- ,..
/) I ' ( <-!i--.
I J- A '1- .:; ,j~ L:-t:'~l.-~-v,-,' /-:.>'-1..,
. -,. ~- /J / /.1 .7"r~,.~' ~-
1~7_ ~7- ,r;--.j /) :;':'~ I' ~ r~. / - ..' i
~ ,- . . ") kA
. , ~) 4 -:J.., ~~!U. I 'li "'.1.-,'. . ,/ ; r-___.
/ ,.,~ ."~,~.~ ':'-- .~ -- '\.... .... t~ ~ ~-z." / il' /,:
, . _.~;. / ~ II I /
.' -") -. -, ~'1 &~'-::J~!...e4-}-L.- ' /J-t~ .
'7 I ~,,-:] ~, :) ~ t~.~ J
.J~~~ ~. ~II~ , ~.
/1. t. <. '; i
J ~,~ II f\ {) !- "(: r ,(.~, ,'-' -)r
.../,
/ "7 ':;> (j (- l- ',; l~-;' ".../ /'/7 ,
. ~ : .~., ,~ ('- 'I ,..' ~-~~.- 1 -> '7 .) ;'1
/14/ J " C~ /, /,' '--' h u........... ....,,-./, ~. L l
(/..: ~!1_ ' : /~.:~ ~~~' ;L~~ ,{ ·
Ir- __ I -' , f / , i.. "- .. \1 v ~ ,_....., ~_ l &? --:../
. (' ..., 7
Lllf (,l t~ ~S ~-p,;{1
~ L;- ,(.-i ~'l" ~;olfe;>F' S-/
q L) I 8' ;}--illr ~f'
c--/
~~/. ;
Cl~'<~~.F~o' .; J/::';~_.- .
/ d j// J/ ;&UA~.ifLj~~~d/.,
..
j'
e
PETITICII
e
i We, the undersigned residents of Shop Stceet and neighboring streets, state our total
objection to the portion of rezoning request #915&0247 ( amended) t ha t a Ii ow 5 a
fastfood restaurant as a conditional use within an area that the Chester
Vi11age Plan recommends as Neighborhood Commercial i.e.,C-2. We feel
that a rezoning. fcom.res~dential R-7 to C-2 is in icself an intense upgcade
and that any upgrade beyond a strict Neighborhood Commecical i.e., C-2
would imperil our historic but vulnerable neighborhood.
NAME
d WVO ~f3o ~
p~.I!-;JJ ~ .
R~~~ ~~ ~
ADDRESS
Lr53e' S ~()/l.sr
~
-------,
~~~'1~~
1 ~ J '
. \..A....'(.,.. ~ OJ "'I!... . :." : '~_...... :...._:... t _ -<-..,
\ 'l
· /" ./'r If -I ,~ /"
...1 ',11,..... /,A '~_I./ /~."t1Y,/J'
; i ,I" './',
/
ot' 0-..:0 ,I;f 0
./r~.
lJ
~
: 'I! ~. I ~ ,,~ _' ~. .J~ ~
I 'I!.. 'l ~ ~. -\..,.. ~ _.- . I
. , - ~),--~. f j A'
/ ...( ,/ ',- -:~
-' ,:j ~-:/~'{f::C:"'''''-';.
';
"I .-
.~l,r .
/1.../ "'l. Lf R..~ ~.
l.f5]0 Sh!)1 5 f-;
4S""?>{ bhdp ;;<(- ,
Lf's? ( S ~"p S+.
......
~ ..
)
e
~~~~QI
.-
~wel the undersigned residents of Shop Street and neighboring streets, state our total
objection to the portion of rezoning request #915&0247 (amended) that allows a
fastfood restaurant as a conditional use within an area that the Chestec
Village Plan recommends as Neighborhood Commercial i.e.,C-2. We feel
that a rezoning fcom~resiaential R-7 to C-2 is in icself an intense upgcade
and that any upgrade beyond a strict Neighborhood Commecical i.e., c-2
, would imper i lour histor ic but vul nerabl e ne ighbochood.
NAME
ADDRESS
7'/<f _.r/Z7 Z
&~~
~II.~
:]7.v 71J ~.7 c,;; Ie" J1 e ~
-e ~ 7/. -:; cJ~
~t41cJ,ttel 0er i a..V1
&.~ "
~c:h.V\ e- -0 " -ef'"'Y) L5 ~
~t&~
~~~
%.?n. ~~
/?u.v. 'ir/ th.~
~ rJ~D- D~
· c;~ f J r/~ 0~~J
-I?//~~cJ d/.
~7/1 S~sr
---
I Ol .3 ~ (' U/ / >1' cl.s. .:J,,- J<(rJ 7 C/ ~ - Y' / Z-0>
J ;Z !; 0 J - Lv ~ K f). ') If ~ - If )~.J S'
I z.~o5'" \JJ;lIld"SorKd
. 74ca -9'19 L
7'18- rLf<d c..
I ~ ., 05' lA.J; V1d Sor Rcl
4t/'o ~ :7'#1/ ~0
H 7'7 .5A/~ ~r.
/;
-----
?Y<7 - ClC//v-
?QlF -tf, 9/7
II
./~ '/4.1 d:;I/ 6/
1- 7 :21- S ~)() d:J ~j-:'-r,
7cL. .:;. '~-' .;:, ~.
I ....-
, Il
--'1,/; v'rVC/\..~'
,~, _~ /~ (,.'t. ..F'--.
w ,1~~'
L /-7 '7 / ,; Ii (j// ~/.
, t".;...... ./ - .
<.:- 1 & . .:~ I 5 -.-"
.J
----
- ------------.......-..---.-....-.....~..........-.
u c; L/ J 'l f; 0 P <I) 1 LJ$6~.lTT
- J}u~
~
,
C~/M
K~r;). ~d
4 ..g (J "i ~ ...f 4J ~
~~ ~() ShO{) S-\ - c..\\a:l~
{2.h- ~/ G --:f ~.,..
/,./F
./",