Chesapeake Planning Commission Public Hearing – June 12, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Chesapeake Planning Commission Public Hearing – June 12, 2024
The Chesapeake Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 12, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, adjourning at 8:25 p.m. The commission considered nine items, including one continuance request, seven consent agenda items, and one regular public hearing item. Key outcomes included the indefinite continuance of a rezoning application and a 4–2 vote to approve the large-scale Springton at Grassfield planned unit development (PUD) against staff’s recommendation of denial.
Consent Calendar
- PLN-USE-2023-029 (McGhee’s Concrete): Approved 6–0 with stipulations, allowing concrete manufacturing on a 2.6-acre parcel in M-1 Light Industrial District, including limits on truck storage, operating hours, building placement, and a 10-foot decorative concrete wall.
- PLN-TXT-2024-001 (Temporary Signs): Approved 6–0, amending sign setback regulations and civil penalty application.
- PLN-REZ-2022-016 (Stonehurst & Jefferson): Approved 6–0 with proffers, reclassifying 0.33 acres to R-8 Residential for two single-family detached homes, with architectural standards and sidewalk construction.
- PLN-REZ-2024-005 (Kingsborough Square): Approved 6–0 with proffers, reclassifying 7.7 acres to R-MF-2 Multifamily Residential for up to 200 apartments, with design standards, limited access, and ADA-compliant trails and dock.
- PLN-USE-2024-011 (Kingsborough Square Height Exception): Approved 6–0, allowing a maximum building height of 55 feet.
- PLN-USE-2024-010 (YMCA Athletic Fields): Approved 6–0 with stipulations, permitting an outdoor athletic facility on B-1 zoned land, including right-of-way dedication, lighting controls, and FAA compliance.
- PLN-USE-2024-012 (Iglesias Church): Approved 6–0 with a stipulation requiring installation of a backflow preventer within 90 days.
Public Comments & Testimony
Consent Items:
- Tonya Moore (403 Lincoln Road) spoke in support of McGhee’s Concrete, stating the civic league negotiated stipulations and is in favor.
- John Harbin (411 Cedar Road) was available for questions on the Stonehurst & Jefferson rezoning.
- Larry Barry, Tyler Rosa, and Chris Sanders (agencies) were available for questions on the Kingsborough Square applications.
- Vic Nichols (1124 Mill Lake Quarter) opposed the Kingsborough Square development, citing concerns about increased population density, traffic, trash, crime, and noise.
- Tyler Rosa, Sharon Hoel, R.A. Parks, Jason Chebetow, and Todd Heinecke were available for questions on the YMCA Athletic Fields.
- Angelica Portillo (2411 Bainbridge Boulevard) was available for questions on the Iglesias Church permit.
Regular Item – Springton at Grassfield (PLN-PUDC-2023-001):
- Proponents: Drew Vakos (Dragas Associates) emphasized the project’s alignment with the Dominion Boulevard Corridor Study (DBCS), $24.7 million in public infrastructure investment, phased construction tied to utility extensions, and a commitment that no homes would be sold before January 1, 2027, or the opening of a new elementary school. Mac Weaver (Dragas) highlighted 50+ acres of parks, nearly 10 miles of trails, a 2.8-acre public park with pickleball courts and a dog park, and seven housing types. Harold Rollins, William Huntley (deacon at Dome of Canaan Baptist Church), and Karen McPherson voiced support. Liam Rowell (YIMBY Hampton Roads) submitted written support, citing the 52,600-unit housing shortage and Smart Growth principles.
- Opponents: Tim Kimes (1104 Tundrah Court) opposed on behalf of his family. Jeff Staples (1453 Boxwood Drive) raised concerns about the 1,292-unit density, school overcrowding, drainage issues, and lack of design disclosure. Vanessa Butler (1021 West Road) argued the location is rural, unsuited for high-density development, and would increase taxes, pollution, and crime. Linda Tindell (1045 West Road) opposed, suggesting the property be used for equestrian or therapeutic riding. Vic Nichols (1124 Mill Lake Quarter) criticized the scale and density as incompatible with the area. Seth St. Michael (2828 Seven Eleven Road) cited infrastructure strain, wildlife displacement, and trash issues. Several additional written comments were submitted opposing the project on grounds of school capacity, traffic, loss of agricultural land, and drainage.
Discussion Items
- Springton at Grassfield: Staff (Mark Hobbs) presented findings for denial, stating the PUD failed to achieve the quality expected of PUDs, promoted suburban forms inconsistent with the DBCS, allowed certain uses by right that normally require conditional use permits, and failed school level of service (LOS) analysis—Grassfield Elementary projected at 173.6% capacity. Staff noted that a reasonably viable economic use exists under current zoning. If approved, staff offered the Master Development Plan (May 1, 2024) and Development Criteria (May 13, 2024) for consideration.
- Commission Discussion: Commissioner Stichler asked about enrollment at Deep Creek Central (167% capacity), Deep Creek Elementary (111%), and Cedar Road Elementary (112%)—figures from fall 2023. Vice Chair Crews questioned the commercial component (6.1-acre campus plus two mixed-use buildings) and the utility of adding commercial in an area with underutilized retail. Commissioner Barefield asked if staff’s recommendation had changed; staff confirmed it had not. Commissioner Hackworth asked about LOS calculations, noting that approved but not yet platted developments are not included. Commissioner Sgueglia asked about school planning; the applicant explained that student generation would be spread over 10+ years. Commissioner Sgueglia also noted the project’s distinctiveness and amenities. Commissioner Stichler moved to approve, citing consistency with the comprehensive plan, amenities, and infrastructure connections. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sgueglia.
Key Outcomes
- PLN-REZ-2024-003 (Ballahack Lot Rezoning): Continued indefinitely (6–0) per applicant request.
- Consent Agenda: All seven items approved unanimously (6–0).
- PLN-PUDC-2023-001 (Springton at Grassfield): Approved 4–2 (Stichler, Sgueglia, Hackworth, Gerloff in favor; Barefield and Crews opposed). The approval includes the Master Development Plan dated May 1, 2024, and Development Criteria dated May 13, 2024.
- Cancellation of June 26, 2024 Meeting: Approved by unanimous consent due to lack of business.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everybody. The planning commission pre-meeting for June twelfth is now in session. Welcome to the pre-meeting tonight. Thank you for taking part in the business of our city. First order of business tonight is the agenda overview discussion. We have a total of nine applications, of which one uh application is for continuance. And we have two applications, and Mr. Boswick will explain this in a minute that are being withdrawn. So, Mr. Boswick, would you please uh provide us with an overview of these applications? Yes, we have one request for a continuous evening that's PLN dash R E Zwegree. Now I have a lot of reserve with the applicant requesting and definitely continuous. And we also like to advise you that we do have two applications that are being withdrawn by the applicant. These items were continued indefinitely at your March nineteenth, March thirteenth meeting. So we just want to make you aware that they are being withdrawn and will not be back before you. And please note that no vote is necessary on these because it's an applicant's prerogative to withdraw their application. So that's what I have. All right, thank you very much. Uh commissioners, any comments or questions regarding these items. Okay. So uh at this point we will review the remaining items uh on our agenda and determine uh whether they're going to be on the consent agenda or the regular agenda. So first up, um Springton at Grassfield, uh Mr. Hobbs, please. Good evening. Uh we do not have any modifications to uh the application. We have had some comments, some citizen input, uh 10 that have been against the application and two that are in support. Uh the ten that are against in general as concerns about just development in general, losing the rule of character of the city that we shouldn't have development in this location, uh objections to multifamily elements that doesn't fit the area. Uh any concerns about the overall version of the city's infrastructure, namely roads and schools. Okay. Commissioners, conflicts with the application. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Hobbs or for staff? Discussion? All right, this will go on the regular agenda because it is being recommended for denial. Thank you, Mr. Hobbs. Thank you. Next up, uh item number two, McGee's concrete. Mr. McKay. We can't hear them at all. Hmm. Good evening. Um, yeah, I don't have any updates on this application, and we've had no citizen input. Thank you, Mr. McKay. Commissioners, any conflicts? Any questions for staff? Any discussion? Any objection to placing this on the consent agenda?
openpublica.com