87S133. ~ ~ ~.
~{- ,1+..., _^' a:A'n-y s'3w E~s.~.':1~Mr+:l s_~.s F.'1.+~11:f :~,.~ .
-2
i
~7
4 ~i
l
MOBILE HOME,REPORT
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, on July 27, 1988, be-
ginning at 2:00 p.m. in the County Board Room at Chesterfield Courthouse,
Virginia, will take under consideration the granting of a Mobile Home Permit
on the parcel of land described herein.
It shall be the policy of the Board of Supervisors that approval of a mobile
home permit to park a mobile home on a parcel of land shall be subject to com-
pliance with the following Standard Conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home.
2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home
site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only
one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual
lot or parcel.
3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other
zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be
complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer
than 20 feet to any existing residence.
4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile
' home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on
a permanent foundation.
5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall
be used.
6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then
obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Offi-
cial. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of
the mobile home.
7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revoca-
tion of the Mobile Home Permit.
88SR0147: In Dale Magisterial District, REBECCA L. WALKER requests renewal of
Mobile Home Permit 845123 to park a mobile home on property fronting the south
line of Cascade Street at Upp Street, and better known as 4747 Cascade Street.
Tax Map 52-3 (2) Henning Heights, Lot 41 (Sheet 15). The first permit was
issued on June 27, 1984.
The mobile home is located on property belonging to George W. Law, father of
the applicant.
The Health Department reports no environmental health hazard in existence.
One (1) adjacent property owner (Russell) has not signed this request, which
is for seven (7) years. A copy of the Mobile Home Report has been sent to
this property owner. Staff finds there are no mobile homes located within
one-quarter (1/4) mile of this property. Homes in the general area of this
request are in the $45,000 average price range.
This request appears to be in character with the neighborhood at the present
time. The mobile home is located in an area designated by the Central Area
Land Use and Transportation Plan for medium density residential use. Adjacent
property is zoned Residential (R-7) and Agricultural (A). Development in this
area has not started.
Because of the present development in this area, staff believes that the Board
should advise the applicant to look upon this request as a temporary dwelling
and, if approved, it may or may not necessarily be renewed.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, subject to Standard Conditions 1
through 7, as listed herein.
A copy of this application is on file at the Planning Department, Development
Review Division, Administration Building, Room 203, Courthouse Complex,
Chesterfield, Virginia, for public examination between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. of each regular business day.
APPLICANT AND/OR AGENT MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARING
a
Jame Sch
Zoning Ad nistrati n Manager
;`
- ~.
d 4
.. ~ ~ 2 ~R/BSJUL8/JULY27Z
.; ... :.. a~ •• ~~ ...
P::::: .:... ...
..
. .. .. .. •
. .. " •
... .. " •.
O
..... .... ' ~ ... E Et10f:
• • s
•
.... •....... •• . .v. ...:: ...:: •• ' ~
. .. ..
.. )~~~ .
.........::::.::... ~ ':.' I ':::. .. ........
:::::::::::::..... ... 1 ....I~i .. e-
:::::::::::::::::::•~.:::::\.:tl~~ ~ ::::::::::::.. •
.............~.::::." FI ..... .........
..... .
..~ ....................... ~ .............. ':..::. .!i. c
........... ............. ~ ...'.~i~
~r::::::::::::t...::::.•~.~:.:.. ~
.....
..... .. 4~ .... ........ ..
....... 1 .. .... .... .. ... ... .
......: '• :::... 1~~~ ..... .... .. .....'
.. c ........ .. .... ........ ~•::.
..............:~ .:'a ; ..
:::::::::::::: ~':'. .. ~ :: ..:::::: N~;~~
:::::::: ~o::::~:::•~ ~ ~ ::::. :::::::::
..::.. ~ ..... .. :•;S:• ... ..... ::::::::: : ~~..
'.T
::::.......:::::~~ :...• P ::: •::: •. ...~
~ s~ .. ...
.......o....::.... . .
::....:::::::o :...:::~ ::::..... :• e`~D.
..... ,
..::::v ::::: • ~ ::. ::... .....:: ...µpitSY
:: .....; - ...:::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ p.
... ......... ................
... ............. ...........
p
::: ::::..: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: S W~~' C
..... .. .:::::......................: ~~ p~E.
.. :.::::: ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•*•: as
.. 6v
.. ~ : v:. i .::::::::: :::::::....: ~ ' = p J~C ' S
~ ..........: .. .:........... P L ~
... ~ .
U ~~
a
Y
3 0~
~ r
W h
Y/ W
r
R D.
AoE < ~
!^ ~• „
~,
"~' oEEaTRp~i. Dom:
C~ ~
•
C9 ~ v
cy
~A
~2y9~
~ ~1
N ~~
9~~ •
~J
s
A 5
c N' ^•- -
88SR0147
Y
= M. H .
W
m,SH. 15
•
:,,
_F
~-
~~
0 0 -- ° ,
~ .~~°
B~ Sc
c ,
e-~
s
,~~~
,..
-~-
~lu-'
~'•~
8e~ebee-~8s-#98~-6P6
Beeember-#5s-#98~-6P6
t4ere~-#bs-#988-6P6
Rpe##-~~s-#988-B6
MsY-~Bs-}988-$6
July 27, 1988 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
87S133
Rich, Rich and Nance
Dale Magisterial District
Southwest quadrant of Iron Bridge Road
and Chippenham Parkway
REQUEST: (Amended) Rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) to
Office Business (0) with Conditional Use Planned Development. An
office/commercial complex is planned. (Note: Since submission of
this application, three (3) lots located in Gravelbrook Farm which
are zoned Residential (R-7) have been withdrawn from this request.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
A. Although the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan desig-
nates the request property for mixed use development to include
office and commercial uses, staff feels the proposed development is
too intense since its primary access is through a stable single
family residential neighborhood. This access would isolate some
residents from their neighbors and introduce a high volume of com-
mercial traffic into and through part of the neighborhood. In
addition, the Master Plan fails to address how this access would be
effectively screened and buffered from the neighborhood. It should
also be noted that the parcels upon which this access is shown are
not part of this request.
B. Staff feels the request could be supportable if additional property
(generally Blocks A and B of Gravelbrook Farm Subdivision) could be
acquired and incorporated into the project. This property would
provide direct access into the site from Route 10, isolate the
remainder of Gravelbrook Farm from commercial traffic, help to
buffer the existing school from this project, and discourage strip
commercial development south along Route 10. Based on the March 3,
1988, neighborhood meeting, staff would suggest that amended
plans/Textual Statement address the following items:
1. Coordinating development with the four-laving of Route 10
and improved access to Chippenham Parkway.
2. Reduction of building heights adjacent to and setbacks
from Block D, Gravelbrook Farm.
3. Location of the hotel.
4. Intensity of uses within the specialty retail tract.
5. Safe, convenient access to the Hening Elementary School
and the remainder of Gravelbrook Farm.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location: Fronting west line of Iron Bridge Road and
south line of Chippenham Parkway, and
located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 41-13
(1) Part of Parcel 1; Tax Map 41-14 (1)
Part of Parcel 6; and Tax Map 52-2 (1)
Parcel 1.
Existing Zoning: A and R-15
Size: 115 acres
Existing Land Use: Single family residential, and vacant
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use: North - A and R-15; Vacant
South - A and R-7; Single family
residential and public/semi-
public (Henning Elementary School)
East - A; Single family residential
and vacant
West - A; Vacant
Utilities: Twelve (12) inch water main located along
west side of Route 10, approximately f ifty
(50) feet from site. Eight (8) inch water
main located along Gravelbrook Drive,
approximately 450 feet from site. Use of
public water intended. Based upon avail-
able information, the existing public water
system will not adequately serve the fire
' flow and domestic needs of the proposed
development. Additional information is
needed before a final determination and
recommendation can be made.
2 'QJS133/BSJUL8/JULY27L
Site lies in Falling Creek sewage drainage
area. 18 inch sewer line located along
southwest boundary of property. Use of
public sewer intended.
Environmental Engineering: Site is gently sloping to moderately steep.
The steep terrain has a severe erosion
potential when cleared. Recommend no
clearing on slopes of 15Z or steeper.
Recommend individual erosion control plans
for each building site on slopes of 10~ to
TSB.
Site drains to Falling Creek. Falling
Creek, both upstream and downstream of its
intersection with Chippenham Parkway is
experiencing heavy siltation. Development
could accelerate siltation if not handled
properly. May be necessary to acquire
off-site drainage easements. Concrete curb
and gutter should be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking
areas. Drainage should be designed so as
not to interfere with pedestrian traffic.
Any proposed public roads should be de-
signed prior to release of any building
permits fronting such roads. Right of way
may be dedicated in phases.
Fire Service: Dale Fire Station, Company ~~11. At pre-
sent, fire service capability is adequate.
County water flows and fire hydrants must
be provided in compliance with nationally
recognized standards.
General Plan
(Central Area Land
Use and Transporta-
tion Plan): Office and medium density residential
(1.SI-4.00 units/acre)
Transportation: A traffic analysis has been submitted by
the applicants. Based on the densities
considered in the traffic study (600,000
square feet of office, 300,000 square feet
of retail, and a 500 room hotel), the
proposed development could generate approx-
imately 24,540 average daily trips. Ap-
proximately 2,393 and 3,236 of these trips
will be generated during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours, respectively.
Primary access to the site will be provided
by Route 10 (Iron Bridge Road) and Route
3 87S133/BSJUL8/JULY27L
150 (Chippenham Parkway). Route 10 cur-
rently operates at an unacceptable level of
service. It is scheduled to be widened by
VDOT to at least four (4) lanes in 1990.
The Chippenham/Iron Bridge interchange is
expected to become congested in the future.
A collector/distributor system will be
needed to accommodate future traffic.
Preliminary studies indicate that this
development should provide the "first
phase" of this system by constructing a
direct access fly over from the site to
northbound Chippenham. The remainder of
the C/D system will have to be funded
through future public projects. No funds
are currently included in VDOT's six (6)
year plan for improvements to Chippenham.
The development will also require access to
Route 10. This access will need to be
located approximately midway between Kenton
Drive and Gravelbrook Drive. Access to
Route 10 located any closer to the inter-
change would create congestion problems and
should not be permitted. Cascade Street
should be redesigned to only permit right
ins/right outs on Route 10 or its access to
Route 10 should be eliminated entirely.
Overlay District standards apply to this
development. Detailed construction plans
must be submitted to the County for ap-
proval to determine the exact road improve-
ments that will be required and to insure
that the conceptual access plan can actual-
ly be constructed. However, the following
improvements will probably be required: 1)
widening of Route 10 to six (6) lanes, 2)
right of way dedication along Route 10, 3)
signalization of the site road/Route 10
intersection, 4) four (4) lane internal
east/west controlled access road, 5) f ly
over to northbound Chippenham, and 6)
modifications to Kenton Drive, Gravelbrook
Drive, and Cascade Street.
DISCUSSION
Rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) to Off ice Business
(0) with Conditional Use Planned Development is requested. An of-
fice/commercial complex, with a three-story hotel, is planned.
Currently, the request property is either vacant or occupied by a single
family dwelling. The existing dwelling may have some historical signif-
icance and its preservation should be considered. Adjacent property to
4 -Q~S133/BSJUL8/JULY27L
the north, south, east, and west is zoned Agricultural (A), Residential
(R-7), and Residential (R-15), and is occupied by single family resi-
dences and an elementary school or is vacant.
Although the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan designates the
property for mixed use development to include office and commercial uses,
the proposed intensity of development is inappropriate, given the access
which currently exists to the property. Specif ically, the proposed
access road to Iron Bridge Road would bisect the Gravelbrook Farm neigh-
borhood, isolating homes fronting along Kenton Drive and Iron Bridge Road
from the remainder of the neighborhood. Further, the proposed access
would introduce high volumes of commercial traffic into a residential
area.
It should be noted that the parcels of land through which the access road
to Route 10 is proposed, and the residential properties adjacent to the
proposed road, are not included in this request. Construction of this
access would necessitate the acquisition of property for not only the
road right of way, but also to accommodate buffers and other design
features necessary to protect the neighborhood. At a minimum, staff
feels the affected residential properties lying between Chicora Drive,
Gravelbrook Drive, and Kenton Drive should be incorporated into the
request and redeveloped in conjunction with the subject project. In
addition, appropriate buffers should be provided to screen the proposed
commercial uses and access road from the remainder of the neighborhood.
Appropriate transitional uses, such as low density office and/or medi-
um/high density residential uses, should be incorporated into the request
to provide adequate transition and land use compatibility adjacent to the
neighborhood and elementary school.
The request property lies within the Route LO Corridor Overlay District,
which establishes minimum design standards to ensure quality development.
These standards regulate such concerns as landscaping; paving; lighting;
signs; architectural quality of buildings; and screening of utilities,
mechanical equipment, and loading areas. However, these standards do not
address the issue of buffers to insure land use compatibility where
commercial uses abut residential neighborhoods. The Master Plan proposes
medium density offices with a height of six (6) stories adjacent to, or
in the vicinity of, single family residences. Staff feels this proposal
fails to provide an adequate transition to the adjacent neighborhood.
While it is desirable to encourage mixed use development at major arte-
rial interchanges and increase the County's tax base, such uses should
not be approved at the expense of existing residential neighborhoods. At
present, the County has approximately 2,385 acres of approved major
office/mixed use projects, having a potential for 16,103,460 square feet.
of building space. These projects are located at, or near, the inter-
section of major arterials. These projects were approved once concerns
relative to access, intensity of use, building height, protection of
adjacent residents, etc. were adequately addressed. Due to the proximity
of adjacent residential development, lack of acceptable existing access
to Iron Bridge Road, and the failure to address proper land use and
design controls to minimize the impact upon area residents, approval of
this request would be inappropriate.
5 87S133/BSJUL8/JULY27L
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (10/20/87):
At the request of the applicants, the Commission deferred this case for
sixty (60) days. It was noted that a sixty (60) day deferral would
necessitate that any new information be submitted immediately.
Mr. Miller, the Dale District Commissioner, also noted that prior to the
Commission's public hearing, meetings should be held with the neighbor-
hood to discuss the project and neighborhood concerns.
Applicant and Staff (11/25/87):
An additional sixty (60) day deferral to the Commission's February 16,
1988, meeting was requested. The applicant's representative indicated
that any new information would be submitted to staff no later than Janu-
ary 1, 1988.
Staff noted that to properly review any new information, submission
should be made no later than December 21, 1987, for the February public
hearing. A ninety (90) day deferral was suggested.
Planning Commission Meeting (12/15/87):
The Commission deferred this case for ninety (90) days: sixty (60) days
at the request of the applicant and thirty (30) days on their own motion.
Applicants (2/11/88):
A revised Textual Statement was submitted.
Applicants (2/16/88):
A second revised Textual Statement was submitted.
Applicants' Representative, Staff, and Dale District Commissioner (2/26/88):
A meeting was held to review a revised Master Plan and to discuss the
Textual Statement submitted on February 26, 1988. The applicants in-
dicated that a third revised Textual Statement and a revised Master Plan
would be forthcoming.
The applicants' representative indicated that the three (3) lots located
in Gravelbrook Farm, originally included in this request, were being
withdrawn.
6 87S133/BSJUL8/JULY27L
Applicants, Dale District Planning Commissioner and Supervisor, and Staff
(3/3/88):
A meeting was held to discuss the proposed development with approximately
150 to 200 citizens. Concerns were raised relative to access, traffic,
location of the hotel, drainage, need for the project, buffers, etc.
Applicants (3/5/88):
A revised Textual Statement was submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (3/15/88):
There was opposition present.
Mr. Miller indicated that when the Central Area Land Use and Transporta-
tion Plan was considered, he had indicated that mixed use development
would only be appropriate with access other than via Route 10. He stated
that the access to Route 10, as depicted on the Master Plan, would bisect
a single family neighborhood and such access would be devastating to the
neighborhood. Further, he noted that the development would pose a risk
to the welfare and safety of the Henning Elementary School students, as
well as area residents.
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Perkins, the Commission recom-
mended denial of this request.
AYES: Unanimous.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (4/27/88):
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred
this case for thirty (30) days.
AYES: Messrs. Applegate, Sullivan, Currin and Mayes.
ABSENT: Mr. Daniel.
Staff (7/8/88):
It is staff's understanding that the applicants are pursuing acquisition
of additional property in an attempt to address the concerns outlined
herein.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, July 27, 1988, beginning at 2:00 p.m.,
will take under consideration this request.
7 87S133/BSJUL8/JULY27L
w
': ` ` ~ \
~ \ i~
\, \ <p
O \h~M ,v~
~, ~ y ~ OF 9 ~ ~~
i SyF9 ~ ~ :,, ,
•'
IN ~~,~~
Oq 9 ~ ~'~
i~ •,
9 ~ ..,~~
"~ ti
~ ~,
:, q~
ep •~ Q.
., .,.
~ ~ _. .,
_., .~ .,
' / Q ~ WILKINSON
.~
.•
.•
~ :'
i : ;'
Q
.r~ % a
~t
aQ ~ O
/ t / ~ / O
D
~ ~~~
~ Fq~, ~ ~ N
9ya
v
A
N
i
. .,
.w
O
5:
:;
~~.,
.~
DACE ~~ ~~,
':
,~,~i
Aq~2
y~~ _
q\~ \
.~yq~~
i
-1 4...-TRAMPLING
~c
R-7
ELBROOK FARM
v
~~~
0
m~
z ! ~ ~'
o~ ~~
~; L
~,
t,''' ,'1
'~
s tiV
c c 1,
s
a 87S133(AMENDED)
o~~~~ SUGGESTED AREA NECESSARY-
' ~ ACCESSVIDE ACCEPTABLE _REZ• A 8i R-15 TO 0
- ~ ' I ~ ~ I JESSUr ' a~~ C.U.PD. - ~
~Q , ~ ~ ~ _ SH. 15 ,,
J I I I ~ °•o
MSON MGR ~ I I )r
~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:
v
\~ \\
`1I
i~
^
i wR
• ~
/l,!J
•~i;, /
•(~../~
:~~ ~
. ;
~• ~- ~~
~,
o
ya
~ M ~-
/:
/ ~ i
A 1
- /'~~ 1
r
~- ~
I I~ \\ ~ I -
-~
_;
~ ~~~ ~t~~t~~1!~
\~\ I \'\
\~~ ~ ~~
,~ Q\\
~~ ~ i
~~ ~~ ~
~~ t
= I 11 ~
o ~ ~
a ~~
.. ~ M