Loading...
12-10-91 MinutesBOAP. D OF SUPERV~SOI~ Sullivan, Chairman carrie, Jr.~ Vice Chrm. G. Daniel Adminimtrator Staff in Attendance: Ms. J. Amy Davis, Exec. Asst. to CO. Admin. Ms. Joan S. Dolezsl, Clerk to the Boar~ ~r. Bradford ~. K~, - Deputy Co. Ac]min., Dir., Planning ~[~+ R. Joh~ Mocracke~, Dir., Transportation ~. Richard M. McElfish, Dir., Znv. Engineering county A~torney ~s. Pauline A. Mitchell, Dir., News &Publio ~. Willlam D. Peele, Chief, D~v. Review, Planning ~. Richard F. Sal~, Deputy CO. Admin., Co~ity Development Mr. Jane~ J. L. 8te~aie~, Mr. David H. Welchons~ Dir., utilities o WO~K SESSION M~. Sullivan called the meeting to o~d~r at 6~30 p.~. and stated the work session had been scheduled to discucm and rePiew zo~i~g ~quests scheduled for th~ December 11, 1991 Board ~set~ng. Be noted publis comment would not be aesepted at this time but would be accspted during the public heariDg process. He introduced Mr. Ed Barber, Supervisor-Elect for Midlothian Distrimt; Mr. Jack Me,ale, Supervi~er-~leot for ~ermuda Distrist; and ~ir. Whale~ Colbert! Supervissr-El~ot for M~. Beverly Rogers, ~lanning Admlni~trater for tbs Planning Department, pre~nte~ an extensiv~ overview of Case 91SN0~49~ ~K, She reviewed the proffered ~ondition$, tho current zoning requirements versus the developer's proposal, the ~ransition zones, ets. Discussion, ¢o~ments and questions ensued relative to the size of the buffers; the ~lanning Commission's recommendation and buffer; the current zoning requlrem~nts and the proposed neighborhoods; the basis for future recom~endaticn= under the ~W Zoning 0rdi~a~¢e; a~d w~th~r conditional ~ses superseded ~r. Daniel requested a list be predated detailing the methodology used in previously ~onad propertiac when making recummenda~ions for requaats falllng under the new Zoning Ordinance. 91-801 1~/10/91 Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to the proposed road and buffer; whether the proposed road would accommodate the traffic and the amount of traffic which would be generated by the request; noise conditions and requlrement~ for noise attenuation devices such as noise barriers being conntructed; no&se standards for single-family neighborhoods; the read being extended north helng a benefit regarding the ingress/egress for Forest Hill Avenue; the proffered conditionm ~ubmitted from the applicant obligating him to construct all cf the collector/distributor system; the construction of the proposed four lane road; the widening of ~ahnke Road and the cost of the road improvements in general; which road improvements would have been reqnired if the improvements to Jahnke Road, etc. When asked, Mr. ~cCracken ~tated the mo~t of the road improvements to Jahnke Road had not been estimated and clarified he would eatimate the cost prior to the Board meeting. Discussion, e0~ments and questions ensued relative to the original and propo~d r~q~st add whether the traffic ~n the road network re0fair~d with the new request; the road impreve~ents proposed for gahnke Road and whether there were road improvements proposed for Bufcrd Road; the read ~preve~ent~ ~ade by The Bouldsrs project when it was developed; the traffic concerns regarding Sahnke an~ ~uford Roads; and whether there were any proposed road improvements for C~ippenham Parkway, etc. Mr. MoCracken clarified the proposed road network was conceptual at this point in time~ and th~ detailed engineering work would require review by the Highway Department, the Richmond Metropolitan Authority and the City of Richmond. ~e noted conditions to the :equeat would require the applicant to su~mit traffic studi~s with each phase of the project. When asked, Mr. Micas stated he would submit to the Board, prior to the meeting, a list of litigation which had previously occurred e~ th~ proposed tract of land and advised the Board the litigation had ended and, therefore, was unrelated to t. his request. Mir. Jacobsen state~ t-he Planpi~ Commission had also requested the ~oard to consider requiring the detailed schematic and site plans be brought to the Plannin~ Commls~ion for a pt~blie hearing and notification of tl%s SUbmittal of these plans, be given to neighborhood rspreeentatives t~oag~ tl/$ Cre~tweod Farm~ Resident~ A~ociatie~ and property owners adjacent to the western property line of =he oevelopment. He noted t~ere were ~everal issues which would involve the Eite plan as w~ll as the design of the project and, thcrsfors~ the Planning Comu~i~sion WaS recommending the neighborhood be involved through the imposition of t~ese conditions. When asked, he clarified the number of multi-family units and hotel rooms would remain the same and the ~ncrease in density was for retail uses. It was g~nerally agreed to recess for f~ve m~nute~. Reconvening: Mr. J&eeb~en presented an extensive 0vorvi~w of Case Chesterfield Land Associates. 91-802 12/15/91 Discussion, comments and gueetiens ensued relative to the density of the development under the ~3pper swift C~eek Plan; the density of the proposed development es compared to the existing Brandermill development; the impact the request would have on the Proutors Creek ~acility; where additional water to serve the development would come from and the installatio~ of the Upper swift creek Trunk Sewer; the phosphorous loading and the quality of water for the ~wift Creek Remervcir and the current ordinance standards aa it related to phosphorus loadings for the Upper Swift Cre~k Basin; the current ordinance etandard~ and whs~her a c2~ango in state law could change the ve~ting laws; the adoption of ~trieter standards and whether the applicant would be grandfathered; the number of lots in the proposed development and r.~e cap on the number of lots; the timeframe in which the applicant would be required tu construct t. he addltional two lanes of pavement for Powhite Parkway and the percentage of the project which would be completed before the two lanes would be etc. When asked, Mr. McCracken ~tated the applicant had proffered a condition whie~ ~euld p~evide offsite construction for improvements estimated to be over $7 million. He fBr~her stated he had requested the applicant to allow staff a range in %h~ roadn where these impr0vomen%$ could be sonstructed notln~ the developsr could be making road improvements to Otterdale Road, Weolridge Road, Route $$0, Route 360/Route 288 interchange as well as the Powhite Parkway. He clarified staff had requested this condition to allow for flnxibility in determining how the traffic generated by the duvelopment would be distributed among the roads in the area thereby allowing staff to addres~ a~d implem=nt roud improvements as needed in Resignated area~. Discussion, comments and gue~tions ensued as to the flexibilit~ of the condition in allowing staff to apply the money to et~er aroma of the County such a~ Reu~e 360; the improvement~ whish would be required to Route 360 and Powhlte Parkway as well as other read improvements; whether the public would have to support the transportation oo~tn of the development; the cost of the total proposed road improvements; the proffered condltlon= and the amount of money needed for the road network to support the development; the timeframe in which impro~men%~ would be ma~e to the roads~ the impact of the development end the service cost per unit; the proffered condition relating to the reserved right-of-way and escrow fund; the percantage~ of the cash proffer based on the Proffer Policy; the amount of the cash proffer proposed being twice am much as required by the current Cash Proffer P01i~y~ and the value of the rea~ improvements being in add~tlen to the cash preffer~ etc. Mr. Daniel reguested the County Administrator prepare u table detailing the proffere~ conditions submitted by the applicant to support the development und identify whether additional cost such as for ~eads 0~ schools would be supported by the public and an estln~nte of operating costs for schools and facilities. Mr. Currin reguestnd staff propers an estimate on the amount of revenue which would be generated by the request based on the total n~mber of dwelling unite. Discussion; comments and questions ensued relutiYe to Grange Hall ~lementary School and Bailey Bridge High School, water and Sewer fucilitle~ and how the proffered water line would impact Grange Hall ~lsmentary school; +_he number of school seats at Grange Hail Elementally School which were limited by the eva~lab~lfty of Water and whether the use of pUbliC water would increase the n~ber Of school seats; the number of elementary, middle and high schools whic~ WoUld be required for the developmmnt; whet_her the applicant ha~ been requested to uubmit u proffered condition requiring the construction of all the schools; whether the proposal for lease/p~urchase al-rangemsnt had been addressed; and whether School Ad/~inistration felt the proposed proffered conditions regarding ~ehools were adequate, Ks. Becky Thomas, FizcaI Impact Analyst for the Budge~ and Manaqement Department, stated the request was not ba~ed on cash proffers but rather proffers relative =o dedications and construction imprcv~ents for parse, ~eheots, libraries and fire stations which she so=lined in detail, she stated the applicant had proffered to construct improvements a~d make dedications equivalent to $2,800 per dwelling unit of which $1,200 would be for school~ park~, librarie~ add fire stations. W~en asksd~ ~r. Mioa~ stated the Board at thi~ ti~e could ask for and accept proffers for land dedlcatio~. Mr. Applmgate ~tated the applicant had ~uk~itted proffered conditions totaling approximately $4100 per dwelling unit which ~xeeeded the ea~h l~&effer Policy. ~. Steg~aier clamifisd the estimate~ net cost of $5200 Der dwelling ~nit was based on u County-wide average for new stations and librarie~ and noted a d~ailed analy~i~ on any particular development within the County hsd not been conducted. DisCussion, co~t~ a~d q~estions ensued relative to whether there would a cost to the citizens to support the development and the cost of the slx~y inch trunk sewer which serves the watershed in that area; the amount of revenue the development public; the proposed legi~latlve pac~kage regarding impact fees; the range of c%Lrrent fi~re~ over a three year period amd the cred~t~ applied to the $5,~00 service cost per dwelling unit; the impact the development wo~ld have es the 9~ality Of water for the swift Creek Rese~vsi~ and standards for water quality for reservoirs; the ini=ia=ion of a monitoring program for the water quality on rescrvolrs; tho future perfoz~noe standards ~or phosphorus for developments in the Upp~ swift 'cre~3~ Ba~i~; 5taff'~ re¢onunendati~n for d~nlal based on transports%ion concerns and whether t..b. oss concerns had be~n addressed and adequate transportetion proffers received; and the Planning Comm~sion'~ rece~endatien for denial based o~ a bRmber of issues, etc. on ~otis~ of /4~. C~rrin, Seconded by Mr. Daniel, th~ Board adjourne~ at 9:00 p.m. un~il Deoe~b~r 11, 1991 at 91-~04