Loading...
85S092~y-~-~8~-~ July 24, 1985 BS REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 85S092 Peoples Bank of Virginia Matoaca Magisterial District Southwest quadrant of intersection of Iron Bridge and Beach Roads ~EQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (0) with Condi- tional Use Planned Development to permit use (bank) and bulk (set- back) exceptions. RECOMMENDATION In the past, Staff has recommended that the Planning Commission defer cases when the request parcel should be developed in conjunction with contiguous parcels. At times the Commission has agreed with this recommendation and at times they have not. In this case, the request parcel was part of a larger parcel of land in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Beach Road and Route 10. The predominant area zoning trend has been on large parcels of land under the auspices of Conditional Use Planned Development (i.e., Halinda, Courthouse Commons, and Chesterfield Meadows). This policy has insured land use compatibility in the area and addressed'concerns relative to the impact of development on public facilities. In this case, Staff is digressing from its previous position on development of outparcel because, in discussion with the applicant and based on previous County experiences, Staff is of the opinion that the applicant will not be able to incorporate the balance of the "parent" property into a development proposal. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of this request for the fol- lowing reasons: The request is consistent with the General Plan 2000 and with the revised draft to the Central Planning Area Land Use and Transporta- tion Study currently being reviewed for adoption. Through the imposition of conditions, Staff concerns regarding access, development of contiguous property, exceptions to setback requirements, and overutilization of the property, can be minimized. It should be noted, however, that the imposition of these conditions may result in a reduction of the intensity of the proposed development. CONDITIONS The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Baskerville & Son, revised 6/18/85, shall be considered the Master Plan. (p) mo The structure shall have a colonial architectural style similar to the sketches prepared by Baskerville & Son, dated 4/25/85. In conjunction with schematic plan review, colored elevations or ren- derings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval (p) - . In conjunction with schematic plan approval, the applicant shall depict how the subject parcel would be incorporated into an overall plan of development for the parent parcel. Emphasis should be given to the revision of access, internal circulation, and parking. At such time as an application for development of the adjacent property is reviewed by the County, the Planning Commission may require the closing of either or both access points for the Peoples Bank of Virginia and require that access be shared with, or provided through, adjacent development. (P&T) Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. (EE) The parking area shall have at least ten (10) square feet of in- terior landscaping for every two (2) spaces. Each landscaped area shall contain a minimum of fifty (50) square feet and shall have a minimum dimension of at least five (5) feet and shall include at least one (1) tree having a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or other authorized landscaping material, not to exceed three (3) feet in height. Such landscaped areas shall be located to divide and break up the expanse of paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not be calculated as required landscaped area. Conceptual plans depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. (p) Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Route 10, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. A conceptual landscaping plan depict- ing this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. The Plan- ning Commission may reduce the setback along Route 10 to twenty-five (25) feet if, at the time of schematic plan review, detailed land- scaping and/or berming plans are submitted which provide the ability to properly maintain utility lines and minimize the visibility of parking areas. (p) o A thirty (30) foot building setback and a fifteen (15) foot parking setback shall be maintained along Beach Road. (p) 85S~ /BSJUNS/JULY24WW w Other than directional signs, which shall be regulated by the Zoning Ordinance, there shall be n6 freestanding signs permitted. Building mounted signs shall be permitted provided they not exceed 1.0 square foot for each two (2) feet of building frontage. Signs~ may be externally lighted, but may not be internally lighted. The signs shall blend with the architectural style of the development. Prior to erection of any signs, renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. No other advertising signs shall be permitted. (P) Prior to obtaining a building permit, right of way shall be ded- icated along Beach Road to accomplish a minimum total right of way of seventy (70) feet. (P) 10. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Beach Road and Route 10 to accommodate turning movements. (T) 11. The developer shall bear the cost of any necessary signal modifica- tion at the intersection of Route 10 and Beach Road. (T) 12. Prior to obtaining a building permit, a ten (10) foot utility ease- ment shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, for a future public water line along the western- most ninety (90) feet of the Route 10 frontage. (U) GENERAL INFORMATION Location: Southwest quadrant of Iron Bridge and Beach Roads. Tax Map 95-8 (1) Parcel 43 (Sheet Existing Zoning: A Size: 1.0 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Adjacent Zoning & Land Use: North - B-i; Commercial South - A; Vacant East - B-1 with Conditional Use Planned Development; Commercial West - A; Vacant Utilities: 16 inch public water line located along Route 10. Applicant must dedicate on-site easement for extension of proposed 30 inch water main (Condition 12). Only a minimal amount of landscaping should be installed within the easement. (Condition 6) Lies in Swift Creek sewage drainage area: Public sewer not available and not antic- ipated in the near future. Prior to 85S092/BSJUN5/JULY24WW Environmental Engineering: Fire Service: General Plan: (Central Area Plan) ,~ransportation: obtaining building permits, Health Depart- ment must approve utilization and location of septic and drainfield systems. Drains to Swift Creek. No existing drain- age and/or erosion problems. Roadside ditches along Beach Road, however, are not adequate to handle runoff generated by development. Drainage improvements along Beach Road should be coordinated with VDH&T. Concrete curb and gutter should be installed along perimeter of all driveways and parking areas for drainage control. Furthermore, drainage should be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traf- fic. (Condition 4) Dale Fire Station, Company #11. At pre- sent, fire service capability adequate. Light commercial Estimate approximately 891 average daily trips will be generated. Traffic movements will be distributed along Iron Bridge Road, which had a 1983 traffic count of 13,975 and Beach Road, which had a 1984 traffic count of 4,745. Access should be designed to facilitate traffic movements not only into the request site, but also to future development of adjacent properties to the south and west. The Master Plan depicts access to Route 10 and Beach Road, both located as far as possible from the Route 10/Beach Road intersection. The Beach Road access aligns with an "exit only" from Courthouse Commons to the east. Sight distance south of the Beach Road access is limited. May be necessary to obtain off-site easements to obtain adequate sight distance. When property to the west and south devel- ops, consideration should be given to closing the two (2) initial access points and incorporating internal circulation between the developments to provide greater separation between the entrances and the Route 10/Beach Road intersection. (Condi- tion 3> 85St /BS JUN5/JULY24W]f It should be noted that the applicant has submitted the following condition to address shared access in the future: "The owner agrees that in the event the real estate adjacent to the owner's property on the south and west is developed as a single retail area (shopping center), then the owner shall negotiate with the developer of such property for a common entrance from Route 10 to serve the owner's property and adjacent property pro- vided the location thereof and access from such entrance to owner's prop- erty, including necessary easements, is in all respects satisfactory to the owner." The applicant's condition takes away any latitude which the Planning Commission and Board have with regard to safe ingress and egress, as well as minimizing the prolif- eration of access points, and gives the applicant the authority to make such decisions themselves. Staff does not recommend that Condition 3 be replaced with the applicant's suggestion. Additional pavement and curb and gutter should be constructed along Route 10 and Beach Road to facilitate turning movements (Condition 10). These improvements will require modification and/or adjustment to the traffic signal at Beach Road and Route 10 (Condition i1). Right of way should be dedicated in accordance with the General Plan 2000. (Condition 9) DISCUSSION Rezoning to Office Business (O) with Conditional Use Planned Development is requested to construct a bank and office building on the request parcel. In addition, exceptions are also requested to the required setbacks for driveways along Route 10 and Beach Road. Although the proposed land use conforms to the proposed Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, the subject property was part of a larger tract of land to the south and west. In the recent past, the Commission and Board have maintained that commercial and office development, espe- cially in the Courthouse area, should be planned on large parcels of land whereby access points, signage, architectural style, etc. may be coor- dinated to insure orderly development. Specifically, the planned 85S092/BSJUN5/JULY24WW development of Courthouse Commons lies immediately east of the request parcel. Other large planned developments in the area include Halinda and Chesterfield Meadows. These properties were zoned and developed under one Master Plan that addressed design criteria which would minimize the impact of office and commercial development on the area and assist in precluding commercial development similar to that which has occurred along Route 60 and Jefferson Davis Highway. When Staff originally met with the applicant's representative, he was encouraged to seek zoning not only on the request parcel, but on the "parent" parcel as well. It was indicated that the owner of the "parent" parcel was not interested in seeking development approval at this time. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant cannot commit to an overall plan of development for the "parent" parcel at this time. Approval of zoning on a single site can establish a precedent for further piecemeal development within the Courthouse area which, heretofore, has not been permitted. Without an overall master plan, the Commission has no guarantees relative to the compatibility of the proposed development with future development along the adjacent property. Furthermore, the Master Plan submitted with the application represents an overdevelopment of the land. It fails to comply with the design criteria established on Courthouse Commons or other area planned developments. The Master Plan provides minimal area in which landscaping can be in- stalled to minimize the view of driveways and parking areas from Route 10 and Beach Road. Due to the size of this site, it is virtually impossible to meet the setbacks required at Courthouse Commons and still permit the development of the requested square footage, accommodate the required number of parking spaces and, most importantly, provide adequate stacking space for the drive-in window. Staff's Conditions 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 may reduce the amount of development shown on the Master Plan but they estab- lish design criteria the same or similar to those required of Courthouse Commons. The applicant has requested a thirty-five (35) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot driveway setback requirement along Route 10 and approxi- mately a four (4) foot exception to the fifteen (15) foot driveway set- back requirement along Beach Road. These setback exceptions are exces- sive and represent overdevelopment of the property. While the Commission and Board have typically granted as much as a twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot setback along major arterials (i.e., in this instance Route 10), such exceptions have been subject to berming and landscaping to minimize the view of driveways and parking areas. Because of maintenance problems and costs associated with the removal of any improvements installed within County easements, landscaping and/or berm- lng should be located outside the utility easement requested along Route 10. Furthermore, a fifteen (15) foot setback should be maintained for the driveway along Beach Road to provide sufficient area in which to provide landscap{ng and to provide a minimal separation between travel lanes along Beach Road and vehicle stacking lanes on the subject property (Condition 6). The landscaping requirements specified in Conditions 5 85S ~./BSJUN5/JULY24WW and 6 are similar to those imposed on Courthouse Commons, across Beach Road. The applicant has submitted a plan for a freestanding sign (see attached). It should be noted that Condition 8 prohibits any freestand- ing signs. If the request parcel were incorporated into a development proposal with the "parent" parcel, the Special Sign District requirements would permit only a single freestanding sign for the whole project. Also, the same sign conditions were imposed at Courthouse Commons where the only freestanding sign permitted is one to identify the entire devel- opment. Individual businesses are permitted building-mounted signs. The building-mounted sign recommended in Condition 8 is, therefore, consis- tent with the Special Sign District and conditions imposed at other area developments. CASE HISTORY Staff (7/16/85): Staff had recommended that any landscaping other than ground cover be precluded within utility easements. The Utilities Department met with the applicants to discuss the condition. The Utilities Department advised that the developer is willing to work with the Utilities Depart- ment relative to landscaping within the easement and, at the same time, minimize any future problems relative to maintenance of the utility lines. The Utilities Department, therefore, recommended that Condition 6 be amended as stated on page 2. Planning Commission Meeting (7/16/85): On motion of Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Cowan, the Commission recom- mended approval of this request subject to the conditions on pages 2 and 3, with the exception of the following amendments: In' conjunction with schematic plan approval, the applicant shall depict how the subject parcel would be incorporated into an overall plan of development for the parent parcel. Emphasis should be given to the revision of access, internal circu- lation, and parking. (P&T) The owner agrees that in the event the real estate adjacent to the owner's property on the south and west is developed as a single retail area (shopping center), then the owner shall negotiate with the developer of such property for a common entrance from Route 10 to serve the owner's property and adjacent property provided the location thereof and access from such entrance to owner's property, including necessary ease- ments, is in all respects satisfactory to the owner. (CPC) 5. Deleted. 85S092/BSJUN5/JULY24WW e Me Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Route 10, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. The Planning Commission may reduce the setback along Route 10 to fifteen (15) feet if, at the time of sche- matic plan review, detailed landscaping and/or berming plans are submitted which provide the ability to properly maintain utility lines and minimize the visibility of parking areas. (CRC) A thirty (30) foot building setback and a fifteen (15) foot parking setback shall be maintained along Beach Road. The drive-in window lane shall have a minimum setback of four (4) feet from Beach Road. (CPC) Other than directional/safety signs, there shall be no more than one (1) freestanding sign permitted. The freestanding sign shall be as depicted in the renderings submitted with the application. A building mounted sign shall be permitted at the rear of the building to identify the tenants. Signs shall blend with the architectural style of the development. Prior to erection of any signs, sign renderings, sizes and locations shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. No other advertising signs shall be permitted. (CPC) AYES: Unanimous. The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, July 24, 1985, beginning at 2:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 8 85~ '~2/BS JUN5/JULY24WW z¢ lJlJlllllllllllllll., f R-TH · ~ BRANCF ,4 ~,~ ~ r  NrC ' X \ A '1 r CHiEST~~'' ;-D RTHOUSE COMPLEX A IC -8 -/ II 85S092 REZ.' A C.U.P.D. SH. 31 TO lllll /0 5C 14. 8~6092-1 ¸~mmm~, REQUESTED LANGUAGE CHANGES IN CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY CHESTERFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION IN ZONING CASE 855092 PEOPLES BANK OF VIRGINIA For Condition No. 3 as amended by the Planning Commission, substitute the following: 3. Not having control over the property adjacent to the Subject Property on the west and south, the owner, nevertheless, agrees that in the event the real estate adjacent to the owner's property on the south and west is developed as a single retail area (shopping center), then the owner shall negotiate with the developer of such property for a common entrance from Route 10 to serve the owner's property and adjacent property provided the location thereof and access from such entrance to owner's property, including necessary easements, is in all respects satisfactory to the owner. For Condition No. 6 as amended by the Planning Commission, substitute the following: 6. The drive-in window lane :shall have a minimum setback of fifteen (15) feet along Route 10. A landscaping plan taking this requirement into consideration shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review.