74S104Sept. 25, 1974 (B.S.)
CASE NUMBER: 74S10'4
APPLICANT: Bremner, Youngblood &.Sharp, Inc.
REQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) tp
Residential (R-25).
PROPOSED USE: Single family subdivision.
TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: Midlothian Magisterial District; Tax Map Sec. 28-8
(1) Parcel 2, 3 & 4 '(Sheet 7).
GENERAL LOCATION: South of Stonehenge Subdivision (Section B) in the
vicinity of the eastern terminus of Bondurant Drive.
ACREAGE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Approximately 42 acres.
EXISTING ZONING: Two-thirds of the property is zoned Agricultural (A)
approximately one,third (the western portion) is zoned Residential
(R-15).
EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Vacant and wooded.
ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Adjacent property is for the
most part zoned Residential (R-15) with the exception of property
to the east and south which is zoned Agricultural (A). The majority
of adjacent property remains undeveloped and wooded with the exception
of Stonehenge subdivision which is developed for single family
residential use.
UTILITIES: The use of public water is feasible and will be required in
development of this parcel. Public sewer will be made available along
Falling Creek and will also be required in the proposed development.
Sewer availability is expected within approximately one year.
DRAINAGE AND EROSION: The parcel drains towards Falling Creek, and
although no p~rticular off-site drainage or erosion problems are
in existence, tributaries to the Creek will have to be protected.
REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS: On and off-Site sewer and drainage easements
will be required.
PUBLIC FACILITIES: Development of the parcel in question should have
acceptable impact within the reasonable limits for demands on area
public facilities.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: It is anticipated that the development
indicated and allowable under the zoning requested would have no
impact greater than normally created by single family-residential
use. Primary access will be provided by means of the continuation
of Bondurant Drive,
(over)
GENERAL PLAN: Single family residential development for the area
encompassing the parcel in question.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: On May 21, 1974, the Planning
Commission heard~e""Broadmoor Corpo~ration's request for rezoning
of part of the parcel in question. That application was for
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) of the eastern
two-thirds~of the parcel. Du~ingtlhat hea.ringre~ident~ from
Stonehenge Subdivision spoke in opposition to th~ application
noting that, although Stonehenge is zoned Residential (R-15), typica~
lot sizes are much larger than the minimum which would be required
under the R-15 Classification. Representatives of Broadmoor Corp-
oration stated that the proposed lot sizes for their development
would have a minimum of 25,000 square feet and front footages of
not less than ll0 feet. Whereupon consideration thereo~ the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the request for rezoning to R-15
with the understanding that lot sizes and front footages would not
be less than that indicated by the developer.
On June 26, 1974 the Board Of Supervisors denied the Broadmo~r request.
In the motion denial the Board indicated that the rezoning requested
should not be permitted'unless secondary public street access could
be provided.
The Board also resolved that a petition submitted by the residents
of Stonehenge for rezoninglof their subdivision to the Residential
(R-25) Classification be considered by the Planning Commission and
a report with regard to appropriateness of R-25 rezoning be trans-
mitted to the Board. Planning Commission has taken this petition
under consideration and it was the consensus that representatives
'of the aubdivision, Planning Staff, and Mr. Price meet for further
discussion.
In reviewing the present request for R-25 rezoning of the entire
parcel (that section now zoned R-15 would also be rezoned to R-25
if the current application is approved) the Commission should be
made aware of what lot size options are available should the parcel
be subdivided under either the existing Agricultural (A) zone, the
R-15 zone, or the requested R-25 zone. Therefore, the following
comparisons are submitted:
:Corner Side Yards :- :
': : : : · : (Feet) : :Dwell-
: Lot : Front : Coy- : Front : Side : Back : Back : Rear :ing
: Area
District :(Sq. Ft.)
: :
R-25 :25,000 :
R- 5 i15,000'
A : --
: Width : erages: Yard : Yard :Size
(Feet): (%) :(Feet): (Sq.~)
: : :~ : : : :
120 : 25 : 50 .' 20 .' 45 :. 25 : 40 : --
100 : 30 : 40 : 20 : 35 : 20 : 25 : --
: : :: : : :
100 : 30 : 40 : 20 : 35 : 20 : 25 : --
: Yard : to : to
:(Feet) :(Feet) : Side : Back
* If no utilities available, increase lot area to 20,000 sq. ft.
** If both utilities are utilized in the f~district than there is n_~o
minimum lot size requirement.
1/23/74
It should also be noted that, in further action, should the Com-
mission allow subdivision to occur under the Agricultural (A) District
minimum lot sizes would only be governed as required under Section
24-10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, when neither public
water nor sewer are available, the minimum lot area would be ~20,000
square feet ~and the front width a minimum.of 100 feet; however, where
only one utility was available, lot sizes in the Agricultural District
cou. td be tl,00O square feet with 7.5 foot~f~o~t widths.. Sinc~ the
majority of the parcel is currently zoned Agricultural (A) such a
situation could present itself and become a reality, provided the .
Commission saw fit to approve a tentative subdivision layout under
the Agricultural Zone.
For the previous case for rezoning, Planning Staff and Commission
noted that, although the minimum lot sizes permitted under R-15 zone
would be less than the average in Stonehenge Subdivision, considerable
attention would be paid to the tentative plat, especially since the
developer3s representative testified that such a layout would show
lot sizes not having square footages less than 25,000 square feet,
nor widths less than ll0 feet. Under these conditions Planning Staff
and Commission found the requested R-15 application acceptable. The
scritinizing of the Planning Commission, being understood and accepted
as fact, should go without saying that the R-25 currently requested
would be even more acceptable since the bulk requirements are either
the same or greater than the minimums under R-15.
In addressing the concern expres~e~by,the.Board of Supervisors for
guaranteeing second accesses for the potentially developable property,
Staff notes that it has heretofore been the policy to allow subdivision
of land to occur providing carrier streets which would abut adjacent
undeveloped parcels with the understanding that once these parcels
are subdivide~ public road access would be by means of the stub roads
left for this purpose. Secondary access to major collector streets
has always been a Staff consideration, but never an automatic pre-
requisite for tentative suSdivision approval. During the Brandermill
hearings, it was decided that their projects, having more than 50
dwelling units, would have two accesses. Should.the Board and
Commission feel that the policy ~stabll~hed for~Brandermill is lacking,
then specific~policy~or~an Ordinance requirement outlining and
establishing the rules for treatment of such situations should be
established. This is important so that both the developer and
adjacent property owners will know the ground rules. '
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR REZ0NING TO THE R-25 ULASSIFICATION IS
RECOMMENDED.
C.P.C. 8 20 ?4:
CASE HISTORY AND PAST
COMMISSION AND BOARD ACTION
FOR THIS REQUEST
Approval of the request.
8'-2
!
,!
!
8-2
74si04
A & R-15 to R-25
Scale: 1"=600'
Sheet
{i