05SN0239
CASE MANAGER: Robert Clay
February 20, 2007 CPC
May 15, 2007 CPC
July 17, 2007 CPC
August 21, 2007 CPC
September 18, 2007 CPC
October 16, 2007 CPC
BS Time Remaining:
November 20, 2007 CPC
365 days
January 9, 2008 BS
March 12, 2008 BS
May 28, 2008 BS
September 24, 2008 BS
December 17, 2008 BS
June 24, 2009 BS
March 10, 2010 BS
March 9, 2011 BS
March 28, 2012 BS
STAFF’S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
05SN0239
(AMENDED)
The Cheatham Family Limited Partnership
Clover Hill Magisterial District
Clover Hill Elementary, Swift Creek Middle and Clover Hill High Schools Attendance Zones
Northwest quadrant of Hull Street Road and Route 288
REQUESTS:I.Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (C-3) with
conditional use approval to permit multi-familyand townhouse uses plus
conditional use planned development approval to permit exceptions to
Ordinance requirements.
II.Waiver to street connectivity to Red Chestnut Drive.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A mixed-use development consisting of various housing types, office and
commercial uses is planned. Residential development would be limited to no
more than 600 units. There is the potential that the only uses developed willbe
residential in nature.
Ю±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ Ú×ÎÍÌ ÝØÑ×ÝÛ ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬¸®±«¹¸ »¨½»´´»²½» ·² °«¾´·½ »®ª·½»
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
I.RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON PAGES 3 THROUGH 8.
AYES: MESSRS. GECKER, GULLEY, LITTON AND WILSON.
NAY:MR. BASS.
II.RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER TO STREET CONNECTIVITY.
AYES: MESSRS. GECKER, GULLEY, BASS, LITTON AND WILSON.
(NOTE: SINCE THE COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE, AND BASED
UPON APPLICATION OF THE CASH PROFFER POLICY AS DISCUSSED HEREIN,
THE PROFFER OFFERED TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT ON CAPITAL FACILITIES IS
NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY. CONSEQUENTLY, STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO REFLECT THIS.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Request I:Recommend approval of the rezoning subject to the applicant fully addressing the
impact of the proposed development on capital facilities and addressing access
concerns.This recommendation is madefor the following reasons:
A.The proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Upper Swift Creek
Planwhich suggests the property is appropriate for regional mixed use
uses, including high density residential, corporate office and commercial
uses.
B.The proffered conditions do not mitigate the impact on capital facilities,
thereby insuring adequate service levels are maintained and protecting the
health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
C.Even with Proffered Conditions requiring that the residential units be
sprinkled, failure to provide additional public road connection does not
address the health, safety and welfare concerns of the Fire Department.
Request II:Recommend denial of the waiver to street connectivity requirement to Red
Chestnut Drive for the following reason:
The evaluation of the Policy criteria for granting such relief necessitates design
details that can best be provided through the subdivision review process.
î ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY
PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE
AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS NOTED
"STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS NOTED "CPC" ARE
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC)1.Master Plan. The Textual Statement dated February 8, 2005, and
last revised August 8, 2007, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
(STAFF/CPC)2.Utilities.Public water and wastewater systems shall be used.(U)
(STAFF/CPC)3.Senior Housing.Any dwelling units designated for “age restricted”
housing shall be noted on the site plan and/or on any subdivision
plat.Such dwelling units shall be grouped together as part of the
same development section(s). (P)
(CPC)4.Impacts on Capital Facilities.The applicant, subdivider, or
assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield,
for infrastructure improvements within the service district for the
property:
A.Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each dwelling
unit other than age restricted dwelling units defined in
Proffered Condition 14, the applicant, subdivider, or
assignee(s) shall pay to the County of Chesterfield the
following amounts for infrastructure improvement within
the service district for the property:
1.)If payment is made prior to July 1, 2007,
$15,600.00 per dwelling unit;
2.)If payment is made after June 30, 2007, the amount
approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$15,600.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by
any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index between July 1, 2006, and July 1 of the
fiscal year in which the payment is made.
B.Prior tothe issuance of a building permit for each dwelling
unit that is designated “age-restricted”the applicant,
subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay to the County of
Chesterfield the following amounts for infrastructure
improvement within the service districtfor the property:
í ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
1.)If payment is made prior to July 1, 2007,
$10,269.00 per dwelling unit. At time of payment
$10,269.00 will be allocated pro-rata among the
facility costs as follows: $602.00 for parks and
recreation, $348.00 for library facilities, $8,915.00
for roads and $404.00 for fire stations; or
2.)If payment is made after June 30, 2007, the amount
approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$10,269.00 per dwelling unit pro-rated as set forth
in Proffered Condition 4.B.1. above and adjusted
upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift
Building Cost Index between July 1, 2006, and July
1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made.
C.At the option of the Transportation Department the cash
proffer payment may be reduced for road improvements by
an amount not to exceed the amount that would be paid in
cash proffers for the road component as identified in
Proffered Conditions 4.A. and 4.B. above, exclusive of
those road improvements identified in Proffered Condition
8, performed by the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s), as
determined by the Transportation Department.
D.Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes
proffered or as otherwise permitted by law.
E.Should any impact fees be imposed by the County of
Chesterfield at any timeduring the life of the development
that are applicable to the property, the amount paid in cash
proffers shall be in lieu of or credited toward, but not be in
addition to, any impact fees, in a manner determined by the
County. (B & M)
(STAFF/CPC)5.Timbering.Except for timbering approved by the Virginia State
Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or
diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on the Property until a
land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Environmental
Engineering Department and the approved devices installed. (EE)
(STAFF/CPC)6.Access to Hull Street Road.No direct vehicular access shall be
provided from the property to Hull Street Road, other than an
emergency access as referenced in Proffered Condition13. (T)
(STAFF/CPC)7.Connectivity.A stub road shall be provided to GPIN #733-681-
0761 and shall be constructed to VDOT standards prior to the
ì ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
recordation or site plan approval of more than 135 dwelling units.
(T & P)
(STAFF/CPC)8.Road Improvements.The developer shall be responsible for the
following:
A.Construction of two (2) additional lanes to provide a four-
lane divided facility for Market Square Lane from Old
Hundred Road to the western property line of the subject
parcel;
B.Construction of additional pavement to provide a four-lane,
undivided facility (i.e. two (2) northbound lanes and two
(2) southbound lanes) for Old Hundred Road from
Millridge Parkway to Market Square Lane;
C.Construction of additional pavement to provide a three (3)
lane typical section (i.e. two (2) southbound lanes and one
(1) northbound lane for Old Hundred Road from Market
Square Lane to Tall Hickory Drive.The exact length of this
improvement shall be approved by the Transportation
Department;
D.Deletion of the connection from Market Square Lane to the
access drive located on GPIN #733-678-5976, with the
exact design approved by the Transportation Department;
E.Construction of a separate left turn lane along Old Hundred
Road southbound at the Market Square Lane intersection;
F.Construction of additional pavement along Old Hundred
Road to provide an additional southbound lane at its
intersection with Hull Street Road (Route 360);
G.Full cost of traffic signalization at the Old Hundred
Road/Market Square Lane intersection, if warranted, as
determined by the Transportation Department;
H.Full cost of traffic signal modification at the Route 360/Old
Hundred Road intersection;
I.Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted,
any additional right-of-way (or easements) required for the
improvements identified above. In the event the developer
is unable to acquire any “off-site” right-of-way that is
necessary for these improvements. The developer may
ë ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
request, in writing, that the County acquire such right-of-
way as a public road improvement. All costs associated
with the acquisition of the right-of-way shall be borne by
the developer.In the event the County chooses not to assist
the developer in acquisition of the “off-site” right-of-way,
the developer shall be relieved of the obligation to acquire
the “off-site” right-of-way and shall provide the road
improvements within available right-of-way, as determined
by the Transportation Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC)9.Phasing Plan.Prior to any construction plan approval or prior to
any site plan approval, whichever occurs first, a phasing plan for
the required road improvements, as identified in Proffered
Condition 8, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Transportation Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC)10.TransportationDensity. For traffic planning purposes, the
maximum density of this development shall be a combination of
uses that would produce a maximum of 648 AM and 596 PM peak
hour trips or equivalent densities as approved by the
Transportation Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC)11.Route 288 Setback. Except as noted here in, a minimum setback
distance of two hundred (200) feet exclusive of required yards,
shall be provided from the limited access right-of-way for Route
288 to any residential dwelling unit. Natural vegetation shall be
retained within the setback area unless removal is required to
install noise attenuation measures or is approved by the Planning
Commission.This minimum setback distance from the limited
access right-of-way for Route 288 may be reduced up to a distance
of 150 feet for any multifamily residential building that exceeds
two (2) stories in height and contains more than twenty (20)
dwelling units if a noise study demonstrates that such a reduction
is acceptable to the Director of Transportation. (T)
(STAFF/CPC)12.Public Roads. In residential development, all roads that
accommodate general traffic circulation through the development,
as determined by the Transportation Department, shall be designed
and constructed to VDOT standards and taken into the State
System. Setbacks from these roads shall be identified for special
access streets pursuant to Section 19-505(b) of the Zoning
Ordinance, subject to approval by the Planning Department and the
Transportation Department at the time of site plan and/or tentative
subdivision review. (T)
ê ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
(CPC)13.Emergency access. In lieu of a second public access, an emergency
access shall be provided from the property to Hull Street Road,
either directly or indirectly through GPIN #733-678-5976 or 733-
678-9465 prior to occupancy of more than fifty (50) units. The
location of this emergency access shall be reviewed and approved
by the Transportation and Fire Department.The design and
maintenance of this emergency access shall be reviewed and
approved by the Fire Department inconjunction with site plan
approval. Additional emergency accesses may be approved by the
Planning Commission at time of Schematic Plan approval. (T & F)
(STAFF/CPC)14.Age Restriction. Except as otherwise prohibited by the Virginia
Fair Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and such other
applicable federal, state or local legal requirements, dwelling units
designated as age-restricted shall be restricted to “housing for older
persons”; as defined in the Virginia Fair Housing Law and no
persons under 19 years of age shall reside therein. (P)
(STAFF/CPC)15.Building Height. Any buildings constructed within three hundred
(300) feet of Nuttree Subdivision shall be limited to two stories in
height or thirty five (35) feet in height, whichever is less. (P)
(STAFF/CPC)16.Lighting.
a.Exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance for the Village District except that porch lights,
lamps, decorative, and period lighting that is in keeping
with the pedestrian oriented character ofthe development
and that do not use high intensity discharge lamps, shall be
exempted from said requirements.Lamps attached to a
building shall be no higher than the roofline or parapet
wall.
b.Generally, streetlights shall be located on both sides of
public roads. Streetlight fixtures, poles, and lamp types
shall be consistent along a street. The maximum height of
streetlights shall be twenty (20) feet. The selected
streetlight shall be compatible with the pedestrian oriented
character of the development.The exact type of
streetlight(s) and the locations shall be determined at the
time of Site Plan and/or Subdivision Plan review. (P)
(STAFF/CPC)17.Density.The total number of dwelling units shall not exceed 600.
(P)
é ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
(STAFF/CPC)18.Open Space.At a minimum, the following Open Space areas shall
be provided:
a.Within the Property, a minimum of 25 percent of the gross
acreage shall be devoted to open space.
b.Of this open space, a minimum of 2.0 acres shall be usable
to accommodate recreational and social gatherings for
residents and employees. Facilities to accommodate these
uses shall be provided in the usable open space and can
include, but not to be limited to, pavilions, gazebos,
neighborhood parks, trails, hardscaped areas with benches,
and other amenities to facilitate community use. This open
space may include a clubhouse, which shall serve as a focal
point and gathering place for the residents. Prior to the
issuance of more than 300 residential certificates of
occupancy, the clubhouse shall be completed.
c.Focal Point. A minimum of 0.75 acres of open space shall
be provided to establish a “focal point”.Part of the area
shall be “hardscaped” and have benches and other
amenities that accommodate and facilitate gatherings. A
portion of the focalpoint may include areas devoted to
water facilities. The focal point shall be developed
concurrent with the first phase of residential development.
The exact design and location shall be approved by the
Planning Department at the time of site plan and/or
tentative subdivision review. (P)
(CPC)19.Second Public Road.A second public road access shall be
constructed to VDOT standards prior to the recordation of a
maximum of 135 single family and/or townhouse units and/or the
recordation or site plan approval of a cumulative total of 400
dwelling units. (P)
(CPC)20.Sprinkled Residential Units. Prior to a second road access being
provided all residential units shall be sprinkled. Any residential
units that are constructed after the second public road access is in
place shall be constructed to the standard building code
requirements. (F & BI)
è ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
North line of Hull Street Road, west line of Route 288 and located in the northwest
quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax IDs 733-680-Part of 9439; 734-678-2276;
and 734-681-0526 and 3904.
Existing Zoning:
A
Size:
63.5 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North-A; Vacant
South-C-4: Commercial
East -A and I-1: Vacant
West -R-7, A and C-2: Single-family residential and commercial
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
There is an existing eight (8) inch water line crossing Market Square Lane approximately
230 feet west of this site. In addition, a twenty-four (24) inch water line extends alongthe
north side of Hull Street Road adjacent to this site and an eight (8) inch water line extends
along Red Chestnut Drive adjacent to the northwest boundary of this site. Use of public
water is intended (Proffered Condition 2).Due to flow limitations inthis area, the internal
water line network within this development will require looping of water lines with
connections at Hull Street Road and Red Chestnut Drive, in Nuttree Subdivision, Section 2.
Public Wastewater System:
A twenty-seven (27) inch wastewater trunk line extends along Nuttree Branch, adjacent to
the northeast boundary of this site.In addition, an eight (8) inch wastewater collector line
extends across a portion of this site to serve the existing Nuttree Subdivision and other
adjacent development. Use of the public wastewater system is intended (Proffered Condition
2).Extending along the right of way of Route 288 within an easement on this site are two
ç ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
(2) wastewater force mains with a diameter of sixteen (16) and twenty-four (24) inches. The
developer will be required to take whatever measures necessary to protect the existing force
mains.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
The subject property drains to the north to Nuttree Creek and then from Nuttree Creek to
Swift Creek. There are currently no on-or off-site drainage or erosion problems and none
are anticipated after development. The property is currently wooded and, as such, should
not be timbered without obtaining a land disturbance permit from the Department of
Environmental Engineering (Proffered Condition 5). This will insure that adequate
erosion control measures are in place prior to any land disturbance.
Water Quality:
Nuttree Creek and two (2) small creeks adjacent to Nuttree are perennial streams and, as
such, are subject to a 100foot conservation area inside of which uses are very limited.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for fire, school, library, park and transportation facilities is identified in the Public
Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Planand the Capital Improvement Program. The residential
portion of this development will have an impact on these facilities.
Fire Service:
The Public Facilities Planindicates that fire and emergency medical service (EMS) calls
are expected to increase forty-four (44) to seventy-eight (78) percent by 2022. Six (6)
new fire/rescue stations are recommended for construction by 2022 in the Plan. In
addition to the new stations, the Planalso recommends the expansion of five (5) existing
stations.
Based on 600 dwelling units, this request will generate approximately 136 calls for fire
and emergency medical service each year. The applicant has not offered measures to fully
address the impact on fire and EMS. (Proffered Condition 4)
The Fire Department normally requires a second public road access for more than fifty
(50) dwelling units. The applicant has proffered the use of an emergency access road in
lieu of the second access (Proffered Conditions 6 and 13). The Fire Department does not
approve of the use of an emergency access in lieu of a second public access to the site.
Proffered Condition 19 requires construction of a second public road access prior to the
recordation of 135 single-family and/or townhouse dwelling units or prior to the
recordation or site plan approval of a cumulative total of 400 dwelling units. With this
ïð ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
condition there is the potential for up to 399 dwelling units to be developed on only one
public road access. These additional conditions still do not address the health, safety and
welfare concerns of the Fire Department.
The Clover Hill Fire Station, Company Number 7, currently provides fire protection and
emergency medical service. When the property is developed, the number of hydrants,
quantity of water needed for fire protection, and access requirements will be evaluated
during the plans review process.
Schools:
Approximately 294 (Elementary: 126, Middle: 72, High: 96) students will be generated
by this development. Currently this site lies in the Clover Hill Elementary School
attendance zone: capacity -746, enrollment -821; Swift Creek Middle School zone:
capacity -1,021, enrollment -965; and Clover Hill High School zone: capacity -1,575,
enrollment -1,782. The enrollment is based on September 30, 2011and the capacity is as
of 2011-2012.
This request will have an impact at the elementary and high school level.There are
currently eight (8) trailers at Clover Hill Elementary and three(3) at Swift Creek Middle.
This case combined withother tentative residential developments, infill developments
and zoning cases in the area, will continue to push these schoolsto theircapacity.The
applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact of this development on
school facilities. (Proffered Condition 4)
Libraries:
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors’ policy, the impact of development on library
services is assessed Countywide. Based on projected population growth, the Public
Facilities Planidentifies a need for additional library space throughout the County.
Development of the property noted in this case would most likely impact the La Prade
Library, the Clover Hill Library or a proposed new branch library in the Reams-Gordon
area. A need for additional library space in this area of the county is identified in the
Public FacilitiesPlan. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact
of this development on library services.(Proffered Condition 4)
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Planidentifies the need for three (3) new regional parks, seven (7)
community parks, twenty-nine (29) neighborhood parks and five (5) community centers
by 2020. In addition, the Public Facilities Planidentifies the need for ten (10) new or
expanded special purpose parks to provide water access or preserve and interpret unique
recreational, cultural or environmental resources. The Planidentifies shortfalls in trails
and recreational historic sites.
ïï ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
The applicant has not offered measures to assist in fully addressing the impact of this
proposed development on these parks and recreational facilities.(Proffered Condition 4)
Transportation:
The property is approximately sixty-four (64) acres located in the northwest quadrant of
the Route 288/Route 360 interchange. The applicant is requesting rezoning that will
permit a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The Upper Swift Creek Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for Regional Mixed Use, which could include a
regional shopping center. Development of the property as a regional shopping center
could generate approximately 19,000 average daily trips (ADT), with approximately 400
trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 1,800 trips occurring during the PM peak
hour. The roads in this area cannot accommodate the additional traffic that would be
generated by a regionalshopping center. The applicant has proffered to limit
development on the property to that which is anticipated to generate 648 AM peak hour
and 596 PM peak hour trips (Proffered Condition 10). As an example, a mixture of 175
single-family units; 150 townhouses; 100 congregate care facility units; 150,000 square
foot nursing home and 170,000 square feet of general office could be developed within
these limitations. This mixture of uses would be anticipated to generate approximately
5,800 ADT, which is significantly less than the 19,000 ADT that would be anticipated
with a regional shopping center.
These trips would be distributed to Old Hundred Road and Hull Street Road (Route 360).
Old Hundred Road had a 2009 traffic count of 11,307 ADT between Genito Roadand
Millridge Parkway. Route 360 in this area had a 2009 traffic count of 74,519 ADT.
Due to the limited property frontage and the proximity to the Route 288 interchange, no
direct access should be provided from the property to Route 360. The applicant has
proffered that direct access to Route 360 will be limited to one (1) emergency access
(Proffered Condition 6). The property also has access to Route 360 via an existing private
driveway in the Market Square Shopping Center. The applicant has proffered to delete
the easternmost connection from Market Square Lane to the Market Square Shopping
Center, discouraging traffic from using the existing private driveway that accesses Route
360. (Proffered Condition 8.C)
The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. The applicant has proffered to
provide significant road improvements such as widening of market Square Lane to a four
(4) lane divided facility between Old Hundred Road and the western property line,
widening Old Hundred Road to four (4) lanes between Market Square Lane and Millridge
Parkway, widening Old Hundred Road to three (3) lanes from Market Square Lane to
Tall Hickory Drive, constructing a separate left turn lane along Old Hundred Road at
Market Square Lane, constructing an additional southbound lane at the Old Hundred
Road/Route 360 intersection, and signalization of the Old Hundred Road/Market Square
Lane intersection (Proffered Condition 8). Even with these improvements, the Old
Hundred Road/Route 360 intersection will be beyond capacity (Level of Service F).
Much of the traffic from this development will travel through this extremely congested
ïî ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
intersection. There are no plans to provide any additional improvements to this
intersection and the only way to achieve an acceptable level of service would be to
reconstruct it as a grade-separated facility.
The proffered improvements to Old Hundred Road will result in widening adjacent to the
Planters Wood and Heritage Woods sections of the Brandermill Subdivision.
Specifically, the improvements adjacent to Heritage Woods will result in Old Hundred
Road being shifted closer to the rear yards of the homes adjacent to the roadway.
Off-site right-of-way may be required to construct some of the proffered road
improvements. According to Proffered Condition 8.H, if the developer needs off-site
right-of-way for construction of the improvements, and is unable to acquire it, the
developer may request the county to acquire the right-of-way as a public road
improvement. If the county chooses not to assist with the right-of-way acquisition, the
developer will not be obligated to acquire the off-site right-of-way and will only be
obligated to construct road improvements within available right-of-way.
Area roads need to be improved to address safety and accommodate the increase in traffic
generated by this development. The applicant has proffered to contribute cash, towards
mitigating the traffic impact of the residential part of this development (Proffered
Condition 4). This amount is not consistent withthe Board of Supervisors’ Policy;
therefore, the Transportation Department cannot support this request.
The Zoning Ordinance allows streets within townhouse developments to be privately
maintained. Staff recommends that all of the main streets within this project be accepted
into the State Highway System. Having these streets accepted into the State Highway
System will ensure their long-term maintenance. The applicant has proffered that all
streets which accommodate general traffic circulation will be designed and constructed to
State (i.e., the Virginia Department of Transportation) standards and taken into the State
System. (Proffered Condition 12)
ïí ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
PER UNIT
Potential Number of New Dwelling Units600*1.00
Population Increase1,572.002.62
Number of New Students
Elementary126.000.21
Middle72.000.12
High96.000.16
TOTAL294.000.49
Net Cost for Schools$5,329,200$8,882
Net Cost for Parks698,4001,164
Net Cost for Libraries204,600341
Net Cost for Fire Stations411,600686
Average Net Cost for Roads10,496,40017,494
TOTAL NET COST$17,140,200$28,567
* Based on a proffered maximum of 600 dwelling units (Proffered Condition 17). The actual
number of dwelling units and corresponding impact may vary.
As noted, this proposed development will have an impact on capital facilities. Staff has
calculated the fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, parks, libraries, fire stations
and roads as $28,567 per unit. The applicant has been advised that a maximum proffer of
$18,966 per unit would defray the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by this proposed
development.
At the time this application was submitted in February 2005, the calculated fiscal impact of every
new dwelling unit on schools, roads, parks, libraries and fire stations was $11,549 per unit with a
maximum cash proffer amount of $11,500. Subsequent to the application being heard by the
Planning Commission in 2007, the maximum cash proffer amount increased. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the case on November 20, 2007 with cash proffers of
$15,600 per dwelling unit (applicable maximum cash proffer amount at the time) and $10,269
per age-restricted dwelling unit (maximum less the Schoolsportion) to address the impact of the
development on capital facilities; the amounts would be adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index if payment was received after June 30, 2007.
Based on the current Cash Proffer Policy, the development’s proposal is subject to the maximum
cash proffer in place at the time of the case is heard before the Board of Supervisors if it is not
approved within two(2) years of its application date. The application date for this development
ïì ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
was February 8, 2005 which is beyond the two (2) year window; the case is now being evaluated
at current capital facilities impact figures and the maximum cash proffer amount of $18,966.
Since the case was first presented to the Board of Supervisors on January 9, 2008 it has gone
through a series of deferrals. Amendments to the Cash Proffer Policy have been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors since 2008.
The applicant has proffered $15,600 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by increases in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index effective July 1, 2007 to address the impact of the
development on capital facilities. The applicant has further proffered $10,269 for each age-
restricted dwelling unit adjusted upward by increases in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost
Index effective July 1, 2007 (Proffered Condition 4). The adjusted amounts of the cash proffers
are currently $18,716 and $12,319 respectively. The current Cash Proffer Policy sets the
maximum per-dwelling-unit cash proffer at $18,966, regardless of age restriction. The proffered
conditions do not adequately address the proposed development’s impact on capital facilities.
Consequently, the County’s ability to provide adequate facilities to its citizens will be adversely
impacted.
Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed
and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash proffer in this case.
The Board of Supervisors through their consideration of this request, may determine that there
are unique circumstances including age restriction, relative to this request that may justify
acceptance of proffers as offered for this case.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan. On June 25, 2008, the Board
of Supervisors adopted amendments to the Upper Swift Creek Plan. These amendments
addressed levels of service standards for schools, fire and emergency services; road
infrastructure needs; water quality; and a growth management boundary.The adopted
plan suggests the property is appropriate for office/residential mixed use; however,
regional mixed use is also suggested as appropriate with adequate road improvements and
design standards to address transitions and compatibility.
This application was filed prior to the Board’s adoption of the amended Plan.As such,
staff’s evaluation of this request is based upon the previous Upper Swift Creek Planin
effect prior to these amendments. This previous Plansuggests the property is appropriate
for regional mixed use.
Area Development Trends:
The property lies within the northwest quadrant of Hull Street Road and Route 288.
Current uses adjacent to the project consist of retail uses to the south and west and single-
family residential uses on a portion of the property to the west.Property to the north and
ïë ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
to the east, across Route 288, remains vacant. It is anticipated that a mix of commercial,
office and higher density residential uses will continue within this regional node with
single-family residential anticipated to the north.
Street Connectivity:
An exception to the Residential Subdivision Connectivity Policy is requested to preclude
any road connections to Red Chestnut Drive. In addition to promoting fire and emergency
services safety,subdivision road connections provide interconnectivity between
residential developments, thereby reducing congestion along collector and arterial roads
and providing a convenient and safe access to neighboring properties.
The Policy allows the Board, through the Commission’s recommendation, to waive the
requirement for streets in new subdivisions to connect to adjacent public streets that are
designed as local streets, residential collectors and thoroughfare streets. Staff must
evaluate waivers based uponthree (3) criteria:(1) there must be a sufficient number of
other stub streets to adequately disperse traffic and not cause a concentrated use of any
one (1) stub street; or (2) the connection to a particular stub will cause concentrated
traffic at that location; (3) the projected traffic volume on any one (1) local street within
an existing subdivision exceeds 1,500 vehicle trips per day.
Without additional design information relative to road layout, staff cannot determine if
the criteria for granting the waivers can be met. Therefore, it is recommended that
consideration of this waiver be evaluated during the plans review process when more
detail is available.
Further, the applicant has agreed to provide a stub road to adjacent property to the north
identified as Tax ID 733-681-0761 (Proffered Condition 7). This stub road is to be
constructed to VDOT standards prior to recordation or site plan approval of more than
135 dwelling units.
Development Standards:
The property is proposed for a mix of residential uses, to include cluster, townhouse and
multi-family, commercial and office uses, as well as buildings that accommodate a mix
of residential and non-residential uses. The development will have a neotraditional
design, incorporating sidewalks, street trees and open space. (Textual Statement I. A.)
The property is divided into three (3) development tractsas depicted on the Zoning Map
prepared by Balzer and Associates (last revised March 1, 2007). Tract location and size,
including further divisions into Sub-tracts, may be modified so long as land use
transitions and compatibility between different uses are addressed.Uses are to be located
and developed as described in the Textual Statement (Attachment) and as provided in the
proffered conditions.(Textual Statement I. B.)
ïê ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
The request property also lies within the 360 Corridor West Area Highway Corridor
District. Unless specifically regulated by the Textual Statement, development of
commercial and office uses, to include multi-family uses located above such commercial
and office uses, must comply with the Highway Corridor District standards and the
Emerging Growth Area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Textual Statement
III.A.2.). Together, these standards address access, parking, landscaping, architectural
treatment, setbacks, signs, buffers, pedestrian access, utilities and screening of dumpsters
and loading areas.The purpose of the Highway Corridor District Standards is to
recognize specified areas of the county as unique and to enhance patterns of development
in those areas. The purpose of the Emerging Growth District Standards is to promote high
quality, well-designed projects.
Lighting:
In keeping with the pedestrian oriented character of the proposed project the applicant has
agreed to provide pedestrian scale lighting.(Proffered Condition 16)
Uses Permitted in all Tracts:
Passive and active recreational uses limited to facilities and uses that primarily serve the
surrounding residential community would be permitted within all Tracts, except that
Tract C is to be limited to only passive recreation. The Textual Statement provides for
setbacks, buffers and other restrictions to minimize the impact of such recreational uses
on adjoining properties designated on the Planfor residential development. (Textual
Statement II. B)
Uses and Special Development Standards:
Tract A represents the majority of the property and fronts along Hull Street Road and a
portion of Route 288. This Tract permits a mix of commercial and office uses, as well as
townhouse and multi-familyunits, and commercial and office buildings which will
accommodate multi-familyresidential uses on upper floors. Within Tract A, non-
residential uses would be restricted to a limited number of uses permitted by right or with
restrictions in the Community Business (C-3) District. Permitted and restricted uses in the
Residential Townhouse (R-TH) District, multi-familyand single-family residential (cluster)
uses and recreational uses as previously noted, would also be allowed in TractA (Textual
Statement, II.A.).Development requirements for multi-family, townhouse and single-family
uses in Tract A are noted in Textual Statement, III, A.2.b., c., and d.
Tract B is proposed for development for permitted and restricted uses in the Residential
Townhouse (R-TH) District and single-family residential (cluster) lots (Textual Statement,
III.B.1.). Development requirements for these uses are noted in Textual Statement, III.A.2.c.
and d.
Tract C, the northern portion of the property, would be limited to passive recreation uses
only.(Textual Statement, II.B.)
ïé ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Commercial and Office Uses:
As previously noted, development of commercial and office uses, to include
multi-familyuses located above such commercial and office uses, must comply
with the Highway Corridor District standards and the Emerging Growth Area
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, except there shall be no setback
requirements. (Textual Statement, III.A.2. a)
Multi-family Uses:
Multi-family residential use is limited to a maximum density of twenty (20)
dwelling units per gross acre. Except as stipulated in the proffered conditions,
development requirements for such uses are noted in Textual Statement, III.A.2.b.
Townhouse Uses:
Given the potential for commercial or office uses adjacent to townhouse lots, the
applicant has indicated any record plat for such townhouse lots shall note the
potential for adjacent commercial or office use.The development requirements for
townhouse uses are noted in Textual Statement, III.A.2.c.
Single-family Residential Uses:
Single-family residential development is to be in a cluster style on lots as small as
2,700 square feet.The minimum gross floor area for cluster dwellings is 1,600
square feet. Development requirements for these dwellings and accessory structures
are noted in Textual Statement, III.A.2.d.In addition, as with the townhouse
development, any record plat for single-family residential lots shall note the
potential for adjacent commercial or office use.
Architectural Treatment:
Currently, within the Route 360 Corridor West Area, the Ordinance requires a clearly
identifiable architectural theme for a project that provides for building elements that
break up large building masses with a pedestrian scale environment between parking
areas and buildings. The Zoning Ordinance requires the architectural treatment of
buildings must be compatible with buildings located within the same project or within the
same block or directly across any road, as determined by the Director of Planning. The
applicant has offered to provide architectural compatibility within each Tract, but not
necessarily within the project as a whole (Textual Statement II. I.). Compatibility may be
achieved through the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors and other
architectural features.
In addition, Textual Statement II. I., provides that a written and/or graphic description of
the overall architectural treatment of buildings within Tracts A or B will be submitted to
the Planning Commission for review and approval.
ïè ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
To minimize any adverse impact of buildings on adjacent residents in Nuttree
Subdivision, the applicant has provided any buildings within 300 feet of the subdivision
would be limited to a height of three (3) stories or thirty-five (35) feet, whichever is less.
(Proffered Condition 15)
Residential Density:
This request would permit the development of up to 600 dwelling units (Proffered
Condition 17). This could potentially yield a density of approximately 9.5 units per acre.
Depending upon how much acreage is devoted to non-residential development, the per
acre density of residential development would increase. As previously noted, the density
of multi-familyresidential development is limited to no more than twenty (20) dwelling
units pergross acre. The proposed residential uses comply with the Planrelative to density.
Parking and Driveways:
The Ordinance requires the provision of two (2) off-street parking spaces for each
dwelling unit, except that age restricted multi-family dwellings require a minimum of 1.2
parking spaces for each unit.The applicant is requesting that any “housing for older
persons,” to include single-family and townhouse, provide a minimum of 1.2 parking
spaces for each unit. In addition, an exception is requestedto permit on street parking to
be credited towards this minimum requirement.(Textual Statement II.G.)
For commercial or office uses in Tract A, parking would typically be calculated at
shopping center standards of 4.4 spaces for every 1000 gross square feet of uses. Given
the urban character of this development, it would be appropriate to permit a reduction in
the required spaces consistent with Ordinance requirements for Village Districts, or
approximately 4.0 spaces for every 1000 gross square feet with a credit for on-street
parking where permitted. The applicant is requesting that parking be provided at 3.4
spaces for every 1000 gross square feet of commercial and office uses in Tract A.
(Textual Statement II.G.3)
With no data to substantiate reduction in parking requirements for both age-restricted
single-family and townhouse residential products and commercial or office development,
staff cannot support exceptions to the parking standards of the Ordinance beyond those
for Village Districts.
The applicant has proposed that alleys, where provided, would serve the rear or side
portion of a lot. Standards and locations of alleys are noted in Item II.F. of the Textual
Statement. Private driveways and alleys serving residential uses are to be hardscaped,
with the exact treatment to be approved at plan review.
Garages:
The applicant has indicated the possibility of front-loaded garages within this
development, and has provided such garages would be no closer to the street than the
ïç ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
front facade of the dwelling unit (Textual Statement II.E.). This provision is consistent
with County policy for front loaded garages.
Street Trees and Sidewalks:
Except along Routes 288 and 360, street trees are to be provided or retained along both
sides of all public roads within the development. Additionally, sidewalks are to be
provided along both sides of all public roads (Textual Statement II.C. and D.). These
requirements are in keeping with the cluster standards.
Age Restriction:
Proffered Condition 14 provides for the option of limiting occupancy of some or all of
the proposed dwelling units to “housing for older persons” as defined in the Virginia Fair
Housing Law. While during the initial marketing of the project this restriction may be
clear to prospective occupants, there is a risk that long-term, dwelling units may be sold
or rented to individuals that do not meet this age-restriction. Given staff’s inability to pro-
actively enforce this condition prior to the purchase and occupancy of dwelling units,
staff recommends that this proffer not be accepted.
Proffered Condition 3 requires any housing units designed for occupancy by seniors to be
grouped together and identified on site plans or subdivision plats in an effort to accurately
track the impacts on capital facilities and long term enforcement of the occupancy
restrictions.
Recreational Facilities, Open Space and Focal Point:
Passive and active recreational uses limited to facilities and uses that primarily serve the
surrounding residential community would be permitted (Textual Statement II.B.).Such
uses include, but are not limited to, picnic areas, trails, sidewalks, ponds, swimming
pools, outdoor courts, and clubhouses. Recreation areas within multi-family
developments shall consist only of passive facilities in the form of walking trails (Textual
Statement III.C.). The Textual Statement provides for setback and buffer restrictions,
among other requirements, to minimize the impact of recreational uses on surrounding
residential development.
The applicant has agreed to devote a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross
acreage of the development to open space (Proffered Condition 18.A). This equates to
approximately 15.9 acres. Of this acreage, a minimum of two (2) acres is to be usable
space to accommodate recreational and social gatherings for residents and employees and
may include a clubhouse, which is to be completed prior to issuance of more than three
hundred (300) residential certificates of occupancy. (Proffered Condition 18.A)
The applicanthas offered a minimum of 0.75 acres of proposed open space to serve as a
focal point for the project (Proffered Condition 18.C.). This area is to be developed with
the first phase of residential development.Part of the focal point is to be hardscaped and
îð ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
such area shall provide amenities to accommodate and facilitate gatherings. Typically, a
focal point is provided within each section of such developments. Staff would
recommend the typical standards for focal points for this proposal.
Buffers and Screening:
Adjacent property to the north and northwest is zoned Agricultural (A) and designated on
the Planfor residential or is zoned Residential (R-7) and is occupied by single-family
residences in Nuttree Subdivision or remains vacant.The Ordinance requires a seventy-
five (75) foot buffer adjacent to these properties. At the time of schematic or site plan
review, the Planning Commission may modify this buffer under certain circumstances.
In keeping with the mixed-use nature of the development, the applicant proposes no
buffers between uses within the development (Textual Statement, II.H.)
CONCLUSIONS
While the proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Upper Swift Creek Planwhich suggests
the property is appropriate for regional mixed-use uses, the application fails to adequately
address the impacts on capital facilities and access concerns of the Fire Department relative to
the provision of a second access for more than fifty (50) dwelling units.
The proffered conditions do not adequately address the impacts of this development on necessary
capital facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the
need for roads, is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Planand the Capital
Improvement Program, and the impact of this development is discussed herein. The proffered
conditions do not adequately mitigate the impact on these facilities, thereby insuring adequate
service levels are maintained and protecting the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
The application fails to provide additional public road connection to the property thereby not
addressing the health, safety and welfare concerns of the Fire Department. The application does
not address connectivity to Red Chestnut Drive perthe Board’s adopted Residential Subdivision
Connectivity Policy, as discussed herein. Evaluation of the Policy criteria for granting such relief
necessitates design detail that can best be provided through the subdivision review process.
Given these considerations, approval of the rezoning subject to the applicant fully addressing the
impact on capital facilities (Request I) and denial of the waiver to street connectivity
requirements (Request II) is recommended.
______________________________________________________________________________
CASE HISTORY
______________________________________________________________________________
Planning Commission Meeting (2/20/07):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to May 15, 2007.
îï ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (2/22/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 12, 2007, for consideration at the Commission's
May 15, 2007, public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $250.00 deferral fee
must be paid prior to the Commission's public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (3/1/07):
Revised proffered conditions and Textual Statement were submitted.
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (3/7/07):
The applicant paid the $250.00 deferral fee.
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (4/11/07):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (4/27/07):
The applicant requested deferral.
Applicant (5/15/07):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (5/15/07):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to July 17, 2007.
Staff (5/16/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than May 21, 2007, for consideration at the Commission’s
July 17, 2007, public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $250.00 deferral fee
must be paid prior to the Commission’s public hearing.
îî ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Area Property Owners, Applicant, Staff and Clover Hill District Commissioner (5/16/07):
A meeting was held to discuss this case. Concerns were expressed relative to traffic,
connectivity, road improvements and if there will be rental units.
Applicant (5/24/07):
Revised proffered conditions and Textual Statement were submitted.
Applicant (6/19/07):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
Applicant (6/27/07):
Revised proffers and Textual Statement were submitted and the $250.00 deferral fee was
paid.
Planning Commission Meeting (7/17/07):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to August 21, 2007.
Staff (7/18/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than July 23, 2007, for consideration at the Commission’s
August 21, 2007, public hearing.Also, the applicant was advised that a $500.00 deferral
fee must be paid prior to the Commission’s public hearing.
Applicant (7/18/07 and 7/20/07):
Amended proffered conditions were submitted.
Applicant (8/8/07):
Amended proffered conditions and Textual Statement were submitted.
îí ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Applicant (8/17/07 and 8/20/07):
Amended proffers were submitted.
Staff (8/21/07):
The deferral feewas paid.
Planning Commission Meeting (8/21/07):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There were several area property
owners who spoke in support of the waiver to connectivity and one expressed concern
about closing the access to Market Square Lane.
Mr. Gecker expressed concerns relative to the number of units on one public road access
and the impact should the access be blocked.
Mr. Gulley indicated area access has been a continuing problem in this area. He noted an
adjacent church is providing an emergency access and that long-term a second public
road access would be provided to the north.
A motion was made by Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Bass, to recommend approval of the
rezoning and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2 through 7.
AYES:Messrs. Gulley and Bass.
NAYS:Messrs. Gecker and Litton.
ABSTENTION: Mr. Wilson.
Due to a lack of a majority vote, the case carried over the Commission’s September 18,
2007, public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (9/18/07):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (9/18/07):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to October 16, 2007.
îì ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Staff (9/19/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than September 24, 2007, for consideration at the
Commission’s October 16, 2007, public hearing.
Staff (9/28/07):
To date, no newinformation has been submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (10/16/07):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their November 20, 2007,
public hearing.
Staff (10/17/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new or revisedinformation should be
submitted no later than October 22, 2007, for consideration at the Commission’s
November public hearing.
Applicant (10/23/07):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (11/20/07):
The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was opposition present expressing
concerns relative to density and the impact on area roads.There was support present for
the waiver to connectivity indicating that the road connection would adversely impact the
adjacent Nuttree Subdivision.
There was also support present indicating that the development may contribute to the
revitalization of the adjacent Market Square Shopping Center.
Mr. Gulley indicated that given the limiting factors of this case regarding access, the
applicant had addressed the Transportation Department’s concerns. He further indicated
that additional residential uses would enhance the adjacent Market Square Shopping
Center.
îë ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Mr. Litton concurred that the development would benefit the adjacent commercial
property, but expressed concerns relative to the density and the fact that area schools are
over capacity. He also expressed concerns that the application does not guarantee a
commercial component.
Mr. Bass expressed concerns that area roads are inadequate to accommodate additional
traffic.
On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Wilson, the Commission recommended
approval of the rezoning.
AYES: Messrs. Gecker, Gulley, Litton and Wilson.
NAY:Mr. Bass.
On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Litton, the Commission recommended
approval of the waiver to street connectivity requirements.
AYES: Messrs. Gecker, Gulley, Bass, Litton and Wilson.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (1/9/08):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their March 12, 2008 public hearing.
Staff (1/10/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than January 14, 2008 for consideration at the Board’s
March 12, 2008 public hearing.
Staff, Applicant, Area Property Owners and Clover Hill District Supervisor (1/25/08):
A meeting was held to discuss the proposal. Concerns were expressed relative to the
traffic impact and the lack of a guarantee of a mix of commercial and residential uses.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (3/12/08):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their May 28, 2008 public hearing to
allow the Transportation Department time to conduct their analysis of traffic issues.
îê ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Staff (3/13/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 17, 2008 for consideration at the Board’s May
28, 2008 public hearing.
Staff (4/17/08):
To date, no new information has been received.
Board ofSupervisors’ Meeting (5/28/08):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their September 24, 2008 public
hearing.
Staff (5/29/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted nolater that June 9, 2008, for consideration at the Board’s
September 24, 2008, public hearing.
Staff (8/21/08):
To date, no new information has been received.
Board of Supervisors’Meeting (9/24/08):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their December 17, 2008 public
hearing.
Staff (10/7/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than October 8, 2008, for consideration at the Board’s
December 17, 2008 public hearing.
îé ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Staff (11/21/08):
To date, no new information has been received.
Staff (11/25/08):
The County’s transportation consultants have completed a corridor study for Old
Hundred Road. Meetings are being scheduled with area representatives.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (12/17/08):
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to June 24, 2009.
Staff (12/18/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 9, 2009 for consideration at the Board’s June 24,
2009 public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee must
be paid prior to the Board’s public hearing.
Staff (5/20/09):
To date, no new information has been received, nor has the $1,000.00 deferral fee been
paid.
Staff (6/11/09):
The deferral fee was paid.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (6/24/09):
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to their regularly scheduled
meeting in March, 2010.
Two citizens spoke in favor of the deferral so the applicants can find workable solutions
for traffic impacts.
îè ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Staff (6/25/09):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than January 11, 2010 for consideration at the Board’s
March 2010,public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee
must be paid prior to the Board’s public hearing.
Staff (2/22/10):
To date, no new information has been received, norhas the $1,000.00 deferral fee been
paid.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (3/10/10):
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to their regularly scheduled
meeting in March 2011.
One person spoke in favor of the deferral so the applicants could have time to meet with
surrounding neighborhoods.
Staff (3/11/10):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than January 10, 2011 for consideration at the Board’s
March2011 public hearing. Also, he applicant was advised a $1,000.00 deferral fee must
be paid prior to the Board’s public hearing.
Staff (2/18/11):
To date, no new information has been received, nor has the $1,000.00 deferral fee been
paid.
Applicant (3/7/11):
The deferral fee was paid.
îç ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (3/9/11):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Board deferred this case to
their regularly scheduled meeting in March 2012.
Staff (3/10/11):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than January 9, 2012 for consideration at the Board’s
regularly scheduled meeting in March 2012.
Staff (2/28/12):
To date, no new information has been received.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, March 28, 2012 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
íð ðëÍÒðîíçóÓßÎîèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ