12SN0134CASE MANAGER: Darla Orr
.:: i3 i'f~L_
t,.. ~ .-r:.r
~3
BS Time Remaining:
337 days
STAFF' S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
12SN0134
Ironbridge Corner LC
i`~T-v`P2i~2r~~, ~z~r r c~ c
~21~~`r~~~~
May 23, 2012 B S
Bermuda Magisterial District
Northeast corner of Ironbridge Parkway and Iron Bridge Road
Ecoff Elementary, Salem Middle and Bird High Schools Attendance Zones
REQUEST: Amendment of conditional use (Case 07SN0375) relative to age restriction in a
Community Business (C-3 District). Specifically, the applicant proposes to delete
Proffered Condition 5 which limits occupancy to older persons.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Multi-family residential and commercial uses are planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reason:
The proffered conditions do not adequately address the proposed development's impacts
on capital facilities. Consequently, the County's ability to provide adequate facilities to
its citizens will be adversely impacted.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER
CONDITIONS.)
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
CONDITION
With the approval of this request, Proffered Condition 5 of Case 07SN0375 shall be deleted.
All other conditions of Case 07SN0375 shall remain in force and effect.
PROFFERED CONDITION
1. No dwelling units shall have more than two (2) bedrooms. Unit types shall be
designated on building permits. (BI)
2. Design Criteria.
A. Not less than forty (40) percent of the exposed portions of the
exterior of the front of each building constructed on the Property
shall be constructed of brick or stone veneer.
B. Roofs shall be of asphalt shingles or other materials with a
minimum life of twenty (20) years.
C. A clubhouse and pool facility shall be provided. This area shall
serve as a focal point and shall be designed to accommodate and
facilitate gatherings. This shall be developed and concurrent with
the first phase of development.
D. Recreational amenities shall not include playground equipment,
playfields or other facilities primarily associated with children's
play.
E. Dwelling foundations shall be brick or stone veneer.
F. All private driveways shall be hardscaped with asphalt, concrete or
aggregate.
G. Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all rights-of--way for
public roads. To the extent allowed by VDOT, such sidewalks may
be located within the rights-of--way for the public roads.
H. Street trees shall be installed along each side of the public roads
within the Property. If existing trees are maintained, they may be
counted toward this requirement. The exact location, spacing, size
and species of plantings shall be approved by the Planning
Department prior to final site plan approval. The maximum
required for street trees shall be as set forth in Sec 19-518(h) Street
trees.
2 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
I. Landscaping shall be provided around the perimeter of all
buildings, between buildings and driveways, within medians and
within common areas not occupied by recreational facilities or other
structures. Landscaping shall comply with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance Sections 19-516 through 19-518(fJ. Landscaping
shall be designed to (i) minimize the predominance of building
mass and paved areas, (ii) define private spaces and (iii) enhance
the residential character of the development. The Planning
Department, at the time of site plan review, shall approve the
landscaping plan with respect to the exact numbers, spacing,
arrangement and species of plantings. (P, BI)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The request property is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Ironbridge
Parkway and Iron Bridge Road. Tax ID 774-656-6268.
Existing Zonin
C-3
Size:
19.8 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant/wooded
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North - C-2 with CUPD; Commercial or vacant
South - C-2 with CUPD; Commercial, public/semi-public, multi-family residential or vacant
East - R-TH; Vacant
West - C-3, R-7 and I-2; Commercial or office
UTILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
3 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for schools, parks, libraries, fire stations, and transportation facilities in this area is
identified in the County's adopted Public Facilities Plan, Thoroughfare Plan and Capital
Improvement Program and further detailed by specific departments in the applicable sections of
this request analysis.
Fire ~ervice~
The Public Facilities Plan indicates 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 six (6) new stations, the Plan also recommends the expansion of five (5)
existing stations. Based on 100 dwelling units, this request will generate approximately
twenty-eight (28) calls for Fire and EMS each year. The applicant has not fully addressed
the impacts of this development on Fire and EMS.
The Chester Fire Station, Company Number 1, currently provides fire protection and
EMS. 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:
Based on the cash proffer methodology, approximately 49 (Elementary: 21, Middle: 12,
High: 16) new students will be generated by this development. Currently, this site lies in
the Ecoff Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 838, enrollment - 763; Salem
Middle School zone: capacity - 1,112, enrollment - 826; and Bird High School zone:
capacity - 1,947, enrollment = 1,803. The enrollment is based on September 30, 2011
and the capacity is as of 2011-2012.
There are currently two (2) trailers at Ecoff Elementary, five (5) trailers at Bird High and
fourteen (14) trailers at Salem Middle. Most of the trailers at Salem Middle are being
used to accommodate the current renovation.
However, it is possible that over time this case combined with other tentative residential
developments, infill developments and zoning cases in the area will continue to push
these schools to their capacity. The previous case was for age restricted housing; however
this is proposed to change. Therefore, the 100 units are subject to full cash proffers, to
mitigate the impact that this case will have on schools.
4 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Libraries:
Consistent with Board of Supervisors' policy, the impact of development on library
services is assessed county-wide. Based on projected population growth, the Chesterfield
County Public Facilities Plan (2004) identifies a need for additional library space
throughout the County. The development noted in this case would most likely affect the
Chester Library or the Central Library. The 2004 Public Facilities Plan identifies a need
for additional library space in the Chester area. The applicant has failed to fully address
the impacts of this request on library facilities.
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Plan identifies 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 Plan identifies 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 Plan identifies shortfalls in trails
and recreational historic sites. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the
impacts of this proposed development on the infrastructure needs of Parks and
Recreation.
County Department of Transportation:
Area roads need to be improved to address safety and accommodate the traffic increase
generated by this residential development. The applicant's request for this residential
development is not consistent with the Board of Supervisors' Cash Proffer Policy. As
development continues in this part of the County, traffic volumes on area roads will
substantially increase. Cash proffers alone will not cover the costs of the improvements
needed to accommodate the traffic increases. Without the applicant addressing the traffic
impact of the residential development, the Transportation Department cannot support this
request.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT~:
VDOT has no comment on this immediate request. VDOT does note that the requisite
commercial entrances to be proposed for access to the site will be subject to the appropriate
access management regulation and will be so reviewed at time of site plan submittal.
5 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
PER UNIT
Potential Number of New Dwelling
Units 100 * 1.00
Population Increase
262.00 2.62
Number of New Students
Elementary
21.00 0.21
Middle
12.00 0.12
High
16.00 0.16
TOTAL
49.00 0.49
Net Cost for Schools $ ggg 200 $ 8,882
Net Cost for Parks $ 116,400 $ 1,164
Net Cost for Libraries $ 34,100 $ 341
Net Cost for Fire Stations
$ 68,600 $ 686
Average Net Cost for Roads $ 1,749,400 $ 17,494
TOTAL NET COST $ 2,856,700 $ 28,567
` Based on a proffered maximum of 1 00 dwelling units ( Proffered Condition 7 of Ca
07SN0375). The actual number of dwelling units and corresponding impacts may vary.
>e
The applicant is requesting the age restriction proffer be eliminated and has offered
limited measures to address the impact of this development on capital facilities in
accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Cash Proffer Policy.
There continue to be the following differences between the maximum cash proffer as
outlined in the Board of Supervisors' Policy and the applicant's proposal.
• Impact on capital facilities for 80 units. The Policy allows the County to assess the
impact of all dwelling units in previously approved zoning cases that come back
before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors using the calculated
capital facility costs in effect at the time the case is reconsidered. In this case, cash
proffers at the current maximum of $18,966 for all 100 proposed dwelling units
would adequately address impact on capital facilities. The applicant continues to offer
cash proffers for roads, parks, libraries and fire stations for units in excess of eighty
(80) (or twenty (20) units). (Proffered Condition 6 of Case 07SN0375)
• Impact on capital facilities with FY2012 maximum cash proffer amount. As
stated above, the Policy allows the County to assess the impact of all dwelling units in
previously approved zoning cases that come back before the Planning Commission
6 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
and Board of Supervisors using the calculated capital facility costs in effect at the
time the case is reconsidered. The current maximum cash proffer for one dwelling
unit is $18,966; under the existing Case (07SN0375) the applicant has offered
$10,269 escalated by Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index to $12,320. The
$12,320 excludes the Schools' portion of the cash proffer; the FY2007 cash proffer
maximum escalated by Marshall and Swift is $18,716.
• Impact on Schools. Because the applicant is requesting the age restriction condition
be eliminated, it is appropriate to accept the maximum amount on all dwelling units,
including the Schools' portion of the cash proffer. The applicant has not offered a
Schools' cash proffer; instead, the applicant has offered to restrict the number of
bedrooms to two (2) per dwelling unit. The current Policy states that each dwelling
unit creates a certain impact on capital facilities and does not distinguish between
units based on for example, the number of bedrooms or age restriction. To adequately
address the development's impact on Schools, it would be appropriate to accept a
cash proffer of $5,897 for the Schools' portion on all 100 units (based on the FY2012
calculation for the Schools portion of the maximum cash proffer).
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 case as proffered would provide $246,400; the case under the
current Policy would provide $1,896,600. Staff recommends the applicant fully address
the impact of all units on capital facilities.
The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors through their consideration of
this request may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this request
that may justify approval of this case without adjusting the cash payment proffered with
Case 07SN0375.
T ANTI T TCF
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Central Area Plan, which
suggests the property is appropriate for community mixed use.
Area Development Trends:
Surrounding properties to the north, south and west are zoned commercially and are
occupied by commercial and office uses or are vacant. Property to the east is zoned
Residential Townhouse (R-TH) and is currently vacant. Community-scale commercial and
office use with integrated higher density residential use may continue in the area as
suggested by the Plan.
7 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Zoning HistorX:
In 1979 the Board of Supervisors, granted zoning for the Ironbridge mixed use
development (Case 78 S 105). A portion of the subject property was included in that
zoning. Subsequently, several other zonings and amendments occurred which included
portions of the subject property which permitted commercial and office uses, and up to
eighty (80) dwelling units limited as "housing for older persons."
On October 24, 2007 the Board of Supervisors upon a favorable recommendation from
the Planning Commission, approved rezoning of the request property from Neighborhood
Business (C-2) to Community Business (C-3) with conditional use approval to permit
multi-family residential uses plus conditional use planned development approval to
permit multi-family residential uses and exceptions to Ordinance requirements (Case
07SN0375). Conditions of approval addressed road improvements, utilities, impacts on
capital facilities, limited density to a maximum of 100 dwelling units and restricted
occupancy of dwellings to "housing for older persons."
Current Proposal:
The subject property may be developed for a maximum of 100 multi-family dwelling
units on the eastern portion of request property (Case 07SN0375, Proffered Condition 7).
Occupancy of these proposed dwelling units is limited to housing for older persons as
defined by the Virginia Fair Housing Law (Case 07SN0375, Proffered Condition 5). The
applicant proposes to delete Proffered Condition 5 of Case 07SN0375 to eliminate the
occupancy limitation.
Proffered Condition 1 would require development to meet specific design criteria for:
exterior, roof and foundation materials; recreational amenities; hardscaped driveways;
sidewalks; street trees; and landscaping. These proffered conditions are similar to
proffered conditions accepted on other multi-family developments.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has not offered measures to adequately address the impacts of this development on
necessary capital facilities as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Specifically, the needs for roads, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations are identified in the
Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement Program, and the
impact of this development is discussed herein. No conditions have been offered in this case to
mitigate the impact on capital facilities in accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Policy,
thereby insuring adequate service levels are maintained and protecting the health, safety and
welfare of County citizens.
Given the foregoing, staff recommends denial of this request.
8 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (ll/15/ll):
On their own motion and with the applicant's consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their January 17, 2012 public hearing.
Staff (11/16/11):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than November 21, 2011 for consideration at the
Commission's January 17, 2012 public hearing.
Staff (12/15/11):
To date, no new or revised information has been received.
Staff (1/12/12):
On January 12, 2012 schools submitted revised comments for this case. Specifically, schools
comments were modified to provide updated enrollment and capacity numbers.
Planning Commission Meeting (1/17/12):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present. In
response to questions from the Commission, School's staff clarified that reported school
capacity is functional capacity; that the cumulative impact reported considers other zoned
and planned developments in a school district; and, that functional capacity reported for
Salem Middle School includes the current renovation.
The applicant's representative stated that the proposed amendment is minor and should
be reviewed on its own merit to determine impact on school facilities. She added that the
schools impacted by this request are not over capacity, and that the County should view a
case's impact based on building capacity (not functional capacity) since functional
capacity changes based on school programs.
The Commissioners agreed that it would be helpful if the "Staffs Request Analysis"
included data to clarify cumulative impacts of developments within a given area on
schools; that it would be beneficial if the Cash Proffer Policy included definitions of
9 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
minor and major revisions; that they would like schools to clarify the difference between
building and functional capacities; and, that using countywide averages to determine
capital facility impacts make modifications to approved cases, as with this case, more
complicated. The Commissioners stated that they believed this request is a major
modification to the original request, not minor. Mr. Patton and Dr. Brown stated they
may have supported the case if the full cash proffer had been offered on the twenty (20)
units approved in 2007.
On motion of Mr. Patton, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended denial
of this request. Their motion included a request that staff inform the Board of Supervisors
that the Commission would like to review the Cash Proffer Policy in its entirety and
make recommendations to the Board for Policy updates and revisions.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Waller, Brown, Patton and Wallin.
Applicant (2/22/12):
Additional proffered conditions were submitted.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (2/22/12):
The applicant did not accept the Commission's or staffs recommendation. There was
opposition present that expressed concerns that no measures had been offered to fully
address the impact of the development on capital facilities in accordance with the Board's
Policy.
The applicant's representative offered that the request should be considered on its own
merit; that the case is a minor revision to the previously approved case; and that the
schools impacted by this request were not over capacity. She also explained that the
recently submitted proffered conditions would limit the number of units with more than
two (2) bedrooms and offered cash on those units since studies have revealed that multi-
family units with more than two (2) bedrooms are more likely to produce school age
children.
Since the Board is required to unanimously agree to suspend its rules to consider
proffered conditions received after public advertisement of the case, Mrs. Jaeckle
motioned for the Board to suspend their rules to consider the proffered conditions. Mr.
Elswick seconded the motion. The Board's vote on the motion was not unanimous;
therefore, the case was deferred to the Board's March 28, 2012 meeting.
AYES: Mrs. Jaeckle and Messrs. Warren, Holland and Elswick.
NAYS: Mr. Gecker.
10 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Staff (2/23/12):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new or revised information should be
received no later than February 27, 2012 for consideration at the Board's March 28, 2012°
meeting.
Staff (3/1/12):
To date, no new or revised information has been received.
Applicant (3/28/12):
The applicant submitted revisions to the proffered conditions.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (3/28/12):
On motion of Mrs. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Elswick, the Board unanimously agreed to
suspend its rules to consider the revised proffered conditions received after public
advertisement of the case.
The applicant did not accept the Commission's or staff's recommendation. There was
opposition present who expressed concerns that the impacts on schools was not being
addressed in accordance with the cash proffer policy; that the policy is based on sound
county-wide analysis and is fair when uniformly followed; that apartments will likely
have more children given the increased interest in apartment living; that funds are needed
to expand and build new facilities for the growing school system; and that allowing
development without mitigating the impact on public facilities is not good public policy.
The applicant's representative stated that the revised proffered conditions would only
permit one (1) and two (2) bedroom units and that the Schools portion of the cash proffer
offered for units with more than two (2) bedrooms was eliminated. She provided data
relative to school attendance from local apartment complexes; offered data to suggest that
schools within the attendance boundary for this development would remain below
capacity; stated that students are more likely generated from units with more than two (2)
bedrooms; and offered two (2) approved cases as examples where reduced cash proffer
payments have been accepted.
Mrs. Jaeckle stated that apartments with one (1) and two (2) bedrooms are sustainable,
especially when part of a mixed use project and that one (1) and two (2) bedroom
apartments do not have a negative impact on schools. Mrs. Jaeckle moved to approve the
case and accept the revised proffered conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Elswick.
11 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Mr. Gecker, Mr. Holland and Mr. Warren stated they would not support the proposal Mr.
Gecker stated he did not agree that this case was the same as the two (2) cases cited; that
there was no mechanism to gain meaningful construction quality controls through
enforcement of covenants; and that the cash proffer policy should be followed but that
consideration should be given to phasing out the current approach once alternative
funding sources are identified for capital facilities.
Mr. Warren expressed concerns that both the Commission and staff are recommending
denial and that the request seemed to conflict with the statistics Schools staff has
provided in regards to impacts on schools. He suggested additional information be
provided relative to the impact of apartments on schools.
After consulting with her client, the applicant's representative requested a thirty (30) day
deferral.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Jaeckle, the Board deferred this case to their
Apri125, 2012 public hearing.
Staff (4/16/12):
The applicant was advised in writing that the Board of Supervisors would have to
unanimously agree to suspend its rules to consider any new or revised proffered
conditions received after April 10, 2012. In addition, the applicant was advised that a
$1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the Board's April 25, 2012 public hearing.
Staff (4/16/12):
To date, no new or revised information has been received, nor has the deferral fee been
paid.
Applicant (4/24/12):
The applicant submitted revisions to the proffered conditions.
Applicant (4/25/12):
The deferral fee was paid.
12 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (4/25/12):
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Elswick, the Board unanimously agreed to
suspend its rules to consider the revised proffered conditions received after public
advertisement of the case.
AYES: Jaeckle, Elswick, Holland and Warren.
ABSENT: Mr. Gecker.
The applicant did not accept the Commission's or staff's recommendations. There was
opposition present who expressed concerns that the impacts on schools were not being
addressed; that the impact of the decision could affect schools countywide; that tax
payers will have to pick up the costs for overcrowded schools; that apartments will have
children, given the increased interest in apartment living; and that the housing market is
improving and should not be considered as justification for this case. In addition,
opposition suggested that the case be deferred or remanded to the Commission for
consideration of the additional proffers.
The applicant's representative stated that the revised proffered conditions would provide
quality development standard above those required in the ordinance; that the design
standards offered would provide a higher quality development at the entrance to the
neighborhood; that this additional investment would result in a sustainable development
with along-term benefit of increased revenue from property taxes; that data shows one
(1) and two (2) bedroom units generate fewer students; that cash proffer payments alone
will not fund schools; and that cash proffers were not meant to fund school maintenance.
Ms. Jaeckle stated that she is concerned with the long-term impact of poor quality
housing stock; that apartments are in high demand in the market; and that one (1) and two
(2) bedroom apartments do not have a negative impact on schools.
Mr. Warren stated he was concerned that citizens had not had adequate time to review the
revised proffered conditions and would support deferring or remanding the case.
Mr. Holland stated he would support remanding the case to the Commission and that he
was concerned that there was no quantitative value associated with the design standards
offered.
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board deferred this case to their
May 23, 2012 public hearing.
AYES: Jaeckle, Elswick, Holland and Warren.
ABSENT: Gecker.
13 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Staff (4/26/12):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new or revised information should be
received no later than April 30, 2012 for consideration at the Board's May 23, 2012
meeting.
Staff (5/4/12):
To date, no new or revised information has been received.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 beginning at 6:30 p.m.,-will take under
consideration this request.
14 12SN0134-MAY23-BOS-RPT
/ ~ ~ \
N ~ '` l
/'~ V
N
\/~'
I
I~
' ~ Y
~ ~~ ~
' ` o
m
`~ ~,
l ~
la
~ z~ _ .
1 i
w
N~
~ ~W U ~
~
W ~
" oa
¢¢ 1
, ~~
:::::::::::a: 2 ~'
~
~ I ~
U ::::::::::::::: ~r q~::::::::~"
::::::r :::::::~ `
1
~ ~, ~
~ ~ U ~
:::::
:: ~ +
~
::: ::
-~~~
- 1
Q ~
~w~ U
~, ~ ~ 11 Q~ aZl 3 aR~B N 1211 w
i~ 1 11 ~ 1
" U z Q~cn
J
1
1 11 1 ~
11 1 ~ ~ 1
" 1 ~ ~ ~
o ~
~1 11 ~ Q ~ " °
~ °1 ~ ~
~
Q
U ~
`o a
" " N ~
U
o
°
~ «~ Z
~ W °
~
Q o
Za
Q
N a °
~