Loading...
83S091November 23, 1983 BS STAFF REPORT 83S091 Sigma Development, Inc. REQUEST: Midlothian Magisterial District West line of Chippenham Parkway (Amended) Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) of ap- proximately 50.5 acres and to Office Business (O) of approximately 34.5 acres with a Conditional Use Planned Development encompassing the entire 85 acre tract to permit use and bulk exceptions to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (see attached plan titled: Ap- plicant's Proposal). (Note: On October 11, 1983, following publication and advertisement of the public notice for the Commission's October 25 meeting, a plan was submitted reflecting rezoning to Residential (R-7) of 27 acres; to Convenience Business (B-I) of 21.5 acres (of which 14.5 acres is contained in buffer and road); to Office Business (O) of 15.0 acres; and to Light Industrial (M-i) of 21.5 acres with a Conditional Use Planned Development encompassing the entire 85 acre tract. The County Attorney's Office has advised that this plan cannot be con- sidered by the Commission because the zoning classifications requested are sub- stantially different than advertised. RECOMMENDATION Recommend denial for the following reason: The applicants have indicated that Staff's land use proposal cannot be marketed. Staff maintains that the land uses, as proposed herein, are appropriate based on compatibility with adjacent development and the Gen- eral Plan Amendment for the Jahnke/Chippenham Development Area. Should the Commission and Board wish to consider rezoning of the request par- cel, Staff Recommends the following: .Rezoning to Residential (R-7) with a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit construction of 285 multi-family units on 38 acres and rezoning to Office Business (0) with a Conditional Use Planned Development to per- mit use and bulk exceptions on 47.acres. The zoning configuration is shown on the attached plan titled: Staff's Proposal. This zoning config- uration and conditions herein are recommended for the following reasons: me The multi-family residential location proposed by the applicant is inappropriate given its siting relationship to existing and anticipated adjacent land uses. Multi-family development adjacent to the Beaufont Mall service area is incompatible. By restricting the number of multi-family units, the overall impact on public service is reduced. Light industrial uses, for at least a portion of the develop- ment, decreases the impact on the public road system. CONDITIONS The following conditions notwithstanding, the textual statement dated September 2, 1983 shall be considered the plan of development. The Residential (R-7) tract, as shown on Staff's Proposal, shall be limited to the development of a maximum of 285 multi-family units on 38 acres. me The Office Business (0) tract, as designated in Staff's Proposal, may be developed for a maximum of 150,000 square feet of office space (10% maximum for medical space) and 161,800 square feet of light in- dustrial space. At the time of schematic plan approval, the Planning Commission may approve a decrease in office space and an increase in industrial space provided documentation is submitted which proves that traffic generated by the change does not exceed that generated by 150,000 square feet of office space and 161,800 square feet of light indus- trial space. At the time of schematic plan approval, the Planning Commission may approve a decrease in office space and an increase in medical space provided documentation is submitted which proves that traffic gen- erated by the change does not exceed that generated by 150,000 square feet of office space and 161,800 square feet of light industrial space. Office space shall be considered those uses permitted in the Office Business (0) District plus the following: coffee shops and cafeterias located in the same building or structure housing general offices; restaurant, exclusive of fast food or drive-in, facilities contained within a separate building or structure; banking facilities, including drive-ins, when contained in separate buildings; 83S091/BSNOV3/S e de health club, including indoor court facilities, contained in the same building housing general offices; e. business schools. (This condition supersedes Article XIV, 0 Office Business District, §21-148, (a) through (m) of the Textual Statement.) Industrial uses shall be considered those uses permitted in the Light Industrial (M-i) District (exclusive of professional offices; fabri- cating sheet metal products; freight forwarding, packaging and crat- ing services; linoleum, asphalt-felt-base and other hard surface floor and cover manufacturing; and warehouses), plus the following: me coffee shops and cafeterias located in the same building housing industrial uses; be health clubs, including indoor court facilities, contained in the same building housing industrial uses. (This condition supersedes XIV, O Office Business District, §21-148, (a) through (m) of the Textual Statement.) Building permits for the 285 multi-family units may be issued with sole access to Route 60 via Chinaberry Drive. Prior to release of any temporary or final occupancy permits for the 285 multi-family units, the following improvements shall be~constructed and VDH&T in- spection approved: Improvement to Route 60 and Chinaberry Drive intersection. Chinaberry Drive reconstructed to four lanes from Route 60 to its intersection with the northernmost access point into the multi-family development. Prior to schematic plan approval for any office or light industrial use, the following shall be accomplished: me Construction plans for improvements to Jahnke Road; the Powhite/Jahnke interchange; the Chippenham/Jahnke inter- change; access between this property and Jahnke Road, and extending turn lanes at the intersection of Jahnke and Buford Roads to accommodate traffic from this development shall be approved by the County and VDH&T Staffs in accor- dance with the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area Study, prepared by PRC Voorhees and any adopted County plans. Funding for the aforementioned improvements shall be com- mitted, as determined by County and VDH&T Staffs. 3 83S091/BSNOv3/S e e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The exact design of intersections described in Condition #7 shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review and such improvements shall be so constructed as to yield no lesser level of service (inclusive of development traffic) than cur- rently exists. Prior to release of any building permits for any office or light in- dustrial uses, a contract for construction of the road improvements specified in Condition #7 shall be let. Prior to the release of any temporary or final occupancy permits for any office or light industrial uses, the improvements specified in Condition #7 shall be constructed and VDH&T inspection approved. Other than construction traffic, there shall be no access to Jahnke Road until the road improvements specified in Condition #7 are com- plete, as determined by County Staff. Construction traffic via Jahnke Road shall be confined to the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Furthermore, if it becomes necessary, due to complaints from area citizens-, these hours shall be modified at the request of the Plan- ning Staff. No schematic plan approval shall be granted for any site that con- flicts with proposed roads incorporated in an adopted County plan. Rights of way for connecting Chinaberry Drive to Beaufont Mall and Carnation Drive shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, prior to the issuance of the first building permit. This requirement may be modified by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan approval. Ail State-maintained roads shall have a minimum thirty-six (36) feet of pavement and curb and gutter, except as noted herein. The VDH&T and/or the Planning Commission may require additional pavement. The Chinaberry Drive typical section shall be designed and construc- ted with forty-eight (48) feet of pavement (excluding the width of the gutter pan), curb and gutter and a divided median. The developer shall construct right-turn lanes along Chinaberry Drive at major intersections, as warranted by VDH&T, 'during the entrance permit process. If the vertical alignment of Chinaberry Drive does not meet VDH&T's design criteria, the developer shall install street lights according to Vepco's and VDH&T's specifications to provide adequate lighting for sight distance at night. The developer shall be responsible for installation, maintenance, and operating costs. Approval of the master plan does not imply that the County gives fi- nal approval of any particular road section. 4 83S091/BSNOV3/S 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Working interpretations of any and all conditions and/or exceptions to the application shall be made by the Planning Commission at the request of the Planning Department upon submission, review and ap- proval of schematic plans, as required by §21-34 (1) (4)c of the Zon- ing Ordinance. Furthermore, the Commission may conditionally approve schematic plans to ascertain that they will be in conformance with the approved master plan and other applicable Ordinances. Except where expressly referred to herein, approval of this applica- tion does not guarantee that the developer can build or construct facilities in the future in accordance with present regulations. If County standards are more or less restrictive than those established herein, the County may require construction to adhere to the more restrictive standards. A copy of' any covenants, deed restrictions and amendments related to the property owner's association shall be approved by the Planning Department and the County Attorney's Office for adherence to County Ordinances prior to recordation of such documents. No uses shall be permitted which would use any water or sewer system other than the Chesterfield County public utilities system. Approval of this request does not obligate the County to extend water or sewer lines. All extensions and necessary improvement costs shall be borne by the developer. Prior to construction, water and sewer plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Utilities Department. (U) Notwithstanding the exceptions to use and bulk regulations granted herein, approval of the application by the Board of Supervisors does not obligate the Planning Commission to approve a particular sche- matic plan which is not in conformance with the spirit, intent and purpose of this request. The number and location of fire hydrants shall be determined by the Chesterfield Fire Department. The developer shall bear the cost for installation of hydrants. (FP) Ail utility lines shall be provided with underground distribution. Ail private drives (where there is no adjacent parking) shall be paved to a width of not less than 25 feet with curb and gutter. De- pending upon the particular situation, this condition may be modified at the time of schematic plan review. Ail exterior lighting shall be low level. The design of light fix- tures shall be approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with schematic plan review. The applicant and/or developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situation showing existing drainage and the impact in- dividual tracts, as they are developed, will have on that tract as well as the surrounding area. The developer shall submit plans for 5 83S091/BSNOV3/S 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. on- and off-site drainage control to Environmental Engineering for approval. These plans shall explain the method and facilities to be utilized in the hydraulic engineering of the project and shall be approved by Environmental Engineering prior to land clearing. En- vironmental Engineering may impose conditions, requirements or mea- sures which it deems necessary to insure that proper drainage control is provided and maintained. The approved plan shall be implemented in whatever stages or phases acceptable to and necessary as deter- mined by Environmental Engineering. (EE) The applicant and/or developer shall submit plans to Environmental Engineering for erosion and sediment control for individual tracts as they are developed. Such plans are to be comprised of vegetative and engineering practices to be utilized as erosion and sediment control measures for the project. Generally, such practices shall be those outlined in the Virginia Soils and Water Conservation Commission's "Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, 2nd Edition, 1980." Addi- tional requirements and measures may be instituted by Environmental Engineering upon review of the plans. The plans shall be approved by Environmental Engineering and implemented prior to the clearing of any land, cutting of any trees or other disturbance of the parcel's natural state. (EE) No structure shall exceed a height of six (6) stories. (This condi- tion supersedes Article III, Division 4, Section 21-38 Generally (C) of the Textual Statement.) Directional signs or park directories shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. (This condition is in addition to Directional Signs/Park Directories of the Textual Statement.) Freestanding signs shall be limited to two (2) faces. (This condi- tion is in addition to Freestanding Identity Signs of the Textual Statement.) Building signs shall be limited to one company name and/or company logo and shall be affixed so as not to project more than eighteen (18) inches from the building structure. (This condition supersedes Building Signs 2 and 4 of the Textual Statement.) Prior to, or in conjunction with, the first schematic plan review, a plan for the preservation and maintenance of Beaufont Springs shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. The total number of dwelling units in any one building or such struc- ture shall not exceed ten (10) and no structure shall exceed a length of 200 feet. A second public road access shall be provided and constructed prior to occupancy of the 51st dwelling unit. A third public road access shall be provided and constructed prior to occupancy of the 201st dwelling unit. 6 83SO91/BSNOV3/S 36. In the multi-family tract, buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from all public streets, private drives and entrances. 37. In the multi-family tract, all structures shall set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from any parking space. 38. In the multi-family tract, sidewalks shall be provided and shown on the plan at the discretion of the Planning Department. Such side- walks shall have a width of at least four feet. 39. In the multi-family tract, parking spaces shall be provided at a ra- tio of two (2) spaces per dwelling unit. A centrally located storage area for boats, trucks, campers, travel and utility trailers shall be provided, the total of which may be subtracted from the total number of required parking spaces. 40. All multi-family structures shall be separated by a minimum of thirty (30) feet. 41. In conjunction with the first schematic plan review in the multi- family tract, a plan showing recreational facilities shall be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for approval. These plans shall include at least: me two (2) tennis courts which shall be provided and constructed in conjunction with the first 100 multi-family units and a community building and swimming pool which shall be provided and constructed in conjunction with more than 100 multi-family units. 42. Where multi-family units abut a public road, the buildings shall front the public road or the rears of buildings shall be screened from view of the public road. 43. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained around the perimeter of the Residential (R-7) District. At the time of schematic plan re- view, a plan for the treatment of these buffer areas shall be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Other than approved access points to Chinaberry Drive and signs permitted herein, there shall be no facilities permitted in these buffer areas. GENERAL INFORMATION Location: West line of Chippenham Parkway, 1,100 feet north of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 19-9 (1) Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 and Tax Map 19-13 (1) Parts of Parcels 4 and 5 (Sheet 9). Existing Zoning: A 7 83SOgl/BSNOV3/S Size: Existin~ Land Use: Adjacent Zoning & Land Use: Utilities: Environmental Engineering: Schools: Fire Service: 85 acres Single family residential or vacant North - 0 with Conditional Use Planned Development, Proposed Boulders Office Park South - A and B-2, Commercial or Vacant East - Chippenham Parkway West - R-7 with Conditional Use, Multi-family residential 12 inch public water line located at Ling- strom Lane and Marbrett Drive in Chester- field Village Apartments. Extension of this line may require acquisition of offsite easements. 12 inch line also located at Lingstrom Lane and Chinaberry Drive. Use of public water intended. Property lies in the Powhite Creek sewage drainage area. A trunk sewer line located on site. Use of public sewer intended. Terrain gently sloping to moderately steep. When cleared, soils have slight to severe chance for erosion. Natural drainageways subject to flooding. Slopes of 15% or greater are subject to severe erosion haz- ards and should not be cleared. Permanent silt basins should be constructed at lake inlets to avoid siltation and contamination. Property drains to Powhite Creek which expe- riences flooding in vicinity of Jahnke Road. Estimate 525 students will be generated if 750 dwelling units are constructed. 200 students will be generated if 285 dwelling units are constructed. Lies in Crestwood Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 895, enrollment - 586; Providence Middle School zone: capacity - 1,400, enrollment - 1,487; and Manchester High School zone: capacity - 1,100, enrollment - 1,153. Cur- rent construction projects will give short term relief of overcrowded conditions. Ad- ditional space may be required to accommo- date this development. Buford Fire Station, Company #9. sent, fire service capability Water flows and fire hydrants At pre- adequate. must be 83S091/BSNOV3/S General Plan: Transportation: provided in compliance with nationally rec- ognized standards. Site must be designed to provide maximum fire apparatus accessibil- ity. Fire lanes must be provided in com- pliance with nationally recognized standards. Office and multi-family residential Jahnke/Chippenham Development Area Study: The 85 acres proposed for rezoning is the majority of the acreage for sub-areas VI and VII in the General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area (JCDA). Sub-area VII contains an additional 5.3 acres that is not a part of this request. The land uses recommended for these subareas in the GPA are multi-family for subarea VII and a combination of multi-family and office park development for sub-area VI (see sub- area map and access plan). The land uses recommended in the GPA were based on den- sities of 12.3 multifamily units per acre, and 7,850 square feet of office park per acre, Traffic generation and the effect on the Jahnke Road/Chinaberry Drive intersection were major controlling factors in the mix of land uses recommended in the GPA. For sub- areas VI and VII, a total of 922 multifamily units and 127,700 square feet of office park is recommended. This development would gen- erate a P.M. peak hour exiting traffic vol- ume of 535 vehicles. P.M. peak hour traffic at the Jahnke Road/Chinaberry Drive inter- section is the critical point for develop- ment in the JCDA south of Jahnke Road. When you remove the potential traffic that could be generated by the 5.3 acre portion of sub- area VII that is not a part of this request, this development may produce a maximum P.M. peak hour exiting traffic volume of 515 vehicles. Planning Department Proposal: It is recom- mended that multi-family uses be limited to that area designated on the attached map titled, Staff's Proposal. The Planning De- partment is also recommending that the 9 83S091/BSNOV3/S 150,000 square feet of office space be ap- proved and that the remaining property be developed for light industrial and/or office use. Based on the peak hour volume of 515 vehicles recommended in the GPA, 161,800 square feet of light industrial land uses, 285 multi-family units and 150,000 square feet of office space can be accommodated. DISCUSSION The recommendations for restricting con- struct{on of this proposal, until the nec- essary road improvements identified in the GPA are assured, are essentially the same as the recommendations for the previous Boul- ders zoning. Also, a condition requires dedication of right of way for road connec- tions between Chinaberry Drive and Beaufont Mall and between Chinaberry Drive and Carna- tion Drive as recommended in the GPA as pro- viding enhanced access between the Jahnke- Chippenham Development Area and adjacent areas. The applicants, who are also the developers of the proposed Boulders Of- fice Park to the north, are requesting rezoning for the purpose of con- structing 450 multi-family units and office space. The office development is an intended expansion of the Boulders Office Park. Although the applicants' textual statement and Master Plan are generally consistent with the zoning to the north, Staff has concerns relative to phasing, number, location and relationship, of the multi-family portion of the project to existing and proposed surrounding development. The devel- opment of this site should provide benefits to the County, as well as, to the developer. Further, there are concerns relative to the number of multi-family units proposed and their impact on public facilities. The initial phase of the multi-family development lies in the approximate center of the site adjacent to the rear of Beaufont Mall. Residential development situated adjacent to Beaufont Mall's service area is inappro- priate. Specifically, given the proximity of the parcel to the service area, proper visual and sound buffering cannot be achieved. Without prop- er siting and buffering, residents of the multi-family development will be subjected to the unsightliness of dumpsters, loading areas and the noises associated with commercial service areas. Further, this situation offers an attractive nuisance to residential use. The second phase of multi- family development lies adjacent to Chinaberry Drive east of and adjacent to Chesterfield Village Apartments. Staff is of the opinion that the ini- tial phase of multi-family development should occur adjacent to existing multi-family development and Chinaberry Drive. 10 83S091/BSNOV3/$ Staff has modified the zoning configuration proposed in the September 27 Staff Report. Although the Residential (R-7) tract has increased in acre- age, the total number of permitted multi-family units remains the same. By increasing the multi-family acreage, the developers will be able to take advantage of additional lake frontage for the residential uses. At the same time, Staff's concerns relative to the relationship of the multi- family project to Beaufont Mall's service area are addressed. Further, multi-family development should be limited solely to the area shown in Staff's Proposal. Based on land use compatibility in relation- ship to existing multi-family and commercial development and the impact on public facilities, the number of multi-family units should be reduced and their location should be confined to that area adjacent to existing multi-family development. The remainder of the area should be zoned and developed for 'office/light industrial uses. Land use compatibility would then be enhanced between existing commercial uses to the south, multi- family uses to the west and the proposed Boulders I development to the north. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (7/26/83): At the request of Planning Staff, the Commission deferred this case for thirty (30) days. The purpose of the deferral was to allow Planning Com- mission and Board of Supervisors action on the. "Jahnke/Chippenham Devel- opment Area General Plan Amendment." Planning Commission Meeting (8/23/83): At the request of Staff, the Commission deferred this case for thirty (30) days to allow further traffic analysis. Applicants (9/2/83): An amended textual statement and Master Plan were submitted. This amend- ment expanded the multi-family development from 57 acres (659 units) to 70 acres (750 units) and decreased the office development from 28 acres (350,000 square feet) to 15 acres (150,000 square feet). Planning Commission Meeting (9/27/83): At the request of the applicants, the Commission deferred this case for thirty (30) days to amend the request. 11 83SO91/BSNOV3/S Applicants (9/29/83): The request was amended, as reflected herein. Applicant (10/13/83): As noted under "Request" herein, Staff received a different zoning pro- posal than that presented on September 29 and so advertised. Planning CommiSsion Meeting (10/25/83): Dr. Moszer stated that the zoning boundaries proposed by the applicants would be acceptable and he would propose that the Commission grant the zoning but limit multi-family development to 140 units until the devel- opers can find an access other than the Chinaberry Drive/Route 60 inter- section. He stated that, once a second access is provided the developers could then construct the remaining units to a total of 285. He stated he would recommend approval of the layout submitted by the applicant and the imposition of the conditions listed in the Staff Report except those re- ferring to industrial uses. On motion of Dr. Moszer, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 83S091 subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the textual statement dated September 2, 1983 shall be considered the plan of development. The Residential (R-7) tract shall be limited to the development of a maximum of 285 multi-family units on 34.5 acres, subject to phasing in accordance with the conditions stated herein. Be The Office Business (0) tract may be developed for a maximum of 220,000 square feet of office space (10% maximum for medical space). At the time of schematic plan approval, the Planning Commission may approve a decrease in office space and an increase in med- ical space provided documentation is submitted which proves that traffic generated by the change does not exceed that generated by 220,000 square feet of office space. Office space shall be considered those uses permitted in the Office Business (0) District plus the following: me coffee shops and cafeterias located in the same building or structure housing general offices; 12 83S091/BSNOV3/S restaurant, exclusive of fast food or drive-in, facilities contained within a separate building or structure; banking facilities, including drive-ins, when contained in separate buildings; de Me health club, including indoor court facilities, contained in the same building housing general offices; business schools. (This condition supersedes Article XIV, O Office Business District, §21-148, (a) through (m) of the Textual Statement.) Building permits for no more than 140 multi-family units may be is- sued with sole access to Route 60 via Chinaberry Drive. Prior to release of any temporary or final occupancy permits for the 140th multi-family units, the following improvements shall be constructed and VDH&T inspection approved: a. Improvement to Route 60 and Chinaberry Drive intersection. be Chinaberry Drive reconstructed to four lanes from Route 60 to its intersection with the northernmost access point into the multi-family development. Prior to schematic plan approval for more than 141 multi-family units and/or any office use, the following shall be accomplished: Construction plans for improvements to Jahnke Road; the Powhite/Jahnke interchange; the Chippenham/Jahnke inter- change; access between this property and Jahnke Road, and extending turn lanes at the intersection of Jahnke and Buford Roads to accommodate traffic from this development shall be approved by the County and VDH&T Staffs in accor- dance with the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area Study, prepared by PRC Voorhees and any adopted'County plans. Funding for the aforementioned improvements shall be com- mitted, as determined by County and VDH&T Staffs. The exact design of intersections described in Condition #6 shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review and such improvements shall be so constructed as to yield no lesser level of service (inclusive of development traffic) than cur- rently exists. Prior to release of any building permits for more than 141 multi- family units and/or any office uses, a contract for construction of the road improvements specified in Condition #6 shall be let. 13 83SOgl/BSNOV3/S e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Prior to the release of any temporary or final occupancy permits for more than 141 multi-family units and/or any office uses, the improve- ments specified in Condition #6 shall be constructed and VDH&T in- spection approved. Other than construction traffic, there shall be no access to Jahnke Road until the road improvements specified in Condition #6 are complete, as determined by County Staff. Construction traffic via Jahnke Road shall be confined to the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Furthermore, if it becomes necessary, due to complaints from area citizens, these hours shall be modified at the request of the Plan- ning Staff. No schematic plan approval shall be granted for any site that con- flicts with proposed roads incorporated in an adopted County plan. Rights of way for connecting Chinaberry Drive to Beaufont Mall and Carnation Drive shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, prior to the issuance of the first building permit. This requirement may be modified by the planning Commission at the time of schematic plan approval. All Stat~-maintained roads shall have a minimum thirty-six (36) feet of pavement and curb and gutter, except as noted herein. The VDH&T and/or the Planning Commission may require additional pavement. The Chinaberry Drive typical section shall be designed and construc- ted with forty-eight (48) feet of pavement (excluding the width of the gutter pan), curb and gutter and a divided median. The developer shall construct right-turn lanes along Chinaberry Drive at major intersections, as warranted by VDH&T, during the entrance permit process. If the vertical alignment of Chinaberry Drive does not meet VDH&T's design criteria, the developer shall install street lights according to Vepco's and VDH&T's specifications to provide adequate lighting for sight distance at night. The developer shall be responsible for installation, maintenance, and operating costs. Approval of the master plan does not imply that the County gives fi- nal approval of any particular road section. Working interpretations of any and all conditions and/or exceptions to the application shall be made by the Planning Commission at the request of the Planning Department upon submission, review and ap- proval of schematic plans, as required by §21-34 (1) (4)c of the Zon- ing Ordinance. Furthermore, the Commission may conditionally approve schematic plans to ascertain that they will be in conformance with the approved master plan and other applicable Ordinances. Except where expressly referred to herein, approval of this applica- tion does not guarantee that the developer can build or construct 14 83SO91/BSNOV3/S 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. facilities in the future in accordance with present regulations. If County standards are more or less restrictive than those established herein, the County may require construction to adhere to the more restrictive standards. A copy of any covenants, deed restrictions and amendments related to the property owner's association shall be approved by the Planning Department and the County Attorney's Office for adherence to County Ordinances prior to recordation of such documents. No uses shall be permitted which would use any water or sewer system other than the Chesterfield County public utilities system. Approval of this request does not obligate the County to extend water or sewer lines. Ail extensions and necessary improvement costs shall be borne by the developer. Prior to construction, water and sewer plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Utilities Department. (U) Notwithstanding the exceptions to use and bulk regulations granted herein, approval of the application by the Board of Supervisors does not obligate the Planning Commission to approve a particular sche- matic plan which is not in conformance with the spirit, intent and purpose of this request. The number and location of fire hydrants shall be determined by the Chesterfield Fire Department. The developer shall bear the cost for installation of hydrants. (FP) Ail utility lines shall be provided with underground distribution. Ail private drives (where there is no adjacent parking) shall be paved to a width of not less than 25 feet with curb and gutter. De- pending upon the particular situation, this condition may be modified at the time of schematic plan review. Ail exterior lighting shall be low level. The design of light fix- tures shall be approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with schematic plan review. The applicant and/or developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situation showing existing drainage and the impact in- dividual tracts, as they are developed, will have on that tract as well as the surrounding area. The developer shall submit plans for on- and off-site drainage control to Environmental Engineering for approval. These plans shall explain the method and facilities to be utilized in the hydraulic engineering of the project and shall be approved by Environmental Engineering prior to land clearing. En- vironmental Engineering may impose conditions, requirements or mea- sures which it deems necessary to insure that proper drainage control is provided and maintained. The approved plan shall be implemented in whatever stages or phases acceptable to and necessary as deter- mined by Environmental Engineering. (EE) 15 83S091/BSNOV3/S 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. The applicant and/or developer shall submit plans to Environmental Engineering for erosion and sediment control for individual tracts as they are developed. Such plans are to be comprised of vegetative and engineering practices to be utilized as erosion and sediment control measures for the project. Generally, such practices shall be those outlined in the Virginia Soils and Water Conservation Commission's "Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, 2nd Edition, 1980." Additional requirements and measures may be instituted by Environ- mental Engineering upon review of the plans. The plans shall be ap- proved by Environmental Engineering and implemented prior to the clearing of any land, cutting of any trees or other disturbance of the parcel's natural state. (EE) No structure shall exceed a height of six (6) stories. (This condi- tion supersedes Article III, Division 4, Section 21-38 Generally (C) of the Textual Statement.) Directional signs or park directories shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. (This condition is in addition to Directional Signs/Park Directories of the Textual Statement.) Freestanding signs shall be limited to two (2) faces. (This condi- tion is in addition to Freestanding Identity Signs of the Textual Statement.) Building signs shall be limited to one company name and/or company logo and shall be affixed so as not to project more than eighteen (18) inches from the building structure. (This condition supersedes Building Signs 2 and 4 of the Textual Statement.) Prior to, or in conjunction with, the first schematic plan review, a plan for the preservation and maintenance of Beaufont Springs shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. The total number of dwelling units in any one building or such struc- ture shall not exceed ten (10) and no structure shall exceed a length of 200 feet. A second public road access shall be provided and constructed prior to occupancy of the 51st dwelling unit. A third public road access shall be provided and constructed prior to occupancy of the 201st dwelling unit. In the multi-family tract, buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from all public streets, private drives and entrances. In the multi-family tract, all structures shall set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from any parking space. In the multi-family tract, sidewalks shall be provided and shown on the plan at the discretion of the Planning Department. Such side- walks shall have a width of at least four feet. 16 83SO91/BSNOV3/$ 38. In the multi-family tract, parking spaces shall be provided at a ra- tio of two (2) spaces per dwelling unit. A centrally located storage area for boats, trucks, campers, travel and utility trailers shall be provided, the total of which may be subtracted from the total number of required parking spaces. 39. Ail multi-family structures shall be separated by a minimum of thirty (30) feet. 40. In conjunction with the first schematic plan review in the multi- family tract, a plan showing recreational facilities shall be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for approval. These plans shall include at least: me two (2) tennis courts which shall be provided and constructed in conjunction with the first 100 multi-family units and be a community building and swimming pool which shall be provided and constructed in conjunction with more than 100 multi-family units. 41. Where multi-family units abut a public road, the buildings shall front the public road or the rear of buildings shall be screened from view of the public road. 42. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained around the perimeter of the Residential (R-7) District. At the time of schematic plan re- view, a plan for the treatment of these buffer areas shall be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Other than approved access points to Chinaberry Drive and signs permitted herein, there shall be no facilities permitted in these buffer areas. AYES: Messrs. Thomas, Miller, Moszer, Lindsey and Daniel. ABSENT: Mr. Belcher. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, November 23, 1983, beginning at 2:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 17 83S091/BSNOV3/S APPLICANT 83S091 REZ'A TO R-7&O WITH C.U. PD. SH9 / ~ A TO 0 WITH C.U.PD. ,A TO R-7 WITH C.U. PD. 0 PROPOSAl ROCK CREEK PARK 7-?' ./ II .:11 II %~ I~ ~ / ',,. ~ ~ ~ . 83S091-1 STAFF'S PROPODAL WITH C U PD SH 9 '[ ~-F~',,~~- ~(( ~ Ii1~ · ...._ ~ A TO 0 WITH C.U. PD ~ A TO R-7 WITH C.U. PD ROCK N-TH / I CREEK PARK ~CHINABERRY .\ /?-7 8~5oe11-~ Map ~. ~ m~I4NK£ ~ HMK SIGMA I SIGMA II L GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SUB AREA MAP .0 I~'O0 85S091-5 BERNARD G. MEYER, JR. RICHARD S. ROTHENBERG PETER J. GOERGEN ROBERT E. HENLEY, iii MARK A. FLECKENSTEIN tIMOTHY J. DOLAN LAW Offices MARTIN, MEYER, ROTHENBERG, GOERGEN & HENLEY 3412 CUTSHAW AVENUE RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23230 {804) 257-7255 Of COUNSEL LEWIS W. MARTIN November 23, 1983 Mr. J. Royall Robertson Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mr. C. L. Bookman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 RE: Sigma Development, Inc. Case #83S091 Hearing Date: November 23, 1983 Subject: Rezoning of 85 acre tract in the Chippenham-Jahnke-Midlothian Turnpike Corridor Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: This firm represents B.F.M.L. Associates,the LynMar Company, PH Corporation, M.K. Realty Corp. and ROD Corporation. Our clients have an interest in real property surrounding the proposed Sigma Development on three sides. They own Beaufont Mall which borders the development, they own Chesterfield Village apartment complex along Chinaberry Road,(the main access route to Midlothian Turnpike proposed by the developer), and they own substantial portions of property to the north of and downstream on Powhite Creek from the proposed development. As you will no doubt recall, the same developer (Sigma Development, Inc.) and its predecessor, B.J. Properties of Virginia, Inc., obtained a rezoning on October 27, 1982 of 135 acres immediately to the north of subject property. That development has been named "the Boulders" by the developer. We understand that the developers are also referring to the subject property as "the Boulders". For the sake of clarity I will refer to 1982 rezoning as Boulders I and to the present rezoning application as Boulders II. My clients opposition to the proposed rezoning of Boulders II is based not on the land used concept involved but on the related aspects which will be outlined herein. We respectfully request that you not approve the rezoning of Boulders II without imposing conditions sufficient to meet our objections. Board of Supervisors Page 2 Our objections fall into three primary categories: (1) Water runoff and drainage; (2) Assurance that the proposed undeveloped parcel shall remain undeveloped; (3) Traffic. The objections stated herein are not intended to be all inclusive. We do have some additional concerns and objections. The ones detailed here are the primary and most significant items. We have reviewed the staff report dated November 23, 1983 prepared by the County Planning Staff and I will not attempt to repeat the objections and proposals set forth therein. We concur with many but not all of Staff's recommendations. Sigma has approached a large scale rezoning in a piecemeal fashion. Two major tracts are involved here, Boulders I consisting of 135 acres and Boulders II consisting of 85 acres. Last July Sigma appeared before the Board of Supervisors for an amendment on Sigma I. Sigma agreed that there would be no worsening of the traffic conditions at Chinaberry or any other intersections affected by the development. The development of Boulders I was limited to the first phase primarily for traffic considerations. And yet the same developer is here today requesting a rezoning of an adjacent tract consisting of 85 acres which will put additional burdens on the existing and planned road network. The developers have treated the two tracts as though they were independent when in fact they are adjoining and are owned by the same parties. In fact a deed conveying 30.7 acres of the 85 acres of Boulders II to Sigma Development, Inc. was dated October 27, 1983, the same date on which the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning for Boulders I. Sigma is the developer for both parcels and we submit that the Board of Supervisors should treat Boulders I and Boulders II as one development. You are not faced with the situation of an independent developer coming in with a request on Boulders II. You are faced with the same developer coming in for the second part of his development. That development must be forced to wait until the traffic and drainage problems raised by Boulders I are resolved. We respectfully request that the Board include a condition that no building permit be issued for Boulders II until the road Board of Supervisors page 3 network is completed and additional access is developed in addition to the present Chinaberry Road- Midlothian Interchange. Boulders II lies in the watershed of Powhite Creek, a recognized flood hazard area. My clients own property downstream from the development. It is obvious that the development will produce a substantial amount of additional water runoff. We respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors include a condition to the rezoning requiring full retention of water runoff from Boulders II. Such retention is possible from an engineering standpoint. The developers would simply be required to maintain a basin large enough to hold storm water runoff and then slowly release the water. There is currently a lake on the Boulders II property with a relatively large dam. Should that dam break it would obviously do substantial damage to the property owners downstream. It could even entail loss of life. We request that the County require certification that the dam is presently safe and require the developer to maintain the dam in the future at his expense with a bond to be posted to insure compliance. There has been some discussion of a parcel lying alongside Chinaberry Road which would not be developed and would be retained as a buffer. Should the County approve zoning with such an undeveloped parcel we submit that the County should put teeth in its condition by requiring the developer to give the County a deeded open space easement over that parcel to restrict future development. Otherwise, we may well see the same developer or its successor in title coming back to this body at a later date requesting development of the "undeveloped" parcel. The restriction or easement should be signed by the property owner and by the trustees of all deeds of trust securing loans against the property in order that the easement would survive transfer of title and foreclosure. Traffic is the most pressing and most troublesome issue facing the County and the surrounding land owners in the development of Boulders II. Condition 13 of the amended Boulders I zoning, which allowed development of phase 1 of 215,000 square feet of office space, stated that roads were to be improved and that they shall yield no lesser level of service than currently exists. I submit to the Board that unless another traffic outlet is found Boulders II cannot be developed without having a severe negative impact on the existing road system. Board o£ Supervisors Page 4 One of the possibilities which has been often discussed and which is mentioned in condition II of the Planning Commission approval is a connection across Chippenham Parkway to Carnation Drive into the City of Richmond. Carnation Drive would cross Chippenham Parkway and land in Boulders II. I submit that this rezoning presents the last opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to require a tie into Carnation Drive. If you pass up the opportunity today it will not be presented again except on the motion of the Board of Supervisors at County expense and possibly through a comdemnation proceeding. A link to Carnation should be required at the expense of the developers as a condition to this rezoning. To put the problem in a nutshell the road network in the area simply cannot bear the amount of traffic being generated by Boulders I and Boulders II without significant negative impact on surrounding property owners and on the County in general. A dam can only hold so much water before it gives way, this development may well constitute the bucket of water which breaks the dam. We respectfully request that you not approve the proposed rezoning of Boulders II without providing adequate conditions to handle the problems indicated above. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Henley, III REH, III:lg CC: Richard L. Hedrick, County Administrator Stanley Ro Balderson, Director of Planning EDWARD ~r. WILLWY, JR. ~"EPHEN C. HALL November 16, 1983 LAW OFFICES WILT,~Y & HALL, P.C. 8500 MAYLAND DRIV"' : RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 2:5229 (804) 27C)-Z775 FIL. E NUMEIER 82Z147-1 Chesterfield Planning Commission Chesterfield Courthouse Virginia 23832 Re: Zoning Case No. 83S091 Gentlemen: Further with respect to the above in which the applicant has amended its request to 34.5 acres Office and 50.5 acres Residential (R-7) with a Con- ditional Use Plan Development Plan for apartments. Applicant again prof- fers that no more than 285 apartment units will be constructed on the en- tire 85 acres and that no more than 220,000 square feet of Office space will be constructed on the 34.5 acres of requested Office zoning. The above would rezone the entire 85 acre parcel in a manner compatible with existing zoning and uses in the area, and in conformity with the appli- cant's marketing and planning advice. With respect to the conditions in the Staff Report of October 25, 1983, applicant requests exception or modification of the following: Condition 34 - (new) The total number of dwelling units in any one building or such structure shall not exceed fourteen (14) and no structure shall exceed a length of 200 feet. 35 - A second public road access shall be provided and con- (new) structed prior to occupancy of the 51st dwelling unit. 41~ -/-xSwimming pog~h~ fac~b~es ~ch shall ~ekpr~~ / (ne S. We appreciate your consideration of the above. Respectfully yours, Edward E. Willey, Jr. EEW,Jr./jdh CC: Sigma Development, Inc.