Loading...
83S120Oe~be~-~$~-$98~-G~6 November 23, 1983 BS STAFF REPORT 83S120 H.M.K. Corporation Midlothian Magisterial District North and south lines of Jahnke Road REQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) of 8 acres; to Office Business (0) of 84.15 acres and to Convenience Business (B-I) of 83.95 acres; plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions for the entire 176.1 acre tract. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval for the following reasons: Development of Tracts 2, 3a, 3b and 4, as proposed by the applicants and as conditioned herein, is consistent with the General Plan Amend- ment for the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area. Zoning of Tracts la, lb, lc, id and 5, with no development permitted until the General Plan for the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area is amended again to accommodate necessary road improvements, is consis- tent with the recent Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area General Plan Amendment. The Textual Statement, Master Plan and conditions herein insure com- patibility with existing and future area developmemt. CONDITIONS The following conditions notwithstanding, the application, Textual Statement dated August 1, 1983, and Master Plan dated June 1983, shall be considered the plan of development. me Prior to schematic plan approval in Tracts la, lb, lc, id and 5, the General Plan for the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area shall be amended to permit the requested uses and road improvements required to accommodate traffic generated by development of these tracts. It is the intention of the County to consider amending the General Plan for the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area to permit the requested uses and densities if a sufficient road network can be designed, fi- nanced and constructed to accommodate traffic generated by develop- ment of these tracts. The County will initiate the General Plan Amendment process as soon as the necessary information is made available by the applicant. The square footages specified in the Textual Statement shall not be increased without zoning amendment approval; however, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may, during the General Plan Amendment process, reduce the requested square footages and densities on Tracts la, lb, lc, id and 5 to the extent that the road improvements are not adequate to yield accept- able levels of service for traffic generated by development on these tracts. (This condition supersedes Mixed Use Development - B-1 District, ReqUired Conditions, 7. of the Textual Statement.) e Prior to schematic plan approval in Tracts 2, 3a, 3b and 4, the fol- lowing shall be accomplished: Schematic plans (including horizontal and vertical profile design) for such improvements to Jahnke Road; the Powhite/- Jahnke interchange and/or the Chippenham/Jahnke inter- change; and access to Jahnke Road and Chinaberry Drive as are necessary to yield acceptable levels of service for traffic generated by the requested development on these tracts shall be approved by the County and VDH&T Staffs in accordance with the Jahnke/Chippenham Development Area Study, prepared by PRC Voorhees and any adopted County plans. Funding for the aforementioned road improvements shall be committed, as determined by County and VDH&T Staffs. The horizontal ge,metrics of intersections'described in Condition 3 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 currently exists at the Chippenham ramp intersections with Jahnke Road. Prior to release of any building permits, a contract for construction of such road improvements as required by Condition 3 shall be let. Prior to the release of any temporary or final occupancy permits, the road improvements as required by Condition 3, 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 #3 are com- plete, as determined by County Staff. No schematic plan approval shall be granted for any site that con- flicts with proposed roads incorporated in an adopted County plan. Prior to release of any building permits in Tract 4, right of way for Chinaberry Drive Extended from the southern property line to Jahnke ~--. 2 ~,~ 83S120/BSNOV3/J 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Road shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Prior to release of any building permits in Tracts 2, 3a and 3b, right of way for Chinaberry Drive Extended from Jahnke Road to the northernmost point of access required for development in the tract shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. 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. 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. There shall be no individual tract (parcel) access to Jahnke Road. Access to Jahnke Road shall be confined to Chinaberry Drive Extended. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, right of way for Powhite Parkway shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted. In conjunction with schematic plan review of any site north of Jahnke Road, a plan for public road access to Parcel 10, Tax Map 19-1 and Parcel 17, Tax Map 11-13 shall be approved. Right of way for this plan shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, prior to the issuance of any building permit north of Jahnke Road. In conjunction with any schematic plan review of a. site north of the proposed Powhite Parkway, a plan for public road access to land north of the Southern Railroad shall be approved. Right of way for this plan shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, prior to the issuance of any building permit north of the proposed Powhite Parkway. Until such a time as the General Plan is amended in accordance with the provisions of Condition 2 herein to permit additional develop- ment, the following limitations shall be placed on development of Tracts 2, 3a, 3b and 4: Tracts 2, 3a and 3b 292,400 square feet of office park (those uses requested except hotel and medical) 3 83S120/BSNOV3/J Tract 4 63,500 square feet of office park (those uses requested except hotel and medical) A maximum of ten percent (10%) of the permitted square footage may be developed for medical uses. 19. At the time of schematic plan approval for Tract 4, the Planning Com- mission may approve a decrease in overall space and an increase in medical space and/or a hotel provided documentation is submitted which proves that traffic generated by the change does not exceed that generated by the development permitted in Condition 18. (This condition supersedes Use and Bulk Exceptions, Offices - 0 District, 2., 16. Hotels and Motels, and Required Conditions, 4. of the Textual Statement.) 20. Ail private drives (where there is no adjacent parking) shall be paved to a width of not less than twenty-five (25) feet with curb and gutter. -Depending upon the particular situation, this condition may be modified at the time of schematic plan review. 21. The applicant and/or developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situation showing existing drainage and the impact indi- vidual 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 ap- proval. 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) 22. 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) 23. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the total development area shall be devoted to common open space exclusive of buildings and paved ve- hicular areas. Portions of the development area devoted to pavement 83S120/BSNOV3/J 4 for pedestrian use, water areas, and landscaped elements which have pedestrian access, may be included as open space. Where residential units are within or overlook areas which include non-residential uses, any pedestrian or landscaped areas including usable and land- scaped roof top areas within such portions of the development area, may be included and considered as part of the common open space. (This condition supersedes Conditions, 1. General, k. of Textual Statement.) 24. Approval of Textual Statement does not approve Conditions, 1. Gen- eral, 1, n and o and 5. Road Systems and Access, a and b, 1 through 8 and Multi-Family Requirements - 0 and B-1 Districts (Tracts la, lb and lc), 13. Fire Protection Measures, 1. a through f, 2. a through e and 3. 25. In Tract 2, no structure shall exceed a height of six (6) stories until Powhite Parkway Extension is under construction. In Tracts 3a and 4, no structure shall exceed a height of six (6) stories. In Tract 3b, no structure shall exceed a height of twelve (12) stories. This condition may be amended by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan approval. (This condition supersedes Use and Bulk Exceptions, Offices - O District, Required Conditions, 3. of the Textual Statement.) 26. Directional signs or park directories shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. (This condition is in addition to Conditions, 4. SignaRe, a. of the Tex- tual Statement.) 27. Freestanding sign~ shall be limited to two (2) faces. (This condition is in addition to Conditions, 4. Signage, a. of the Tex- tual Statement.) 28. 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 is in addition to Conditions, 4. Signage, a. of the Tex- tual Statement.) 29. Since limited information has been provided with the application, the Planning Commission shall reserve the right, through schematic plan approval, to impose more stringent requirements than specified for 5 83S120/BSNOV3/J Multiple Family Requirements - O & B-1 Districts (Tracts la, lb and lc) if deemed necessary: (1) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; (2) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; (3) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; (4) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transporta- tion, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; (5) ~ to protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transporta- tion, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers. 30. On-site retention shall be used for Tract 4 (south of Jahnke Road) or downstream drainage improvements shall be accomplished from this tract to Powhite Creek or a combination of on-site retention and downstream drainage improvements shall be accomplished. (EE) 31. The Lake Page dam~shall be analyzed to determine the location of the dam failure break line prior to the release of any building permit for any site downstream of the Lake. Buildings shall not be located within the limits of the dam failure lines. (EE) GENERAL INFORMATION Location: The first tract fronts the north line of Jahnke Road and the west line of Chippenham Parkway and lies northwest of the intersec- tion of these roads. Tax Map 11-5 (1) Par- cel 10; Tax Map 11-9 (1) Parcel 2; Tax Map 11-13 (1) Parcels 15 and 16; and Tax Map 19-1 (1) Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (Sheets 1/4 and 9). The second tract fronts the south line of Jahnke Road and lies west of Chippenham Parkway. Tax Map 19-1 (1) Par- cels 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (Sheet 9). 6 .~,~ 83S120/BSNOV3/J Existin~ Zoning: Size: Existing Land Use: Adjacent Zoning & Land Use: Utilities: Environmental En$ineering: A 176.1 acres Single family residential or vacant North - Southern Railroad right of way South - O with Conditional Use Planned Development, Proposed Boulders I devel- opment East - A, Chippenham Parkway West - R-15, Single family residential, public/semi-public or vacant 8 inch public water line located along Jahnke Road. Utilities Department recom- mends extension of public water from Route 60. Lies in Falling Creek sewage drainage area. Trunk sewer line located on site. Portion of property drains toward Chippenham Parkway and cannot be served with County sewer, but will have to be sewered by extending sewer from the City of Richmond. Capacity of ex- isting sewer lines may be limited. Prior to release of any building permits, a detailed hydraulic analysis verifying sewer capacity must be submitted to Utilities Department. Terrain nearly level to moderately steep and, when cleared, has slight to severe chance for erosion. Large areas charac- terized by flooding, severe soil drainage limitations and erosion hazards when cleared. Building sites must be limited to areas above the 100 year flood plain ele- vation. No clearing of slopes of 15% or greater. Property drains to Powhite Creek via at least three (3) drainage facilities crossing Chippenham Parkway via small tribu- tary. Some sections of the on-site tribu- taries are experiencing accelerated erosion and stream degradation. Based on the most recent flood plain information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' study for Powhite Creek, it appears that a large percentage of the property is contained within 100 year backwater/flood plain limits. This may ne- cessitate equal volume displacement for any part of the development encroaching in 100 year backwater limits. 7 83Si20/BSNOV3/J Schools: Fire Service: General Plan: Transportation: Estimate 210 students will be generated. Lies in Crestwood Elementary School atten- dance zone: capacity - 895, enrollment - 586; Providence Middle School zone: capac- ity - 1,400, enrollment - 1,486; and in the Monacan High School zone: capacity - 1,700, enrollment - 1,763. North of Jahnke Road is served by Bon Air Fire Station, Company #4. South of Jahnke Road is served by Buford Road Fire Station, Company #9. Water flows and fire hydrants must be provided in accordance with nation- ally recognized standards. The Textual Statement offers specific con- ditions relative to fire protection. Many of these conditions are in excess of the BOCA and Fire Prevention Code standards. The County Attorney's Office has advised that adoption of the Fire Prevention and BOCA Codes prevent the legislative body from accepting or imposing these requirements through zoning. Office park and single family residential Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area Study: The area requested for rezoning is encom- passed by the General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area (JCDA) and constitutes most of Sub-areas I, II, and III (see attached map). The GPA specifies single family use for Sub-area I and office park use for Sub-areas II and III. Office park square footages were spec- ified based on the traffic capacity of the Jahnke Road/Chinaberry Drive intersection and office densities preyiously zoned in the JCDA by the Board of Supervisors. Applicants' Proposal: The applicants are currently developing an access plan for the JCDA which utilizes east and westbound col- lector/distributor roads on Powhite Parkway which could provide capacity for more devel- opment in the JCDA than that specified in the GPA. The applicants are also working with the County and VDH&T to develop modi- fications to current Powhite Parkway plans so that the Parkway may be constructed to accommodate the proposed collec- ,--, 8 ~--- 83S120/BSNOV3/J tor/distributor network. However, until such time as the General Plan for the JCDA is amended to reflect increased access and development, the GPA should be used to regu- late development proposals in the area. Tracts la, lb, lc and id in the applicants' proposal constitute Sub-area I in the GPA, which is designated for single family use. The uses requested by the applicants for Tracts la, lb, lc and id generate more traf- fic than all the land uses recommended in the GPA for the whole JCDA. Tracts 2, 3a and 3b constitute 78.4% of Sub-area II in the GPA. The GPA designated 373,000 square feet of office park for Sub-area II and the applicants' proportion- ate share is 292,400 square feet for Tracts 2, 3a and 3b. The applicants have requested 270,000 square feet for Tracts 2, 3a and 3b. Tract 4 constitutes Sub-area III of the GPA. The GPA specifies 63,500 square feet of of- fice park, while the applicants have re- quested 200,000 square feet and a 300 room hotel. The discussion section of the appli- cation specifies a medical services complex for this tract. Staff's Proposal: The 200,000 square foot medical complex exceeds the square footage specified in the GPA for Sub-area III (Tract 4) and is also inconsistent with the office park use designated in the GPA. Under the GPA, the 63,500 square feet of office space in Sub-area III (Tract 4) has a P.M. peak hour exiting traffic volume of 128 vehicles (P.M. peak hour exiting traffic is the lim- iting factor for traffic generation in the JCDA). Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) traffic generation rates, a 63,500 square foot medical clinic would have a P.M. peak hour exiting traffic volume of 1,488 vehicles, and a 63,500 square foot medical office complex would have a P.M. peak hour exiting traffic volume of 406 vehicles. While the ITE reference for office park gen- eration rates does not provide a thorough documentation of the different activities 9 83S120/BSNOV3/J contained in the office parks that have been studied for traffic generation, it is rea- sonable to assume some degree of medical activities is a component of office parks. Therefore, Staff believes that a portion of the office square footage in Tracts 3 and 4 can be permitted without applying the med- ical activity generation rates. Staff is recommending that zoning, as re- quested by the applicants, be approved con- ditionally on the basis of the following principles: Until the General Plan for the JCDA is amended to reflect in- creased access and highway capac- ity, construction should be re- stricted to the land uses spec- ified in Sub-areas II and III, or compatible land uses with equiva- lent traffic generations. me Construction of the square foot- ages specified in the GPA should not be permitted until improve- ments are made to Jahnke Road and its interchanges with Powhite and Chippenham Parkways so that the traffic operation principles iden- tified in the GPA are achieved. DISCUSSION The acreage covered by this zoning application is a part of General Plan Amendment for the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area and, in the Amend- ment, was designated as Sub-areas I, III and part of Sub-area II. The Amendment recommended the following land uses and square footages: Sub-area I - Low density single family residential development Sub-area II - 373,000 square feet of office park (of which 292,400 square feet is allocated for the applicants' parcel) Sub-area III - 63,500 square feet of office park These recommended land uses and densities were based on the compatibility of adjacent land uses and a transportation network which could accommodate the traffic generated by the uses. The applicants are proposing to develop 270,000 square feet of office space in a portion of Sub-area II (shown as Tracts 2, 3a and 3b on the applicants' Master Plan). Sub-area III (shown as Tract 4 on the appli- cants' Master Plan) was recommended for 63,500 square feet of office ~ ~.~ 10 83S120/BSNOV3/J space. The applicants are requesting permission to construct 200,000 square feet of office space and a 300 room hotel. Although the Amendment did not recommend hotel use in Sub-area III, the conditions herein would allow such construction provided documentation is submitted that traffic does not exceed that recommended by the General Plan Amendment. The development potential of Sub-area I (Tracts la, lb, lc, id and 5) is limited due to the lack of an acceptable access to serve high intensity uses. During the General Plan Amendment process, intensities higher than single family residential uses were tested with access from the south across Powhite Parkway. Results of that analysis yielded an unsatisfac- tory level of service at Jahnke Road. The applicants are proposing devel- opment of 1,000,000 square feet of office space, 1,000,000 square feet of retail space, a 400 room hotel and 300 residential units in Sub-area I. These uses cannot be accommodated by the approved General Plan Amendment Transportation Network. The applicants have proposed a collector/distri- butor system from Powhite Parkway; however to date, a sufficient traffic analysis has not been submitted which can support the proposed square footages and uses based on this alternative road network. Further, ap- proval of schematic plans for these land uses and road network requires further amendment of the General Plan. Staff has recommended zoning ap- proval for Tract 1 as requested; however, construction cannot proceed un- til such time as the General Plan is amended to accommodate the development. CASE HISTORY Staff (8/23/83): A thirty (30) day deferral was recommended for the following reasons: Ae Be Ce As required by §21-34 (h)(4)a of the Zoning Ordinance, the ap- plicant has submitted additional material foK proper analysis of his request (i.e., additional information has been requested concerning the residential development in Tracts la through id, recreation areas, retail shops in Tracts 2 through 4, a maximum density chart for the project and extra copies of the applica- tion for distribution to the Planning Commission). Staff has not completed their analysis of all material. The July 1983 traffic analysis submitted on July 25, 1983, does not take into consideration the effect of any traffic on Jahnke Road from any development south of the applicant's property. After reviewing the June traffic analysis, Staff advised the applicant that the final traffic analysis must contain this information. The graphic exhibits submitted with this application show two different road patterns for accessing Powhite Parkway with a collector-distributor road. The issue is that a distinction 11 83S120/BSNOV3/J must be made between the road network access to Powhite Parkway that should be committed to as a part of rezoning, and the road network that serves internal circulation and access that can be committed to at schematic plan approval. In conjunction with VDH&T and County Staff review of the current traffic analysis, the boundary between the collector-distributor road system and the internal circulation road system should be established. These matters have not yet been resolved. The VDH&T has ~not provided any response to the proposed collec- tor-distributor road system. Without this system, Staff cannot recommend that the development requested be approved. Planning Commission Meeting (8/23/83): The Commission deferred this case for thirty (30) days. Planning Commission Meeting (9/27/83): At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for thirty (30) days. Staff and Applicant (10/13/83): Staff and the applicant's representative met to discuss modifications to the recommended conditions that the applicant felt were necessary for clarification, etc. Staff has modified Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16, 18 and 26 at the request of the applicant. The applicant also wished to modify Conditions 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17, but Staff does not feel the requested modifications are warranted. Planning Commission Meeting (10/25/83): Dr. Moszer stated he has listened to comments made by the speakers. He then provided a petition bearing signatures of 365 persons in opposition to this request and 36 letters he had received in opposition. He stated he has received innumerable phone calls regarding this request and he has met with area residents many times. He emphasized he is not interested in delaying any development which is appropriate and feasible. He noted that, while he has no desire to halt development, it is equally important that development be done properly. Dr. Moszer stated he was impressed with the willingness of residents of Crestwood Farms to accept that the subject property will be developed. He noted they recognize that the land is not going to be vacant forever. He stated that the applicant has discussed this project with the Commission many times and each time they have emphasized what a grand and novel new use they are proposing. Dr. Moszer indicated that the Commission has 12 83S120/BSNOV3/J consistently requested the applicants to simplify their concept but rather than use the last work session to improve, clarify and refine their pro- posal, the applicants discussed concerns they had with the Staff Report. He stated that he believed the H.M.K. Plan is poorly developed and vague. Dr. Moszer then reviewed portions of H.M.K.'s application and emphasized the way in which it addressed issues in a general manner rather than being specific. He noted that the application requests the flexibility of hav- ing the Planning Commission change the permitted uses at a later date to reflect changing market trends. He stated that it is apparent from Mr. Axselle's presentation that the neighborhood is also disturbed by these generalities. He noted it is obvious that H.M.K. is not satisfied with the conditions recommended by Staff. He reemphasized that while he is interested in seeing land developed, the application submitted falls short of being a reasonable land use for the property. He stated he would like to see a definitive, straight forward proposal for the property. He noted the current plan does not provide uses that will be compatible with ad- joining areas, does not provide the proper transition required for the uses intended and is not in compliance with the General Plan 2000. He noted that the application was very vague about the buffers to be pro- vided. He stated the subject property is a valuable piece of land and normally he would recommend that the case be deferred to allow it to be revised but, given the history of this case, he does not feel that addi- tional deferrals would be beneficial and, therefore, he would move for denial. Mr. Lindsey stated he also was convinced the application should be more specific as to the uses that would occur on the property. On motion of Dr. Moszer, seconded by Mr. Lindsey, the Commission resolved to recommend denial of Case 83S120. 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. 13 83S120/BSNOV3/J -- f~-15 I I I I! II JAHNK' HMK SIGMA I SIGMA II GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SUB AREA MAP I~00 I. 8:5SI20-1 Z r'r'l_. on" Nt-- Z J .LPH L. "BILL" AXSELLE, Chesterfield County Planning Commiss%on October 25, 1983 Re: H.M.K. Corporation 835120 Gentlemen, my name is Ralph L. "Bill" Axselle, Jr., a local attorney in Richmond. A lot has been said recently about what is right or allegedly "fair" to Mr. Perel, HMK and this ill-conceived idea. I represent the local residents who have been forgotten in these discussions. Specifically, my clients are the residents of Crestwood Farms subdivision which lies next to this property; generally, I think we voice the concerns of all who live and travel in this portion fo Chesterfield. While forgotten by the developer in his planning, we have faith ~n this Commission that we will not be forgotten in your ultimate decision. I must tell you that we are unalterably opposed to this application and request your unanimous recommendation for denial. It is a poorly developed and vague plan that would ~ring to this residential community the most intensive Commercial and office development in suburban Richmond--all done without any consideration o~ fairness or land use planning. First, let's comment briefly on what is right and fair. It is fair that any project be conditioned as your staff recommended upon certain vital steps such as making the necessary road improvements. For example, no development on this site should take place whatsoever without legal guarantees o~ the land dedication and construction by the deVeloper of Powhite extension, Chinaberry Drive on both sides o~ Jahnke and the roads serving this project. Quite ~rankly, we don't care a bit about e~ther Sigma or HMK; what we care about is the traffic that is choking this area even now and which will only be made worse with this development. I submit most respectfully that your primary duty in this case is to be fair to all the individual and corporate citizens of Chesterfield, no matter what the developer says in presentations, newspapers and lawsuits. We are confident fairness will be demonstrated by your applying sound land use planning concepts. It must be noted that such sound land use planning concepts are almost foreign to this application. A profit motive is a commendable attitude in our society, but greed and abandonment of good common sense and planning principles are not. So let's talk about land use. While we concur with your staff recommendations in part, we do not feel they are adequate to protect our community or the Chesterfield users of the adjoining roads. You might say we feel the staff has been "more than fair" with the applicant--"too fair" in the sense that the combined application and staff report have not addressed some major policy concerns of Chesterfield residents. We have four major land use objections to this project--four reasons why this project must be denied. Denial is the only viable option. The plan before you is so void of any consciousness of the needs of the community that the only real solution is to deny this proposal and let them start over. An overview of the proposal and our particular situation might be helpful ....................... Crestwood Farms is a quiet, well-established single-family residential area which lies just west of the subject property. Its occupants are long-time residents of the county who have contributed to a quality of life they want to preserve. Also abutting this property is the neighborhood school, Crestwood Elementary. Because of proximity to the project, ~3 the problems and concerns of my clients are fairly obvious, traffic, noise, pollution, crime, intensity of use, nature of the requested zoning, height of buildings, etc. Our overall objection is placing such an intense commercial/office use in the Bon Air residential community. Under existing traffic patterns most Crestwood Farms residents feel o~ly single-family residential development is reasonable; with improved access to the property other than through this subdivision, they recognize an alternative may be feasible. Crestwood Farms is not opposed to development; it does oppose the unreasonable and unrealistic development as outlined in this application. It is our opinion that this proposal is excessive in every respect: density, traffic, noise, square footage, uses, height of buildings and most importantly, excessive in the negative impact on the surrounding community. Let's quickly summarize the four major land use objections we have: (1) The 50-foot buffer between our homes and the commercial/office use is completely inadequate. (2) Normally a transitional use is provided between a single-family subdivision and retail/office use; none is provided here. (3) Placing a huge commercial/office complex at this location is ~nconsistent with the existing land use plan, the ad3oining single-family homes and good zoning practice. Even if offices are allowed, they should be 3-5 stories in height and not the 12 stories requested. (4) One of our major concerns is the intensity of the requested uses. From information on Exhibit 1, you can see that this project requests an intensity of office and commercial development not found anywhere else in Chesterfield, Henrico or Hanover. It is analagous only to developments found in the downtown urban areas; even their application makes comparison to downtown Richmond and downtown Houston. The applicant seems to have forgotten this is suburban Chesterfield County and he is attempting to place such a project adjoining a single-family neighborhood in the Bon Air community~ We feel the Board of Supervisors has established an appropriate level of office density in this area by recent action on the Boulders/Sigma property which is in the same vicinity. The traffic considerations are identical here and we feel the county should provide only the same level of development that was recently allowed in this very same area. As we now walk back through the four land use objections, you will note that we personalize our planning comments by reference to the problems these objections cause on this particular project. We also offer an illustration of how better land use planning on this site would better serve Chester£ield and my clients. The illusration demonstrates-- without our advocating such action--that a better conceived land use plan for the property is available. Land use objeCtion No. 1: The buffer offerred by the develope~ is almost ridiculous...50 feet to protect these homes and elementary school. This would place within 50 feet of our property line uses such as banks, restaurants, service stations, car washes, various retail uses, drive-in establishments, night clubs, apartments, etc. All of these would br%ng with them the normally resulting traffic, lights, noise, pollution We sometimes forget how short a distance 50 feet really is. It is less than the length of some of your homes; it is nothing more than from this spot to (indicate appropriate spot in auditorium). Ii you approve this application, that's how much protection you are giving your constituents and the children of Crestwood Elementary. We would suggest at least 250 feet natural growth and vegetation be required, supplemented with landscaping and additional plannings as required by'the Planning Commission to ensure year-round screening to prevent visual and auditory encroachment upon the adjacent residential area. This buffer would run along the entire western boundary of the subject property that is north of the Powhite extension. We would also suggest construction of an 8-foot high continuous wall of quality and design approved by the Planning Commission, with such wall to run along the entire eastern line of the above-described buffer. The buffer and wall would be constructed and maintained by the developer at its cost. It is interesting that the developer talks about 50-150 feet buffers and shows on Exhibit 9 a "natural buffer" measuring approximately 200-250 feet, but legally commits itself to a mere 50 feet. We feel 250 feet is more appropriate. Land use objection No. 2. No transitional use is provided to protect Crestwood Farms. Even with an improved buffer, the fact remains that the actual uses east of the buffer will greatly affect the Crestwood Farms homes and Crestwood Elementary School. Exhibit 10 of the application shows in this area primarily residential uses described as "luxury type dwelling units with rents and/or prices well above the norm." The problem is that the actual zoning requested would allow such non- residential uses as group care facilities, professional offices, medical clinics, clubs, child care centers, banks, service stations, restaurants and other commercial uses (see pages 34-35). It would also allow multi-family dwelling units for rent and/or for sale (see page 35). The applicant will admit that its plans are currently conceptional in nature and that, in fact, the applicant could legally put any of the above non-residential uses immediately adjoining the buffer in Crestwood Farm. Is this the proper way to zone property? We would suggest that the applicant be legally bound to what it implies it will do. The property adjoining and lying east of the above buffer would be residential zoning with the restrictions imposed on such uses as set forth in the application, staff report and this presentation. The width of this residential zoning and use should be a minimum of 300 feet; it may be more, but it should not be less than 300 feet east of the buffer. This would apply to property lying north of the proposed Powhite extension. The maximum height of these buildings in this area should be three stories or 45 feet, whichever is less. The maximum number of units allowed should be 8 units per acre, which your staff advises is the norm in Chesterfield. The limitation of three stories or 45 feet, whichever is less, is the current maximum height for res~dentiai"~oW~h0~-~-~evelopment zoning of this nature in Chesterfield County. There is no reason that this height requirement should be abandoned in this project, especially in light of its proximity to Crestwood Farms. Likewise, the current norm for density of such residential multi-family uses should be maintained. Mind you, we do not advocate or concur with non-single-family residential use. We are simply illustrating that a transitional use between our single-family neighborhood and much more intensive use can and should be provided. The failure to do so in this case is a major defect. If you approve this application, you would not be providing any of the transitional zoning protections normally provided homeowners. Land use objection No. 3. Allowing extensive commercial uses or the requested excessive office height are both inconsistent with the land use plan and adjoining develop- ment. Just three months ago, the Board of Supervisors approved a Jahnke/Chippenham development area study proposed land use plan in which the subject property was designated as single- family residential use...just three months ago. Admittedly, improved access m_~ in some peoples mind dictate a modification of that proposed use. The essential element for such a recommendation of single-family use, however, does remain: The proximity of an adjoining single-family residential area ~ We most strongly advocate deleting all commercial zoning and uses as found in this application. If non-residential uses are deemed appropriate, the remainder or bulk of the.property could be zoned to an office classification. This zoning would offer only truly office uses--not the type "offices" zoning set forth in the application that really allows commercial uses. We feel this provision not to allow commercial use should apply to properties on both sides of the Powhite extension and both sides of Jahnke Road; i.e. no commercial use anywhere on the properties sub3ect to this application. The western-most 350 feet of any office zoning classification north of Powhite should have offices limited in height to three stories. The rest of the office zoning north of Powhite, which is the bulk of the property, could reasonably have a height limitation of five stories. At that point, they would be separated from Crestwood Farms by a buffer, transitional residential and lower level offices. We feel the offices south of Powh~te and south of Jahnke could be up to five stories without adverse impact...if the traffic can stand the extra load. We also feel that guaranteed provisions of open space and green areas should be included. The current provisions in this respect do not do justice to the quality office park desired in Chesterfield. Why do we make this request to delete commercial and limit the height of the office buildings? (a) It has been the practice of the county in its zoning to preserve single-family residential zoning in the Bon Air area. We can find no justification for abandoning that practice and also allowing intensive commercial use in this area. (b) It is generally considered very poor land use to place commercial uses ~mmediately adjacent to a residential area as this proposal currently does...whether it be an existing Crestwood Farms or the proposed residential area requested by the developer. (c) In the past, I understand it has been your policy not to allow commercial uses in the Bon Air area, except local neighborhood retail outlets to serve the community. I further understand the policy has been to place such commercial uses in the Midlothian Turnpike corridor. Why should those policies be abandoned now? (d) Is there really a need or market in this area for an additional 1,000,000 commercial square feet? Consider the proximity of Cloverleaf Mall, Beaufont Mall and the literally miles of commercial uses on Midlothian Turnpike. It appears they ~ill the demonstrated need ~or commercial use in this area; conversely, what might be the impact on those commercial establishments in allowing an additional 1,000,000 square feet? What overall impact is this going to have on Chesterfield? (e) Quite frankly, serious doubt exists in our minds as to whether there is even a feasibility or a possibility of development of such a grandioes regional shopping center on this site. These doubts relate to concerns that there does not exist any market ~or such extensive commercial development nor any ability o~ this developer to complete such a project. (f) O~fice uses normally are accepted as transitional uses between residential and limited access roads. Any offices on this property would serve in that capacity. (g) Keep in mind there could be a plan developed for a beautiful and sizeable office park to be built on this site...o~ice, not retail use. It could allow up to five stories height on the-property nearest Chippenham-- not the incredible twelve stories as requested!! Five stories is the same as recently approved at Boulders/Sigma. In Summary, we don't feel any commercial use is appropriate on any H~K property and any office development north of Powhite extension should be limited in height nearest Crestwood Farms, allowing greater height near Chippenham. Land use use objection No. 4. The intensity o~ development is unacceptable due to its incapatibility with the immediate community and road network. Traffic problems in this area are legion. Each board member has more than a passing knowledge of the difficulties of traveling in this area under its current conditions. Powhite extension may improve overall traffic flow in the county, but the situation in this vicinity can only be made worse by that road. Consider the impact on people right in this area o~ the extension itself as well as the interchanges planned at Chippenham-Powhite and at Powhite-Jahnke. All of this will simply add more traffic to this particular area. The Board must also consider the increased traffic in this area from the recently approved Boulders Office Park and hotel planned just across Jahnke Road. In considering HMK's case, the Board must consider existing and all future traffic they will be impacting on this area. The Board should do all that it can to help control these existing and anticipated traffic problems--not just for our benefit, but for all in Chesterfield who use these roads. How do you do this? First, simply limit office development within this project to the square ~ootage established in the general plan ~or this area (7,850 per acre) or to same as approved for the other major development in this area recently, i.e., 7,250 square feet per area. This application asks ~or almost 19,000 square feet per area in o~ices; that's 240% more than what the general plan says is reasonable. Second, simply limit th~ room for the hotels planned on these properties to the same as allowed recently in this area for another developer, i.e., 300 rooms total for the project. Please note that it is our opinion that the requested density of office use on all three parcels is too excessive and the above limitations should apply to all the properties under this application. The property south of Powhite extension and south of Jahnke Road will simply generate too much traffic for the roads to bear if this application is approved. In addition to the sizeable concerns about traffic generated, there is an issue of consistency involved. By action o~ the Board of Supervisors, the County of Chesterfield has said that the appropriate level for office density in the Jahnke Road area is 7,250 square feet per acre. This is the limit established in the Boulders/Sigma case as being reasonable for the traffic in this area. We only ask that the same logic be applied here. Likewise, the same Board established an acceptable level of density for hotel development in this area. This particular applicant should be allowed no more, no less. Even with these limitations we have concerns about the volume o~ traffic being generated and whether they could be handled. The best course of action would be to review a specific and detailed land use proposal as well as a specific and detailed road use pattern. Neither the staff, commission or my clients have been able to do that in this case. In closing, let me make two summary-type comments. First, so often in cases of this nature the citizens in opposition voice their concerns with perhaps more emotion than logic. I have tried to lay out our objections as they relate to appropriate land use considerations. Do not let such a legal approach lead you to the mistaken impression there is not intensity and anger in the objection of my clients. It is there...they are just trying ~heir best to restrain their emotions in deference to the Commission and out of our belief that you will be mindful of your constituency. Keeping in mind that this is the third time that most of these people have appeared on this case, I would like for those in opposition to stand and be recognized. Joining residents of Crestwood Farms are individuals from Bon Air Hills, Brighten Green and others part of Chesterfield County. I would also like for Doug Pace, Chairman of the Crestwood Farms Resident Association, to present to your secretary more than 600 signatures on petitions indicating their opposition to this proposal. Lastly, let's look at what we said~ Overall we prefer single-family residential, but we know you may be of a different opinion if access to the property other than through Crestwood Farms is guaranteed. Even if that assumption is made, we~have shown four major planning objections. We have also shown that the property could be developed in a fashion consistent with our neighborhood by providing an adequate buffer of distance, trees and a wall (250 feet), a transitional residential use of limited height and moderate density (300 feet) and an office complex of buildings three stories in height nearest the residential use (350 feet) and up to five stories nearest Chippenham. Please compare that to the proposal before you...little or no buffer, no assured transitional use and by far the most intensive commercial and office development found anywhere in suburban Richmond. Please take a few moments to examine Exhibit 1. It clearly demonstrates our point that the intensity of office, commercial and hotel use requested is far in'excess of any reasonable use allowed anywhere in this area. Think of the activity, traffic, noise and pollution such a development would bring to this area!! (Expand on Exhibit 1) I leave, you with the thought that to these four land use objections, we could add a fifth point. For all its slides, exhibits and pictures, the current proposal is very lacking in substance. Ask yourself these questions. As you are about to make a major decision, do you have the answers? A few simple inquiries might be: * Do you really know where the various uses are to be located on the property? * Do you really have any legal assurance as to the quality and design of the buildings? * Have you ever seen a definitive sketch of the project-- locations, height, square footage of buildings; location of roads, and the other factors you are normally told? * Do you really know the number of vehicles to be generated by the requested uses...especially when the proposal is so very general? 14 * Do you really know that the transportation system advocated will work? Has it been approved by VDHT? * Do you really know that Powhite will be extended and should we rezone until that is known? * Are we really convinced the developer just did not ask for everything he could so that he could just use the property as he sees fit? * Do you really believe as they say that Bloomingdales and Lord & Taylor are going to be located on this property? * And, finally, ask yourself, am I convinced in my mind that this proposal is consistent with what I know is good land use planning? I suggest the answer in each instance is no. I further suggest that you should each vote against recommending approval. We thank you for your patience, attention and for what we feel will be a vote for good~ land use planning and protection of the residents of this area. Thank you. "EXHIBIT I" OFFICE USE COMPARISON Name/ No. Location Acres 1. Harbour Pointe 34.0 Brandermill Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft./Acre 300,000 8,823 s.f. 2. Moorfield 83.0 383,000 4,819 s.f. S/L U.S. Route 60 The Boulders Jahnke/Chippenham 138.0 1,000,000 7,250 s.f. 186.14 1,600,000± 8,595 s.f. 4. Innesbrook Route 250 @ 1-295 5. Brookfield 70.0 767,000 10,957 s.f. Route 250 @ 1-64 Richmond Galleria (HMK) Jahnke/Chippenham 146.1' 2,770,000** 18,957 s.f. * Acreage after R/W of Powhite Parkway (Route 76) estimated at 30 acres ±. ** Assumes 1,000 s.f. per unit for 300 condominium units and includes proposed 1,000,000 s.f. retail. HOTEL ROOM COMPARISON Name/ No. No. Rooms/ Location Acres Rooms Acre 1. Harbour Pointe 34.0 60 1.76 Brandermill 2. Moorfield 83.0 300 3.61 S/L U.S. Route 60 3. The Boulders 138.0 300 2.17 Jahnke/Chippenham 4. Brookfield 70.0 400 5.71 Route 250 @ 1-64 Richmond Galleria (H>~) Jahnke~/Chippenham 146.1 700 4.79 COMPARISON OF REQUESTS BY ADJOINING CHESTERFIELD RESIDENTS WITH ~ENDED HMK PROPOSAL "CAPITULATION" or "CHARADE" LAND USE OBJECTION NO. 1: Inadequate buffer Requested 250 feet "natural growth and vegetation, supple- mented with plantings as required by Planning Commission" Entire western boundary north of the Powhite extension 8-foot high wall of quality and design approved by Planning Commission Maintained by developer Located along eastern line of buffer Amended Plan 250 feet adjoining residential; 100 feet adjoining Crestwood Elementary School "buffer and landscaped" area; No Commitment that will be left in natural state as requested; could roads be allowed in area as long as landscaped? No Commitment Located within buffer LAND USE OBJECTION NO. 2: No transitional use protecting existing residential Requested 300-foot east of buffer- residential zoning Amended Plan 300 feet east of buffer- residential zoning--but definition of "residential" is the problem Uses permitted: Resi- dential housing for sale or rental Maximum Height: 3 stories or 45 feet, whichever is less Maximum number of units 8/acre Uses permitted: Residential housing for sale or rental plus group care facilities, mass transportation, planned development, public and private profit-making clubs, indoor recreational facilities, day care homes, kindergardens, private colleges, social and fraternal clubs, and lodges--all allowed without qualifying as conditional uses or special exceptions a~s~/~//~ normally required in R-15 ?~ Townhouses or garden buildings: 3 stories or· 45 feet, whichever is less; other buildings: 3-5 stories 12.5 units per acre (page 3 of letter to Balderson) LAND USE OBJECTION NO. 3: Commercial use adjoining residential Reque s ted Amended Plan Delete all commercial/retail uses; allow office use Uses Permitted: Office NO CHANGE IN PROPOSAL 1,000,000 square feet of Commercial Use is requested. This compares to Cloverleaf Mall (750,000 square feet) and Beaufont Mall (280,000 square feet) on this one site. This is in addition to 1,470,000 square feet for offices and 700 hotel rooms and 600 total residential units. (See Exhibits A and B on density) NO CHANGE IN PROPOSAL. Still requesting commercial zoning, but defining business zoning far in excess of the normal B-1 zoning classifica- tion requested. It includes: (1) normal retail uses but also (2) includes the following Maximum Height of Buildings: Western most 350 feet of office zoning (nearest Crest- wood Farms and proposed "residential" use) would be a maximum of 3 stories; remainder of property, 5 stories Open space: prefer 40% as in Brookfield Office Park uses which are normally allowed under code as conditional uses are special exceptions under appropriate conditions and with additional review: commercial parking lot, mass transportation, medical and dental laboratories, fraternal clubs and lodges, plus (3) it also includes the following which are normally not allowed under B-1 zoning by Chesterfield as they require a higher zoning: service stations, department stores, trade schools, theaters, cocktail lounges, nightclubs, hotels, motor vehicle sales and repairs, boat sales and kennels--all allowed in B-1 NO CHANGE IN PROPOSAL; Nearest residential-12 stories Remainder of property-12 stories 20%, which includes pavement in certain instances. Note: 20% of "total development"-- ~where is this open space to be located? Could it all be in the flood plain area or "buffer"? See illustrated drawings tendered by HMK to see true amount of open space within development. ***Major Policy Objection--Extensive Commercial Use adjoining residential area; office use more appropriate as transitional use LAND USE OBJECTION NO. 4: Intensity of Development; Unbelieveable Density Generating Excessive Traffic Density is so important because it determines the traffic to be generated affecting all Chesterfield residents Requested Limit development within property to square footage established by county as appropriate just 4 months ago (7,850 square feet per acre). The Jahnke/Chippen- ham development area study proposed land use plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 27, 1983 established an office land use density for this area of 7,850 square feet per acre and commercial land use density in area of 9,850 square feet per acre Amended Proposal NO CHANGE IN PROPOSAL See attached Exhibit A for density. Notes: (1) Of the 9 existing Richmond area projects used for comparison on our Exhibit 1 of October 25 presentation, HMK questioned the accuracy of two figures. We stand behind those figures and refer you to J. B. Campbell at Brandermill and Ron McRoberts at Brookfield. (2) By any comparison, ~K is the most intensive office/retail/hotel development in the suburban Richmond area, far exceeding the density allowed at any time and under any conditions in Chesterfield or Henrico. (3) PROPOSAL IS COMPARABLE TO PUTTING ON THIS PROPERTY CLOVERLEAF MALL (750,000 SQUARE FEET) PLUS BEAUFONT MALL (280,000 SQUARE FEET) PLUS THE HYATT HOUSE AT BROOKFIELD (400 ROOMS) PLUS NE~ HOTEL PLANNED FOR ~]OORFIELD (300 ROOMS) PLUS THE EXISTING BROOKFIELD OFFICE USE, ALL THE PROPOSED BRANDE~4ILL OFFICE USE PLUS ALL OF THE PROPOSED MOORFIELD PROPOSED OFFICE USE PLUS 600 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS FOUND AT CHESTERFIELD VILLAGE APAR~!i~ENTS AND CLOVERLEAF LAKE APARTMENTS. HMK PROPOSES TO DO THIS ON 141 ACRES (176 LESS 35 ACRES TO POWHITE). THE ABOVE PROJECTS ARE LOCATED ON 343 ACRES) SEE EXHIBIT B (4) The true nature of this project is seen by pages 8-9 of the letter to Balderson in which they distinguish it from some of our finer local office developments and compare it to very dense developments in Houston, Dallas, Bloomington and Atlanta. EXHIBIT A Determination of actual density of office/retail proposal-- excluding the residential and hotel use. 176 acres - 35 acres - 36 acres 105 acres - 19 acres - 24 acres 62 acres Total Project Powhite extension lb and lc residential la, 2, 3a, 3b and 4 hotels (700 rooms are proposed for hotels. County in Jahnke/Chippenham land use plan said hotel density should be 36.5 rooms per acre so 700 ro_.~ms will take 19 acres) for~60 u~i'f~-~idential on ~ la (H~%~ plans ~ units on la per Chaft"TT-f--~t 12.5 units per acre per page 3 of their letter to Ba!derson, this will take 24 acres) ~or o~fice and retail use 1,470,000 square feet/o~fice - Chart II 1,000,000 square feet/retail - Chart II 2,470,000 total square feet ~or office and retail located on 62 acres Result: 39,838 square feet per acre o~ o£fice and retail development on acreage ~or those purposes Jahnke/Chippenham area use plan~dop d by Board on July 27, 1983,~~1i-~ed densities of ~850~/square feet if office use ~~1~-/. quare feet if c3>..~c'{al use HMK proposal is or'-~9~-83-~s~u  are feet per acre EXHIBIT B This proposal is comparable to placing on this property adjoining a residential area Cloverleaf Mall (750,000 square feet) plus Beaufont Mall (280,000 square feet) plus the Hyatt House at Brookfield (400 rooms) plus the new hotel plan for Moorefield (300 rooms) plus all the existing office development at Brookfield plus all the proposed office development at Harbour Point in Brandermill plus all the off~ce use planned for Moorefield plus the Chesterfield Village Apartment complex and the Cloverleaf Lake Apartment complex. HMK proposes to do this on4~/~res (176 less 35 acres to Powhite extension). ~ofk~comparable densities described above are located on/3~43/acres. See Addendum for calculations. ADDENDUN - EXHIBIT B Square Footage ~MK Retail - 1,000,000 sq. ft. Office - 1,470,000 sq. ft. Hotel - 700 rooms Residential Total - 600 units Comparables Cloverleaf Mall~ - 750,000 sq. ft. Beaufont Mall - 280,000 sq. ft. Total 1,030,000 sq. ft. Brookfield - 767,000 sq. ft. Harbour Pointe - 300,000 sq. ft. Moorefield - 383,000 sq. ft. Total 1,450,000 sq. ft. Hyatt House - 400 rooms Moorefield Hotel - 300 rooms Total 700 rooms Chesterfieid Village Apts. Cloverleaf Lake Apa rtme nt s Total - 404 units - 210 units 614 units Acreage H[~K acreage: 141 acres Cloverleaf Ma!l Beaufont. Mall Brookfield (Hotel & O~fiice) ~ooref ie ld (Hotel & Office) Chesterfiield Village Apts. Cloverleaf Lake Apartments Total - 60 acres - 46 acres - 70 acres - 83 acres - 3~] acres - 32 acres - 18 acres = 343' * *Does include acreage for hotel site at Harbour Pointe that should be excluded for accuracy. ~ovember 21, 1953 ~rs Joan Gi rone P. O. ~3ox 40 Chesterfield, Va. 23832 Dear ?~lrs. Girone, I see your Plannin~ Comn~ission's ~enial of the H~I~( application as bein~ a well considered judgement of all the applicable issues and I ~elieve ti~eir position should ~e endorsed ~y the ~oard of Supervisors. Sincerely yours, .'~alter V. ~alla~ 1719 ~loomfielo Road Richmond, Va. 23225 cc: i,ir. 2. Garland Oodd :qr. C. L. $ookt~lan .',ir. Harry G Oaniel iqr. J. 2oyall Robertson 2029 Montauban Circle Richmond, VA 23 23 5 November 22, 1 983 Mrs. Joan Girone Vice-Chairman, Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Re: Application by HMK Corporation for rezoning of Parcel I from Agricult~ (A) and Single Family Residential (R-15). Th~ area lies north of the proposed right- of-~y of Powhite Parkway and bounded on the east.'by Chippenham Parkway, on the north by the Southern Railroad and on the w~st by Lake Page, C~estwood Elementary School and Crestwood Farms. Dear Mrs. Girone, As a resident, taxpayer and school teacher of Chesterfield County and more specifically of Crestwood Farms for over 30 yea~, I strongly oppose HMK Corp. 's request for rezoning the above property. Contrary to Mr. Perel's claim that he has "met all concer~" as he is quoted in the Nov. 21 News Leader the major ov~u~el concern of Chesterfield residents has not been m~. T-~ concern is the spread of shopping complexes beyond the Route 60 corrider to the Powhi~e Parkway. Chesterfield County in the main is a lovely reside~ia~ county ~ith shopping complexes conce~u~ted along Rou~e 60 and Route 360. Naturally, small service centers are spotted conviently throughout the county ~ut the ~ shopping area envisioned by HMK is not w[~t we r~sidents of the county wan~ as our "front door" to the county. Business offices in low-rise buildings along with handsome, condominiums similar to the area a~ross from the Country Club of Virginia would announce entrance into the county in a much more fav.~b~e manner. Please help direct Mr. Perel towards a building endeavor that ~ not a~d to the "eye sore" which is a~ready concentrated a~ong Route 60 and Route 360. Thank you for your consideration, Gloria W. Bylund Mr. R. Ga~nd Dodd Mr. Jeff Applegate Mr. Harry Daniel Mr. Jesse Mays 1925 Stonehenge Drive Richmond, Virginia 23225 November 21, 1983 Mr. Harry G. Daniel P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Va. 23832 Dear Mr. Daniel: I am writing to let you know once again how strongly my husband and I both feel about the rezontng request of property being handled by H.M.K. The density of H.MoKo's proposal and the "downtown Richmond" effect that was eluded to, plus the monstrous increase in traffic, would, without dispute, totally destroy any resemblance to a '~ery sought after" residential area, am Joan Girone described Crestwood Farms at their annual neighborhood meeting. Also to my knowledge there is no other elementary school in th~s county that would abut within 100 feet such a massive conglomeration of business. I sincerely hope that you will consider these and all other aspects carefully before making your decision on Wednesday, November 23, 1983 at the Board of Supervisors meeting when this matter is considered. T. P. PETTIGREW 2026 MONTAIGNE DR. DON ,AIR, VA. November 18, 1983 Mrs. Joan Girone P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Va. 23832 Re, Application by PI~K Corp. for rezo~ of Parcel I from AgricUl- tural (A) and Single Family Residential (R-15). This area lies north of the proposed right-of-way of powhite Parkway and bounded on the east by Chippenham Parkway, on the north by the Southern Railroad and on the west by Lake Page, Crestwood.'Elementary School and Crestwood Farms. Dear Mrs. Girone~ On September %, 1983, I wro%e to you and the members of' the Planning Commission to register a strong p~otest against the rezoning of the above par- cel of land. Since the Planning CommiSsion very prudently, in my opinion, denied the request for rezoning, I urgently request that you and, I trust, the other members of the Board of Superv%sors will see fit to approve their decision. / Sincerely yours, Nancy C. Pettigrew Copies to~ Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mr. C. L. Bookman 'Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. J. Royall Robertson 1917 Bloomfield Road Richmond, Virginia 23225 November 21, 1983 Mr. Harry G. Daniel Post Office Box #0 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Daniel: As long-time residents of Chesterfield County, we would like to make a few comments concerning the proposed rezoning of the HMK properties to be heard on Wednesday, November 23. First, there is genuine doubt that there is a need either for three hotels or for another shopping mall in the area. It is hard to imagine many businesses that are not already serving the area either at Cloverleaf or Chesterfield Malls or on Route 60. If such an area were constructed, lacking the need, it is conceivable that businesses would transfer there from Cloverleaf and Chesterfield Malls leaving these areas to deteriorate. To our knowledge, there is no precedent in the County for the location of any mall, much less one the density of the proposed one, adjacent to an elementary school. This would lead to a multitude of problems among which are the disruption of education due to the noise and pollution of construction and the inevitable danger caused by the introduction of the criminal element that seems to gravitate toward such high density developments. We would hope that before considering this plan, the Supervisors would make a personal visit to Oahnke Road during rush hour. One day last week, the traffic was bumper to bumper from Buford Road all the way to Bloomfield. A considerable amount of additional traffic will be generated by the Boulders on the south side of ~ahnke. There is no way that ~lahnke, even if it were made four lane, (at considerable expense to the County) could handle any more traffic. The claim by HMK that no further traffic on ~Iahnke would be generated by the proposal is unrealistic. People are just not going to drive all over the County looking for an access to Powhite if the most direct route for them is to use Oahnke. Another very real concern is that the developer has heretofore been exclusively in the business of buying and selling real estate and, to our knowledge, has never developed anything. It is our fear that if his glamorous and grandiose plan is accepted and rezoning granted, thus increasing the value of the land, it will then be sold. There would then be no limit to the kinds of things that could be built there. Mr. Harry G. Daniel Page Two November 21, 1983 The Planning Commission spent many hours in meeting with HMK officials, holding three hearings, and giving detailed study to the proposal. It was their unanimous decision not to recommend the rezonin§. We hope that you will follow their sound advice and deny the application. Very truly yours, /pm Christine G. Major Calvi~ F. Major