Loading...
02sn0237-dec18.pdfDecember 18, 2002 BS STAFF'S REQUEST ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATION 02SN0237 Roper Brothers Lumber Co., Inc. and Nash Road/Woodpecker Road, LLC REQUEST: Dale and Matoaca Magisterial Dislricts North and South lines of Woodpecker Road Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential CR-25) of 620.9 acres plus proffered conditions on an existing zoned Residential (R-25) 872 acre tract. PROPOSED LAND USE: A single family residential subdivision is planned on that portion of the property proposed to be rezoned from AgricultUral (A) to Residential (R-.25) and continued residential development for expansion of the Highlands Subdivision is proposed on that part of the property already zoned Residential (R-25). A total of 1,250 dwelling units is proposed (Proffered Condition 3). A maximnm overall density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre for that part of the property proposed to be rezoned to Residential (R-25) has been proffered yielding approximately 310 dwelling units on that part of the property(Proffered Condition 3). If 310 units are developed on the property which is proposed to be rezoned.to R-25, 940 units would be permitted On that part of the property already zoned R-25 yielding a density of 1.08 dwelling units per acre on that'part of the property. A maximum of 1,250 dwelling units would be allowed on both tracts yielding an overall density of 0.84 units per acre. THE APPLICANTS HAVE REQUESTED A DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 22, 2003. Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public Service. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMEND DENIAL. AYES: MESSRS. GECKEK, CUNNINGHAM AND GULLEY. NAYS: MESSRS. LITTON AND STACK. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend denial for the following reasons: The proposed zoning falls to comply with the Southern and Western Area Plan which suggests the subject property is suitable for residential use of 1 to 5 acre loB, suited for Residential (R-88) Zoning. The proffered conditions do not address the impacts of this development on necessary capital facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the need for transportation, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations is identified in the Countfs adopted Public Facilities Plan, Thoroughfare Plan and Capital Improvemeni Program. The impact Of' this- development is discussed herein~ The proffered conditions do not mitigate the impact on these capital facilities, thereby not assuring adequate service levels .are maintained as necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of County citizens. (NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION, HOWEVER THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELYBY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.) PROFFERED CONDITIONS The Owners-Applicants in this zoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for themselves and their successors or assigns, proffer that the development of the property known as Chesterfield County Tax ID 761-643-6618, (Parcel "A'), and Tax ID 764-639-4424, (Parcel "B") (the "Property") under consideration will be developed according to the following conditions and that Condition 1 ot~ Zoning Case 88SN0148 will be amended by condition 3 below, for the request property only, Tax ID 786-646-4472, (Parcel "C-I") if, and only if, the rezoning request for R-25 and the amendment to case 88SN0148 are granted..In the event the request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the Owners-Applicants, these proffers and conditions shall be immediately null and'void and of no further force or effect. This application contains one exhibit described as follows: 2 02SN0237-DEC18-BOS Exhibit A - The plan rifled "Zoning Plan" dated March 15, 2002. Timbering. Except for the timbering approved by the Virginia State Departmem of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on the Property until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Enviromental Engineering Department and the approved devices have been installed. (EE) 2. Transportation. Dedications. In conjunction with recordation of the initial subdivision plat, the following rights-of-way shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterf'leld County: (a) Forty-five (45) feet of right of way, on the south side of Woodpecker Road and on the west side of Cattail Road, measured from the centerline of that part of the roads immediately adjacent to the property; and a two hundred (200) foot wide runited access right-of-way for an east/west fi-eeway ("East/West Freeway") through the southeastern part of the property. The exact location of this fight-of-way shall be approved by the Transportation Department. There shall be no such requirement to dedicate such right-of-way, if prior to recordation of the initial subdivision plat, the Board of Supervisors approves an alternative location for the East/West Freeway that does not extend across the propertY. Accesses. Direct access from the property to Woodpecker. Road and Cattail Road shall be limited to two (2) public roads onto each roadway;, for a total of four accesses. The exact location of these accesses' Shall be approved by the Transportation Department. Road Improvements. To provide for an adequate medway system, the developer shall be responsible for the following: Construction of additional pavement along Woodpecker Road and Cattail Road at each approved access to provide left andright turn lanes, based on Transportation Department standards; Relocation of the ditch to provide an adequate shotflder~along the south side of Woodpecker Road and along the west side of Cattail Road. for the. entire property frontage; and Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, any additional right-of-way (or easement) required for the improvement idenrified above. 3 02SN0237-DEC18-BOS Transportation Phasing Plan. Prior to any road and drainage plan approval, a phasing plan for the required road improvements, as identified above, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. (T) (STAFF NOTE: Proffered Conditions 1 and 2 apply only to Parcels A and B on Exhibit A.) Densitg. The total number of single family residential units on Parcels A and B shall not exceed an overall density of 0.5 si~4~le family residential unit peracre. The total number of single family residential units developed cumulatively on Parcels A, B and C-1 shall not exceed 1250 single family residential units. (Note: This proffered condition modifies Proffered Condition 1 of Case 88SN0148, for-parcel C-1 only. The total number of units permitted in the land area which was the subject of Case 88SN0148 remains at 2000 units. (P) (STAFF NOTE: Proffered Condition 3 applies to Parcels A, B and C-1 on Erdaibit A.) All lots which are adjacent to either Woodpecker or Cattail Roads shall have a minimum area of two (2) acres. (P) o A minimum 100 foot buffer which may be inclusive of any lot shall' be maintained adjacent to Woodpecker and Cattail Roads. These buffers shall conform to the requirements for buffers in the Subdivision Ordinance. (P) (STAFF NOTE: Proffered Conditions 4 and 5 apply to Parcels and B on.Exhibit A.) Racreational Facilities Prior to issuance of more than fifty (50) building permits on Parcels A and B on Exhibit A, the developers shall either: 1) apply for a ConditionalUse on Parcels A and B on Exhibit A to permit recreational facilities which shall include ~(minimum 4,000 gross square foot actiw'ties center; or 2) submit a site plan on a part of parcel C-1 on Exhibit A for a minimum 4,000 gross square foot activities center. The developers shall obtain certificates of occupancy for the minimum 4~000 gross square foot activities center withineighteen (18) months of the issuance of the 100t~ residential building permit on Parcels A and B on Exhibit A. Otherwise, no further residential building permits shall be granted on Parcels A and B until, such certificates of occupancy have been granted. (P) 4 02SN0237-DEC18-BOS GENERAL INFORMATION Location: North and south lines of Woodpecker Road, and west line of Cattail Road. Tax IDs 761-643- 6618, 764-639-4424 and 768-646-Part of 4472 (Sheet 33). Existing Zoning: A and R-25 Size: 1492.9 acres Existing Land Use: Vacaut Adiacent Zoning and Land Use: North and East -~ A & R-25; Single family residential or vacant South - A; Single family residential or vacant West - A, R-15 & R-25 - Single family residential or vacant UTILITIES Public Water System: The property currently zoned Residential (R-25) was zoned as part of the "Highlands" development in 1989 (Case 88SN0148). Use of the public water system was required by County Code at the time of that zoning approval and is still required by County Code. There is an existing twelve (12) inch water line extending along Nash Road that terminates adjacent to Appleeross Way, approximately 4,500 feet northwest of the paxt of the request property currently zoned Agricultural (A) and proposed for rezoning to Residential (R-25): In addition, there is a thirty .(30) inch water line at the intersection of Woodpecker and Bradley Bridge Roads, approximately 13,000 feet east ofthisportionoftherequest site. Use of the public water system is required by County Code. Public Wastewater System: The public wastewater system is not aVailable to serve this site. The request site lies within that portion of the Southern and Western Area Plan which suggests that Residential (R-88) zoning and development with use of private septic systems is appropriate. 5 02SN0237-DEC18-BOS Private .Septic System: Prior to recordation ora subdivision plat, soils analysis for each lot must be submitted to the Health Department for review and approval. ENVIRONMENTAL Drainage and Erosion: The portion of the property currently zoned Residential (11-25) was Originally zoned in 1989 (Case 88SN0148) as part of the "Highlands" development. At that time, profferedcondifions were accepted which required on-site retention (Condition 14 of Case 88SN01:48). This condition would not be altered by this request. The portion of the property currently zoned Agricultural (A) and proposed for rezoning to R~ 25 drains southwest and southeast into either a perennial stream or into Lake Margaret. There are currently no on- or off-site drainage or erosion problems and none are anticipated with development. To insure that adequate erosion control measures are in place priortO any timbering, there should ho.timbering without first obtaining a land disturbance peimit from the Environmental Eng'meering Department. (Proffered Condition 1 - Parcels A and B) Water Quality: Some of the property currently zoned Residential (11-25) is encumbered .by Resource Protection Areas. (RPA's) ~ A Resource Protection Area (lIPA) exists along the southwestern property line and along fifty (50) percent of the southeastern property line of the portion of the request property currently zoned Agricultural (A). PUBLIC FACILITIES The need for fire, school, library, park and transportation facilities is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement Program and further detailed by specific departments in the applicable sections of this "Request Analysis." This development will have an impact on these facilities. Fire Sernce: The Public Facilities Plan indicates that emergency services calls are expected to increase forty-five (45) percent by 2015. Eight (8) new fare/resCue stations are recommended for construction by 2015 in the Plan. Based on 310 additional, dwelling units proposed on the portion of the request property proposed for R-25 zoning beyond the number-of dWelling units that are already allowed on the portion of the property already zoned Residential (R- 6 02SN0237-DEC 18-BOS 25), this request will generate approximately ten (10) calls for fire and EMS services each year. The applicant has not addressed the Lmpact on fire service for that portion of the property proposed to be rezoned from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25). The Phillips Volunteer Fke Station, Company Number 13, currently pro,des fire protection. The Airport Fire/Rescue Station, Company 15, provides emergency medical service. When the property is developed, the number of hydrants, quantity of water needed for fire protection and access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review process. .Schools: In addition to the students which will be generated by development of the portion of the property already zoned R-25, approximately 166 students will be generated by the development of the Agricultural (A) zoned property proposed for R-25 zoning. The current school attendance line is Woodpecker Road. If the attendance lines axe not modified, the schools for that part of the property currently zoned Residential (R-25) will be as follows': Gates Elementary School attendance zone: capacity- 720, enrollment- 785; Salem Middle School zone: capacity - 1,030, 'enrollment - 1,147. The schools for that portion of the property proposed to be rezoned from A to R-25 will be: Ettrick Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 650, enrollment - 516; MatoacaMiddle School zone:' capacity- 720, enrollment- 537. Currently, there are four (4) trailers at Gates Elementary and twelve (12) trailers at Salem Middle School. The entire property lies within the Matoaca High School zone. The new Matoaca High School is opening in Fall 2002 with a capacity of 1,750 and a projected enrollment of 1,010. The students generated by development of the property proposed for rezoning from A to Rv 25 would create significant enrollment increases at the elementary, middle and high school levels. The applicant has not addressed the impact of development ofthe property cnrrently zoned A on school facilities. Libraries: Consistent with the' Board of Supervisors' policy, the impact of development on .library services is assessed County-wide. Based on projected population growth; the Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space throughout the County. Taking into account the facility improv6ments that have been made since the Public.Facilities Plan was published, there is still an unmet need for additional library space throughout the County. Development of the property noted in this case would most likely affect the Central Library. The Plan identifies a need for additional space at the Central Library. The applicant has not addressed the impact of development ot~the part of the property proposed for rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25) on library facilities. 7 02SN0237-DEC18-BOS Parks and Recreation: The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for four (4) new regional parks. In addition, there is currently a shortage of commuulty park acreage in the County. The Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for 625 acres of regional park space and 116 acres of community park space by 2015. The Plan also identifies the need for neighborhood parks and special purpose parks and 'make suggestions for their locations. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan has identified this general area for a community park. The applicant has not offered measures to assist in addressing the impacl of the development o f the part of the property proposed for rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R- 25) on parks and recreation facilities. Transportation: This request consists of approximately 1,492 acres. The applicant has submitted a map (Exhibit A) that subdivides the property into several parcels; Parcels A, B and C-1. Parcels A and B, consisting of approximately 625 acres, are located on the south side of Woodpecker Road and on the west side Of Cattail Road. The applicant is' requesting rezoning of these parcels from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25). The balance of the property (Parcel C-l) is located on the north side of Woodpecker Road. Parcel C-1 is currently zoned Residential (R-25), and is part of the planned Highlands Subdivision. The applicant has included this parcel for the purpose of establishing a density of the property that will not exceed 1,250 single family residential units (Proffered Condition 3 - Parcels A, B and C-I). Based on single family trip rates, development of all the property could generate approximately 10,590 average daily trips. Proffered Condition 3 also. limits development of Parcels A and B to a density ofahalf (0.5) Single family residential unit per acre. Based on single family trip rates, development of just Parcels A and B could generate approximately 2,960 average daily trips, These vehicles will be distributed along Cattail Road which had a traffic count of 1,042 vehicles per day, and along Woodpecker Road and Nash Road which had 2002 traffic counts of 1,522 and 3,378 vehicles per day, respectively. Staff does not support this request because the applicant has not addressed the traffic impact of this development on area roads. The Thoroughfare Plan identifies Woodpecker Road and Cattail Road as major arterials with recommended right of way widths of ninety (90) feet. The applicant has proffered to dedicate forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Woodpecker Road and Cattail Road, in accordance with that Plan for that portion of the property proposed to be rezoned from A to R-25. (Proffered Condition 2 - Parcels A and B) The Thoroughfare Plan also identifies an eastiwest !imited access facility ('~ae East/West Freeway"), with a recommended right of way width of 200 feet, extending from Hull Street Road (Route 360) to Interstate 95. The alignment of this roadway extends throughParcelB. The applicant is unwilling to dedicate right of way for the East/West Freeway. The Southern and Western Area Plan suggests that most of this area of the County is appropriate 8 02SN0237-DEC18-BOS for residential development on one (1) to five (5) acre lots suited for Residential (R-88) zoning, with one (1) regional mixed-use center, generally located along the East/West Freeway just west of Branders Bridge Road. A large percentage of the Southern and Western Area Plan is identified as aRural Conservation Area, which indicates that planned development should be deferred. The "build-out" map that is included in the Southern and Western Area Plan indicates that most of the rural conservation area may be appropriate for residential development at 1.01 to 2.5 units per acre with two (2) additional regional mixed-. use centers along the East/West Freeway. The East/West Freeway is included inthe Thoroughfare Plan to improve access to this area, especially the regional mixed-use centers, and serve as a major traffic reliever. Without this Freeway, area roads, even if improved, may not be able to handle the increased traffic volumes as the County continues to develop. The applicant has proffered to dedicate a 200 foot wide right of way for the East/West Freeway through the southeastern part of the property (Proffered Condition 2 - Parcels A and B). Accord'rog to the proffer, if the Board of Supervisors approves an alternative alignment for the East/West Freeway that does not extend across the property, the developer would be relieved of the requirement to dedicate the right of way. (Proffered Condition 2 - Parcels A and B) The Subdivision Ordinance requires a setback of 200 feet, exclusive of required yards,' from the East/West Freeway right of way, unless a noise study demonstrates that alesser distance is acceptable. Natural vegetation must be retained within the setback area~ Access to major arterials, such as Woodpecker and Cattail Roadsl should be controlled. For that portion of the property proposed to be rezoned to R-25, the applicant has proffered that direct access to Woodpecker and Cattail Roads will be limited to two (2).public roads onto each roadway, for a total of four (4) accesses. (Proffered Condition 2 - Parcels A and B) The Subdivision Ordinance requires that subdivision streets co/from to the Planning Commission's Stub Road Policy which suggests that traffic volumes on those stteets not exceed 1,500 vehicles per day. It may be necessary for the developer to provide no-lot frontage streets (i.e., residential collectors) through part of Pamels A andB. As previoUSly noted, Parcel C-1 is part of the Highland Subdivision. In1989, the Board of Supervisors approvedthe rezoning for the Highland Subdivision (2,441 acres), and.accepted several transportation ~elated proffers. These proffered conditions include right of'way dedication, shoulder improvements and turn lanes along Nash Road and Woodpecker Road; and construction oftwo (2) Thoroughfare Planroads through the development. This request will not affect those previously aeceptexl proffers. The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. For that portion of the property proposed to be rezoned R-25; the applicant has proffered to:: 1 ) construct left and right mm lanes along Woodpecker Road and Cattail Road at each public road intersection,.based on Transportation Department standards; and 2) relocate the ditch to provide an adequate shoulder along the south side of Woodpecker Road and along the west sidepfCattail Road for the entire property frontage (Proffered Condition 2 - Parcels A and B). Utility Poles are 9 02SBI0237-DEC18-BOS located on the south side of Woodpecker Road and on the west side of Cattail Road approximately five (5) to ten (10) feet from the existing edge of pavement. To provide an adequate shoulder along the property frontage, these utility poles must be relocated behind. the new ditch. The Thoroughfare Plan identifies the need to improve existing roads, as well as coustruct new roads to accommodate growth. Area roads need to be improved to address safety and accommodate the increase in traffic generated by this development. Sections of Woodpecker and Cattail Roads have nineteen (19) to twenty (20) feet wide pavement with no shoulders. Sections of Nash Road range from eighteen and a half (18.5) feet wide pavement with no shoulders, to twenty-two (22) feet wide pavement with six (6) feet wide shoulders. Sections of Nash Road have substandard vertical and horizontal alignments with obstructions, generally large trees and high earth banks, located close to the edge of pavement. The current volume of traffic on Nash Road exceeds the capacity of the road. The Standard typical section for these types of roadways should be twenty-four (24) feet wide pavement, with minimum eight (8) feet wide shoulders. Woodpecker, Cattail and Nash Roads will be directly impacted by development of this property. The applicant has not addressed the traffic impact of the development proposed for that part ofthe property for which rezoning to R-25 is sought. The Transportation Department cannot support this request. Financial Impact on Capital Facilities: · PER UNIT . Potential Number of New Dwelling Units 310' . ,~, , 1.00 Population Increase ' 846.30 i ' "' '~ 2.73 Number of New Sfudents Elementary .. 75.64 ' " 0}2~ Middle 40.30 ' . ' · ' 0.13 High 49.60 0.16 TOTAL ' 165~54 " '0.53 Net Cost for Schools 1,114,7 0 3,596 Net .Cost for Parks 251,720' . 812 Net Cost for Libraries ·87,420' ~. ' 282 Net. Cost for Fire Stations 97,650 . 315 · : · 2,863 Average Net Cost for Roads 887,530 · 439,080[.. · 7868 TOTAL NET COST 2, . *Based on a' proffered maximum density of 0.5 units per acre on 'Parcels A and B. (Proffered Condition 3)' 10 02SN0237-DEC 18,BOS As noted, the proposed development of the portion of the property proposed for rezoning fromA to R-25 will have an impact on capital facilities. Staff has calculated the fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, roads, parks, libraries and fire stations at $7,868 per unit. The apPlicant has been advised that a maxtmum proffer of $7,800 per unit for that part of the development proposed for rezoning from A to R-25 would defray the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by this proposed development. This application for rezoning was filed prior to changes in staff practices relative to fiscal impact analysis. During a pre-application conference, staff notified the applicant that potential changes to current practices were being discussed. St,iff has reviewed this application under the new practice, resulting in a maximum increase of 310 dwelling units that wilt create an impact on capital facilities. The applicant has not offered measureS to assist in defraying the cost of this proposed zoning on Such capital facilities. Accordingly, the County's ability to provide capital facilities to its citizens will be adversely impacted. Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash proffer in this case for that part of the property proposed for rezoning from A to R-25. The Planning Commission and the'Board of Supervisors, through their consideration of this request, may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this case that may justify acceptance of proffers as offered. LAND USE Comprehensive Plan: Lies within the boundaries of the Southern and Western Area Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 1 to 5 acre lots; suited for Residential (R-88) zoning. A~ea DeveloPment Trends: Properties generally surrounding the request property are zoned Agricultural (A) and are occupied by agricultural and large-lot single family residential uses, with the exception of the Highlands Subdivision located generally north and west of the request property. The Highlands Subdivision is zoned Residential 0R-25) and developed for single family residential uses. Amstel Bluff Subdivision which is zoned Residential (R-25) is east ofthe request property and is developed for single family residential use. It is anticipated that larger-lot residential development will continue in the area on properties zoned Residential (R-g8) as recommended by the Plan or on properties where a rural conservation design~ intended to protect the rural character of the area as recommended by the Plan, is employed. ! 1 02SN0237-DEC18-BOS Zoning and Plan History: The 872 acre portion of the request property that is already zoned Residential (R-25)was zoned as part of a 2,441 acre tract commonly known as the Highlands Development (Case 88SN0148). On March 22, 1989, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation ~om the Planning Commission, approved rezoning of the 2,441 acre tract from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25) with a Conditional Use to permit single family residential development with outdo°r recreational facilities. The Board's approval was subject to numerous proffered conditions addressing transportation, environmental, and land use concerns relative to buffers, phasing development, signage, lighting and parking._ In addition, development oftheproperty for residential use was limited to 2,000 dwelling units, yielding a density of 0.82 dwelling units per acre for the entire Highlands development. Further, through this zoning case, the applicant dedicated 54.3 acres for use as a school site and'5 acres for use as a fire station. Subsequently, the Southern and Western Area Plan was adopfed. The adopted Plan now suggests that the Highlands is appropriate for development of one (1) to five (5) acre lots suited for Residential 0R-88) zoning. Current Proposal: As noted above, the original zoning for the entire Highlands development permitted a maximum of.2,000 dwelling units to be developed ona 2,441 acre parcel. The applicants have indicated that the land area included in this request, which is already zoned R-25, will accommodate 1,250 o£the original 2,000 permitted dwelling units. With this request, the applicants have proffered, that the total number of lots that will be developed on the remaining portion of the Highlands property (the portion of the request property currently zoned Residential (R-25)) and on the property proposed for rezoning from Aglicuitural (A) to Residential (R-25) will not exceed 1,250 (Proffered Condition 3 - Parcels A, B and C-i). The applicants are proposing that they be given a credit towards the financial impact of the development on the Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-25) property because no more dwelling units will be permitted than those already allowed by the Highlands original zoning. R is important to note that a large portion of the remaining Highlands property contains environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and Resource Protection Areas (RPA's). Density and Minimum Lot Areas: As noted, a maximum of 1,250 dwelling units would be permitted on both the rem~iini.ng Highlands property (the portion of the request property already zoned Residential (R-25)) and the portion~ of the request property proposed for rezoning from A to R-25 (Proffered Condition 3) yielding an overal} density of 0.84 dwelling units per acre. (Proffered Condition 3, Parcels A, B and C-I ) The applicant has proffered a maximum density of 0.5 units per acre on the portion of the request property proposed for rezoning &om Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25) (Proffered Condition 3 - Parcels A, B and C- 1 ). This results in a maximum of 310 lots that 12 02SN0237-DEC18-BOS may be developed on this portion of the request property. (Tax IDs 761;643-6618 and 764- 639-4424) The limitation on the maximum of 1,250 of lots on the entire request property and the nmximnm density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre proffered on the portion of the property proposed for rezoning from A to R-25, limit the number of dwelling units that may be developed on the remaining Highlands property to 940 dwelling units. This yields a density on this portion of the request property of approximately 1..1 dwelling units per acre. Even though the applicant has proffered a maximum density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre (Proffered Condition 3 - Parcels A, B and C-l) on the portion of the request property proposed for rezoning from A to R-25, the proposed zoning fails to meet this intent oftha Southern and'Western Area Plan which recommends that the request property is appropria~ for Residential (R-88) Zoning. The Residential (R-88) District requires that each lot contain a minimum of $8,000 square feel. except that under certain circumstances specified in the Ordinance regarding density calculations and open space preservation, the minimum lot mas may be reduced to 65,340 and one (1) acre. These minimum lots sizes, net density calculations and open space preservation provisions are intended to preserve the environmental and visual amenities of the' southern and western areas of the Coumy as recommended by the Plan such as the forested views and rural character along the roadways. The applicant is requesting Residential (R-25) zoning and is proposing the use of-private septic systems. The Count)- Code would require lots to be a minimum of 40,000 gross square feet with the possibility of reducing the size of ten (10) percent of the lots to a minimum of 30,000 square feet. This request will provide a more typical urban residential design and views along the roadways, instead of the larger lot, open-space sensitive design recommended by the Plan to preserve the rural character. In an attempt to address concerns expressed by the Matoaca District Commissioner relative to minimum lot sizes and the retention of vegetation along Woodpecker and Cattail Roads for the portion of the property proposed for rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R- 25), the applicants have proffered that all lots which are adjacent to Woodpecker and Cattail Roads will have a minimum area of two (2) acres and a minimum 100 foot buffer which may be inclusive of any lot maintained adjacent to Woodpecker and Cattail Roads (Proffered Conditions 4 and 5 - Parcels A and B). Further, in.an attempt to address concerns expressed by current residents of the Highlands Subdivision, the applicants have proffered that recreational facilities which, inehide an activities center will be conslructed within eighteen (18) months of the issuance of the 100th building permit on Parcels A and B (proffered Condition 6 - Parcels A, B, and'C-l). Proffered Condition 6 will be difficult for Staff to track because the number of building permits released per development is not normally tracked on a daily basis. Staffwould prefer that Proffered Condition 6 be amended to link construction of the activifie~s center be linked 13_ 02SN0237-DEC18:BOS to recordation of a certain number of lots rather than the issuance of a certain number of building permits. 'It should be noted that in order to locate recreational uses on Parcels A and/or B, a Conditional Use must first be obtained. As previously noted, the original zoning (Case 88SN0148) did include approval ora Conditional Use to permit recreational uses on a part of Parcel C-1 of this request, therefore, if the proposed recreational facilities will be located on Parcel C-l, approval of a site plan and building permit would be required for the actiVities center provided there is remaining acreage available vhthin the Highlands (Parcel C-1) which has Conditional Use approval. (Proffered Condition 6- Paxcels A, B, and C-1) CONCLUSIONS The request fails to comply with the Southern and Western Area Plan which suggests the' subject property is appropriate for residential use of 1 to 5 acre lots, suitedfor Residential (R-88) zoning. The intent of the Plan to protect the special Visual features and rural character of the area will be compromised with the approval, of this request. Even though the applicant has proffered a maximum density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre, a minimum area for lots adjacent to Woodpecker and Cattail Roads, and a 100 foot buffer, inclusive of lots, along Woodpecker and Cattail Roads for that poffion of the property proposed for rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25), the.proposed rezoning will proVide a more typical suburban residential design than the rural.preservationdesign that would be accomplished through Residential (R-88) zoning, as recommended by the Plato. Further, the proffered conditions do not address the impacts of development of the property proposed for rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25) on necessary capital facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the need for transportation, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations is identified in the County's adopted Public Facilities Plan, Thoroughfare Plan and Capital Improvement Program. The impact ofthis development is:discussed herein. The proffered conditions do not mitigate the impact of the development.of the property proposed for rezoning from A to R-25 on these capital facilitiesi thereby not assuring, adequate service levels are maintained as necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of County citizens. Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (8/20/02): At the applicants' request, the Commission deferred this case to October 15; 2002. 14 02SN0237-DEC18-BOS Staff (8/21/02): The applicants were advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should be submitted no later than August 26, 2002, for consideration at the Commission's October 15, 2002, public hearing. Also, the applicants were advised that a $250.00 deferral fee must be paid' prior to the Commission's October. public hearing. Applicant (9/5/02): The applicants paid the $250.00 deferral fee. Staff (9/23/02): To date, no new or revised information has been submitted by the applicants. Applicant (10/14/02): The applicant submitted revised and additional proffered conditions relative to the provision of recreational facilities, the East/West Freeway, lot sizes and retention of vegetation along Woodpecker and Cattail Roads. Planning Commission Meeting (10/15/02): On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to November 19, 2002. Staft 10/16/02): The applicants were advised in writing that any significant new or revised infortnation should be submitted no later than October 21, 2002, for consideration at the Commission's November 19, 2002, public hearing. Staff ( 10/21/02): To date, no new or revised information has been received. 15 02SN0237-DEC t 8-BOS Planning Commission Meeting (11/19/02): The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was support for, and opposition to, the request present. Those who spoke in support indicated it would be appropriate to expand the Highlands and that the development would increase property values. Those opposed noted that the request does not comply with the Plan, and expressed concerns, relative to preserving the area's rural Character and increased traffic volumes on existing roads, Mr: Gulley indicated that the Commission should be consistent with decisions where requests do not comply with the Plan further? providing that if the Plan needs to be amended then such amendment should occur before a case is approved. In addition, he expressed concerns about increased traffic on existing narrow roads. Mr. Cunningham questioned whether this request met the intent of the Plan which was a similar issue in a recent case in his District. Mr. Geeker provided that exceptions to the Plan considered favorably by the Commission most often occur as a result of a change in the surrounding area or when neighbors say a change in the Plan is justified. He provided he could not find a compelling reason tojnstify a deviation from the Plan. He expressed his concerns that the fiscal impacts of this development had not being addressed and that existing roads are unsafe. Mr. Litton stated the proposed development wouldbe of the same quality as the Highlands. He indicated he felt the applicants need to address their impacts on capital facilities and that he would support a minimum lot size of one and one-half acre lots. Mr. Stack indicated he believed some exceptions, such as varying topography, are applicable in this case to justify deviation from the Plan. However, he provided that deviating fxom R- 88 as recommended by the Plan should not be considered a precedent for future actions in the area. He provided that the proffered conditions will protect the rural character by providing large lots with buffers along Woodpecker and Cattail Roads. Further, he provided that the planned thoroughfare road through the Highlands would alleviate some of the traffic along Nash Road. He stated he could support the request provided the applicants fully address their impacts on capital facilities. Mr. Stack made a motion to recommend approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions and that the Board be advised that the applicants should address their impact on capital facilities. His motion was seconded by Mr. Litton. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Messrs. Litton and Stack. NAYS: Messrs. Gecker, Cunulngham and Gulley. On a subsequent motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission recommended denial of this request. 16 02SN0237-DECI 8-BOS AYES: Messers. Gecker, Cunningham, and Gulley NAYS: Messers. Litton and Stack Applicants (12/6/02): A deferral to the Board's January 22, 2003, meeting was requested. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, December 18, 2002, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 17 02SN0237-DEC 18-BOS (;PIN 76864-644-72 (PART , PARCEL "C 1" X EXH BIT ZONING MARCH SCALE PLAN 15, 200,1 1"-2000'