14SN0508
CASE MANAGER: Robert Clay
September 17, 2013CPC
October 15, 2013 CPC
October 23, 2013 BS
December 17, 2013 CPC
January 21, 2014 CPC
January 22,2014 BS
STAFF’S
BS Time Remaining:
REQUEST ANALYSIS
365days
AND
RECOMMENDATION
14SN0508
Centralia Station LLC
BermudaMagisterial District
Ecoff Elementary, Salem Church Middle and Bird High SchoolAttendance Zones
South line of Centralia Road, west of Chester Road
REQUEST:Amendment of zoning (Case 93SN0147) relative to density and accessin
Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7, R-9 and R-12) Districts, plus proffered
conditions on adjacent property zoned Residential (R-7).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A single-family residential subdivision with a maximum of twenty-one (21) lots,
yielding a density of approximately 0.3dwelling unitsper acre is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SCHEDULED TO HEAR THIS CASE AT THEIR
MEETING ON, JANUARY 21, 2014. STAFF WILL ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE
COMMISSION’S ACTION AFTER THEIR MEETING.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommenddenial for the following reasons:
A.While the proposalconformsto The Chester Plan, which suggests the property is
appropriate for Residential use (1 and 1.5 dwelling per acre or less), the
applicationdoesnot mitigatethe impacts of this development on necessary capital
facilities, thereby not insuring adequate service levels are maintained and
protecting the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
B.The concerns of the Utilities and Fire Departmentshave not been adequately
addressed. Developing an in-fill parcel for a single-family residential subdivision
with wells and septic systems rather than the use of public water and wastewater
Ю±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ Ú×ÎÍÌ ÝØÑ×ÝÛ ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬¸®±«¹¸ »¨½»´´»²½» ·² °«¾´·½ »®ª·½»
systems adversely impactsfire protectionwater supplies andis not in keeping
with more recent area development trends.
C.The Transportation concerns relative to safe access and road improvements for
increased traffic have not been adequately addressed.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1.Lots
. A maximum of 21 lots shall be permitted. (P)
2.Access.There shall be no direct vehicular access to Wellington Farms
Subdivision. (P)
3.Open Space.Any portion of the subject Property that abuts Wellington Farms
shall be maintained by the Centralia Station Homeowners Association as a sixty
foot (60') wide open space area and shall be kept in a natural state, except as may
be necessary for the location of utilities and landscape screening. (P)
4.Minimum dwelling size. All dwelling units shall have a minimum gross floor area
of 2,000 square feet. (P)
5.Foundations. Foundations of homes shall be constructed of brick, stone, stucco or
other finished materials. Unfinished cinder block or concrete foundations shall not
be permitted. (P)
6.Fire Protection.All homes shall be provided with residential fire sprinklers
installed in accordance with NFPA 13D or IPC P2904 requirements unless
alternative fire protection water supplies meeting the fire code are provided. (F)
(Note: With the approval of this case Proffered Conditions 23, 25, 26 and 27 of Case
93SN0147 would be deleted. All other conditions of approval ofCase 93SN0147 would
remain in effect.)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The request property is locatedon the south line of Centralia Road, the east line of
Centralia Station, west of Chester Road. Tax ID 786-660-5178.
Existing Zoning:
A, R-7, R-9 and R-12
î ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Size:
73.3acres
Existing Land Use:
Single-family residential or vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North –R-7 and A; Single-family residential and vacant
South –R-12 and R-9; Single-family residential and vacant
East –A with conditional use and C-2; Single-family residential, commercial and vacant
West –R-25, R-7 and A; Single-family residential and vacant
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
The request site is located within the Chester water pressure zone. There is a sixteen (16)
inch water line located along the north side of Centralia Road, approximately fifty (50)
feet from the request site. As the site currently exists, the public water system is within
200 feet of the property, and the use of the public water system is required by County
Code. However, with the planned subdivision of the site, residential lots will be further
than 200 feet from the public water system. The use of the public water system is
recommended. The applicant was asked to proffer the use of the public water system but
declined to do so.
Public Wastewater System:
The request site is located within the Proctors Creek service area. There is a thirty (30)
inch trunk sewer located along the south/southeastern boundary of the request site. As the
site currently exists, the public wastewater system is within 200 feet of the property, and
the use of the public wastewater system is required by County Code. However, with the
planned subdivision of the site, residential lots will be further than 200 feet from the
public wastewater system. The use of the public wastewater system is recommended. The
applicant was asked to proffer the use of the public wastewater system but declined to do
so.
Conclusion
The property currently lies within the boundaries of the Chester Village Planwhich does
not specifically address use of public utilities. While Special Area Plans such as the
Chester Village Planwere not impacted by the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan,
Moving Forward…the Comprehensive Plan for Chesterfield, the use of public utilities is
addressed for new development in those areas impacted by the Plan.Generally, the Plan
suggests that the use of public utilitiesshould be required for new subdivision
í ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
development.It is anticipated that as Special Area Plans are amended through the Phase 2
Implementation Steps of the Plan
, it will be suggested that those areas be subject to
mandatory connection to the systems.
Development of the request site will not require off-site extensions as both the public
water and wastewater systems are available.Despite the reduction of residential lots
planned, and even though the proposed lots will be larger, the use of the public water and
wastewater systems is appropriate for this type of in-fill development. Newer residential
subdivisions in the surrounding Chester area were developed with public water and
wastewater service.Developing an in-fill parcel with wells and septic systems and not
providing fire protection is not in keeping with more recent area development.
In the absence of aproffer to use the public water and wastewater systems, the Utilities
Department cannot support this request.
Health Department:
Any use of a private septic system must be approved by the Health Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL
This land area was thoroughlyvetted from an environmental standpoint by virtue of the previous
tentative Case 08TS0264.The major reduction in proposed density should have a positive impact
environmentally.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for schools, parks, libraries, fire stations, and transportation facilities in this area is
identified in the County's adopted Public Facilities Plan,Thoroughfare Planand Capital
Improvement Programand further detailed by specific departments in the applicable sections of
this request analysis.
Fire Service:
ThePublic Facilities Planas part of the Comprehensive Planindicates that fire and
emergency medical service (EMS) calls increased by forty-four (44)percentfrom 2001 to
2011, significantly faster than the county’s population increase of seventeen (17)percent.
Of the total incidents in 2011, nearly seventy-six (76)percentwere medical emergencies
and twenty-four (24)percentwere fire-related. It is expected with the general aging of the
population that medical emergency incidents will increase faster than the rate of
population growth over time.Five (5) new fire/rescue stations are recommended for
construction by 2022 in the Plan. In addition to the five(5)new stations, the Planalso
recommends the replacement/revitalization of four (4) existing stations.
Based on twenty-one(21) dwelling units, this request will generate approximately six(6)
calls for fire and emergency medical service each year.The applicant has not addressed
the impact on fire and EMS due to the absence of cash proffers.
ì ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
The Centralia Fire Station, Company Number 17, currently provides fire protection and
emergency medical service(EMS). There is no mechanism for providing timely fire
protection water supplies in the absence of public water in this fire district.While the
proffer of the installation of fire sprinklers for residences provides an increase in fire
protection for the residences(Proffered Condition 6),Fire and EMS does not support this
request without the proffered use of the public water system.
Whenthe 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:
Residential
Yield:21
Student
YieldFrom No. of
Functional % of
SchoolNameResidential MembershipTrailers
CapacityCapacity
Development **
*
Elementary:Ecoff476083891%2
Middle:Salem Church38291,07777%0
High:Bird31,8351,95894%5
Total10
NOTE: *The Student Yield is based on the 2012 Cash Proffer Methodology as provided by the
Chesterfield County Finance Department.
NOTE: **If a school is less than 90% of capacity and has trailers, those trailers are not identified in the
staff report.Three (3) of the trailers at Bird H.S. are for instructional space.
Student Membership is based on membership as of 10-1-12.
School Capacity is based on the 2012-13 Space Utilization Study.
After review of this request, the proposed rezoning case will have a minimal impact on
the aforementioned schools involved. However, over time this case, combined with other
tentative residential developments, infill developments and other zoning cases in the area,
will continue to push these schools to capacity. Therefore, the aforementioned units
should be subject to full cash proffers, to mitigate the impact that this proposed
development would have on schools.
ë ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Libraries:
Development in this area of the County would likely impact either the Chester Library or
aproposed new library in the vicinity of Kingsdale,Chester and Hopkins Roads. The
Public Facilities Planidentifies a need for this new facility to relieve current and future
demand on the existing Chester Library.
The applicant has not offered measures to address the impacts of this development on
library facilities.
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Planidentifies the need for three (3)regional parks totaling 600
acres, ten (10)community parks totaling 790 acres, nine (9)neighborhood parks totaling
180 acres, and three (3)water-based special purpose parks. The Planalso identifies the
need for urban parks within mixed use developments to compliment and provide linkages
to the County’s park system. The Planidentifies the need for linear parks & trails and
resource-based special purpose parks [historical, cultural and environmental] and makes
suggestions for their locations. The Planalso addresses the need to expand existing park
sites to meet level of service standards.The Planalso identifies the need to improve
access to blueways through the acquisition of easements and properties. Co-location with
schools and other compatible public facilities is desired.
The applicant has not offered measures to address the impacts of this development on
parks and recreation facilities.
County Department of Transportation:
The applicant is requesting deletion of several proffered conditions for development of
the property that the Transportation Department cannot support.
In 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Countywide Thoroughfare Plan. Included in
the Planwas a proposed major arterial (“Hopkins Road Extended”) extending from Old
Lane, across Centralia Road, through part of the property and continuing south of Iron
Bridge Road (Route 10).
In February 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved rezoning of the property (Case
93SN0147). With that zoning approval, the Board accepted proffered conditions that,
among other things: 1) established a maximum density of 135 dwelling units; 2) required
construction of Hopkins Road Extended from Centralia Road through part of the
property; and 3) required construction of left and right turn lanes along Centralia Road at
its intersection with Hopkins Road Extended. The specific alignment of Hopkins Road
Extended and its intersection with Centralia Road was also proffered with that zoning
case.
The Chester Plan, the extension of Hopkins Road was
In July 2005 with the adoption of
completely removed from the Thoroughfare Plan.
ê ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
In April 2009, the Planning Commission approved a tentative subdivision plat (Centralia
StationSubdivision -Case 08TS0264) for the property and several residentially zoned
parcels along the south side of Centralia Road. The approved tentative plat consists of
ninety-nine (99) lots, and as required by zoning shows a new public road along the same
alignment as the previously planned Hopkins Road Extended from Centralia Road to
serve the development.
The applicant is now requesting deletion of several proffered conditions, and has
proffered a maximum density of twenty-one (21)lots (Proffered Condition 1). Based on
single-family trip rates, development of the property could generate approximately 250
average daily trips. These vehicles will be initially distributed along Centralia Road,
which had a 2009 traffic count of 10,732 vehicles per day. This section of Centralia Road
is at capacity (Level of Service E) for the volume of traffic it carries.
The applicant has requested to delete proffered conditions relative to the construction of
the new public road (previously named “Hopkins Road Extended”) and all turn lanes
along Centralia Road. The applicant plans to access the proposed development onto
Centralia Road via Centralia Station. Without the construction of the new public road,
approximately nineteen (19)acres of undeveloped property [about six (6)acres currently
zoned Agricultural (A) and 13 acres zoned Residential (R-7)] could also potentially be
developed and access Centralia Station. Assuming 2.0 units per acre for the undeveloped
property would result in an additional thirty-eight (38)units accessing Centralia Station.
Considering the requested twenty-one (21)units on the property, it could total a potential
of fifty-nine (59)units accessing Centralia Station. Based on single-family trip rates,
development of fifty-nine (59)units could generate approximately 650 average daily
trips.
Eastbound traffic during peak periods along Centralia Road routinely stores beyond the
CSX railroad tracks because of the high volume of traffic traveling through the signalized
intersection of Centralia Road and Chester Road. The intersection of Centralia Station
onto Centralia Road is located approximately 350 feet from the railroad tracks. This
distance does not provide adequate separation to serve as access for the undeveloped
property in the area south of Centralia Road, which includes the proposed development.
Vehicles waiting to turn left from Centralia Road onto Centralia Station, especially when
turn lanes are not provided, could cause vehicles to back-up across the railroad tracks and
possibly into the Centralia Road/Chester Road intersection.
The current proffered conditions would require the new public road to be constructed
approximately 700 feet from the CSX railroad tracks, with left and right turn lanes along
Centralia Road. These required improvements would provide a much safer access for
development of the property.
The proposed Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor project between Richmond,
VA to Charlotte, NC, will utilize the CSX tracks adjacent to the property. The Draft Tier
II Environmental Impact Statement included preliminary designs for grade-separated
crossings along the railroad corridor. The preliminary design for this project proposes
construction of a bridge structure for Centralia Road that would span over the CSX
é ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
railroad and over Chester Road. A copy of the Centralia Road Subdivision tentative plat
was submitted as information for the SEHSR preliminary design, and it was determined
that the intersection of the new public road and Centralia Road could be accommodated
with that project. Staff has not forwarded information on this rezoning request to the
SEHSR group to evaluate the impact of the Centralia Road grade-separated design on the
Centralia Station intersection. Construction of the SEHSR project is dependent on
funding, and therefore a definite schedule has not been established.
The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. Area roads need to be
improved to address safety and accommodate theincrease in traffic generated by this
development. The applicant has not proffered to contribute cash, in accordance with the
Board of Supervisors’ Policy, towards mitigating the traffic impact of the development.
As previously stated, the Transportation Department cannot support the request.
Virginia Department of Transportation(VDOT):
No comments received.
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
Per Dwelling
Unit
Potential Number of New Dwelling Units21*1.00
Population Increase56.122.67
Number of New Students
Elementary4.420.21
Middle2.400.11
High3.210.15
Total10.030.48
Net Cost For Schools$ 198,345 $ 9,445
Net Cost for Parks$26,187$ 1,247
Net Cost for Libraries$ 6,783 $ 323
Net Cost For Fire Stations$ 14,889 $ 709
Average Net Cost Roads$ 168,399 $ 8,019
Total Net Cost$ 414,603 $ 19,743
*Based on Proffered Condition 1 of case 14SN0508. The actual number of dwelling units and
corresponding impact may vary.
The original Zoning Case 93SN0147 was approved in February 1994. Condition 23 of
93SN0147 proffered a residential density of 135 dwelling units. The original case did not include
cash proffers. In this rezoning request, the applicant has requested to delete this condition and to
è ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
proffer a maximum density of twenty-one (21)units. The applicant has not offered cash to
address the impacts of these units on capital facilities.
As noted, this proposed development will have an impact on capital facilities. Staff has
calculated the fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, parks, libraries, fire stations
and roads as $19,743 per unit.
The current Cash Proffer Policy allows the County to assess the impact of all dwelling units in
previously approved zoning cases that come back before the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors using the calculated capital facility costs in effect at the time the case is
reconsidered.
The applicant has not addressed the development’s impact on capital facilities, and consequently
the County’s ability to provide adequate facilities to its citizens will be adversely impacted.
The Board of Supervisors, through their consideration of this request, may determine that there
are unique circumstances relative to this request that may justify acceptance of the proffers as
presented.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located within the boundaries of The Chester Plan, which
suggests the property is appropriate for Residential use (1 and 1.5 dwelling per acre or
less).
Area Development Trends:
Area properties to the north are zoned Residential (R-7) and Agricultural (A) and are
occupied by single-family residential uses on acreage parcels or are vacant. Properties to
the south and west are zoned Residential (R-25, R-12, R-9 and R-7) and Agricultural (A)
and are occupied by single-family residential uses in the Dense Wood Hill and
Wellington FarmsSubdivisions and on acreage parcels or remain vacant. Property to the
east is zoned Agricultural (A) with conditional use planned development approval and
Neighborhood Business (C-2) and is occupied by Seaboard Coastline Railroad right-of-
wayor is vacant. It is anticipated single-family residential development will continue in
this area, as suggested by the Plan.
Zoning History:
On January 26, 1983, the Board of Supervisors approved Residential (R-12 and R-9)
zoning on property which included most of the subject property (Case 81SN0097). A
single-family residential subdivision was planned to be developed on the property.
On February 23, 1994the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation from
the Planning Commission, granted conditional use approval to permit outdoor
ç ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
recreational facilities on a portion of the subject property and on adjacent property east of
the railroad right-of-way (Case 93SN0147). A commercial outdoor recreational complex,
to include a golf course, clubhouse, driving range, miniature golf, batting cages, pro shop
and accessory facilities were planned. However, a single-family residential subdivision of
up to 135 lots could also be developed on the subject portion of that request, as was
allowed by the underlying zoning and Proffered Condition 23 of Case 93SN0147.
Density and House Sizes:
The applicant has agreed to limit development to a maximum of twenty-one (21) lots
(Proffered Condition 1), yielding a density of approximately 0.3dwelling unitsper acre.
This represents a 114 lot reduction from what is currently allowed.
Access:
To address concerns from property owners in the Wellington Farms development the
applicant has agreed to prohibit direct vehicular access from the subject property to
Wellington Farms (Proffered Condition 2). It should be notedthatan emergency access
easement has been recorded over what was previously known as Fox Chappel Road in
Wellington Farms Subdivision, which stubbed into the subject property. Fox Chappel
Road was vacated by the Boardof Supervisors on April 14, 2011 and recorded as open
space and dedicated as drainage, utility and emergency access easementsto the County.
Open Space:
To address concerns ofresidents of Wellington Farms Subdivisionrelative to visual
separation betweendevelopments, the applicant has agreedto provide a minimum sixty
(60) feet of open space along any portion of the subject property that abuts Wellington
Farms (Proffered Condition 3). The provisions of the proffer require the open space to be
kept in a “…natural state, except as may be necessary for the location of utilities and
landscape screening.” This is not specific as to the treatment of the open space and leaves
it open for interpretation. This proffer should specify treatment of the open space specific
to vegetation to be retained and/or planted.
ArchitecturalTreatment:
The minimum house size offered is 2,000 square feet (Proffered Condition 4), where
there previously was no minimum. In response to concerns expressed by area property
owners about the possibility of the appearance of unfinished cinder block or concrete
foundations, the applicant has offered a proffer that foundations of home would be
constructed of brick, stone, stucco or other finished materials (Proffered Condition 5).
The applicant should clarify what is meant by “other finished materials”, so as to avoid
any confusion during the plans and permit review processes.
ïð ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
CONCLUSIONS
While the proposal conforms to The Chester Plan, which suggests the property is appropriate for
Residential use (1 and 1.5 dwelling per acre or less), the application does not mitigate the
impacts of this development on necessary capital facilities, thereby not insuring adequate service
levels are maintained and protecting the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
The concerns of the Utilities and Fire Departmentshave not been adequately addressedrelative
to the use of the public water and wastewater systems.
Further,Transportation concerns have not been adequately addressed relative to safe access and
road improvements for increased traffic.
Given these considerations, denialof this request is recommended.
______________________________________________________________________________
CASE HISTORY
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant(9/17/13):
A new proffered condition was submitted, in an effort to address concerns expressed by
the Fire Department.
______________________________________________________________________________
Planning Commission Meeting (9/17/13):
Mr. Patton recused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was support present.
Dr. Wallin noted the proposal is closer to compliancewith the Comprehensive Plan;
enhances the community; and reduces the impact on public facilities. Mr. Waller
expressed concerns relative to deletion ofan emergency access; impacts onfire
protection due to planned use of individual wells; and the impact on capital facilitiesnot
being addressed.
Dr. Wallin made a motion to recommend approval, which failed due to lack ofa second.
On motion of Dr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission voted to forward the
case to the Board of Supervisors withouta recommendation.
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin and Waller.
ABSENT: Messrs. Gulley and Patton.
______________________________________________________________________________
ïï ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Staff (9/20/13):
The County Attorney's Office advisedthat State law requires that a recommendation be
made by the Commission when it forwards a zoning case to the Board after public
hearing.Accordingly, the Commission's vote was ineffectual and the case, by law,
returns to the Commission's agenda for a recommendation.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (9/25/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (10/15/13):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their December 17, 2013 public hearing.
Staff (10/15/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than October 21, 2013 for consideration at the
Commission’s December17, 2013 public hearing.
Board of Supervisor’s Meeting (10/23/13):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Board deferred this case to
their regularly scheduled meeting in January 2014.
Staff (10/24/13):
The applicant was advisedin writing that the case was deferred to the Board’s regularly
scheduled January 2014 public hearing.
Staff (11/15/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
ïî ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Planning Commission Meeting (12/17/13):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their January 21, 2014 public hearing.
Staff (12/17/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than December 23, 2013 for consideration at the
Commission’s January 21, 2014 public hearing.
Staff (12/23/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Staff (12/23/13):
If the Planning Commission acts on this request on January 21, 2014, the case will be
considered bythe Board of Supervisors on January 22, 2014.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, January 22, 2014, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
ïí ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìÖßÒîîóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
ùéä êûóðêíûø
éèûèóíî
ù÷îèêûðóû
éî