Loading...
72-1C PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ZONING REQUESTS to be heard by the CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING CO~.~ISSION Tuesday, December 21, 1971 72-1C J. Arthur Bo~d Bermuda Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. 116-9 (1) parcel 6; 116.-9 (9) Blk. E, lot l?~ 116-9 (9) Blk. G, lot 10; 116-13 (4) Blk. J~ lot 4; 116-10 Blk. J,lots 5, 6, 7, and Blk. G part of lot 9 This property is currently zoned Agricultural (A) as are all adjacent parcels to the south, east, west and northwest. The property to the northeast is zoned Residential (R-l). This request is for Residential (R-l) rezoning to accommodate the development of lots in recorded Section 4 of Gay Farms Subdivision. Planning Staff feels that the proposed land use and rezonin~ is compatible ~it'h the area and therefbre recommends, approval'of"~he request. - 72-2C Brighton Green Land Corp. Mldlothian Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. 18-14 (1) parcel 1-1 and 18-13 (1) parcel ll Upon written notice by the applicant, this request has been withdrawn. ?.~-3C Brighton Green Land Cor~. Midlothian Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. 18-13 (1) parcel ll; 18-14 (1) parcel 1 Upon written notice by the applicant, this request has been withdrawn. 72-4C Belfair~ I~orporated Clover Hill Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. 40-16 (1) part of parcel I This parcel is presently zoned Residential (R--2) as are all adjacent properties to the north~ east and south. Property to the west, across Turner Road is zoned Agricultural (A). The request is for Townhouse (TH-l) rezoning. The property in question falls within the area bounded by Chippenham Pwy., Walmsley Blvd., Turner and Belmont Roads. The predominant existing and permitted land uses are of a high density (TH-1 zoning and multi-family use per, mits) nature. In considering this particular tract it should be noted that compatibility of land uses would be satisfied by rezoning to the TH-1 classification. Density would also be controlled by the character of the zone requested and the topographical features of the site. In addition, proper subdivi- sion control will provide for a suitable public and private road plan. Staff recommends approval, of the ~equest. · 7..2.r5C Chesterfield County Board of S,u " visors Midlothian }~agisterial District Tax Map Sec. 17-4 (1) parcels 2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, . 11,12713,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,20-1, 17-7 (1) parcels 4-1,5,6,6-1,?,8, 9,10,11~ 17-8 (1) parcels 1,2,4, 4-1,5,6,8,9,10,10-1,11,12,13-3, 13-4,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 23, 24,25,26~27,28,29,29-1,31,32,33~34, 3~.-1,37,38 & 39. These properties are zoned Agricultural (A). Adjacent properties to the west and northwest are zoned Residential (R-2). Parcels to the east are zoned Agricultural (A) and to the south a mixture of General Business (C-2) and Agricultural (A) zoning. This request is for Residential (R-2) rezoning. On November 23, 1971 the Board of Supervisors received a petition, bear- ing the signatures of several area residents requesting that their prop- erties be rezoned to a Residential Classification. Upon consideration of this request the Board filed application for these properties to be rezoned In addition to properties noted in the petition Planning Staff felt a more reasonable zoning area could be defined by including in the request addi- tional adjacent parcels. All property owners were notified by certified letter of the intended re- zoning. As of this writing no objection or request for exclusion has been received. ' Plannin~ Staff is of the opinion that because of existing land uses, ~xiSting adjacen~ zoniH~ 'and'fut'~re development p6tenti'al, the' properties Yn question Should be rezoned to'the Residential (R'2)classification. 72-6C Hubbard Investment Co. Midlothian Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. l?-l (1) parcels ? and ll; 17-5 (1) parcels 2, 3 This property is zoned Agricultural (A) as are all adjacent parcels with the exception of a small tract to the north which is zoned Residential (R-2) and a parcel to the southeast which is zoned General Business (C-2). The request is for General Business (C-2) rezoning, to extend 2000 ft. northwardly from state route 60 and for Residential (R-2) rezon- lng for the remainder of the property. Staff feels that the extent of General Business (C-2) requested is exces- sive and would set a precedent for adjoining zoning and control of land use intensities. Therefore~ Staff would recommend that General Business (0--2) rezonin~ not""ext'end".to a depth gre~ter th'ah 500 feet, whi'c'h approxi- mates the extent 0"f '"ad'~acent C'-2 '~oning. It is further recommended that ~he r~maihder of the property be r~°ne'd to the Residential (R-2) classi- ficatiOn. ' ~2r7C Dr. Vivian G. Howard Matoaca Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. 182-9 (B) Block l, lot 8 This lot is zoned Residential (R-2) as are all adjacent properties. request is for General Business (C-2) rezoning. The ~$o~ reviewing the application, and inspecting the site and its environs, Planning Staff is of the opinion that this lot and adjacent lots to the north, west, and sould would offer proper zoned buffers between existing high intensity commercial and industrial zoning, and the residential neighborhood of Laurel Branch Farms. In order to accomplish this goal, the requested C-2 classification should be amended to limit the rezoning to the Local Business (C-l) classification. Further, the Planning Commission should recommend that the Board of Super- visors make the determination, as specified in the current zoning ordinance that the indicated intended use (a~dress shop) be allowed with a use permit 72~-8C Belham Corporation Clover Hill Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. 18-lB (1) parcel ? This parcel is zoned Local Business (C-l) as is property to the northwest; property to the southwest is zoned Residential (R-2), while parcels to the north and east are zoned General Business (C-2). The request is for General Business (C~2) rezoning. Existing land uses and zoning adjacent to the site are oriented to Midlo- thian Turnpike. The permitted extension of high intensity commercial zoning along Arch Road would be detrimental to future development. It is with this consideration that Staff recommends denial of the r.eq~es~;an~, ~urbher~that' the existing s~orage of equipment be cuF.tailed. 72-~9C Joseph L. Ware Clover Hill ~agisterial District Tax Map Sec. 28-1 (1) part of parcel 8 This parcel is zoned Agricultural (A) as is all adjacent property with the exception of those parcels to the north which are zoned General Business (C.~2). The request is for General Business (C-2) rezoning. The applicant has indicated that he desires to renovate an existing resi- dential structure in order to provide office space. It is the Staff re- commendation that the request be reduced to the C-1 classification which woul~ Permit "the i'ndicat~d 'future use. Murther, t~'at no mobile hom~, ' or strUCture directl'y or ihdirec~iy'~'nvo~ved wi~h'the._..oPeration o~ ~ mobile home park be .permitted within the confines of the rezoned area. ~.2-10C Williard L. Smith Clover Hill Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. 29-15 (3) lot ~ This property is currently zoned Agricultural (A) as are adjacent parcels to the north and west. Property to the east is zoned General B~Siness (C-2) and Local Business (C-l). The request is for General Business (C-2) re-classification. On March 16, 1971, the Planning Commission reviewed a request for General Business (C-2) rezoning of a parcel (Tax Map Sec. 29-15 (6) part of lot 3A) adjacent to this site. At that time it was the opinion of Staff "that piece meal zoning of each individual parcel would be detrimental to the orderly development of this neighborhood. A blanket request for commercial zoning encompassinR a larger, more well defined area would be proper at this important intersection." Denial of the request was recommended and upon a deferral the applicant failed to appear at either the next Planning Commission meeting or the Board of Supervisors meeting. The request was subsequently denied (May 12, 1971). Planning Staff is still of the opinion that this intersection deserves special zoning considerations. Commercial use may well be most appropriate for this area. However~ speculative and indiscriminate zoning may result in poor land use c°ntr~'l,'leadin~ 'to the S'e~'0ndT~'~te deMel~P~ent of an area having high i~'ensity pot'en~ia'i, 'To 'avo~'d tX'iS' an .°veE.~all deyelop- ment Plan invOlVin'~ the Cons61idation of oro~e'~'ie's snoU'ld'~e resenb~d. 72-11C M. David Grandis Clover Hill Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. ~0-12 (1) part of parcel 5 The under consideration is zoned ^gricultural (A) as is adjacent propePty to the northeast and southwest. A portion of this site to the northwest, is zoned General Business (C-2). Parcels to the east and south (Wilkinson Terrace, Sec. A) are zoned Residential (R-2). This request is for General Business (C.,.2). This property lies within an area which is rapidly developing as a high density residential (multi-family and townhouse (TH-l) community, which will need commercial outlet as would be appropriate for providing light convenient shopping and professional services. The application indicates that it is the developers' intent ~to construct a one-story office build- ing and a small retail business (example - 7..ll store)". The rezoning requested is inconsistent with both the needs of the community and the indicated land use. Plann%n~ Staff recommends denial of the requested General Business (C-2) rezoning and that the subject prODert~ be rezoned Local Business (9-1)'.. Furt'hsr, that the bUffer strips (~'0 f~, & 2~ ft.')' as shown on the",',Z~nin MaP,~ prepared by j. K. Timm0ns & ^ssocia~es '(J.N'~ 8290) a'nd"pre~n~ed a~ part of t'~e applicatio~ be re'~oned to the Res"£de'~tial (.R~'~)' C~...~ssification. ~2,!2C Harold R. Francis Dale Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. 79-15 (1) part of parcel 2 This parcel is presently zoned ~gricultural (A) as are all adjacent prop-- erties with the exception of a small portion of land, zoned General Busi- ness (C-2), which borders the southeast tip of the subject land. The request is for General Business (C-2) rezoning. On March 16, 1971, the Planning Commission reviewed a similar request (?l-17C) by Mr. Francis. At that time the following transpired: ~Tl-l?C Mr. Richard Jones, ~ttorney, representing Mr. Harold R. Francis, comes requesting the rezoning from ~gricultural (A) to General Business (C-2) of a parcel of land in Dale Magisterial District of irregular shape fronting approximately 12B0 feet on Iron Bridge Road (Rte. 10) and approximately 2100 feet on Courthouse Road (Rte. 60~), and being located northwest of the intersection of the aforementioned roads. Refer to Tax Map Sec. 79-15 parcel 2. '~Mr. Jones states that if there appears to be any opposition to this -4- request from adjacent property owners, his client would be willing to reduce his request respectively to those residential properties. ~Mr. James W. Hendley~ representing a segment of the opposition, states that in his opinion the rezoning of this property would allow the be- ginning of a cancerous situation to occur in the Rte. l0 Courthouse Road area. ':He further states that the development of the Courthouse Complex, the proposed Airport Industrial Park and the expanded road thoroughfare plans (i.e. State Rte. 288 and widening of Rte. 10) should indicate that further comprehensive planning of this general area is in order. ~Mr. Burnett asks Mr. Hendley how the development of this request would effect his property. "M~. Hendley replies that he is a resident of Chesterfield County, but lives several miles from this request site. ~'M~. Grange Coley states that he has a great deal invested in his home and does not wish to have his life style disturbed by the commercial activities which may occur on this parcel. ~Mr. Donald Johnson asks if utility and drainage plans are adequate to develop this site. ~The Secretary and members of the Commission state that at the time of development these points would be considered. ;~Mr. Calvin Viar, a resident of Deerfield Estates Subdivision, presents a letter from the Deerfield Estates Civic Association, which reads as follows: "I present the following comments on behalf of those citizens residing in the area encompassed by the Deerfield Estates Civic Assoc. This area includes Deerfield Subdivision, Thunderbird Rd., and in particular, that portion of Courthouse Rd. immediate adja- cent to the property in question. "Once again we find ourselves suddenly confronted with a land use proposal of such magnitude as to have a definite, severe, and laBting impact on many people. A proposal, to which one would feel sure a great deal of planning or thought has been given. But, here is another proposal that has been given the minimum possible publicity or even less, for at least two (2) persons owning property immediately adjacent to the tract in question have not received written notice of the proposal. They, in fact, received their only notice from an unofficial source Just 2 days prior to this hearing. ~We are told that the application lists no specific proposed use of the property. At present there are several tracts either adjacent to or very near this property which have been zoned commercial for a number of years. Several of these are de- finitely available for purchase by interested parties but have not been developed. "Combine these individual tracts with the proposed airport area and those other requests which are bound to follow and we are faced, inevitably~ with another "Conglomeration Strip:~ such as that found on the parts of Belt Blvd. & Broad Rock Rd. which were formerly in the County .... A disorganized development by --~-- many individual developers with no coordination. '~Perhaps the best route to follow, and one which we strongly recommend, is the establishment of a citizens committee, representing people of ALL interests, to work with the planning commission in establishin~ a Master Plan for the development of Rt. 10 from at least Chippenham Pkwy. to Chester. Thru this means the development can be guided so as to protect the interest of the majority while at the same time promoting orderly growth of the area and retaining the dignity of the Courthouse ar~a. "Several other points that we offer for your consideration are: 1. Potential uses for this tract under C-2 would be numerous and would definitely attract or generate an increase in traffic in the area. 2. What detrimental effects could this have on the County Vocational School which is to be built Just across Rt. 10? B. Courthouse Rd.. is presently a narrow, winding, treacherous road with no shoulders and it can not safely bear an increase of traffic flow without drastic improvements. 4. Rt. l0 is not presently designed for any great increase in traffic. True, there are plans to widen this road but it has not been done yet and experience over the entire country has shown that such plans can not be considered concrete even after construction has started, but only when the project is completed. 5. The circumferential highway is likewise not a definite thing until it has been completed. Federal funds have already been held up on numerous such projects about the nation. ~All of these shadows and questions, as well as many more not touch- ed on, lead us to but one conclusion - - - This proposal should be rejected at this time and until such a time as a Master Plan for the area can be developed and improved traffic arteries are a reality. "Thus, in behalf of the citizens in the immediate area, and, we feel, the County of Chesterfield as a whole, we strongly request the Planning Commission to oppose the requested zoning change as referred to above. Most sincerely, (signed) Harold J. Beavers, Jr. President Deerfield Estates Civic Association" '~Mr. Howard states that in his opinion, at this time, the necessity for commercial zoning on this parcel is not apparent. '~Mr. Howard, therefore, moves that the Commission recommends denial of this request. Mr. Hawkins seconds this motion. "Mr. Burnett suggests that the applicant be allowed to withdraw his request to be re-submitted at a time that might be more favorable to the proper development of this property. "Whereupon Mr. Jones states that he does wish to withdraw the request. Mr. Howard withdraws his motion. Mr. Hawkins withdraws his second. "On motion of Mr. Burnett, seconded by Mr. Browning, it is resolved that the Commission accepts the withdrawal of the request for C-2 rezoning for wit. Harold R. Francis on the aforedescribed property. All vote aye.~ -6- Planning Staff is of the opinion, as in the request of Williard L, Smith (72-10C), that the intersection of Rt. 0 and Courthouse Road deserves special zoning consideration due to the location of State Rt. 288 and the proposed possible realignment of Courthouse ROad to properly serve the Courthouse Complex in general and the proposed Vocational Technical High School in particular. These determinates should be established and the needed rights- of-way secured before land values are accelerated by speculative rezoning. The type and intensity of commercial development desired at this location will not be effectively controlled ~ blanket General Business (C-2) rezoning. Therefore~ Staff recommends denial,of this reqqest,~ 72-13C Marnov Assoc%.at.$s~ Inc. Bermuda Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. ll6-? (1) parcel 3-1 A part of this parcel is zoned General Business (C-2) as is all adjacent property with the exception of a partion to the wes~w$~h~o$~B~ Agricultural (A). The request is for General Busin~s~-~~t~g/ Existing land uses and zoning adjacent to the site in question tend to emphasize the the reasonability of rezoning this parcel to the C-2 classification. It is wit~ t~is consideration that Staff recommends approval of the request. 72-14C L. R. Goyne~ Jr. Bermuda Magisterial District Tax Map Sec. 133-4 (1) pt. of parcel 2; 133-8 (1) pt. of parcels 1 and 2; 133-12 (1) parcel . The parcel in question is zoned AMricultural (A) as is all adjacent prop- erties with the exception of property to the northwest, which is zoned Industrial (M). (This tract, however, is occupied by the Greenleigh Mobile Home Park.) This request is for Mobile Home Park (MH-1). Staff feels that the rezoning requested and the intended land use is compatible with existing uses. Therefore, approval is recommended sub- Ject to access being provided to and through the existing Greenleigh Mobile Home Park Development. Further, that all site and layout plans and landscaping plans be submitted to and approved by the Planning De- partment prior to the starting of construction. Respectfully submitted, Stanl~ R. Balderson, Jr. Senior Planner Chesterfield County Planning Department -7- 1) A) C) office / *REVIEW BY P.C. * APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The following information is to be typed or printed NAME OF APPLICANT: , MAILING ADDRESS: //"7~ ~ TELEPHONE NO.: ~ OF P~3E~T 0~ OF P~OP~TY O~ ~ICH ~I3 ~3T ~ILL OCCUR: ,, ~) E) MAILING ADDRESS: F) TEL~.PHOI~ NO.: * * # * W # # # * # , 2) IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, EXPLAIN: (Copy of pending contract or option agreement shall be attached hereto and made a part of this application.) 3) LOCATION OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION (Following information to be obtained by the applicant from the Office of the County Assessor) A) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ~.r~~ B) TAX MAP NO. //~,/~ C) SEC. NO. D) SUBDIVISION NO. E) BLOCK NO. P) LOT OR PARCEL NO. G) STREET ADDRESS A PLAT OF THIS PROPERTY SHALL BE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OP THIS APPLICATION SHOWING THE FOLLO~INO: LOCATION BY REFERENCE TO NEAREST ROAD INTERSECTION DIMENSIONS OF SITE ~_ /~. (PAGE 1) 4) 5) THE PETITIONER REQUESTS THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO ~CLASSI~ THIS PROPERTY FROM (~cc.c~.t:~:,,.~ .... TO /,,~.~, ~'.,,., ~'~ ,; ,,,- ,~ .... ,~ NO./NA~ - NO./NA~ STATE THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST.'. 6) STATE HOW THIS REQUEST WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: d STATE ANY EXISTING USE PERMIT OR VARIANCE aRANTED PREVIOUSLY ON THE PARCEL IN QUESTION: 8) EXISTING LAND USE: (PAGE 2) 9) GIVE NAMES OF ALL OWNERS ADJACENT, ACROSS THE ROAD OR HIGHWAY AND FACING THE PROPERTY AND ANY OWNERS ACROSS ANY RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FROM SUCH PROPERTY. IN THE EVENT'THE PROPERTY AFFECTED IS SITUATED AT OR WITHIN 100 FEET ON THE INTERSECTION OF ANY TWO OR MORE ROADS OR HIGHWAYS, AT OR WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEET OF THE INTERSECTION O? ANY ROAD OR HIGHWAY WITH A RAILROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY OR AT OR WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEET OF THE INTERSECTION OF · .THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF ANY TWO RAILROADS, GIVE NAMES OF PROPERTY OWNERS AT ALL CORNERS OF ANY SUCH INTERSECTION. A) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: ' //)~,-~ ~, TAX MAP NO.://d-~EQ. NO.: SUBDIVISION NO.: BLOCK NO.: LOT OR PARCEL NO.: B) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: ./~, J g> TAX MAP NO. Y/&./3 . NO.: S~DIVISION NO.: BLOCK NO.: LOT OR PARCEL NO.: c) PROPERTY OW'NEE'S NAME:~ . MAILING ADDRESS: TAX MAP NO. ~/g-,3 ~EC. NO.: SUBDIVISION NO.: BLOCK NO.: LOT OR PARCEL NO.: 4'- D) MAILING ADDRESS: /~%.-~' . .'~/~ ) '~f)~'~.? !,!l/].j'-~(-~ ~/'~.- ~....~ '~ ~'$ / TAX MAP NO.://~__~, SEC. NO.: SUBDIVISION' NO.: BLOCK NO.: ~, _. LOT OR PARCEL NO.: (PAGE 3) E) F) G) H) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: .~,~'~ J'~lZ~FJ ~ TAX MAP NO. :/'Z-? (~]SEC. NO.' ~//SUBDIVISION NO,-: ~ $ ~ i BLOCK NO.: LOT OR PARCEL NO.: PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TAX MAP NO.: //~':. /~(~CINO.: SUBDIVISION NO.: BLOCK NO.: LOT OR PARCEL NO.:, PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: ~ rs MAILING ADDRESS: TAX MAP NO. :..//~-/3 EC. NO.: SUBDIVISION NO.: BLOCK NO.: LOT OR PARCEL NO.: PROPERTY OWNER' S NAME'.7/1~. t'-~ "~._O ~<C~,.4 ,._~.~.<4'~' TAX MAP NO.: //~!3 SEC. NO.: SUBDIVISION NO.: BLOCK NO.: LOT OR PARCEL NO.: I) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: / - . TAX ~P N0.: !/~-/$ ~. NO.: S~DIVISION NO.: BLOCK NO.: LOT OR PARCEL NO.: J) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TAX MAP NO.: BLOCK NO.: SEC. NO.: SUBDIVISION NO.: LOT OR PARCEL NO.: (PAGE 4) lO) THE APPLICANT HEREWITH DEPOSITS THE SUM OF TWENTY DOLLARS ($20.00) ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION, TO PAY THE COST OF ADVERTISING NOTICE OF THE HEARING OF SAID BOARD TO ACT ON THIS REQUEST. CHECK OR MONEY ORDER MUST BE MADE PAYABLE TO: TREASURER~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD. I/WE HEREBY DEPOSE AND SAY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ANY EXHIBITS TRANSMITTED ARE TRUE. S.I~NATURE OF APPLICANT / .... (Same name as used in item i-A, page 1. ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS ~ , DAY OF /~/~< 19//. WOT;~RY ' - (PAGE 5) si~ 0 © © 0 "Ti ~¢.~ 0 0 ~° © ~o '< CO 0