13SN0132CASE NUMBER: 13SNO132
APPLICANTS: Chesterfield Business Partners LLC and Kingsland
Towncenter LLC
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Magisterial District: DALE
ADDENDUM
6900 Iron Bridge Road
S
1749
hRG 9
0�0 Request
Property
Board of Supervisors (BOS)
Public Hearing Date:
April 27, 2016
BOS Time Remaining:
365 DAYS
sLgNa c( x
Applicants' Agent
W
JACK R. WILSON III PLC
o
(804-425-9474)
m
Applicants' Contact:
o
DAVID CLOAK
(804-672-4841)
Planning Department Case Manager:
w
JANE PETERSON (804-748-1045)
s
S
APPLICANTS' REQUEST
(AMENDED) Amendment of conditional use (Cases 06SNO237 and 07SN0226) relative to
reduction of cash proffers in a Community Business (C-3) District.
Notes:
A. Conditions maybe imposed or the property owner may proffer conditions.
B. Architectural theme statement is provided in Attachment.
ADDENDUM
The purpose of this Addendum is to provide an attachment referenced in the report.
The "Architectural Standards" section of the "Request Analysis references an architectural
theme statement required by Cases 06NS0237 and 07SN0226. This attachment was
inadvertently omitted from the report and is provided on the next page.
Staff continues to recommend the case be remanded to the Commission for reasons noted in the
"Request Analysis".
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
ATTACHMENT
ARCHITECTURAL THEME
WATERMARK TOWNHOMES ARCHITECTURAL THEME NARRATIVE
The townhouse and small detached units shall be traditional or transitional with
traditional detailing which may include a variety of architectural features,
materials and color palettes to provide architectural variety throughout the
community. Highly stylized houses with overstated eclectic design elements,
houses with overly mixed styles shall not be permitted. Exterior facades which
face a public street shall have a formal arrangement and organization of all
elements provided in the elevation, which elements shall include doors, and
windows, and a varied application of porches, stoops, columns, cornices, trim
details such as shutters, quoins, jack arches and the like. Houses shall utilize
simple rectangular massing with traditional gable, hip and/or shed roofs as
appropriate to the size and shape of the house.
Single family detached homes and attached townhouse rows with the same
elevations may not be located adjacent to, or facing directly across from each
other on the same street. This requirement does not apply to homes on different
streets backing up to each other or houses or townhomes which are diagonal
from each other across streets. The same color schemes may not be used on
adjacent houses or townhouse rows or on houses or townhouse rows directly
across from each other.
Single family detached houses with garages that face a public street shall
incorporate architectural features to mitigate the visual impact of the garage door.
These features shall include decorative lintels or shed roof overhangs above the
doors and garage door treatments such as raised panel or carriage house styles.
Flat front garage doors will not be permitted.
L�Y`'Tr+T7r, rvv�
.. ;: � ; . Vii✓ �"��►3_.,J `I 1�4.
of iol
DMIM10A rwO uihu DEPT.
P•= ('�� apt. '
JANUARY 24, 2013
13S N 0132-2016AP RI L27-BOS-AD D
CASE MANAGER: Robert Clay
April 27, 2016 BS
BSTime Remaining:
365days
STAFF’S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
13SN0132
(AMENDED)
Chesterfield Business Partners LLC
and
Kingsland Towncenter LLC
Dale Magisterial District
Hopkins Road Elementary; Falling Creek Middle; and Bird High School Attendance Zones
West line of Iron Bridge Road at Kingsland Glen Drive
At and within the vicinity of 7000 Iron Bridge Road
REQUEST:(AMENDED) Amendment of conditional use (Cases 06SN0237 and 07SN0226)
relative to reduction of cash proffers in a Community Business (C-3) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A mix of residential housing types, commonly known as the Watermark
development,is planned.
The applicant requests amendments to Proffered Conditions 11 of Cases
06SN0237 and 07SN0226 to reduce the cash proffer. Specifically, these
amendments address the following:
Reduce the cash proffer and allocate entirely to parks and fire;and
Delay the escalator, as outlined in the Cash Proffer Policy.
(NOTE: IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORSTO CONSIDER THIS
REQUEST AT THEIR APRIL 27, 2016MEETING, A $2,000.00DEFERRAL FEE MUST
BE PAID PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC MEETING.)
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITION ON
PAGES 2AND3.
AYES: UNANIMOUS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since the Commission’s consideration of this case, the applicant has amended the proffered
conditionrelative to cash proffers. The amended proffer is significantly less than that which the
Commission considered. Given the change, the case is substantially different than that acted
upon by the Commission. Therefore, staff recommends the case be remanded to the Commission
for their reevaluation and reconsideration.
However, should the Board not wish to remand the case, staff recommendsdenial for the
following reason:
The proffered condition does not adequately address the proposed development’s impacts
on capital facilities. Consequently, the County’s ability to provide adequate facilities to
its citizens will be adversely impacted.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY
PROFFER CONDITIONS.)
PROFFERED CONDITION
(THE FOLLOWINGPROFFERED CONDITION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, BUT WAS
THE CONDITION CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION. WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF THE REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT FOR AGE RESTRICTED UNITS, THE
PROFFER WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE BOARD’S POLICY. THE COMMISSION
INDICATED THAT THE PROFFER WAS CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS BOARD
ACTION FOR AGE RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENTS.)
(CPC)For each dwelling unit, the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the
following to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit
for infrastructure improvements within the service district for the property, unless
state law prevents enforcement of that timing:
a.$18,966 per dwelling unit, for the period beginning the July 1 preceding
the Board of Supervisors’ approval of the case through July 1 four years
later, at which point the amount will be adjusted for the cumulative change
in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index during that time period.
b.Provided, however, that if any building permits issued on the Property are
for senior housing, as defined in the proffer on age restriction, the
2 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay $10,602.00per dwelling
unit, allocated on a pro-rata basis among the categories for parks, libraries,
fire and roads, for the period beginning July 1 preceding the Board of
Supervisors’ approval of the case through July 1 four years later, at which
point the amount will be adjusted for the cumulative change to the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index during that time period.
c.Thereafter, the per dwelling unit cash proffer amount shall be
automatically adjusted, annually, by the annual change in the Marshall and
Swift Building Cost Index on July 1 of each year.
d.Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as
otherwise permitted by law. (B&M)
(THE FOLLOWING PROFFERED CONDITIONWASSUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT
TO THE COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION. THE PROFFER FAILS TO ADDRESS
ANY OF THE IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES AND ROADS, AND ONLY
ADDRESSES THE IMPACTS ON PARKS AND FIRE.THE PROFFER NO LONGER
MAKES REFERENCE TO AGE RESTRICTED UNITS.)
For each dwelling unit, the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following
to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit for infrastructure
improvementswithin the service district for the property, unless state law prevents
enforcement of that timing:
a.$1,788.00 per dwelling unit, allocated on a pro-rata basis among the
categories for parks and fire, for the period beginning the July 1 preceding the
Board of Supervisors’ approval of the case through July 1 five years later, at
which point the amount will be adjusted for the cumulative change in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index during that time period.
b.Thereafter, the per dwelling unit cash proffer amount shall be automatically
adjusted, annually, by the annual change in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index on July 1 of each year.
c.Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as
otherwise permitted by law. (B&M)
3 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The request property is locatedfronting the west line of Iron Bridge Road and the north and
south lines of Kingland Glen Drive. Tax IDs 770-677-2778, 4773 and 9777; 770-678-8131;
771-676-9014; 771-677-1194, 1299, 1474, 1896, 2275, 2368, 2674 and 2766; 771-678-1303
and 1900; 772-676-2999; and 772-677-3568.
Existing Zoning:
C-3
Size:
93acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North, South and West –R-7 and C-3 with conditional use and conditional use planned
development approval; Single-family residential, multifamily residential or vacant
East –R-15, A, A with conditional use approval and C-3 with conditional use and
conditional use planned development approval; Single-family residential,
multifamily residential, office or vacant
UTILITIES
Public Water and Wastewater Systems:
Connection to the public water and wastewater systems is required per proffered conditions
of Cases 06SN0237 and 07SN0226.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
4 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
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 Plan as part of the Comprehensive Planindicates that fire and
emergency medical service(EMS) calls increased by 44% from 2001 to 2011,
significantly faster than the county’s population increase of 17%. Of the total incidents in
2011, nearly 76% were medical emergencies and 24% were 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 new stations,
the Planalso recommends the replacement/revitalization of four (4) existing stations.
Based on (413) dwelling units, this request will generate approximately (79) calls for fire
and emergency medical service each year.
Reference the Budget and Management Department’s comments on the financial impact
of this request as it relates to fire and EMS.
The Dale Fire Station, Company Number 11, currently provides fire protection and
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:
High performing, high quality public schools contribute to the quality of life and
economic vitality of the County. The Comprehensive Plansuggests a greater focus
should be placed on linking schools with communities by providing greater access,
flexible designs and locations that better meet the needs of the communities which they
serve. The Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies
countywide school facility needs. Specifically, the Planidentifies the need: to revitalize
or replace sixteen (16) elementary schools and construct three (3) new elementary
schools; to revitalize or replace six (6) middle schools and construct two (2) new middle
schools; to revitalize or replace two (2) high schools and construct three (3) new high
schools; and to construct one (1) additional technical center.
More locally, the proposed rezoning case will continue to have a significant impact on
the aforementioned schools involved. The existing zoning limits development to a
maximum of 740 dwelling units. To date, 413units remain to be constructed.The
elementary and secondary school students generated by the proposal wouldcontinue to
push enrollment to capacity and beyond capacity at each school. The five (5) trailers at
Hopkins Road Elementary are used for instruction and the fourteen (14) trailers at Falling
5 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
Creek Middle and the five (5) trailers at Bird High are used for instruction and storage.
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
beyond their capacity. Additionally, the financial impact of residential development on
school facilities is addressed in the “Financial Impact on Capital Facilities” section
below. The aforementioned units should continue to be subject to full cash proffers, to
assist in mitigatingthe impact that this development would have on schools. Reference
the Budget and Management Department’s comments on the financial impact of this
request as it relates to schools.
The chart on the following page offers information on schools’ memberships and
capacities. The projectedstudent membership and capacity trends at this time indicate
that there will be an overall increase in membership at the elementary and secondary
levels by 2021. Staff continues to monitor student membership on a regular basis in these
areas and membership projections are analyzed and updated annually.
6 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS:
Residential Yield:
413
Student Yield
Functional % of
From Membership, No. of
SchoolNameCapacity, Capacity,
Residential 9-30-15Trailers
2015-162015-16
Development *
Elementary:
88104%
Hopkins Road5875645
Middle:
4695%
Falling Creek1,1891,25514
High:
6391%
Bird1,8292,0205
Total
197
Projected Membership and Capacity Trends Over Time ***
Projected % of Projected % of Projected % of
SchoolNameMembership, 9-Capacity, Membership, Capacity, Membership, Capacity,
30-16 2016-179-30-17 2017-189-30-22 2022-23
Elementary:
600106%582103%590105%
Hopkins Road
Middle:
1,19795%1,23899%1,377110%
Falling Creek
High:
1,84491%1,84091%1,90694%
Bird
NOTE:
* The Student Yield is based on the FY2016 Cash Proffer Methodology as provided by the Chesterfield County Budget &
Finance Department.
Student Membership is based on membership as of 09-30-15.
School Capacity is based on the 2015-16 Space Utilization Study.
ANDANNUAL
*** DISCLAIMER: Please note that Projected Membership Functional Capacity are updated on an
BASIS
and are based on the September 30 membership for a given year and the Space Utilization Study Report which is
conducted every year. The Space Utilization Study is a report that is conducted annually whereby Planning staff conducts a
site visit of every school in the county and the Principal reviews his or her floor plan and identifies the use of every
classroom. From that information a report is prepared that calculates the Functional Capacity of that school. The school
system needs to know how each of their facilities is utilized for funding and space allocation purposes. Again, it is important
to note that these numbers change every year.
7 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
Libraries:
The Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, recognizes that the
public library system’s role in the county has expanded beyond its traditional function as
a resource for information and materials, and now serves as a community gathering place
for educational, cultural and information services; community support during emergency
events; economic development; and revitalization activities. The Planidentifies
countywidelibraryfacility needs. Specifically, the Planidentifies the need to: expand or
replace five (5) existing libraries; construct five (5) new libraries; and construct a
community arts center.
More locally, the proposed development would impact the Central Library or the
Meadowdale Library. The Public Facilities Planidentifies the need to expand the Central
Library by 6,000 square feet by finishing a shell space within the existing facility.
Reference the Budget and Management Department’s comments on the financial impact
of this request as it relates to libraries.
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.
Reference the Budget and Management Department’s comments on the financial impact
of this request as it relates to parks and recreation.
County Department of Transportation:
The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. Area roads need to be
improved to address safety and accommodate the increase in traffic generated by this
development. The applicant is requesting to amend the previously approved cash proffer.
Reference the Budget and Management Department’s comments on the financial impact
of this request as it relates to transportation.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT):
VDOT staff has no comments concerning this case.
8 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
Airport:
A portion of this site is located within the Airport Operational Area. Planpolicies
discourage residential uses in this area. However, the residential uses allowed through the
previous zoning cases were approved prior to the adoption of the Plan.
Financial Impact on Capital 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 Plan and Adopted Capital
Improvement Program and further detailed by specific departments in the applicable sections of
this request analysis.
The original zoning cases (06SN0237 and 07SN0226) were approved in August 2006 and April
2007 respectively. In 06SN0237, Condition 4 proffered a density of 650 units with cash proffers
on units in excess of 150 (Condition 11) in the amount of $15,600 (currently escalated by the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index to $22,743). The case was approved with a cash proffer
of $10,269 for senior units (currently escalated to $14,963). In 07SN0226, Condition 4 proffered
a density of 90 units with cash proffers (Condition 11) on all units in the amount of $15,600
(currently escalatedto $21,186). The case was approved with a cash proffer of $10,269 for senior
units (currently escalated to $13,946).
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 $23,418 per unit.
On June 16, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this case based the
applicant’s request to amend the previously approved cash proffers to $18,966 for each non-age
restricted units and $11,152 for each age restricted units. However, since that meeting, the
applicant has revised the cash proffer amount. Currently, the applicant is requesting to further
reduce the previously approved cash proffer to $1,778 per dwelling unit, which would be
allocated entirely to parks and fire. This current request would allow for the payment amount to
remain at $1,788 for a period of four years after which it would be escalated by the cumulative
change in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index, a provision recently adopted by the Board
of Supervisors. As proposed in this current request, the applicant would be relieved of
approximately $8.5 million that was previously proffered by the applicant, and approved by the
Board, to address this development’s impact on capital facilities. Please reference the chart
below for additional financial information regarding the applicant’s request.
Furthermore, since originally filing this application, Watermark Townhomes Section 1 has been
recorded. Therefore, the potential number of units has been updated to reflect the parcels/lots
actually included with this request. Nine of the 36 newly recorded lots in this application would
be subject to the conditions of this request. The remaining 27lots are not included in this
application and would be subject to the previously approved zoning case 06SN0237. As
identified on the recorded subdivision plat for Watermark Townhomes Section 1, lots 5-8 and
27-31 would be subject to the conditions of thisCase (13SN0132); whereas, lots 1-4, 9-26, and
32-36 would remain subject to Case 06SN0237.
9 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
The applicant has not proffered any other measures to mitigate the impacts of this request on
capital facilities. Consequently, the County’s ability to provide adequate facilities to its citizens
will be adversely impacted.
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. It is appropriate to retain the cash proffer amount as previously approved or even
to reduce the previously approved amount to the current Board maximum of $18,966; thereby
helping to defray the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by this proposed development.
The Planning Commission and 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 proffers as offered for this case.
413*
Per Dwelling Unit Impact on Capital Facilities
Potential
Units
Cash Proffer Cash Proffer
FY16 Current Variance
Facilityon Existing on Existing
Applicant
Calculated BOS from
Proposal
CategoriesZoning Zoning
ImpactMaximum Maximum
(1)(2)
(06SN0237)(07SN0226)
Schools$9,648$7,771$7,240$7,814$0($7,814)
Parks$1,347$877$818$1,091$1,091$0
Libraries$318$507$472$258($258)
Fire Stations$861$589$549$697$697$0
Roads$11,244$12,990$12,107$9,106($9,106)
Total$23,418$22,734$21,186$18,966$1,788($17,178)
Overall Impact on Capital Facilities
Schools$3,984,624$3,162,797$43,440$3,227,182$0($3,227,182)
Parks$556,311$356,939$4,908$450,583$450,583$0
Libraries$131,334$206,349$2,832$106,554$0($106,554)
Fire Stations$355,593$239,723$3,294$287,861$287,861$0
Roads$4,643,772$5,286,930$72,642$3,760,778$0($3,760,778)
Total$9,671,634$9,252,738$127,116$7,832,958$738,444($7,094,514)
*Based on the number of approved (06SN0237 and 07SN0226) and remaining to be built dwelling
units. The actual number of dwelling units and corresponding impact mayvary.
(1)
Case 06SN0237 has 407 remaining units to be built. Overall impact on capital facilities is
calculated based on this number.
(2)
Case 07SN0226 has six remaining units to be built. Overall impact on capital facilities is
calculated based on this number.
10 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plandesignates the request property as Community Business and
Industrial, where C-3 uses that serve community-wide trade areas, and I-2 and limited I-3
uses such as moderate to intense manufacturing and uses which normally have outside
storage areasare appropriate. The Plandoes not encourage residential development under
these two (2) land use designations. It should be noted, however, that the allowable land
uses were approved prior to the recent adoption of the Plan.
Area Development Trends:
Adjacent property to the north, south and west is zoned Residential (R-7) and has been
developed or planned for development for residential uses in the Ampthill Gardens,
Kings Forest and Watermark Subdivisions. Property to the east, across Route 10, is zoned
residential and agricultural and is occupied by single-family residential or office uses or
is vacant. In addition, the subject property surrounds the Meridian Watermark
Apartments, a multifamily development zoned as part of the original case (06SN0237).
The Plananticipates commercial and industrial uses in this area for the foreseeable future.
Zoning History:
On August 23, 2006 and April 25, 2007 the Board of Supervisors, upon favorable
recommendations from the Planning Commission, approved C-3 zoning with conditional
use and conditional use planned development on properties which included the subject
property (Cases 06SN0237 and 07SN0226). With the approval of Cases 06SN0237 and
07SN0226 the applicant offered and the Board of Supervisors accepted a cash proffer,
intended to address the impact of the residential development on necessary capital
facilities.
Architectural Standards:
The Textual Statements of Cases 06SN0237 and 07SN0226 require the architectural
treatment of buildings, including materials, color and style, to be compatible within the
Tracts established at the time of approval of those zoning cases. Compatibility may be
achieved through the use of similar building massing, materials, scale,colors and other
architectural features. In addition, in conjunction with Tentative Subdivision/Site Plan
approval, a written and/or graphic description of the planned overall architectural
treatment of all buildings is to be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. These requirements would not be changed as a result of approval of the current
request. This required architectural theme statement was submitted (see Attachment 2)
and approved on February 13, 2013.
11 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
CONCLUSION
The proffered condition does not adequately address the proposed development’s impacts on
capital facilities. Consequently, the County’s ability to provide adequate facilities to its citizens
will be adversely impacted.
Given these considerations, denialof thisrequest is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Applicant Submittals
8/31/2012 Application submitted
1/23/2013 Application amended
2/18/2016 Application amended
7/8/2013 Revised proffered condition and pattern book of development standards were
submitted
9/26/2013 Revised proffered condition were submitted
10/2, Revised proffered conditions and a revised design guidelines manual were
10/15, submitted
10/23 and
11/8/2013
1/28, 2/10 Revised proffered conditions were submitted
and
2/11/2016
3/23/2016 Revised proffered condition submitted
Planning Commission Meetings
11/15/2012 On their own motion and without the applicant’s consent, the Commission
deferred this case to their February 19, 2013 public hearing.
2/19/2013 On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred
this case to their May 21, 2013 public hearing.
5/21/2013 On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred
this case to their July 16, 2013 public hearing.
7/16/2013 On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred
this case to their September 17, 2013 public hearing.
9/17/2013 On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred
this case to their November 19, 2013 public hearing.
12 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
11/19/2013 At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to their January
21, 2014 public hearing.
1/23/2014 Due to inclement weather, the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
January 21, 2014 was postponed to January 23, 2014.
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to their March
18, 2014 public hearing.
3/18/2014 At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to their July 15,
2014 public hearing.
7/22/2014 Due to planned renovations to the public meeting room, the Commission
rescheduled their July 15, 2014 public hearing to July 22, 2014.
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred
this case to their October 21, 2014 public hearing.
10/21/2014 At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to their January
20, 2015 public hearing.
1/20/2015 At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to their March
17, 2015 public hearing.
3/17/2015 At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to their June
16, 2015 public hearing.
6/16/2015 The applicant did not accept staff’s recommendation, but did accept the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
The applicant noted that the original cases allowed for a reduced cash proffer for
age-restricted dwellings, and that this proposal represents a recalibration of those
figures.
There were no citizens to speak for or against this case.
There was discussion among the Commission about the Board historically
accepting a reduced cash proffer for age-restricted dwellings. It was noted the
Board would be reviewing the Policy and any Policy changes should be at the
Board level.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission recommended
approval and acceptance of the proffered condition on page 2 and 3.
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Gulley, Patton, Waller, and Wallin.
13 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
Board of Supervisors Meetings
7/22/2015 At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to their September
16, 2015 public hearing.
9/16/2015 At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to their February 24,
2016 public hearing.
2/24/2016 At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to their April 27, 2016
public hearing.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, April 27, 2016, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will consider
this request
Deferral Fees
1/23/2014 Fee from 11/19/2013 deferral paid
3/18/2014 Fee from 1/23/2014 deferral paid
2/9/2015 Fees from 3/18/2014, 10/21/2014 and 1/20/2015 deferrals paid
9/2/2015 Fees from 3/17/2015 and 7/22/2015 deferrals paid
11/20/2015 Fee from 9/16/2015 deferral paid
3/31/2016 To date, fee from 2/24/2016 deferral has not been paid
14 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
15 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
Condition to be amended from Case 06SN0237 with approval of
Case 13SN0132
11.Cash Proffers. The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the
County of Chesterfield prior to the issuance of any residential building permit for
infrastructure improvements within the service district for the Property in excess of 150
dwelling units:
A.$15,600.00 per dwelling unit if paid prior to July 1, 2006. Thereafter, such
payment shall be the amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$15,600.00 per unit as adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift
Building Cost Index between July 1, 2005 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which
the payment is made if paid after June 30, 2006.
B.Provided, however, that if any residential building permits issued on the Property
are for senior housing, as defined in the proffer on age-restriction, the applicant,
sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay $10,269.00 per unit to the County of
Chesterfield, prior to the time of issuance of a residential building permit, for
infrastructure improvements within the service district for the Property if paid
prior to July 1, 2006. The $10,269.00 for any units developed shall be allocated
pro-rata among the facility costs as follows: $602 for parks, $348 for library
facilities, $404 for fire stations, and $8,915 for roads. Thereafter, such payment
shall be the amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed $10,269
per unit as adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index between July 1, 2005 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the
payment is made if paid after June 30, 2006.
C.Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as otherwise
permitted by law. Should Chesterfield County impose impact fees at any time
during the life of the development that are applicable to the Property, the amount
paid in cash proffers shall be in lieu of or credited toward, but not in addition to,
any impact fees, in a manner as determined by the county
.
16 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT
Condition to be amended from Case 07SN0226 with approval of
Case 13SN0132
11.Cash Proffers. The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the
County of Chesterfield prior to the issuance of any residential building permit for
infrastructure improvements within the service district for the Property:
A.$15,600.00 per dwelling unit if paid prior to July 1, 2007. Thereafter, such
payment shall be the amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$15,600.00 per unit as adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift
Building Cost Index between July 1, 2006 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which
the payment is made if paid after June 30, 2007.
B.Provided, however, that if any residential building permits issued on the Property
are for senior housing, as defined in the proffer on age-restriction, the applicant,
sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay $10,269.00 per unit to the County of
Chesterfield, prior to the time of issuance of a residential building permit, for
infrastructure improvements within the service district for the Property if paid
prior to July 1, 2007. The $10,269.00 for any units developed shall be allocated
pro-rata among the facility costs as follows: $602 for parks, $348 for library
facilities, $404 for fire stations, and $8,915 for roads. Thereafter, such payment
shall be the amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed $10,269
per unit as adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index between July 1,2006 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the
payment is made if paid after June 30, 2007.
Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as otherwise
C.
permitted by law. Should Chesterfield County impose impact fees at any time
during the life of the development that are applicable to the Property, the amount
paid in cash proffers shall be in lieu of or credited toward, but not in addition to,
any impact fees, in a manner as determined by the county.
17 13SN0132-2016APR27-BOS-RPT