02SN0237-July23.pdfr~,~.,.~.. ~ ~ o092 CPC
n~. !8 2002B8
J~y 23, 2003 BS
STAFF' S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
02SN0237
(Amended)
Roper Brothers. Lumber Co., Inc.
and
Nash Road/Woodpecker Road, LLC
Dale and Matoaca Magisterial Districts
North and South lines of Woodpecker Road.
REQUEST:
(Amended) Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-88) 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-88) and continued
residential development for expansion, oftheHighlands 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 maximum overall density of 0.5
dwelling units per acre for that part 'of the property proposed to be rezoned to
Residential (R-88) has been proffered yielding approximately 310.dwelling units on
that part of the property (Proffered Condition 3). If 31Ounits are developed on the
property which is proposed to be rezoned to R-88, 940units wOuld be permitted on
that part of the property already zonedR~25 yielding a density of 1.08 dwelling units
per acre on that part of the property. A maximumofl,250 dwelling units would be
allowed on both tracts yielding an overall density of 0.84 units per acre,
Providing a FIRST CHOICE :Community Through Excellence in Public Service.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON
PAGES 2 THROUGH 5~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval, subject to the applicants fully addressing the impacts on capital facilities.
This recommendation is made for the following reasons:
The proposed zoning complies with the Southern and Western Area Plan which
suggests the subject prOperty is suitable for residential use of 1 to 5 acre lots(suited
for Residential (R,88) zoning).
The proffered conditions do not fully address the impacts of the (R-88) 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 County?s.adopted Public Facilities Plan,
Thoroughfare Plan and Capital Improvement'Program. The impact of this
development is disCUssed herein. The proffered conditions adequately address the
impact of this proposed development on transportation facilities; however~ fail to
address the impact on schools, parks, libraries and fire station facilities. The
proffered conditions do not fully 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,
HOWEVERTHE 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 of
Zoning Case 88SN0148 will be amended by condition 3 below, for the request property only, Tax ID.
786-646-4472,~ (Parcel "C-1") if, and only if, the ~ezoning request for R-88. 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.
2 02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
This application contains one exhibit described as follows:
Exhibit A -'The plan titled "Zoning Plan" dated March 15, 2002.
(STAFF/CPC) 1.
Timbering..Except for the timbering apProved by the Virginia State
Department 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 Environmental
Engineering Department and the approved devices have been
installed. (EE)
(STAFF/CPC)
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 Chesterfield 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 6f that part of the roads
immediately adjacent.to the Property; and
(b)
a tWo hundred (200) foot wide limited ~aceess right-of-way for
an east/west freeway ("East/West Freeway") through the
southeastern part of the property: The exact locationOf~this
right-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 acrosg 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; fora total Of four acceSSes,: The. eXact location of these-
accesses shall be approved by theTranSpOrtation Department; '
.Road Improvements. To provide for an adequate roadway system, the
developer shall be responsible for the following:'
(a)
Construction _of -additional pavement alOng
Woodpecker Road and Cattail Road at each approved
3 02SN0237-JULY23.-BOS
(c)
(e)
access to provide left and right turn lanes, based on
Transportation Department standards;
Relocation 'of the ditch to provide an'adequate
shoulder along the South: side of Woodpecker Road
and along the west side of Cattail Road for the entire
property frontage; and
Reconstruction of Nash Road as a two-lane roadway,
based on VDOT Urban Collector Standards (40 MPH)
and-on a ten (10) year storm design criteria with
modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, from the intersection of HighlandGlen
Drive to the Eastfair Drive Intersection.
Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and
unrestricted, of any additional right-of-Way. (or
easements) required for the improvements identified
above. In the event the' Developer is unable to acquire
the right-of-way necessary for the road improvement
identified in Proffered Condition 2.(c), the developer'
may request, in writing, the County to acquire such
right-of-way as a public road improvement. All Costs
associated with the acquisition of the right-of-Way
shall be borne by the developer. In the event the
County chooses not to assist the developer in
acquisition of the ,off-site". right-of-way, the
developer shall be relievedofthe obligation to acquire
the "off-site" right,of'way, and only provide the road
improvement that can be accommodated within
available right-of-Way .as determined by the
Transportation Department.
Prior to any construction plan approval, a phasing
plan for the required road improvements, as identified
in Proffered Condition 2, shall be submitted to and
approved by .the Transportation Department. The
approved phasing plan shall require that prior to
recordation of the initial subdivision plat, the
developer shall; 1) prepare and have apprOved
construction plans for the road improvements Outlined
in Proffered C°ndition 2.(c);and 2) submit a letter of
credit to the County for the cost to. construct the road
improvements outlined, in proffered Condition 2.(c)
including the cost of acquire all necessary right-of-
4 02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
way for said improvements. The approved phasing
plan shall-also require the road improvements outlined
in Proffered Condition 2.(c) to be completed prior to
the recordation of more than accumulative total of 50
lots or one (1) year f~om the date of recordation of the
initial subdivision plat, whichever occurs first. (T)
Tiansportation 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.)
Density. The total number of single family residential units on
Parcels A and B shall not exceed an overall density of 0.5 single
family residential unit per acre. 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
Exhibit ^.)
(a) On or before the issuance of the 100th building permit on Parcels
A and B on Exhibit A, developers Shall either: 1) apply for a
Conditional Use on Parcels A and/or B on Exhibit A to permit
recreational facilities Which shall include, a'minimum 4,000 gross
square foot multi-purpose building;i or 2) submit a site plan on a part
of Parcel C-1 on Exhibit A for a-minimum 4,000 gross square foot
multi-purpose building.
(b) The developers shall obtain certificates of occupancy for said
multi-purpose building within 18.months of the issuance of the 100th
residential building.permit on Parcels A and B on Exhibit A.
Otherwise no further residential buildingpermits shall be granted on
Parcels A and B on EXhibit A until such' certificates of occupancy
have been granted.
5 02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
GENERAL INFORMATION_
Location:
North and south lines of Woodpecker Road, andwest 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:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North and East - A and R-25; 'Single family residential or vacant
South- A; Single family residential or vacant
West - A, R-15 and 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 zonMg apProval and is still required by County Code.
There is-an existing twelve (12) inch water line extending alongNaSh Road that terminates
adjacent to Applecross Way, aPproximately 4,500 feet northwest of the'part of the request
property currently'zoned Agricultural (A) and proposed for rezOning toResidential (R,88).
In addition, there is a thirty (30) inch water line at the intersectiOn of Woodpecker and
Bradley Bridge Roads, apProximately 13,000 feet east ofthisportion oftherequest 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.
6 02SN0237:JULY23-BOS
Private Septic System:
Prior to recordation of a sUbdivision plat, soils analysis for eachlOt mUst be submitted to the
Health Department for review and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
The'portion of the property currently zoned Residential (R-25):Was originally zoned in 1989
(Case 88SN0148 ) as part of the "Highlands" development. 'At that time, proffered conditions
were accepted which required'on-site retention (Condition 14of Case 88SN0148). This
condition would not be alteredby this request;
The portion of the property currently zoned Agricultural~(A) andpropoSed for rezoning to R-
..88 drains southwest and soUtheast into either a perennial stream or into Lake Margaret.
There are currently no on- or off~site drainage or erosion problemsand nOne are anticipated
with development. To insure that adequate erosion control measles arein place prior t0any
timbering, there should no timbering without first obtaining a land.disturbance permit from
the Environmental Engineering Department. (Proffered Condition i- Parcels A and. B)
Water Quality:-
Some of the property-currently zoned Residential (R-25) is:,. encumbered by Resource
PrOtection Areas. (RPA's)
A Resource Protection Area (RPA) exists along the southwestern property line and along.~
fifty (50) percent of the southeastern property line of the p0rtionof 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 inthe applicable.sections of this "Request Analysis." Thisdevelopment~will
have an impact on these facilitieS.
Fire Service:
The Public Facilities Plan indicates that emergency services calls are expected to increase
forty-five (45) percent by 2015.-Eight (8) new fire/rescUe stations, are ,recommended for
construction by 2015 in the Plan: Based on. 3t 0 additional dwelling units proposed on the
portion of the request property proposed.for R-88 zoning, beYond:~ithe nUmber of dwelling
units that are already allowed on the portion of the property already zOned'Residential' (R-
25), this:request will generate aPProximately ten (10) calls for fire and EMS services'each
7 -. 02SN0237-JULY23~BOS
year.' The applicant has not addressed the impact on fire service for that portion of the
property proposed to be rezoned from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R~88).
The Phillips Volunteer.Fire Station, Company Number 13, currently provides 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 proposedfOr Rz88 zoning. The current
schoOl attendance line is Woodpecker Road. If the attendance lines are 'not modified, the
schools' for the part of the property currently zoned Residential (R-25) will be as follows:
Gates Elementary School attendance zoned: capacity 720, enrollment- 872; Salem Middle
Schools zone: capacity - 1,030, enrollment, 1,195. The schools for that portion of the
property proposed to be rezoned from A to R-88 will be! .Ettrick_ Elementary School'
attendance zone: capacity- 650, enrollment- 502; MatoacaMiddle School zone: capacity-
720, enrollment - 608. Currently, there are seven (7) trailers at Gates Elementary and
thirteen (13) trailers at Salem Middle School. The entire proPerty lies within the Matoaca
High SchoOl zone: capacity - 1,750, enrollment- 990.
The students generated by development of the prOperty proposed for rezoning from Ato R-
88 would create significant enrollment increases at the elementary, middle and high school
levels. The applicant has not adequately addressed the impact of development of the
property currently zoned A on school facilities. (Proffered Condition 5)
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 additionallibrary space throughout the County.' Taking
into account, the facility improvements 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 aneed for additional space at the.CentralLibrary. The applicant has not
addressed the impact of development of the part of the property proposed for rezoning from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-88) on library facilities.- (Proffered Condition 5)
8 02SN0237-JULY23-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 community 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 impact of the development
of the part of the property proposed for rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-88)
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-88). 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 ofthe 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-l). 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 of a half (0.5)singlefamily 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 2000 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.
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-88. (proffered Condition 2 - Parcels A and B)
The Thoroughfare Planalso identifies an east/west limited access facility ("the 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 through parcel B.
The Southern and Western Area ~Plan suggests that most of this area of the County is
appropriate 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
9 02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
East/West Freeway just westOfBranders Bridge ROad. A large percentage of the.SoUthern
and Western Area Plan is identified as a Rural Conservation Area, which indicates-that
planned development ' should be deferred. The- "buildlout" 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 in the Thorou.~.hfare 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 incre.~ed traffic .volUmes as the. County
continues to develop. The applicant has proffered to'dedicate a200 footwide right of way
for the East/West Freeway through the southeastern part of the property (Proffered
Condition 2 - Parcels A and' B). According 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 a lesser diStance
is acceptable. Natural vegetation.must be retained within:the setback area. ~
.Access to major arterials, such as Woodpecker and Cattail Roads; should be controlled. For
that portion of the propertyproposed to be rezoned t0 R-88, the applicant has proffered that
direct access to Woodpecker andCattail Roadswill be limitedt0~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 conform, to the Planning
Commission's Stub Road Policy Which suggests that traffievolUmes on those streets .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 partofparcels A and B.
As previously noted, Parcel C-1 is part oftheHighland SubdivisiOn.. In,1989, the Board of
Supervisors approved the rezoning for the Highland SUbdivisiOn (2,441. acres), and accepted
several transportation related prOffers. These proffered-conditions inclUde right' of way
dedication, shoulder improvements and mm lanes along Nash Roada~d Woodpecker Road;
and construction of two (2) Thoroughfare Plan roadsthroughthe development. This request
will nOt affect those previously accepted proffers.
The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. For that-portion of the property
proposed to be rezoned R-88; the applicant has proffered to: 1) COnstruct Iefi and:right mm
lanes along Woodpecker Road and Cattail Road at eachpubliC road intersection, basedon
TransportatiOn Department standards; and 2) relocate'the ditch to provide an adeqUate
shoUlder'along the south side of Woodpecker Road and along thewest side of Cattail Road
fOr the entire property frontage (proffered Condition 2-ParcelsA:and B). Utility poles are
located on the south side of WOOdpecker Road and onthe west side .of Cattail 'Road
approximately five (5) to ten (10)-feet from the exiSting edge 6fPavement: To provide, an
10 02SN0237-JULY23-BOS--
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 construct
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 aligaments with obstructions,
generally large trees and high earth banks, located close to the edge. of pavement. Based on
the current volume of traffic during peak hours, sections of Nash-Road are at capacity (Level
of Service E). 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 proffered that in conjunction with initial development of the property,
Nash Road from the Highland Glen Drive intersectionto the Eastfair Drive intersection Will
be reconstructed as a two (2) lane roadway (Proffered Condition 2.(c)). According to the
proffered phasing plan, this road improvement must be completed prior to recordation of
more than fifty (50) lots or wiLlain one (1) year from the date of recording the initial
subdivision plat, whicheVer occurs first. (Proffered Condition 2.(e))
The developer may need to acquire "off-site" right of way in order to provide this
improvement. According to the proffer, if the developer is unable toacquire the right of way
for reconstructing Nash Road, the developer may request the County to acquire the right of
way as a public road improvement. Al! costs associated with the acquisition will'be borne-
by the developer. If the County chooses not to assist with the right of way acquisition, the
developer will not be obligated to acquire the "off-site" right of~ way, and will only be
obligated to construct road improvements within available.right of way. (Proffered
Condition 2.(d))
Proffered Condition 2, addresses the impact of this proposed development in accOrdance
with the Board of Supervisors' policy.
11 02SN0237-JULY23 -BOS
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
PER UNIT
Potential Number °fNew Dwelling Units~ i 310* 1.00
Population IncreaSe 846.30 ~ 2~73
Number of New Students I '
Elementary · 75.64 0~24
High · . 49160. 0.16
TOTAL 165.54 · .. 0,53
Net Cost for SchOols 1,114,760 '.
3,596
Net Cost for Parks 251,720 . · 812
Net Cost for Libraries 87,420 . ' 282"
Net Cost fOr Fire Stations 97,650 315
Average Net Cost for Roads ' ' 887,530 :' 2,863
TOTAL NET C_OST ' ' 2'43%080 t .' 7,868'
*Based on a proffered maximum density of 0.5 units per acre on Parcels A and B. (Proffered
Condition 3)
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.
As noted, this proposed develoPment ofthe portions of the property proposed for rezoning from A to
R-88 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 maximum proffer of $7,800 per unit for that part of the development
proposed for rezoning from A to R-88 wOuld defray the Cost of the capital facilities· necessitated-by
this proposed development.
Staff has reviewed this application Under the Board's policy adopted in August 2002, resulting in a
maximum increaSe of 310 dwelling units that will create an impact on capital facilities.
The applicant has proffered to make road improvements to assist :in 'defraying the cost of this
proposed zoning on such capital facilities. The proffered conditions adequately address the impact
of this proposed development on transportation, facilities in accordance with the Board of
SUpervisors' policy; however, fail to address the impact of this development on schools, parks,
12
02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
libraries.and fire station facilities. Accordingly, the.County's ability to provide capital facilities to its
citizens will adversely impacted.
Note that circumstances relevant-to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed and
its has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash proffer in this case:.
The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors; through their consideration of this request,
may determined that there are uniquecircumstances relative to this case thatmayjustify acceptance
of the 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.
Area Development Trends:
Properties generally surrounding the request property are zOned Agricultural (A) and are
occupied by agricultural and large,lot single family residential Use:s~ with the exception of
the Highlands Subdivision located generally north and.West of. therequest property. ~The--:~
Highlands'SubdivisiOn is zoned Residential (R-25) and de~eloped' for single:family
residential uses. Amstel Bluff Subdivision which is zoned~Residential~(Rr25) is east ofthe
request Property .and is developed for single family residential use. It iS anticipated that:
larger-lot residential dev~elopment will cdntinue inthe area on properties zoned Residential
(R-88) 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 emPloy6d: ~.
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; 1:989, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable
recommendation from the Planning Commission, appr%ed re~Oning °fthe 2,441 aCre tract
from Agricultural (A) to ReSidential (R-25) with'a Conditional!Useto Permit single-family
residential development with outdoor recreational facilities. The: Board's approval: was
subject to numerous proffered conditions addressing transportati/m;environmental, andtand
use.:Concems relative to'buffers; phasing develOpment, Sig/iag~; lighting and p~king.. In~
addition, development ofthe prOperty for residential'usewaslimitedto 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 stationi Subsequently, the Southernand WesternArea~Plan~was
13 02SN0237-JuLY23;BOs
adopted. The. adopted Plan now suggests that the Highlands is appropriate for development
of One (1) to five (5) acre lots suited for Residential (R-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 on a 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 of. 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 Agricultural (A)
to Residential (R-88) Will not exceed 1,250 (Proffered Condition 3 - Parcels A, B and Czl ).
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:
It 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 remaining,
Highlands property. (the pOrtion of the request property already zoned Residential (R-2:5))and
the Portion of the reqUest property proposed for rezoning froTM A to R-88 (Proffered
Condition 3) yielding an overall density of 0.84 dwelling U~ts per acre. (PrOffered-
Condition 3, Parcels A, B and C-l)
The applicant has proffered a maximum density of 0.5 units per acre on the portion of the
request property proposed' for rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential
(PrOffered Condition 3 - Parcels'A, B and C- 1). This results in a maximum of 310 lots that
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 tots on the entire request property-andthe:
maximum density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre proffered on ~the portion of the Property
proposed for rezoning from A to R-88, limit the number Of-dwelling units that may be
developed on the remaining Highlands property to 940 dwelling~tmits.. This yields a density
on this portion of the request property of apPrOximately 1.1 dwelling units per acre.
The Residential (R-88) District requires that each lot contain a minimum of 88,000 square
feet, except that under certain circumstances specified in:the Ordinance regarding density
calculations and open space preservation, the minimumlot areas 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
14 02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
the southern and western areas of the County as recommended by the Plan such as the
forested views and rural character along the roadways. The subdivision layout and design,
including the minimum lot areas and open space calculations, are reviewed during the
County's. approval of the sUbdivision plats.
In an attempt to address concerns expressed by current residents of the Highlands
Subdivision, the applicants have proffered that recreational facilities which include an.
activities center will b~ constructed within eighteen (18)monthsofthe issuance of the 100th
building permit on Parcels Aand B (Proffered Condition '4 ' Parcels A, B and C-l).
Proffered Condition 4 will be difficult for Staff to track becaUse the-number of building
permits released per development is not normally tracked On adaily basis. Staff would prefer
that Proffered Condition 4 be amended to link construction of the activities center be linked '
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/of B, a Conditional Use must first be obtained. As preuiously noted,.the original zoning
(Case 88SN0148) did inclUde approval of a Conditional Use t° permit recreational useson a
part of Parcel C-1 of this request;' therefore, if the prop0sed.recreati0nal facilities will be
located on.Parcel C-1, approval of a site plan and building peat wouldbe-required for the
activities center provided there is remaining acreage, available within the Highlands (parcel..
C-l) which has Conditional Use approval. (Proffered COndition 4 -Parcels A, B and C-l)
CONCLUSIONS
While the request complies with the Southern and Western .Area Plan which suggests the subject
property is appropriate for residential use'Of 1 to 5 acre lots, suited-forResidential (R-88) zOning, the
proffered conditions do not fully address the impacts of development of the prOperty propoSed for
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-88) on necessarycapi ~ta!:facilities,-as outlined in the
Zoning Ordinance and ComprehensiveP1an. SpecifiCally, the need f~ ~ansp°rtation, schOols,: Parks,.
libraries and fire stations is identified in the County's adopted pUblic FaCilities Plan, Thoroughfare
Plan and Capital Improvement Program. The impact ofthi's development is discUssed herein.. The
proffered, conditions do nOt fully mitigate the impact of the devel0prnent~0fthe property proPosed for
rezoning from A to~R-88 on these capital facilities, thereby not ~Sudng~adequate service levels are
maintained as necessary to protect the health, safety and' welfar6;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.
15 ' 02SN0237-JULY23-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 atthe Commission's October
t 5, 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.
Applicants (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.
Applicants (10/14/02):
The applicants submitted revised and additional proffered conditions relative to the provision
ofrecreati0nal 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.
Staff 10/16/02):
The applicants were advised in writing that any significant neTM or: revised information 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.
16 02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
Planning Commission Meeting (11/19/02):
The applicants did not accept'the recommendation. There was support for~ and opposition to,
the request present. ThOse wh° 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. Gecker 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 to justify a
deviation-from the Plan. He :eXpressed his concerns that the fiscal impac[s of this
development had not being addressed and that existing roads are Unsafe.
Mr. Litton Stated the proposed development woUld be of the same quality aS the Highlands.
He'indiCated he felt the apPliCants need t° addreSs-their impacts on caPital facilitieS andthat
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..Howevers.he provided that deviating from 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 andCattail Roads, Further, he provided.that-the
planned thOroughfare.mad.thr0ugh 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 capitalfacilities,
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. Thev°te on:the motion waS asfollows:
AYES: -Messrs. Litton and Stack.
NAYS :. Messrs. Gecker, Cunningham and Gulley.
On a subsequent motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr; Gulley, the CommiSsion
recommended denial ofthis request.
17 02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
AYES:
NAYS:
Messers. Gecker, Cunningham, and Gulley
Messers. Litton and Stack
Applicants (12/6/02):
A.deferral to the Board's January 22, 2003, meeting was requested.
Applicants (12/11/02):
The applicants withdrew their request for a thirty (30) day deferral and stated their intent to
consent to the Board of Supervisors remanding the Case.back.to the Planning Commission.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (12/18/02):
The Board remanded the Case to the Planning Commission.
Applicants (1/9/03):
The application was amended to request rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R,
88). The applicants submitted an additional profferedconditionto provide a cash payment
towards the development's impact on capital facilities and revised the proffered condition
relative to the provision of recreational facilities.
Applicants' (2/26/03):
The applicants revised Proffered Condition 4 relative to.the provision of a multi-purpose
recreational building:
Planning Commission Meeting (3/.18/03):
At the applicants' request; the COmmission deferred this case to May 20, 2003.
Staff (3/19/03):
The applicants were advised in: writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than March 24, 2003, for consideration atthe Commission's May 20,
2003, public hearing.
18 02SN0237-JULY23~BOS
Also, the applicants were advised that a $250.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Commission's May public hearing.
Applicants (4/7/03):
The applicants paid the $250.00 deferral fee.
Staff (4/24/03):
To date, no new or revised information ha~ been submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (5/20/03):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case until-their June 17, 2003, meeting.
Staff (5/21/03):
The applicants were advised in Writing that. any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than Tuesday, May 27, 2003, for consideration at the Commission's
June 17, 2003, public hearing.~'~
Staff (5/27/03):
To date, no new or revised information has been submitted.'
Applicants (6/9/03):
To address concerns of the Dale and Matoaca District CommissiOners, staff'and area citizens
relative to the development's impact on capital facilities and increased traffic on existing
roads in the area, the applicants amended .Proffered Condition 2 and withdrew Proffered
Condition 5 relative to reconstruction ofNash Roa&
Planning Commission Meeting (6/.17/03):
The applicants acCeptedthe Commission's recommendafion,.but not staff' s recommendation.
19 02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
The applicants provided the development will not increase the number of units permitted for
the Highlands Development, noting school and fire statiOn sites were dedicated with that
case. In addition, the applicants noted that recreational uses are provided with the Highlands
and with the proffered reconstruction of Nash Road, the applicants are addressing their
impacts on capital facilities.
A citizen expressed concerns about additional traffic on. Nash Road. Two (2)-citizens
supported the request because it complies with the Plan and the revised proffered Conditions
will require Nash Road to be reconstructed.
Mr. Litton stated the existing road conditions were. a major concern and provided that the'
current proposal to reconstruct Nash Road will address this concern.
Mr. Stack added that the current proposal will assure benefit.to the area because the road
reconstrnetion will occur immediately with the projects' development.
On motion of Mr. Stack, seconded by. Mr. Litton, the. CommissiOn .acknowledged the
withdrawal of Proffered Condition 5 and recommended approval of .the request and
acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2 through 5.
AYEs: Unanimous.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, beginning at 7:00 p:m., will take'under
consideration this request.
20 -02SN0237-JULY23-BOS
Z
0
GPIN 7686464472 (Part
PARCEL "C 1"
EXHIBIT
ZONING'
MARCH
SCALE 1
P LAN
1: 5, 2001
"=2000'
OZ 5AIOZ57~2