03AN0162-Nov 25.pdfNovember 25, 2003 BS
STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
03SN0162
Ron Wheeler
ClOver Hill Magisterial District
Davis Elementary, Providence Middle and
Monacan H~gh Schools Attendance Zones
East line of Pocoschock Boulevard
REQUEST:
'Rezoning from Corporate. Office (0-2) to MultifamilY Residential (R-MF) of 8.4
acres With COnditional Use' Planned Development. to permit exceptions to Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A multifamily condominium reSidemial development restricted to elderly housing
and containing a maximum of forty-four (44) dwelling unitS is planned. (Proffered
Conditions 9 and .14)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL suBjEcT TO ~FHE CONDITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON PAGES 2 THROUGH 8.
AYES: MESSRS. LITTON, CUNNINGHAM, GULLEY AND STACK.
ABSENT: MR.. GECKER.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
PrOviding a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public Service
The proposed, zoning and land use does not comply with the Route 360 Corridor
Plan. Although the Plar~..suggests the property is. apprOPriate ?or a mix of uses to
include office, church and pUblic facility uses and residential developments up to six
(6) Units per acre, the proposed zoning and land use failsto incorporate high quality
site amenities and cluster design to maintain open space as recommended by the Plan
to provide appropriate transition between the office :development south of the request
property, as well as the single family residential use to the north. '
The application fails to provide for the typical development standards necessary to
insure a quality higher density development with amenities.
Some of the requested exceptions to multifamily development standards would allow
greater development flexibility. In particular, the requested exceptions to internal
development requirements, together with 'the proffered conditions, would allow
multifamily development that possesses a character more in keeping with area single
family residential neighborhoods than would be' allowed with typical Multifamily
Residential (R-MF) zoning. HoWever, some of the requested exceptions, such as
those related to prOvisions for sidewalks and buffer and building setback reductions
fi:om property lines, are inappropriate given the :higher density of development and
the need to offset the impact on adjacent single family residential development, as
well as future residents Within this development.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER
CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPoN BY
BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE
RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION,)
CONDITION
(CPC)
With the approval of this request, the Textual Statement revised September 18, 2003,
is approved. (P)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(CPC)
t. Public water and wastewater shall be used. (Id)
(CPC) 2.
The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following, for
infrastructure improvements'within the service district for the property, to the
county of Chesterfield prior to the issuance of building permit for
infrastructure improvements within the service.district for the property:
$4,815.00 per dwelling unit, ifpald prior to July 1, 2003. At the time
of payment, the $4,815.00 will be allocated pro-rata among the
facility costs as follows: $598.00 for parks and recreation, $324.00
2 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOS
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
for library facilities, $3,547.00 for roads, and $346.00 for fire
stations; or
Bo
The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$4,815.00 per dwelling unit pro-ratedas set forth above and adjusted
upward by any increase in the Marshall. and Swift buildingcost index
between July 1, 2002, and July 1 of the fiscal year in Which the
payment is made if paid after June 30, 2003.
Co
In the event the cash payment is not used for which proffered within
15 years of receipt, the cash shall be returned in full to the payor.
(B&M)
Except for 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
installed. (EE)
Direct access from the property to POcoshock BoUlevard shall be limited to
one (1) Public road. The exact location of this access shall' be approved bythe
Transportation Department. (T)
Prior to any site plan approval, thirty-five (35) feet of right-of-way on the east
side of Pocoshock Boulevard, measured from a revised centerline based on
VDOT Urban Collector standards (forty (40)'miles per hour) as approved by
the Transportation Department, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to
and for the benefitof Chesterfield County: (T)
To provide an adequate roadway systeTM at the time of complete development,
the owner/developer shall, be responsible fOr thefoliowing:
ao
Construction of additional pavement along Pocoshock Boulevard at
the approved access to provide a right lane, if warranted, based on
Transportation Department standards;
Relocation of the ditch to provide an adequate shoulder along the east
side of Pocoshock Boulevard for the entire property frontage;
Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, any
additional right-of-way (or easements) reqUired for the improvements
identified above. (T)
3 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOS
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(cPc)
(CPC)
(cpc)
o
o
10.
11.
12.
Prior to any construction plan approval, a phasing, plan for the required road
improvements, as identified in Proffered Condition 6, shall be submitted.to
and approved by the Transportation Department. (T) -
All impervious areas shall drain to the southeastern and/or the SouthwesteTM
portion(s) of the property. In addition, the drainage,system shall be designed
to capture runoff from the properties to the north, to the eXtent practical as
determined bythe Department of Environmental Engineering. If a retention
pond or any water quality pond is provided above ground, sUch pond shall be
designed as a wetpond. (EE)
Age restriction: Except as otherwise prohibited by the Virginia Fair Housing
Law, the. Federal-Housing Law, and such other applicable fede, ral, state, or
local legal requirements, dwelling units shall be reStricted to hoUsing for
older persons" as defined in the Virginia Fair HOusing Law. and shall have no
persons under 19.years of ' ' ' ' ' '" ·
age dommfled therein ( Age-Restricted-Dwelling
Units"). (P)
Virginia Condominium Act: All dwelling units on the Property shall be
condominiums as defined and regulated by the ~irginia Condominium Act,
and all common areas and improvements therein shall'be maintained 'by a
condominium association. (P)
Open spaCe/recreation area shall be provided as generally depicted onthe
Master Plan, prepared by Balzer & Associates,.Inc., including a minimum of
0.47 acres in an area adjacent to the clubhoUse to provide a "focal point" to
the project. Part of the area shall be "hardscaped'~, and.haye other amenities
that accommodate and facilitate gatherings. The exact design and location
shall be approved by the Planning Department at the .time of site plan review.
The clubhouse building and its related recreational amenities shall be
developed-concurrent with the first phase of development.~ (p)
Development of the property shall be in substantial conformance with :the
architectural appearance shown on the elevations~attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" with respect to the materials depicted, which are brick Or stone-veneer,
composition, hardiplank or vinyl siding, and.20+year asphalt roof shingles.
Development of the property shall generally confOrm to the Master Plan with
respect to the general location of the clubhouse.building} open spaces, the
.orientation of buildings such that the number of garage, doors opening.to any
individual street are minimized, and the clustering of buildings. ·The location
of roads, access, driveways and parking areas neednot be.exactly as shown
on the Master Plan; however, 'the concepts 'of the Plan shall be generally
adhered to such as the orientation of dwelling units to one· another, to open
spaces,-and to rights of way. (P)
4 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOS
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Restriction on Children's Play Facilities: The common area recreational
amenities shall not include playground equipment, play fields or other
facilities primarily associated with children' s play. Adult facilities including,
but not limited to; putting greens, shUfflebOard, picnic and barbecue areas and
gardens shall be permitted; No swimming pools, basketball courts or tennis
courts will be permitted. (P)
Density: There shall be no more than fortyrfour (44) units developed on the
Property. (P)
All roads that accommodate general traffic circulation through the
development (the "Public-Roads"), as determined by-the Transportation
Department, shall be designed and constructed to VDOT standards and taken
into the State System. Setbacks fromthe Public Roads shall be as identified
for special access:streets pursuant to Section 19-505(b) of the Zoning
Ordinance. Prior to any site plan approval, forty (40) foot wide rights of Way
for the Public Roads shall' be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the
benefit of Chesterfield County. Prior to the issuance of an-occupancy permit
unless otherwise approved by the TranspOrtation Department, the Public
Roads shall be constructed and approved for State acceptance, as determined
by the Transportation Department. (T)
Sidewalks shall be provided along all interior streets generally as shown on
the Master Plan. The treatment and location of these sidewalks and the
pedestrian trail-shall.be apProved by the Planning Department at the time of
site plan review. (P)
Street trees in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be installed along each side of the interior roads and common driveways
to include entrance roads from public roads into the development. If existing
trees are maintained, they may be counted toward this requirement. (P)
Landscaping shall be provided around the perimeter of all buildings, between
buildings and driveways, within medians, and within common areas not
occupied by recreational facilities or other structures. Landscaping shall
comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Sections 19-516
through 19-518(f)~ Within the setback along~Pocoshock Boulevard, a
landscape berm shall be installed in such a way as .to minimize the view of
the garage doom from Pocoshock Boulevard. Landscaping shall be designed
to: minimize the predominance of building mass and paved areas; define
private spaces; and-enhance the residential:character of the development. The
Planning Department, at the time of site plan review, shall approve the
landscapingplan with respect to the exact numbers, SPacing, arrangement and
species of plantings. Landscaping along Pocoshock Boulevard shall, at a
minimum, comply with the requirements .of Section 19-518(g)(4) of the
5 03SN0162-NOV25-BOS
(CPC) 19.
(CPC) 20.
(CPC) 21.
(CPC) 22.
(CPC) 23.
(CPC) 24.
Zoning Ordinance for Perimeter Landscaping. C, Option I. Decorative
fencing shall be installed as follows: 1)generally parallel to Pocoshock
Boulevard within the front setback and 2) on the proposed property, line
adjacent to the existing office building parking lot. Landscaped areas and
sodded lawns shall be irrigated. (P)
Light poles shall have a maximum height of fifteen (15)'feet. (P)
A six (6) foot solid fence shall be installed generally adjacent to GPIN 763-
696-8950. This fence shall be constructed ofvinyl/PVC resin. The exact
design and treatment shall be approved at the time of site plan review. (P)
Visitor parking to accommodate overflow parking for attached dwelling units.
shall be provided in the residential development and shall provide a minimum
of six (6) parking spaces. The exact treatment and location of the visitor
parking shall be addressed at the time of Site plan review: (P)
No dwelling unit shall exceed a height of one story. (P)
Common areas which are not contained within units and pUblic road right-of-
ways shall conform to the requirements of 19-559 of the Zoning Ordinance
provided however, that required information shall be submitted as a part of
the site plan process. (P)
Restrictive Covenants. The following provisions shall be contained in
restrictive covenants which shall be recorded. Further, the following
provisions in the restrictive covenants shall not be modified or amended for a
period of at least twenty (20) years folloWing recordation:
1) No unit shall be used except for residential purposes.
2)
No accessory buildings shall be erected, placed, or permitted on the
premise.
3)
No fences shall be erected on any portion of the property except in
accordance with the approved site plans and specifications for
construction, and is further controlled through the proffered
conditions of the rezoning.
4)
No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried 'on-upon by any
resident, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be, or
become, an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
5)
No structUre Of a temporary character, trailer,, tent, shack, garage, or
other outbuilding shall be used at any time as a residence either
6 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOs
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
temporarily or permanently, and to this end, any building to be
constructed in this development shall be completed'within one year
from the issue date of it's building permit.
NO CAMPERS, HOUSE TRAILERS, OR BOATS SHALL BE
PARKED on the premise. No skateboard platforms, large dish
television antennae (exceeding two feet in diameter), Or television or
radio towers shall be placed on the premise. No dish television
antennae shall be visible from the street for the respective residence.
No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any yard
except one professional sign of not more than three square feet and
one sign of not more than five square feet advertising the property for
sale, and one sign.of not more than fiVe-square feet by a builder to
advertise the property during the construction and sales period.
No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or
kept on any lot except that dogs, cats, or other household pets may be
kept therein if they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any
commercial purposes.
No part of this development shall be used or maintained as a dumping
ground for rubbish, trash, garbage, or other waste. No rubbish, trash,
garbage, and other waste shall be kept by any unit except in sanitary
containers, and all equipment for the storage or disposal of such
material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary.condition. No central
dumpsters shall be provided.
Each and every covenant and condition herein imposed may be
enforced by the undersigned or by the owner of any unit by
appropriate proceedings at law or in equity against any party violating
or attempting or threatening to viOlate the same to prevent or rectify
such violation and to recover damages therefore.
The covenants and conditions herein contained shall mn with the land
and shall-be binding upon the subsequent owner or owners of all or
any unit and each and every portion of the land shown on the plat and
all partieS'claiming through or under such owner or owners.
All dwelling units shall have washer and dryer hookups.
All residential dwelling units shall have an attached garage containing
a minimum of 200 gross square feet.
7 03SN0162-NOV25-BOS
Location:
14)
15)
A mandatory homeowners' association shall be created that shall' be
responsible for the maintenance of yards and exteriors of residential
dwelling units.
Age restriction: Except as otherwise prohibited by .the Virginia Fair
Housing Law, the Federal Housing Law, and. such other applicable
federal, state, or lOCal legal requirementS, dWelling units shall.be
restricted to "housing-for older persons, as defined-in the Virginia
Fair Housing Law and shall have no persons under 1.9 years of age
domiciled therein ("Age-Restricted Dwelling. Units"). (P)
GENERAL INFORMATION
East line of Pocoshock Boulevard, north of Hull Street Road.. Tax IDs 762-695-6591; 762-
696-6401 and 6412; and 763~696-Part of 0005 (Sheet 11):
Existing Zoning:
0-2
Size:
8.4 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adiacem Zoning and Land Use:
North
South
East
West
R-7; Single family residential or vacant
R-7 with Conditional Use, 0-2 and A; Single family residential, office or
vacant
- C-5; Public/semi-public (YMCA)
- R-7, R-7 with Conditional Use and A; Single-family residential, office or
vacant
8 03SN0162-NOV25-BOS
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
There is an existing twelve (12) inch water line extending along the east side of Pocoshock
Boulevard, adjacent to the request site. Use of the public water system is intended and has
been proffered. (Proffered Condition 1)
Public Wastewater System:
There is an existing eight (8) inch wastewater collector extending along the west side of
P0coshock Boulevard, adjacent to the request site. In .'addition, thereis an eight (8) inch
wastewater collector serving the existing Pocoshock ProfessionalOffice, adjacent to this site.
Use of the public wastewater system is intended, and has been proffered. (Proffered
Condition 1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
A portion of the property drains southwest to Pocoshock Boulevard and then through several
small streams and tributaries to Pocoshock Creek. Another portion of the property drains to
the southeast then underneath Hull Street Road to Pocoshock Creek. There are no on- or off-
site. drainage or erosion problems. A small area of the site drains under Pocoshock
Boulevard to Surreywood through an inadequate channel. Proffered Condition 8 requires all
impervious areas of this site to drain southwest and/or sOutheast to address an adjacent
property owner's concern. A very-small portion of'this site is wooded and should not be
timbered without first obtaining a land disturbance permit from the Environmental
Engineering Department. This will ensure that adequate erosion control measures are in
Place prior to any land disturbance. (Proffered. Condition 3)
Water Quality:
Proffered Condition 8 addresses design of any abOVe ground facility required for water
quantity and quality control (SWM/BMP). Specifically, if above ground, these areas will be
designed as wet ponds:and must otherwise meet Ordinance requirements regarding
landscaping and other design issues relative to the facility being an amenity for uses
developed on the property..
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for fire, school, library, park and transportation facilities is identified in the Public
Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan andthe Capital Improvement Program ThiSdevelopment will
have an impact on these facilities.
9 03SN0162-NOV25-BOS
Fire Service:
The Public Facilities Plan indicates that emergency services calls are .expected to increase
forty-five (45) percent by the year 2015. Eight (8) new fire/rescue stations are recommended
for construction by 2015 in the plan. Based on forty-four (44) dwelling units, this request
will generate approximately seven (7) calls for fire and EMS servic~S each Year~. The
applicant has addressed the impact on theSe facilities· (proffered C0ndition'2)
The Centralia Fire/Rescue StatiOn, Company Number 17, Current!ylprovides 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 willbe evaluated during
the plans review process.
Schools:
This site lies in the Davis Elementary School attendance zone: capacity ~ 700, enrollment -
655; Providence Middle School 'Zone: capacity - 1,070, enrollment- 1~091; and Monacan
High School zone: capacity - 1,600, enrollment - 1,665.
Proffered Condition 9 provides that housing will be restricted to "housing:for older persons"
and shall have no persons under nineteen (19) years of age domiciled, therein, therefore, this
development will not have an impact on school facilities·
Libraries:
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policy, the impact of develOpment on library
services is assessed County-wide. Based. on projectedp0pUiatiOn growth, the .PUblic
Facilities Plan identifies aneed for additional library space through°m the County.. Even if
the facility improvements that have been made since the :Plaa Was adopted are taken-into
account, there is still an unmet need:for additional libraryspaCe.throughoUt..the County. The
· applicant has offered measures to assist in addressing the impact :of this development on
these facilities· (ProfferedCondition 2)
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for four (4) new:regional parks. In addition,
there is currently a shortage 0f commurdty park acreage in theCounty, The Plan identifies a
need for 625 acres of regional park space and 116 acres of community.p~k space by2015:
The Plan also identifies the ~need for neighborhood-parks, and'::Special: purpose parks and
makes sUggestions for their locations. The apPlicant has Offered measures t~ assist in
addressing the impact °fthis pr°p°sed development °n theSe facilities. (Proffered Condition
2) '
10 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOS
Transportation:
The property (approximately nine (9) acres) is currently zoned Corporate Office (0-2) and is
located on the east side of Pocoshock Boulevard justnorth of Hull Street ROad (Route 360).
The applicant is requesting rezoning from Corporate Office (0-2)to MultifamilyResidential
(R-MF) With Conditional Use. Planned Development,- The applieant'has prOffered a
maximum density Of forty-four (44) lots (Proffered Condition 14). The applicant has also
proffered to restrict this development to "housing for older persons,(Proffered Condition 9).
Based_on retirement community trip rates, development could generate apProximately 210
average daily trips. These vehicles will be distributed to PoeoshoCk BoUlevard, which had a
2002 traffic count of 3.614 vehicles per day.
The Thoroughfare Plan identifies.Pocoshock Boulevard as a collector with a recommended
right ofway width of seventy(70) feet. The horizontal alignment of Pocoshock Boulevard~
along the property frontageis sUbstandard. The applicant hasproffered to dedicate thirty-five
(35) feet of right of way, measured from. an approved revised eenterline for Pocoshock
Boulevard, in accordance with thePlan. (proffered Condition 5)
The Zoning Ordinance for R-MFallows streets, within 500 feet of a public road, to be
pri~vately owned and maintained. It is staffs recommendation and the applicant's desire to
have all'ofthemain streets within this project accepted:into the State highway system~' The
applicant has proffered that all streets, which Will accommodate general traffic circUlation,
Will be.designed and constructed to state O/DOT) standards and,taken into the State system
(proffered Condition 15): Having these streets accepted into the :State highway syste~n Will
insure their 'long-term maintenance..
Development must adhere to the Zoning Ordinance relative to access and internal circulation
(Division 5). Direct access to collectors, such as PocoshockBoulevard, Should be controlled.
The applicant has proffered that-direct access toPocoshock Boulevard Will: be limited to One
(1) public road. (Proffered COndition 4)
Mitigating road improvements-must be provided to address the traffic impact of this
development. The applicant-has proffered to: 1) construct additional pavement along
Pocoshock Boulevard at-the public road intersection to provide a right:turn lane; and.2)
relocate the ditch along Poc.oshock'Boulevard to provide an adequate:shoulder for the entire
property.frontage. (Proffered Condition 6)
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 traffc generated by this. development PocOshock Boulevard
will. be directly impacted by-this development. Sections of this road are tWenty (20) to
tWenty-one (21) feet Wide With no., shoulders and have substandard horizontal curves: The
capacity of this road is acceptable (Level of Service C) for the volume of traffic it currently
ca~'ries. The standard tyPic~/1 seCtiOn for eocoshock Boulevard should be twenty-f°ur.(24)
foot Wide pavement sections withminimum eight (.8) foot Wide shoulders: .In this area, there
11 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOS
are no road improvement projects included in the Six'Year SecOndaryRoad Improvement
Plan. The applicant has proffered to contribute cash, in an.mount consistent with'the. BOard
of Supervisors' Policy, towards mitigating the traffic impact ofthis develoPment: (proffered
Condition 2)
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
Potential Number of New Dwelling Units 44* ] . 1.00
Population Increase ' 119.681 ': ' : ' 2.72
Number of New Students ' '
Elementary 0.'00 : -: ' ' 0~24
Middle 0.00 0.13-
High 0:00 ' : ~ '. '. 0.17
TOTAL 0~00 '
i - . 0.54
Net Cost for Schools ' 0 - ,:' ' i : .' 0
Net Cost for Parks 30,492 .' .. 693·
Net Cost for Libraries '" 16,500 ' ' - '375
Net Cost for Fire Stations 17,644' ·: 401
Average Net Cost for Roads . 180;796 : . .' 4,109.
· 4 .:... .
TOTAL NET COST · 2 5, - 5,578
*Based on a proffered maximum number of units. (Proffered'Condition 14) '
As noted, the proposed development Willhave an impact on capital facilities, staff has calculated
the fiscal impact of every new dwellingunit on roads, parks, libraries and ftre stations at $5,578_per
unit. The applicant has been advised that a maximum proffer of$4,815 :per unit would defray the
cost ofthecapital facilities necessitated by this proposed development. Consistent.with theB0ard of
Supervisors' policy and proffers accepted from other applicants,.the applicant has offered, cash-to
assist in defraying the cost of this proposed zoning on such capital facilities. (Proffered Condition 2)
Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed and
it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept an adjusted cash amount-of $4,815 per unit, as
there is no net increase in the impact-on school capital facilities.
12 03SN0162-NOV25-BOS
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries oftheRoute 360 Corridor Plan which suggests the property and
surrounding area are appropriate for a mix of uses to include office, church, and public
facility uses, office/warehouse uSes and residential development with a maximum density of
six (6) units per acre. The overall intent of this 'mixed use or planned transition area is to
encourage decreasing land use intensities north of and around the commercial areas proposed
along Hull Street Road. This land use transition would ultimately separate and buffer
surrounding neighborhoods further north while providing compatibility in scale and design.
The Plan specifically suggests that residential development .is appropriate in this area which
incorporates "high quality architectural features and site amenities and using' cluster' designs
to maintain open space."
Area Development Trends:
properties to the north are zoned Residential (R-7) and are occupied by single family
residential dwellings or are vacant. Properties to the east are zoned General Business (C-5)
and are occupied by public/semi-public use (YMCA). Properties to the south and west' are
zoned ReSidential (R-7), Residential (R-7) with Conditional Use, Corporate Office (0-2) and
Agricultural (A) and are occupied by single family residential and office use (Pocoshock
Professional Offices) or are vacant. It is anticipated that amixture of office and residential
development will continue along this portion of PocoshockBouleVard in accordance with the
Plan.
Zoning HistOry:
On June 28, 2000, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation from the
Planning Commission, approved rezoning of the request site and additional property to the
south, from Residential (R-7) to Corporate Office (0-2) to permit office uses. Proffered
conditions were accepted which addressed utility and transportation issues and adjacent
property owners' concerns relative to drainage, site design, hours ofoperationand permitted
uses. The"Staff's Request Analysis and Recommendation"noted that land use transition
and cOmpatibility would be accomplished by Zoning Ordinance requirements, such as a fifty
(50) foot buffer required adjacent to properties zoned for residential use~
Site Design:
A Master Plan has been included in this application (Proffered Condition 12). The plan
depicts building ~orientation, road configuration, the location of .common and recreation
spaces and sidewalks and landscaping; however, as proffered, development will generally
conform with the plan. The plan depicts eleven (11) condominium buildings, the majority of
which are quadplexes. The applicant has proffered a maximum of forty-four (44) dWelling
units (Proffered Condition 14).. Parking spaces are located adjacent to each dwelling unit.
13 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOS
Access to the development is provided via one (1) public road to Pocoshock Boulevard;
(Proffered Condition 4)
It is important to note that the overall site design does not adequately provide a typical cluster
design, as recommended by the Plan to maintain open space, and appropriate land use
transition between the office use to the south and residential use to the nOrth.
To address area citizens concems, proffered conditions establish a minimum height of fifteen
(15) feet for light poles and require additional parking.spaces fOr viSitors. (proffered
Conditions 19 and 21)
Architectural Treatment:
The applicant has proffered that the architectural appearance of the dwelling units and the
clubhouse will be in substantial conformance with those depiCted.in the elevations submitted
with the application (Exhibit A)and that materials' ~11 be brick' .or stone veneer}
composition, hardiplank or vinyl siding and asphalt shingles; (prOffered Condition 1'2)
To address area citizens concerns, Proffered Condition 22 .provides'that~n° dwelling unit
shall exceed a height of one (1)story.
Building. Setbacks and' Orientation:
Except as modified by this request, development must conform to the bulk requirements
established in the Zoning Ordinance for the Multifamily ReSidential (R2MF) District. The
applicant has requested exceptions to several of these standards, -as noted in the Textual
Statement submitted 'with this application. These Ordinance standards Were designed to
address a typical, suburban high density residential project. The majority of these exceptions
Mll allow flexibility in the internal site design to accommodate the project~ and are generally
consistent with those approved for.other similar projects. '
Exceptions are also requested to the setbacks frOm property:lines, thereby permitting
structures to be thirty-five (35) feet rather than fifty (50) feet from all property lines (Textual
Statement, Item 4). Properties to the north, south .and east are zOned .Residential '(R-7),
Corporate Office (0-2) and General:Business (C-5). Reduction inthe setback from these
property lines will not provide the appropriate separationbetween uses of varying intensities.
Further, property to the south, developed as PocoshOck Professional Offices, was approved
with the request property serving as a separation' between the office :development and
residential uses to the north. As previously discussed, the re,quest property was zoned
Corporate Office (0-2) in 2000 requiring the request property, once developed for office use
to maintain a fifty (50) foot buffer from adjacent properties zoned for residential-use.
Therefore, the required setbacks along the northern, southeTM andeastempropertyboUndaries
Should be maintained at the required fifty (50) feet to provide.the appropriate land'USe
transition between this higher density residential proj eot and office,'single ifamily residential
and general commercial uses. The typical design standards for multifamily projects suggest
14 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOS
that the lot setback requirements also have the effect, of aggregating open spaces between
dwelling units.
Buffers and Screening:
The Zoning Ordinance requires that solid waste storage areas(i.e, dumpsters,.garbage cans,
trash compactors, etc.) be screened frOm view of adjacent property and public rights of way
by a solid fence, wall, dense evergreen plantings or architectural:feature and that-such area
within t,000 feet ofany residentially-zonedproperty or property used for residential purposes
not be serviced between the hours of 9:00 p. m. and 6:00 a. m.
The Zoning Ordinance requires the provision of a fifty (50).foot buffer on (R-MF) property
when adjacent to single family residential zoning districts. Property to the north meets this
criteria thereby requiring the provision of a fifty (50):foot buffer along the northern property
line. The applicant proposes a thirty-five (35) foot buffer adjacentto single family residential
districts (Textual.Statement, Item 7). The purpose of the buffers is to provide the appropriate-
separation and gradual transition, between the proposed multifamily development and the
existing lower density residential development to the north. Therefore, the requirement for
this fifty (50) foot buffer should be maintained.
To address concerns of the adjacent property owner to the north, Proffered Condition 20
requires a six (6) foot solid fence to be installed along the northern property boundary
adjacent to Tax ID 763-696-8950.
Recreation and Open Space:
The Zoning Ordinance requires that not less than ten (10)percent of the gross acreage of a
multifamily project be devoted to recreational use, with'a minimum provision of 1.5 acres2
The Master Plan submitted with the application depicts approximately One,half (½) of an
acre ofopen space to provide a focal point and recreational.area for the'development. The
applicant has proffered the proviSion of a clubhouse and associated recreational amenities
and that a portion of this area will be hardscaped and have other amenities to facilitate' the
gathering of residents. (Proffered Condition 11)
Typical standards for higher density development Provide for a minimum of 0.75 acre for the
purpose of establishing a focal.pOint for the development. However, Proffered Condition 11
does not depict an area that would meet the typical standard for the establishment of a focal
point with respect to minimum area and location. Generally;focal~points should be located
so as to visually announce.the project upon entry and to crea~te green space at the entrance.
BecaUse of the layout of the project, the focal point of-units along the eastern property
boundary will most likely be the adjacent office building and parking lot, rather than the one-
half (½) acre area set aside by Proffered Condition 11. In-addition, the proposed active
recreational amenities are not centrally located within the project so-as to be'equally
accessible to all residents. Since this is an elderly project, thedemand for',active" recreation
space is not as great as a typical high density residential project; however; open space should
15 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOS
still be provided throughout the project to provide a separation between uses of Varying
intensities.
Proffered Condition 13 provides-that these common recreational areas will not include
amenities primarily associated with children's play, swimming pools, basketball courts_or
tennis courts but may include putting greens, shuffleboard, .picnicandbarbeque areas'and
gardens. Common areas, which are not contained~within;units and pUblic.mad rightsofway,
shall be maintained by a neighborhood/condominium association. (Proffered Conditions 10'
and 23)
Sidewalks and pedestrian Paths:
The Zoning Ordinance requires that sidewalks be providedwithin a residential multifamily
project. Higher density developments warrant the provision of Sidewalks on both sides of all
internal rights of way to provide a form of passive recreation, as weil assafe and convenient
access to open space areas within the development. 'The applicant's.plan depicts the
provision of sidewalks only along one (1) side of the streets. (profferedConditionl6)
Garages and Driveways:
To address concerns relative to'the appearance of garage doors facing adjoining streets, the
Master Plan depicts the orientation of the condominium buildings Such that the number of
garage doors opening to any individual street is minimized and that SUch.units are generally
clustered in groups around parking areas. (Proffered Condition 12)
Landscaping:
Street trees and landscaping should be provided to enhance the residential appeal, of-the-
townhouse development, define private spaces and minimize the predominance of;building-
mass and paved areas. The apPlicant proposes that street trees be planted~along each side of
interior roads and common driveways to include any entrance roads frOm public roads .into
the'townhouse development. Landscaping. is to be' installed, around the perimeter 'of all
.buildings, between buildings and~driveways, Within medians.and, within COmmon spaces not
occupied by recreational, facilities and along a berm within the setbaclc.:along Poeoshock
Boulevard to minimize the view of garage doors from Pocoshock BouleVard (Proffered
Conditions 17 and 18). In addition, Proffered Condition 18 provides thata decorative fence
shall be installed.
Restrictive Covenants.
To address concerns of area residents and the Clover Hill District Commissioner regarding
the quality of the overall development, Proffered Condition 24requires restrictive Covenants
to be recorded with the approvalofthe site development Plan. The County will only insure
the' recordation of the covenants and will not be responsible for their enforcement (Proffered
16 03SN0162-NOV25-BOS
Condition 24). This proffered condition further provides that the covenants shall not be
modified or amended for twenty (20) years.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed zoning and land use does not comply with the Route 360 Corridor Plan. Although the
Plan suggests the property is appropriate for a mix of uses to include, office; church and public
facility uses and residential developments up to six (6) units per acre, the proposed zoning and land'
use fails to incorporate high quality site amenities and cluster design to maintain open space as
recommended by the Plan to provide appropriate transition between the office development south of
the request property as well as the single family residential use to the north.
The application falls to provide for the typicaldevelopment standards necessary to insure a quality
higher density development with amenities. With a number of the proposed units wrapping around
the existing office development to the south and east rather than project open space, their focal point
is lost or replaced by an office building and parking lot.
Some of'the requested exceptions to multifamily development standards would allow greater
development flexibility. In particular, the reqUested exceptions to internal development
requirements, together with the proffered conditions, would allow multifamily development that
possesses a character more in keeping with area single family residential neighborhoodS than would
be allowed with typical Multifamily Residential (R-MF) zoning. However, some of the requested
exceptions, such as those related to provisions for sidewalks and buffer and building setback
reductions from property lines, are inappropriate given the higher density of development and the
need to offset the impact on adjacent Single family residential development to the north, as well as to
mitigate the impact of the office and commercial uses to the south and east on future residents within
this development.
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
'CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (10/21/03):
The applicant did not 'accept staffs recommendation, but did accept the Commission's
recommendation.
An adjacent property owner expressed concerns relative to access and traffic impact on
Pocoshock Boulevard, the proposed density, reduced buffer along Pocoshock Boulevard, site
drainage, lighting and design.
Two citizens spoke in support in support of the request stating the development will benefit
the community.
17 03 SN0162-NOV25-BOS
Mr. Litton assured the adjacent property owner that the 'entrance design will be reviewed for
safety at the time of site plan review.
Mr. Gulley stated that the proposed use complies with the suggestions ofthe Plan and that
the design is staff's concern. He provided that the applicant has offered proffered conditions
.to address area residents concerns relative to the design and quality.of the project.
On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Stack, the Commission recommended approval
subject to the Condition and acceptance of the proffered:conditionS On pages 2 thrOugh 8.
AYES: Messrs. Litton, Cunningham, Gulley and Stack.
ABSENT: Mr. Gecker.
The Board of Supervisors, on Tuesday, November 25, 2003, beginning at 7:00 p.m.; will'take under
consideratiOn this request.
18
03 SN0162-NOV25-B O S
Textual statement
Pocoshock Boulevard - Wheeler
Case No.: 03SN0162
September 13, 2002
Rev. November 1, 2002
Rev. -September 18, 2003
This request is to rezone firom 0-2 to ~ with proffered conditions and.CUPD to permit bulk
exceptionS to modify the following requirements:
An exception to the twenty (20).acre minimum parcel size.
A seventeen (17) foot exception to the'twenty-fiVe (25) foot setback requirement for
structures from driveways . . .
providing access exclusively to parking.areas;
A fifteen (1.5) foot exception to the fifteen (15) foot setback requirement for structures
from parking spaces; -
A fifteen (15) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot setback requirement for.structures from
property lines; .
An exception to the requirement that-driveways and parking areas-!have:~ncrete curb and.
o
A nine (9) foot exception to the twenty-four (24) foot pavement width requirement for
private-driveways providing access exclusively to parkingareas;
A fifteen (1-5) foot eXceptiOn to thefifly (50) foot buffer requkement for RMF adjacent to
property zoned single family residential; and : '
An exception to the one and a half (1 ~A) acre minimum requirement.for recreational
areas.
N
I
I
I
I
/
//
I
I
I
I
I'
!
I
I
/
r- /
.?
MASTER PLAN
0 3SNOi r~Z--I
MEMORANDUM
To-'
From:
Date:
Subject:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Art Warren, Chairman
Jack McHale, Vice Chairman
Ed Barber
Renny Bush Humphrey
Kelly E. Miller
Roy and Betty Jessee ~
November 25, 2003
Proposed Rezoning on Pocoshock Boulevard - 03SNO162
Rezoning Ob.iections: 8.4 acres from Corporate Office to Multifamil¥ Residential
1. Existing hazardous traffic conditions will be made worse (for both through
and local traffic patterns) by permitting a dedicated single purpose entrance to the
multi-family development and locating the entrance along the very sharp curve of
Pocoshock Boulevard
Traffic along Pocoshock Boulevard has increased substantially due to sm'rounding
development, e.g., opening of the new post office and the Crown Point
subdivision.
· New dedicated single-purpose entrance will worsen exiSting hazardous roadway
conditions along Pocoshock Boulevard.
· New entrance is located along a very sharp curve where numerous accidents have
occurred to date and adjacent to several driveways serving single-family
residential properties, one being ours.
2. Location for multi-purpose access point already available beyond curve on
Pocoshock Boulevard which should provide safe, functional access to/from office
and residential developments along a divided two lane "parkway."
· No need to establish a new entrance as a divided two-lane entrance with a median
strip already exists on Pocoshock Boulevard
* Developer anticipates development will not significantly increase traffic flow
(due primarily to the age of residents), so why not divert additional traffic to/from
the residential development via multi-purpose entrance along a "parkway"
dedicated to serve the office park development and the residential development
· Minor upgrades to the multi-purpose access and roadway should prove adequate
to serve additional minor traffic traveling to/from the residential development
Members of the Board of Supervisors
November 25, 2003
Page 2
· Joint ownership between office park and residential development supports
concept of single, multi-purpose access
· Important to mitigate overall impact of further development on roadways and
alleviate hazardous traffic conditions in other locations along Pocoshock
Boulevard.
· Similar multi-purpose entrance exists just down Pocoshock Boulevard. serving
the Pocoshock post office and the Crown Point subdivision (serving
approximately 72 single-family homes)
3. Developer makes inadequate monetary proffer for addressing the costs
required to remedy future traffic, congestion and roadway problems. In addition,
the general nature of the other proffers permits too much flexibility to the developer
in the final design and configuration of the subject development.
4. VDOT indicates the only long-term resolution would be to straighten the
curves along this portion of Pocoshock Boulevard; however, given the requested
exception to applicable setbacks and buffers, there will remain insufficient land
available on the developer's side of the road to accommodate any future expansion.
· No additional space available on the residential development site for future
roadway expansions as indicated by VDOT.
· If rezoning is approved and the multi-family residential project is developed as
currently planned, where will additional property be obtained for future roadway
expansions? Adjacent landowners?
· Unfair to burden adjacent land owners with the obligation going forward to
contribute valuable property for alleviating roadway conditions created by current
commercial/office and/or high density multi-family residential developments.
· Better to impose the burden for future roadway expansions on those who are
causing the actual need for future roadway expansions.
5. Overall density of the proposed project is problematic.
· Seeking to obtain excessive density in view ofavaiIable development acreage.
· Plan contemplates excessive density in view of the unusual configuration of the
property and the close proximity of adjacent residential properties.
· Plan does not allow for the creation of an appropriate cluster development or
suitable multi-family amenities, buffers, setbacks or open spaces.
· Plan fails to insure long-term high-quality typically required for high density
multifamily development.
· Plan permits excessive number of units for planned transitional area located
between rezoned office development and existing residential areas.
· Plan fails to account for significant impact of increased density on adjacent single
family residential areas and future residents located within the development.
Members of the Board of Supervisors
November 25, 2003
Page 3
6. Proposed zoning and land use do not comply materially with the Route 360
Corridor Plan because the proposed project fails to incorporate high quality cluster
design and site amenities, to preserve open space or to provide an appropriate
transition area between an office development area (located south of the property)
and single family residential areas (located west of the property).
· Plan and proffers fail to provide for typical development standards for
multifamily residential zoning or insure standards for a higher quality density
development with amenities required under current zoning.
· Loss of 50' buffer originally required by Board of Supervisors in approval of
prior rezoning of the subject property (together with the adjacent medical building
property) from residential to corporate office.
· Plan fails to require an adequate buffer along the exterior boundaries of the
property where it adjoins single-family residential areas and/or public roadways.
· Plan fails to establish adequate setbacks between structures and the exterior
property boundaries (at approx. 35') and permits significant decrease in the 50'
setback required under current zoning.
· Architectural renderings are generally inadequate to insure high quality exterior
appearance of the buildings - e.g. brick or stone veneer, composition hardiplank
or vinyl siding.
· Plan allows significant exception for sidewalks to be located on one side of
internal roadways rather than both sides as typically required under current zoning
for high density multi-family residential developments.
· Plan lacks design elements incorporating adequate open space - .047 of an acre -
when current zoning requires 1.50 acres for high density multi-family residential
developments.
· Proffers substitute "hardscaped' recreational areas in place of open green spaces,
related amenities and buffering elements.
· Plan should require use of a larger buffer area similar to the one located behind
the medical building.
· Who will enforce restrictive covenants going forward? No assurances that the
quality of the development as proffered will be preserved going forward by the
developer or the County, and it is unfair (not to mention impractical) to impose
additional burden of enforcement on adjacent property owners.
7. Plan specifies inadequate requirements for site lighting in view of location in
transition zone between office and residential area. Plan requires only a maximum
height of 15' for all light posts. Plan should proffer additional lighting restrictions
to insure minimal impact on adjoining single family residential areas. Require
incorporation of short, downward, low-voltage, box-type lighting in development
plans to minimize impact on neighboring residential areas. Prevent Wal-Mart
glare.
Members of the Board of Supervisors
November 25, 2003
Page 4
8. Plan fails to adequately address ongoing drainage problems affecting the
adjacent residential areas or to establish requirements for proper management of
significantly increased runoff and drainage caused from the overall increase on the
development site of impervious areas (concrete, sidewalks, roadways, gutters, roofs,
etc.). Plan does not address corresponding increases in appropriate facilities to
manage excess runoff to adjacent properties or otherwise alleviate current drainage
problems in the area.
In closing, we hope the Board of Supervisors will agree with us, as concerned
citizens, and the Planning Commission Staff and deny this request.
2410 Pocoshock'Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23235
October 10, 2002
Mr. Russell .1. Gulley
Planning Commissioner
Clover Hill District
11925 Mountain Laurel Drive
Richmond, VA 23236
Dear Mr, Gulley:
We attended the informal meeting arranged by the developer on
Wednesday, October 2, at the Manchester Middle School, for the purpose of
learning more about the rezoning of property which lies directly across from our
property.
Based on what was presented at the meeting, we still have many
concerns that we hope will be addressed by the Planning Department. Following
are a few of our major concerns:
1. Our first concern is that the number of units proposed exceeds the
number for the lot size. They will be squeezed into a space that will not allow
for enough buffers. It was stated at the meeting that the road would be
narrower than usually allowed, which would create a hindrance for emergency
vehicles to the property.
2. We are adamantly oppoSed to the entrance off Pocoshock
Boulevard. The entrance to the medical building should be sufficient for the
traffic into the new development. Based on what Andy stated at the October 2
meeting that there should only be a small increase in traffic on Pocoshock
Boulevard; therefore, that entrance should be eliminated. Traffic on this road
has increased substantially since the opening of the new post office and the
Crown Point subdivision, there have been several wrecks in front of our property,
and we feel it would create a hazard for us entering our own driveway. We are
very concerned that if/when the road is widened to Provide a turn lane (or later
to a four-land road) there would not be enough land available on the developer's
side of the road to provide for this purpose.
Mr. Russell Gulley
October 10, 2002
Page 2
3. We are very concerned about the buffers and setbacks that will
affect our property. We feel there should be a berm along Pocoshock Boulevard
similar to the one at the back of the medical building.
4. Lighting is a concern--short, Iow-voltage, box-type lighting should
be incorporated into the development.
5. Drainage remains a problem as it was when you and Mr. IVlcElfish
looked at it in May of 2000.
6. How can we be assured that no one under 55 years of age will be
able to purchase a unit in this development? Also, how do we know that the
property will not be sold and used for a different purpose than "elderly" housing,
for instance Iow-income housing? Under the present rezoning (RMF), is this
possible?
It is our hope that you will consider the concerns we have outlined. We
are confident that you have the best interest of the community in mind when a
project is presented to you.
We appreciate all the work you do for our community!
Sincerely
Roy & Betty .lessee
#615522
2410 Pocoshock Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23235
October 10, 2002
Mr. Arthur S. Warren
Vice Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Clover Hill District
PO Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832-0040
Dear Mr. Warren'
Enclosed is a copy of a letter we have sent to Mr. Russell Gulley, Clover
Hill Planning Supervisor, outlining some of our concerns about the possible
rezoning of property directly across from us on Pocoshock Boulevard. As you
can see from our letter, we have already had to deal with several changes in our
area including the new post office and a new subdivision, that have resulted in
increased traffic and the noise from the large mail trucks.
We attended an informal meeting arranged by the developer on October 2
and voiced some of our concerns at that time.
Over two years ago, we attended meetings dealing with the rezoning of
this same property and were told that the proffers included at that time would
continue even if the property were sold. We fully understand the property will
eventually be developed, but it is our hope that a quiet, well-planned
atmosphere will ensue.
We believe you are concerned about the issues of overcrowding as are we
and hope you will be concerned about this project as well. We plan to attend
future meetings and are hopeful all will end well.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Roy & Betty .lessee
2410 Pocoshock Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23235
February 6, 2003
Chesterfield County Planning Department
P.O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832-0040
Gentlemen:
This letter is to inquire about the of rezoning of the property located at
2500, 2501, 2505 and 2509 Pocoshock Boulevard from 0-2 (office) to RMF w/a
condition use planned development.
It has now been over four months since we attended a meeting at the
Manchester Middle School where we were told that all in attendance would
receive notice of another meeting with the developer before the matter was put
on the agenda for the Planning Commission. To date we have received no notice
about another meeting, nor have we seen it on the agenda for the Commission.
Please let us know the status of this matter.
We appreciate your continued concerns.
Sincerely,
Roy & Betty Jessee
PHILIP A. SHUCET
COMMISSIONER
November 17, 2003
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
3301 Specks Drive
Midlothian, VA 23112-3335
CHRISTOPHER L. WINSTEAD, P. E.
RES~DENTENGINEER
TEL: (804) 674-2800
FAX: (804) 674-2354
Roy and Betty Jessee
2410 Pocoshock Boulevard
Richmond, Virginia 23235
REFERENCE:
Update on Safety and Speed Study
Pocoshock Boulevard, Route 733
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jessee:
This letter is in response to your request for a study on Route 733 due to accidents occurring in
front of your home and running into the front yard.
A search of accidents from January 1, 1999 to November 1, 2003 was conducted through the
Highway Traffic: Records Information System (HTRIS) and the Chesterfield County Police
Department. Five accidents were reported in the area of your home. Of these five accidents,
three accidents involved drunk driverS, one accident involved a vehicle's tire losing pressure and
the other accident involved a Vehicle crossing the centerline and sideswiping an oncoming
vehicle. Of the three accidents involving drank drivers, two were the accidents that you referred
to in your letter.
A field review of this section of Route 733 was conducted. Curve signs, augmented with
advisory plated, are in place, but are in need of upgrading. Traffic Engineering recommend6d
also that chevrons be installed in the curve to help alert drivers and to upgrade the existing signs
(see attached sketch). By copy of this letter I am asking our maintenance crew to install the
chevrons and upgrade the existing signs as soon as possible.
The short-term solution is to upgrade the curve signs and install the chevrons. The only long-
term resolution would be to straighten the curves, which would not be financially feasible at this
time
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
Mr. & Mrs. Jessee
November 17, 2003
Page Two of Two
Thank you for all your safety concerns.
call at 804-674-2800.
Sincerely,
Floyd M. Jarvis
Assistant Resident Engine~
Should you have any further questions, please give me a
Chesterfield County
Route 733
October 29, 2003