04SN0201-Apr28.pdfSTAFF'S
-REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
April.28, 2004 BS
04SN020I
M-3 Investors LLC
Midlothian Magisterial District
North line of Midlothian .Turnpike
REQUEST: Amend Conditional Use (Case 03SN0202) to permit a reduction in parking spaces
required for Multifamily Residential (R-MF).deVelopment.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A mixed use project to inclUde multifamily residential development containing a
maximum of 330 dwelling units and limited Corporate Office (0-2) uses is
planned. 'The parking space ratio for the multifamily portion of the development
is proposed at 0.65 spaces for each dwelling unit.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITION ON
PAGE 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval for the following reason:
The requested parking space exception should ensure provision of an adequate number of
parking spaces, consistem with similar age-restricted projects.
(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
Providing a FIRST CHOICE Communi~ Through Excellence in Public serVice.
RECOMMENDED SOLELy BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE
ADDITIONAL' CONDITIONS' RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION0
PROFFERED CONDITION
(STAFF/CPC)
Location:
Parking shall be provided at a ratio of 0.65 parking.spaces per dwelling
unit.
(Note: This proffer is in addition to Proffered Condition IILA~3.c. affecting
all units within the MulfifamilY Residential (R-MF) portion of the.project.)
GENERAL INFORMATION-
North line of Midlothian Turnpike and east line ~of NOrth Pinetta DriVe, west of, and
adjacent to, Powhite parkway: Tax IDs 754-706-3006 and 4831 (Sheets 6 and- 7).
-Existing Zoning:
C-3 and R-7 with Conditional Use
Size:
17.6 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adiacent Zoning and Land Use:
North - R-7; Single family residential
South - C-3 and C-5; Public/semi-public (post office), office or commercial
East ~ Powhite Parkway
West - C-3 and R-15; Commercial or vacant
UTILITIES; ENVIRONME~ ENGINEERING; FIRE AND TRANSPORTATION
This request will have no impact upon-these facilities.
2 04SN0201-APR2g-BS
LAND USE
Comprehensive. plan:
Lies within the N°rthem Area Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for general
commercial Uses. One (1)of the goals of the Plan is to provide for appropriate transition
from residential areas to commercial areas through buffers and land use variations.
Specifically, new development 'should be sited with special attention given to potential
compatibility and encroachment Problems with surrounding residential development.
Given the location of established residential subdivision development.north of, and
adjacent to, the subject Property, as well as access constraints to the site, residential
mulfifamily and limited office uses have been determined as appropriate uses along this
portion of Midlothian Turnpike. (Case 03SN0202)
Area Development Trends:
Properties to the north are zoned Residential-(R,7) and are developed as part of the
Brighton Green Subdivision. Properties to'the south are zoned Community Business (C-
3) and General Commercial (C-5) and are occupied by public/semi-public (United States
Post Office), office and commercial uses. The property is bound to the east by the
Powhite Parkway interchange and to the west by property zoned Community Business (C-
3) that is developed for commercial use or is currently vacant, and Residential (R-15)
property. The subject property represents infill development along an established
commercial corridor.
Zoning 'History:
On May 28, 2003, the. Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the
Planning Commission, approved a Conditional Use to permit Multifamily Residential (R-
MF) uses in a CommUnity Business (C-3) District plus proffered conditions on an
adjacent Residential (Ra7) tract (Case 03SN0202). A mixed use project to include
multifamily residential development and limited Corporate Office (0-2) uses was
proposed. A Conditional Use was sought, and granted, to allow mulfifamily uses which
do not comply, with the restrictions outlined for such uses in C-3 Districts.
Parking:
Proffered conditions-of Case 03SN0202 require that the multifamily portion of the
development comply with the Multifamily Residential (R-MF) requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. except as specified .(Proffered Condition m.A.3 of Case 03SN0202).
. The Ordinance requires the provision of two (2) off-street parking spaces fOr each multi-
family residential dwelling unit. Proffered as an age-restricted development, an exception
is sought to permit 0;65 parking spaces for each dwelling unit (Proffered Condition).
Although some residents of this facility may not' drive, parking provisions must also
accommodate visitors and emplOyees :of the development. Based upon staff's experience
3 04SN0201-APR28-BS
with age-restricted projects, as well as supporting data submitted bY the applicant for
similar age-restricted projects' (attached), the requested reduction should accommodate
both resident and non-resident.parking needs. . -
cONcLuSIONS.
The requested parking space exception should ensure provision of an adequate number of
parking spaces, consistent with similar age-restricted projects. - '
Given this consideration, staff recommends approval'of this request.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (3/16/04):
The applicant 'accepted the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded'by Mr. Wilson, the Commission recommended
approval and acceptance of the Proffered Condition on page 2.
AYES: Unanimous.
The' Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, April 28, 2004,' beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
4 04SN0201-APR2g-BS
I
!
Smith/Packett
January 7, 2004
Jane Peterson
Chesterfield Co. Planning Department
PO Box 40
9901 'Loft Road
2nd Floor, Room 203
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Re: The Crossings at Bon Air- parking requirement for Age Restricted Muiti-Family Use
Dear Jane:
In conjunction with our zoning amendment application we would like to provide this information
to support our request for a reduction in the parking requirement to .65 spaces per unit. The
tenants of age restricted senior apartments drive less and are less likely to own a car for the
follOwing reasons:
· The retirement community will provide onsite.amenities, reducing the need for
trips away from the facility.
· A passenger van will most likely be provided by the facility for group Outings,
doctor's appointments and shopping.
· Adult children of the residents will provide much of the transportation for their
parents.
We have complied information from trade associations and colleagues in our industry to
determine the number of parking spaces we truly will need. 'We want to avoid a ~sea of
parking'; and would like'to have as much green space as possible. Our neighbors in Brighton
Greens are anxious to keep the amount of impervious are in the campus at a minimum. In
addition, .reducing the parking will reduce the size of storm water management facilities and.
create a more residential atmosphere fOr our residents.
Exhibit A shows that actual parking usage for.age restricted multi-family apartments developed
by First' Centrum in Virginia and Maryland. The range of cars per occupied units is between .33
and .80 with the average being '.53.-The Arbors which is in RiChmond has .5 cars per occupied
unit..
o,4. SNozo'I- i
A MEDICALI~ACILITIES DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH AND coMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
4415 PHEASANT RIDGE ROAD, S.W., SUITE 301, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24014 · PHONE: 540/774-SPMC · FAX: 540/772-6470 www. smithpackett.com
-;: Exhibit B is part of a rePort from the American Seniors Housing Association that was pubiish~d
' for age restricted "IndePendent Living".Facilities. It shows that 55% of residents in an
indePendent living facility own cars.
Exhibit C is part of a parking analYsis that was compiled for Kisco Retirement Communities in
2001. It shows the. Parking demand per parking unit to.be between .56 and .71 spaces pOt:unit,
with an average of .62.
Exhibit D is Part of another parking analysis, done fOr Kisco. It shows actual parked cars per
dWelling mt to be between 224 and .56 with an average of:41. -
considering the data we have collected .and the favorable impact that additional green space
would have on our community and 'the surrounding .neighborhood we fell that .65 spaces· per unit
is more than adequate
B~st ]~egards,.
Director of Dcvel6p~nefit
Enclosure (1)
cc: Brace Hedrick- Smith/Packett
Patrick Francis - Brighton Green
· ' Andy Scherzer,Balzer
Kristen Keatley; Balzer
' L/r'~,~ ~). ZVU.] urlo ~,~o ,'-
drCssing, injeCttous; end aesistar)ceWithrned...long-term ca~e insurance. P,,csidcnts of
icatlo~s; ~1 percerit, are provided assistance CICIKC's are.siS~ificandYm0re lik~y than the
with actiVit~s of c~il¥: ~iVingi 17'" percent reside~t~ of the o~cr types of commuuitiee to
sp~cLqcally mentioned aselsta~ee with bathing -hav~ thcS~ legal mud fl~n~ncial imuauncnts in
and 6 pcrcent'are-. ~ce~g. some form of place.
phyBiCa~ therapy. "' ' .~ Asslsmssce. Thirteen percent of the
residents rcce~/e ~mnnc~al-assi~tn~.e~:
AUTOMO6XLES ND'DaIVINE m ~rce-~t~ding i~del:'endem: B.~:,-c°m~---uni-
automobile and. 58 percent had driven an services ~re si~ticandy mofc likely thsn
automobile in the'la'st .Seven d~ys ~Me 65).. )dent~ in-CICIRlils to receive ~mSncia!'-~
thc resident~ of the:.bthcr: WP- ' '
ti,. As expec..te.d, ¥ounser reside~U-~re si~nif- 're~etve financial
' ' ' ' re ortlon of respondents
icantly more llkeb/than-older residents to own Amo~ thc amall p. p
a Car a-ndt° driP. who .receive fmlmcisl asstsfance,
' reccive help from tkeir fa~riilies (Table 68),
tECAL AND FINAN£IAL ' .Percent receive Supplementsl Security
'Income (SSI), 23 p~rcent receive 1Viedicaid,
. INFORHATION - - .
;'~. ~. :aed Lon~-Tarm Cla~. 17 percent receive as~tancc from HUD and
--e-- Slid m°rcthanthrce'f°Urths°f' 10'~ercent receive assistance from the
thc realdenta have a durable'P°wcr°f attorney.. Veteran's ~Imlntstral~ Note, however, that
for l~calth care and a durable power, of . Medicaid does not provide funding for
· ttorney for finances ;.(Table 66). Eighty four indcDendent liviris .hou~
percent h~Lve~ U.ving wi21regBrdh'~g their wish- lUcome aagLTotal~rorth, Forty:twO percent of
es rat,,ti~ to life-suppo~ in the event of-a'tcr-
minsl pro~aosJi, 'I'wenty'six percenl: Baye the re~idents had a total anntial, household
' Ow~ ~n t~to
~ 0."/69
0.~[~ O,~.8~
0;63~ 0.550 0.526 0.719- 0.799
~ARIT~
Driven 0;682 0.669 0,597 0.807 0.595
' 0,871 0.$tl 0,612'
Ownm auto 0.926 - 0,711 0.47~
0~ m' ~um Q.S~9. .
.d