02SN0238-May26.pdf STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
May 26, 2004' BS
02SN0238
(AMENDED)
Douglas R. Sowers
REQUEST:
Matoaca.Magisterial District
Watkins and'Swift Creek Elementary,
Midlothian Middle and~Midlothian High- SchoOl,.Attendance Zones
East line of Otterdale.Road
Various amendments to Conditional'Use Planned Development (Case 88S008). (See
the following for details_0f the requested amendments.)
PROPOSED LAND USE:
This property is part of the original Greenspring mixed 'use development WhiCh
contained approximately 1,313 acres. The aPPlicant wishes to proceed, with
developing the Subject property, consisting of approximately 208 acres, independent
ofother portions'of the original Greenspring-project and amend, specific.requirements
ofthe original Greenspring rezoning.
SYNOPSIS OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS I THROUGH VI.W1THTHEIMPOSITION OF
CONDITIONS' 1 THROUGH 5AND-THE ACCEPTANCE OF PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1
THROUGH' 7 ON PAGES 2 THROUGHg.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public Service
AYES:
NAY:
Messrs. Litton, Bass,. Gulley and Wilson.
Mr. Gecker.
SYNOPSIS OF STAFF'S RECOMMRNDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS I THROUGH IV AND VI WITH IMPOSITION
OF CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 5 AND ACCEPTANCE oF PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1
THROUGH 5 AND 7. RECOMMEND DENIALOF AMENDMENT V.- RECOMMEND THAT
PROFERED CONDITION 6 NOT BE ACEPTED.
AMENDMENT I (Applicant's Amendments-1, 2,-3 and 4)
-Amendment to Condition 1 of Case 88S008 t° modify the approved Textual Statement to
reflect the requested amendments outlined herein and substitute a new Conceptual Master
Plan f°r .the approved Conceptual Master Plan. The requirement'to .conform to the
Conceptual Site Development Plan (see attached) Would be deleted:. This amendment woUld
allow the request property to be-developed as a separate-project from that portion'of the
remaining acreage originally-zoned and not included in this request.
With respect to land uses, the amended Master Plan deletes a golf course. The requirement
· to restore the "Tomahawk" and the "Ellett'Hancock" structures woUld be deleted.
RECOMMENDATION (AMENDMENT I)
Recommend approval of Amendment I for the following reasons:
Conditions of zoning-approval for-Case 88S008'plus ~the conditions stated-herein
insure land use compatibility and transition between USes developed on:the request
property and between uses developed on the request property and existing and
anticipated area development.
The Tomahawk structure has been destroyed byfire. The Preservation Committee
'determined. that- the Ellett Hancock structure cannot be feasibly restored, due.to
extensive deterioratiOn. ' '
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED. OR THE PROPERTY oWNER 'MAY PROFFER
CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED ~ONBY
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.
CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC) 1.
The Textual Statement, rifled Greenspring: Conditional Use.and
Zoning Application, revised April 1, t988, including the "Residential
2 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS.
Site Development Criteria" table, Exhibit IV and the conditions of
zoning for Case 888008 and the Conceptual Master Plan, dated
February 6, 2004, shall be the .Master Plan for the subject property,
except as stated herein. And further, prodded that the sUbject
property shall be permitted to be considered as a separate project from
the remaining portion of that landarea covered under Case 888008.
.(P)
(STAFF/CPC)
All references and requirements relating to golf in the Textual
'Statement and conditions of zoning for Case 888008 shall be deleted.
(P)
(STAFF/CPC)
The requirement to restore the Tomahawk and Ellett Hancock
structures shall-be deleted. (P)
(STAFF/CPC)
All references and requirements relating .to the plan entitled
"Conceptual Site Development Plan -. Greenspring.- Chesterfield
Co ' ' '" ....
unty, Vtrgnua m the Textual Statement and conditions ofzomng
for Case.88S008 shall.be deleted. (P)
NOte: Conditions 1 through 4 supersede Condition 1 of Case 888008
for the request property only.)
AMENDMENT II (Applicant's Request 9)
Amendment to Condition 14 of Case 88S008 to clarify the manner in which'the on-site water
line'distribution system will be'looped with future area. water, line extensions. This
amendment is discussed in the Utilities section of this "Request Analysis".
RECOMMENDATION (AMENDMENT'ID
Recommend apprOval of Amendment II for the following reason:
The reqUested modification will clarify the manner in which the on'site water line is looped
.with future area water line extensions.
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC) 3.
Water. In lieu of a water line connection to the Queensmill- West
development; the developer shall extend a sixteen (16) inch water line
adjacent-to the proposed extension of Woolridge ROad from the
southern boundary to- the northern boundary' of the request site. In
addition, the developer shall extend an-appropriatelY sized water line
along the East/West Arterial (as herein defined) from Otterdale Road
to the eastern portion °f Tract E.' Cu-)
3 02SN023g,MAY26-BOS
(STAFF/CPC)
Water and Wastewater Plan. The required overall Water and
Wastewater Systems Overall Plan for this development shall be
submitted to the Utilities Department for review and apProval at least
thirty (30) days prior to the initial submissionofany tentative, site, or'
schematic plan. This shall be accompanied by a Phasing Plan which
will establish a schedule for extensions of the required water and
wastewater, lines incrementally with each phase of development. (U)
(staff Note: Proffered Conditions 3 and 4 supersede Condition 14 of
Case 888008 for the request property Only.)
AMENDMENT 1II (Applicant's Request 7)
Deletion of Conditions 7, 9, 11 and 20 of Case 888008 relative to the design of a lake
(Condition 7); submission of an overall erosion and sediment control plan (Condition 9);
submission of sOil studies prior to 'construction (Condition 11); and measures designed to
protect the water quality of Swift Creek Reservoir (Condition .20). These amendments are
discussed in the Environmental' section of this "Request AnalySis."
RECOMMENDATION (AMENDMENT lid
Recommend approval of Amendment Iii for the following reasons:
Regulations relative to the design of lakes are part ofthe County, s recently adopted
Upper Swift Creek Stormwater Management Plan. Therefore, deletion of Condition
7' of Case 888008 is acceptable.
Erosion and sediment 'Control plans must be submitted in accordance with County.
requirements. Therefore, deletion of Condition 9 of Case 888008 is acceptable.
Current County regulations:require submission of sOils analysis prior to commction
on the request property, Therefore, deletion of Condition 11 of Case 888008 is
acceptable.
Since approval of the original zoning, regulations regarding the protection of the
water quality o f S wiffCreek ReservOir have been adopted. Current state and County
regulations and. proffered:Conditions address water quality issues and insure
prOtection of the Swift Creek-Reservoir. Therefore, deletion of Condition 20 of Case
888008 is acceptable.
CONDITION
(STAFF/CPC)
The requirements of Conditions 7, 9, 11 and 20 of Case 88S008 shall
be deleted for the request property- only. (EE)
4 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
STAFF/CPC 1.
Timbering. With the exception of timbering which has been
approved by the Virginia State .Department of Forestry for the
purpose of removing dead or diseased trees, there shall-be no
timbering until a land disturbance permit.has been obtained from the
Environmental Engineering 'Department and the approved devices
have been installed. (EE)
(STAFF/CPC) 2.
Stormwater. The developer shall leave in place the temporary
sediment control devices and/or, at'the election of the developer,
construct new BMPs or combinations of BMPs, which would
achieve, (i)'a maximum .phosphorous limit of .22 for residential
development, and (ii) a maximum phosphorus limit of..45 for
commercial development, until (i) Chesterfield County has
constructed the downstream regiOnal BMP into which a portion of the
development will drain pursuant.to Upper Swift Creek Watershed
Plan or (ii) to the extent a portion ofthe Property does not drain into a
regional BMP, then as to that portion of the'Property, upon
completion.of the initial regional BMP. (EE)
AMENDMENT IV (Applicant's Request 8)
Deletion of Condition 30 requiring the dedication of sixty-five (65) acres and the reservation
for purchase of thirty-five (35) acres for public use. This amendment is discussed in the
Fiscal Impact Section of this ,Request Analysis."
RECOMMENDATION (AMENDIVIENT IV)
Recommend approval of Amendment IV for the folloWing reason:
The applicant has addressed the impact of this development on capital facilities, as discussed
herein.
PROFFERED CONDITION
(STAFF/CPC)
5. Cash PrOffer
Prior to the time of issuance of a building permit for each of
the first twenty five (25) dwelling unitS; the applicant,
subdiVider, or its. assignee, shall pay to the County-.of
Chesterfield the following amount for infrastructure
improvements for schools Within the service district for the
Property:
5 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
the mount approved by the Board of Supervisors, but
not'to exceed $4,166 per dwelling unit as' adjusted'
upward by any increase in the. MarShall and SWift
Building Cost Index between July. 1, 2003 and July 1
of the fiscal year in which the payment is made.
If. any of the'cash proffer is: not expended for the purposes
designated by the Capital Improvement Program within
fifteen (15) years from the-date of payment, it shall be
returned in full to the payor. ShOuld Chesterfield coUnty
impose impact fees at any :time-during the life of the
development that are applicable to the Property, the amoUnt
paid:in cash proffers shall bein lieu of or credited toward, but
not'be in addition to, any impact fees, in a manner determined
bythe County. (B&M) '
(Staff Note:' This condition supersedes Condition 30 of Case
88S008 fOr the request property only.) '
AMENDMENT V (Applicant's Requests 5-and 6)
Amendment to sections of the approved Textual Statement for Case 88S008 relative to
access and road improvements.are requested:- SpecificallY, the following amendments are
reqUested to modify requirements to: (1) dedicate right of way for Genito Road, Otterdale
Road, Powhite Parkway and Old Hundred Road; (2) constmctPowhite Parkway Extended
from Brandermill Parkway to Otterdale Road (3) construct:four (4) lanes of Wookidge Road
Extended and the Collector Loop Road, if necessary; (4) provide ditch and. shoulder
improvements along Genitoand Otterdale Roads; (5) Construct :left and right turn lanes, along
Otterdale ROad, Oenito Road and Powhite Parkway Extended, if required;(6) prOvide for full
cost of signalization of aCceSs onto Otterdale Road, Genito-Road .and Powhite Parkway
Extended, if warranted; and (7)Provide a Waffle analysis. These.amendmentS are discussed:in
the Transportation sectiOn of this "Request Analysis." . -
RECOMMENDATION (AMENDMENT ~
Recommend denial of Amendment V. Recommend that Proffered .Condition 6 not be accepted.
This recommendation is .made for the following reason:
Proffered conditions may not address the traffic impact Of this request on area roads
consistent with the commitments-made for transportation improvements.in the original
Greenspring zoning case.
6
02SN0238-MAY26;BOS
PROFFERED CONDITION
(CPC) 6.
Road Improvements and Phasing.
a. Right-of Way Dedication. In conjunction with recordation of the
initial subdivision plat, prior to any site plan approval, or within sixty
(60) days from a written request by the county, whichever occurs first,
the applicant or his assignee shall.dedicate to the county, free and
unrestricted, the following rights of way:
A 200 foot wide right of way for Powhite Parkway Extended
across the northwestempart of'the Property;
ii.
A 120 foot wide right of way for a north/south major arterial
("Woolridge Road Extended") from the southern Property
line to the northern Property line. The exact location of this
fight of way shall be approved by Chesterfield Departrnem of
Transportation (CDOT);
111.-
A ninety (90) foot wide fight of way for an east/west major
arterial (the "East/West Arterial") from Otterdale Road to the
eastern Property line.' The exact location ofthis fight of way
shall be approved by CDOT;
iv.
A forty five (45) foot Wide right of way fOr Otterdale Road
adjacem to the Property, measured from the centefline of
Otterdale Road; and
Vo
Rights of way or easemel~ts for access (the "Site Road"), as
approved by CDOT, from Woolridge Road Extended across
the property to. the Lennon parcel (Tax ID 7196945885) on
both the east and west sides of Woodridge Road Extended.
The Site Road fight of way width shall generally be sixty (60)
feet; however, the eXact width' and location oftheserightsof
way or easements shall be approved by CDOT.
bi
Construction. In order'to proVide an adequate roadway system, the
applicant or his assignee shall'be responsible for the'folloWing road
improlvements:
Construction of a four (4) lane divided facility for Woolddge
Road Extended, to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial standards (50
MPH)' with modifications approved by CDOT, from. the
northern Property line to the East/West Arterial intersection;
ii.
Construction of two (2) lanes of the-East/West Arterial, to
VDOT Urban Minor Arterial standards (50 MPH)'With
7 02SN0238,MAY26-BOS
Co
modifications approved by CDOT, from Otterdale Road to
Woolridge Road Extended;
nl.
Realignment of Otterdale Road.at. the East/West Arterial
intersection to create a T-intersection~ if approved by CDOT;
iv.
Construction of left and right turn lanes at each approved
access along the Site Road, along Woolridge Road Extended,
along the East/West Arterial and along Otterdale ROad,
including at the East/West Arterial/Otterdale Road
intersection, and at the East/West Arterial/WoOlridge Road
Extended intersection, as determined byCDOT;
Mo
Full cost of traffic signalizatiOn at all apprOved 'accesses
including at the East/West Arterial/Woolridge Road Extended.
and at the Site Road/Woolridge Road Extended intersectionsI
if warranted as determined-by CDOT;
Widening/improving the east side of Otterdale Road .to an
eleven (11) fOot wide travel lane, measured from the
centerline of the road, with an additional one (1) foOt wide
paved shoulder plusa seven (7) foot· wide unpaved shoulder,
with modifications approved-by CDOT, from the
northernmost apProved access onto Otterdale Road to 'the
southern Property'line; and
vii. AnY rights of way necessary for improvements specified in
Proffered Condition 6.b. In the eventthe developer is. unable
to acquire :the right' of-way: necessary for these road
improvements, the applicant Or .his assignee may request; in
-writing, the county to acquire Such right of way as a public
road improvement.. All costs associated with the acquisition
of such right of way shall be borne by the applicant or-his
assignee.
Phasing. Prior to any site Plan or subdivision construction plan
approval, whichever occurs first, aphasing plan for the improvements
specified, in proffered Condition 6.b. shall be submi~ted"to 'and
approved by CDOT: The approved phasing plan shall require, among.
other things, the folloWing:
The initial development on the Property'of175 residential'
units and 20,000 square feet ofnonresidential uses shall have
sole access to Woolridge Road Extended; and
8 02SN0238-MAY26,BOS
ii.
Prior to recordation or site plan approval on the Property of a
cumulatiVe total of more than 175 residential units or.site plan
approval of more than 20,000 square feet of nonresidential
uses, whichever occurs first, foUr (4) lanes OfWoolridge Road
Extended as required by Proffered COndition &b.i.; and'tw°
(2) lanes of Powhite parkway Extended fromthe' Watermill
Parkway intersection to Woolfidge Road Extended and two
(2) lanes of Woolridge Road Emended from Powhite Parkway
Extended to the northern Property line, shallbe completed, as
determined by CDOT.
Access.- Prior to any site plan or tentative.subdivision plan approval,
whichever occurs first, the applicant' or his assignee shall submit-to
CDOT~ and receive its approval of, aplan for access to the Property
froTM the 'Site Road, Woolridge :' Road Extended; the. East/West
Arterial and Otterdale Road. AccesSto the ProPerty shall c°nform.'to
the approved access plan.
AMENDMENT VI
The applicant has offered an additional proffered condition that addresses the phasing of
the residential portion of the project.
RECOMMENDATION (AMENDMENT VI).-
Recommend that Proffered Condition 7 be accepted,
PROFFERED CONDITION
(STAFF/CPC) 7~
Phasing. There shall be no lots recordedprior to July 1,' 2005 on
the ProPerty. There shall be no site. PlanapProVed for. any
residential multifamily units prior to July 1, 2005. (P)
(staffNote:' This condition supersedes Textual Statemem Items i4,
15, 16, 20, 21 and 22 of Case"88S008 fOr~the request property.only,)-
GENERAL INFORMATION'
Location:
East line of Otterdale Road, southofGamecock Road; Tax ID 716-691-4229 and 718-691-
6889 (Sheet 9).
Existing Zoning:
O~2 and R'9 with Conditional lJse Planned Developmem
9 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
Size:
208.5 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land. Use:
North - A; Vacant
East - 0-2 and R-9 with Conditional Use Planned Development; Community Recreation
South. - R-9, 0-2 with Conditional Use Planned Development, R-15 and A; Vacant
West - A; Vacant
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
There is an existing sixteen,(16) inch water line extending along the north side of Genito
Road, approximately 5,300 feet south of the request site~ Extension of an appropriately sized
waterline along the right ofwaY of the future North Woolridge Road wilt be necessary to
serve the request site: The use ofthe public water system is required by a previous condition
of zoning. (Case 88S008~ Conditi°n 13)
To. address future development, the applicant has proffered to extend a Sixteen (16) inch
Waterline along the proposed route of North Woolridge Road from the southern boundary to
thenorthern boundary ofthe site: In addition, the developer will extend an approximately-.
sized water line along the PropOsed east/west collector road from-Otterdale Road to the
eastern pOrtion of Tract E. (Proffered Condition 3)
The applicant has proffered to sUbmit for review and approvala Water and Wastewater
Systems Overall Plan for this development. Thatplan will be accompanied by a phasing Plan
which establishes a schedule for incremental water system extensions with each phase of the
development. (Proffered ConditiOn 4)
Public Wastewater System:
There is an e~dsting sixty (60) inch wastewater trunk line extending along the.north side of
(}eh:tO Road, approximately 5,300 feet south of the request site. This existing sixty (60).inch
wastewater trunk line is a portion of the Upper Swift-Creek TranSport System. A portiOn of
this wastewater trunk was originally reqUired bYa previous condition of zoning, as wellas
the dedication of easements to the County for this Construction- (Case 888008, Conditions 15
and 16). Subsequent to the approval of Case'88S008, the County completed construction of
10 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
the Upper Swift Creek Transport System; thus satisfying the requirements of Conditions 15
and 16.
The use of the public wastewater system is required by a previOus condition of zoning {Case
88S008, Condition 13). The. request site drains toward Tomahawk Creek. Extension oran
appropriately sized wastewater trunk line along Tomahawk Creek,'from the eXisting sixty
(60) inch wastewater trunk' line to the nOrthern boundarY, of this site, will be necessary to
provide public wastewater service. Extension of the Tomahawk Creek wastewater tmnk lines
is required by a previous condition of zoning. (Case 88S008, Condition 15)
The applicant has proffered to submit for review and approval a Water and Wastewater
Systems Overall Plan for this development. That plan will be accompanied by a phaSing plan
which establishes a schedule for incremental water system extensions with each phase of the
development. (Proffered Condition 4)
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
Currently, there are no existing on-site.erosion or drainage problems with. none anticipated
after development. Although Tomahawk Creek currently exhibits signs of natural stream
degradation, the degradation should be stabilized or improved_ with the .environmental
measures that will be implemented with this project and the proposed enhancements to the
floodplains. The property is heavily wooded and, aS such, should not be timbered until the
issuance of a land diSturbance permit. This will insure that .adequate erosion Control
measures are.in place priorto any land disturbance, (Proffered. Condition 1)
Water Quality:
The property drains into the .reservoir via. Tomahawk Creek, which borders the eastern
property line. Since Tomahawk Creek is aperennial stream' the Property will be subject to a
100. foot conservation area along.the' creek. AlSo .along the easteTM Property line .are
proposed, enhanced fl°odplain-StmctUres that are part of the regional watershed plan. The
tributary that drains through the.center of the property and!forms a portion of the northern
property line is a Riparian Corridor Management-NRPA, which prohibits disturbance of the
natural vegetation within, lthe 100-year floodplain except-as permitted by Ordinance~
.To address concerns recently expressedby the Planning CommisSion and area citizens
relative to stormwater runoffphosPhoms loads in the Upper SWift Creek WaterShed, staffhas
suggested that the applicant hasagreed to maintain sediment basins or construct new BMPs,
or a combination thereof, until such.downstream regional BMPs have 'been .constructed.-'
(Proffered Condition 2)
11
02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
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. This development 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 PublicFacilities Plan. Based on 2,584 dwelling units, this request
could generate approximately 666 calls for fire and EMS service each year. The proposed
zoning amendment will not result in any additional· dwelling units over the number of units
permitted on this portion of the request under Case 88S0081 ConsequentlY, there 'is no net
increase in the impact on capital facilities resulting from this request.
This property is currently served bythe Swift Creek Fire/Rescue Station, Company Number
16. When the property is developed, the number ofhydrants, quantity of water needed for fire
protection and access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review process. '
Schools:
Approximately 1,370 students will be generated by this development.
The property is currently.in the Watldns Elementary School attendance zone. The area on the
south side of Powhite Parkway isproposed to go to Swift CreekElementary and the area on
the north side ofPo. white .Parkway ~s proposed to go to Evergreen Elementary. This site is
also in the Midlothian Middle and Midlothian High School attendance zone.
Watkins Elementary School: capacity - 752, enrollment - 855; Swift Creek Elementary
School: capacity- 759, enrollment- 748; Evergreen Elementary School: capacity- 878,
enrollment- 802; Midlothian Middle School: capacity.--1;331, enrollment- 1,399; and
Midlothian High School: capacity.: 1,568, enrollment - 1,600.
There are currently eight (8) trailers at Watkins Elementary; three (3) trailers at swift Creek
Elementary; four (4) trailers at Evergreen Elementary; five (5) trailers at Midlothian Middle
and five (5) trailers at Midlothian High.
The students generated by this development would create significant enrollment increases at
the elementary, middle' and high school levels. The elementary schools will-continue to
experience significant enrollment increases even if the redistricfmg proposal is approved by
the school board. The applicant has agreed to participate in the cost of providing for area
school needs. (Proffered Condition 5) '
12 02SN0238.MAY26-BOS
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 additional library space throughout the County. Taking
into account the additional space provided by the new La Prade and Chester Libraries, there.
is still a projected need for additional library space throughOut the County.
This development would likely affect the existing Midlothian Library or a possible new
branch in the Genito Road/Powhite Parkway area as proposed by the Public Facilities Plan.
The proposed zoning amendment will not result in any..additional dwelling units over the
nUmber of units permitted on this portion, of the request under Case 88S008. Consequently,
-there is no net increase in the impact on capital facilities resulting from this request.
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for four (4) new regional parks. There. is
currently a shortage of community park acreage in the County. The Plan identifies aneed for
625 'acres of regional park space and 116 acres of community parkspace by 2015. The Plan
also identifies the need for neighborhood parks and special purpose parks and makes
suggestions for their locations. The proPosed zoning amendment Will not resUlt in
additiOnal dwelling units over the nUmber of units permitted on this portion:of the request
under Case 888008. Consequently, there is no net increase in the imPact'on Capital facilities
resulting from this request.
Transportation:
The applicant is reqUest'rog relief from many of the transportation conditions in the Textual
-Statement from the Original Greenspring zoning, The applicant has submitted proffers that
restate some of those same conditions; which apply to development of the subject property.
The applicant has also committed to limit the amount of. develoPment that' occurs on the
property-until sections of the Powhite Parkway and Woolridge-Road Extended are
constructed. One of the original Greenspring zoning conditions requires a traffic impact
analysis to be submitted, .if reqUested by the Transportation Department: The applicant is
seeking relief of this condition and is unwilling to-proffer-a Similar condition.' Therefore,
staff does not Support this request;
Background
In 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved a Conditional USe Planned Development (Case
88S008 "Original Greenspring Project") on approximatelY 1,300 acres fOr a mixed-use
development that included retail, office and residential land uses.. With that approval, the
Board accepted the Textual Statement that includes several transportation conditions
addressing maximum density, right of way dedications, access control.and construction of
mitigating road.improvements.~ Conditions of zoning approVal for CaSe 88S008 restricted the
13 02SN0238-MAY26,BOS
maximum density of the Original Greenspring Project to 2,303 residential units, 193,000
square feet of retail, 1,250,000square feet of office and a300 room inn/conference center or
equivalent densities based :on traffic generation.- original Greenspring Project was
anticipated to generate approximately 43,360 average daily trips.
The major road improvements required .by the Original Greenspring. Project include: 1)
construction of four'(4) lanes of Powhite Parkway Emended across the Original Greenspring
Project;-2) construction of tWo- (2) additional lanes, of Powhite Parkway Extended from the
-original Greenspring .Project to Brandermill Parkway; 3) construction of four (4) lanes, of
Woolridge Road Emended and Collector Loop Road, if necessarY; and 4) construction of two
(2) lanes of Powhite ParkwayExtended and two (2) lanes of Woolridge Road. Emended
across aa adjacent parcel(identified as Parcel-8 on the Original-Master Plan and currently
identified as the Lennon parcel), A condition of the Original Greenspring Project zoning
requires that a phasing plan for these required road improvements be'approved by the
TranspOrtation Department.
Another condition of the Original Greenspring Project zoning requires that initial accesS for
the development will be provided via Powhite Parkway Extended/Old Hundred. Road. The'
,initial 'access" conditiOn was prOvided as part of the original Greenspring zoning to insUre
that the.major traffic impact generated by the 'development Would be directed towards
Powhite Parkway Extended and not-towards the GenitORoadarea.
In 1995; the Board of SuperviSors approved amendments to the Original Greenspring
Conditiohal Use Planned-Development to allow develOpment of-approximately 810 acres
("Phase I Greenspring") independently of the. Original .'GreenSpring Project. The 1995
amendment did not relieve'-, the:Phase I 'Greenspring developers of required .rOad
improvements, except for right of Way dedications across'properties they did not control.
As required by a condition of the Original Greenspring-Project; the Phase I developer
sUbmitted a phasing planfor the entire Greenspring ProjeCt.- After evaluating the proposal,
staff agreed to a Phase I conSiSting, of the following road-improvements: 1) two (2) lanes of
the'reqUired four (4) lanes forW0olridge Road Emended; with adequate mm lanes, from
Genito"Road north to its interseCtion with the CollectorLoop Road; and 2) two (2) lanes for
Collector Loop Road, with adequate mm lanes from'Wo°lridge?Rioad Emended. to Powhite
Parkway Extended/Old Hundred Road.
In March 2002, the. Board' of Supervisors again, approved amendments to the Original
Greenspring Conditional-Use Planned Development to allOw an additional 282 acres ("Phase
II Greenspring") to be dex~elopedindependently of the original Greenspring Project and of
Phase.I Greenspring. The 2002 amendment did relieve_the Phasell Greenspring developer of
most all transportation conditiOns: outlined inthe Original Greenspring zoning. A proffered
c°ndition of that zoning approval (Proffered. Condititn 3)req-nires that l~op~rty.to be
developed based on one (1)of two(2) road access alternatiVes (Alternative A and Alternative
B), Alternative A includes a requirement for the :Phase II Greenspring' developer to dedicate
a ninety (90) foot wide right of Wayand construct two (2) lanes of Woolridge Road Emended
14 02SN0238-MAY26-Bos
from that property to Old Hundred Road. Alternative B includes a requirement fOr the Phase
II Greenspring developer to provide $800,000 toward theConstmction of Powhite Parkway
Extended and a section of Woolridge Road Extended. In order to construct this improvement
partial public funding is required: Unless the Transportation Department notifies the
applicant within a specific time frame that the County wants-the develOpment to occur under
Alternative B conditions, the Phase II Greenspring developer is Permitted to develop the
property in accordance with Alternative A conditions.
In April 2002, the Board appropriated funds toWards cOnstruction of Alternative B
improvements. Staff has completed part of the preliminary engineering on Alternative B
improv.e.m.ents, and has det?. _rmined that the estimated cost is. now si~ificantly higher than
the prelumnary budget, which'includes the Phase II develOper's $800,000 contribution.
Therefore, the County has not notified the developer to develop under Alternative B;
Two. (2) proposals have been submitted to the Virginia Department. of Transportation
(VDOT), under the Public-Private Transportation Act (ppTA), for the extension of the
Powhite Parkway from itseurrent terminus at Old Hundred Road to Hull Street Road near
Beaver Bridge Road. Both proposals would complete this section of the Powhite Extension
as a TOll Road. The proposals are currently being reviewed by VDOT. Detailed information
has not been provided, and accordingly the Board of Supervisors has not been requested to
take a position on these proposals.
Current Request
The subject.property (Phase llI Greenspring), identified on the-Master Plan. as Tract B
consisting of approximately 163 acres and Tract E'consisting of apprOximately forty-five (45)
acres, was included in 'the .Original Greenspring Project, but not in Phase'I or Phase-Il
GreensPring. Current zoning would allow up to 15,000 square.feet per acre of
commercial/office on Tract B, and:up to three (3) residential units per acre on Tract E. Tract
B could also be developed for residential use up to fifteen. (15) units per acre, The Original
Greenspring Textual Statement, which 'applies-to all the prOperties' in. the Original
Greenspring, including the. subject property, has a maximum density condition (Textual
Statement COndition 19 of-Case 88s008): Development of Phases I, II and Phase.III
Greenspring cannot exceed:that maximum density. Based'on anticipated development
densities of Phases I and II, phase III Greenspring could generate approximately 20~000
average daily trips.
Vehicles generated by the development will'be distributed along Otterdale Road, Genito
Road; Old Hundred Road and WoOlddge Road, which had' 2003 traffic counts of 1,090;
13,603; 7,067; and 9,806 vehicles per day, respectively.
Sections of Otterdale Road have nineteen (19)'to twenty (20) foot wide paVement with no
shoulders. Sections of GenitoRoad have twenty (20) to twenty-one (21) foot wide pavement
with no shoulders. Sections of Old-Hundred Road have twenty-one (21) to twenty-two (22)
foot wide pavement with no shOulders. These roads have fixed objects adjacent to the edge
15 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
of the pavement, and substandard vertical and horizontal alignments. The capacity of these
roads is acceptable for the volume of traffic they currently carry.
Sections of Woolridge Road between Timber Bluff Parkway and Genito Road have twenty
(20) to twenty-one (21) fOotwide pavement with no shoulders, and guardrall immediately
adjacent to the road. The section ofWoolridge Road'across the Swift Creek Reservoir is not
in the State Highway SYstem, andis the responsibility of the County. Based on current traffic
VOlume-this section of Woolridge' Road is at capacity, and as traffie volumes increase this
section of road should be improved to a four (4) lane divided roadway.
As noted, roads in this area have narrow pavement, widths,'little Or no 'shoulders and poor
vertical and horizontal alignments. The traffic generated by this development will
significantly increase the need for transpOrtation imProvements in this area. No road
improvement projects in this area of the County are included in the Secondary Road SiX-Year
Improvement Plan.
The Thoroughfare Plan identifies the extension of Woolridge Road, as a major arterial with a
recOmmended right of-way width-of ninety (90) feet, from Genito Road to .Route 288.
OtterdaleRoad currently serves as:the major north/south road for this part of the County. Due
to its current condition, reconstructing Otterdale Road to handleincreased traffic will be very
costly. Once the proposed Woolridge Road Extended fxom Genito Road to Route 288 and the
proposed East/West Arterial from Otterdale Road' to Woolridge Road Extended are
constructed, they could better handle north/south travel. In order to avoid major
recOnstruction of sections of Otterdale Road and'eliminate bridging Otterdale ROad for
Powhite Parkway Extended, Staffrecomm'ends that cul-de-sacs be constructed on Otterdale
Road at Powhite Parkway Extended. These cul-de-sacs are anticipated to be provided when
Powhite Parkway Extended is constructed. In shifting the traffic from Otterdale Road:to
Woolridge Road Extended, it is :anticipated that_ Woolridge Road Extended from the
East/West Arterial to Route 288 may need to be a six (6) lane facility; therefore,, the
recommended right'ofway width on this section of road Should be increased from ninety (90).
to 120 feet. The recommendations in this report anticipate cul-de-sacs on Otterdale Road2
Staff will recommend these same changes to the Thorough/fare Plan, with upcoming
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
As previously stated, theapplicant (Phasem developer) has proffered several conditions that
are required by the Original Greenspring zoning. TheSe conditions-include fight of way
dedications along Otterdale Road, for Powhite ParkWay Extended, for the East/West Arterial,
and for Woolridge Road Extended, whiCh theapplicant has agreed to increase from ninety
(90) to 120 feet wide (Proffered Condition 6.a0. Theapplicant hasalso proffered to dedicate
a stub road right of way.or easement (the "Site' Road') on each side of Woolridge ROad
Extended to the adjacent parcel tOthe north (i.e., the Lennon parcel) (Proffered Condition
6.a.v0. A limited access interchange is proposed for the Woolridge Road Extended/Powhite
Parkway intersection. The Site Roads that will extend through the subject property will serve
as the only access for development of that part of the Lennon parcel south of Powhite
Parkway Extended.
16 02SN0238,MAY26-BOS
Access to major arterials, such as the East/West Arterial and-Wo01ridge Road Extended,
should becontrolled. The applicant has proffered that an access.plan will be submitted, for
Transportation Department reView and approval, which shows access from the property to
the East/West Arterial and Woolridge Road Extended (Proffered Condition 6.d.). Access to
the East/West Arterial and.Woolridge Road Extended will be based .on the approved access
plan.
The applicant has proffered some of the road improvements required.by the Original
Greenspring zoning. The proffers are; 1) construction of a four (4) lane. divided facility for .
Woolridge Road Extended from the northern property line to the East/West Arterial
intersection; 2) Construction of two (2) lanes of the East/West Arterial from Otterdale .Road
to Woolridge Road Extended; 3) realignment of Otterdale ROad at the East/West Arterial
intersection to create a T-interseCtion; 4)construction of left and right turn lanes at.each
approved access along the Site Road, along Woolridge Road Extended, along the East/West
Arterial and along Otterdale Road, including at the East/West-Arterial/Otterdale Road
intersection, and at the East/West Arterial/Woolridge Road Extended 'intersection; 5) full
cost of traffic signalization at all approved accesses including at the East/West
Arterial/Woolddge Road Extended and at the Site Road/WoO~dge Road Extended
intersections, if warranted~ and 6) widening/improving the east Side of Otterdale Road to.an
eleven (11) foot wide traVel lane, measured from the centerline of the road, with an
additional one (1) footwide paVed shoulder plus a seven (7) foot .wide Unpaved Shoulde:
from the nOrthernmost .approved access onto Otterdale Road to the. southern pr0perty line.
(Proffered Condition 6.b.)
The Original Greenspring zoning required construction of four (4) lanes of Powhite Parkway
Extended across the Original Greenspring Project, constructiOn of two (2) additiOnal lanes of
Powhite Parkway Extended from the Original GreenspringProject:to Brandermill P~kWay,
and construction of two (2) lanes of Powhite parkway Extended and two (2)tanes Of
Woolridge-Road Extended across the Leunon parcel. The applicant has asked relief froTM
these requirements, and has proffered to limit develOpment--on the property until, partsof
Powhite Parkway Extendedand Woolridge Road EXtended are Constructed by the applicant
· or by others. Specifically, the applicant has proffered that prior to development of more than
175 .residential units or more:~an 20,0011 square 'feet of.n°nresidential uses, whichever
occurs first, four (4) lanes ofW°Okidge Road'Extended from the northern property line to
the East/West. Arterial intersectiOn, two (2) lanes, of Powhite ParkWay'Extended from. the
Watermill Parkway '-intersection. to Woolridge ROad Extended, and two (2) lanes :-of
Woolridge Road Extended from POwhite Parkway Extendedto the northern.property line
shall be completed (Proffered Condition 6.c.ii,). The applicant-has also proffered that the
initial development of 175 residential units, and 20,000 square feet of nonresidential uses will'
have sole access to Woolridge Road Extended. (Proffered Condition 6.c.i.)
Another current condition of zoning the applicant is reqUesting relief from,-requires the
monitoring of this development to determine if actual traffic generation.and distribution is
materially different from the assumptions in the original traffcstudy. If additional traffic
studies indicate that more site traffic is generated than originally assumed and additional
17 02SN023 8-MAY26-BOS
mitigating road improvements cannot be provided, permissible densities of this project may
'be reduCed. The applicant is unwilling to proffer a similar condition'that, if required by the
Transportation Department, a traffic analysis will b'e'submitted. Without the traffic analysis
condition, the impact of this development'on the road network may not be adeqUately
addressed. Therefore, the Transportation Department recommends denial of Amendment V.
Financial Impact on Capital FaCilities:
The proposed zoning amendment will not result in any additional dwelling units over the
number of units permitted, on this portion of the originally planned residential community
g0vemed by zoning case 88S008. Accordingly, there is no net.increase in the impact on
capital facilities resulting from this request. However, under the conditions of ease 88S008;
the dedication of sixty-five (65) acres and the reservation for purchase of an additional thirty-
five (35) acres was proffered for use by County Schools. The requirement for the reservation
of land for purchase is no longer applicable. The time has expired to exercise that option.
Under the proposed requested amendment,.the applicanthas proffered the payment of cash in
lieu of dedicating a proportionate amount of'the sixty-five (65) acres of land to the County.
The proportionate amount of land being proffered for conversion to cash is approximately
10.3 acres. The amount of cash proffered, to be paid on a per dwelling unit basis, equatesto
$104,150, orS 1.0,105 per acre. The cash proffer states that the payments will be made on the
first twenty-five (25) dwelling units. Staff finds this proffer acceptable. (Proffered Condition
5)
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan which suggests the property is
appropriate for amix of regional-scale office, commercial, light industrial, townhouSe and
multi-family development as.well as single family residential use of 2.0 units per acre or less.
Area Development Trends:
Properties to.the north and west are zoned Agricultural (A) and are vacant. Properties to the
east and south are zoned Residential (R-9 and R-15) and Corporate Office (0-2) and are part
of the original Greenspring development not inCluded in this request or are currently zoned
Agricultural (A). These parcels are currently occupied by community recreational uses or are
vacant. Property to the east and southeast were previously approved, for development
independent of the original Greenspring I Project. (Cases 958N0307 and 01SN0189)
Zoning History:
On May 25', 1988, the Board of Supervisors, upon.a faVorable recommendation-by the
Planning Commission, approved rezoning on the request property.and adjacent property to
18 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
the north, east and south from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) to Residential (R,9)
and Office Business (O) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a'mix of
residential, office, commercial and recreational uses (case 88S008), subject to'a number of
conditions. This project} which contained approximately 1,313 aCres,.was commonly known
as Greenspring.
On September 27, 1995, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the
Planning Commission, approved various amendments to Case 88S008, affecting an 809'acre
portion of the' original Greenspring development, adjacent to; east and south of, the subject
property (Case 95SN0307). These amendments were similar to those requested in this
application.
On March 27, '2002, the Board of Supervisors, upon a recommendation by the Planning
Commission that'was favorable, with the exception of the deletion of road' improvements,
approved various amendments to Case 88S008, affecting a 282' acre pOrtion of the original
Greenspring development, adjacent to and south of, the subject, property (Case 01SN0189).
these amendments are similar to those requested in this application.
Master Plan:
The applicant is requesting that' ConditiOn 1 of Case 88S008 .be modified t°reflect the
amendments discussed herein, substitute a new conceptual Master Plan and delete the
requirement to conform to the Conceptual Site Development Plan. This amendment would
also_allow this 208 acre parcel to be developed independent of the remaining 1,313 acres
originallY zoned. As previously noted, in 1995 and 2002~ adjacent 809 and-282' acre tracts
representing a portion of the original GreenSPring development, were approved for
develoPment independent of.theoriginally zoned acreage (Cases 958N0307 and 01SN0189).
Therefore, with approval of this request, none of the original Greenspring property will
remain under the conditions ofthe original Master. Plan.
The revised Master Plan also deletes the golf course.
Restoration.of the Tomahawk and Ellett Hancock Structures:
Conditions of zoning require that.the Tomahawk and Ellett Hancockstructures be reStored.
The TOmahawk structure-has been destroyed bY fire.' The Preservation Committee
determined that restorationof the' Ellett Hancock structure is not feasible.
Phasing:
In response to concerns expressed by the Matoaca District Commissioner relative to the
impact of the development on area roads and schools, a proffered:cOndition was Submitted
for the phasing of the reSidential portion of the development.' No single family residential lot
can' be recorded nor can.any multifamily site plan be approved prior to July il, 2005.
(Proffered Condition 7)
19
02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed amendments relative to the approved Master Plan, restoration of the Ellett and
Tomahawk dwellings and provision'of a golf cOurse (Amendment I); utilities (Amendment ID;
drainage and erosion and water quality (Amendment liD; and dedication and reservations (Part of
Amendment IV) are consistent with amendments previOusly approved for an adjaeent portion ofthe
Greenspring Project (Cases 95SN0307 and 01SN0189). Furtheri such amendments would permit the
applicant to proceed with developing the subject property indePendent of adjacent portions of the
original GreenSpring Project. In conjunction with these 'amendments, it is recommended that
Proffered ConditiOns 1 through 5 be accepted.and that Conditions 1 thrOugh 5 be imposed.
It is recommended that Amendment V, requesting reliefto sOme of the transportation conditions, of
the Original Greenspring Project (Case 88S008), be denied; Proffered Condition 6 may not address
the traffic impactofthis portion of the development on area roads consistent with'the commitments
as outlined in the original Greenspring zoning. In conjunction with this recommendation, Proffered
Condition 6 should not be accepted.
It is also recommended that Amendment VI, addressing the phasing of the residential portion Of the'
project be apprOved and that Proffered Condition 7 be acceptedi
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (6/18/02):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to July 16, 2002.
Staff (6/19/02):
The' applicant w~ advised in writing that any significantnew or revised information should
be submitted no later than June 24,2002, for consideration at the Commission, s july public
hearing. Also, the applicantwas advised that a $250.00 deferral feemust be paid prior to the
Commission's public hearing.
Staff (7/16/02):
The deferral fee was paid~
Planning Commission Meeting (7/16/02):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case.to September 17, 2002.
20 02SN0238;MAY26-BOS ~
Staff (7/17/02):
The applicant was advised in writing that any si~ificantnew or revised information should
be submitted no later than July 22, 2002, for consideration atthe Commission's September
public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $250:00 deferral fee must be paid prior
to the' Commission's public hearing.
Applicant (8/1/02):
The deferral fee was paid.
Staff(S/15/02):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (9/17/02):
At the.request of the applicant, the'Commission deferred ithis ease to NOvember 19i 200Z
Staff (9/18/02):.
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than October 20, 2002, for consideratiOn at the Commission~s
November public hearing. Also;the applicant was advised that a $250;00 deferral feemust
be paid prior to the CommisSion, s_public hearing. ' '
Applicant (11/1/02):
The deferral fee was paid.
Staff (11/1/02):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
21 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
Planning Commission Meeting (11/19/02):
At the request of the applicant, the. Commission deferred this ease to January 21, 2003.
Staff (11/20/02):
The applicant was advised in writing that any si~ificant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than November. 25, 2002, 'for consideratiOn at the Commission's
January Public hearing, Also, the applicantwas advised that a $250.00 deferral fee must be
paid prior to the Commission's public hearing.
Applicant (11/25/02):
The deferral fee was paid.
Staff (12/27/02):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Planning CommisSion Meeting (1/21/03):
· At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to March 18, 2003.
Staff (1/22/03 ):
The applicant was'advised in writ'rog that any significant, new or revised information Should
be submitted no later than January 27, 2003, for consideration at the Commission's March
Public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $250.00 deferral fee must be paid prior
to the Commission's public hearing~
Applicant (2/7/03):
The deferral fee was paid.
Staff (2/26/03):
To date, no new information'has been submitted.
22 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
Planning Commission Meeting (3/18/03):
At the request of the applicants the Commission deferred this caSe to May 20, 2003;
Staff (3/19/03):
The applicant waS advised in writing that any significant new or revised.information should
be submitted no later, than March 24, 2003, for consideration at the Commission's May
public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $250.00. deferral fee must be paid prior
to the Commission's pUblic heating.
Applicant' (3/26/03):.
The deferral fee waS paid.
Staff (4/21./03):
To date, no new information haS been submitted;
Planning Commission Meeting (5/20/03):
At the request of the appliCant, the Commission deferred this case to the Commission's
August 19, 2003, public hearing.
Staff (5/21/03):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant newor revised'information should
be submitted no later than june 16, 2003, for consideration at theCommission's AugUSt
public hearing; .Also, the applicant was advised that a.$250;00.deferral fee must be paid prior
to the Commission's public hearing,
Applicant (7/29/03 and 7/30/03):
Thedeferrai fee waS paid. The applicant requested a deferral.
23
02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
Planning COmmission Meeting (8/19/03):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to the Commission's
November 18, 2003, public.hearing.
Staff (8/20/03):
The applicant was 'advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should
be submitted.no later than September-15, 2003, for consideration at the CommissioW s
November public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised thata $250.00 deferral fee must
be paid prior to' the Commission's public hearing.
Applicant- (9/3/03):
The deferral fee was paid.
Applicant (10/20/03 and 11/6/03):
Revised prOffered conditions and textual statements were submitted. The applicant withdreTM
proffered conditions addressing-minimum dwelling size, restrictive covenants relatiVe to
single, family development and-manufactured homes.
FUrther; the applicant withdrew requested exceptions to the construction of Powhite Parkway
Extended and related conditions.
Planning Commission Meeting. (11/18/03):
At the request of the applieant, the Commission deferred this case to their December 16,
2003, public hearing. ' ~
Staff (11/19/03);
The applicant was advised in'writing that any significant new or revisedinformation should
be submitted no later than November 24; 2003, for consideration at the COmmission's
December public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $500.00 deferral fee must
be paid prior to the Commission's public.hearing.
24 02SN0238,MAY26-BOS
Staff (11/26/03):
To date, no new information has been submitted nor has the' $500.00 deferral fee been paid.
Applicant (12/4/03):
The deferral fee was paid.
Planning CommissiOn Meeting (12/16/03): ,.
At the request of the applicant, the Comn~ssion deferred this.case to their February 17, 2004,
public hearing.
Staff (12/17/03):
The .applicant was advised in writing that any significant.new or revised information should
be submitted no later than December 22, .2003,. for"consideration, at'. the' CommisSion' s
February public hearing2~ Also~ the applicant was advised that a $250.00 deferral fee must be
paid prior to the CommisSiOn's public hearing.
APplicant (12/29/03):
The deferral fee was paid.
Applicant (2/6/04):
The apPlication was amended to include additional .property.- Revised proffered conditions
were submitted. · .
Planning Commission Meeting (2/17/04):
At the request of the applicant, the. Commission deferred this case to their April 20, 2004,
public hearing. .
Staff (2/18/04):
The applicant was advised in writing that anysignificantnew or revised information should
be submitted no later than'February 23, 2004, for consideration at the Commission's April
25 02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
public hearing. Also the applicant Was advised that a'$250.00 deferral fee mUSt be paid prior
to the Commission's public hearing.
Applicant (3./4/04).:
The deferral fee was paid.
Applicant (3/30/04):
ReviSed proffered conditions and textual statement were· submitted.
Applicant (4/16/04):
Revised Proffered Condition 2 was submitted. Proffered Condition 6.e. requiring a traffic
impact analysis was withdrawn resulting in the Transportation Department recommending
denial of Amendment V.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/04):
The applicant did not accept staff's recommendation, but accepted the Commission's
recommendation. There was opposition present. ConCerns were expressed relative to the
withdrawal of the traffic, impact analysis and:the condition of, and increased traffic on,
Otterdale Road.
Mr. Bass noted his disagreement with the previous traffic analysis Condition and that the
applicant was providing considerable road improvements as part of this request.
Mr. Gulley indicated support for Mr. Bass' position; that this case provided relief for area
roadS; and that developers be required to make improvements to accommodate their impact
and not improvements to accommodate future ·developments.
Mr. Gecker noted that the applicant bought the property; with the obligation to meet existing
cOnditions of zoning; that such requirements should have been evaluated in the purchase
price; and. that granting relief to these requirements violated the policy that growth should.
pay for grOWth.
On motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Litton, the Commission recommended approval.
subject to the conditionS and acceptance of the proffered conditionS on pages 2 through 9.
26
02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
AYES:
NAY:
Messrs. Litt. on, Bass, Gulley and Wilson.
Mr~ Gecker
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, May 26, 2004, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take under
consideration this request.
27
02SN0238-MAY26-BOS
02SN0238
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
(THIRD REVISED. AND RESTATED
AMENDMENT TO CASE 88S008)
The Textual Statement, titled Greenspring: Conditional'Use and Zoning
Application,. revised April 1, 1988, including the "Residential Site
:Development Criteria" table, Exhibit IV and the conditions of zoning for Case
88S008 and Conceptual Master Plan, dated' February 6, 2004, shall.be the
Master 'Plan for the subject property, except as stated herein. And further,
provided that the subject Property shall be permitted to be considered as a
separate project from.the remaining portion of thattand area covered under
88S008.
All references and requirements relating to golf in the Textual Statement and
conditions of zoning for Case 88S008 shall be deleted.
The requirement to restore Tomahawk and'the Ellett and' Hancock structures
shall be deleted. ~
4. All references and requirements relating to the plan entitled "Conceptual Site
Development Plan -, Greenspring -- Chesterfield County, Virginla~ in the
Textual Statement and conditions of zoning for Case 88S008 shall be deleted.
5. The requirements of Conditions 14, 15 and 16 contained within section.4(A)
of the Textual Statement for Case 88S008 shall be' deleted.
6. The requirements of Conditions 20, 21 and 22 of section 4(A) of the Textual
Statement for Case 88S008 shall be deleted.
7. The requirements of Conditions 7, 9~ 11, and 20 of CaSe 88S008 shs!!-be
deleted.
8~. Tt~e requirements of Condition 30 of Case 88S008'shall be deleted.
9~ T~e requirements of Condition 14 of Case 88S008 shah be deleted.
~93905v8 ?017292.00739
¸%'
SWIFT Clllll
Tract F
APPROVED MASTER
Greenspring
PLAN
i
I
Greenspring
APPROVED CONCEPTUAL SITE
LEGEND
SIBEle Fitllil¥/
Esl,lie
CImiler
&llaclied
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MmIIi-Fa.iI!
oz sN 0~_'~
' 40.S ACRES
AMENDED MASTER P~N
FEBRUARY 6, 2004
GRAPHIC SCAI.E
1000' 0 500' 10~'
Case #02SN0238
Phase II
Case ~31SN0189
!
I
I
I
I
P~s~ I
N
GreensPring
Boundaries. of Phase I, Phase II,
and PhaSe !11
~lno~
Z
/
~ /
·
0 ~_$N Z.3~-5 ·
/
/
N
N