89SN0304A~ A
Sep~ember-%9~-~989-~PS
Be~mber-~9~-~989-6PS
February-~8;-~998-~P~
Apr~t-~-~998-SPS
September-~8;-~998-~P~
Beeember-~8~-~998-~PS,
Jannary-RB~-~99~-BS
February 17, 1991BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
89SN0340
Financial Enterprises II
Matoaca Magisterial District
West line of Bailey Bridge Road
and north line of Quailwood Road
REQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A single family residential subdivision is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL (R-9) AND ACCEPTANCE OF TEE PROFFERED
CONDITIONS ON PAGES 2 AND 3.
STAFF RECOMME~IDATION
Recommend approval of Residential (R-9), subject to the condition and acceptance
of the proffered conditions, for the following reasons:
The requested zoning and land uses conform to the recently adopted
Upper Swift Creek Plan.
The requested zoning and land uses are comparable to, and consistent
with, surrounding residential development.
Through the proffered conditions, conformance with the adopted Upper
Swift Creek Plan, together with co~atibility between the re~,~t site
and the surrounding area, can be further ensured. In addition, the
proffered conditions will provide for road improvements and right of
way dedication along Bailey Bridge and Quailwood Roads that will
mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding
area and on existing County infrastructure.
(NOTE: THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGR~.~ 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 RECOM}fENDED BY TIIE
PLANNING COMMISSION. )
CONDITION
(STAFF)
A fifty (50) foot buffer strip,, exclusive of required yards and
easements which do not run generally perpendicular through the
buffer, shall be established and maintained adjacent to Bailey
Bridge Road (Route 654). %~ne area of this buffer strip shall
either be left in its natural state, if sufficient vegetation
exists to provide adequate screening; or be planted and/or bermed
in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Plarn~ing
department, if sufficient vegetation does not exist to provide
~adequate screening. Prior to approval of any final site plan or
recordation of any plat, the developer shall flag this buffer
strip for inspection, and shall post a bond to cover the
implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan is required.
Only access(es) approved by the Transportation Department shall
be permitted through this buffer strip. This buffer shall be
noted on any final site plans, and any final check and
'recordation plats. (P&T)
PROFFKRKD CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC) 1.
(STAFF/CPC) 2.
(STAFF/CPC) 3.
At time of recordation of a subdivision plat for the lots
adjacent to Bailey Bridge Road, forty five (45) feet of
right of way on the west side of Bailey Bridge Road,
measured from the centerline of that part of Bailey Bridge
Road immediately adjacent to the property, shall be
dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the b~nefit of
Chesterfield County.
A buffer shall be provided along Quailwood Road for the
entire property frontage. Access through this buffer shall
be approved by the Transportation Department.
Additional pavement shall be constructed along Bailey Bridge
Road at the approved access to provide left and right turn
lanes.
(STAFF/CPC) 4.
(STAFF/CPC) 5.
The ditch line along Bailey Bridge Road shall be relocated
to provide adequate shoulders for the entire property
frontage.
The maximum density of this development shall not exceed 175
lots, and the developer shall be responsible for the
reconstruction of a section of North Bailey Bridge Road
between Bailey Bridge Road and Route 360 or a section of
Bailey Bridge between the subject property and North Bailey
Bridge. The exact location of the section shall ~e
determined and approved by the Transportation Department.
2 89SN0340/PC/FEB27G
_The reconstruction shall be to ~DOT Urban Minor Arterial
Standards with modifications as approved by the
Transportation Department. The developer' shall not be
required to make any such improv~ents (other than the left
and right turn lanes required by proffered condition #3),
beyond those that can be constructed for a cost not to
exceed $762,500, as det emined by the Transportation
Department. This reconstruction shall be complete~ as
determined by the Transportation Department, prior to final
check plat approval of more than 60 lots unless otherwise
approved by the Transportatiom Depar~mmnt.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Fronting in two (2) places for a total of approximately 441 feet on the
west line of Bailey Bridge Road, also fronting approximately 187 feet on
the north line of Quailwood Road, approxlmmtely 1,205 feet west of Bailey
Bridge Road, and located northweat of the intersection of these roads. Tax
Map 62-15 (1) Parcel ~01 Tax Map 76-2 (1) Parcel 6; and Tax Map 76-3 (1)
Parcel 27 (Sheet 20).
Existing Zoning:
Agricultural (A)
Size:
86.8 acres
Existing Lm]d Use:
Vacant and single family residential
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - A, O with Conditional Use Planned Development and M-1 with
Conditional. Use Planned Development; Yacant, single family
residential, office, and/or light ihdustrial
South - A and R-9; Vacant and single family residential
East - A, R-9, and M-i; Yacant, single family residential, and light
industrial
West - A and O; Vacant, single family residential, and office
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities:
Water:
The request site is within the Swift Creek/Elkhardt Ground pressure
zone, and is served by the Swift Creek water treatment p]mmt. A 16"
water main is located on Bailey's Bridge Road, and te~ninates
3 89SN0340/PC/FEB27G
approximately 1500' northeast of the site at Swift Creek. In
conjunction with the construction of the Bailey's Bridge Middle School
this 16" main is being extended, and when complete will bring the
public system to within approximately 200' of the request site.
Adequate water flow and pressure should be available to supply the
domestic and fire protection needs of the proposed use. The use of
the public water system is required by Ordinance for any lot under one
(1) acre or within 200 feet of existing water main. An escrow payment
to the County, sufficient to cover the cost of installing water mains
within the proposed subdivision, is required by Ordinance (Chapter 20,
Article II) for lots between one (1) and five (5) acres. The use of
the public water system is intended.
Wastewater:
The request site lies within the Upper Swift Creek drainage basin and
is presently served by the Falling Creek wastewater treatment plant.
Ultimately it will be served by the Proctors Creek plant. A 30"
wastewater trunk is located along Swift Creek. Sufficient capacity
should be available to serve the proposed use. The use of the public
wastewater system is required by Ordinance for lots under 40,000
square feet under provisions of Chapter 18.1-55 or for structures
within 200 feet of existing wastewater line. The use of the public
wastewater system is intended.
Drainage and Erosion:
The site drains directly to Swift Creek below the Swift Creek Reservoi=.
Swift Creek is experiencing an increased silt load. Off-site easm~nts: may
be required, however, due to irregular shape of property, it is difficult
to determine at this time. Due to increased silt loads in Swift Creek any
basins or pits should be designed with twenty-five (25) percent greater
capacity. It should also be noted that the site must comply with the
recently adopted Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.
Fire Service:
Clover Hill Fire Station, Company #7. At present water service capability
is adequate dependent upon water supply. County water is not readily
available for fire protection at this time.
Schools:
Approximately 103 school age children will be generated by this reqnest.
The site lies in the Crenshaw Elementary School attendance zone: capacity
- 630, enrollment - 629~ Swift Creek Middle School attendance zone:
capacity - 1,350, enrollment - 1,746; and Clover Hill High School
attendance zone: capacity - 1,530, enrollment - 1,746.
The proposed growth would have significant impact on schools. Residential
growth in Spring Run Road will accelerate need for an additional elmm~tary
school in the area ~mmediately with needed completion by mid-1990's.
School zone configurations will change from t~me to time as student growth
occurs in the area.
4 89SN0340/PC/FEB27G
Transportation:
The applicant has proffered a maximum density of 175 lots. This proposed
development could generate approx4mmtely 1,750 average daily trips. These
vehicles will be distributed along Bailey Bridge Road and Quailwood Road
which had a 1990 traffic count of 1,510 and 165 vehicles per day,
respectively. Bailey Bridge Road and Quailwood Road are narrow roadways
with min4mml shoulders and poor vertical and horizontal alignments.
The Thoroughfare Plan identifies Bailey Bridge Road as a arterial with a
recommended right of way width of ninety (90) feet. The applicant has
proffered to dedicate forty-five (45) feet of right of way measured from
the centerline of Bailey Bridge Road. If pr~ma=y access is provided to
Quailwood Road, Quailwood Road muat be reconstructed from the approved
access east to Bailey Bridge Road, to include a right-turn lane along
Bailey Bridge Road. The applicant intends to provide a secondary access to
Quailwood Road to address safety concerns. At time of tentative
subdivision review, specific recommendations will be provided regarding the
internal subdivision road network, to ensure minimal traffic will travel on
Quailwood.
Access to major arterials, such as Bailey Bridge Road, should, be
controlled. East of Bailey Bridge Road is a newly constructed middle
school and planned high school. Most of the traffic generated by both
schools will access to Bailey Bridge Road via one (1) major entrance which
is generally located across from the subject property. Access for the
proposed development should not align the school access. The applicant has
proffered to construct additional pavement along Bailey Bridge Road at the
approved access to provide left and right turn lanes. Bailey Bridge Road
must be improved to facilitate the traffic generated by this development.
The applicant has proffered, to reconstrnct a section of North Bailey Bridge
Road between Bailey Bridge and Route 360, or a section of Bailey Bridge
Road between the subject property and North Bailey Bridge. The proffered
condition also requires that this reconstrnction shall be completed prior
to final check plat approval of more than sixty (60) lots. If developmmnt
of this property does not exceed sixty (60) lots, the developer will not
provide any "off-site'~ improvements.
Impact on Capital Facilities:
Based upon the applicant's Proffered Condition 5, a maximum of 175 new
dwelling units will be created.
This =equest would generate 103 new school children. These students would
be distributed as follows: 51 elementary school students (7% of a new
elementary school); 23 middle school students (2% of a new middle school);
and 30 high school students (2% of a new high school.).
The total increase in population that can be expected to be generated by
this development is 477 new residents. This would create the need for an
5 89SN0340/PC/FEB27G
additional 3.1 acres of park land in the area. It should be noted that
Pocahontas State Park is located approximately two (2) miles east of this
request.
This request would create the need for approximately 1% of a new full
service library branch; 1% of a new intermediate branch, and 3% of a mini
library branch.
The Fire Department has indicated that the residents of this proposed
development would be served by the Clover Hill Fire Department. The
service capability of this station is rated as adequate at this timm.
However, if approved, this request would generate 4% of the need for a new
fire station in the area.
For the purposes of this analysis on Capital Facilities, the following
assumptions are made:
2.
3.
4.
0.59 school age children will be generated per dwelling unit;
2.73 residents per dwelling unit;
6.5 acres of park land per 1,000 residents;
52,000 residents per full library branch,
43,000 residents per intermediate library branch,
18,000 residents per mini library branch;
a five (5) minutes response time with an ultimate population of
12,000 residents per fire station.
It should be noted that this request was submitted prior to July 1, 1989,
and is, therefore, not subject to the Board of Supervisors' recmntly
adopted policy regarding applicants'/developers' participation in the
provision of capital facility improvements. However, for the purposes of
comparison and in the interest of providing general information, an
analysis of the fiscal impact of this request on the County's capital
facilities, the following calculations are provided:
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities
Per Unit
New Dwelling Units
175.00 1.00
Population Increase
477.75 2.73
Number New Students
Elementary
Middle
High
Total
50.75 0.29
22.75 0.13
29.75 0.17
103.25 0.59
Net Cost for Schools
Net Cost for Parks
Net Cost for Libraries
Net Cost for Fire Stations
$ 481,775 $ 2,753
35,525 203
20,825 119
26,075 149
6
89SNO340/PC/FEB27G
Total Net Cost
(excluding roads)
$ 564,200
3,224
LAND USE
General Plan:
This request lies within the boundaries of the recently adopted (2/13/91)
Upper Swift Creek Plan which designates the subject property for single
family residential (2.2 dwelling units/acre or less) development. The
applicant has submitted a proffered condition (Proffered Condition 5) that
would limit development on the request site to a maximum of 175 lots
(approximately 2.0 units/acre). Consequently, the proposed zoning~s
density generally conforms with the designation of the adopted Plan. It
should be noted that the site drains directly to Swift Creek at a point
south of the Swift Creek Reservoir.
Area Development Trends:
The request site is zoned Agricultural (A) and is characterized by a single
family residence and vacant forestal/agricultural land. The area to the
north is currently zoned Office (0) and Light Industrial (M-l) to permit a
mixed use office and commercial development. The area to the south, east,
and west of the site is zoned Agricultural (A) and is characterized by
scattered single family residences of approximately one (1) acre or more in
size or vacant property. The property adjacent to the site across Bailey
Bridge Road (Ranson Tract) is zoner Residential. (R-9) and has recently
been acquired by Chesterfield County as the site for both a middle school
and a high school.
Buffers and Screening~
Staff recommends the imposition of a standard fifty (50) foot buffer along
the entire property frontage adjacent toBailey Bridge Road (Route 654).
The imposition of a buffer will help to provide a transition and separation
between the proposed residential development and. Bailey Bridge Road;
thereby helping to reduce noise and glare while helping to maintain the
privacy of the individual homeowners.
Conclusions:
At the time of the Planning Commission's public hearing of this request on
December 18, 1990, the applicant submitted the five (5) proffered
conditions noted on pages 2 and 3 of this report. These proffers were
formulated as a result, of' numerous discussions with staff and were intended
to address concerns related to improvements to both Bailey Bridge and
Quailwood Roads necessitated by the anticipated traffic that would be
generated by the proposal. The applicant has also attempted to address
staff's concerns by limiting the density of the development to a level
compatible with both the recently adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan and
surrounding residantial development. It should be noted that through the
process of evaluating the applicant's proffered conditions, staff now
recommends that the Board consider imposing a condition requiring a fifty
7 89SN0340/PC/FEB27G
(50) foot buffer along the entire frontage of the property adjacent to
Bailey Bridge Road. This condition would be consistent with buffers
imposed on development in the immediate area and throughout the r~mainder
of the County.
After reviewing the applicant's proposal including the proffered
conditions, staff is of the opinion that the requested zoning and land uses
conform with the adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan. Furthermore, the
proffered conditions will help to ensure compatibility with the surrounding
area and will provide for right of way dedication and other road
improvements that will reduce the impact of the proposed development on
existing County infrastructure. Therefore, staff recommends approval of
the requested Residential (R-9) zoning, subject to the condition and
acceptance of the proffered conditions.
CASE EISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (9/19/89):
No one came forward to represent this request.
Mr. Jacobson stated that the applicant had requested a ninety (90) day
deferral.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Perkins, the Commission r~solved
to defer Case 89SN0340 to the December 19, 1989, Planning Comm4~mion
meeting.
AYES: Unanimous.
Planning Commission Meeting (12/19/89):
No one came forward to represent this request.
Mr. Jacobson stated that the applicant had requested a sixty (60) day
deferral.
There was no opposition present.
The following motion was made at the request of the applicant.
On motion of Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Perkins, the Commission resolved
to defer Case 89SN0340 to the February 20, 1990, Planning Commission
meeting.
AYES: Messrs. Miller, Belcher, Warren, Kelly, and Perkins.
8 89SN0340/PC/FEB27G
Planning Commission Meeting (2/20/90):
No one came forward to represent this request.
Mr. Crawford stated that the applicant' had concurred with staff's
suggestion fora sixty' (60) day deferral of this request.
There was no opposition present.
The following motion was made at the Commission's request.
On motion of Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Perkins, the Commission resolved
to defer Case 89SN0340 to the April 17, 1990, Planning Commission meeting.
AYES: Unanimous.
Applicant (3/5/90):
On Monday, March 5, 1990, the applicant submitted a proffered condition
regarding the dedication of right of way along Bailey Bridge Road, which is
incorporated on page t of this report. This proffer does not address the
concerns of the draft Plan and, consequently, would not. cause staff to
change the recommendation for' deferral of this request.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/17/90):
No one came forward to represent the request.
Mr. Jacobson stated that the applicant had requested a 150 day deferral.
There was no opposition present.
The following motion was made at the applicant's request.
On motion of Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Perkins, the Commission resolved
to defer Case 89SN0340 to the September 18, 1990, Planning Commission
public hearing.
Planning Commissions Meeting (9/18/90):
Mr. Ashby Stinson, the applicant's representative, came forward and
requested a ninety (90) day deferral.
Mr. George Beadles, Matoaca Magisterial District resident, came forward in
opposition. He suggested that the request be deferred for 1ZO days.
In response to a question by Mr. Belcher, Mr. Crawford stated that issnes
pursuant to this request could be addressed within ninety (90) days.
9 89SN0340/PC/FEB27G
The following motion was made at the applicant's request.
On motion of Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr, Miller, the Commission resolved
to defer Case 89SN0340 to the December 18, 1990, Planning Commission public
hearing.
AYES: Messrs. Belcher, Warren, Miller, Perkins, and Mrs. Boisineauo
Applicant/Staff (11/30/90):
On Tuesday, October 23, 1990, the applicant and his engineer met with staff
to discuss the need for reducing the density of the request, as well as
committing to road improvements that are required as a result of the
request. The applicant also tentatively agreed to a reduction in the
maximum number of permitted dwelling units within the development and to
participate in making necessary road improvements on Bailey Bridg~ Road and
Quailroad Road.
Since that time staff has contacted the applicant's engineer in an effort
to ascertain the applicant's intention with regards to amending this
request. As late as Wednesday, November 28, 1990, staff spoke with the
engineer and, once again, suggested specific language related to conditions
limiting the number of lots in the development and necessary road
improvements. To date, no formal amendments or commitment (i.e. proffered
conditions) have been received by staff.
Planning Commission Meeting (12/18/90):
Mr. Roy Crawford presented the case and noted that the applicant had
submitted proffered conditions which addressed staff's concerns rega-~d~E
the density of the project and road improvements on Quailwood and Bailey
Bridge Roads. He noted that staff was, therefore, prepared to recommend
approval of the request.
Mr. Ashby Stinson, the applicant, came forward and indicated that he had
submitted proffered conditions that addressed staff's concerns and asked
that the requested zoning be approved.
Mr. George Beadles, a Matoaca area resident, came forward and expressed his
concerns regarding the last minute, submission of information and the
difficulty it posed in terms of limiting staff's ability to complete a
thorough and accurate review. Mr. Beadles recommended that the case be
deferred for thirty (30) days.
Mr. Belcher stated that while he shared the concern over last minute
negotiations and submissions, he could not see any benefit in another
deferral of the request.
A brief discussion followed.
10 89SN0340/PC/FEB27G
On motion of Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Commission voted to
recommend approval of Case 89SN0340, subject to acceptance of the proffered
conditions.
Staff (1/4/91):
As the result of further evaluation of the applicant's request and its
impact on the surrounding area, staff recommends the imposition of a
standard fifty (50) foot buffer along the entire property frontage adjacex~t
to Bailey Bridge Road. This recommended condition is consistent with
buffers imposed on other developments tb_roughout the County including the
Bayhill Point Subdivision (Case 89SN0287 - Hill & Bailey) located
approximately 1,350 feet south of the request site.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (1/23/91):
Mr. Ashby Stinson came forward and accepted both the staff's and
Commission's recommendation. He then presented a written state~nent
indicating that any development plan for the site would consider the use of
public water and sewer.
An area resident then spoke in opposition to the proposed R-9 density and
stated that house sizes should be equal to those in the surrounding area.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding issues related to the density and
proposed zoning classification, the uae of public water and sewer, as well
as other improvements related to the proposed development.
Mr. Mayes offered a motion to approve Residential (R-t2) zoning, subject to
the condition, acceptance of the proffered conditions, incttuting the use of
public water and sewer.
A brief discussion related to the motion followed. Mr. Daniel then asked
if the Board could approve R-il with Conditional Use Planned Development
including the use of public water and sewer.
Mr. Micas indicated that would be acceptable.
Mr. Mayes amended his motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, to approve
Residential (R-12) with Conditional Use Planned Development, subject to the
imposition of buffers and the use of public utilities, plus acceptance of
the proffered conditions.
Mr. Sullivan stated his concerns regarding buffers and noted that the
applicant would have to comply withall R-12 District requirements.
Mr. Currin suggested a thirty (30) day deferral of the request.
Mr. Applegate offered a substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Currin, to defer
Case 89SN0340 to the February 27, 1991, Board of Supervisors meeting' to
11 89SN0340/PC/FEB27G
allow the applicant and his en§ineer to meet with area residents in order
to attempt to resolve their various concerns.
AYES: Unanimous.
Staff (2/20791):
On January 23, 1991, the Board deferred the request in order to allow the
applicant to meet with area residents and to attempt to address conaerns-
related to various issues such as the use of public utilities and the
density of the project. As of this date, staff has not receiv~<l any
further information from the applicant or his engineer.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, February 27,
p.m., will take under consideration this request.
1991, beginning at 2:00
12 89SN0340/Pc/FEB27G
lllllllllll~
M-/
/!l
QUAILWOOD
Z~
89SN0340
REZ'A TO R-9
SH. 20 .___ ~
,' ! :
M-/
PREA
N
QUAILWOOD
$<:HOOl.
LEGEND
"--"~SEWER
/
LINES ,,