Loading...
84S064REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION November 28, 1984 BS 84S064 JJR, A VA Partnership Clover Hill Magisterial District Western Terminus of West Providence Road REQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9). RECOMMENDATION Recommend denial for the following reasons: Zoning of the property prior to public hearing and adoption of the "Land Use and Transportation Plan for the Powhite Parkway/I-288 Area" would be premature. There are area and site specific should be addressed prior to, or approval of the request site. transportation problems which in conjunction with, zoning GENERAL INFORMATION Location: Western terminus of West Providence Road. Tax Map 38-9 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheets 13 and 1~). Existing Zoning: Size: A 163.5 acres Existin~ Land Use: Adjacent Zonin~ & Land Use: Utilities: Vacant North - A; Vacant South - R-7 and A; Single family residential or vacant East - A and R-9 with proffered conditions; Vacant West - A; Vacant 16 inch public water line located along W. Providence Road in Solar II Subdivision. Existing water lines have excessive pressure. A system should be developed for reducing water pressure. Use of public wa- ter intended. Lies in Falling Creek sewage drainage area. Trunk sewer line located along Falling Creek, which forms southern boundary of re- quest site. Use of public sewer intended. Environmental Engineering: Drains to Falling Creek. There are no ex- isting or anticipated drainage problems. Approximately 20 percent of property lies in 100 year flood plain of Falling Creek and its tributary. Schools: Estimate approximately 287 students will be generated. Lies in Gordon Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 794, enrollment - 852; Swift Creek Middle School zone: capacity - 1,500, enrollment - 1,597; and the Manchester High School zone: capacity - 1,500, enrollment - 1,230. Ad- jacent property to the east was dedicated to the County for public school use; how- ever, there are no plans for construction. Fire Service: Wagstaff Fire Station, Company #10. At present, fire service capability adequate. Public water and fire hydrants must be pro- vided in compliance with nationally recog- nized standards. General Plan: Single family residential DISCUSSION Rezoning to Residential (R-9) is requested to develop a single family residential subdivision. Based on Countywide averages, approximately 410 dwelling units could be accommodated on the parcel. There are major area planning issues which should be addressed through the zoning and develop- ment of the request parcel. Solar II Subdivision lies to the east and is zoned Residential (R-9). The typical lot sizes are approximately 10,000 square feet. Lake Genito Subdivision lies to the south and has typical lot sizes of approximately 25,000 square feet. In mid-1983, concerns were expressed relative to the design of develop- ments along the proposed Powhite Parkway between Courthouse Road and pro- posed 1-288 and how to access this area. It was apparent that alterna- tive corridors for the location of 1-288, north of Powhite Parkway, should be explored and a new corridor established due to the development which had occurred within the right of way designated on the General Plan --- 2 --"' 84S064/BSOCT4/GN .~000. Planning Staff and the Board of Supervisors felt that future land use and transportation needs for a broader area should be studied in or- der to determine future traffic demands at the Powhite Parkway/Courthouse Road interchange. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors authorized a land use and transportation study of the area bounded by Route 60, Court- house Road, Route 360, and the County's western boundary. The draft plan should be available by mid-June. Completion of public hearings and adop- tion of a land use and transportation plan is not anticipated until fall of 1984. Since the request parcel lies within the study area, any land use decision prior to adoption of this plan would be premature. Beyond the area-wide transportation issues, there are site specific con- cerns which should be addressed. When the principals of this application rezoned Solar II Subdivision to the east, Staff recommended that West Providence Road be designed as a major collector having the capacity to carry not only traffic generated by that development, but also develop- ment of the property which is the subject of this zoning application and additional property to the west. The applicants did not follow Staff's advise and designed a subdivision with lots fronting West Providence Road. The houses fronting West Providence Road are set back approxi- mately 30 feet from the right of way. West Providence Road is the only existing public road access which serves the request parcel. It is estimated that approximately 4,100 vehicles per day will be gen- erated by this development. These traffic volumes along West Providence Road would have a major detrimental impact on existing single family res- idences in Solar II Subdivision. Further, the Subdivision Ordinance and County Policy would preclude or limit development of the request parcel. Specifically, West Providence Road and Academy Drive currently provide two public road accesses to Solar II Subdivision which has a total of 125 recorded lots. County policy would require a third public road access for recordation of more than 239 lots. There are physical constraints which dictate the location of a third ac- cess point. Specifically, proposed Powhite Parkway lies to the north and Falling Creek lies to the south and west. Any road extensions across these areas would be expensive. Therefore, the only remaining access is east toward Courthouse Road. Any new public road should be located as far south as possible to minimize congestion and conflicting traffic movements close to the proposed interchange of Powhite Parkway at Court- house Road. Problems associated with access points located close to in- terchanges is evident at Route 60 and Chippenham Parkway. Additional de- velopment in this area without considerable consideration of access prob- lems could hamper the ability of area residents to utilize Powhite Park- way and could have a detrimental impact on residents of Solar II Subdivision. The principals of this application acknowledged their concerns, relative to area collector needs, at the time the irregular shaped R-9 property to the southeast was zoned. Specifically, in conjunction with that zoning application, a condition was proffered stating: "Prior to, or in con- junction with, tentative subdivision submission, an area collector road 3 84S064/BSOCT4/GN plan, to include the area bounded by Powhite Parkway on the north, Fall- ing Creek on the south and Courthouse Road on the east, shall be submit- ted." Subsequently, the principals of this zoning request entered into a contract with the VDH&T, through the County, requesting that VDH&T con- sider direct access to Powhite Parkway, as well as alternative alignments of adjacent roads. This proposal is being considered as part of the "Land Use and Transportation Plan for the Powhite Parkway/I-288 Area." If it is determined that direct access to Powhite Parkway from the re- quest parcel, or in conjunction with other parcels, is appropriate, al- ternative land use considerations should be explored. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (5/15/84): At the request of the applicants, the Commission deferred this case for ninety (90) days to allow preparation and submission of an area collector road plan. Applicants (8/3/84): A thirty (30) day deferral to September 25 was requested to allow this case to be considered at the same public hearing as another area pending zoning request. Further, additional time is needed to prepare an area collector road plan. Planning Commission Meeting (8/21/84): At the request of the applicants, the Planning Commission deferred this case for thirty-seven (37) days to September 25. Staff (9/21/84): Since the Planning Commission's August meeting, several plans for access to serve the request parcel as well as other vacant property in the area have been discussed. To date, however, an acceptable plan has not been submitted by this developer. The attached sketch was submitted by the applicants. There are no com- mitments for construction of proposed Roads A, C, D and E. Road B is an extension of West Providence Road and would be constructed by the appli- cants. Road A would connect this property to Sunset Hill Drive. Con- struction of Roads A and B and development of property west of Courthouse Road would result in traffic volumes in excess of 8,000 vehicles per day on West Providence Road (Road B), and 5,000 vehicles per day on Sunset Hill Drive (Road A). These volumes are significantly higher than the acceptable 3,000 vehicles per day on residential non-collector streets (roads with no lots fronting them). A 84S064/BSOCT4/GN Following submission of the attached sketch, a second sketch was submit- ted proposing a new road intersecting Courthouse Road, between West Prov- idence Road and Sunset Hill Drive. This alignment is not acceptable because of the proximity of intersections and the resulting conflict points caused by traffic weaving movements. Access issues cannot be resolved through Euclidean zoning. It is possi- ble that residential zoning could be supported through the Conditional Use Planned Development process, upon submission of a Master Plan for the request parcel as well as other vacant property in the areas. This Mas- ter Plan should include a road network similar to the plan submitted by the engineer for Case 84Sl18. Further, access issues cannot be resolved without individual developer cooperation. Planning Commission Meeting (9/25/84): Mr. O'Connor stated that approval of this request could result in unde- sirable levels of traffic on West Providence Road which would have a det- rimental impact on existing residents who front West Providence Road. He stated that approval of rezoning without due consideration to proper access would be inappropriate. On motion of Mr. O'Connor, seconded by Mr. Cowan, the Commission resolved to recommend denial of this request. AYES: Messrs. Thomas, Miller, Belcher, Cowan and O'Connor. ABSENT: Mr. Dodd. Board of Supervisors Meeting (10/24/84): On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred this case for thirty (30) days at the request of the applicants. AYES: Unanimous. The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, November 28, 1984, beginning at 2:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 5 84SO64/BSOCT4/GN .UCKs LA. 84S064 R 9 ~--~. × ~o - SH. 15 8~ 14 WEDGEW~ ,.pRoPO$~D~,, C ACADEMY DR. R'-"/ LAKE GENITO :~ROVIDENCE A I APPLICANT'S COLL~CTOI~ ! t~OA~ PLAN 84.5oro4-1