Loading...
05SN0128-Feb23.pdf February 23, 2005 CASE#05SN0127 AND CASE#05SN0128 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS TED LUSHCH. I LIVE ON LACY FARM ROAD IN MOSELEY. TONIGHT YOU WILL BE VOTING ON TWO OF THE THREE CASES THAT FRONT WOOLRIDGE AND OTTERDALE ROADS. I'M SURE COUNTY ORDINANCE DICTATES THAT THESE CASES BE HEARD AND VOTED ON INDIVIDUALLY. ALL OF US IN THIS ROOM KNOW THAT SO GOES ONE CASE, THE OTHER CASES WILL FOLLOW BECAUSE ALL OF THE LAND BORDERS EACH OTHER. THEREFORE, MY PRESENTATION USES THE DATA FROM ALL THREE STAFF'S ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION REPORTS. THIS CASE INVOLVES THE REZON1NG AND APPROVAL OF 7 HOMES. THE OTHER CASE YOU WILL VOTE ON TONIGHT WILL INVOLVE THE BUILDING OF 151 HOMES. ON MARCH 15TM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL VOTE ON CASE# 04SN0207. THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE 605 HOMES. APPROVING THIS CASE AND THE OTHERS TO FOLLOW WILL ADD 7,630 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY ON WOOLRIDGE AND OTTERDALE ROADS. 2004 TRAFFIC COUNT FOR THESE ROADS IS 1,553 AND 2,853 VEHICLES PER DAY, RESPECTIVELY. BASE ON THE CURRENT TRAFFIC COUNT THESE ROADS HAVE A LEVEL OF SERVICE "C". HOWEVER, THE SECTION OF WOOLRIDGE ROAD THAT CROSSES THE SWIFT CREEK RESERVIOR IS, ACCORDING TO PLANNING STAFF, AT CAPACITY AND THEREFORE HAS A LEVEL OF SERVICE "E". IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS SECTION OF WOOLRIDGE ROAD IS NOT IN THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, AND IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY. STAFF'S REPORT DESCRIBES WOOLRIDGE ROAD AS 18 TO 19 FEET WIDE WITH NO SHOULDERS. OTTERDALE ROAD TO HULL STREET IS DESCRIBED AS 19 TO 20 WIDE WITH NO SHOULDERS AND SUBSTANDARD HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CURVES AND LARGE TREES LOCATED CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE PAYMENT. I QUESTION WHY THE STAFF REPORT MAKES NO MENTION OF THE CURRENT CONDITION OF OTTERDALE ROAD NORTH TO GENITO ROAD. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PAGE 41 OF THE COUNTIES FACILITY PLAN DATED APRIL 14,2004 DEFINES UNSAFE SECONDARY ROADS AS AND I QUOTE" ROADS THAT HAVE NO SHOULDERS, 20 FEET OR LESS OF PAYMENT WIDTH, AND CARRY MORE THAN 4,000 VEHICLES PER DAY." BASED ON ALL OF THE NUMBERS THAT I HAVE MENTIONED THIS EVENING AND PLANNING STAFF'S REPORT THAT STATES THERE ARE NO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SIX YEAR PLAN, A VOTE TO APPROVE THIS CASE AND THE OTHERS TO FOLLOW WILL GUARNTEE THAT WOOLRIDGE AND OTTERDALE ROADS WILL BY THE COUNTIES DEFINITION BECOME UNFAFE. THIS WILL ENSURE THAT POLICE, FIRE, EMS, SHOOOL BUS DRIVERS, AND OUR CITIZENS TRAVEL ON SUB-STANDARD UNSAFE ROADS FOR YEARS. AT ISSUE THIS EVENING IS THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTY. I URGE EACH OF YOU TO SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THIS CASE. THANK YOU BRENDA L. STEWART 5911 Woodpecker Road Chesterfield, VA 23838 Phone/Fax: (804) 590-2309 E-ma#: bi-stewart@comcast, net February 23, 2005 REMARKS TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING CASE 05SN0127--FOXCREEK DEVELOPMENT I am speaking to request denial of Case 05SN0127 filed August 16, 2004. Section 17-5 of Chesterfield's zoning ordinance states, "No person shall sell or transfer any lot or parcel of an unrecorded subdivision, before a plat has been duly approved and recorded in the circuit court clerk's office." The plat for the land that is the subject of this zoning case has not been duly approved by the Planning Commission or Director of Planning. The official, original plat for subject property filed in Plat Book 141 at page 88 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County bears the following affirmation: "Foxcreek Development, Inc. affirms that it is the purchaser of the property depicted on this plat and hereby affirms that the sale~transfer of this property is not for purposes of creating a parcel for residential use." W. S. Carnes, the other party to the transaction, made the same representation. While Section 17-44 of the ordinance contains an exception that permits the statement I just read to be entered so that a plat can be recorded, it does not state that the exception permits sale or transfer of any such lot or parcel. I need to provide some background at this point, because the real story behind this case is not evident from the staff's request analysis and recommendation package. In exchange for receivin~"6.644-acre parcel from Carnes, Foxcreek Development carved a 6.644-acre parcel out of the 38+ acre tract known as 15742 Cosby Roadmthe former Pinkleton property purchased by deed dated February 19, 2004 and traded it to W. S. Carnes by deed of exchange dated February 16, 2004. The parcel exchanged by Carnes was part of the original Carnes option that was exercised to purchase the land for the Cosby Road High School. By the time the option was exercised on February 25, 2004, Carnes no longer owned the 6.644-acre parcel that is the subject of this zoning case, so the county acquired only a little over 91 acres at that time. On May 27, 2004, the Right of Way Department requested an environmental site assessment for this 6.644 acre parcel "that may be purchased by the County for the Cosby Road High School Project." By deed of August 12, 2004, Chesterfield County purchased 98.056 acres of land on Cosby Road from W. S. Carnes, including the 6.644-acre parcel Carnes had obtained from Foxcreek Development in the exchange. This purchase occurred despite the Environmental Engineering Department's recommendation in a July 24, 2003, evaluation that this parcel should be deleted from consideration as a potential high school site. I quote: "The 38.5-acre parcel owned bv Willie F. Pinkleton, Tax/D #713-673-4247, is so divided by a number of different watercourses with large drainage areas that it does not appear that it could reasonably serve as a school site. The determination of whether there is sufficient area on this parcel to build a high school should be made with the deletion of this parcel from consideration.' The 6.644-acre parcel has never been approved as a school site under the substantial accord process. Based on information the School Division provided to Planning Department staff, the School Division does not plan to use that 6.644-acre site-.~g~-,c~o~ v-,-)o,~ 7.A~,u ~,,~--~t~.~ ~ ~ -r~'~-;.~ ~, It is also remarkable that the parcel that is the subject of this case happens to be the exact size of Mrs. Elnora Wheatley's remaining property at 15516 Hull Street Road as shown by the current records of Chesterfield's Real Estate Department. Chesterfield purchased part of Mrs. Wheatley's property for a right of way and easement needed in connection with offsite improvements related to the Cosby Road High School. Certainly, this is no coincidence. The point of presenting all this information surrounding the subject 6.644-acre parcel of land under discussion is to publicly lay out what seems to me to be a network of interrelated transactions whose purpose is not transparent to the public. We deserve a clear explanation of what is planned when all the deals are finished, because some of those transactions are directly linked to the subject parcel in this case, and they involve the expenditure of public funds. According to county records, Foxcreek Development paid $5937 per acre in February 2004 for the land it traded to W. S. Carnes on February 16th. According to county records, Chesterfield County then paid W. S. Carnes $37,853.40 per acre for that land when it purchased the site for the Cosby Road High School. Mr. Barber, you were quoted in the Chesterfield Observer as saying, "Accountability, Honesty, Responsibility and Respect. If we followed those school core values, we could hold a bond referendum this November." We held the bond referendum. I would like to call on you and the other supervisors to follow those core values, be responsible and deny this case out of respect for the citizens' right to know with honesty what is really going on regarding these land deals. We want accountability from our elected officials for the decisions they make. We also expect the ordinances to be applied to everyone. Please deny this case. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Kitty Snow. In the past, I have recited accident statistics provided by Chesterfield County Police. I never included accidents in Brandermill, Woodlake, Foxcroft or other subdivisions, only on our rural Moseley secondary roads such as Otterdale, Mt. Hermon, etc. Tonight I cannot do that. I have no county statistics available. I was refused that information which I requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The county's p.osition is that I have filed a lawsuit against the county and therefore I am not entitled to public information. Therefore, I must speak not with statistics but with my heart. I have witnessed the aftermath of seven accidents at Genito and Otterdale since the Balsamo case was approved in June. "Personal observation" doesn't accurately describe the terror of seeing a crushed dark green car like your daughter's and not being able to even identify what kind of car it is. In November, coming home from a county-sponsored Bond Referendum meeting, my neighbor and I were passed on a double yellow line on Otterdale Road. The car crested the hill in the on-goinglane exactly where two fatal accidents occurred. You don't want that kind of personal observation, I promise you Since July 21st, there have been two fatalities on Otterdale Road. Since that second fatality, there have been two additional accidents in the same location. These accidents were not witnessed by me but I received phone calls from the homeowners in each case. We have documented over one hundred twenty accidents in 2004 in an area that has never seen such destruction and heartache. Denying new developments until the roads, EMS service and other safety issues are resolved won't prevent accidents such as thes.~ But it WILL limit the numbers of additional cars on roads that VDOT and Chesterfield County Transportation agree CANNOT handle even present traffic. In turn, that will limit the increased numbers of accidents that your county staff assured you will come with additional traffic. People are using Otterdale, Mt. HErmon and other secondary roads in our ara to cut through to 288. Among my "personal observations" are at least seven times I've witnessed someone blow through the intersection at Genito and Otterdale without even slowing. A recent accident there left a mother of two with nine broken fibs, a punctured lung and other serious injuries. She lives in Moseley. She was driving west on Genito and completely in the fight. Being right didn't keep her from danger. Georgia Lee Harding was driving properly on Otterdale Road in July.. She's buried at Mt. Hermon Baptist Church. Driving legally and responsibly isn't enough on dangerous, disintegrating, narrow roads with poor visibility, no shoulders and improper banking. Until there are funds and time to make our roads safe, we owe it to our citizens to curtain the growth that endangers us every dy. Traffic has increased substantially even in the last six months in Moseley. The accident numbers are available to you from the Police Department. They may not be as compelling as coming upon a car like your daughter's crushed into a tiny, metal lump or seeing an SUV upside down, another car on its side, a third off the road and the rescue squad loading the injured onto stretchers but they should be enough. Vote to deny this and any other rezoning case under the present conditions in the Upper Swift Creek area. You have the power to save lives. Use it. Thank you. The Honorable Renny Humphrey, Supervisor Matoaca District Chesterfield Board of Supervisors Chesterfield, Virginia September 16, 2003 Dear Renny, As you know, lhe many communities of the Upper Swift Creek Task Force for Responsible Growth have spent the past six months researching the critical issues that are compromising the quality of life in our Area. The issues are even more compromising than we had thought. After our research at the State and County levels, there is no doubt that the only responsible action at this time is the denial of agricultural re-zoning cases meant for residential development in the upper Swift Creek Area. We understand the courage required to meet the reality of our County regarding too fa~ funds and too much growth and ~e feel sure that you, as our elected Supervisor, will continue the political will to meet this crisis. We know that it is a myth that more agricultural re-zoning approvals today will solve our problems by accruing more proffers and proffer money. The dynamics of more development and its added congestion to our roads and schools, and the environmental impact on our reservoir will force us past the crisis point when added to the present unaddressed congestion and pollution. We know that in the Commonwealth of Virginia the tools, including the denial of agficulturat re-zoning cases, are in place for rapid groatth localities to control Ihe continued onslaught on their inadequate infmstmclures. Last Febmay, your courage to defer agricultural re-zoning cases stands with the courage demonstrated in other Counties around the Commonwealth that are addressing the reality of rapid growth. We expect that you will show the leadership to set aside promises and will affirm to your constituents that you are serious in your commibnent to fix the problem before more growth is approved. Chesterfield's growth crisis is obvious to Melm Richmond and Chesterfield residents, as well as our County planning department, which has set the Upper Switt Creek Area as a County priority in the Revision of Swift Creek Area Plan. This is a task which should be completed before more agricultural re-zoning is approved. The issues faced by our County affect the public health safety and welfare of your constituents. The findings of the Chesterfield County Growth Analysis Project echoes the position of our Task Force with even more forceful numbers and projections. We know that the lime is NOW to draw the line, tighten our bells, and solve the problems of the past, before "the present' complicates the issues of gro,ath with more agricultural re-zoning for residential development is approved. We understand that the problems in our County are not caused by developers, or the present Board of Supervisors, or the present taxpayers of our County. But though none of us is to blame, we must all 'bite the bullet' of reality to get our house in order. The 'house' of Chesterfield County cannot be gotten in order with the shirking of responsibility by taxpay~ or government or the business community. Our posilJon is clear. We want denial of any pending or new agricultural re-zonings for residential use UNTIL the Upper Swift C ~rcc~ Plan is revised with consistent mileslones established for growth paced with adequate infrastructure, it i~ c, dtioal for us to know formally how OUR Supervisor will vote on agricultural re-zoning cases at this time. Sincerely, Marleen Durfee The Upper Swift Creek Task Force for Responsible Growth CC: Chesterfield County Supervisors Ed Barber, Jack.McHale, Kelly Miller and Art Warren ROADS ~17~3 SENATE OF VIRGINIA STEPHEN H. MARTIN COMI~IITTEE ASSIGNI~tENTS: Ms. Jodie Felice 15507 Fox Club War Midlothian, Virginia 23112 Dear Ms. Felice: Thank you for your thoughtful letter expressing your concern for growth in our community without adequate public facilities being provided to support the growth. You specifically asked that I support SB393. I do share your concem for roads and schools not keeping pace with growth. There are two major problems with SB393. Rrst, it provided no requirement or incenlive to bu~ adequate facilities. It only provided authorily to the local govemments to deny development of properly already zoned. It allowed the applicants to re-file but provided no assurance that it would not be denied again. The second problem is that the zoning of a piece of property is an asset of value in and of itself in that it tells you that you now have a right to do a certain thing with the property you own. The property owner has a vested right in that approved use which is protected by Virginia's conslil~on (Article i, Seclton 2). To deny that right once zoned, would consaule a taking of properly which requires ~on be paid to those who are denied. The discussion in Cheste~eld about what a local Board of Supervisors can or cannot do has been conlusing at best. It has been represented that our Board cannot deny zoning on the basis o~"inadequate public facilities'. The properly right does not exist for a zoning not yet attained. Their only resbiclion is that they cannot be 'afoitrary or capricious" in their decision to deny zoning. It is this Attorney General's opinion that to deny zoning solely on the grounds that the local gevemment has not done their joh in meeling infrastruclure needs is prohibited. Some have asked cilizens to encourage me and other legislators to support SB 393 on the grounds that it would allow local gevemments to deny zoning ('~"'""~'~C'"-J ~,~n_ already do). SB393 has nothing to do with zoning. That bill would allow localities to deny the development of pmpe~y already zoned (a vested property right) on the grounds that the denying entity has failed to do its o~m job. I cannot support that. The bill garnered no real suppmt in committee even though it was the chairman's bill. I do thank you ' for your mlX,l and sham your concem but local goveming bodies need to keep up will] what they zone and when they might need a new school and/or road improvement and then get it done. If cost versus revenues is a problem, then local officiab must exercise their judgment as to spending priorities within that community and how much, in laxes, the citizens are willing to bear to support llmse priorilJes, Citizens then need to hold them accountable at the ballot. I am cenrdent we va'Il gel the work done with the help of oar local Board. Even though your letter did not refer to the specific problem of transportation and traffic on Rt. 360, I do want to address it. It is a serious problem. When Rt. 288 was approved for construction it required so much of the Page 2 March 5, 2004 construction money that other projects were cut back. Later on Governor Warner, upon identification of addilioeal ' funding issues, cut further projects. It was at that point that the scheduled work on RI. 360 was cancelled. I, along wilh my House and Senate colleagues from the area, am working with the local Board of Supervisors to address this and other transportation needs. Again, I thank you for your input and encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts, ideas and positions on issues that come before me in the legislative process. Planners not swayed by foes of zoning case Til~I~DISP&TCI! ST~I~F WBITER They pleaded, they argued, but/n the end, they lost. More than 100 Chestedield County res- idents, many of them/rom the Foxcroft community, this week urged the Planning Comrdss/on to not approve any more res/- dential zoning cases in the Upper Sw/ft Creek Area. The residents put together a slide pre- sentat/on and scientific research to show how additional development along the Hull Street corridor would harm the coun- ts water supply, dog roadways and fur- ther crowd schools. mony, the commission voted 4-1, with Commissioner Ru.~ell Gulley dissenting, on Tuesday to recommend approval ofa new 350-home subdiviaion. If bu/lt, it would be located next door to Foxcroft, north of Otterdale Road~ "You have got to be kidding me," one homeowner said, heclding the commisdon '~is is ridiculousf another said. Yesterday, the same residents who stormed out of the meetin~/rustrated and angry, were st//I reeling over the commi~ s/oh's decision. -it's not a good day," Jay Mashaw, a Foxcrofi resident, said. 'It's a sad state d s~ ZONING CASE, ~A~ B5 I~ Zoning case --~OM P.4C, E B1 The residents weren't ~e o~y ones comp~inlng. ~r R~y B..H~ P~, ~ ~s~a ~dudes the proposed development, ~m~'s vo~, ~. ~ ~on d~o~~ ~e ~s ~d not ~ to ~ ~ &em. ~ ~ ~, ~e r~i- den~ ~ ~C' W~ ~d he ~o~t &e d~- ~ns ~ '~de a ~ g~ ~- ~tto ~~ d~' S~ C~.~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~den~ ~e ~p ~ a d~ of L5 ~ ~r a~ la~ ~ ~ ~ for &e d~o~ ~d ~e ~ ~ fo~s ~& ~e co~s mm~ h~ p~ ~e ~ ~t ~ ~s ~ ~ ~e ~a offs ~ is ~a ~ ~ ~ffion of Ch~ for ~ ~.' ~oner ~ ~ ~dud~ ~e pm~ ~d ~ ~d~ ~e ~d to r~d ~. ~e ~n~ot de~r ~ ~ lo~f ~ ~ Nox~ ~ not ~ up. M~rs of ~e Nox~o~ T~ Norce, a ~up of ~d~ ~om ~ C~d ~~, ~e pr~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ · e ~d of Suers. 300 have concerns with the traffic more houses would bring. 'This developm~t is not in the best intet, e~t of the current residents of Chesterfield County,- sad ~en~..,~racken, president of the ~6rford Foxcroft residents and a local used this issue and others as a springboard to ask county offi- dais to defer all residential re- zonings for at least a year. ~They not :~o ~ire are goin~ to do the same grasscoots environmental ~ dog and pony show for the called Hands Across the Lake board,~ M~shsw said. ~hey are started their fight with ties de-den~ up forte-elation this year, so velopment last fall So f~ theyrshould~ .d feel the public pres- ~. mviromnental group said sors has not sure ~ua m more responsive to it fem~ for the future he~th of · e he~ count ~ The matter is scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 26 for a fi_r~! vote. Already, Humphre~ has said she c~nnot approve the case as 'I drive Hull Street Road. I went to Clover Hill High School I can see why the residents are upset," Humphrey said. Representatives of both the BraudermilI and Summefford communities have also mid they Swift C_r~,~ Reser~ir, one of However, at least one planning Chester,s.eld s three d~Mng-wa- oommis~ioner said he ~ wha~ ter supplies, if the d,~evelopment the environmental impacts of a~ is approved~ ,~ muddy plu~me of ditional growth will I~. dirt from neatly c0~struction and road work hss turned the W~e have not looked at the Over time, ~ l~isb~;~hos.ment,' Gulley said. ~Ve don't phorus found in the silt ~ould know what the collective/mpacts s,~d Tom Pakorar, a Branderm~ ~e ?servoir goe~ it wi~ be ~o Across the Lake. ~ U~ Sscher a (~04) The FoxcroIt community h.~s 649-~45~ February 23, 2005 BS STAFF'S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 05SN0128 Glen Abbey Pm'tners LLC Matoaca Magisterial District Grange Hall Elementary, Swift Creek Middle, and Clover Hill High School Attendm~ce Zones Northeast line of Otterdale Road REQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A)to Residential (R-1.2)of 75.5 acres with Conditional Use to permit pti'yarc recreational facilities on 4.0 acres of the 75.5-acre site. THIS REQUEST LiES WITHIN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN AREA AND WAS FILED AFTER FEBRUARY 11,2004. (SEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION OF THIS "REQUEST ANALYSIS") PROPOSED LAND USE: A single fhmily residential subdivision with a maximum of 151 lots is planned, yielding a density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre. In addition., recreation fi~cilities to serve residents of the proposed deveiopment are planned. PLANNING COMMiSSiON RECOMMENDATION RECOMMEND DENIAL. AYES: MESSRS. GECKER, BASS AND GULLEY ABSTENTION: MR. LITTON ABSENT: M.R. WILSON STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval i:br the following reasons: Pro'vidi~g a FIiRST Ct ~()IC']ii:'] commm~ity rhroagh excellence m public service Ao The proposed zoning and land use confbnn to the Upper Swift Creek Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 2~0 units per acre or tess. The proposed zoning and land use are representative of existing and anticipated area development. The pro~lbrcd conditions address the impacts of this development on. necessary capital l~tciliti, es, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, Specifically, the needs tbr roads, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the g~apitai Improvement Program and the impact of this development is discussed herein. The proffered conditions adequately mitigate the impact on capital :ik~citities, thereby ensuring adequate service levels are maintained and protecting the health, safety welfare of County citizens. (NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE REZONING TO R-12 IS A BUFFER CONDITION. CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE CONDITIONAL USE. TIlE PROPERTY OV~LNER MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY'A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.) PROFFERED CONDITIO.NS The Owners and the Developer (the "Developer") in this zoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for themselves and their successors or assigns, proffer that the development of the Property known as Chesterfield County Tax Identification Number 709-672-8088, 709-673-9924, 71.0-672-1082, 710- 673-1868, and 711-675-0131 (the "Property") under consideration will be developed according to the tbllowing conditions ih and only if, the rezoning request for R- 12 is granted and the conditional use tbr recreational facilities, in the event the request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the Developer, the proffers and conditions shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. If the zoning is granted, these proffers and conditions wilt supersede ail proffers and conditions now existing on the Property. (STA}:F) I. Density. A maximum of 151 lots shall be permitted. (P) (STAFF) Utilities. The public water and wastewater systems shall be used, except for sales facilities and/or construction offices. (U) (STAFF) Timbering. With the exception of timbering which has been approved by the Virginia State Department of Forest~~ 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) 2 05SN0128,.. 1~t ;B 23~,'B( )S (STAFF) (STAFF) Dedication. The fbllowing rights-of-way on the Property shall be dedicated, free and. unrestricted, to Chesterfield County in conjunction with recordation of the initial subdivision plat. Forty-five (45) feet of right-el:way on the east side of Otterdale Road, measured from the centerline of that part of Otterdale Road immediately adjacent to the Property. Forty-five (45) feet of righbof-way on the south side of Woolridge Road, measured :from the centerline of that part of Woolridge Road immediately adjacent to the Property. (T) Foundations. The exposed surfaces of the fbundations of each d~velling shall be covered with brick or stone veneer or exterior insulation and finishing systems (EtFS) materials. (P) (STAFF) (STAFF) (STAFF) (STAFF) (STAFF) House Size. All dwellings shall have a minimum gross floor area of 2,500 square feet~ (P) Buffers. The :fifty (50) foot buffers required in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance along OtteMale m~d Woolridge Roads shall be located within recorded open space. (P) Cash Proffers. For each dwelling unit developed, the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay $11,500~00 per unit to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the time of issuance of a building permit, for infrastructure improvements within the service district for the Property if paid prior to July 1, 2005. Thereafter, such payment shall be the amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed $11,500.00 per unit as adj'usted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2004 and July I of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30, 2005. if any of the cash prof~brs are not expended [br the purposes designated by the Capital improvement Program within fifteen (15) years from the date of payment, they shall be returned in ]fkdl to the payor. (B&M) Lot Size. All lots shall have a minimum area of 15,000 square feet. (P) Recreational Facilities. Any recreational facilities shall be subject to the tbllowing restrictions. A. There shall be no outside public address systems or speakers. B~ With the exception of playground areas which accommodate swings, jungle gyms, or similar such :thcilities, all outdoor play fields, courts, swimming pools and similar active recreational areas shall be located 3 05SN0128-FEB23-BOS (STAFF) -) 12. a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from any proposed or existing single fhmily residential lot line and adjacent to Chesterfield County Tax Identification Number 709-673-4253 and a minimum of' :filiy (50) feet fi'om any existing or proposed public road. (P) Within the one hun.dred (100) foot and :fi:~ (50) ibot setbacks, a fifty (50) foot buffer shall be provided along the perimeter of all active recreational facilities except whe're adjacent to any existing or proposed roads. This buftkr shall contbrm to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance :lbr fifty (50) foot buffers. Any playground areas (i.e, areas accommodating swings, jungle gyms or similar such ~hcilities) shall be located a minimum of lbrty (40) feet from all property lines. A lbrty (40) foot buflisr shall be provided along the perimeter of these recreational facilities except where adjacent to any existing or proposed roads. This buffer shall confbrm to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for fifty (50) foot buffers. Nothing herein shall prevem development of indoor facilities and/or parking within the one hundred (100) foot setback. [~xterior lighting for recreational uses shall comply with Section 19- 508.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the maximum height 'lk~r light posts sh. all not exceed twenty (20) feet. The location of all active recreational uses shall be identified in conjunction with the submittal of the first tentative subdivision plan. In conjunction with the recordation of any lot adjacent to active recreational area(s), such area(s) shall be identified on the record plat along with the proposed recreational uses and required conditions. (P) Curb and Gutter. Public subdivision roads shall be constructed with concrete curb and gutter. (P) Covenants. At a minimum, the following restrictive covenants shall be recorded fi, r the development. Specific terms and definitions shall be set forth in the Covenants and may not be the same as definitions set lbrth in the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance. Ali terms and definitions set lb~xh in the Covenants shall control this Proffered Condition. Architectural Board. The Architectural Board shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all original co~structiom modifications, additions or 4 05SNO [ 28...FEiB23-BOS B. alterations made on or to ail existing improvements, and the open space, i£any, appurtenant thereto on all property, it shalI prepare m~d, on behalf of the Board of Directors, shall promulgate design and development guidelines and application, and review procedures, ail as part of the design and environmental standards. The standards shall incorporate all restrictions and guidelines relating to development and construction contained in this Declaration as well as restrictions and guidelines with respect to location of structures upon properly, size of structures, driveway and parking requirements, foundations and length of structures, and landscaping requirements, Copies shall be available from the Architectural Board for review. The guidelines and procedures shall be those of the Association, and the Architectural Board shall have sole and t~11 authority to prepare and to amend the standards available to Owners, builders, and developers who seek to engage in development of or construction upon property within their operations strictly in accordance therewith. The Architectural Board shall initially consist of three (3) members, all appointed by the Declarant. At such time as fi~y percent (50%) of all property within subject property has been developed, improved, and conveyed to purchasers in the normal course ofdevelopment and sale, the Board of Directors of the Association shall have the right to appoint a maximum of two (2) additional mem. bers. At no time shall the Architectural Board have fewer than three members nor more that five (5) members. At such time as one hundred percent (100%) ()fall property has been developed, improved, and conveyed to purchasers in the normal course of development and sale, the Board of Directors shall appoint ali members of the Architectural Board. The declarant may~ at his option, delegate to the Board of Directors its right to appoint one or more members of the Architectural Board. At all times, at lease one (1) member of the Architectural Board shall be a member of the Association, and at least one (1) member shall be an architect licensed to practice in the State of Virginia, who shall, also be the Chairperson. Mailboxes. Every improved lot shall be required to have a maiIbox with supporting post and street light of design and installation as specified in the standards. Each lot owner shall be responsible tk)r the maintenance and operation of the fixture, support, and mailbox. Parking. Each property owner shall provide space fbr the parking of automobiles offpublic streets prior to the occupancy of any building or structure constructed on said property in accordance with thc standards. Garages. All dwellings wilt have side or rear loaded ga'rages. 5 05SN0128-FEB23-BOS H. Signs. No signs shall be erected or maintained on any property by anyone including, but not limited to, the ovmer, a realtor, a contractor, or a subcontractor, except as provided 'tbr in the standards or except as may' be required by legal proceedings. Residential property identification and like signs not exceeding a combined total of more than ()ne (1) square Ibot may be erected withou, the written permission of the Declarant or the Association, Condition of Ground. It shall be the responsibility of each property owner and tenant to prevent the development of any unclean., unsightly, or unkempt conditions of buildings or grounds on such property which shall tend to substantially decrease the beauty' of the neighborhood as a whole or the specific area. Minimmn Square Footage. No plan required under these Covenants will be approved unless the proposed house or structure has a minimum square footage of enclosed dwelling space as specified in the standards. Such minimum requimmen.t for each lot will be specified in each sales contract and stipulated in each deed. The tem~ "enclosed dweIlin.g area" as used i.n these minimum size requirements does not include garages, terraces, decks, open porches, and the like areas. Residential Use. (i) (ii) All lots shall be used fbr residential purposes exclusively. The use ora portion of a dwelling on. a lot as an office by the owner or tenants thereof shall be considered a residential use if such use does not create customer or client traffic to and I¥om the lot, No structure, except as herein afler provided, shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot other than one (1) detached single family dwelling and one (I) accessory' building which may include a detached private garage, provided the use of such accessory building does not overcrowd the site and provided further that such building is not used for any activity normally conducted as business. Such accessory building may not be constructed prior to the construction of the main building. A guest suite or like facility without a kitchen may be included as part of the main dwelling or accessory building, but such suite may not be rented or leased except as part of the entire premises including the main dwelling m~d provided, however, that such suite would not result in overcrowding of the site. 6 (ii5 S N0128~[;'NB 23 ~ B OS (iii) The provisions of this paragraph shall not prohibit the Developer from using a house as a model as provided in this Declaration. Exterior Structure Completion. The exterior of all houses and other structures must be completed within one (I) year after the construction of same shall have commenced, except where such completion is impossible or would result i.n great hardship to the owner or builder due to the strikes, fires, national emergency~ or natural calamities~ }-louses an.d other dwelling structures may not be temporari 1 y or perm anently occupied until the exteriors thereo £ h ave been complete& During the continuance of construction the owner of the lot shall require the contractor to maintain the tot in a reasonably clean and uncluttered condition. Screened AreasL Each lot owner shall provide a screened area to serve as a service yard and an area in which garbage receptacles, fuel tanks or similar storage receptacles, electric and gas meters, air conditioning equipment~ clotheslines, and other unsightly objects much be placed or stored in order to conceal them ]f¥om view t?om the road and adjacent properties. Plans lbr such screened area delineating the size, design, texture, appearance, and location must be approved by the Architectm'al Board prior to construction, Garbage receptacles and fuel tanks may be located outside of such screened area only if Iocated underground. Vehicle Storage. No mobile home, trailer, tent, barn, or other similar oubbuilding or structure shall be placed on any lot at any time, either temporarily or permanently. Boats, boat trailers, campers, recreational vehicles, or utility trailers may be maintained on a lot, but only when in an enclosed or screened area approved by the Architectural Board such that they are not generally visible fi'om adjacent properties. Temporary Structures. No structure of a temporary character shall be placed upon any lot at any time provided, however, that this prohibition shall not apply to shelter or tempora~' structures used by the contractor during the construction of the main dwelling house, it being clearly understood that these latter temporary shelters may not at any time be used as residences or permitted to remain on the lot at~er completion of construction,. The design and color of structures temporarily placed on the lot by a contractor shall be sub. ject to reasonable aesthetic control by the Architectural Board. Antennas. Except as otherwise provide by applicable law, no teievi, sion antenna, radio receiver or sender, satellite dish, or other similar device shall be attached to or installed on the exterior portion ? 05SN0128~FEB23-BOS of any building or structure or any lot except that should cable television services be unavailable and good television reception not be otherwise available, a lot owner may make written application to the Association for permission to install such a device and such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. Further Subdivision. No lot shall be subdivided or its boundary lines changed except with the written consent of the Declarant. However, thc Declarant hereby expressly reserves to i. tself, its successors, or assigns the right to replat any k)t or lots owned by it and shown on the plat of any subdivision in order to create modified building lot or replatted lot suitable and fit as a building site including, but no limited to, the recreational fhcilities, and other amenities to conform to the new boundaries of said replatted Iots, provided that no lot originally shown on a recorded plat is reduced to a size smaller than the smallest lot shown on the first plat of the subdivision section. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the combining of two (2) or more contiguous lots into one (1) larger lot, only the exterior boundary lines of the resulting larger lot shall be considered in the interpretation of these covena:nts. Animals. Only common household pet animals shall be permitted. Alt pet animals must be secured by a leash or lead, or be under the control of a responsible person and obedient to that person's command at any time they are permitted outside a residence or other enclosed area upon a lot approved by thc Architectural Bom-d fbr the maintenance and confinement of pet animals. No livestock including cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, or poulto- shah be permitted upon any lot. After giving a lot owner written notice of complainl and reasonable opportunity to remedy the situation, the Board of Directors may order the. removal of any pet which has been a nuisance or a danger. Motor Bikes All Terrain Vehicles. No motor bikes, motorcycles, or all terrain vehicles shall be driven upon the common area, lots, or roads (unless properly licensed on roads) with the exception of licensed vehicles and mopeds which shall be operated solely upon the public streets lbr direct ingress and egress purposes only. External Lighting. No external lighting shall be installed or utilized on any property which is of such character, intensity, or location as to interfere with the use, enjoyment, and privacy of an.y lot or owner in the near vicinity. No neon or flashing Iights shall be permitted. Ali external lighting shall be approved by the Architectural Board as appropriate in size, location, color, and intensity. 8 05SN0128d';EB23.,B()S (STAFF) (STAFF) (STAFF) (STAFF) 13. 14. 15. 16. Swimming Pools. No swimming pool, whether in ground or above ground, whether permanent or temporary, shall be installed upon any lot without the prior written consent of the Architectural Board. The Architectural Board shall require that all swimming pools be adequately screened, Rules and Regulations. The Board of Directors is granled and shall have the power to promulgate rules and regulmion, s, fi-om time to time, governing the use of and activity upon the Common Area and the Recreational Facilities (ifth. e Recreational. Facilities are owned or leased by the Association). All rules and regulations promulgated by the Board of Directors shall be published and distributed to each member of the Association at least thirty (30) days prior to their effective date. Buffers. Notice is hereby given to every homeowner and by purchasing a home in Fox Creek Subdivision each homeowner acknowledges and agrees that no homeow2~er in the Fox Creek Subdivision nor the homeowners association may negotiate, request, demand, or argue for a buflbr or tree save m'ea between the Fox Creek Subdivision property line and Chesterfield County Tax Identification Number 709-673-4253, also known as the parcel owned by Stopf Montez Development LLC (Stop~), so long as th.e requested zoning and use of the Stopf property is for sin.gle-~hmily residential development of lot sizes 12,000 square feet or larger along the property line between Stopf and the Fox Creek Subdivision. (P) Garages. All dwellings will have side or rear loaded garages. (P) Best Management Practice (BMP) Facility. The developer shall leave in place temporary sediment control devices and/or construct new BMP's or combinations of BMP's which would achieve a maximum phosphorous runoff limit of 0.22 pounds per acre per year until Chesterfield County obtains its initial permit for the implementation of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Plan. (EE) Access. No direct access shall be provided fi'om the Pro.perry to Woolridge and/or Otterdale Roads. (T) Transportation. To provide an adequate roadway system, the Developer shall be responsible for the following improvements. If any of the improvements are provided, by others, or if they are determined unnecessary by the Transportation Department, then the specific required improvement shall no longer be required by the Developer. Ao Widening/improving the south side of Woolridge Road and the east side of Otterdale Road :for the entire Property frontage to an eleven 9 05SN0128-FEB23-B()S (STAFF) Location: 17. (1 I) foot wide travel la.ne, measured from the existing centerline of each road, with an additional one ( 1 ) ~bot wide paved shoulder plus a seven (7) foot wide unpaved shoulder, and overlaying the fuIt width of both roads with one and one half (1.5) inch of compacted bituminous asphalt concrete, with modifications approved by the Transportation Department. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, any additional right-of-way (or easements)required, for the improvemems identified above. (1') Phasing Plato. Prior to any construction plan approval a phasing plan iBr the required road improvements, as identified in. Proffkred Condition 16, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. (T) GENERAL INFORMATION Northeast line of Otterdate Road, south, of Woolridge Road, and South. line of Woolridge Road, east of Otterdale Road. Tax IDs 709-672-8088, 709-673~9924~ 710-672- I. 082, 673-1868 and 711 ~675-0131 (Sheet 1 Existing: A Size: 75.5 acres Ex/sting Land Use: Single family residential or vacant Adiacent Zoning and Land Use: North, South and West - A; Single family residential or vacant East- R-12 ~¥ith Conditional Use; Vacant UTILITIES Public Water System: A twenty (20) inch water tine that extends along a portion of Fox Club Parkway and terminates at Woolridge Road, approximately 4,000 feet northeast of this site. iPlans have been approved ibr extending a sixteen (16) inch water tine along Woolridge Road to serve t0 05SN0t28~Ft~LB23-BOS the future Magnolia Green development. Upon completion and acceptance into the County water distribution system, public water would be available ficom this sixteen (16) inch line. Additional twelve (12) and eight (8) inch water lines are proposed for construction with the development of Fox Creek Subdivision, east of this site. The request site is with. in. the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan, which recommends use of the public water system. Use of the public water system is intended and has been proffered (Proffered Condition 2). The applicant has included with the proffer, a request for an exception in case of sales thcilities and/or construction offices. Since the sales facilities or construction trailer would be a temporary use as part of the overall development of the site, the Utilities Department would not require such facilities to connect to the public water system Public Wastewmer System: There is an eighteen (1. 8) inch wastewater trunk line that extends along a portion of the west branch of Swift' Creek and terminates adjacent to Fox Haven Lane, i.n Foxcrott Subdivision, approximatel, y 3,000 feet east of this site. Plans have been submitted to extend the public wastewater system in conjunction with the Fox Creek Development thaL upon completion and acceptance into the County wastewater collection system, will bring the public wastewater system adjacent to the eastern boundary of the request site. The request site is within the boundaries of the Upper Swit~ Creek Plan, which recommends use of the public wastewater system. Use of the public wastewater system is intended and has been proffered (Proffered Condition 2). The applicant has includ.ed with the profiler, a request for an exception in case of saIes facilities and/or construction offices. Since the sales t}tcitities or construction trailer would be a temporary use as part of the overall development of the site, the Utilities Department would not require such facilities to connect to the public wastewater system~ ENVIRONMENTAL Drainage and Erosion: The property drains east to West Branch and then via West Branch to Swift Creek Reservoir. The property is mostly wooded and should not be timbered without first obtaining a land- disturbance permit fkom the Enviromnental Engineering Depatrtmen.t (Proffered Condition 3). This will insure that adequate erosion control measures are in place prior 'to any land disturbance. There are no existing or anticipated, on- or off-site, drainage or erosion problems. Water Quality: The Board of Supervisors has approved the implementation of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Master Plan establishing a pro-rata :the tbr the management of phosphorus loads associated with stormwater runoff. It should be noted the developer must pay a pro-rata tee lbr best management practice (BMP) construction and a fbe fbr BMP maintenance wilt be required at time of subdivision recordation. The northern portion of this property has a 11 05SNO128~I:EB23-BOS Resource Corridor ManagemenV/non-RPA (RCM~RPA), inside of which uses are very limited. The Planning Commission has been requesting that developers agree to design sift basins to remove .22 pounds per acre per year of phosphorus from stormwater runoff or construct additional BMP facilities and leave them in place until the county receives its initial permit when the development is downstream of any regional thcitities or until the downstream fhcit, ity is constructed; if the development is upstream~ which ever is appropriate. The applicant has offered Proffered Condition 14 to address this concern. PUBLIC FACILITIES The need for fire, school, library, park and transportation facilities is identified il~ the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughf~e Plan and the (-7Opital improvement Program. This development will have an impact on these facilities. Fire Service: The Public Facilities Plan indicates that fire and emergency medical service (EMS) calls are expected to increase 44 to 78 percent by 2022. Six (6) new fire/rescue stations are recommended for construction by 2022 in the Plan. lin addition to the six (6) new stations, the Plan also recommends the expansion of five (5) existing stations. Based on 150 dwelling units, this request will generate approximately 23 calls for fire and EMS each year. The applicant has addressed the impact on fire and EMS (Proffered Condition 8). The Clover Hill Fire Station, Company Number 7, currently provides fire protection and emergency medical service, When the property is developed, the number of hydrants, quantity of water needed I.br fire protection, and access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review process. Schools: Approximately 77 students will be genermed by this development. This site lies in the Grange Hall Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 828, enrollmem - 723· Swift Creek Middle School attendance zone: capacity - t.,027, enrolhnent - 1,468; and Clover Hill High. Sch.ool attendance zone: capacity - 1,582, enrollment - 2,036. There are twelve (12) trailers at S~vifl Creek Middle School and twenty (20) trailers m Clover Hill High School. A new high school is under construction and scheduled to open. in 2006, This new school will provide relief for Clover Hill and Manchester High Schools. This development will have an impact on all schools involved. The applicant has offered measures to assist in addressing the impact of this development on school thcilities. (Proflkzred Condition 8) 12 05SN0128-FEB23~BOS Libraries: Consistent with the Board of Supervisors' Policy, the impact of development on librau' services is assessed countywide. Based on prqiected population growth, the Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library' space throughout the County. Development could affect either the existing Clover Hill Library or a proposed new facility in the vicinity of Beach and Winterpock Roads. The Public Facilities Plan identifies a need tbr additional library space i.n this area. The applicant has offered measures to assist in addressing the m~.pact of this development on library facilities. (Proffered Condition 8) iParks and Recreation.: The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for three (3) new regional parks, seven (7) community parks, 29 neighborhood parks, and five (5) community centers by 2020. In addition, the Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for ten (10) new or expanded special ipurpose parks to provide water access or preserve and interpret mfique recreational, cultural or environmental resources. The Plan also identifies shortfalls in trails and recreational historic sites. The applicant has offered measures to assist with the impact of this proposed development on parks and recremion thcilities (proff'ered condition 8) Transportation: The property (75.5 acres) is currently zoned Agricultural (A), and the applicant is requesting rczoning to Residential (R-12). The applicant has proffered a maximum density ot!' 151. lots (Proffered Condition 1). Based on single-family trip rates, development could generate approximately 1,520 average daily trips. These vehicles will be initially distributed through streets in the proposed residential development (Foxcreek Crossing Subdivision) to Woolridge Road and. to Otterdale Road, which had 2004 traffic counts of 1,553 and 2,853 vehicles per day ('VPD), respectively. The Thoroughfare Plan identifies Woolridge Road and Otterdale Road as major arterials with recommended right of way widths of ninety (90) t¢3et. The applicant has proffbred to dedicate tbrty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured 'from the centerline of those roads, in accordance with that Plan. (iProffkred Condition 4) Access to major arterials, such as Woolridge Road and Otterdale Road, should be controlled. The appiicant has proffered th.at no direct access will be provided from the property to either Wootridge Road or Otterdale Road. (Proffered Condition 15) Included in the Subdivision Ordinance is the Planning Commission's Stub Road Policy. The Policy suggests that subdivision streets m~Iicipated to carry 1,500 VPD or more should be designed as "no-lot frontage" collector roads. Traffic generated by this development will 13 05SN0128=FI;;B23-B()S travel along streets in the proposed Foxcreek Crossing Subdivision. The proposed street network in Foxcmek Subdivision includes a resi. dential collector road (Foxcreek Crossing) that will extend fi'om Woolridge Road through the development to Otterdale iRoad. Based on the anticipated traffic generated by the number of lots in Foxcreek Subdivision and the number of lots that could be developed on the sub, iect property, residential collector streets may be required through parts of the properly and/or additional residential coIlector streets in Foxcreek Crossing Subdivision. The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. The applicant has proffered to wider~fmprove the south side of Woolridge Road and the east side of Otterdale Road to an eleven (11) foot wide travel lane with an. additional one (1) fbot wide paved shoulder plus a seven. (7) foot wide unpaved shoulder, and over[ay with asphalt the full width of each road fbr the entire property l?ontage. (Proffered Condition 16) Area roads need to be improved to address sat~ty and accommodate the increase in traffic generated by this deveI, opment. Woolridge Road and Otterdale Road will be directly impacted by developm.cnt of this property. Sections of Woolridge Road, east of Otterdale Road have eighteen (I8) to ~ineteen. (1.9) foot wide pavement with no shoulders, The capacity of that section of Woolridge Road is acceptable (Level of Service C) lbr the volume of traffi, c i't currently carries (1,553 VPD). Sections of Woolridge Road, south of Genito Road, have eighteen (18) to twenty-one (21) foot wide pavement with no shoulders, and guardrail immediately adjacent to the road. The section of Woolridge Road across the Swift Creek Reservoir is not in the State Highway System, and is the responsibility of the County. Based on the current volume of traffic (1.0,143 VPD), that section of Woo lridge Road is at capacity (Level of Service E). Sections of Otterdale Road, between Woolridge Road and [tull. Street Road (Route 3601), have nineteen (19) to twenty (20) foot wide pavement with no shoulders, and substandard, horizontal and vertical curves and. large trees located close to the edge of pavement. The capacity of that section of Otterdale Road is acceptable (Level of Service C) :fbr the volume of traffic it currently carries (2,85 3 VI>D). The applicant has profl~red to contribute cash, in an amount consistent with the Board of Supervisors' Policy, towards mitigating the traffic impact of this development (ProiTered Condition 6). As development continues in this part of the County, traffic volumes on area roads will substantially increase. Cash proffers alone wilt not cover the cost of the improvements needed to accommodate the traffic increases. No road improvement pr((jects in this part of the county are included in the Six-Year Improvement Plan. except tbr a prr~ject to improve a substandard curve on Woolridge Road south of Crown Pointe Road. This curve has been identified as a high accident location. At time of tentative subdivision review, specific recommendations will. be provided regarding the internal street network and providing stub road rights-of-way to a4jacent properties. 14 05SNO 128+FEB23-BOS Financial Impact on Capital Facilities: PER UNIT Potential 'Number of New Dwelling Units 151 * 1.00 Population Increase 410.72 2.72 Number of New Students Elementary 34.13 0,23 Middle ~ 19.03 0.13 t tigh 24.16 0.16 TOTA[~ Net Cost ~>r Schools 77.3I 0.51 Average Net Cost lbr Road...___.... s [ $835,332 $5,532 Net Cost for Parks 119, I. 39 789 Net Cost for Libraries 61,004 404 64,175 425 TOTAL NET COST 664,249 $i,743,899 4,.>99 $11,549 *Based on a proffered maximum yield of 151 lots Proffered Condition 1.). Actual number of~ lots and corresponding im.pact may va~'. As noted, this proposed development will have an ~mpact on capital facilities. Stafl'has calculated the fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, roads, arks, libraries and fire stations at' $11,549 per unit. The applican, t has been advised that a maximum proffer of$11,500 per unit would deft'ay the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by this proposed development. Consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policy, and prof. fbrs accepted f}om other applicants, the applicant has oflkred cash to assist in defraying the cost of this proposed zoning on such capital ~hcilities. (Prof~Cered Condition 8) Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maxi.mum cash proffer in this case. LAND USE Comprehensive Plan: Lies within the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan which suggests the property is appropriate tbr single family residential uses at a density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre or less. Staff has begun the process of amending the ..[_Jpper Swift Creek Plan. Given the pending amendment, the Board of Supervisors has indicated its intent to deter final action on ! 5 05SN0128~F1 ~B23 .B()S residential cases field alter February 11,2004., which are located within the area of[he .Upp~ Swift Creek PI. an, for a period of up to one (1) year. This application was filed on. August 16, 2004. Such. deferral would allow this Board time to review recommendations or changes to the Plan and evaluate new zoning proposals accordingly. Area Development Trends: Adjacent property to the north, south and west is zoned Agricultural (A) and is occupied by single i~amily residences or remains vacant. Adjacent property to the east is zoned iResidentiaI (R-12) with Conditional Use to permit private recreation facilities and is vacant. Residential development, at densities consistent with the Plan, is expected to continue in the area. Development Standards: Th.e applicant has proffered a maximum of 151 Lots on 75.5 acres, yielding a density of approximately 2.0 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the ?pper Swift Creek PIm~ ~hich suggests a density of 2.0 units per acre or less (Proffered Condition 1)~ tn addition, the applicant has agreed to a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. (Proffered Condition 9) Other restrictions include foundation treatment; use of curb and gutter on public roads; orientation of garages; and restrictive covenants. (Proffered Conditions 5, i 1, 12 and I3) Buffersl The Subdivision Ordinance ,requires that a fifty (50) !hot bui't~r be maintained along Otterdale and Wootridge Roads, The Ordinance would allow' this buffer to be included within the boundaries of individual lots. tt has been staff's experience that individual homeowners tend to clear these areas resulting in a zoning violation on that individual lot m~d affecting the integrity of the buffer. To preserve the integrity of this buflbr, the applicant has proffered that the area will be provided in open space, thereby becoming the responsibility of a homeowners' association. (Proffered Condition 7) Dwelling Size: The applicant has submitted a pro'fi.bred condition which requires a minimum gross floor area of 2,500 square feet ibr alt dwelling units. (Proft:ered Condition 6) Recreational Use: This proposal would allow up to '[bur (4) acres within the development to be used tbr private recreation thcilities. The applicant has offkred measures to minimize the impact of these thcilities on future residents in the development as well as an. adjacent property (Proflk:red Condition 10). This proffer is simitm' to conditions imposed on other prqiects aplproved for such use, 16 05SN0t28~KEB23~B()S CONCLUSIONS The proposed zoning and land use conform to the Upper Swill (;reek Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 2.0 units per acre or less and are representative of existing and anticipated development. In addition, the proffered conditions address the impacts of this development on necessary capital facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the needs lbr roads, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital 1.mprovernent Progrmn and the impact of this development is discussed herein. The proffered conditions adequately mitigate the impact on capi. tal i!~tcil, ities, thereby ensuring adequate service levels are maintained and protecting the health, safety and welfare of Count), citizens. Given these considerations, staff recommends approval of this request. CASE HISTORY Applicant (12/l 3/04): Revisions were submitted to Proffered Conditions 10 and 12. Planning Commission Meeting (I 2/I 3/04): The applicant accepted staff's recommendation, but did not accept the Planning Commission's recommendation. There was opposition present. Concerns were expressed relative to the impact of the development on water quality, schools and roads. It was suggested that action on this request should be delayed until the evaluation of the Upper Swift Creek Plan is completed. One (1) adjacent property ox-mcr expressed concerns relative to dust generated by construction and requested a buffer adjacent to their property. On motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission recommended denial of this request. AYES: Messrs. Gecker, Bass and G'ulley ABSTENTION: Mr. Litton ABSENT: Mr. Wilson.. Board of Supervisors' Meeting (11/26/05): On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to February 23, 2005. '17 {)5SN012 8- FI::i'B2 3.~BOS Staff (1/27/05): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new' or revised intbrmation should be submitted no later than January 31., 2005, for consideration at the Board's February public hearing. Staff (2/I/05): To date, no new inf~brmation has been submitted. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, Febma~ 23, 2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 18 05SN0128 FEB23-B(DS