Loading...
05SN0293-June22.pdfMay26, 2805 -OIG June 22, 2005 BS STAFF'S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 05SNO293 Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Matoaca Magisterial District North line of Powhite Parkway REQUEST: Amendment of Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 89SN0059) to permit property to be developed as a separate project for use as a school and/or other public facility. PROPOSED LAND USE: A middle school is proposed. This property was zoned as part of a mixed use development known as Centerpointe, which requires schematic plan approval for the overall development prior to further construction. This request would allow the school site or any other public facility to be developed independent of the Centerpointe project. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ON PAGE 2. AYES: MESSRS. LITTON, WILSON AND GECKER NAYS: MESSRS. BASS AND GULLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval for the following reasons: A. This amendment will allow development to proceed for public facility use independent of the remaining portion of the Centerpointe Development. Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service B. A middle school site on a portion of the property complies with the amendment to the Public Facilities Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission. (NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.) CONDITIONS (STAFF/CPC) I . Prior to any site plan approval, ninety (90) foot wide rights of way for Center Pointe Parkway and for Brandermill Parkway across the entire parcel of the middle school site, as determined by the Transportation Department, shall be recorded. (T) (STAFF/CPC) 2. Direct access from the middle school site to Center Pointe Parkway and to Brandermill Parkway shall be approved by the Transportation Department. (T) (STAFF/CPC) 3. Prior to issuance of an Occupancy permit for the middle school, the following road improvements shall be completed, as determined by the Transportation Department: a. Construction of Center Pointe Parkway as a two-lane facility from its current terminus to the western boundary of the middle school site. b. Construction of Brandermill Parkway as a two-lane facility across the entire parcel of the middle school site. C. Construction of additional pavement along Center Pointe Parkway and along Brandermill Parkway at each approved access to provide left and right turn lanes, based on Transportation Department standards. d. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, of any additional right of way (or easements) required for the improvements identified above. (T) 2 05SNO293 JUNE22-BOS GENERAL INFORMATION Location: North line of Powhite Parkway, east of Old Hundred Road. Tax IDs 724-693-6630, 724- 694-5390 and 726 -695 -Part of 3178 (Sheet 9). Existing Zoning: R-7 with Conditional Use Planned Development Size: 190.6 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North and East — R-7 with Conditional Use Planned Development; Vacant South —R-7 and R-9, all with Conditional Use Planned Development; Single family or multifamily residential West - 0-2 with Conditional Use Planned Development and A; Multifamily residential or vacant Transportation: This amendment to the Conditional Use Planned Development for the Centerpointe Project (Case 88SN0059) will allow a public school and/or other public facilities to be developed on the property (190.6 acres). All of the property may not be used for public use. Any public use, other than a middle school, developed on the property would require Substantial Accord approval. At time of Substantial Accord review for those other public uses, the Transportation Department will evaluate the proposals and provide recommendations to address their traffic impact. This request will not limit enrollment at the middle school; therefore, it is difficult to anticipate traffic generation. The recommended capacity for middle schools, identified in the Public Facilities Plan, is 1,200 students. Based on this recommended capacity and middle school trip rates, development could generate approximately 1,950 average daily trips. These vehicles will be initially distributed along Charter Colony Parkway, which had a 2003 traffic count of 16,809 vehicles per day between North Woolridge Road and Center Pointe Parkway, and a 2003 traffic count of 17,694 vehicles per day between Center Pointe Parkway and Powhite Parkway. Based on the current volume of traffic, the 3 05SNO293 JUNE22-BOS two (2) lane section of Charter Colony Parkway between North Woolridge Road and Center Pointe Parkway is at capacity (Level of Service E). The capacity of the four (4) lane section of Charter Colony Parkway between Center Pointe Parkway and Powhite Parkway is acceptable (Level of Service B) for the volume of traffic it currently carries. The Thoroughfare Plan identifies two (2) proposed roads, an east/west major arterial (Center Pointe Parkway) and a north/south major arterial (Brandermill Parkway), extending across the property. Both roads have recommended right of way widths of ninety (90) feet. If part of the property is developed for the middle school and the alignment(s) of one (1) or both of these proposed Thoroughfare Plan roads extend across that site, then right of way for the roads should be dedicated in accordance with that Plan. (Condition 1) Access to major arterials, such as Center Pointe Parkway and Brandermill Parkway, should be controlled. Based on zoning requirements for the Centerpointe Project, Center Pointe Parkway will be a four (4) lane divided facility, and Brandermill Parkway will be a two (2) lane facility. The amount of frontage the middle school has along each roadway will determine the number and type of accesses (i.e., right -in and right -out only access and/or full access) that will be available to the site. At time of site plan review, the Transportation Department will review access from the middle school site to Center Pointe Parkway and/or Brandermill Parkway (Condition 2). The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. A section of Center Pointe Parkway, from Charter Colony Parkway west for a distance of approximately 1,300 feet, has been constructed as a two-lane facility. The County has a Letter of Credit for the construction of an additional 500 -foot section of this roadway. Development of the middle school should include: 1) extending Center Pointe Parkway as a two (2) lane road from its current terminus to the western boundary of the middle school site; 2) if the middle school parcel includes the proposed Brandermill Parkway, extending Brandermill Parkway across the entire parcel; and 3) constructing additional pavement along Center Pointe Parkway and Brandermill Parkway at each approved access to provide left and right turn lanes, based on Transportation Department standards. (Condition 3) At the time of site plan review, specific recommendations will be provided regarding access, internal circulation and construction of mitigating road improvements. LAND USE Comprehensive Plan: Lies within the boundaries of the Route 288 Corridor Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for a mix of office, and light industrial and residential uses of varying densities. The adopted Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for a new middle school in the central part of the County. The adopted Plan recommends a site in the Courthouse Road area, between Hull Street and Reams Roads or in the vicinity of the west Hull Street 4 05SN0293 JUNE22-BOS Road Corridor, between Woodlake Parkway and Baldwin Creek Road. An amendment to the Plan is pending. The amendment, as recommended by the Planning Commission, suggests an alternative location at, or east of Route 288, north of Hull Street Road and south of Midlothian Turnpike. The pending amendment is scheduled for the Board's consideration on June 22. The proposed use of land within the boundaries of this request for a middle school complies with the amendment, as recommended by the Commission. Zoning_ History: On June 25, 1990, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the Commission, approved an amendment to a Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 865025) to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 948 acre property zoned Residential (R- 15), Residential (R-7), Office Business (0) and Community Business (B-2) (Case 88SN0059). A mixed use development, to include residential, office, commercial, industrial and public/semi-public uses was planned. The subject property was included within the limits of this case. Conditions of zoning require the dedication to the County of both a fire station site, containing a minimum of five (5) acres, and school site, containing a minimum of thirty- one (31) acres. Conditions further indicate that this acreage can be utilitized for other public facilities. Specifically, the approved master plan (attached) depicts the location of the fire station site at the intersection of Centerpointe and Brandermill Parkways and the school site is depicted along the south line of Centerpointe Parkway, west of Brandermill Parkway, both within the limits of the current request site. Site Desijzn: As previously noted, conditions of Case 88SNO059 require the dedication of a total of thirty-six (36) acres to the County to accommodate a fire station site and a school site or other public facility. There are plans to develop a middle school on a portion of the acreage included in this request. It is anticipated that the County will need to acquire approximately sixteen (16) additional acres to accommodate the development of a middle school. Any acreage from the subject property that is not acquired or dedicated for public use will be required to be developed in compliance with the conditions of Case 89SNO056 and will require schematic plan approval as part of the adjacent mixed use project known as Centerpointe. Further, should any public facility, other than a middle school, be constructed on the site, such facility will require substantial accord determination. CONCLUSIONS The amendment will allow for development of thirty-six (36) acres dedicated for public facility use, as required by conditions of Case 89SN0059. Further, it will permit the incorporation of additional property to accommodate development of public facilities as a separate project from Centerpointe. Should a middle school facility be constructed on the site, this amendment would 5 05SNO293 JUNE22-BOS allow for this use without future zoning action. Other facilities will be required to obtain substantial accord approval Given these considerations, approval of this request is recommended. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (5/26/05): There was support and opposition present. Those in support indicated a need for a middle school and that the site conforms with the information disseminated for the bond referendum. Those in opposition indicated that a more western site would better serve the needs; the public was mislead during the bond referendum as to the site of the new middle school; the selection of the site has not followed County policies; condemnation of additional land to accommodate a middle school would be costly to the taxpayers; and requested deferral until the Board can act upon the pending amendment to the Public Facilities Plan. Mr. Bass made a motion to defer Case 05SNO293 to the August 16, 2005, Planning Commission meeting to allow the legalities of the Centerpointe site to be resolved and to allow the Board of Supervisors to make a decision on the proposed amendment to the Public Facilities Plan. Mr. Bass stated he felt staff's reasons for recommending approval were misleading and the request should be deferred for ninety (90) days to allow for the possibility of obtaining the land the County wanted to be used for public property without any court action or cost for the land. Mr. Litton addressed previously expressed concerns relative to whether or not condemnation proceedings would be necessary if a landowner did not want to sell his land, noting the School Board would have to determine if they needed the additional land and, if they so determined and the landowner was unwilling to sell, they would have to initiate condemnation proceedings to obtain the land. He stated he did not anticipate that action would occur. Mr. Bass restated his motion for deferral of Case 05SNO293 to the August 16, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Gulley seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Mr. Gulley stated, although the Commission requested the public comments be limited to the subject request, some people felt this would be their only opportunity to address whether a middle school should be in the Centerpointe or western area of the County. He addressed concerns relative to perceptions of the public process and the process being ridiculed; referenced email correspondence concerning statistics projecting high school and middle school attendance with proposed and/or actual boundary changes; addressed 6 05SNO293 JUNE22-BOS the bond referendum campaign, indicating he felt the Bond Committee simply presented information provided to them; stated he took issue with the elected officials who failed to act on the Public Facilities Plan so that the Plan reflected the alternative location suggested by the School Board; that the public was deceived because there was contradictory information disseminated; that the middle school site reflected on the bond referendum map did not adhere to the adopted Public Facilities Plan; and that a great deal of misinformation and tainted information had been disseminated during the bond referendum process. He further stated he wanted to address a statement that was made at a previous Commission meeting that "the difference between what it would cost to renovate the current Clover Hill High School and building a new one is the cost to build a new middle school," noting that a Feasibility Study completed in 2002 indicated that the difference between the cost of renovating Clover Hill High School and constructing a new high school was not sufficient dollars to cover the cost of constructing a new middle school. He stated the currently adopted Public Facilities Plan did not recommend a middle school in Centerpointe; that he concurred with Mr. Bass that the proposal before the Commission was premature until the Board of Supervisors' took action on the amendment to the Public Facilities Plan; and that deferral of the request would allow Mr. Bass to negotiate with the Centerpointe developer on land dedications and acquisitions. He again addressed attendance statistics, noting the amount of land in the Matoaca District that had been zoned for residential development would ultimately have an impact on school capacities. He stated that if the County acquired the dedicated property and then used eminent domain to acquire the rest of the property, the County would only have to construct road improvements to accommodate the school and fire station sites, leaving the developer with the majority of the transportation improvements. Mr. Wilson stated the issue as to the location of the middle school and the amendment to the Public Facilities Plan was debated at the April 21s' meeting and that the Board of Supervisors had scheduled consideration of the amendment. He stated the Commission's recommendation on the Public Facilities Plan was consistent with the School Board's request and consistent with the information that was presented to the public during the bond referendum, none of which was pertinent to the proposal at this time. He stated the request before the Commission was a zoning amendment that would enable the County to extricate itself from the Centerpointe developer's schematic plan issues; and that nothing in this zoning case would prejudice the Board's decision on the pending amendment to the Public Facilities Plan because the Board could approve this case and still not be obligated to amend the Public Facilities Plan. Mr. Gecker stated he saw no reason to defer the request; that the decision on the location of a new middle school would be decided through the amendment to the Public Facilities Plan. He addressed the Feasibility Study, referenced by Mr. Gulley, noting that the consultant was asked to determine how to renovate existing Clover Hill High School to the same standards as the new Matoaca High School and that the data revealed it was not economically feasible. He stated the study did not address the feasibility of renovations to a standard of what was appropriate for a Chesterfield County public high school. He stated he did believe the real cost difference between renovation of Clover Hill High 7 05SN0293 JUNE22-BOS School and construction of a new high school to be roughly equivalent to the cost of a new middle school; however, instead of constructing two (2) new middle schools and renovating Clover Hill High School, the Clover Hill District representatives supported a new high school and one (1) new middle school. He stated he recalled reading in The Observer that Ms. Pettitt, the Clover Hill District School Board representative, acknowledged that a deal was made to move the bond referendum forward with a new Clover Hill High School and a middle school in the Centerpointe area. He stated he was never a proponent of the Centerpointe site; he believed the site should be further east; and that he did not believe that the public process was not followed. He stated there had been a number of meetings, as Mr. Wilson pointed out, on the topic of school locations. He stated, however, the issue before the Commission, at this time, was simply that the County was entitled to acreage at Centerpointe and should the County be able to develop the acreage independently. He stated the decision on the school site location would be decided by the Board; that deferral served no purpose; and the Commission should take action. He stated much untrue information had been disseminated and over time became truth; that he felt the process had been complete and fair; ultimately, the School Board and the Board of Supervisors arrived at a compromise to replace Clover Hill High School; that he did not support a deferral; and felt the request should be moved forward to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Litton stated he concurred with Messrs. Wilson and Gecker, stating he would not support the deferral. He stated a recommendation for approval of the current proposal did not dictate the location of a middle school but rather offered an option. The vote on Mr. Bass' motion to defer Case 05SNO293 to the August 16, 2005, Planning Commission meeting was as follows: AYES: Messrs. Gulley and Bass. NAYS: Messrs. Litton, Wilson and Gecker. On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Wilson, the Commission resolved to recommend approval of Case 05SN0293, subject to the conditions on page 2. AYES: Messrs. Litton, Wilson and Gecker. NAYS: Messrs. Gulley and Bass. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 8 05SNO293 JUNE22-BOS