89SN0120
~.; /
c-.
r:
\- .
,~
February-21,-1989-€P6
Mareh-~~,-19a9-€P€
April-%6,-1989-BS
May-~4j'-i989-BS
No~ember-~ii-19a9-6pe
Be~~mber-l3,-i989-BS
January 10, 1990 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
89SN0120
(Amended)
Ridgeway Development Company
Dale Magisterial District
Northwest quadrant of Chippenham Parkway
and Iron Bridge Road
REQUEST:
(Amended) Rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Residential Multi-
family (R-MF), Neighborhood Business (C-2), and Corporate Office (0-2)
with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a use exception.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A mixed use development, to include multi-family residential, office,
and shopping center uses, is planned: Within the 0-2 tract. adjacent
to Route 10, a use exception is requested, to permit a bank with
drive-in windows.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the rezoning and Conditional Use Planned Development.
Recommend that Conditions 5 and 6 be imposed in lieu of Proffered Conditions 10
(f) and 10 (g). These recommendations are made for the following reasons:
A. The proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Central Area Land Use
and Trans])ortation Plan. which designates the request property for
mixed use development.
B. The Master Plan; Textual Statement; and proffered. and recommended
conditions ensure proper land use transition/compatibility and quality
development. Further. the application and conditions address impact
of the development on the water quality of Falling Creek.
c. Corporate Office (0-2) zoning and land uses along Route 10, north of
the bank site and shopping center, will. define the limits of
commercial development along the east side of Route 10, north of
Chippenham Parkway.
(NOTE: THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF I CPCtl WERE AGREED UPON, BY BOTH STAFF AND
THE COMMISSIONiI CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFFtI ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF II
CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A tfCPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.)
CONDITIONS
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
.Ii
}~\
.,.
1-\
1.
\
The following conditions notwithstanding, the Master Plan
prepared by Clower and Associates, Inc., dated July 20, 1989, and
the Textual Statement, revised October 30, 1989, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (p)
2.
All buildings within the project shall be similar or
complimentary in architectural style and materials.
Franchise-type out-parcel buildings shall conform to the
architectural styles which predominate in the development. The
overall quality of non-residential development shall be at least
equal to "Chesterfield Meadows" and "Stony Point." (p)
(NOTE: This condition is in addition to the Textual Statement,
4.0 Proiect Description; 5.0 General Conditions, 5.16; 6.0
Medium Density Residential, 6.6; 7.0 Retail; and 8.0 Office
Uses.)
3.
Prior to submi ttal of any schematic or site plans, an overall
plan of the proposed water distribution and wastewater collection
system for the development shall be submitted to the Department
of Utilities, Planning Section for review and approval. The plan
shall reflect the routing and sizing of both on-site and off-site
extensions of lines, identify points of future connection for
adjacent properties by showing easement locations and be
accompanied by appropriate supportive design data. This shall
include a statement acknowledging the, Fire Department's approval
of the fire protection water flows and pressures proposed for the
development. All approved easement locations for use by adjacent
properties shall be dedicated to the County prior to approval of
any site plans. (U)
(NOTE: This condi tion supersedes the Textual Statement, 5 · 0
General Conditions, 5.7.)
4~
Prior to any clearing or grading, the developer shall provide the
County information from a qualified water quality engineer on the
existing status of the Falling Creek Reservoir. This information
shall be utilized to establish baseline infonmation on the water
quali ty of Fall ing Creek Reservoir. Upon completion of each
phase of construction, testing shall be performed at e~ch outfall
to determine if the water quality has been worsened by
development a (EE)
2
89SN0120/PC/JANIOM
--)
.) .
t ,
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
~
r
.....-
c.
(NOTE: This condition is in addition to Textual Statement, 5.0
General Conditions, 5.13.)
5. When the lake is low, or in conj unction wi th ins tallation of
terosion control measures, the developer shall install the storm
sewer line and pits shall be dug at the edge of the lake where
the outfall enters the lake such that silt that comes from the
property continues to filter into the pits and not be carried
farther out into the bed of the lake. In addition, temporary
silt fences shall be installed in the reservoir around those pits
to further reduce the amount of silt that might otherwise be
pushed out farther into the bed of the lake and there shall be
periodic maintenance of the pits to ensure that the pits continue
to function properly. (EE)
(NOTE: This condition supersedes Proffered Condition 10 (f).)
6.
The outer limits of the fifty (50) foot buf~er adjacent to
Falling Creek Reservoir shall be delineated by a bright colored
fence so as to identify to equipment operators and construction
personnel the portion of the property that is not to be disturbed
by construction activity. (EE)
(NOTE: This condition supersedes Proffered Condition 10 (g).)
7.
A fifty (50) foot buffer, measured from the floodplain boundary
of Falling Creek Reservoir, shall be maintained. Unless approved
by the Planning Department and Environmental Engineering, there
shall be no clearing or grading within th~s buffer. Other than
underbrush, existing vegetation within this buffer shall be
maintained. Other than passive recreational uses, additional
vegetation, utilities as permitted herein and pedestrian access,
there shall be no facilities located within the buffer.
Utilities which run generally perpendicular through the buffer
shall be permitted; however, upon approval by the Planning
Department, Environmental Engineering, and the Department of
Utilities, utilities may be located parallel in the buffer
provided adequate measures, as determined by the departments
stated herein, can be taken to protect Falling Creek from erosion
and sedimentation~ The Planning Commission maYt at the time of .
schematic plan review, modify buffer requirements to allow other
uses within the buffer. (P&EE)
(NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 5.0
General Conditions, 5.12.)
(NOTE: Prior to obtaining final site plan approval or building
permits, an overall schematic plan must be submitted to, and approved
by, the Planning Commission.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(NOTE: Staff does not recommend acceptance of Proffered Conditions 10
(f) and (g); rather, imposition of Conditions 5 and 6 is recommended.)
3
89SN0120/PC/JANIOM
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
... 'J
1 .
Prior to issuance of a building permit, 100 feet of right of way
measured from the centerline of Chippenham Parkway shall be
dedicated to Chesterfield County free and unrestricted. If
requested by the Transportation Department for the widening of
Chippenham Parkway, up to an additional 50 feet of right of way
along Chippenham shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free
and unrestricted. All buffer areas and setbacks for the Project
shall be calculated from the" 100 foot right of way as measured
from the centerline of Chippenham Parkway.
2.
Specific roadway improvements set forth in these transportation
proffers are to be constructed in accordance with the phasing
plan approved by the Transportation Department. The Developer
shall provide the Transportation Department with additional
traffic studies upon completion of each phase if requested.
Roadway improvements shall be increased or decreased by the
Developer as required by the Transportation Department if these
studies demonstrate that traffic generation rates and
distributions solely by the development are materially different
as determined by the Transportation Department from projections
set forth in the traffic study prepared by Kellerco dated
December 14, 1988, and updated by letter dated September 22,
1989. If satisfactory improvements cannot be provided, the
Planning Commission may reduce the permissible densities to the
extent that acceptable levels of service are provided as
determined by the Transportation Department.
3.
To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of the com-
plete development of the proposed Project, the Developer will be
responsible for the following:
(a) The site access road shall have a m1n1mum four lane typical
section from Route 10 to a logical terminus within the
development (i.e., two inbound and two outbound lanes).
(b) One lane of pavement on the west side of southbound Route 10
from the site driveway through the transition section of the
existing ramp to Chippenham Parkway westbound.
(c) Additional pavement along northbound Route 10 at its inter-
section with the site access road to provide a left turn
lane as generally depicted on Exhibit 7 of the December 14,
1988, Traffic Analysis prepared by Kel1erco. In addition, a
raised barrier along northbound Route 10 to preclude left
turns at the site access road from the northbound Route 10
ramp of the Route lO/Route 150 Interchange.
(d) Additional pavement along northbound Route 10 at the
existing cross-over that serves Shoremeade Road to provide a
left turn lane for a length of 200 foot full turn lane and
200 foot taper.
(e) Right turn lanes on Route 10 southbound at both entrances to
the site.
4
89SN0120/PC/JANIOM
.~
~)
l t
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
(~
r
(f) Full cost of a traffic signal at the site access road/Route
10 Intersection.
(g) The Developer shall provide a bond satisfactory to the
County for the full cost of the raised barrier and the
traffic signal described above to guarantee the completion
of the improvements.. Such bond shall expire on the fifth
anniversary of the IIcompletion date" of the Project. The
completion shall be the date of the issuance of a final
certificate of occupancy for ninety percent (90%) of the
total building density for the Project, as depicted on the
then current Master Plan, or the date determined by 'the
Director of Planning for the completion date, whichever
first occurs. If the improvements are not then required
(based upon traffic volumes generated from the Project), the
bond shall expire and the Developer shall have no further
obligation to pay for or construct such improvements.
4.
The Developer will dedicate to the County of Chesterfield~ free
and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easement)
required for the improvements identified above, and in the
Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Kellerco dated December 14,
1988, and updated by letter dated September 22, 1989..
5.
In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a
phasing plan for required road improvements, with supporting
traffic analysis, if requested by the Transportation Department,
shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department..
6.
Within any designated sound attenuation area adjacent to
Chippenham Parkway, all residential units will be designed and
constructed such that activity areas (but not including parking
areas) shall be generally orientated away from Chippenham
Parkway.
7.
Prior to issuance of any building permits, a noise impact study
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Transportation
Department. The study shall identify the need for noise
attenuation in the development adjacent to Chippenham Parkway in
accordance with Federal Highway Administration noise prediction
criteria with modifications approved by the Transportation
Department. The developer shall be responsible for implementing
any required mitigation measures in accordance with the phasing
plan approved by the Transportation Department.
8.
Access to Route 10 shall be limited to the site access road and
one additional access to the north of the site access road
intersection as generally depicted on the Master Plan.
9.
The maximum densities for the project will be as follows:
Office Space
Bank Space
60,000 square feet
5,000 square feet
5
89SN0120!PC/JANIOM
(STAFF) 10.
(See Note at
beginning of-
Proffered
Conditions
on page 4)
Retail Space
Apartment Units
71,600 square feet
260 units
Prior to any land disturbing activity, a drainage and erosion
control plan shall be submitted to and approved by Environmental
Engineering. To minimize the impact of surface runoff on Falling
Creek Reservoir, the drainage plan shall include the following
"best management practicesll:
(a) Each phase of development will be lined with a silt fence
on the low side of that phase of development during all
construction periods.
(b) A silt basin will be located at each of the three swales
running through the project to interrupt runoff before that
runoff can reach Falling Creek Reservoir.
(c) Disturbed areas will be seeded and straw-mulched ~ediately
upon fine grading. Temporary seeding will be performed on
the embankment of the silt basins and other major slopes
within 14 days of completion.
(d) There will be careful maintenance of all erosion control
measures in order to ensure that these measures continue to
perform their function properly.
(e) Drop inlets constructed in the commercial and office areas
will be constructed with "deep bottoms" to allow sediment
that drains into the drop inlets to filter down below the
outfall from the drop inlets into the storm drainage system.
To the extent that water can be drained from those drop
inlets directly into the ground, it will be done by
providing openings in the bottom of the drop inlets that
will permit water to drain directly back into the soil, as
opposed to being carried off the property. Drop inlet
structures will be protected by.< silt fences and gravel to
prevent sediment from entering the inlet before
stabilization of the drainage site.
(f) When the lake is low, the Developer will install the storm
sewer line, pits will be dug at the edge of the lake where
the outfall will enter the lake such that silt that comes
from the property will continue to filter into the pits and
not be carried farther out into the bed of the lake. In
addition, temporary silt fences will be installed in the
reservoir around those pits to further reduce the amount of
silt that might otherwise be pushed out farther into the bed
of the lake and there will be periodic maintenance of the
pits to ensure that the pits continue to function properly.
..
(g) The outer limits of the 50 foot buffer area on the property
will be flagged so as to identify to equipment operators and
construction personnel the portion of the property that is
not to be disturbed by construction activity.
6
89SN0120/PC/JAN10M
"-)
.,~) .
~ I
c
C~'
(h) Willow fascines will be installed to trap sediments in
regraded slopes as directed by Developer's consultants and
approved by Environmental Engineering. Erosion control
blankets, as well as willow and alder brush mattresses with
check dams shall also be installed in drainage areas as
designated by Developerls consultants and approved by
Environmental Engineering.
(STAFF) 11.
The retail portion of the property will be swept with a
commercial sweeper on a regular basis, not less than once per
month.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Fronts on the north line of Chippenham Parkway, also fronts on the west
line of Iron Bridge Road, and is located in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 41-13 (1) Parcel 10; Tax Map 41-14
(1) Parcels 5 and 6; and Tax Map 41-14 (5) Royal Oak, Section A, Block A,
Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Sheet 15).
Existing Zoning:
R-15
Size:
41.1 acr.s
Existina Lan. Us.:
Single family residential or vacant
Adjacent ZoninR & Land Use:
North - R-15j Falling Creek Reservoir, single family residential or
vacant. Also, City of Richmond corporate limits.
South - 0 with Conditional Use Planned Development and A; Being developed
for a mixed use project
East - R-7, A, and A with Conditional Use; Single family residential
and office
West - A; Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities:
Water:
12 inch public water line along Route 10. Use of public water
recommended" and intended. Based upon available information, the
existing public water system may not adequately serve the fire flow
and domestic needs of the proposed development. Additional
information is required before a final determination and
7
S9SN0120/PC/JAN10M
recommendation can be made. (Textual Statement, 5. 0 General
Conditions, 5.6 and 5.8, and Condition 3).
SeweraRe:
Lies in Falling Creek sewage drainage area. 48 inch trunk wastewater
line located along the north side of Falling Creek Reservoir. Use of
public wastewater system intended~ Extensions across the Reservoir
are required to serve the property with public wastewater. Additional
information is required before a final recommendation can be made..
(Textual Statement, 5eO General Conditions, 5.6 and 5.8 and Condition
3)
The Department of Utilities recommends the imposition of a condition
to clarify the information that should be included in the report to be
submitted to the Department of Utilities/Planning Section for the
extension of public water and public wastewater and the timing of the
dedication of easements (Condition 3).. This condition would supersede
General Conditions 5.7 in the Textual Statement.
Drainage and Erosion:
Terrain gently to steeply sloping and, when cleared, has a moderate, to
very severe, chance for erosion. Due to steep slopes and local flooding,
portions of the request property are poorly suited for development. In
addition, potential exists for wetlands on portions of the property. The
Corp of Engineers has indicated that the development conforms to their
requirements.
Property drains directly into Falling Creek. The applicant has agreed to
provide a buffer along the shoreline of ~he Reservoir, outside the 100 year
floodplain, to provide a natural buffer for runoff to cross prior to
reaching the Reservoir (Textual Statement. 5.0 General Conditions, 5.12).
It may be necessary to install a portion of the sewer line within the
buffer~ Particular consideration should be given to the exact location of
the sewer line and the amount of clearing necess~ry to accommodate the line
to ensure that the bufferls effectiveness is not reduced. (Condition 7)
Proposed development could contribute a moderate amount of pollutants into
the Reservoir. The Master Plan de.picts multi-family units on what may be
extremely steep slopes adjacent to the Reservoir. Development could
contribute a high silt load to the Reservoir unless strict erosion control
measures are properly implemented and adhered to. It should be noted that
such measures would not retard discoloration of the water due to suspended
clays. The applicant should rely on the consultant I s report relative to
procedures necessary to preserve water quality (Textual Statement, 5.0
General Conditions, 5.10 and 5.11). Condition 4 will require that baseline
information on Falling Creek Reservoir be supplied so as to properly
compare future information.
Further, Proffered Conditions 10 and 11 address specific measures necessary
to protect Falling Creek. With the exception of Proffered Condition 10 (f)
and (g), these .proffers and the Textual Statement address concerns relative
to drainage, erosion control, and impact that the development will have
8
.~ 89SN012Q/PC/ JAN10M
'- )
",J
c~'
('
upon Falling Creek. Staff recommends imposition of Conditions 5 and 6, to
supersede Condition 10 (f) and (g). Condition 5 would require installation
of the sewer line either when the Reservoir is low or when adequate erosion
control measures are installed. Condition 6 would require that the buffer
be identified by fencing, rather than flags, so as to insure that equipment
operators can easily identify the limits of clearing.
It appears that this development will disturb the majority of the land
area. Since the shopping center will probably be built in one phase, it
could contribute an extreme amount of silt to the Reservoir. It is
critical that the entire development not be under construction at one time.
Phasing of development should help eliminate the risk that severe storms
could blowout or exceed the design capacities of erosion control devices
and thereby add additional silt to the Reservoir. The applicant has agreed
to phase development. (Textual Statementl 5.0 General Conditions, 5.9)
Fire Service:
Dale Fire Station, Company 1/11. At present, fire service capability
adequate. Fire lanes must be provided in accordance with Section 313 of
the Chesterfield Fire Prevention Code. County water flows and fire
hydrants must be provided in compliance with nationally recognized
standards.
Schools:
Depending upon the type of unit and the rental cost, the pre,.s.. multi-
family complex could generate fewftr chilaren th~ usually anticipate. with
other types of residential development: Approximately 94 school age
children could be generated by the proposed multi-family project.
The site lies in the Falling Creek Elementary School attendance zone:
capacity - 575, enrollment - 564; in the Falling Creek Middle School zone:
capaci ty - 1 ,080 J enrollment - 969; and Meadowbrook High School zone:
capacity - 1.350, enrollment - 1,316. Additions were made to Falling Creek
Elementary School in 1986, to Falling Creek Middle School in 1987, and to
Meadowbrook High School in 1988. No further additions are planned for
Falling Creek Elementary and Meadowbrook High Schools.
Coupled wi th the anticipated impact of the mixed use development at the
southwest quadrant of the Chippenham Parkway and Route 10, the proposed
development would have an impact on existing school facilities. The major
impact will be at the middle and high school levels.
Transportation:
The February 17 and March 13, 1989, proposal (i.e., 146,000 square feet of
retail to include a 140, 000 square foot shopping center, a 3,000 square
foot restaurant, and a 3,000 square foot drive-in bank; plus 240
multi-family units; and 4.000 square feet of office use) would generate
approximately 13,675 average daily trips. Approximately 548 and 1,139 of
these trips would occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively.
9
89SN0120/PC/JAN10M
The request cons idered by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 1989,
proposed 77,600 square feet of retail to include a 71 ,600 square foot
shopping center; a 3; 000 square foot fast food restaurant and a 3; 000
square foot drive-in bank; plus 307 multi-family units; and 4,000 square
feet of office use. This proposal would ,have generated 11,195 average
daily trips. Approximately 346 and 970 of these trips would occur during
the a.m. and p~m. peak hours, respectively~
Based on the current proposal as outlined in Proffered Condition 9 (76,600
square feet of retail to include 71,600 square feet of shopping center and
5;000 square feet of drive-in bank; plus 260 multi-family units; and 60;000
square feet of of f ice), the proposed development could generate approxi-
mately 9,622 average daily trips. Approximately 439 and 961 of these trips
will be generated during the aam. and p.m. peak hours, respectively.
Vehicles generated by this development will be distributed along Route 10,
which had a 1988 traffic count of 10,810 vehicles per day. The primary
access for this project will be provided to Route 10 at an existing cross-
over (Proffered Condition 8). This crossover currently serves the subject
properties via Royal Oaks Drive, and also serves parcels along the east
line of Route 10. With full development of the subject project, an
acceptable level of service is anticipated at this intersection, provided
the property to the east is restricted to similar densities.
The Chippenham Parkway/Route 10 interchange is expected to experience
future congestion regardless of the development of the subject property.
VDOr's Six Year Plan includes funding for designing the widening of
Chippenham Parkway to six (6) lanes; however, there are no funds appro-
priated for construction. The Thoroughfare Plan identifies Chippenham
Parkway as a limited access facility with a recommended right of way width
of 200 feet. The applicant has proffered to dedicate right of way in
accordance with the Plan and to dedicate up to an additional fifty (50)
feet of the right of way for improvements to Chippenham Parkway.
(Proffered Condition 1)
VDOT has approved access for this development onto Route 10 at the existing
crossover. A raised barrier may be required along Route 10 to preclude
ramp traffic from Chippenham Parkway onto northbound Route 10 from entering
the site at the crossover. The ramp traffic would enter the project by
continuing northward on Route 10 to the existing crossover that serves
Shoremeade Drive, and perform a U-turn movement. (Proffered Condition 3
(c))
The request property lies within the Route 10 Emerging Growth Area and must
comply with those standards relative to access and internal traffic
circulation. The applicant has proffered mitigating improvements for
permissible densities to achieve an acceptable level of service. The
applicant has also agreed to construct road improvements, as outlined in
Proffered Condition 3.
Noise from the traffic along Chippenham Parkway will impact a portion of
the proposed multi-family development. To protect residents, the applicant
has agreed to submit a noise impact study to the Transportation Department
for review and approval and to implement mitigating measures required to
10
89SN0120/PC/JAN10M
---)
, .
_J-
c
c
achieve acceptable noise levels (Proffered Condition 7). The applicant has
also proffered that all activity areas for the residential units on the
first floor within the sound affected area will be generally orientated
away from Chippenham Parkway (Proffered Condition 6). This design feature
will be reviewed by VDOT to determine if it is a~ acceptable means of
attenuating the noise from Chippenham Parkway.
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Central Area Land Use and Transportation
Plan, which designates the property for office use; however, the Plan notes
that large scale plan of development to include a mix of office, commercial
and residential uses would be appropriate. During consideration of the
Central Area Plan, it was noted that mixed use development of the area
encompassing the request property wouldrbe appropriate provided acceptable
access and land use compatibility could be achieved.
Area Development Trends:
Currently J the property is occupied by single family residences or is
vacant. The property is bounded by Falling Creek Reservoir to the north,
Route 10 to the east, and Chippenham Parkway to the south and west.
Property surrounding the request site is characterized by single family
'"0 residences or vacant properties to the north, south, and west and by single
family residences and an office to the east. It should be noted that
property to the south is being developed for a mix of multi-family
oj residential. office, and cOIIDnercial land uses..
Zoning History:
The chart herein outlines the original request and the various amendments
which have occurred since the initial submission. Following is a synopsis
of the various amendments.
On November 14, 1988, an application for rezoning from Residential (R-15)
to Multi-family Residential (R-MF) of 29.4 acres and to Community Business
(B-2) of 18.6 acres, with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit
drive-in establishments within the B-2 tract, was requested a The Master
Plan depicted commercial zoning and land use along t"he entire Route 10
frontage, with three (3) commercial pad sites north of the main
entrance/exit driveway, and multi-family zoning and land use on the
remainder of the property. The proposal included 240 multi-family units, a
140,000 square foot shopping center, and 12,000 square feet of commercial
development on the pad sites fronting Route 10.
On February 17, March 8 and March 13, 1989 , the request was revised to
decrease the amount of commercial zoning and increase the amount of
multi-family residential zoning. SpecificallYt the B-2 tract was reduced
from 18.6 to 12.0 acres and the R-MF tract was increased from 29.4 to 36.0
acres. Further, the Textual Statement was revised to address concerns
relative to protection of the Reservoir and uses permitted on outparcels
along Route 10. Specifically, the applicant agreed to establish a fifty
11
89SN0120/PC/JANIOM
(50) foot undisturbed buffer outside the 100 year floodplain adjacent to
the Reservoir, and agreed to provide measures to minimize the impact on the
Reservoir. The applicant agreed to restrict uses along Route 10 to less
intense uses t such l as banks and day care centers. and restaurants ~ A
proffered condition limiting commercial densities was also submitted.
Specifically. commercial development was reduced from 152.000 square feet
to 146.000 square feet; 4.000 square feet of office space was proposed; and
the number of multi-family units was limited to a maximum of 240. These
revisions were made in an attempt to address concerns relative to the
intensity of development and the mix of uses. In addition. transportation
proffers were submitted.
On March 21, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the
request, as amended. Mr. Miller stated that while the proposal adhered to
the Plan, the enormous amount of public opposition could not be ignored.
On- April 26. 1989. the Board deferred the request. as considered by the
Commission.
Subsequently. on May 5 and May 11. 1989. additional proffered conditions
were submitted to address concerns relative to the impact of the
development on Falling Creek Reservoir. and the mix of uses. Specifically,
the number of multi-family units were increased to 307; commercial
development was reduced to 77 .600 square feet; and 4.000 square feet of
office use was proposed. On May 24, 1989, the Board of Supervisor~
remanded the case to the Planning Commission for further review and study.
The Board directed the Commission to address the following issues:
1. Review concerns relative to a reduction in the residential
density to a level no greater than the Woolfolk tract, located in
the southwest quadrant of Route 10 and Chippenh~ Parkway;
2 . Revise the mixed use for an increase in office development in
order to be more consistent with the land use plan;
3. Review the traffic analysis in detail for a level no greater than
the Woolfolk tract; a~d
4. Review the impact this development .will have upon the water
quality of Swift Creek Reserv~ir.
On October 30, 1989, the application was once again amended. This latest
amendment is for rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Multi-family
Residential (R-MF) of 30.5 acres; to Corporate Office (0-2) of 9.5 acres;
and of Neighborhood Business (C-2) of 8.0 acres. The revised Master Plan
depicts commercial zoning and land use at the intersection of Route 10 and
Chippenham Parkway; office zoning and land use along Route 10. north of the
commercial tract; multi-family zoning and land use between Chippenham
Parkway and the Falling Creek Reservoir. The current request proposes
76,600 square feet of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of office
development. and 260 multi-family units. Uses within the Neighborhood
Business (C-2) tract have been restricted, to exclude:
1. Automobile self-service station;
2~ Frozen food lockers and sales;
3. Rest, nursing and convalescent homes;
4. Funeral home and mortuaries;
12
89SN0120/PC/JAN10M
,'~
. ,)
C'
c-
5. Occult sciences such as paLm readers, astrologers, fortune
tellers, tea leaf readers, prophets, etc.; and
6. Gasoline sales.
It should' be noted that the density of residential development for this
request is less than the approved residential density for the Woolfolk
property. Specifically, 26.5 acres of the Woolfolk property can be
developed for a maximum of 259 multi - family residences, for an overall
..nsity .f '.77 multi-family units per acre. By comparison, the current
request on the subject property is for rezoning of 3'.5 acres fer multi-
family use and a maximum .f 2.1 multi-f~ily resiaences, fer an everilll
density of 8.52 multi-family units per acre. The applic~t has att~pte.
to address traffic and water ~uality cencerns, as ciscussei in the
Transportation and Drainage and Erosion p.rtiens .f this "Ke~uest Analysis
and Recommendation. II
89SN0120
R-15
to
R-MF
(ac)
R-15
to B-2!
C":'2
(ac)
R-15
to
0-2
Multi-
family
units
Commercial
(SQ. ft.)
Office
(SQ. ft.)
Original
Request
2~.4
11.'
241
152,'"
(see
Note A)
February 17,
1989, and
March 13,
1989
Amendments
3...
12.1
241
14i,II'
4,'"
Amended
for the
May 24, 1989,
Board of
Supervisors
Meeting
3'.1
12.'
317
77,6"
4>>'"
Current
Request
(October 30,
1989)
31.5
1.1
~.5
26.
76,6"
(see Note B)
'I,'"
(set! Nete B)
NOTES:
A.
Although the original Textual Statement permitted office uses
with the B-2 tract, no specif~c square footage of office use
was proposed
B. 5,000 square feet of commercial use is proposed for the 0-2
tract, to permit a freestanding bank and/ or savings and loan
with drive-in windows.
13
89SN0120/PC/JANIOM
Site Design:
The request property lies within the boundaries of the Emerging Growth
Area and must conform to applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements wi th
respect to setbacks, landscaping, buffers, tree preservation,
architectural style and other design features. Conceptually, the Master
Plan conforms to these standards.
Architectural Treatment:
As required by the Zoning Ordinance, all building exteriors must be
treated with similar material. The Textual Statement indicates that
buildings will be constructed of brick, masonite, vinyl or other quality
materials and that the quality of the multi-family structures tract
comparable to tiThe Timbers." Imposition of Condition 2 would require an
architectural quality for the office and commercial tracts equal to
"Chesterf ield Meadows II or "Stoney Point. II Further , Condition 2 would
require that all buildings, wi thin the development, have similar, or
complimentary, architectural style and incorporate-compatible materials
in all building exteriors.
Buffers & Screening:
The Zoning Ordinance, Textual Statement, and conditions require a mintmuM
fifty (50) foot buffer along Falling Creek Reservoir, as well as buffers
between the multi-family tr~ct and the office/business tracts. In
addition) the Zoning Ordinance requires. the screening of loading areas
and mechanical equipment. Further, the Zoning Ordinance requires
preservation of vegetation, having a caliper of eight (8) inches or
greater, wi thin the requi red setbacks along Route 10 and Chippenham
Parkway unless removal is approved by the Planning Commission at the time
of schematic plan review.
Conclusions:
Given the recommended conditions, Textual Sta~~ent and Master Plan, the
proposed zoning and land uses comply with the Central Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan and ensure proper land use transition and compatibil-
ity between existing and future area land useSa In addition, the Textual
Statement and recommended conditions ensure that the project will be of
high quality and that concerns relative to area traffic patterns, access,
drainage, erosion control, and impact upon the water quality of Falling
Creek Reservoir are properly addressed. Therefore, approval of this
request would be appropriate.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
have recently approved a mixed use development, consisting of multi-
family residentialt office, and commercial uses, on property located at
the southwest quadrant of the Chippenham Parkway/Route 10 intersection,
subject to development standards that are similar to those proposed for
this development. Approval of the current request would be' consistent
with past Commission and Board actions along this portion of the Route 10
Corridor, in the vicinity of Chippenham Parkway.
14
89SN0120/PC/JANIOM
<)
-) ,
(--
c'
Per the Board's instructions on May 24, 1989, the density of the multi-
family tract has been reduced and the amount of office space has been
increased. Further, more detailed environmental provisions have been
offered through the Textual Statement, proffered conditions and recom-
mended · conditions. Further, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department has indicated that in general, the proposed development is in
compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations.. With
respect to the traffic impact, it is anticipated that this project, upon
full build-out and mitigating road improvements, will result in
acceptable levels of service.
CASE HISTORY
Applicant and Staff (2/8/89):
A meeting was held to discuss concerns relative to uses along Route 10,
buffers, and development standards.
Applicant (2/17/89):
The request was amended to decrease the amount of commercial zoning and
increase the amount of multi-family zoning.
Applicant (3/13/89):
The applicant submitted proffered conditions in an attempt to address
concerns relative to mix of uses and transportation issues.
Planning Commission Meeting (2/21/89):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for
thirty (30) days to allow proper advertisement and evaluation of the
amended request.
Planning Commission Meeting (3/21/89):
There was opposition present. Concern was expressed relative to the
intensity of development represented by this request and the impact this
development would have upon area residential development, traffic, and
the water quality of Falling Creek Reservoir.
Mr. Miller stated that, while the project adheres to the General Plant
and the recommended conditions attempt to protect area residential devel-
opment and the reservoir, the enormous amount of opposition present at
the Zoning Session could not be ignored.
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Commission recom-
mended denial of this request.
15
89SN0120!PC/JANIOM
AYES: Unanimous.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (4/26/89):
The applicant and the Dale Magisterial District Supervisor requested that
this case be deferred for thirty (30) days.
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mra Hayes, the Board deferred this
case for thirty (30) days to May 24, 1989.
AYES: Messrs. Applegate, Currin, Mayest and Sullivan.
ABSENT: Mra Daniel.
Applicant (5/5/89 and 5/11/89):
The applicant submitted a revised Proffered Condition reducing the square
footage of the retail and increasing the number of multi-family units.
Also, additional proffered conditions were submitted to address concerns
relative to the impact of the development on Falling Creek Reservoir.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (5/24/89):
The Board of Supervisors remanded this case to the Planning CommissiOOa
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board remanded
Case 89SN0120 to the Planning Commission for further review/study of the
following issues:
1. Review concerns relative to a reduction in the residential
density to a level no greater than the Woolfolk tract;
2. Revise the mixed use for an increase in office development in
order to be more consistent with the. land use plan;
3. Review the traffic analysis in detail for a level no greater
than the Woolfolk tract; and
4. Review the environmental issues previously discussed.
AYES: Messrs. Applegate, Currin, Daniel, and Sullivan.
ABSENT: Mr~ Mayes.
Mr. Daniel stated that he hoped the next time this case is before the
Board, there would be unanimity among those involved with the case.
Applicant, Staff, Area Residents, and Dale District Commissioner and
Supervisor (7/12/89):
A meeting was held to review area residents' concerns.
16
89SN0120/PC/JAN10M
,J
,J
(
(-
Applicant,' Staff, Area Residents, and Dale District Conmissioner and
Supervisor (7/24/89):
A meeting was held to further discuss the project.
Applicant, Staff, Area Residents, and Dale District Commissioner and
Supervisor (8/24/89):
A meeting was held to discuss the project.. The applicants indicated
their intent to file an amended application for the Commission's consid-
eration in November. The applicants indicated that they would continue
to attempt to address neighborhood concerns.
Applicant (10/11/89):
In an attempt to address the Board's concerns, the applicant submitted an
amended Master Plan and Textual Statement, and additional proffered
conditions relative to transportation and drainage concerns.
Applicant (10/30/89 and 11/3/89):
The applicant submitted a revised Textual Statement and revised proffered
conditions, as discussed herein.
Planning Commission Meeting (11/21/89):
The applicant accepted the staff recommendation.
There was opposition present.
Mr. Miller indicated that the proposed development was too intense and
was incompatible with area development. He further stated that the
proposed development was more intense than the Woolfolk project. He
indicated that additional area should be devoted to office use and the
multi-family and commercial area should be decreased. He reiterated that
the development was incompatible with the surrounding adjacent community.
Mr. Kelly indicated that he felt his original vote to deny the request
was wrong.. He noted that the Board of Supervisors had remanded the
request to the Planning Commission with specific instructions. He stated
that multi -family development would produce less school children than
single family residential; that the proposed project was environmentally
sound; that the traffic density was less than the Woolfolk project; and
that gasoline sales and fast food establishments had been eliminated from
the proposal. He stated that the request represented a quality project
and was consistent with the Central Area Plan.
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Perkins, the Commission
recommended denial of this request.
17
89SN0120/PC/JANIOM
AYES: Messrs~ Miller, Perkins, and Warren.
NAYS: Messrs. Belcher and Kelly.
CASE HISTORY
Board of Supervisors Meeting (12/13/89):
Due to an advertising error. the Board deferred this case to January 10.
1990.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday. January 10. 1990. beginning at 2:00
p.m.,.will take under consideration this request.
18
89SN0120/PC/JAN10M
~)
~)
c
c
~ .
RIDGEWAY. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONAL USE ZONING APPLICATION
48 ACRE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
NOVEMBER 14, 1988
REVISED AND RESTATED AS OF
NOVEMBER 30, 1988
REVISED AND RESTATED AS OF
AUGUST 18, 1989
REVISED AND RESTATED AS OF
OCTOBER 30, 1989
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Royal Oaks mixed use development lies in the Dale
District of Chesterfield County, Virginia and covers an area of
approximately 48 acres overlooking the Falling Creek Reservoir.
The property is situated in the northwest quadrant of the Route
10/Chippenham Parkway interchange and has road frontage in excess
of 1500' on Iron Bridge Road. Generally triangular in shape, the
property is also bounded to the southwest by Chippenham Parkway and
to the north by the Falling Creek Reservoir (the "Property").
The Developer seeks to rezone the Property from its current zoning
of R-15 Residential to R-MF Residential, C-2 Neighborhood Business,
and 0-2 Corporate Office Districts under a Conditional Use Plan of
Development. A 260 unit upscale apartment complex, a 71,600 square
foot neighborhood retail shopping center and 65,000 square feet of
Office/bank development space is contemplated.
- 1 -
2.0 DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The following firms have been assembled, as a team by the
Developer; to assist in the zoning and development effort for the
Property. Members of this team have worked extensively on similar
projects in the Richmond area. Individuals listed below are
available to discuss details of the development or of this
application.
DEVELOPER:
CONTACT:
RIDGEWA~ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
HERBERT E. FITZGERALD, III 282-9029
RICHARD W. NUCKOLS 282-9029
CIVIL ENGINEER:
CONTACT:
J. K. TIMMONS & ASSOCIATES
JAMES F. HAYES 379-6110
TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS: KELLERCO
CONTACT: DEXTER R. WILLIAMS
794-1418
ZONING ATTORNEY:
CONTACT:
MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE
JOHN V. COGBILL, III 644-4131
DANIEL K. SLONE 644-4131
- 2 -
~
..-J
( C
LAND PLANNERS: CLOWER ASSOCIATES
CONTACT:
GARY L. CLOWER
741-7154
LEE MALLONEE
741-7154
ENVIRONMENTAL & WATER QUALITY CONSULTANTS: RESOURCE INTERNATIONAL
CONTACT:
MICHAEL E. FIORE
798-1409
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST & ARBORIST: NORTH AMERICAN RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT, INC.
CONTACT:
DAVID TIeE
(804) 293-TREE
3.0 EXISTING ZONING
. The Property being developed by Ridgeway Development Company is
currently zoned R-15 Residential; however, the 1988 Land Use Plan
applicable to this property allows large scale plans of development
incorporating mixes of commercial, office, and residential uses.
This proposed development is consistent with the 1988 Land Use Plan
and will be built in accordance with the requirements of all
Chesterfield County development standards.
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Royal Oaks proj ect is a high quality mixed use
development ideally located at the Chippenham/lron Bridge
- 3 -
/ interchange overlooking Falling Creek Reservoir. The proposed
zoning lines have been established to give the residential property
the aesthetic advantage of being adjacent to the reservoir while
giving the business property visibility from two major
thoroughfares as well as vehicular access from Route 10 via two
entrances. Landscaping, walking trails and internal access roads
will blend together the various uses in this project.
The residential roul ti-family (R-MF) portion of the Royal Oaks
project consists of approximately 30.5 acres on the western and
southern portions of the Property. The apartment uni ts planned for
this portion of the Property would be scattered throughout the
R-MF portion of the site to take advantage of the scenic views
across the reservoir while preserving the rolling woodlands
character of this heavily wooded site. The Developer will utilize
the topography of the site for visual enhancement of the complex
by locating units on the peninsulas and cul-de-sacs and preserving
wooded ravines. The Developer anticipates the use of an
architectural style similar to that utilized in liThe Timbersll,
located near Old Bon Air Road in the Midlothian District,
Chesterfield County, virginia.
The- C-2 business. portion of Royal Oaks will consist of
approximately 8.0 acres of land to be used for a high quality
neighborhood retail center. An additional 9.5 acres will be used
for 0-2 office/bank use. The proposed shopping center could be
- 4 -
~
.~
c
, ,C"
........
anchored by a large food store and accompanied by a drug store and
15 to 20 shops.
The other C-2 portions would be available for
specialty retail uses.
The plans do not include a fast food
restaurant or gas station and no conditional use' permit is
requested' for such uses.
The office portion of the mixed use
development is planned for approximately 60 I 000 square feet of
building with a freestanding bank which will not exceed 5,000
square feet for a total of about 65,000 square feet within the area
of the proposed 0-2 development. Access to the entire development
will be from Iron Bridge Road as shown on the master plan. There
will be two entrances, however, only the entrance at the existing
Royal Oaks Drive will have access to the northbound lane of Iron
Bridge Road.
5.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS
The following general development conditions, the exhibits and the
numerical constraints and ranges therein shall be considered part
of the Master Land Use Plan and such shall be deemed the
restraints, parameters and basis for the determination by the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors that schematic and
final plans for the development of Royal Oaks are in accordance
with the Master Land Use Plan.
- 5 -
It is understood that any further changes in the Master Land Use
Plan, except as herein provided, are subject to the provisions for
amendments to the plan as prescribed in Section 21.1-10 of the
Chesterfield County zoning Ordinance.
5.1 The application form, all Exhibits and the
Master Land Use Plan shall be considered the
application. The Master Land Use Plan and the
exhibits are intended as a general statement
of intent and purpose and not an exact
blueprint for future action by either the
applicant or the County. The Master Land Use
Plan shall be modified by the conditions as
imposed and approved herein and by conditions
imposed in conjunction with schematic plan
approva 1.
5. 2 Working interpretation of any and all
conditions and/or exceptions to the application
shall be made by the Planning commission at the
request of the Planning Department, upon
submission, review and approval of schematic
plans as required by section 21.1-10 of the
zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission may conditionally approve schematic
plans to ascertain that they will be in
- 6 -
~
J
c
c'
conformance with the approved Master Land Use
Plan and other applicable ordinances.
5.3 'Approval of the Master Land Use Plan does not
'imply that the County gives approval of any
particular plan of development, or endorses a
specific location for a future public road in
the project as shown on the Master Land Use
Plan.
5. 4 Except where expressly referred to herein,
approval of this application does not guarantee
that the Developer can build or construct
facilities in the future in accordance with
present regulations. If future County
standards are less restrictive than those
established herein, the County may require
construction to adhere to the more restrictive
standards as stated herein.
5.5 Notwithstanding any exception to use and bulk
regulations granted herein, approval of the
application by the Board of Supervisors does
not obligate the Planning Commission to approve
a particular schematic plan which is not in
conformance with this application.
- 7 -
5.6 Public water and wastewater systems shall be
used.
5.7 . Prior to the first schematic plan submittal,
a report shall be submitted to the Planning
section of the Department of utilities,
describing the manner in which the development
will be served by the public water and
wastewater systems. The required report shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to,
the following:
(a) Overall water/wastewater system
layout plan showing both off- and
on-site lines and proposed sizes.
(b) Anticipated domestic water and fire
flow demands (i.e., minimum required
pressure for fire protection as
established by Fire Department) and
wastewater flows.
5.8 The developer shall take whatever actions are
deemed necessary by the Department of utilities
to insure that sufficient capacity exists
within the water and wastewater .systems to
- B -
J
,~
(-
\.
(
I ·
serve the proposed development, including
additional line extensions.
5.9 Prior to any clearing or grading, a phasing
'plan for clearing and grading shall be
submitted to Environmental Engineering for
review and approval. Clearing, grading, and
stabilizing
for
the proj ect
shall
be
accomplished so as not to have the entire area
disturbed at anyone time. Each phase shall
be 100% stabilized prior to starting any
successive phase.
5.10 Prior to any clearing or grading for the
shopping center, a silt basin shall be
installed
downstream at
an
appropriate
location. This basin shall be 1.25 times the
size of the required design capacity.
5.11 The erosion control and drainage plan shall
include measures to minimize the impact of
surface runoff on the water quality of Falling
Creek Reservoir. This plan shall be approved
by Environmental Engineering prior to any
clearing or grading. The erosion control and
drainage plans shall assure, to the maximum
- 9 -
extent possible, that the water quality and
sedimentation problems of Falling Creek
reservoir would not be worsened.
5.12 . A fifty (50) foot buffer, measured landward
from the floodplain boundary of Falling Creek
Reservoir shall be maintained. Unless approved
by the Planning Department and Env~ronmental
Engineering, there shall be no clearing or
grading within this buffer, except that
facilities, including passive ~ecreational
uses, additional pla~tings, utilities which run
generally perpendicular thr.ough the buffer I
installation of a sewer line along the edge of
the reservoir, and pedestrian access, shall be
permitted within the buffer. The Planning
commission may, at the time of schematic plan
review, modify buffer requirements to allow
other uses within the buffer.
5.13
- ..
A water quality study prepared by a qualified
engineer shall be submitted to the
Environmental Engineer of Chesterfield county
for review and approval. The approved water
quality study prepared for the developer shall
be implemented in all site plans as applicable.
- 10 -
_J
~)
('
c
5.14 A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the
gross area of the neighborhood business (C-2)
district and the corporate office (0-2)
. district areas shall be maintained as open
space.
A minimum of forty percent (40%) of
the gross area of the residential mUlti-family
(R-MF) area shall be maintained as open space.
Open space shall be defined as any portion of
. .
a tract which is not devoted to building
footprints, parking areas, driveways or other
paved areas used exclusively for vehicular
purposes. Open space required to satisfy this
requirement for a particular tract shall not
be counted as required open space for any other
tract.
5.15 The amenity package for the R-MF portion of the
~ development shall include a swimming pool,
clubhouse, and one tennis court.
5.16 Buildings shall be constructed of brick,
masonite or vinyl or other high quality
materials.
- 11 -
5.17 Outdoor lighting shall not be mounted higher
than twenty (20) feet.
. .
5.18 Signs shall comply with the standards of
. section 21.1-269, except that only one (1)
freestanding business sign identifying the
project shall be permitted along Route 10 and
such sign shall be limited to a maximum height
of five (5) feet and have a base which is
compatible with materials used in the
structures.
Further, there shall be no
freestanding signs permitted along Chippenham
Parkway.
With the. exception of the
freestanding sign restrictions specified
herein, the Planning commission may modify the
requirements of Section 21.1-269, provided the
spirit and intent of the regulations are met.
5.19 Leases for tenants of residential units within
the development shall contain a restriction
that shall preclude swimming and boating in
Falling Creek Reservoir.
This prohibition
shall be included as part of the terms of each
dwell ing lease.
Such restrictions shall be
included in and made a part of any contract of
- 12 -
J
~
c
",l
sale for the property, such that new owners
shall agree to be bound by this proffer.
5.20 A guardhouse shall be constructed at the
. entrance to the residential portion of the
development to control access to and from the
R-MF portion of the development.
5.21 Falling Creek Reservoir shall be stocked by the
developer with an appropriate number and
mixture of game fish based upon the advice of
the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries. The reservoir shall be stocked by
the developer once after completion of the
significant clearing and grading and once again
by the developer after all re,sidential building
..~
permits have been issued.
5. 22 ~ Prior to recordation of any covenants, deed
restrictions and amendments thereto related to
owner's
associations,
a copy shall be
submitted to, and approved by, the Planning
Department and the county, Attorney I s Office
for adherence to County Ordinances.
- 13 -
6.0 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
6.1 . ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R-MF Residential
6.2 PERMITTED USES:
Multiple family dwellings in
accordance with Section 21.1-102 of the Chesterfield
County zoning Ordinance.
6.3 The number of residential units shall not exceed
260.
6.4 Unless otherwise specified in this application, all
development zoned R-MF will be in accordance with
the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance.
6.5 No structure shall be more than three (3) stores
above the ground level.
6.6 The overall quality of development shall be
comparable to the liThe Timbers". All buildings in
the R-MF portion of the development shall be
complementary in style and materials.
- 14 -
'\
J-
,J
('
,(
7.0 RETAIL
~.
7.1 .ZONING CLASSIFICATION:
C-2 Neighborhood
Business
7.2 PERMITTED USES:
Neighborhood business in
\
accordance with section 21.1-151 of the
Chesterf ield County Zoning Ordinance. The
following uses are hereby excluded from such
permitted uses:
(1) Automobile self-service station
(2) Frozen food lockers and sales;
(3) Rest, nursing and convalescent homes;
(4) Funeral home and mortuaries;
(5) Occult sciences such as palm readers,
astrologers,
fortune
tellers,
tea
leaf
readers, prophets, etc.;
and
(6) Gasoline sales.
7.3 The amount of building square footage devoted to
uses permitted in the C-2 Neighborhood Business
portion of the Property will not exceed 71,600 gross
sq . ft .
- 15 -
7.4 Unless otherwise specified in this application, all
development within the retail portion of the
Property will be in accordance with the applicable
. portions of the Chesterfield County Zoning
Ordinance.
7.5 No structure shall exceed one and one-half story in
height.
8.0 OFFICE USES
8.1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION: 0-2 corporate Office
District
8 . 2 PERMITTED USES: Orf ice/Business I in accordance with
section 21.1-138 .of the Chesterfield County Zoning
Ordinance.
8 . 3 The amount of space devoted to uses permitted in the
0-2 corporate Office District will not exceed 60,000
square feet plus an additional 5,000 square feet for
a freestanding bank or savings and loan building,
which building may include a drive-in window.
- 16 -
.... >
..J
~
c
r
,.
8.4 Unless otherwise specified in this application all
developments with the office portion of the Prope.rty
will be in accordance with the applicable portions
of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance.
8.5 No structure shall exceed three stories above
the ground level.
9.0 EXHIBITS
VICINITY MAP
MASTER LAND USE PLAN
SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
jqs2001.int
- 17 -
!;'-\
~;:
!<J
t
jf "'~
., 011" ,., TRA. AI Pl' N ~ ~~ ~_
\i~' .. - . . --. -S.F~RM t~ I
".~.., ,.---.i...I.lb _ _ 64 1 j 't
... ,,~ ~, - ~ - ~ "'_. "'...:. ..1
- --. ". ,\.. I ; . -:".~.- ~ ,..
.. ,~.. JESSUP'~ .i~.. ea
.. .. FARMS : -J" ;~
... t..... !
t
~ ~
':'~11. ,
~ ...,."'),""
... .~
....
~.,.. 'II! +-
,;'" ~. ...,.t,t,. ,
-" . i,.~ _ :".,
.1
.
i
!
~ ...+
;.
",
~.
~..~
III. "1.
\
.~
JFI. M '.Ida.', ooll
:,. p'u.
. ~ ~ ~"/I)....
~ ~.. '- CH(ST~RWO
~ .1P:~.' ..... ~.-: ~~
i W"- a,. . ~~:...... - _
... ~ ~"",yo · ~.If. Nt.,." S IIa. C ~,
. ", ~., f.\ - ....'......:... ~' AmllWl 0
....... ~. ~I"" .. """0 : .....
110. ../ " . :1 '1\G ...L' If.. I _.
;.~ .;- ~ ~_'=.1 1 st-,... "a..... ~ S .. I- c .~".J :
....~. '\';';':.!I, uJ1\'" Le t , ~ ~ .. ~. ,1" .p..
~ ~"" :rr+ -- \~... . _ 3J - - ~ '10
Q ~ ........'.,. ". ..~\ ~.~ ~ ~'.!:! ~ ~
"': '~ -~ /~..l&"" ~.~~ ~T ./-.
\ ~~~fK ~:J.~. ..."" 1 .~"\
~ . .. ;-. u:aA ~ ....
. '~63 ) ~ _.-...-~r_~' ~.
..01 o~ \. " ..
~ ~ ~ S VlCIHr1Y K\P
. r 5
.. ~i.
\'~O
~
":'"
\ (~.. n
c'
c
CITY OF RICH MON 0
~ A
o
o
o
x
)>
N
J>
::0
C
c
('
~ .
CITY OF RICHMOND
(' (~'
.
e e-
j j
!: :5
~ u
:~
~ ..,.:1:,
ri::)
..; el"; tJ~
en ~
Z ~g 4 Q~ uc"-
~ ~~~ -oil 3. ~ 0 ~
0 ....UO 0
0,:;; :~: ~a:o ~ .
"G _001 ~
It
0
>- E ~
~ ,..i 0.
... ~ -C W
~ CC (rI
~ ... 2 ,
w w ...
;s u ~ m:. 0 "
:;:I t: ~ 0:;
0 t. a.
u 0 .2 ~ :5 ~ ~.
...
N N f
r I
u 0 ..
~\
\ \\
~ \. ,\, ~
~ \ ' ,-.,..
'\ J. .~-
I ~. ~. .. -:.::- .
~..... ~
\ .
,..
/~~>~'.:. ,
. r.~,~.'":~.. , ......
~~:'~~~'
--...... .. . ..: ~ ~~'..,
. 'L '\ ". \ \ ,
... . ~ .. ' 'If
'. , ~ -_ ....i..... ,.;.....1 L.-... .
. i J ;
. . ." ,'I - . . ':.. ...
. :' . I ./ ! ., .;:. t
.. r--:. ".~ :.
/." .
-",0 0 .
--" ,.'
~..
,...---:: >.
. . .
.~ . . ,
.. . ~ - I
.:. '-:. ':'
..; ......
. .> ~>>
/.....
/'
./
; ; .
---'
, ~t=.:.:.~
~ 3 - -,..,.- ~
;:::::::::--/ \. .~ ~- .
~~. -.....
~~' --', ,
~, ~'" '." \..... .,'\
~~, '. \ ',' '\.:~...." \, \
:.\ '\ '\ .. ......... \
---\~>" "~~"" \ i
. ~'\ ~.,. l
~ - --- .
I
f
'j~
---'
--
.....- ,/'#
/' '.
.....
---...
8'iSNO/ZO-Z
(-.-
'~Ji ~J ~
la! :1 !
~ - -,
.~t ~~..
~ ~, ~ ~~ J
~il t~ c
.~ii: ~l ~
(~
~ Ht
- !' ~ g
to- , 6. ...v
. {~t I
~ ~it
riH
t,}I- .. Jl.f\
~u~ Ill)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
"'()U ()~3
~Jt~ J:"
_ '\.) 7
'-- ~ V .. -
:::3 ..J .... .... it f
~ L-Q. ll. -Ii
(t - <
u U } IJ
C CSt. t,,-f
I 2~ ~"
r J J JJ J vl
~:<- :z {l
- ~t ~~:J
~~I:. i~l
z
~
8~SNO'20-3
.f ~
c
(
REASONS TO DENY RIDGEWAY DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY'S REZONING APPLICATION
1. Commercial and multi-family uses on this property are
inconsistent with the Land Use Plan which designates
the property for office Use. Although the Plan notes
that the property surrounding the Route 10/Chippenham
Parkway interchange may be appropriate for large scale
plan of development, incorporating a mix of office,
commercial and residential uses, the property on the
southwestern corner of the interchange has already been
rezoned. for a mixture of such uses.
Having already
.,.,v:.
- -
approved a mixed use development in the area of the
interchange,
the
Board
may
properly
view
the
intersection as a whole and rezone the remainder of the
intersection to uses no more intense than office.
2. Use of the property for other than single-family
residences may adversely affect the value of the
adj acent properties north of Chippenham Parkway which
are primarily zoned and used for single-family
residential purposes.
3. ';pproval of commercial uses will set a precedent for
similar requests along Route 10 north of Chippenham
-1-
/~
~
(~.~
c
Parkway in the vicinity of existing single-family
development.
Even if separated from Route 10 by a
buffers, such commercial uses are inconsistent with the
land use pattern north of Chippenham Parkway.
Even
though the new request does not permit gas stations and
fast food restaurants, carry-out restaurants would
still be permitted in the strip shopping center.
4. According to the County Department of Transportation,
the Route lO/Chippenham Parkway interchange is expected
to experience future congestion regardless of how the
property
is
developed;
however,
single-family
residential development can be expected to generate
less traffic than the more intense land use associated
with a mixed use development.
5. According to the County Department of utili ties, the
public water system may not adequately serve the fire
flow and domestic needs of the project.
6. According to the County Department of Environmental
Engineering, portions of the property are poorly suited
for development due to steep slopes and local flooding.
The project could contribute pollutants and silt to
Falling Creek Reservoir.
Erosion control measures
would not retard discoloration of water due to
suspended clays.
The initial shock to the reservoir
-2-
c
c-
would be greater from a mixed use development than from
a single-family residential development.
7. The densities and mix of uses are incompatible with the
predominant single-family uses north of Chippenham
Parkway.
8. Chippenham Parkway is an 'appropriate dividing line
between commercial uses on the southern side of
Chippenham and single-family residential uses to the
north of Chippenham.
9 The adequate functioning of the proposed traffic plan
is dependent on future restrictive zoning to the east;
a decision that cannot be predicted or assumed.
10. The density of development is incompatible with the
narrow, peculiarly shaped parcel.
11. strip shopping centers, regardless of quality, are not
appropriate so close and visible to an existing
residential area.
-3-
(
(
J MULTI-FAMILY UNITS
BERMUDA CLOVER HILL DALE MATOACA MIDLOTHIAN TOTAL
POPULATION (1-1.89) 31,734 51,389 36,837 37,057 40,999 198,000
SQUARE MILES 62.8 46.5 25.1 218~6 93.4 446~-4
BUILT AS OF 1/1/89 615 1,954 788 1,950 8,259
UNDER CONSTRUCTION 132 438 0 313 1,131
AS OF 1/1/89
SUBTOTAL 3,200 747 2,392 78S 2,263 ~ 9,390
UNITS PER SQUARE MILE 51 16 95 4 24 21
SCHEMATIC APPROVAL 0 36 0 0 248 2S4
AS OF 8/31/89
ZONING APPROVAL 1,430 1,180 300 300 1,900 5,010
AS OF 8/31/89
PLANNED 2,030 700 1,600 2,450 1,500 8,280
TOTAL 2,679 ~;;) 3,542 ~ ~ ,154
~~
UNITS PER SQUARE MILE 107 58 175 16 62 52
NOTE: AMOUNTS FOR ZONED AND PLANNED ARE APPROXIMATE
SOURCE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING STAFF (9/15/89)
"
('
,Ol. .
('
.....
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS
BERMUDA CLOVER HILL DALE MATOACA MIDLOTHIAN TOTAL
POPULATION (1-1-89) 31/734 51,389 36,837 37,057 40,999 198,000
SQUARE MILES . 62_8 46~S 25.1 218~6 93.4 446~~
BUILT AS OF 1/1/89 2,952 615 1,954 786 ' 1,950 8/259
UNDER CONSTRUCTION 248 132 438 0 313 1,131
AS OF 1/1/89
SUBTOTAL 3,200 747 2,392 788 2,263 ~ g, 390
UNITS PER SQUARE MILE 51 16 95 4 24 21
SCHEMATIC APPROVAL . 0 36 0 0 248 284
AS OF B/31/89
ZONING APPROVAL 1,430 1,180 300 300 1,800 5,010
AS OF 8/31/89
PLANNED 2,030 700 1,600 2,450 1,500 8,280
TOTAL 0,711 2,679 4,387 3,542 5,835 ~, 154
UNITS PER SQUARE MILE 107 58 175 16 62 52
NOTE: AMOUNTS FOR ZONED AND PLANNED ARE APPROXIMATE
SOURCE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING STAFF (9/15/89)
1........-
c
(
89SN0120**: (Amended) In Dale Magisterial District, RIDGEWAY DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY requested rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Residential MUlti-family
(R-MF) of 30.5 acres to Neighborhood Business (C-2) of 8.0 acres, and to
Corporate Office (0-2) of 9.5 acres. with Conditional Use Planned Development to
permit use exceptions. A mixed use multi-family. commercial. and office
development is planned. This request lies on a 48.0 acre parcel fronting
approximately 3.050 feet on the north line of Chippenham Parkway. also fronting
approximately 2,000 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road, and located in
the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 41-13 (1)
Parcel 10; Tax Map 41-14 (1) Parcels 5 and 6; and Tax Map 41-14 (5) Royal Oak.
Section A, Block A. Lots 2 through 5 (Sheet 15).
Miller: Ladies and gentlemen, before we start, I fully recognize that there's a
large number of people in this room interested in this case. Historically, this
case has been before us once on a previous filing. It's gone up to the Board.
It's come back from the Board. with some amendments with some amendments in the
process of time. I would hope that we could resolve this matter. one way or
another this evening, and I would certainly encourage that those of you that are
intending to speak in opposition that you limit your remarks hopefully and
designate one or two spokespersons, and that you not be repetitive in your
remarks. It is my intention to not take more than one hour with the hearing of
this matter. and I hope that we can do this, ah, before that. One hour on the
outside and terminate it. I say that with full recognition that we have heard
these issues and, ah, I'd rather not sit through another two and one-half hours
like we did once before. So. Mr. Cogbill, if you could be brief, yourself.
("
(~-.
........
Jacobson: Mr. Cogbill. if it's OK. could we have Ms. Rogers sunnnarize the
changes of this plan versus the original submittal? Mr. Chairman, if that's OK?
Rogers: This is Iron Bridge Road running north and south. intersecting with
Chippenham Parkway at this point.
The property in question lies in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads and is the shaded parcel
as outlined on the screen.
The adjacent property to the north is zoned
Residential (R-15) and is occupied by Falling Creek. Adjacent property across
Route 10 is zoned Agricultural and Residential (R-7) and is Occupied by single
family dwellings, office uses, or is vacant. The adjacent property to the south
across Chippenham Parkway is zoned Office Business (0) with Conditional Use
Planned Development and is the Woolfolk Tract. That development is being called
Winchester. The adjacent property across Chippenham Parkway in the southeast
corner is currently zoned Agricultural and Residential is occupied by city
public uses or residential uses.
Rag-ers:
The applicants are requesting rezoning from Residential (R-15) to
ReSidential Multi-family to permit 260 multi-family units. The multi-family
units will be concentrated along Falling Creek and along Chippenham Parkway. In
addition, the applicants are requesting 60,000 square feet of office use. The
office use will be concentrated on the northern end of the property, north of
the proposed shopping center, which occupied this quadrant of the property. The
shopping center would occupy approximately 71,600 square feet. In addition to
that, a 5,000 square foot drive-in bank is proposed in this area, adjacent to
the office complex and in between the office complex and the shopping center
(located??)
this area. This is looking north along Route
10 from the Chippenham overpass. The property in question lies to the west of
2
(~
(--
"'~~
the screen. This is the on-ramps to Chippenham Parkway off Route 10. This is
looking further north along Route 10. This is the current intersection of
Willow Oaks and Route 10. This would be the approximate location of the major
access into the property from Route 10. Falling Creek Reservoir is located just
across the horizon.
This is looking south along Route 10 back toward
Chippenham, this being the reservoir here. Apartment units would be located in
this area, the office complex in this area, and the shopping center further up
Route 10. And this is looking east along Route 10, further east. Again, this
would be the intersection of Willow Oaks, currently. This being the major
access into the property.
The shopping center would lie in this area and
Chippenham Parkway would be just to the left. And this is looking back along
Chippenham Parkway, back toward Route 10. The property in question lies in this
area.
Again, this property would remain relatively undisturbed and the
apartments would be located just beyond the woods.
RORers: The Board of Supervisors remanded this case to the Planning Commission
for further consideration. The Board requested the Commission review and study
four particular issues. These issues were concerns relative to reduction in the
residential density to a level no greater than the Woolfolk Tract, revised the
mixed use to increase the office development in order to be more consistent with
the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, review the traffic analysis
to insure a level no greater than the Woolfolk Tract, and review the
environmental issues since the Board's consideration of the application. The
amount of residential development has been decreased from 307 units to 260
units, yielding a density of 8.52 units per acre versus the density of the
Woolfolk Tract of 9.77 units per acre. Secondly, the amount of office space has
been increased from 4,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. Thirdly, the level
3
(--
(-
'..
of traffic service is as good as, or better than, the Woolfolk Tract. And
lastly. additional proffered conditions have been submitted to address
protection of the water quality along Falling Creek.
Staff has reconnnended
Area Land Use and Transportation Plan which designates the property for mixed
approval of this request because the proposal is consistent with the Central
use. Further. the amended plan addresses the concerns that were outlined by the
Board of Supervisors when the case was remanded to the Planning Commission for
further review and study.
Miller: Anyone have any questions?
Cogbill: Mr. Chairman. thank you. I will try to be brief tonight. I would
first like to introduce you to the principles in this transaction. They are
Hubert Fitzgerald and Richard Nuckles over thereto my right.
I'd also
introduce to you the members of our team who are here tonight; Mr. Gary Clower
from Clower Associates, Jim Hayes who's here with us as engineer and P.E.. Mike
Fiori who's
our environmental water folly(?)
expert
from Resource,
International, Mr. David Tyse who is a forestal land planner environmental
consultant. He is the president of North American Resource Management, Inc.,
and he is the latest addition to our teanL~
I point out that Mr. Tyse was
brought on as a result of some of the environmental concerns that were raised
should know that he currently serves on the Board of Practicing Foresters
earlier. We were very fortunate to get Mr. Tyse. Just from his background, you
Institute Trust. He is past Chairman and currently Trustee of the Virginia
Chapter of the Nature Conservancy and he I s served on numerous capaci ties in
various State forestry watership planning communities. It is his input that has
allowed us to prepare a proffer that deals with the use of Willow
4
('
.......
c-.
and Some other biotechnical environmental safeguards and best management
practices that we intend to employ. Again, I have here tonight Mr. Dexter
Williams and Mr. Cecil Sears.
Mr. Williams, as you know, is our traffic
consultant and Mr. Sears has done a financial impact analysis.
Cogbill: The question before you tonight is whether a rezoning request that
one, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, insures proper land use
transition, is compatible with surrounding land uses, is a quality development,
is environmentally sound, addresses all of the major issues raised by the Board
of Supervisors at their May 24,
1989, meeting,
and is recommended
unconditionally for approval by the Planning staff, should recommended by you to
the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Cogbill: It may seem to you that I am somewhat bold in my description to you of
this case, and yet all that I have said is contained in the Staff Report
presented to you by your staff. I see no need tonight to revisit the myriad of
unrelated issues visited upon you in previous meetings. The record is clear.
~T
A C>(;'F
t-, 'f' "_
S cfJLE
The Comprehensive Plan for the Central Area calls for large scale plans' of
development, incorporating a mixture of activities. This is the text of the
Plan J not a footnote.
This Plan was unanimously. adopted by the Board of
Supervisors in 1986. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage
a variety of living environments that provide amenities which maintain long-term
quality of development and further encourage a variety of housing types. Mr.
Miller, as you recall the Planning Commission determined that the proposed
development in its earlier incarnation, before this most recent version, adhered
to the General Plan for mixed use development.
That Plan included 307
apartments, a gas station, and a fast food restaurant. among other uses. The
5
('
r-
(
''-.
Staff Report reiterates that the revised Plan by the developer insures proper
land use transition. There's no residence abutting any part of the property.
The property is to be developed as an island. The nearest residence in Garland
Heights to the multi-family portion of the property is nearly 1.000 feet away.
The newly proffered offices is the use proposed on the property nearest to
homeowners at Garland Heights. The County Zoning Ordinance, as near as I can
determine. requires only a fifty foot buffer between 0-2. C-2. and R-MF zoning,
between that and R zoned property. The nearest land not occupied by public
roadway or the reservoir. is approximately 120 feet from the property. The
Staff Report finds that this project insures compatibility with surrounding land
uses. You recall at the last Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Smith in March,
reported that property values might be suffering in the vicinity of the Timbers
'-F
and Edgehill. When pressed about this, Mr. Munamaker in the County Real Estate
Assessor's Office reported that single family homes near the Timbers and
Edgehill have not declined in value since the complexes were built and that
there's no evidence to'suggest that the rate of appreciation-of the surrounding
single family homes would have been greater had Edgehill. North Creek. and the
Timers not been built. The Staff Report further states that this is quality
development~
The project is estimated to cost approximately 25.8 million
dollars. The proffers require development similar to the Timbers, Chesterfield
Meadows, or Stoney Point. The Timbers. on Thursday of last week, won three
awards from the Virginia Apartment Management Council. These awards included
best one-bedroom unit, best two-bedroom unit. and best community in the Richmond
area. The competition included every apartment project in Richmond. including
Buckingham Station and Stoney Point a
What better standard than apartments
comparable to the best in Richmond. This is a quality project. The cost of the
multi-family portion of the project is over fourteen million dollars. To
6
(-
.......
r
characterize this project as a source of blight, as has been done in a recent
letter to you, Mr. Miller, dated November 16, 1989, is to say, in the least
unfair. Perhaps the author of this letter should address her concerns about
city blight to her Council Person or City Council. The developers here tonight
are not newcomers to this business.
Between them, Mr. Nuckles and Mr.
Fitzgerald, there has been a number of projects done both in Chesterfield County
and the greater Richmond area. These include seventeen conversion projects from
apartments to condominiums, three commercial projects, nine residential
subdivisions, four new condominium construction projects, and five apartment
projects. The ability of the developer to blend the Timbers buildings in and
among the mature trees in that hilly site should be evidence enough of the
developer's ability to create a handsome and pleasant living environment near a
handsome residential community, such as Garland Heights.
This project is
environmentally sound. Mr. McElfish is advising in the Staff Report that the
proffers 'and the Textual Statement, provided by the developer, address his
concerns about drainage, erosion control, and the impact of the development on
Falling Creek. I can assure you that the proffers in this case surpass anything
previously done in Chesterfield. The use of buffers, best management practices,
and the suggestions of Mr. Tyse, have all contributed in providing the County
the greatest possible assurances that the project will minimize the impact on
Falling Creek Reservoir. Mr. Fiori of Resource International and Mr. Tyse of
North America Resource Management, Inc., are here tonight to' address any
questions that you might have about this portion of my presentation.
Cogbill: As you well know, this matter was referred back to you by the Board of
Supervisors at their meeting in May of this year. The matter was sent back
after a motion by Mr. Daniels to deny the rezoning was defeated. The passage of
7
c.
(-
Mr. Daniels I motion would have denied the requested rezoning and ended this
controversy. Had the Board felt that the case was without merit, I believe that
the developer's request for rezoning would died on May 24, 1989. Instead, and
again, on the motion of Mr. Daniel, the matter was referred back to you to
address the four specific issues described on page 12 of the Staff Report.
These charges to you are as follows: reduce density to no greater than the
Woolfolk Tract. revise mixed use to increase office, review traffic analysis to
insure a level not greater than the Woolfolk tract, review impact on the Falling
Creek waterfall. All of this has been done. and the results are as follows:
The project added 60,000 square feet of office and deleted objectionable uses
such as fast food and gas stations. This was not requested by Mr. Daniel, but
by other members of the Board. Traffic density was reduced from 11,195 trips
per day. based on the proposal reviewed by the Board on May 24, to 9,622 trips
per day, -estimated. It is interesting to note that the County may not even
require a developer to prepare a traffic impact report for projects that
generate less than 10.000 trips per day. In addition. Highway Department and
County statistics tell us the average daily traffic counts on Route 10 are
significantly lower north of Chippenham Parkway than they are south of
Chippenham. in the vicinity, I'm speaking here specifically of the
Woolfolk/Winchester development. I should point out the traffic figures
prepared by the developer were based on the initial traffic loading of over
13,500 trips per day. This represents an overall decrease from the initial
proposal to the current proposal of about thirty percent. In addition, the
Transportation Department has concluded that with the proffers proposed by the
developer, Route 10 could be accessed and an acceptable level of service
maintained to all property intersections with Route 10. Environmental concerns
have been previously addressed in my presentation. The developer has satisfied
8
(#~
,-
("
"
the concerns of the Environmental Engineering Department. The Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance Board has advised the County that the proposed is, in general,
in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Regulations.
These
regulations have not even been adopted by the County and yet the developer is
deemed by this State agency charged with drafting the regulations and overseeing
their implementation, to be generally in compliance. This is the result of a
conscious effort on the part of the developer to develop their property in a
responsible and environmentally-sensitive manner. I believe that the developer
has addressed, in great detail, all of the issues and concerns of Mr. Daniels
and the other Board members. The developer has done what they were charged to
do by Mr. Daniel and they have done more. I would finally point out that your
staff has indicated to you that the proposed mixed use project would be
appropriate, provided acceptable access and land use compatibility could be
achieved. Some here tonight might try to persuade you that this project is not
compatible with single family residential development. That is, for the want of
a better phrase, generally in the vicinity. Your staff, which I believe reports
to you their conclusions in a fair and objective manner, has found in this case
that the proposed zoning and land use comply with the Central Area Land Use
Plan, and insure proper land use transition and compatibility between existing
and future area land uses. Approval is recommended by your staff. Lately, 1
have been stung by the criticism of some of the citizens who oppose this project
on the basis that the developer will not compromise. The chart on page 13 of
the Staff Report demonstrates significant compromises.
The Case History,
beginning on page 15, documents the great effort on the part of the developer to
meet with staff, County officials, and citizens and to engage in meaningful
dialogue about this project. Unfortunately, both citizens and developer, and
even as late as tonight, still recognize that there is an impasse. The
9
C"
(
developer wishes to develop the property in accordance with its Master Plans and
conditions imposed by the zoning case and in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan. The citizens do,not want this project in this form.
CORbill:
In the past. you have entertained and sometimes permitted zoning
changes that were not in complete accord with the Comprehensive Plan. We all
now this Plan is conceptual in nature. and is intended to represent broad land
~ 1Jse trends for the County. It is possible to deviate--from the ~ if doing so
V would better meet the Plan',s goals and policies. In this case. however. the
plans and goals of the Central Area Plan are consistent with this rezoning
request. The land use trend. consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is for
mixed use development at these commercial roads. such as Route 10 and Chippenham
Parkway. There is no 'need tonight to deviate from the plan or even foresee a
land use trend different from that which is described in the Plan and put into
effect in 1986. I call your attention to the Winchester Mixed Use Project.
proposed by Mr. Woolfolk. and previously approved by the Board at the southwest
quadrant of Route 10 and Chippenham. No unexpectedly. the project before you
today is an extension of that land use trend as anticipated by. and consistent
with. the Comprehensive Plan. The Central Area Land Use Plan was not created in
a vacuum..
The introduction into the County Comprehensive Plan contemplates
meaningful citizen participation in the preparation of plans. In 1986. there
was considerable citizen participation when the Central Area Plan was amended.
Mr. Bert Howard. who is here tonight in support of this case. repeatedly
addresses concerns to you and to the Board.
Many of those concerns were
subsequently incorporated into the ~ or the Zoning Ordinance. specially the
Corridor Overlay standards on Route 10. The citizens who oppose this project
tonight do not have their names recorded in the minutes of those public hearings
10
(
'.....
(
\.
conducted by the Planning Commission and the Board in 1986. At that time. there
was no opposition to mixed use development on this proposed site. In fact. it
is not the footnote that the developer relies on, as I said before. it is the
actual text of the Plan for the Central Area. I'm told that the Lyttles were
dissuaded by the County from attempting to develop their property. that is today
the object of this hearing. as a single family residential project. They were
told then that there was a higher and better use for this property.
Co~bill: In conclusion, I would observe that the developer in this case. and
the owners of this land. the Lyttles and the Giltwells. also have rights. They
should be entitled to rely on the Comprehensive Plan and to develop their
property in accordance with this Plan. I urge you to consider the overwhelming
evidence before you as to why this case should be approved. While some weight
should be given on rezoning cases to public sentiment about a project. I do not
believe it is appropriate to allow the IInot in my backyardll argument to carry
the day in light of this overwhelming and irrefutable evidence. I request that
you recommend to the Board that this project be approved. I would further like
to present to the Planning Commission a letter written by Mr. Higgins that was
delivered to the Board at their meeting. but I don't think it's been
incorporated as part of your record. I'll swnmarize it very quickly. Mr.
Higgins. on behalf of Higgins Associates. and I'm sure the County is well
familiar with Mr. Higgins. indicated that he felt the proposed land use is
appropriate. that Herbert Fitzgerald and Richard Nuckles are exceptional in
their quality of project execution. Anyone who has concerns about this should
visit their completed projects. and I'm obviously not reading the entire letter.
/".
~_.
A neighborhood shopping center with proper architectural controls. and
particularly at an interchange. would seem to be an amenity for the existing
'(J()~ t:V _ D
l-I~\'G/r4--J)OcJ(L~ cf5
C~0
11
c-
(
BUT }"y,T SIN c L E..--. fP-~M t. c...y
neighborhood. I would also feel that retail development is an excellent
neighbor to multi-family residential. In terms of views into the site from
either across the lake or adjoining roadways. it is established that the
mUlti-family residential. if properly controlled. has more architectural and
visual appeal than a series of single family residences without architectural
uniformity. It is rare to see tool sheds...
Laughter.
Excuse me, please.
Cogbill: It is rare to see tool sheds and play equipment in the rear yards of
multi-family development. I have discussed at length with many of you the
restrictions that are in the lease for the Timbers, which is the model for this
unit. I will not burden you further with that. I would also advise you that Mr.
Carnes, who spoke at the Board meeting. is not here tonight. has indicated that
he does continue his support of the project and expects to be at the Board
meeting, as will Mr. Mel Burnett. I would ask those people who are here tonight
who support this case, to please stand.
Cogbill: Thank you. I would like to reserve a few minutes at the end of the
presentation for rebuttal.
Miller?: Alright, thank you. Any person wish to speak in favor of the
proposal. other than Mr. Cogbill? Mr. Beadles, you want to speak in favor?
Beadles: Yes sir.
12
c
(
Miller: You're allover the County, Mr. Beadles.
Beadles: My name is George Beadles and on May 24th, I was at the Board of
Supervisors' meeting.
Miller: I know you were, go ahead.
(Laughter)
Beadles: One of the comments I made then which is still true today; when you
have a development that basically has one owner/operator, you only have one
place to go to to get corrective action. If this property is developed in any
manner which gives it multiple owners, then your problem of trying of correct
any problems get worse. While it is not said that members vote the people, it
is not said that members always vote the Plan ei ther . This is def ini tely a
marked improvement over the last time it was here before you, and as we all
know, when it leaves here, it doesn't need a yes or a no, it just needs to leave
here; but I believe this is one time that this plan needs a yes vote. Thank
you.
Miller: Thank you, Mr. Beadles. Anyone else wish to speak in favor? Anyone
else in favor?
Lyttle: Gentlemen, I am "Chic" Lyttle, part-owner of the property and the
residence, urn, this may be enlightening, or it may not be, to some of the people
that live in the surrounding area, I was aware in the late 1950's that Route 10
was on the drawing board to be widened. We bUilt, and moved out there, in 1960.
13
C'
c
At that time, the circumferential highway was on the drawing board. I was
chided for wanting to build a nice home with all this. We did in faith of it
anyway and we went head-on with the encroachment of progress. Chippenham
Parkway was built. We did not fight what was then called the IINorthern Route."
We agreed to let them come across and take some of our property which Chippenham
Parkway is now existing on part of it with land that was landlocked on the far
side. Then, Route 10 was widened. I was aware of all of this as far back as
the 50's, late 50's, early 60's. This was, we built, prior to Garland Heights,
Meadowbrook, Meadowbrook West. It was just plain rural. We went on into it
anyway. We enjoyed having the home there. I said, well when the time comes,
we'll do something different. In the early 70's, there was a private study done
of, not only of our property, but all of the property surrounding, including the
property across the creek from us. At that time, according to the overall
Master Plan of Chesterfield County, as well as the findings of the study made,
that was a private study made by us, we were advised then that the highest and
best use of the land was not residential. So, that is where we were coming from
as owners of the property. Now, we cannot remain status quo. We have to face
reality. So the time came to make the change, I would never, ever have made the
changes that I have made personally had I had any idea that I would not be
protected by what we had been told, no developer would have ever talk to us if
the Master Plan hadn't shown what they are asking for today. Now, from a
personal standpoint, I refused to even discuss the property with some developers
that wanted to approach us, because I tried to do my homework prior to speaking
with anyone. These people, Ridgeway Developers, came "highly recommended. I am
absolutely very well pleased and shocked that the plans they have presented to
you is as great as it is, because I had no idea, their reputation did precede
them and I'm thinking, yes, I wonder how many people in the bUilding business
14
(
~....
(-
'..
today are that nice. but I did check on them. I was very impressed with them.
I am impressed with what they have proposed to do. I am a little puzzled at the
rationale of zoning part of one corner and not zoning the next corner, in lieu
of what I have just said. I think that as property owners, we deserve to be
protected by the Comprehensive Plan. This was what I was guided by. This has
presented a real hardship on my family and especially me. I do not feel that it
is really important to listen to the smokescreen of fear and innuendo blown by
opposition led by people out of the City of Richmond. This is certainly a
Chesterfield County matter and I feel that our basic rights as property owners
should be given legal consideration and just consideration. Thank you.
Miller: Thank you, Ms. Lyttle. Anyone else? By my rendering, reckoning the
has taken thirty minutes, beginning at ten minutes to eight
and it has finished at twenty after eight. The opposition will have equal time.
Anyone wish to speak now on behalf of the opposition?
~: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I stand here as spokesperson
for Meadowbrook West, Garland Heights, Brookbury, Meadowbrook Estates, Fuqua
Farms, Gravelbrook, Meadowbrook Farms, lake front owners, Beachwood, Edgewood,
Lakehill, Reservoir, Lang, and Rock Springs Farms. Rarely does such opposition
stand in behalf of any development. Now, we will try to be very brief tonight,
but I might add, Mr. Chairman, that you have been privy to certain slides and
certain videos and whatever, that the other members of the Commission have not,
so we would like to very briefly apprise these members on our concerns. Before
we do that, just very quickly, we have the heads of several of these different
civic groups with us and they would just like to very quickly voice their
opposiCion to this case. So, would the head of these various groups please
15
(- (
stand and just be very brief in your comments. If you all would just go ahead
and come up and just introduce yourselves.
Harold
I'm President of Meadowbrook West and
Garland Heights Civic Associations.
in a minute, I just want to leave you with one thought, real quick. Last night
I was pondering over this, thinking about what I was going to say tonight, I am
not an attorney, I am not an eloquent speaker, 11m just going to try to give you
a simple thought to keep in mind. The thought in
Proverbs in the Bible, "He who states his case first, seems right, until the
other comes and examines it." So, please, give us the opportunity to examine
it. Thank you.
Miller: Thank you, Mr.
Lee: My name is David Lee. I'm speaking here as a Board Mem~er of the
Meadowbrook Civic Association, representing Meadowbrook and Lake Hills and we
believe that this project consisting of apartments and strip shopping on the
backs of Falling Creek Reservoir, is incompatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods, will resul t in overcrowding of the schools, poses a serious
environmental threat to the reservoir and would set a precedent for rezoning and
development on the adjacent property which is also owned, in part, by the same
individual. We also believe that approval of this request will violate the
spirit and intent of the Master Land Use Plan. While a footnote does suggest
mixed use as potential alternative, the Plan was supported and approved by the
Dale District Supervfsor. Mr. Daniel. based on his understanding that the
property in question was designated for office development. Dale District is
16
c
(
'-.
already saturated with apartments and strip shopping.
Whether or not one more
of them would constitute the best use for this property is seriously doubtful.
One only has to look at Route 60 or 360 to see if this should be the future for
Route 10. Sadly to say. we see such a trend already beginning. The Woolfolk
project is going to go up next door. Less than a mile away to the south is
Irongate Shopping Center and the Branch's Shopping area is less than a mile away
to the north. Further south is Chesterfield Meadows and this doesn't even cover
the host of convenience stores that lay in between. We would prefer to see
Route 10 develop as a residential boulevard and don't believe the current trend
constitutes a balance between residential and commercial development. And just
as important to us is the environmental threat ,to the dependent wildlife and
water quality of Falling Creek Reservoir. that in the opinion of our experts
will likely result in serious consequences if the property is developed
commercially. Richard Burton. Executive Director of the State Water Control
Board in a May 9) 1989) said lithe reservoir is in decline and all applicable
measures.' laws) and regulations should be applied to protect. the remaining
beneficial uses of the lake. If
However, tfthe effectiveness and related
enforcement of the laws and regulations are both locally inadequate." A fact
that I'll show in some slides later if we have enough time.
It was also
acknowledged by agents I talked to at the State Water Control Board. the Council
on Environment. the Corps of Engineers) and even the Environmental Engineering
Department of Chesterfield County that more stringent measures are needed as
evidenced by actions that will be taken in the Swift Creek Watershed. In a
November 19. 1989. Richmond Times Dispatch article entitled. "Protecting Water
with Growth
)" Planning Director) Thomas E. Jacobson. said the
County plans to install and require a sophisticated series of permanent
settlement basins and restrict the Swift Creek water to development to no more
17
r-.
~'-
r~
.'.... ,I-
than an overall average of 1.8 housing units per acre to insure that sixty
percent of the wooded area is left undisturbed. The main goal of these actions
would be to keep stonnwater pollutants, mainly caused by runoff of paved
surfaces and erosion, out of " the reservoir. Such pollutants promote the growth
of algae, blocks the sunlight, depletes the oxygen in the water, and ultimately,
that contributes to the death of the reservoir. Now, with such sophisticated
engineering techniques and a density of no more than 1.8 housing units per acre
is necessary to protect Swift Creek Reservoir I s water quality, what will the
applicant's proposed density of eight and one-help housing units per acre, in
combination with commercial complex right on the edge of Falling Creek, do to
Our reservoir? The preservation of our neighborhood and the reservoir is just
as important and should be afforded equal concern and treatment by the County.
If precedence is to be followed, letls follow that of the Swift Creek Plan, and
not that of the Woolfolk project, which has been cited many times as
justification for developing Royal Oaks. The Planning Board previously denied
this request and we are again asking for your continued support and vote of
denial. Thank you.
(Applause)
~:
Mr. Chairman,
Members,
my
name is Ernest Ellis and I represent
p.c. c..fL- c:: Il~r-(5
in ~k Springs Forest, off of Iron Bridge
approximately 140
Road, Route la, and we don't want to see another Midlothian Turnpike out there.
shopping centers now that you canlt in them or get out of them and I'm down here
The traffic now is bumper to bumper and we have a nice area. We have so many
to ask for your help and I sure hope that you see fit to give it. Thank you.
18
(-
r- ~
(
" '
Miller: Thank you, sir.
(Applause)
Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I represent Meadowbrook West, probably next to Garland
Heights, this would be the most impacted residential area in the area. I don't
really know why we are here, I think everybody agrees that the final decision
will rest with the Board of Supervisors and then, I would like to bring an
analogy.
I worked for
for
and every
district and division would get a project proposed to them by a developer, by a
, or by an individual. Those districts and divisions would work
and state the feasibility of it much as your Planning staff. When they got up
to Board, which was equivalent to you all, they were appointed by, elected by
Congress; that where we expected the objectivity to be cause what we found out.
and we brought projects like the Tennessee
, that as you
know. parallels the Panama Canal is that sometimes when you are in the
nitty-gritty, and that's what you do for a living, your lost sight of the forest
and the trees and it took someone on the outside to maintain objectivity to look
at it. So, I think, if nothing else. the electorate of Meadowbrook West is
looking for you all and the Board to be their objectivity. As you know. there
have been heated debates and issues
on both sides. It I S probably a matter of arithmetic because we are talking
twenty five thousand to a million dollars just development costs with a large
$37.324 last year is very small. It does not peddle a lot of influence because
great return and as public servants, as a lot in this group is, my salary
I don't have much money to hire a fancy lawyer or anybody else; I just have a
lot of personal time.
So, what we are looking at is a wide variety of
19
(.~
......~
r
.........
individual interest with some common grounds and we don't want it apartments and
we got some extremes that maybe want to go back to no development. turning back
the clock and the majority of us did want to have some compromise and see what
alternatives were available. but we were never given the satisfaction by the
developer.
Probably what concerns us most is not the integrity of the
developer; I worked for the Virginia Highway Department and. frankly. little
money, as you all know t is put into drainage.
There is no return on an
investment in drainage; that was true of 1-95 that I happened to work on as the
inspector. I probably am the only one in this room unless somebody can differ
has some structure experience from the Far East. with heavy rains. monsoons. and
the same type of soil conditions and slopes. I could probably give a whole
bunch of other renditions that probably won't mean anything to ya'll here. But.
the problem is going to be. not in the plan with good intentions as the quality
of the Timbers. What does that mean? I've seen the architectural drawings.
All this is subjective based on a nice plan with good intentions. Well. good
intentions don't work out. I was even bribed by a drunken foreman up on 1-95
who wanted me to look the other way because they wanted to cut corners. Once a
watershed is gone. it's gone. and nothing anybody here can do to bring it back
and these are our concerns. How about thirty percent increase on the traffic,
that's
just
on
our
side.
Add
that
to
the
Woolfolk
traffic
and it is significant. Your own staff study
here says depending on what happens to the east tract. right across the street.
that is currently zoned agricultural.
You can't look at anything singly
the effect and that's why we at Meadowbrook West
hope you approach this and look at the needs and desires of the majority and not
just a single vested interest. Thank you.
20
(
(
(Applause)
Jacobson: Sir, sir, we need your name for the record.
Miller: Sir, could you give your name to the .a.
Anderson: Oh. I thought did at first. Mark Anderson.
Miller: OK. Someone else?
Lord: I'm Patricia Lord representing approximately 120 homes in Fuqua Farms.
Um. you've heard the statistics over and over from both sides. but in our
subdivision we would appreciate your giving consideration to the density of the
multi-family development that is very close to our subdivision and therefore,
very close to this project that is proposed. Also. the available office space
and shopping center space that has not been used. I feel like if we. you know,
if that's not used, we don't need to increase the number of office spaces and
retail spaces. Thank you.
Miller: Mrs. Lord. as you know. I reside in Fuqua Farms,
Lord: Yes.
Miller: We have not discussed this case at all. have we?
Lord: No sir.
21
(-
(
Miller: Alright, for the record, I do reside in Fuqua Farms. I have had no
contact other than I did receive a letter, I think everybody else did, perhaps
from Mrs. Lord. I do not perceive that it gives me any conflict, the fact that
I do reside. I have not had any part in making the decision with respect to the
appearance of Mrs. Lord or the position taken by the Association. I want
everybody to know that so there will be nothing hidden. but I certainly do not
perceive that it will influence me one way or the other. whatever the
Association wants. In fact. I don't think I have ever attended one of your
meetings, I'm sorry to say.
Lord: I was going to say. I don't want to put you on the spot. but you don't
attend our Association meetings.
(Laughter)
Lord: And because in part you do have a direct influence on the decision here.
you were not contacted by telephone to my knowledge by the Association and that
any conversations might have been with neighbors, but not with any of the
officers of the Association.
Miller: I have had no contact with any neighbors in the subdivision. I want
that to be just purely for everybody to understand. Alright. thank you. Mrs.
Lord~
Lord: Thank you.
22
('
(
Mason: Just very quickly. Sirs. Our two main concerns are obvious and that is
the Falling Creek Reservoir and our community. Now. we realize and we accept
that many proffers and many good intentions have been had here. We do not doubt
those good intentions. It's been our previous experience throughout the entire
area of Chesterfield County that many of these ecological proffers and
Chesterfield County itself. This is past. we have pictures to prove it and we
conditions are very difficult to implement and are very poorly enforced by
will prove it in a moment. The other thing. the continuity of Our community.
the character of our community. yes. any community is concerned with that. The
comment was made just briefly that we have some city residents in our midst. We
certainly do. We have very uh. a very easy analogy in our community with the
Berlin situation and that is some so reside east and some do reside west. but we
know very well that even a wall doesn't work. We are concerned with blight. we
would be blind not to. less than one mile from this proposal is an extreme
amount of blight. Those in our midst who are from the city are very concerned
about that. It comes with the attendant crime that comes with blight. We all
know what Richmond crime statistics are. We did a study in the last Spring of
of this proposal.
this year on the number of apartments. complexes now. w~thin a three mile radius
~- ~
Thirty-three. not counting t!JP proposed Woolfolk project.
= ~ - ~
~
Gentlemen. I certainly won't bore you with reading this list.
deal here to consider. Let me just please.
There is a great
J would you give each
on the Commission. I'm sorry. essentially familiar with the various designations
member there just this map. All of you on the Board are essentially familiar.
on this map.
We have. just very quickly, a. the proposed project, b. the
Woolfolk project. e. the Stratton property, d. the Zane Davis property, f. the
property that Mr. W.S. Carnes owns directly across from Rock Spring Farms. I
imagine, Sirs. that you could tell us about ones we don't know. It's obvious
23
C"
(-
\
that there is going to be a tremendous amount of development up and down the
Route 10 Corridor. We are not opposed to progress. we are interested in how.
We must call your attention. again, to d. the
property.
Mrs.
Lyttle. and I say this in full respect, stood in front of us and talked about
what they had planned for their property. We have video tapes here. we were
promised a television. Beverly, we were promised a television. OK. we have
video tapes here and I would like for you all to see what Mr. Harry Daniel has
forward please and just shows those very quickly?
to say about his conversations with the Lyttle family. Bill, could you step
Miller: Let me ask you one thing. Now, this video is going to depict what?
~: This video is from the Board of Directors. the uh. the uh Board of
Supervisors meeting and it, Mrs. Lyttle has said what they discussed for the
property. it shows what Mr. Daniel says that he discussed with Mr. Lyttle for
the property. It also shows the concern that Mr. Sullivan has. It also shows
very qUickly, it couldn I t take two minutes. that at the end of the Board of
Supervisors meeting, the one thing that was called for above all others, with
the various heads of the associations standing and the developer standing. was
for these two groups to reach a compromise. I would prefer that you see it and
not just believe my saying so.
Miller: How long does the whole thing take?
~: About two minutes.
About two minutes, sir.
24
C'
(~
~ :I"
Miller: Alright.
I don't know how long its going to take to hook all of this up.
Miller: Do you have any other speakers. other than. after you...
~:
Uh, we have, uh two gentlemen who will very quickly apprise your
Commission members of some things in pictures, in light of the fact that
pictures are worth a thousand words. Again, these things you have seen, these
other gentlemen have not seen and they represent very sincere concerns our ours.
While these people are putting this together. I would like to again comment on
b. on your map.
Ready, Virginia?
Mason:
-
Go, go,
Alright Gentlemen, you'll see Mr. Daniel. you'll see Mr.
Sullivan, and then you'll see Mr. Daniel wi th our communi ty head and the
developer standing in front of him at the Board of Directors meeting, and I'd
like to be sure that you all don't miss this.
Long pause, waiting for video.......
It's still not working.
Mason: Gentlemen. I'm sorry, Mr. Ed Wilton from Brookbury and we'll let him go
ahead and make a comment while we are waiting.
.25
c.
....~,
(.
Miller: Alright.
Mason: Go ahead, Ed.
Wilton: Mr. Chairman. Board Members. uh Planning Members. I represent Brookbury
Subdivision. and I'm not going to have but a little bit to say. but I would like
to speak for Brookbury because we are on the east side of that ~ll she was
talking about. I'd like to you know how many Brookbury people are here tonight.
Would you please stand. please. A lot more people in the hall. so we are pretty
well represented here. Sir. and we are interested because we are part of the
community and we don't like to see all the density and traffic going down
through there. We are bitterly opposed to apartments over there and we would
appreciate a no answer on this proposal tonight from the Planning Commission.
Thank you, Sir.
Miller: Thank you. Are we making any progress?
Mason: I think so. that's fine. If they do not. let me just state this very
briefly. At the Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Daniel stated and if we can't
get this to work; you can go back and research this yourself. it's public
record. Mr. Daniel stated that he had talked with Mr. Lyttle and that Mr.
,,-- - ~-=- ~ -- ,,~ -----""" ---
Lyttle fully accepted office ~~e for t~tract~hat we~ve in mi~ ~~)_Wg ~
(
a neighborhood. of course. have said from the beginning that we would like to
~
~
see single family Use. We have also in our various meetings.
~~ -----------
---......- -----..... ----....
Miller: Ms. Mason, excuse me,
26
(
\..
c-
Let's take five minutes and get the machine working or we don't
get it working, let me focus on
Mason: Bill, lets just give up on the machine, okay?
Well, if they, are they going to take a recess for five or...
Mason: No..
Miller: I would rather not, I would rather ......
(Commotion)
Thank you for your patience.
Video:
Lets start with some of the key issues, land use plan, what
does a land use plan call for? What the...and it was cited many times as
to what it says and what it doesn't say. The Staff Report clearly says
that the "Central Area Land Use and Transeortation Plan designates this
property for office use." At no time, absolutely no time, during the
development of the 19, the plan that was approved in 1986, was any further
use every discussed. In fact, I personally talked with Mr. Lyttle at that
time and reenforced that not only was this corner was with the designated
office, which he concurred at that time, but also the corner on the other
side which is more commonly referred to as the Zane Davis Tract, which
27
r
,~
C-'.
borders on Beachwood, that the Land Use and Transportation Plan would call
for office on those two corners. The Staff Report goes on to say though,
'it says that Plan Notes, and that's exactly what they are, notes for
consideration, they are not notes to determine exactly determine what the
land use plan is, the land use plan is clearly
You look at all
the maps which will show,
'~-tes are those considerations that may be
r ~ -."- -=.:." =.: ..,
talk~~ about under special consideration." I think the Woolfolk tract was
l-----=:::::':= __ _~ ~ :.-::-: .
that. In fact, when the Woolfolk Tract came here, I sat in this chair and
begged and pleaded that we look at the entire intersection as one zoning
case. The applicant of this particular case, at that time, chose not to
and chose to have the zoning of his case looked at as a separate and
distinct issue. If this strip shopping center is going to be approved as
submitted, it would certainly change the character of all of Route 10.
Chippenham Parkway is a natural boundary.
Sullivan: I don't believe that this changed despite all of the testimony,
despite all of the work, that this case represents the best effort of the
chain of zoning
and I commend staff, the Planning
Commission, and ourself. Mr. Daniel made reference to some things we
didn't get from the Planning Commission and I guess that's something that I
feel pretty strongly about. While I am a fan of the Planning Commission, I
don't think that we've done, that we get the service that we ought to get.
Miller: Alright, can we cut in, alright.
Mason: Chairman, did you notice there in Mr. Harry Daniel's own words that the
Lyttle family had accepted office as a designation on the master plan? Did you
28
CO,.
'L ~
c-
c;e
also note that at the closing of the Board of Directors meeting, very clearly
asked for compromise between the developer and the community. We have met and I
will, in just one moment, right now, we have one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve times with the developer and there has
been no compromise. You all have put before you during the week that this
development started out with 240 apartments and 140,000 square feet of shopping
and business. Then, in February, it went to 307 apartments and 72 square feet
of shopping, commercial. In' October, it went back to 260 apartments, 71,600
square feet of retail and 65,000 square feet of office and bank. So, now we
have gone from the original 240 apartments to 260. This is essentially the same
proposal that was denied by you back in March. In reprimanding this case back
to you, the Board of Supervisors did exactly what the Times Dispatch of May 25th
stated and that is, they ducked the issue. We have to call your attention to
the piece of property directly adjacent to this which is in the city. Again, as
we said, we are one community, we are an older community, tottering on the brink
of which way we are going to go. Mr. Daniel himself has stated that if this
-
pr~erty is zoned multi-family and mixed use, that it will ~et a _~ecedent~or~
~
other property north of Chippenham. There has been constant and continual
c---___ ~ -- c
comparison to this piece of property and the Woolfolk tract. Those tracts have
very little in common.
This piece of property is much more ecologically
VUlnerable than the Woolfolk tract. A quick walk over either property would
show that. We would like, Sirs, just very, very quickly to show you several
slides that show that there is a tremendous dispari ty between proffers that
protect the environment and the reality of what happens. David Lee, would you
come up very quickly and show us...
Miller: You have about twelve minutes.
29
/"'-
\"
c-
~: That's fine, Mr. Miller, Again, I would like the other members of the
Commission to see a few of these that you, yourself, have seen.
Lee: I can do it, that's just fine. What you are looking at is Meadowdale
Lakes which is an apartment complex located in Chesterfield County. less than a
mile from the proposed development. It is very simple in concept. but not in
execution as to what the applicant plans than this much older complex. Keep in
mind that this is in Chesterfield County. it's on a lake. it's very pretty when
you look at it from this prospective, has a tennis court, a swimming pool, the
units are about the same size as what's going to he developed on the applicant's
property if the zoning request is approved. It is an older project, but its
still less than twenty years old. This is what you are looking at when you get
up right on the lake and you look around it. This is the way the property is
treated, there is a disparity between pride of ownership and respect for other
people's property who don't own it. It's very common and typical in apartments.
This is standing on their dock looking in from the lake. This place has a full
time maintenance crew. twenty-four hour maintenance as well. This fellow was
cleaning a carburetor the day I took the picture and that's where he emptied it,
right there in that ,drainage ditch going down to the lake. The advertise that
as a fishing lake. This is right On the edge of the property; that car in the
background belongs on the previous site; that's a washing machine that's just
from the proposed complex. Part of it is currentI! under construction and this
sitting there. This is Pocoshock Ridge Apartments which is a quarter mile away
is how the developer is appearing to the walls that were Supposedly preventing
this type of thing. The silk fence you see there on the right-hand side has
been bulldozed over with all this debris and we are going to go down and take a
look at the buffer between it and Pocoshock Creek, which feeds directly into
30
('
"'.-
(~'
1Ito...~__
Falling Creek Reservoir.
This is within the fifty foot buffer that is
supposedly maintained between these creeks and the development. And this is
also allowed for in the Environmental Engineering Textual Statement of the
applicants for the ~hatever the plans is called. They will allow the buffer to
be violated to install sewer pipe, ~hich, by the way, the community is not
served by sewer. They've got to go across the reservoir to pick up sewer lines.
This is more of the erosion control
, you can
take a look at that. All these conditions have been reportedly challenged,
cause I reported them myself on several occasions. But this is what happens,
this is how the laws are enforced, how much they are feared by the developers.
They may have the best of intentions, but there is nothing that prevents them
from doing this, the bond that they post is not even sufficient to haul in one
piece equipment. This is a silt basin, you've seen that referred to in the
plan. This is just outfall from the property, that's a drainage ditch that's
not even a part in service, itls going right into the creek. And there's one
that
There's nothing there to
stabilize the swell and prevent the movement of that trash and debris into the
creek, nothing at all. You can see where the silt is just piling up and that's
more than fifty feet, that r s a hundred and some feet distance that you r re
looking at there. You can see why we have the concerns. that despite all the
proffers and whatnot, this is where all the garbage winds up. This is right
down the creek. that's Mr. Ed Wilton that you saw earlier speaking, looking over
this mess. All we are missing is the Indian with the tear falling from his eye.
~
(Laughter)
~ .---
31
L::::':: --. .-
(
. '-..-
(
~\". ~ oJ.
Lee: And if you think that's an isolated incident. this is the Arboretum up on
Route 60 and that's their silt basin and you can see what the condition of that
is. Again. these are conditions that have been reported on several occasions to
the County.
Thatls the silk fence around there~
It just, you know,
That I S after the soil has been stabilized and
It boggles the mind. it truly does. Since my time is running
short, Virginia, you want to show one or ...
Mason: Just show a little bit of our......
Lee: Okay. Bear with me here while I find the Timbers. I apologize. This is
the entranceway to the Timbers. This material is piled up so that it can wash
down into that outfall to the bottom left. This is one of the outfalls going
down into Powhite Creek. You can see where all the soil has eroded. itls just a
straight shot. there I s nothing to prevent the water or impede the flow; the
water has flowed over the edge and eroded away siding. You can see that by the
shadow On the side of the culvert. That's at the bottom of one of their main
culverts to the Powhite Creek. Looking at it from the side over the tires and
the siltation. That's looking up. we are going to take a walk up that hill; you
can get a general idea from here. This is one of the hills that backs up to the
creek. And then all around the backside of property on the creek side is tires
and construction debris that is still remaining there. Now, we just don't see
this as any evidence of responsible environmental controls at all. This is what
somebody is looking at from the balcony of their five hundred and SOme dollar a
month apartment. And this place has a staff of four people who do maintenance
work. That's all I have.
32
c:--
( ---
\
......
(~~<
'C.,,- .
Mason: Gentlemen, none of this has been meant as a slam against apartment
dwellers, with very few exceptions, myself included, has lived in apartments.
But it is, in fact, a temporary type of dwelling, it entails much more moving
;J::"~~ii~,--:ind ~uid eve~:-'h~~e ~ vr:::y pr~able cycle of apartment
ownership, of investment ownership, that we are all familiar with. Our concerns
again are the reservoir, we donlt deny the sincerity, we question the ability to
perform. Our concern is our community which is made up of both city and county,
into what is now city and county. But we cannot say, that's one jurisdiction
there is no denying it, we do not want the blight that is very nearly coming
and that one's jurisdiction, I ask you if we went over right on the other side
of there and proposed a hazardous waste dump, would anyone say, oh that 's
another jurisdiction. No, weld all be concern with how it affects the entire
community. So we are concerned with the effect of all of this on the entire
community. Ill-closing, I'd like to quote from a letter from April 25, from Mr.
~~--=- =-=
Brian Boniva, well known environmental attorney who operates in Chesterfield
~ ~ ---..
County, to our Association. He uh, expresses great concern for the reservoir
and then, in closing, he says, "The impact of this project, combined with other
projects that have already been approved, and which are in the offering, must be
considered. That is, we must consider the impact of this project, combined with
all these other projects. In short, I think that legitimate grounds exist to
criticize the propriety of this development.
So, Sirs, we have to say that
the same proposal as it has always been, and in light of the fact that there has
this proposal and we are asking you, in light of the fact that it is essentially
thirteen civic associations appreciate the fact that once before you did deny
Sirs, to deny this proposal.
been no willingness to compromise with the community, we' must ask you again,
33
t'---
'"
(~
(Applause)
Miller: I presume that that wraps up the opposition. Mr. Cogbill. Mr. Landers.
Belcher: I need to ask Ms. Mason a question if I may. I've heard compromise..
~: Yes sir.
Belcher: And you've said there was no compromise...
~: Yes sir.
Belcher: What is your compromise?
~: We have discussed and I have a list of dates here with meetings with the
developer...
Belcher: No. what do you want. Tell me what you want him to do.
of single family whatever. we discussed cluster homes. townhouses. whatever. We
~: We have asked the developer for any type of single family home. any type
difference of opinion.
h~~_~~~~_!old~_ \l1~_i1l1~~ly-.__we_!,11~o" back -S~d~wing ~~ to know we have a
~
----
Belcher: Well. let me put it bluntly. Would you compromise from 260 apartments
to 1301
34
(--
....... ~.fI'
(
Mason: Sir,
Belcher: Now, answer the question.
Miller: Let her answer please.
Belcher: I want to find out is the compromise zero or is there a compromise.
Mason: Sir. when Mr. Daniel stressed the fact that the Master Plan called for
office, the developer wanted multi-family mixed use. We wanted single family
residential. Mr. Daniel has stressed that the middle ground was office which
the Master Plan has called for all along and which Mr. Lyttle and he discussed
and Mr. Lyttle agreed to.
Belcher: I heard Mr. Daniel say, I think. that the compromise was from both
sides.
~: Yes sir.
Belcher: And you are asking it all to he one side.
~: No sir.
(Commotion)
Miller: Alright. ladies and gentlemen.....
35
c
r~'
\..- .....~ .
. ~l
j'
~:
Excuse me, Mr. Belchert would you please...
I honestly don1t
understand, you know, why you ....
Belcher: I understood Mr. Daniels to say that he charged the Board, the way I
read itt to review concerns relative to a reduction in the residential density
do.
to a level no greater than the Woolfolk tract. That's what he's asking us to
Mason: Sir, in our meeting with Mr. Daniel...
Belcher: I'm reading what the Board has sent to me on page 12 of the report. I
understood Mr. Daniel to say in the video that he would ask both sides to
compromise and come back (Applause). I don't see where you're saying they don't
from your side that you're willing to compromise with them.
or did not compromise and that's what I've heard, but I haven't heard anything
~: Mr. Belcher._..
Belcher: You either want nothing...
Mason: Excuse me, Sir.
Belcher: Well, answer the question.
~: Mr. Belcher...
Belcher: Do you want any apartments?
36
(~
.r-...
(
(Commotion)
Mr · Belcher, let me answer this in another way.
To make a
compromise. you have to have something to compromise with. You have to have
some input or something that you wish your side....
r'm glad you asked the
question tonight because this is one thing that we think we know what a word
means like that. Last night, I looked up the word compromise. I think I know
what it means, I thought I did, but I just wanted to be sure of myself.
Compromise
comes
. from
the
principle
word
components,
The definition,
these are literal definitions, to make a legal proffer, to abide by the decision
it is a settlement which each side gives up some demands and makes concessions,
of an arbitrator, to come together and promise. The modern-day terminology is
which part of each is given up. This is Mr. Webster's definition of compromise.
something midway between different things. an adjustment of opposing principles
But, we have not had the input to make any compromise with.
Belcher: 1'm asking you...
They're compromising their own positions that they dictate this is
what you have, this is what you have, not, what would you like to see.
Belcher: Well, let me put it another way, would the thirteen Civic Associations
happy?
compromise and agree that if the 260 units were cut in half, would it make you
That hasn't been offered to us.
37
(~
r-.
\~r
Belcher: r'm asking you.
I can't speak for thirteen civic associations.
Belcher: Well, you did...
I can speak wi th them, but not here" I don't think this is the
proper forum. But I can't make this decision on my own.
Mason: Is Mr. Belcher offering us 130 apartments.
Belcher:
rim not offering anything~
I'm trying to find out where the
compromise is, if there is one.
Mason: Well, Sir, let me say that Mr. Miller has been privy to several meetings
that we have had with Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel has congratulated us on several
meet ings on our des ire to compromise with the developer. We have heard "we're
going back to the drawing board, II but you people, meaning our side, would you
please draw up a list of things that you would like to possibly live with. We
drew up that list, we've waited a month to hear back from the developer, we
finally had to call them, I have the dates all here in writing and at that time,
we were told that we have gone back to the drawing board and it will take a week
to ten days to finish the drawings. And then on October 10th we found out that
this same plan, essentially the same, was reverted back to you. So the truth of
the matter is, and I think Mr. Miller has been our witness to this, is that on
several occasions, we have displayed a willingness to compromise and on each
occasion, it was either, well, we'll go back to the drawing board, or well,
38
(-
(~
you I 11 hear from us later. So, you know, what do we compromise on? We are
looking at essentially the same plan that has been through this room three
times.
Belcher: Okay a
Miller: Mr. Landers, are you the final speaker.
Landers: Well, I want to talk about the school situation real quickly. I have
some data that I gathered as late as last night. I talked to Dr. Long, a School
Board Official, the Royal Oaks, and I'm using his factors, I'm using not the
Coun tywide factors for students per household, but for apartments, because
that's what these were. So I want to get a fair shot on this. Okay, the factor
the School Board uses in determining the amount of students per household
apartment is .406 children per unit, that's less than one half a child per unit.
Okay, the Royal Oaks project, as proposed. that's 260 units, that would add an
additional 106 children to the school system. The Woolfolk project. we can't
forget about the Woolfolk project. it's there, it's going to be built also.
That has 259 apartment units. okay. I'm not talking. they have an additional 200
apartments for retirement. I'm not including those figures. that would generate
another 105 children. Okay. this is done by the School Board. the latest done
on November 14. 1989. This is very current data that he gave us. Okay. going
back to the Planning Staff Report. on the current enrollments in the Falling
Creek Middle School and the Meadowbrook High School. The capacity of Falling
Creek Middle School is 1.080, the current enrollment is 969, they have a current
surplus of 111 students. Meadowbrook High School has aI, 350 capaci ty of
students and a present enrollment of 1,316. The current surplus is 34. These
39
c
C'
two projects in itself would put 66 more students than present capacity,
assuming there is no other growth in the next couple of years. These two
schools have been added to, these two schools have no potential or no future
additions planned for them. He also indicated that Meadowbrook High School in
the next couple of years is going to have additional pressure put on them
because of redistricting the County School System. They will probably pick up
students that are now in the Manchester District and will probably be going to
Meadowbrook. This is coming, this on already what's in place. This is assuming
no ,growth at all. And also, we found out, which I didn't realize, schools are
the most expensive thing in service the County provides for its citizens. So,
we haven't seen any economic figures, what this project will do in revenue to
the County. We have seen these in the past. We have seen Some figures in the
past. but we really don't see this seems to be a workable project on monetary
standing point. you I ve got
the proffering system now. you've got the, as far as. I'm losing my train of
thought for a second, anyway. you've go some things that. revenues that this
project is not going to give the County. This is one thing that ya'll look at
is the School System. , and it wasn1t covered
at all by the opposition. I think this is something that is really important.
This baSically, we have a lot more to say, but evidently our time has grown
short. We have a lot more to talk about the commercial aspects that there is no
need for if there is such a thing. It's an overabundance of it in the
community, an awful lot of vacancies, I have statistics here. but in the time
that was limited, it is time to. I guess we have given it our best shot and
we'll just have to go with it. I don't see. honestly where you can honestly sit
there and see though that this is a really different proposal than you looked at
40
(~- c
'...
the first time you denied it. You should have no trouble denying it once again.
you denied it before. Thank you.
(Applause)
Miller: Alright, Mr. Cogbill.
Co~bill: I want to go very quickly through some of these issues. First. I
remind you and I'm sure it doesn't need to be restated. but I will anyway. the
fact that staff has recommended approval. All the points have been raised by
these individuals tonight have been addressed. specifically. the issue of
schools which just appeared tonight. Remember. it I S in the Staff Report of
approximately the school age children is 94. we actually believe based on the
demographics of the Timbers that that will be significantly less than that and I
agree that Dr. Long, that new number is .41. .406. but Dr. Long also said that
there would be little or no impact from this project on the School System.
(ColIDDotion)
Miller: Ladies and gentlemen. if you will let him complete.
Co~bill: I also point out that the economic analysis was performed. Mr. Landers
indicated that he wasn I t aware of that. The way this project is currently
~
configured. it expected to draw a positive cash flOw of 192.000 per yea~." In
-----
using as some of the basis for t 1S. our analyst used the figure of $11.000 per
their Annual Report, I believe. uses a figure of about $4,000 per student. per
year. per student, as part of the operating cost for schools. The County in
41
(
(-
year. The issue of apartments, Mrs. Mason is right, there are apartments in
Chesterfield County and in this area. But in the
period of 1980 to 1987, only one apartment project was issued building permits
in the Dale District. In that same period, seventeen other apartment projects
were built in other parts of the County. Areas most affected were Midlothian
and Clover Hill Districts. As to environmental issues, I can only say that I
have here experts which question them about the environmental provisions we have
implemented. I think the record speaks for itself on what we have proposed. We
have done more than anyone else. I don't suspect that Mr. Lee really believes
that all tires and that whatever that box down there belongs to residents of
that apartment, but if he does, he is certainly entitled to his opinion. I
would point out to you that the point made by Mr. Daniel being so sure that this
was intended to be office, that in fact, he said at that Board meeting, he was
so sure that the next Board meeting to reconsider and reopen discussion of this
particular portion of the Central Area Plan which the other four members of the
Board refused to do. So, again, my question is if that if he was so absolutely
sure at that point, why did he bother to have the issue reopened? There have
been some people here who has spoken. I counted at least six or seven
associations who spoke against this project and I am sure Mrs. Mason is right
and there are thirteen people, thirteen civic associations
opposed to it.
a~ the evidence
I would only ask them tonight to look at the Staff Report, look
that has been present, and to recommend approval of this
request. Thank you.
Miller: That'll conclude the input. Gentlemen, are there any questions?
42
c-
o
I'd just like to ask Mr. Chairman if I may, one question that was
brought up about the property to the east. Uh. that the road network would be
sufficient depending on the tract to the east, uh. if that tract came in.
wouldn't we impose conditions to upgrade the moving traffic to where it would
come back in line?
McCracken: With the zoning of the Davis tract. what we did was traffic study
for this project and we ask them
we already analyzed and certainly when
comes to us for zoning, we will have recommendations for you
: 'In the traffic impact. the original impact to the revised impact
is less with the same improvements.
McCracken: Traffic is less that what we originally said, yes sir.
I'd like to ask Mr. McElfish a question if I may. Mr. McElfish,
the the what we saw in the slides. has the input that the COWlty and your
department has received. in your opinion. sufficient to not have the impact on
the watershed of this project.
McElfish: Well, anytime you deal with drainage and water. you always have
unforeseen things.
I understand.
43
(~
('
McElfish: And while the conditions that we have are above and beyond what we
can require to the standards of erosion control devices that we have.
Therefore,
conditions,
secondary devices, we know these devices that already
eight or nine proffers wi thin the
the
guidelines
some other things that
deal with
and put in silk fencing
Anytime you
always susceptible to heavy rains
Without this development, the impact that it would have on the
reservoir, uh, what in your opinion, is being done to clean up and to keep
stabilized the reservoir from the neighborhood that has the enjoyment of it. Is
the neighborhood participating in a free effort, community organized to clean up
the debris I saw in the slides.
McElfish:
have to talk with Dave Welchons about that.
Some of the other things we saw in the slides like the Arboretum, some of the
I think you've
things we do do,
really
that may occur.
, so that was
problems
Belcher: Thank you.
44
(~
,
c
Mr. Belcher. I want to ask you a question about the sewer line
that adjoins my property. For three years, I kept it clean. but due to my age
and health. at this point. I can't do it anymore.
Belcher: Dh. I didn't intend for you to do that. I wanted to know if there was
a general community-type clean-up.
Miller: Alright. the public input has been terminated. We will just direct the
Commission for questions.
Can I ask
Miller: No sir. I believe not. if you will. Unless Mr. Belcher wants to hear
Belcher: I don't need it.
Miller: We can't continue this.
Belcher: Mr. Chairman, I'm through.
Miller:
Anyone else have any questions?
(Pause)
Alright, ladies and
gentlemen, it may take a few minutes here. This is in my district, it's a tough
that are neighbors and friends. perhaps, even some clients that I have had in
case, it has been a tough case from Day 1. I look out here and I see people
the past. Mr. Cogbill is the developer/client and they represent themselves
quite well. I'd like to go back a little bit with respect to the Plan. We've
45
c
('
....~ ..
heard a lot about the Central Plan and the Notes and the Textual Statement. ~
had a little bit of something to do with the Central Plan and we did not get a
0;;-::' ...
fScf6
lot of input from the people, very little, in fact, with respect to that Plan.
I do recall, specifically, however, in the discussion of the Plan and what were
the prospects for what was known at that time as the Hatcher Tract, which is now
known as the Woolfolk Tract or Winchester Development, that I had extreme
reservations about the development of that tract; principally because of its
office, I would have considerable difficulty in arriving at a conclusion to
access limitations and I made the statement at the time that while it was zoned
support development on that tract unless additional access could be obtained to
my concerns or anybody else that might be my successors. That
tract developed in a manner as originally the Planning Commission turned it
down. It went to the Board. It was turned down, as I recall. It came back to
us. At that time, Mr. Woolfolk came into 'the picture and joined as a joint
which ultimately, I think,
venture with Rich, Rich and Nance and some amendments were made to the Plan
many of the concerns that I had.
Principally the access obtained through the subdivision that was in front of it.
HOuses were, as you might know, were torn down, purchased by the developer to
which was ultimately, in effect, bought out, and that tract of land of 125 acres
It did not principally abut any substantial SUbdiVisions, other than the one
school, the J.G. Hening School. It did not abut the Falling Creek Reservoir.
It lay adjacent to a use that was already put to a public use, that is, a public
provide a more safe access. That property was agriculturally zoned originally.
is not necessarily a pattern for this property that we are discussing this
evening. G .~l_~~_y ~~~~ categOrically, do not remember e~~ ~~:..
any use of the property, or the p~erty known now as the Lyttle Tract, other
than office or perhaps, if given time and ci,rf'l1mstances-ehange,_ancL.the Plan Was
---------
46
(~
r.' ~.
(
------
amended to perhaps permit some other use. but I. at no time. had any input, into.
nor was it out of my mind and out of my.... I did not conceive it anyway. I did
not originate it. the Plan Textual Statement referred to by Mr. Cogbill. nor
~; -~ ,
-property that lies to the north of Chippenham. being the Lyttle Tract. is
---
which call5-for perha s large-scale use.
configured quite differently. It represents the only parcel between Chippenham
and the city limits. It abuts the Falling Creek Reservoir which at one time was
however. I am of the opinion that the use that the developer seeks to make of
abuts it. does not abut it. but lies across the street is for another day;
a source of public water for the County. It may one day be again. The property
the property in the context of what he has presented. is a too intense use for
~ ---
· this-E-artiG.ul.:tr M.t".ceL T b~v~ sat through the Summer. the late Summe~.~
=--~_.. --- , ____.~7' _ _
number--of-,meetings with Mr. Cogbill and his clients with these people. I have
~~ --- ~ ---=---
seen them work and attempt to work with one another and admittedly. I'll be the
first to say, there was a lot of
on both sides, to be
absolutely candid perhaps. but I wouldn't expect any less of them. The
developer can't be asked to give away the store. and on the other hand. the
Opponents of the project did not wish to give him what he asked for. Whether
that there could have been perhaps more area where perhaps the parties could
there has been a compromise obtained. I do not know. I. in my own mind. feel
what the Board did. I don't concern myself particularly with that. I made the
have Come together and that was my fondest and sincerest hope. With respect to
call on my motion early-on. at the first hearing. that the_l!.roject was not
~- --~~_.~-~----...
compatible. there was an outpouring of opposition to the project. As I was
...' ~.- :_~ '--:- ~ ---' ---:::. -----. - - ---- ~~~===- ~ =---=- - . ~
~~ -------.. ~- ~ ~ ~ .-:::::::::::---.- ----
presented at that time. I had what appeared to be an all-or-none proposition and
I chose to deny, through my motion. the project.
It has gone up.
It was
amended several times going up. It has been amended again down. We have 260
47
('
(
\ .-
apartment units proposed on 30.5 acres. We have 259, compared to 259, on 26.5
~~... ~
of the Woolfolk Tract. We have, in m>: opinion, too much intense use of a
t:'-.... '~~ ___
mUlti-family on an acreage of 48 acres which represents probably, I made some
notes, if you'll bear with me, 41.5 acres, excuse me, 26.5 acres representing
259 multi-family units on the Woolfolk Tract, as opposed as I stated to 30.5
acres with 259. We have 41.5
..-~ ~
conunitted to specially retail or
acres of the Woolfolk Tract dedicated, or
-----.,..
community retail, and when you consider the
outparcels, an additional five acres. approximately, for a total of 46.3 acres,
a yield which represents 37% of the tota~~ Within th:t~6~ acres,
...~
there is 200,000 square feet of commercial. That yields approximately 4,320
square feet per acre. On the Royal Oaks tr~t, the Ridgeway project, we h~ve 8
.. ~ .,I --- ---1
J- - ==- ...::.
acres commercial representing 17% of the 48 acres, which has 76.600 square feet,
,--=-~ ------..-
inclusive of the bank outparcel, which y'ields~ ~_,575 square feet per acre in
~~ ~
their C-2, almost double, a little over double whaL-tne Woolfolk Tract is. I
.. ~.:....- ~ - =- ~ -=---= -===- ~ .-
think that is entirely too dense. We have office, however, on the Woolfolk
Tract which represents 33.7 acres representing 27% of the total 125 acres,
350,000 square feet of office, which represents 10,386 square feet per acre
~ l'lI!!!!::
within the office district. Compared to that, the Royal Oaks represents 9.5
acres, representing approximately 20% of 48 acres, yielding approximately, with
60,000 square feet of office, yielding approximately 6,316 square feet per acre.
It's obvious that the office development on the R[~ Oa~s is considerably down,
notwithstanding, the Plan shows primarily that it is for office.
To the
contrary, their commercial is almost double that of the Woolfolk Tract on much
smaller acreage. I feel that, in the long view, that there should have been
some reasonable compromise, perhaps, but given where I am, given what the
applicant has presented me with, I don't feet obliged to other than that which I
did before. I made the call that I made then and I felt it was the right one, I
48
(~
r~
'-~ ... s
make the call now that I am prepared to make and again feel that it is the right
one, and not attempting to be frivolous or cavalier, but I will leave it to the
Board to make their own decision, 11m charged with the mission that the Statute
imposes on the Commission, that is, to make plans, to make recommendations and
let the Board do that which it will. And whether they send it back again, or a
third time, I will vote the same way if I'm presented with the same plan. On
that basis, therefore, I am going to move for denial of the project, and I would
ask is there a second?
Perkins: Second.
Miller:
The motion is made and seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Any further
discussion.
Mr. Chairman, could you, uh, you went over several figures and I
appreciate the fact that you really have done a lot of homework on this and you
mention the commercial as being twice that of the Woolfolk Tract on less
acreage. What was the figure you gave on the multi-family and commercial.
Miller:
The multi-family represents, they have 259 acres on that portion
designated as multi-family which is 26.5 acres.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, 26.5 is on the Woolfolk Tract?
Miller: That's right~
And.~~
49
c_
"'-
(,-
Miller: 30.5 approximately on the Royal Acres.
30.5 acres? And the density again for the multi-family...
Miller:
The density on... if you look at the density between the two
multi-families, the Royal Oaks density is less.
Royal Oaks is less than the Woolfolk Tract?
Miller: That correct. looking at the two multi-family densities. You have a
8. 52 density with Royal Oaks and 9. 77 which is the Woolfolk Tract. I would
restate. I've had the motion made and seconded. I would restate again. that I
had sincerely hoped that this could have been resolved. 11m prepared to support
something on this project, but this I can't support.
If the plan could be
amended and come back with. see fit with the Board to get your office up to a;
to be more in line and consistent with that which the Plan calls for. reduce
that multi-family. and reduce that commercial. and make it up in your office. I
would have been prepared to support it. But given where I am. I made the last
minute charge to both sides this evening before we resumed with the hope that
they might see fit to meet one more time and they each chose not to do that and
that's their right. I. therefore, again. without repeating all of that, I just
feel that the property is not compatible as it stands with the application we
have with the surrounding and adjacent community. It represents too intense a
development and on the basis of the application that I have right now. and on
that basis. I have made my motion to deny and it has been seconded. Are there
any further questions?
50
(. c-
I have some discussion, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect to
the Chairman, I don't recall ever taking a position inconsistent with you for a
case involving your district.
Miller: Thatts quite alright, doesn't bother me at all.
But you reminded me of the charge under State Statute and
putting that aside, I have to say that no sooner had this case left us back on
March 21, I believe it was, that I felt that I had made the wrong call. I
expressed this to Mr. Sullivan. I had every hope that the caSe would be
returned to the Planning Commission and I would like, I'm glad to have the
opportunity to make what I think is the right decision tonight. Ms. Lyttle used
the word smokescreen in her presentation and there's a song. I believe the
lyrics go something like the "smoke gets in your eyes." I submit that maybe the
Indian with the tear was tearful from some of the smoke, rather than what he saw
in the way of pollution. And I think it's our job to please, please.... we been
at this for an hour and a half and back in March and I was here for the Board
meeting, by the way, I stood outside for the three hours, heard every word of
that presentation. I think it's my job also to remove a little bit of that
smoke. I heard overcrowding of schools, environmental threats, failures from
business resulting in closures, the need to respect the majority. Mr. Rudy told
us about rule by the masses last week. We looked at a tape. I believe Mr.
Daniel's comments were significantly more than the two minute presentation. I
think that the Staff Report reflects what the charge was to this Commission.
I'm not sure the slides of another person's development particularly impacted
this case, or the quality of work for this developer. So when I attempt to
remove some of that smoke. this is what I find, and I'd like for the minutes to
51
C'
c
reflect this as my findings: that the multi-family would produce less students
than a residential development; that this project is environmentally sound; that
the traffic and the density is less than the Woolfolk project; that the
developer has eliminated the gasoline and the fast food; all of this in accord
with the direction of the Board of Supervisors. I find it to be a quality
project. I find it to be consistent with the Master Plan for the Central Area.
I find that it has the approval of our professional staff. and I'd like to
support it. Thank you.
Miller: Alright. any further comments? Alright. I'm going to call the question
on the motion. All those in favor of the motion. please signify by please
saying Aye.
Ayes:
Miller: All opposed.
Nays:
Miller: We have three ayes and two nays, it's defeated. Thank you. We'll take
about a ten minutes recess.
52
... ~.~
(,
'10,
("
....
#
JeCer M. Watson
ElCcutivc Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE DEPARTMENT
80S East Broad 5 treet, Sui [e 70 I
Richmond. V j rgi nia 2321 9
(804) 225-J440
1.800 14)- 7229 Voice, TOO
October 27, 1989
Mr. Lewis C. Wendell
Acting Deputy County Administrator
Chesterfield County
P.o. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832-0040
Re: Revised Roval Oaks DeveloDment (Ridaeway Develooment
Company) Rezonina Request - Case #89SNI020
Dear Lewis:
In response to your request for review of and comment on the
revised Royal Oaks Development, we have the following observations.
Overall our comments on this project are unchanged from those we
transmi tted to Chesterfield on May 22, 1989. In general, the
proposal is in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act _
regulations. ~
The proposed phasing plan, full stabilization of each section
of the project prior to starting any successive phase, should make
erosion easier to control. However, specific mention of the
northwest quadrant of the property is absent in this la test
proposal. The earlier plan and Chesterfield staff report we
reviewed in May of this year, discussed the impact of construction
of apartment units on steep slopes in this area.
There are two intermittent streams shown on the site, each
drains into Falling Creek Reservoir. No single silt basin can
control runoff from the entire property.
Although the sewer line located along the edge of the
reservoir is consistent with Preservation Act regulations, some
setback from the reservoir I s edge would be preferred based on
potential impacts to the reservoir from land disturbing activities
associated with installation of this utility.
-or-
\,
('
- .4
...,-. ,- (
f ~.
~
\
~'-
The possibility of wetlands on the site was noted in the
previous submission. No additional information has been provided
with this revised proposal. Although replacement of natural
wetlands with man-made wetlands is not required by the regulations,
some wetlands do qualify as Resource Protection Areas, in which,
with some exceptions, only water-dependent development and
redevelopment are allowed. In addition, wetlands are still under
the jurisdiction of both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Virginia state Water Control Board.
Should the County have any further questions, we are at
Chesterfield's service.
Sincerely,
.
· Balderson, Jr.
Executive Director
DMG/dmq
CC: C. Scott Crafton, Regulatory Assistance Coordinator
c...
(-
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS
aERMUDA CLOVER HILL OALE MATOACA MIDLOTHIAN TOTAL
POPULATION (1-1-89) .31,73-4 51,389 36,8.37 37,057 401999 198,000
SQUARE MILES 62.8 46..5 25.1 218.6 93.4 446.4
BUILT AS OF 1/1/89 2,952 615 1,954 788 ' 1,950 8,259
UNDER CONSTRUCTION 248 132 438 0 313 1,131
AS OF 1/1/89 '..
SUBTOTAL 3,200 747 2,392 788 2,263 ~~;
UNITS PER SQUARE MILE 51 16 95 4 24 21
SCHEMATIC APPROVAL 0 36 0 0 248 2B4
AS OF 8/.31/89
ZONING APPROVAL 1,430 1,180 300 300 1,800 5,010
AS OF 8/31/99
PLANNED 2 -, 03 0 700 1,600 2,450 1,500 8,280
TOTAL 6,711 2,679 4,387 3,542 5,835 ~, 154
UNITS PER SQUARE MILE 107 58 ~ 16 62 52
NOTE: AMOUNTS FOR 20NED AND PLANNED ARE APPRO ATE
SOURCE: CHES~ERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING STAFF (9/15/89)
.... -
~.' ...i-l
, .~
...1