06SN0244
October 17,2006 CPC
November 16, 2006 CPC
January 16,2007 CPC
March 20, 2007 CPC
1^,"pril 17, 2007 CPC
June 19,2007 CPC
July 17,2007 CPC
August 21, 2007 CPC
September 26,2007 BS
STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
06SN0244
H. H. Hunt Corporation
Bermuda Magisterial District
Harrowgate Elementary; Matoaca Middle; and Matoaca High Schools Attendance Zones
South line of Bradley Bridge and west line of Branders Bridge Roads
REQUEST!:
Rezoning of a 1,445.4 acre tract from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-
12) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to
Ordinance requirements and Conditional Use to permit recreational
facilities on 43.5 acres of the 1,445.4 acre tract, plus rezoning of a 169.1
acre tract from Agricultural (A) to Regional Business (C-4) with
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to Ordinance
requirements and Conditional Use on 3.0 acres of the 169.1 acre tract to
permit an above ground utility structure (wastewater pump station).
REQUEST II:
A waiver to street connectivity requirements to Glebe Point and Skybird
Roads.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A residential development with a variety of housing types and supporting
community commercial and recreational uses, public/semi-public uses and
commercial uses are planned. A maximum of 4,998 residential units to
include cluster residential, town homes and multi-family units as well as a
maximum of 470,000 gross square feet of commercial uses are planned.
(Proffered Conditions 5 and 6)
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
REQUEST I. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING AND ACCEPTANCE OF
CONDITIONS ON PAGES 3 THROUGH 20.
AYES: MESSRS. GECKER, LITTON AND WILSON.
NAYS: MESSRS. GULLEY AND BASS.
REQUEST II. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER TO STREET CONNECTIVITY
REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Request I: Recommend approval of the rezoning subject to the applicant addressing the impact
of this development on capital facilities in accordance with the Board of Supervisors' policy and
staff concerns relative to parking, buffers and the provision of sidewalks, for the following
reasons:
A. Although the density of residential use within the proposed Residential (R-12)
portion of the property exceeds the density suggested by the Southern and
Western Area Plan and the commercial and residential uses on the proposed
Regional Business (C-4) portion of the property do not provide the regional scale
office use or major industrial development recommended by the Plan, the
proposal provides an opportunity for planning a large scale mixed use
development where residential and commercial uses coupled with public/semi-
public amenities create an urban lifestyle environment and where major
infrastructure improvements are provided as the development occurs.
B. While the applicant has offered land dedication, road construction and a potential
contribution to assist in defraying the cost of this proposed development on road
infrastructure and schools and parks facilities, the proffered conditions do not
adequately mitigate the impact of this development on capital facilities, as
outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the
needs for roads, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations and transportation
facilities is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the
Capital Improvement Program, and the impact of this development is discussed
herein. The proffered conditions vary from that which has consistently been
accepted in accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Policy. While the road
improvements offered address the impacts on road infrastructure, the remaining
proffered conditions fail to fully address the impact of this request on schools,
parks, libraries and fire stations in accordance with the Board's policy; however,
schools is satisfied that the proffered conditions which require land dedication and
infrastructure for school facilities are acceptable. Therefore, the proffered
conditions do not adequately mitigate the impact on these capital facilities and
thereby do not assure that adequate service levels are maintained as necessary to
protect the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
2
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
C. The application fails to address concerns relative to parking, buffers and
sidewalks as discussed herein.
Request II: Recommend denial of the waiver to street connectivity requirements to Glebe Point
and Skybird Roads for the following reasons:
A. Justification for granting this waiver has not been provided. The evaluation of the
Policy Criteria for granting such relief necessitates design details that can best be
evaluated through the subdivision review process.
B. The lack of public road connections fails to address health, safety and welfare
concerns of the Fire Department.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER
CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON
BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE
RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
The property owners and applicant in this rezoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the
Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for
themselves and their successors or assigns (the "Developer"), proffer that the property (the
"Property") under consideration will be developed according to the following proffers if, and
only if, the rezoning request submitted herewith is granted with only those conditions agreed to
by the Developer. In the event this request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to
by the Developer, the proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or
effect.
This application contains three exhibits described as follows:
Exhibit A - Plan titled "Exhibit A. Branner Station Road Phasing Plan", originally prepared
by Wilbur Smith Associates, dated September 15, 2006 and updated by T3 Design
on April 20, 2007.
Exhibit B - Plan titled "Branner Station Offsite Roads Phasing Exhibit B," prepared by
HHHunt, and dated September 15, 2006.
Exhibit C - Plan titled "East/West Freeway - North/South Parkway Interchange Exhibit C"
prepared by Youngblood, Tyler and Associates, P.C. and dated February 16,
2007.
Exhibit D - Plat titled "Tract 9B Conceptual Plan for High School" prepared by Youngblood,
Tyler and Associates, P.C. and dated July 30, 2007.
3
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
1.
Master Plan. The Textual Statement last revised July 30, 2007,
including the "Branner Station Chesterfield Master Plan" prepared
by design forum, last revised February 16, 2007, shall be the
Master Plan. (P)
2.
Timbering. Except for the timbering approved by the Virginia
State Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or
diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on the Property until a
land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Environmental
Engineering Department and the approved devices have been
installed. (EE)
3.
Overall W ater/W astewater Systems Plan.
a. The required Overall W ater/W astewater Systems Plan for
the development, accompanied by a Utilities Infrastructure
Phasing Plan, shall be submitted to the Utilities Department
for review and approval prior to the final approval of any
tentative subdivision or site plan within the development.
The overall plan shall be prepared in accordance with the
requirements as outlined in Appendix 12 of the Chesterfi el d
County Water and Sewer Specifications and Procedures
Manual. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
1. a 16" water line along Branders Bridge Road for the
entire length of the Property, or along a route within
the development acceptable to the Utilities
Department in either event, terminating at the
southernmost boundary of the Property at Branders
Bridge Road;
11. interconnection between the Chester and
Courthouse pressure zones, at a location acceptable
to the Utilities Department. Infrastructure (pressure
reducing or flow control valves) shall be installed if
deemed necessary by the Utilities Department;
111. off-site extension(s) from the Timsberry Creek
Wastewater Trunk;
IV. map of the service area for a wastewater pump
station; location of a public wastewater pumping
station and associated gravity lines sized to serve
that portion of the development within the Lower
Swift Creek drainage basin and the remaining
4
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
(STAFF/CPC)
"Regional Mixed-Use" area as shown in the
Southern and Western Area Land Use Plan (as
amended 11/12/03);
v. a small-scale area map showing the route of the
force main, extending from the new public
wastewater pumping station to a discharge point
near the existing Timsberry Creek Wastewater
Pumping Station, the exact location of which is to
be approved by the Utilities Department; and
VI. detailed engineering analyses of the water and
wastewater systems for "Branner Station" to
determine the future water pressure zone boundary
line and points of interconnection, and to determine
the location of the new wastewater pumping station
and the appropriate discharge point for the force
maIn.
b. The Developer shall construct all improvements shown on
the Overall W ater/W astewater Systems Plan for the
development.
c. Prior to any tentative or site plan approval for any property
which will be served by the pump station, the Developer
shall dedicate free and unrestricted to and for Chesterfield
County, after the dedications for roads as required by
Proffered Condition 7, a maximum 3.0 acres for a
wastewater pumping station. This site shall abut a public
road and have direct access thereto. As an alternative, if
approved by the Utilities Department, the site need not abut
a public road, but shall have access to a public road via an
easement of a width and location acceptable to the Utilities
Department. Should it not be possible to locate the
pumping station within the development and provide full
access to the intended service area, the Developer shall
dedicate free and unrestricted to and for Chesterfield
County land off-site of a size and location acceptable to the
Utilities Department, obtain the necessary zoning and/or
Substantial Accord Determination. The 3 acre site shall be
exclusive of any road dedication to include those identified
in Proffered Condition 7. (U)
4.
Dedications for Public Purposes. The Developer agrees to
dedicate, free and unrestricted to the County, the following areas as
generally shown on the Master Plan as follows:
5
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
A. Tract 9A - 32 usable acres
B. Tract 9B -75 usable acres
C. Tract 11A - 30.6 acres
D. Tract lIB - 3.9 acres
Such dedications are made for public schools, parks and recreation,
a utility pump station or such other public purposes as determined
by the County and at such alternate locations as may be mutually
agreed upon by the Developer and the County.
"U sable acres" shall generally mean acreage excluding
jurisdictional wetlands as defined by the Army Corp of Engineers,
slopes in excess of ten (10) percent and setbacks applicable to the
Property. Whether acreage is acceptable as "usable" acres to
qualify for such dedications within Tracts 9A and 9B shall be
mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Chesterfield
County Public School Administration or, if no agreement is
reached, then as determined by the Chesterfield County School
Board ("School Board"). In addition, if school facilities can be
accommodated on fewer usable acres as determined by the School
Board, the acres of such dedications within Tracts 9A and 9B may
be reduced as determined by the School Board. Tract 9B is
intended to be developed as generally shown on Exhibit D attached
hereto prepared by Youngblood, Tyler and Associates, P.C. and
dated July 30, 2007 entitled "Tract 9B Conceptual Plan for High
School" .
Such dedications shall be made within sixty (60) days of a written
request by the County, but subsequent to the dedications for roads
as required by Proffered Condition 7. Such dedications will
generally be made at such time as is consistent with the
Developer's phased development and construction of infrastructure
serving the Property as provided below.
Unless the County desires to accelerate the schedule provided
below for Tracts 9A and 9B, infrastructure shall be brought by the
Developer to the property lines of Tracts 9A, 9B, 11A and lIB.
For Tract 9B, the Developer will construct on-site roads and those
off-site roads required by the Study to access the high school site
by the later of the opening of the proposed high school or 2015 and
shall construct public water and wastewater systems ("public
utilities") to serve the site by the later of six (6) months prior to the
opening of the proposed high school or 2015. Similarly, for Tract
9A, the Developer will construct on-site roads and those off-site
roads required by the Study to access the elementary school site by
the later of the opening of the proposed elementary school or 2014
and shall construct public utilities to serve the site by the later of
6
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
(STAFF/CPC)
six (6) months prior to the opening of the proposed elementary
school or 2014. Any time beginning in 2013, within sixty (60)
days of 1) a written request by the County and 2) approval of any
required permits for the construction access and public water, the
Developer shall dedicate the land for the high school and
elementary school sites (Tracts 9A and 9B) and shall provide
public water adequate for construction purposes and an approved
construction access to both sites. Should the County desire to
accelerate access roads and public utilities to facilitate the
County's schedule, the Developer is not obligated to accelerate its
phasing and the County has the option to construct public utilities
and_access roads in accordance with Exhibit A at the County's
expense. Subject to the foregoing contingencies, in no event shall
the land dedications be made later than January 1, 2015 unless
such date is mutually extended. (B&M, SA, P and T)
5.
Unit Cap.
A. Uses A through H as described in the Textual Statement,
including "accessory dwelling units" as defined therein,
shall not exceed a total of 4,988 dwelling units in the
aggregate, with separate density caps as follows:
(1) The total number of dwelling units, as described in
the Textual Statement, will not exceed a total of
4,456 dwelling units in the aggregate in the R-12
portions of the Property.
(2) The total number of dwelling units, excluding Use
H (Assisted Living Community) as described in the
Textual Statement, will not exceed 100 dwelling
units, in the aggregate, on Tract 6.
(3) The total number of dwelling units as described in
the Textual Statement will not exceed a total of 532
dwelling units in the aggregate in the C-4 portions
of the Property.
(4) Use E (Multifamily Community) as described in the
Textual Statement, unless organized as a for sale
condominium as defined by and subject to the
Virginia Condominium Act" will not exceed a total
of 600 dwelling units for the R-12 portion of the
Property.
7
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
(5) Use E. (Multifamily Community) as described in
the Textual Statement, unless organized as a for sale
condominium as defined by and subj ect to the
Virginia Condominium Act, will not exceed a total
of 308 dwelling units for the C-4 portion of the
Property.
B. Additional Limits on Use H:
(1) Use H (Assisted Living Community) as described in
the Textual Statement will not exceed 200 units for
the R-12 Portion of the Property.
(2) Use H (Assisted Living Community) as described in
the Textual Statement will not exceed 100 units for
the C-4 portion of the Property.
C. Commercial Limits and Guarantees
(1) A maximum of 70,000 gross square feet of Use I
(Town Center Commercial) is permitted in the R-12
portion of the Property in Tract 6.
(2) Prior to recordation or site plan approval for a
cumulative of more than 2,200 dwelling units, a
land disturbance permit shall have been issued and
work begun in accordance therewith on a minimum
of 15,000 gross square feet of Use I (Town Center
Commercial) in Tract 6.
(3) For Use I (Town Center Commercial) in Tract 6,
each individual business shall be limited to a
maximum of 5,000 gross square feet except that two
(2) businesses shall be permitted a maximum of
15,000 gross square feet and one (1) business shall
be permitted a maximum of 30,000 gross square
feet.
(4) A land disturbance permit shall have been issued
and work begun in accordance therewith on a
minimum of 50,000 gross square feet of
nonresidential space in Tract 10 prior to the
commencement of land disturbance for any
residential dwelling units in Tract 10, excluding Use
G (Town Center Residential) and Use H (Assisted
Living Community). (P)
8
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
6.
Maximum Density.
The maximum density of this development is 2,449 single-family
units, 1,331 townhouse/condominium units, 908 apartments, 300
Assisted Living Community Units, 470,000 square feet of
shopping center, 950 student elementary school, 1,750 student high
school, 25,000 square feet of recreation center, and 371 acres of
community parks (other than County parks) or different density for
permitted uses, as approved by the Transportation Department,
provided the different density results in an equal or fewer number
of total trips in both the AM and PM peak hours as reflected in the
Traffic Impact Study (the "Study") for Branner Station
Development, Chesterfield County, Virginia, prepared by Wilbur
Smith Associates dated March 7, 2006; with addenda 1 and 2
prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates dated June 20, 2006 and
September 12, 2006 respectively; and Addenda 3 and 4 prepared
by T3 Design dated November 28, 2006 and March 8, 2007,
respectively, including revised Figure 4 dated June 20,2007. (T)
7.
Right of Way Dedications.
A. In conjunction with recordation of the initial subdivision
plat, prior to any site plan approval, or within sixty (60)
days from the date of a written request by the
Transportation Department, whichever occurs first, the
following rights-of-way, as identified on the Thoroughfare
Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors, shall
be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of
Chesterfield County. The exact location of these rights-of-
way shall be approved by the Transportation Department:
1. Forty-five (45) feet of right-of-way on the south
side of Bradley Bridge Road, measured from a
revised centerline, based on VDOT Urban Minor
Arterial (50 MPH) standards with modifications
approved by the Transportation Department, of that
part of Bradley Bridge Road immediately adjacent
to the Property.
2. Forty-five (45) feet of right-of-way on the west side
of Branders Bridge Road, measured from a revised
centerline, based on VDOT Urban Minor Arterial
(50 MPH) standards with modifications approved
by the Transportation Department, of that part of
Branders Bridge Road immediately adjacent to the
Property.
9
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
(STAFF/CPC)
3. A ninety (90) foot wide right-of-way, based on
VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards
with modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, for a north/south major arterial (the
"North/South Parkway") from Branders Bridge
Road at the northern Property line, through the
Property to the East/West Freeway.
4. A ninety (90) foot wide right-of-way, based on
VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards
with modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, for an east/west maj or arterial ("Happy
Hill Road Extended") from the eastern Property
line, through the Property to the western Property
line.
5. A two hundred (200) foot wide right-of-way, based
on VDOT Rural Principal Arterial (60 MPH)
standards with modifications approved by the
Transportation Department, for an east/west limited
access facility (the "East/West Freeway") through
the southern part of the Property from the western
Property line to Branders Bridge Road.
6. A variable width right-of-way for a limited access
interchange for the East/West Freeway with the
North/South Parkway, totaling approximately sixty-
two and eight tenths (62.8) acres as generally
depicted in Exhibit C.
7. A backwater easement, not to exceed 11.5 acres, on
the west side of Branders Bridge Road, generally
located approximately 1,350 feet south of the
Happy Hill Road Connection. The exact location
and size of the easement shall be approved by the
Transportation Department. (T)
8.
Access
Vehicular access for the Property shall be as described below, and
as generally shown on the Master Plan. Any modification to the
accesses described below and the exact location and type of all
accesses shall be approved by the Transportation Department.
10
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
9.
A. Prior to any tentative subdivision approval or site plan
approval, whichever occurs first, an access plan for the
North/South Parkway and Happy Hill Road Extended shall
be submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department. Vehicular access from the Property to these
roads shall conform to the approved access plan.
B. Direct vehicular access from the Property to Bradley
Bridge Road shall be limited to one (1) public road
intersection. The exact location of this access shall be
approved by the Transportation Department.
C. Direct vehicular access from the Property to Branders
Bridge Road shall be limited to six (6) public road
intersections, excluding the North/South Parkway, the
East/W est Freeway and Happy Hill Road Connection. The
exact location of these accesses shall be approved by the
Transportation Department.
D. Direct vehicular access from the Property to the East/West
Freeway shall be limited to one (1) entrance/exit to serve
Tract 10, excluding the intersections of the North/South
Parkway and Branders Bridge Road. The exact location of
this access shall be approved by the Transportation
Department.
E. No direct vehicular access shall be provided from the
Property to Glebe Point Road or Skybird Road in the Glebe
Point Subdivision. (T)
Public Roads.
In all tracts with residential uses, excluding Use Type E
(Multifamily Community) if located within multi-story structures
and Use Type G and Use Type H (Assisted Living Community
provided units are not for sale) as described in the Textual
Statement, all roads that accommodate general traffic circulation
through the development, as determined by the Transportation
Department, shall be designed and constructed to VDOT standards
and taken into the State System. (T)
10.
Transportation Improvements.
To provide an adequate roadway system, the Developer shall be
responsible for the following. The exact design and length of these
improvements shall be approved by the Transportation
Department. Alternative road improvements, as requested by the
11
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Developer and approved by the Transportation Department and
that provide acceptable levels of service as determined by the
Transportation Department, may be substituted for the road
improvements identified in this Proffered Condition:
A. Construction of additional pavement along Bradley Bridge
Road at the approved public road intersection to provide
left and right turn lanes.
B. Construction of additional pavement along Branders Bridge
Road at each approved public road intersection including at
the North/South Parkway and at the East/West Freeway to
provide left and right turn lanes.
C. Widening/improving the south side of Bradley Bridge Road
for the entire Property frontage to an eleven (11) foot wide
travel lane, measured from the existing centerline of the
road, with an additional one (1) foot wide paved shoulder
plus a seven (7) foot wide unpaved shoulder, and
overlaying the full width of the road with one and one half
(1.5) inches of compacted bituminous asphalt concrete to
the extent that such overlay does not exceed $45,000 per
mile, adjusted upward based on an increase in the Marshall
and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2006 and
the fiscal year in which the improvement is made, with
modifications approved by the Transportation Department.
D. Widening/improving the west side of Branders Bridge
Road for the entire Property frontage to an eleven (11) foot
wide travel lane, measured from the existing centerline of
the road, with an additional one (1) foot wide paved
shoulder plus a seven (7) foot wide unpaved shoulder, and
overlaying the full width of the road with one and one half
(1.5) inches of compacted bituminous asphalt concrete to
the extent that such overlay does not exceed $45,000 per
mile, adjusted upward based on an increase in the Marshall
and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2006 and
the fiscal year in which the improvement is made, with
modifications approved by the Transportation Department.
E. Construction of a two-lane road for Happy Hill Road
Extended based on VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH)
standards with modifications approved by the
Transportation Department, from the eastern Property line,
through the Property to the western Property line.
12
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
F. Construction of a four-lane divided road for the
North/South Parkway, based on VDOT Urban Minor
Arterial (50 MPH) standards with modifications approved
by the Transportation Department, from Branders Bridge
Road at the northern Property line, through the Property to
the East/West Freeway.
G. Construction of a two-lane road for an east/west limited
access facility based on VDOT Rural Principal Arterial (60
MPH) standards with modifications approved by the
Transportation Department, for the East/West Freeway
through the southern part of the Property from the
North/South Parkway to Branders Bridge Road.
H. Construction of additional pavement along the North/South
Parkway, along Happy Hill Road Extended and along the
East/W est Freeway at each approved access to provide left
and right turn lanes, based on Transportation Department
standards.
I. Full cost of traffic signalization, including turn lanes at
locations specified in the Study along Bradley Bridge
Road, along Branders Bridge Road, along the North/South
Parkway, along Happy Hill Road Extended and along the
East/W est Freeway at each approved access, if warranted
as determined by the Transportation Department and as
indicated in the Study.
1. Construction of a two-lane road for an east/west major
arterial ("Happy Hill Road Connection"), based on VDOT
Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards with
modifications approved by the Transportation Department,
including turn lanes and a traffic signal as required by the
Transportation Department and as indicated in the Study,
from the eastern Property line, to Branders Bridge Road at
the Happy Hill Road intersection.
K. Reconstruction as a two-lane road of Happy Hill Road,
based on VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards
with modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, including turn lanes and traffic signal
modification as required by the Transportation Department
and as indicated in the Study, from the Old Happy Hill
Road intersection to Harrowgate Road.
L. Construction of a four-lane divided road for a north/south
arterial (" North/South Parkway Extended"), based on
13
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards with
modifications approved by the Transportation Department,
including turn lanes and traffic signals as required by the
Transportation Department and as indicated in the Study,
from Branders Bridge Road at the North/South Parkway
intersection to existing Iron Bridge Road (Route 10).
M. Construction of a four-lane divided road for a north/south
arterial (" North/South Parkway Extended"), based on
VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards with
modifications approved by the Transportation Department,
including turn lanes and traffic signals as required by the
Transportation Department and as indicated in the Study,
from Route 10 at the North/South Parkway Extended
intersection to existing Chester Road.
N. Construction of an additional two (2) lanes along existing
Chester Road to provide a four-lane divided road, based on
VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards with
modifications approved by the Transportation Department,
and turn lanes as required by the Transportation
Department and as indicated in the Study from its
intersection with North/South Parkway Extended extending
north to the existing four (4) lanes of Chester Road.
O. Construction of a two-lane road for an east/west limited
access facility (the "East/West Freeway Extended") based
on VDOT Rural Principal Arterial (60 MPH) standards
with modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, including turn lanes and traffic signals or
traffic signal modifications as required by the
Transportation Department and as indicated in the Study,
from Branders Bridge Road to Jefferson Davis Highway
(Route 1/301) at the Ruffin Mill Road intersection.
P. Construction of the intersection improvements, including
adequate storage and receiving lanes as determined by the
Transportation Department, as shown on Figure 4 in the
Study Addenda 4 prepared by T3 Design dated June 20,
2007.
Q. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, of
any additional right-of-way (or easements) required for the
improvements identified above. In the event the Developer
is unable to acquire the "off-site" right-of-way that is
necessary for the road improvements described in Proffered
14
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
(STAFF/CPC)
Conditions 10. A. through O. above, the Developer may
request, in writing, that the county acquire such right-of-
way as a public road improvement and the Transportation
Department will present and support the request to the
Board of Supervisors if the Transportation Department
determines that the request is consistent with the
Thoroughfare Plan. All reasonable costs associated with
the acquisition of the right-of-way shall be borne by the
Developer pursuant to a separate contract on the Utilities
Department standard form currently titled "Contract for
Payment of Easements and Right of Way Acquisition
Costs" between the Developer and the County for the
payment of right of way acquisition costs. In the event the
county fails to assist the Developer in acquisition of the
"off-site" right-of-way, the Developer shall be relieved of
the obligation to acquire the "off-site" right-of-way and
shall provide the road improvements within available right-
of-way as determined by the Transportation Department,
and the road improvements provided within available
right-of-way shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement in
the approved phasing plan as identified in Proffered
Condition 11. (T)
R. To the extent certain road improvements required herein
are financed through a Community Development Authority
or other funding mechanism approved by the Board of
Supervisors and are constructed within the time frames
identified herein, the requirements contained herein for the
specific road improvements that are the subject of the
approved funding mechanism shall be deemed satisfied. (T)
S. Should Chesterfield County impose impact fees at any time
during the life of the development that are applicable to the
Property, the value of the road improvements provided
hereunder in Proffered Condition 10 shall be in lieu of or
credited toward, but not in addition to, any impact fees, in a
manner as determined by the County. (B&M)
11.
Residential Phasing Plan.
Prior to any construction plan approval or site plan approval,
whichever occurs first, a phasing plan for the required road
improvements as identified in Proffered Condition lOA. through
P., shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department. Unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the
Transportation Department and the Developer, the approved
phasing plan shall require, among other things, that:
15
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
A. Phase Ion Exhibit A
Prior to release of the first building permit, two (2) lanes of
the four (4) lane divided North/South Parkway Extended
including turn lanes and traffic signals if warranted as
determined by the Transportation Department as described
in Proffered Condition 10. L., from Branders Bridge Road
at the North/South Parkway intersection to existing Iron
Bridge Road (Route 10), Happy Hill Road Connection as
described in Proffered Condition 10. 1., and the
reconstruction of Happy Hill Road as described in
Proffered Condition 10.K. shall be completed, as
determined by the Transportation Department. In addition,
the Board of Supervisors shall approve the specific location
for the East/W est Freeway Extended as described in
Proffered Condition 10.0. from Branders Bridge Road to
Route 1/301.
B. Phase II on Exhibit A
Prior to recordation or site plan approval for a cumulative
of more than 600 residential units, two (2) lanes of the four
(4) lanes of North/South Parkway Extended including turn
lanes and traffic signals if warranted as determined by the
Transportation Department as described in Proffered
Condition 10. M. from Route 10 to existing Chester Road
shall be completed as determined by the Transportation
Department.
C. Phase III on Exhibit A
Prior to recordation or site plan approval for a cumulative
of more than 1,800 residential units, two (2) lanes of the
East/W est Freeway Extended including turn lanes and
traffic signals if warranted as determined by the
Transportation Department as described in Proffered
Condition 10.0. from Harrowgate Road to Route 1/301
shall be completed as determined by the Transportation
Department.
D. Phase IV on Exhibit A
Prior to recordation or site plan approval for a cumulative
of more than 2,500 residential units, two (2) lanes of the
East/W est Freeway Extended including turn lanes and
traffic signals if warranted as determined by the
16
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Transportation Department and as indicated in the Study, as
described in Proffered Condition 10.0. from Branders
Bridge Road to Harrowgate Road, four-lane divided road
for the North/South Parkway from Branders Bridge Road to
the East/W est Freeway as described in Proffered Condition
10.F., two-lane road for the East/West Freeway from the
North/South Parkway to Branders Bridge Road as
described in Proffered Condition 10.G., and two (2)
additional lanes for existing Chester Road to provide a
four-lane divided road as described in Proffered Condition
10.N. shall be completed as determined by the
Transportation Department.
E. Phase V on Exhibit A
Prior to recordation or site plan approval for a cumulative
of more than 3,250 residential units, two (2) additional
lanes of North/South Parkway Extended which provides for
a four-lane divided road, including turn lanes and traffic
signals if warranted as determined by the Transportation
Department as described in Proffered Condition 10. M.
from Route 1 0 to existing Chester Road shall be completed
as determined by the Transportation Department.
F. Phase VI on Exhibit A
Prior to recordation or site plan approval for a cumulative
of more than 4,000 residential units, two (2) additional
lanes of North/South Parkway Extended which provides for
a four-lane divided road, including turn lanes and traffic
signals if warranted as determined by the Transportation
Department as described in Proffered Condition 10.L. from
Branders Bridge Road to existing Iron Bridge Road (Route
10) shall be completed as determined by the Transportation
Department.
G. In conjunction with any development that includes direct
vehicular access to Bradley Bridge Road as described in
Proffered Condition 8. B., the road improvements along
Bradley Bridge Road, as identified in Proffered Condition
10. C. shall be completed as determined by the
Transportation Department.
H. In conjunction with any development that includes direct
vehicular access to Branders Bridge Road, other than the
North/South Parkway, the Happy Hill Road Connection
17
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
(STAFF/CPC)
and the northernmost public road intersection as shown on
the Master Plan as described in Proffered Condition 8. C.,
the road improvements along Branders Bridge Road, as
identified in Proffered Condition 10. D. shall be completed
as determined by the Transportation Department. (T)
12.
Non-residential Phasing Plan.
Prior to any site plan approval, phasing plan for the required road
improvements as identified in Proffered Condition lOA. through
P., shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department. Unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the
Transportation Department and the Developer, the approved
phasing plan shall require, among other things, that:
A. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any non-
residential development, the required road improvements in
Phase I of the Residential Phasing Plan as identified in
Proffered Condition 11.A. shall be completed, as
determined by the Transportation Department.
B. Prior to: 1) issuance of building permit(s) for more than a
cumulative total of 25,000 square feet of recreation
center(s); or 2) issuance of a building permit(s) for more
than 200 Assisted Living Community Units, the required
road improvements in Phases I and II of the Residential
Phasing Plan as described in Proffered Conditions 11.A.
and B. shall be completed, as determined by the
Transportation Department.
C. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an elementary
school, the required road improvements in Phases I through
III of the Residential Phasing Plan as identified in Proffered
Conditions 11.A. through C. shall be completed, as
determined by the Transportation Department.
D. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a high school, the
required road improvements in Phases I through IV of the
Residential Phasing Plan as identified in Proffered
Conditions l1.A. through D. shall be completed, as
determined by the Transportation Department.
E. Prior to issuance of a building permit for more than a
cumulative total of 70,000 square feet of office/retail the
required road improvements required in Phases I through
VI of the Residential Phasing Plan as described in
Proffered Conditions 11.A. through F. above shall be
18
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
completed as determined by the Transportation
Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC)
13.
Phasing Revisions.
The estimated cost of the "off-site" road improvements for each
phase of development as detailed in Proffered Conditions 11 and
12, is identified on Exhibit B. The phasing required for these off-
site road improvements as described in Proffered Conditions 11.
and 12. may be revised by the Transportation Department if actual
traffic impacts differ significantly from the assumptions in the
Study, as determined by the Transportation Department. However,
in no case shall the cost of the revised off-site road improvements
for each phase of the development exceed the estimated costs of
the phased road improvements as indicated on Exhibit B. (T)
14. Contribution.
The Developer shall pay (the "Payment") to Chesterfield County schools 25% of
the cost difference between $15,600 times 4,988 dwelling lots/units (the
"Contribution") and the actual cost incurred by the Developer for the cost of the
improvements described in Proffered Conditions 10.1., K., L., M., N., 0., and P.
(the "Improvements"), provided the actual cost of the Improvements is less than
the Contribution. If the Payment is paid after June 30,2007, the amount paid shall
be adjusted upward by any Board of Supervisors' approved increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2006 and July 1 of the
fiscal year in which the Payment is made.
The Payment shall be made within 60 days after the completion of the
Improvements and submission by the Developer of all supporting documentation
for the cost of the Improvements to the Chesterfield County Department of
Budget & Management. For purposes of this proffer, the cost to construct the
Improvements shall include, but not be limited to, the reasonable cost of right-of-
way acquisition, engineering, relocating utilities, signalization and other traffic
control devices and actual costs of construction of roads, and turn lanes (including
labor, materials, interest on borrowed funds and overhead). (B&M, T and SA)
15. Master Road Plan.
The Master Plan shall be considered the Master Road Plan. Approval of the Plan
by the County does not imply that the County gives final approval for any
particular road alignment or section. (T)
16. Environmental Engineering Study.
A. Western Drainage Area
19
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
The Developer will perform an off-site drainage study for that property
that drains to the west through Glebe Point and will analyze the pipes
under any state roads and any floodplains that have been recorded in the
sections of Glebe Point. If any of the floodplains that are currently
recorded or the pipes under any state road exceed current VDOT standards
for secondary roads then the developer will retain water on-site and
release such that the 100 year floodplains in Glebe Point are not affected
and that the existing pipes meet current VDOT criteria.
B. Eastern Drainage Area
For all those portions of Branner Station that drain to the east under
Branders Bridge Road, the developer will perform a drainage study
through the existing subdivisions for all outfalls and based on the studies
the Developer will retain and release water on-site or increase the pipes
under Branders Bridge Road to meet current VDOT criteria without
increasing any of the recorded floodplains in the subdivisions east of
Branders Bridge Road. (EE)
17. Silt Basins.
All silt basins in the southern one-third and western one-third portions of the
Property shall be sized with a twenty-five percent (25%) increased volume per
acre for disturbed areas, with undisturbed areas sized to the required volume per
acre based on the requirements of the current Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook. (EE)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
South line of Bradley Bridge Road and the west line of Branders Bridge Road. Tax IDs
780-644-8171; 781-637-Part of 6541; 781-639-3251; 781-641-6250; 783-635-0505; and
784-641-6810.
Existing Zoning:
A
Size:
1614.5 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
20
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Adiacent Zoning and Land Use:
North and South - A; Single family residential or vacant
East - R-15, R-12 & A; Single family residential or vacant
West - R-88, R-15 and A; Single family residential or vacant
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
There is an existing thirty (30) inch transmission main at the intersection of Bradley Bridge
Road and Lewis Road, approximately 2,400 feet west of the request site; a sixteen (16) inch
water line along Branders Bridge Road between the new Happy Hill Road and Baltustrol
Avenue (Stoney Glenn Subdivision); a sixteen (16) inch water line along Bradley Bridge
Road; and sixteen (16) inch water line in Glebe Point Road, approximately 1,550 feet west
of the request site. The use of the public water system is required by County Code.
The proposed "Branner Station" development lies between the Courthouse and Chester
Pressure Zones. The on-site water distribution system will need to incorporate an
interconnection between these two (2) pressure zones. In addition, Pressure Regulating
and/or Flow Control Valve(s) will be required for future operations of the public water
system to provide the ability of the Courthouse zone to supplement the Chester zone during
periods of high demand (Proffered Condition 3.a.ii). The developer will be required to
perform a thorough analysis of the future water system for the development to determine the
future pressure zone boundary line (Proffered Condition 3.a.vi). This must be submitted
with the required Overall W ater/W astewater System Plan.
Public Wastewater System:
The proposed "Branner Station" development lies within both the Timsberry Creek and
Swift Creek drainage basins. There is an existing eighteen (18) inch wastewater line located
approximately 380 feet from the request site, within the Lippingham (Stoney Glen)
Subdivision. With construction of the "Timsberry Pointe" Subdivision (adjacent to Stoney
Glen), a twelve (12) inch wastewater line will be extended to within 150 feet of Branders
Bridge Road. The existing and proposed wastewater lines were designed anticipating a
residential development density of ten (10) persons per acre, which equates to a potential
flow of 1000 gallons per day (average) per acre. The use of the public wastewater system is
required by County Code. The developer will construct off-site extensions from the
Timsberry Creek wastewater trunk. (Proffered Condition 3.a.iii)
That portion of the development within the Lower Swift Creek drainage basin is anticipated
to be served by a public wastewater pumping station and force main to be constructed by the
developer. An above ground utility structure will be a permitted use under the requested
zoning and Conditional Use Planned Development. The pumping station is identified in the
County's Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan as needed to serve a large area depicted as
future "Regional Mixed-Use" in the Southern and Western Area Land Use Plan. The
21
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
pumping station will discharge flows into the existing Timsberry Creek system, at a point
near the existing Timsberry Creek Wastewater Pumping Station which is located east of
Jefferson Davis Highway, adjacent to the Millside Subdivision. The exact discharge point
must be approved by the Utilities Department. The force main could be 28,000 feet or more
in length, and the pumping station structure would need to be constructed for ultimate build-
out of the service area. A map of the pump station service area and for the force main route
must be submitted with the required Overall W ater/W astewater System Plan for the
development (Proffered Condition 3.a.iv and v). The pumps initially installed would be
sized for future flows to be generated by the proposed development. Parties that later
develop the adjacent "Regional Mixed-Use" area will be required to install larger pumps to
accommodate additional wastewater flows. The developer of "Branner Station" will be
required to submit an engineering study showing that the site proposed for the pump station
will serve the intended area (Proffered Condition 3.a.vi). This must be submitted with the
required Overall W ater/W astewater System Plan for the development. Should a pump
station location within the request site not be acceptable to the County, the developer will
acquire land off-site to accommodate the pump station and an access road at a location
acceptable to the County, obtain the necessary zoning and Substantial Accord
Determination, and dedicate that land to the County. (Proffered Condition 3.c.)
ENVIRONMENT AL
Drainage and Erosion:
The subject property drains in three (3) directions. Each of the three (3) directions
constitutes approximately one third of the property being requested for rezoning.
Southern One Third of the Property: The southern one third of the property drains to the
south to a tributary that drains directly into Swift Creek. There are no known on- or off-
site drainage or erosion problems in this one third of the property.
Western One Third of the Property: The western one third of the property drains to the
southwest through two tributaries. The two tributaries pass through sections of Glebe
Point Subdivision prior to reaching Swift Creek. There are currently no known on- or
off-site erosion problems at this time. But due to the age of Glebe Point Subdivision
(recorded prior to the adoption of the Floodplain Ordinance in 1983) and the assumptions
made for the portion of the proposed development that will drain in that direction, the
developer should analyze the pipes under any state roads and any floodplains and if
Glebe Point is affected, the developer should agree to retain water on site such that the
existing pipes under any roads and the recorded floodplains in Glebe Point remain the
same. Proffered Condition 16.A. provides that the developer will perform this analysis
and will retain water on-site so that the floodplains and culverts in Glebe Point are not
affected.
Northeastern One Third Drainage Area: The third drainage area drains to the east under
Branders Bridge Road in three (3) locations to Timsberry Creek. In all instances, the
floodplains downstream were calculated on this one third of the request property being
22
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
developed as single family residential. The culverts under Branders Bridge Road in at
least two of the three locations appear to be inadequate. To address this concern, the
developer has proffered to retain and release water on-site in combination with increasing
the pipes if necessary under Branders Bridge Road to meet current VDOT standards for
secondary roads and has agreed to analyze the existing off site floodplains such that the
recorded 100 year floodplains are not increased (Proffered Condition 16.B.).
Overall: Downstream of the proposed project is a large amenity lake on Swift Creek in
Colonial Heights. This lake could receive additional siltation from the southern and
western two-thirds of the development during construction due to the steep terrain. To
help maximize the efficiency of erosion control measures on-site, the developer has
proffered to design all sediment basins larger than the state minimum. (Proffered
Condition 17)
The subject property is heavily wooded and, as such, should not be timbered without
obtaining a land disturbance permit from the Department of Environmental Engineering
and the appropriate devices installed. (Proffered Condition 2)
Water Quality:
As previously noted, the southern one third of the property drains to the south to a
tributary that drains directly into Swift Creek. This tributary forms the entire southeast
property line of the site. This tributary is a perennial stream and, as such, is subject to a
100 foot conservation area inside of which uses are very limited.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for fire, school, library, park and transportation facilities is identified in the Public
Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement Program and further detailed
by specific departments in the applicable sections herein.
Fire Service:
The Public Facilities Plan indicates that fire and emergency medical service (EMS) calls
are expected to increase forty-four (44) to seventy-eight (78) percent after 2022. Six (6)
new fire/rescue stations are recommended for construction by 2022 in the Plan. One of
these new sites is suggested in the area of the request property after 2022. In addition to
the six (6) new stations, the Plan also recommends the expansion of five (5) existing
stations. Based on 4,988 dwelling units, this request will generate approximately 1,457
calls for fire and emergency medical service each year. The applicant has not offered
measures to address the impact on fire and EMS.
The Fire Department does not support the waiver to street connectivity requirements to
Glebe Point and Skybird Roads. Having interconnectivity should improve public safety
response time to residents by providing multiple means of access.
23
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
The Chester Fire Station, Number 1 and Bensley Bermuda Volunteer Rescue Squad
currently provide fire protection and emergency medical service. When the property is
developed, the number of hydrants, quantity of water needed for fire protection, and
access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review process.
Schools:
Approximately 2,644 students, (Elementary: 1,147, Middle: 649, and High: 848), will
be generated by this development. Currently, this site lies in the Harrowgate Elementary
School attendance zone: capacity - 535, enrollment - 689; Matoaca Middle School zone:
capacity - 1,415, enrollment - 1,058; and Matoaca High School zone: capacity - 1,594,
enrollment - 1,681. The enrollment is based on September 29, 2006 and the capacity is
as of 2006-2007. This request will have a significant impact at the elementary and
secondary school level. There are currently seventeen (17) trailers at Harrowgate
Elementary and four (4) at Matoaca Middle.
The new Elizabeth N. Scott Elementary School is scheduled to open this fall. This will
provide relief for Enon, Marguerite Christian, Harrowgate, Wells and Curtis Elementary
Schools. This area of the county continues to experience growth and this school will
provide much needed space.
This case, combined with other tentative residential developments and zoning cases in the
zones, would have a major impact on schools in this area of the county at both the
elementary and secondary levels. This case could necessitate some form of relief in the
future.
The applicant has proffered two (2) school sites, an elementary and a high school site.
The elementary school site consisting of thirty-two (32) usable acres is adequate to
accommodate an elementary school. The proposed high school site of seventy-five (75)
usable acres is adequate to accommodate a high school. The timing of land dedications
and construction of roads and public utilities to these sites is acceptable. In the event a
decision is made to develop the sites faster than anticipated in the CIP, the cost of roads
and public utilities would be the responsibility of the County.
Libraries:
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policy, the impact of development on library
services is assessed countywide. Based on projected population growth, the Chesterfield
County Public Facilities Plan (2004) identifies a need for additional library space
throughout the county. Development of property in this area of the county would most
likely affect the existing Central Library, Chester Library or Ettrick-Matoaca Library.
The 2004 Public Facilities Plan identifies a need to expand the Chester and Ettrick-
Matoaca libraries and also identifies a need for a new library site to be located in the
southeastern part of the County to accommodate growth beyond 2022. The applicant has
not offered measures to assist with addressing the impact of this development on library
facilities.
24
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Parks and Recreation:
The proposal does not fully address impacts of the proposed development on Parks and
Recreation.
The Public Facilities Plan identifies a deficiency of parkland in all three (3) categories of
regional, community and neighborhood parks. Resource based, special purpose parks do
not have a land target, but are selected and developed based on the unique environmental,
historical, or cultural resources. The Plan identifies a regional park, 100-500 acres in size
and a community park, 20-99 acres in size in this area of the County. The Southern and
Western Plan identifies the need for 165 acres of regional parkland in the planning area.
The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for additional sports fields, court games,
picnic areas, playgrounds, and walking trails. Typically, the department desires to co-
locate playing fields with elementary and middle schools.
Trail systems are desired along Swift Creek and its major tributaries and to connect these
main trails to schools, libraries, and other destination points, such as residential
neighborhoods, retail areas, commercial areas and other parks. The Plan specifically
identifies the continuation of the Chester Linear Trail, south along the routes of the
abandoned railroad corridor to utilize the prepared grade. The Southern and Western
Plan identifies the need for public access to Swift Creek and its tributaries and the need
for walking trails and linear parks along the rivers and streams within the planning area.
The applicant proposes land dedication to the County, but does not specifically identify
land dedicated for park use, such that the impact for specific park type acreage needs
cannot be determined. The land dedication proposed for Tract 9 (two (2) parcels), does
not qualify as resource-based special purpose parks. Tract 11 can be identified as
environmental resource-based special purpose park (stream corridor linear park) and does
satisfy the Plan's need. The acreage associated with this dedication does not count
towards the needed acreage for regional and community park types. The case also
proposes private neighborhood parks which will assist in meeting the needs for
neighborhood type park development desired by the department.
As the case does not specifically dedicate land, in acreage or location, for parks, the
impact for specific facility development (sports fields, court games, picnic areas, etc.)
cannot be determined.
The proposal does satisfy stream corridor trail development/public access along the
eastern tributary of Swift Creek (southern edge of case property), internal trail systems
and connections to destination points within the development and north/south trail
development along the proposed parkway. The proposed parkway route does not follow
the Chester Linear Park proposed corridor. It is suggested that the abandoned railroad
corridor be used for internal trail systems as it ties residential tracts and Town Hall with
the large public Tract 9 in the south. No public access or land dedication is shown for
25
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Swift Creek. A connection with the regional mixed use Tract 10 is suggested for the
Parkway Trails system and to tie to Swift creek and its tributaries.
Transportation:
This development proposal will generate approximately 66,800 average daily trips
(ADT), including 4,700 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the morning peak hour and 6,500
VPH during the evening peak hour. The proposed residential development (4,988 units)
is larger than any of the county's existing developments, such as Brandermill (3,920
units) and W oodlake (2,724 units), and is almost five times the size of Rivers Bend
(1,037 units), the largest residential development in this area. The proposed commercial
development (470,000 square feet of shopping center) is approximately one and a half
times larger than the existing Ironbridge Plaza Shopping Center (approximately 320,000
square feet) located at the intersection of Route 10 and Chalkley Road and anchored by
Wal-Mart.
The property, approximately 1,615 acres, is currently zoned Agricultural (A), and the
applicant is requesting rezoning to Residential (R-12) on approximately 1,446 acres and
Regional Business (C-4) on approximately 169 acres. The applicant proposes to develop:
2,449 single-family units
1,331 townhouse/condominium units
908 apartments
300 assisted living community units
470,000 square feet of shopping center
950-student elementary school
1,750-student high school
25,000 square feet of recreation center, and
371 acres of community parks.
The applicant submitted a traffic study that satisfies the Transportation Department's
requirements for an analysis of the site's traffic at build-out and at various stages of its
development. The following off-site improvements have been proffered to mitigate the
traffic impact of this request:
1) construction of four (4) lanes ofa north/south major arterial from Branders Bridge
Road to Chester Road (the "North/South Parkway Extended");
2) widening Chester Road from two (2) to four (4) lanes from its intersection with
the North/South Parkway Extended, northward to the existing four (4) lane
section of Chester Road; and
3) construction of a two-lane road for an east/west limited access facility from
Branders Bridge Road to Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1/301) at the Ruffin
Mill Road intersection (the "East/West Freeway Extended");
4) construction of a two-lane east/west major arterial from the eastern property line
to Branders Bridge Road at the Happy Hill Road intersection ("Happy Hill Road
Connecti on");
26
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
5) reconstruction of Happy Hill Road as a two-lane road from the Old Happy Hill
Road intersection to Harrowgate Road.
Exhibit B indicates the applicant's estimated cost of the off-site road improvements for
each phase of development. The applicant has estimated that the total cost of the off-site
road improvements is approximately $72 million. Staff calculates the value of the off-
site road improvements to be approximately $128 million, based solely on a rough cost
per mile calculation for typical VDOT projects. The actual cost of this construction
cannot be determined until the work is complete and may be more or less than this
estimated amount. However, based on the proffered conditions, the applicant is required
to construct the off-site road improvements regardless of the cost.
The following on-site road improvements have been proffered:
1) construction of a four-lane divided major arterial from Branders Bridge Road at
the northern property line, through the property to the East/West Freeway (the
"North/South Parkway");
2) construction of a two-lane road for an east/west limited access facility through the
southern part of the property from the North/South Parkway to Branders Bridge
Road (the "East/West Freeway");
3) construction of a two-lane east/west major arterial through the property ("Happy
Hill Road Extended") and
4) improving/overlaying the south side of Bradley Bridge Road and the west side of
Branders Bridge Road for the entire property frontage.
The on and off-site improvements are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan.
The applicant has proffered a phasing plan (Exhibit A) for the major on and off-site road
improvements (Proffered Conditions 11 and 12). According to the phasing plan, the road
improvements will be constructed in advance of the traffic impact generated by each
phase of the development. The four lane north/south road from the property to Route 288
will be in place prior to 4,000 units being developed and the two lane east/west limited
access road from the property to 1-95/ Route 1 will be in place prior to 2,500 units being
developed.
Proffered Condition 13 would allow the Transportation Department to revise the phasing
of the off-site road improvements, if actual traffic patterns differ significantly from the
assumptions in the traffic study. If a revised phasing is desired by Transportation, it will
be limited to an equivalent improvement cost / approved unit as indicated in Exhibit B.
In order to construct many, if not all, of the off-site road improvements, a significant
amount of right-of-way will need to be acquired, possibly including several residences.
Proffered Condition 11.A, requires that prior to any development on the property the
Board of Supervisors must approve the specific alignment for the new East/W est
Freeway. Customary preliminary engineering, environmental studies and public
hearing(s) associated with typical public road projects are anticipated. According to
27
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Proffered Condition 10.Q, the applicant may request the county to assist in acquiring the
off-site rights-of-way. The acquisitions will be at developer expense. If the county
chooses not to assist with the right-of-way acquisition, the developer will not be obligated
under the proffer to acquire the off site right-of-way, and will only be obligated to
construct road improvements within available right-of-way. The applicant will be
allowed to proceed with development of the property without constructing the necessary
road improvements. Without the road improvements, staff does not support the request.
Therefore. if the Board of Supervisors is not prepared to assist the applicant with
acauirin2: the necessarv ri2:ht-of-wav for these off-site road improvements. this
rezonin2: reauest should be denied.
A development of this magnitude will have significant traffic impacts beyond the
immediate road network in the area. Additional growth anticipated in the area will also
impact the road network. Route 10, from Chester to Route 288, is expected to carry
between 29, 000 and 41,000 vehicles per day by the year 2025, nearly double the current
volume, and will need to be widened to six lanes. Route 10 through Chester is expected
to increase from 22,000 to 32,000 vehicles per day. No further improvements to Route
10 in Chester are planned. Harrowgate Road is expected to carry 18,000 vehicles per
day, up from 11,000 vehicles per day, and will need to be widened to four lanes.
Branders Bridge Road, south of the property, is expected to carry 13,000 vehicles per
day, up from 2,000 vehicles per day. Lewis Road, from Route 10 to Bradley Bridge
Road, is expected to carry 18,000 vehicles per day, up from 6,000 vehicles per day. The
new east / west limited access road will need to be widened to four lanes in the future.
No public funds have been identified for improvements to these roads nor was the
developer asked to address these needs. The developer was requested, and has agreed to
provide a four lane divided north south road from the property to Route 288 and has
agreed to provide a new two lane limited access road from the property to 1-95 / Route 1.
These two major improvements to the area road network, along with the other proffered
improvements, reasonably address the impact of this development. The Transportation
Department supports the zoning request.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is in the process of implementing
their new Chapter 527 regulations. The regulations require developers to submit traffic
impact analyses to VDOT for their review and approval. The rezoning request was sent
to VDOT for comment in March 2006. The county required traffic study was submitted
to VDOT in March 2007. VDOT replied to the traffic study in May 2007, indicating the
scope of the study should be increased to analyze additional locations such as the
Interstate 95/Walthall interchange. VDOT has not provided comments on the zoning
case. The Transportation Department is satisfied with the submitted traffic analysis. The
developer will have to work with VDOT to satisfy their regulations.
28
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
PER UNIT
Potential Number of New Dwelling Units 4,988* 1.00
Population Increase 13,567.36 2.72
Number of New Students
Elementary 1,162.20 0.23
Middle 648.44 0.13
High 842.97 0.17
TOTAL 2,653.62 0.53
Net Cost for Schools $26,675,824 $5,348
Net Cost for Parks 3,012,752 604
Net Cost for Libraries 1,740,812 349
Net Cost for Fire Stations 2,020,140 405
Average Net Cost for Roads 44,602,696 8,942
TOTAL NET COST $78,052,224 $15,648
* Based on a proffered maximum number of allowable units inclusive of the assisted living units
(Proffered Condition 5). The actual number of dwelling units and corresponding impact may
vary.
As noted, this proposed development will have an impact on capital facilities. Staff has
calculated the fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, roads, parks, libraries, and
fire stations at $15,648 per unit. The applicant has been advised that a maximum proffer of
$15,600 per unit would defray the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by this proposed
development.
The applicant has offered a combination of road improvements, and dedications of land to assist
in defraying the cost of this proposed zoning on such capital facilities (Proffered Conditions 4,
10 and 14). The road improvements, in combination with the property dedications, provided the
developer satisfies the requirements for infrastructure serving Tracts 9A, 9B, 11A and lIB, meet
the impact of this request on capital facilities in the aggregate. It is noted however, that the
impact of this request on schools, parks, libraries and fire stations has not been mitigated as the
value of the proffers is in large part directed to mitigate the transportation impacts.
The applicant has also proffered to dedicate a minimum of 141.5 acres in the aggregate for
public purposes. Staff anticipates that Tract 9A in the center of the project would be used for an
elementary school with expanded recreational facilities that will help to partially mitigate
impacts of this development on park facilities. Staff anticipates that Tract 9B in the southern
29
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
portion of the property would be used for a high school. Staff anticipates that Tracts 11A and
lIB would be used for park facilities, and possibly a utility pump station. The dedication of
Tracts 11A and lIB and a portion of9A help to partially mitigate the impact of this development
on school and park facilities.
While the dedications offer a benefit to the county in helping to offset the impacts of this
development, staff does have certain concerns relative to the provision of road and utility
infrastructure that would serve the sites.
The proffered conditions could lead to the county providing required infrastructure
improvements, both on and offsite, to serve the facilities if the county needs to develop these
sites sooner than anticipated under the developer's schedule. Significant costs to provide road
improvements both beyond and within the limits of the subject property, and utility infrastructure
that would include water and wastewater lines and pump stations could become a county
responsibility if the county schedule precedes the developer's schedule. Recognizing these
concerns, currently, the capital improvement program does not plan funding in a time frame that
would create such a scenario.
The proffers allow the county to share in any of the developer's road construction cost savings
whereas the county will receive a payment equal to 25 percent of the difference between the cost
of the Improvements and the Contribution provided the cost of the Improvements is less than the
Contribution. This potential savings would be allocated to partially address the impact on school
facilities. Staff believes that the likelihood of any cost savings reverting to the county is remote
as costs are defined to include among other things, the cost of interest on borrowed funds.
Interest costs are netted out of the county's maximum cash proffer calculation and therefore are
not included in the $15,600 maximum cash proffer.
In summary, the applicant has agreed to conditions that mitigate the impact of this development
on roads, but fall short of mitigating the impact on schools, parks, libraries and fire stations in
accordance with the Board of Supervisors' policy. The land dedications have the potential to
help offset the impact of this development on school needs in particular, but do not fully offset
the impact generated on schools. The school system finds the proffered conditions acceptable.
Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed
and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash proffer in this case.
The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, through their consideration of this
request, may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this case that may justify
acceptance of proffers as submitted.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Southern and Western Area Plan which suggests the
northern majority of the property is appropriate for residential use of 1.01 - 2.5 units per
acre and the southern most portion of the property is designated as a Regional Mixed Use
30
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Center incorporating major office, shopping center and multi-family development with a
300 acre industrial park site.
Area Development Trends:
Area properties to the north and south are zoned Agricultural (A) and are occupied by
single family residential use on acreage parcels or are vacant. Properties to the east are
zoned Residential (R-15 & R-12) and Agricultural (A) and are occupied by single family
residential use on acreage parcels and within Stoney Glen South and Lippingham
Subdivisions or are vacant. Properties to the west are zoned Residential (R-88 & R-15)
and Agricultural (A) and are occupied by single family residential use on acreage parcels
and within Glebe Point Subdivision or are vacant. It is anticipated that the surrounding
area will continue to experience residential development with the potential for additional
regional scale commercial uses to the south, as suggested by the Plan.
Site Design:
The 1614.5 acre request property is proposed for Residential (R-12) and Regional
Commercial (C-4) zoning to be developed as a residential development on lots with
varying sizes with supporting recreational, commercial and public/semi-public uses on
the 1445.4 acre portion of the property proposed for R-12 zoning with a regional
commercial node on the 169.1 acre portion of the property proposed for C-4 zoning. The
development will have design features which include pedestrian access, street trees and
open spaces, and also incorporating some aspects of traditional neighborhoods such as
buildings and parking areas located close to roadways and alleys serving the rears of
uses.
The property is divided into numerous development tracts. Uses will be located and
developed as depicted on the Master Plan (Attachment), as described in the Textual
Statement (Attachment) and the proffered conditions. The boundaries and sizes of tracts,
including further divisions into Sub-tracts, may be modified so long as their relationship
with each other and any adjacent properties is maintained. The location of uses within
each Tract may be modified provided the transitions and separations between that Tract
and adjacent Tracts as well as adjacent properties is maintained. (Textual Statement II.B.
and C)
Unless specifically regulated by the Textual Statement, the development of all Tracts
must comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for underlying Zoning
District (Residential (R-12) District standards for the portion to be rezoned to R-12 and
Emerging Growth District standards for Regional Business (C-4) uses on the portion of
the property proposed for C-4 zoning. The purpose of the Emerging Growth District
standards is to promote high quality, well-designed projects. Such standards address
access, parking, landscaping, architectural treatment, setbacks, signs, utilities and
screemng.
31
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Uses Permitted In All Tracts:
Passive and active recreational uses limited to facilities and uses that primarily serve the
surrounding residential community would be permitted within all Tracts. The Textual
Statement provides for setbacks, buffers and other restrictions to minimize the impact of
such uses any adjoining existing or proposed residential development. Civic and social
uses, temporary model homes located in modular office units and accessory uses,
buildings and structures permitted in the Zoning Ordinance would also be permitted
throughout the project subject to minimum standards established in the Textual Statement
and in the Ordinance relative to these uses. (Textual Statement III.A.-C.)
Uses Permitted Within Certain Tracts:
Family day care homes, yards sales, home occupations, and other customary accessory
uses, buildings and structures associated with residential uses would be permitted
throughout the project where residential uses are permitted subject to minimum standards
of the Zoning Ordinance and as outlined in the Textual Statement (Textual Statement
IYA. and B.). In addition, medical and dental laboratories in conjunction with medical
or dental offices would be permitted. (Textual Statement IYB.)
Second dwelling units, either within the same building as the principle dwelling or in a
structure separated from the principle dwelling, would be permitted. The Textual
Statement refers to these dwelling units as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and provides
standards for their location and development within the project (Textual Statement
IYB.1.a). Occupancy of the ADUs would not be limited to family members of the
property owner as has typically been required for second dwellings.
Residential Density/Use Types and Minimum Lot Areas:
Proffered Condition 5 provides that a maximum of 4,988 dwelling units will be permitted
yielding an overall density of approximately 3.08 dwelling units per acre. Other density
caps offered would limit the total number and type of dwelling units permitted with
certain areas of the development. Specifically, within the R-12 portion of the
development, the total number of dwelling units would not exceed 4,456 yielding a
density of 3.08 dwelling units per acre. The total number of dwelling units would not
exceed 532 dwelling units within the C-4 portion of the development yielding a density
of approximately 3.14 dwelling units per acre. In addition, limitations are placed on the
number of multi-family units not organized for sale as condominiums and the number of
assisted living units permitted. Similarly, a limitation is placed on the number of
dwelling units permitted within the commercial node referred to as the town center area.
(Proffered Condition 5)
A variety of residential units and/or lot types are proposed (Textual Statement V). The
Textual Statement outlines locational criteria and minimum development standards such
as lot areas and coverage, setbacks, group or row design and architectural treatment for
single family units (attached and detached), cluster and townhomes and multi-family
32
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
residential units including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as previously discussed,
assisted living facilities and over-shop housing or live/work units in the commercial areas
(Textual Statement VA-H.). A summary of uses permitted by Tract is provided which
will be beneficial during plan and permit review. (Textual Statement VI)
Commercial Areas:
There are two areas proposed within the development to serve as commercial nodes for
residents within the development and from the surrounding areas.
Town Center Commercial: One area, referred to as the "town center," will serve as the
urban center of the R-12 portion of the development where a mix of commercial, office
and public/semi-public uses, a limited number of single and multi-family residential uses,
as well as "live/work" or "over-shop" units would be permitted (Textual Statement V.I.).
This area is proposed to be developed in a neo-traditional manner where buildings are
located closer to sidewalks, street trees are provided and regulations would govern
maximum building heights and maximum tenant spaces to integrate this town center with
adjacent residential development thereby promoting community character (Textual
Statement V,I.2.d. & e. and Proffered Condition 5.C.(3)). In addition, Proffered
Condition 5.C.(2) addresses the minimum amount
Proffered conditions address the minimum amount of residential and commercial uses to
be provided, as well as the timing of construction of these commercial uses in the R-12
portion of the development, to insure a mixed-use development. (Proffered Condition
5.A.(2) and 5.C.(1) & (2))
Regional Commercial Area: The portion of the property proposed for rezoning to C-4
could be developed for a mix of commercial and residential uses (Textual Statement
VK.). As previously noted, development of this C-4 area would be required to meet
Emerging Growth District standards for Regional Business (C-4) uses. The purpose of
the Emerging Growth District standards is to promote high quality, well-designed
projects. Such standards address access, parking, landscaping, architectural treatment,
setbacks, signs, utilities and screening.
Proffered conditions address the minimum amount of residential and commercial uses to
be provided, as well as the timing of construction of these commercial uses in this area, to
insure a mixed-use development (Proffered Condition 5.A.(3) and 5.C.(4)). It should be
noted that the application only guarantees a minimum of 50,000 square feet of
commercial uses in this area with the potential for 532 dwelling units. Further, the
proposal states that "work must have begun" on the 50,000 square feet and does not
guarantee the ultimate construction of that square footage.
33
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Parking:
All Uses: It is requested that on-street parking be allowed to count towards the required
number of parking spaces for all uses (Textual Statement III. G.). Given the urban
character of the development, Staff supports such exception.
Town Center and Regional Commercial Areas: For commercial or office uses, parking
would typically be calculated at shopping center standards of 4.4 spaces for every 1000
gross square feet of uses. Given the urban character of the commercial nodes of this
development, it would be appropriate to permit a reduction in the required spaces
consistent with Ordinance requirements for Village Districts, or at approximately 4.0
spaces for every 1000 gross square feet with a credit for on-street parking, where
permitted. The applicant is requesting that parking be provided at three (3) spaces for
every 1000 gross square feet of commercial and office uses (Textual Statement V.I.2.b.
and VK.2.a.). With no data to substantiate reduction in parking requirements for these
uses, staff cannot support exceptions to the parking standards of the Ordinance beyond
those for Village Districts.
Residential Uses: The Ordinance requires the provision of two (2) off-street parking
spaces for each dwelling unit. An exception is requested to permit parking within
garages to be credited towards this minimum requirement (Textual Statement III. G.).
While staff supports such exception since it reduces the amount of impervious area and
therefore, the impact on water quality, the developer and future owners should be
cautioned that it will not be possible in the future to convert garages into living space.
As noted above, the Ordinance requires the provision of two (2) off-street parking spaces
for each residential single family, multifamily and townhouse unit, except age restricted
multifamily dwellings which require a minimum of 1.2 parking spaces for each such unit.
The applicant proposes a provision of 1.75 spaces for each multi-family unit (Textual
Statement VE.1.f. and VE.1.g.). Similarly, 1.5 spaces for each three (3) multi-family
units (or 0.5 spaces per unit) are proposed for units designated as Assisted Living units
while the Ordinance requires 0.8 spaces per unit (Textual Statement VH.1.f.). With no
data to substantiate reductions in these parking requirements, staff cannot support
exceptions to the parking standards of the Ordinance for these uses.
Cluster Standards:
The requirements offered for the project such as hardscaped driveways and alleys,
setbacks for front loaded garages, street trees where exceptions to Ordinance
development standards (i.e. minimum setbacks and lot areas) are requested are consistent
with those typically required by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on
similar projects recently approved. (Textual Statement III.E., F. & I)
34
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Buffers and Greenway:
The residential lots within this development are subject to the Subdivision Ordinance
requirements for buffers. The integrity of these buffers is often compromised when they
are located on individual lots. Where these buffers are required, Staff suggests they be
located in recorded open space, however, this development does not provide such a
provISIOn.
Along the North/South Parkway as shown on the Master Plan, a park greenway system is
proposed within the fifty (50) foot buffer. This greenway is proposed to serve as the
spine for trail connectivity throughout the development. (Textual Statement III.K.)
Sidewalks and Pedestrian Access:
Sidewalks and trails to provide connectivity throughout the development will be provided
(Textual Statement III.H.). Pedestrian trails are proposed to provide connection to other
neighborhoods and areas however if a trail is not provided, sidewalks are proposed on
one (1) side of roads on which dwellings front the road. This standard for the provision
of sidewalks only where trails are not located and only on one (1) side of a street are not
consistent with the provision for sidewalks on both sides of all roads which have dwelling
units fronting them as typically required on similar projects. Staff notes the importance
of sidewalks to urban development and suggests that sidewalks be provided on both sides
of all roads which has homes fronting the roads.
Street Connectivity:
An exception to the "Residential Subdivision Connectivity Policy" is requested so as to
preclude any road connections to Glebe Point and Skybird Roads (Proffered Condition
8.E.). In addition to promoting fire and emergency services safety, subdivision road
connections provide interconnectivity between residential developments, thereby
reducing congestion along collector and arterial roads and providing a convenient and
safe access to neighboring properties.
The "Policy" allows the Board, through the Commission's recommendation, to waive the
requirement for streets in new subdivisions to connect to adjacent public streets that are
designed as local streets, residential collectors and thoroughfare streets. Staff must
evaluate this waiver based upon three (3) criteria: (1) there must be a sufficient number
of other stub streets to adequately disperse traffic and not cause a concentrated use of any
one (1) stub street; or (2) the connection to a particular stub will cause concentrated
traffic at that location; (3) the projected traffic volume on anyone (1) local street within
an existing subdivision exceeds 1,500 vehicle trips per day.
Without additional design information relative to road layout, staff cannot determine if
the criteria for granting such a waiver can be met. Therefore, it is recommended that this
waiver not be granted at this time and that consideration of this waiver be evaluated
during the plans review process when more detail is available.
35
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
CONCLUSIONS
Although the density of residential use planned on the portion of the property proposed for
rezoning to Residential (R-12) exceeds the density suggested by the Southern and Western Area
Plan and the commercial and residential use on the portion of the property proposed for rezoning
to Regional Business (C-4) does not provide the regional scale office use or major industrial
development recommended for the Regional Mixed Use Center by the Plan, the proposal
provides an opportunity for planning a large scale mixed use development where residential and
commercial uses coupled with public/semi-public amenities create an urban lifestyle
environment and where major infrastructure improvements are provided as the development
occurs.
The application fails to address concerns relative to parking, buffers and sidewalks, as discussed
herein.
While the applicant has offered land dedication, road construction and a contribution to assist in
defraying the cost of this proposed development on road infrastructure and schools and parks
facilities, the proffered conditions do not adequately mitigate the impact of this development on
capital facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the
needs for roads, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations and transportation facilities is identified
in the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement Program, and
the impact of this development is discussed herein. The proffered conditions vary from that
which has consistently been accepted in accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Policy.
While the transportation impact is addressed, the remaining proffered conditions fail to fully
address the impact of this request on schools, parks, libraries and fire stations in accordance with
the Board's policy; however, schools are satisfied that the proffered conditions which require
dedication and infrastructure for school facilities are acceptable. Therefore, the proffered
conditions do not adequately mitigate the impact on these capital facilities and thereby do not
assure that adequate service levels are maintained as necessary to protect the health, safety and
welfare of County citizens. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the rezoning the property
subject to the applicant fully addressing the impact of this development on capital facilities in
accordance with the Board of Supervisors' policy and addressing staff's concerns relative to
parking, buffers and the provision of sidewalks.
Staff recommends denial of Request II to grant a waiver to street connectivity. The application
fails to address connectivity per the Board's adopted "Residential Subdivision Connectivity
Policy", as discussed herein. Evaluation of the Policy criteria for granting such relief
necessitates design detail that can best be provided through the subdivision review process.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (10/17/06):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to November 16, 2006.
36
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Staff (10/18/06):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than October 23, 2006, for consideration at the
Commission's November 16, 2006, public hearing.
Also, the applicant was advised that a $500.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Commission's public hearing.
Staff (10/23/06):
To date, no new or revised information has been received, nor has the deferral fee been
paid.
Planning Commission Meeting (11/16/06):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to January 16,2007.
Staff (11/17/06):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than November 22, 2006, for consideration at the January
16,2007, meeting.
Also, the applicant was advised in writing that a $250.00 deferral fee must be paid prior
to the Commission's public hearing.
Applicant (11/17/06):
The deferral fee was paid.
Applicant (11/27/06):
The applicant requested a waiver to the Residential Subdivision Connectivity Policy to
Glebe Point and Skybird Roads.
37
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Staff (12/21/06):
Staff continues to review and comment on draft documents submitted by the applicant.
Planning Commi ssi on Meeting (1/16/07):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to March 20,2007.
Staff (1/17/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than January 22, 2007, for consideration at the March 20,
2007, meeting.
Also, the applicant was advised in writing that a $250.00 deferral fee must be paid prior
to the Commission's public hearing.
Applicant (1/31/07):
The deferral fee was paid.
Staff (2/15/07):
Staff continues to review and comment on draft documents submitted by the applicant.
Applicant (3/19/07):
Revised proffers and textual statement were submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (3/20/07):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to April 17, 2007.
Staff (3/21/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 26, 2007, for consideration at the April 17,
2007, public hearing.
38
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Also, the applicant was advised that a $500.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Commission's public hearing.
Staff (4/3/07):
Staff continues to review and comment on draft documents submitted by the applicant.
Applicant (4/16/07):
The deferral fee was paid.
Planning Commi ssi on Meeting (4/17/07):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to June 19,2007.
Staff (4/18/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than April 23, 2007, for consideration at the June 19, 2007,
public hearing.
Also, the applicant was advised that a $250.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Commission's public hearing.
Applicant (5/10/07):
Revisions to the proffered conditions and Textual Statement were submitted.
Applicant (5/14/07):
A revised Exhibit A was submitted.
Staff (6/7/07):
Staff continues to review and comment on revised documents submitted by the applicant.
The deferral fee has not been paid.
39
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Applicant (6/8/07):
Revisions to the proffered conditions and textual statement were submitted.
Applicant (6/18/07):
The deferral fee was paid.
Planning Commission Meeting (6/19/07):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their July 17, 2007, public
hearing.
Applicant (6/20/07):
Revisions were submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (7/17/07):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their August 21,2007, public
hearing.
Applicant (8/2/07):
Revisions were submitted.
Applicant (8/17/07):
An additional proffered condition was submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (8/21/07):
The applicant did not accept staff's recommendation, but did accept the Commission's
recommendation. Citizens spoke in opposition to the request expressing concerns
relative to traffic, density, impact on schools, lack of phasing of development, clear
cutting, drainage, impact on the linear trail in cluster, rural character of the area and
impacts on property owners who will be affected by proposed roads. Citizens spoke in
favor of the waiver to street connectivity to Glebe Point and Skybird Roads.
40
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
Mr. Wilson expressed support for the waiver to street connectivity. He stated this case
represents smart growth because it offers the ability to plan a large-scale development
that will provide infrastructure such as roads and schools as the development occurs over
20 to 25 years rather than in the typical piece meal fashion for small projects.
Mr. Gulley stated he had an issue with approving a case that would have an impact on
future leaders of the County since this large case was being considered so close to Board
elections.
Mr. Gecker stated he felt the Commission should vote based on the land use issue and
advise the Board accordingly.
On motion of Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Litton, the Commission recommended
approval of the rezoning and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 3 through
20.
AYES: Messrs. Gecker, Litton and Wilson.
NAYS: Messrs. Gulley and Bass.
On motion of Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Litton, the Commission recommended
approval of the waiver to street connectivity requirements.
AYES: Messrs. Gecker, Gulley, Bass, Litton and Wilson.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, September 26,2007, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
41
06SN 0244-SEP 26- BOS- RPT
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
R-12 CUPD and C-4 CUPD
Branner Station
July 30, 2007
I. Rezone from A to R-12 and C-4 for the uses permitted in R-12 and C-4
respectively with a Conditional Use Planned Development ("CUPD") to permit use
and ordinance requirement exceptions as delineated on the Zoning Map prepared
by Youngblood, Tyler and Associates, Inc. dated January 31,2006, as described in
this Textual Statement, and as provided in the accompanying proffers. The overall
master plan (the "Plan") prepared by designforum, last revised February 16, 2007
and filed herewith shall identify the location of the various Tracts.
II. General Conditions
A. Except as stated herein, the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the
Residential (R-12) District and the Regional Business (C-4) District shall be
applicable.
B. To accommodate the orderly development of the Property, the R-12 tracts
shall be located as generally depicted on the Plan, but their location and
size, including further divisions into sub-tracts, may be modified through
the Conceptual Subdivision Plan (the "Conceptual Plan") process, so long as
the parcels generally maintain their relationship with each other and any
adjacent properties. The Conceptual Plan shall include the major sidewalk
and trail systems to be considered as part of the review and approval of the
Conceptual Plan. Such plan shall be subject to appeal in accordance with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan appeals. Sub-tract (a
designated portion of a tract) divisions may be created at the time of
tentative subdivision or site plan review and shall not require a separate
review as a tract adjustment provided there is no adjustment in the overall
tract boundary unless the tract boundary has been approved for
adjustment as stated herein. Prior to any site plan or tentative subdivision
approval within the C-4 portion of the development, a schematic plan must
be approved by the director of planning. The schematic plan shall include
information deemed necessary by the director of planning to ensure
compliance with zoning conditions and the zoning ordinance's purposes,
including but not limited to the horizontal layout of the project based on a
metes and bounds survey, a general list of uses, density, conceptual
landscaping plans and cross-sections of any required buffers. The director
of planning shall review the schematic plan to ensure compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and zoning conditions, to ensure land use compatibility
and transition; and to mitigate any adverse impact on public health, safety
and welfare. Such plan shall be subject to appeal in accordance with the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan appeals.
C. Whenever a provision refers to or requires a mixed use plan ("Mixed Use
Plan") to be submitted for review and approval, such plan may be, unless
otherwise stated herein, approved by either the Planning Department or the
Planning Commission at the election of the Developer, and such review
shall be subject to appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 2 of 20
Ordinance for Site Plan appeals. The various use types, if permitted within
an individual tract, may be mixed within a tract or sub-tract if a Mixed Use
Plan is submitted for review and approval. The Mixed Use Plan shall
address the land use transitions and compatibility among the different uses
within a tract or sub-tract. Land use compatibility and transitions may
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the exact location of uses, buffers
and site design.
III. Requirements and Exceptions for All Tracts
If any of the facilities set forth in III A. and B. below are to be provided they shall
be identified on the Conceptual Plan (or Schematic Plan, if located within the C-4
portion of the property) and on the record plat for any lot adjacent to such
facilities.
A. Recreational Facilities.
1. Recreational facilities shall be permitted within all Tracts. These
uses shall be limited to facilities and uses that primarily serve the
surrounding community including but not limited to passive
recreation (i.e. including but not limited to picnic areas, trails, paths,
sidewalks, ponds, open space, and vistas) and active facilities (i.e.
including but not limited to pools, tennis courts, play fields and
community amphitheaters).
2. Outside public address systems or speakers shall not be used
between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
3. Where recreational facilities are located adjacent to roadways
detailed in Section III. J. below, setbacks for all buildings, drives and
parking areas shall conform to the minimum setback requirements
for such roadways. Otherwise, all buildings, drives and parking
areas shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from all other
property lines.
4. With the exception of playground areas which accommodate swings,
jungle gyms or similar such facilities, outdoor play fields, courts,
swimming pools and similar active recreational facilities shall be
located a minimum of 100 feet from any proposed or existing single
family residentia110t line and a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any
existing or proposed public road. Nothing herein shall prevent
development of indoor facilities and/or parking within the 100 foot
setback. Within the one hundred (100) foot and fifty (50) foot
setbacks, a fifty (50) foot buffer shall be provided along the perimeter
of all active recreational facilities except where adjacent to any
existing or proposed public roads. These buffers shall conform to the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for fifty (50) foot buffers.
These buffers and setbacks may be modified or waived by the
Planning Commission at the time of plan review.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 3 of 20
5. Any playground area (i.e., areas accommodating swings, jungle gyms
or similar such facilities) shall be located a minimum of forty (40) feet
from all property lines. A forty (40) foot buffer shall be provided
along the perimeter of these recreational facilities except where
adjacent to any existing or proposed public roads. These buffers
shall conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for fifty
(50) foot buffers. These setbacks and buffers may be modified
and/ or waived by the Planning Commission at the time of plan
reVIew.
B. Civic and Social Uses
1. Civic and Social Uses are any public use proposed by the County on
its property such as and including but not limited to parks, schools,
fire and rescue stations, and libraries.
2. Where civic and social uses are located adjacent to roadways detailed
in Section III.J. below, setbacks for all buildings, drives and parking
areas shall conform to the minimum setback requirements for those
roadways.
3. Except where specified herein, such uses shall be subject to
Emerging Growth District standards for Corporate Office (0-2)
Districts unless modified by the Planning Commission through site
plan review based upon a design that insures land use compatibility
and integration of the uses with the overall development.
4. Recreational Facilities proposed by the County on its property shall
comply with Section III.A. above.
C. Real Estate Offices / Model Homes
Temporary modular units and/ or any permanent dwelling unit may be used
as a temporary real estate office provided the temporary real estate office is
only used to market the property located within the boundaries of the Plan
and:
1. Is not used for the sale of dwelling units located outside the
boundaries of the Plan.
2. Is not used for the rental of dwelling units located outside the
boundaries of the Plan.
3. Is not used for a rental office for dwelling units located within the
boundaries of the Plan except to market the homes when they are
initially constructed.
4. The temporary real estate office is incidental to construction activity
taking place within the boundaries of the Plan.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 4 of 20
5. The temporary real estate office is not the primary real estate office
for the company marketing dwelling units within the boundaries of
the Plan.
6. The temporary real estate office is not used as a construction office
or for the storage of construction equipment and/or materials.
D. [Intentionally Omitted]
E. Drivewavs and Al1evs
1. All private driveways and alleys serving residential uses shall be
hardscaped. The exact treatment shall be approved at the time of
plan review. For purposes of compliance with this requirement,
"track" driveways with grass medians and driveways constructed
with open paving blocks and pervious paving blocks shall be
considered hardscaped.
2. All private driveways, alleys and parking areas shall have no required
minimum distance from the right-of-way of any existing or proposed
public road.
F. Garages. Front loaded garages shall be located no closer to the street than
the front fa<;ade of the dwelling unit.
G. Parking. Garages and improved designated parking spaces in a public right
of way shall be counted in calculating parking spaces required for each use
H. Sidewalks and Trails. Sidewalks and trails to provide connectivity
throughout the community will be planned within and between each
neighborhood as well as civic/social areas and will be indicated on the
conceptual and schematic plans. The exact location and design shall be
approved in conjunction with the tentative subdivision or site plan
approval.
I. Street Trees and Pedestrian Access. Unless an exception is granted
through the tentative subdivision or site plan process based upon a design
that meets the spirit and intent of the requirements specified herein, within
any tract having lots less than 12,000 square feet or where there is to be a
mix of Use Types, street trees will be located on both sides of roads on
which dwellings front the road and such tract shall have a pedestrian
connection to other neighborhoods and civic/ social areas as contemplated
by Section III.H above, and if no such connection, then sidewalks shall be
provided on at least one side of roads on which dwellings front the road.
J. Setbacks from Roadways. All buildings, drives and parking areas other
than those located on interior roadways shall have the following minimum
setbacks, exclusive of residential lots, from the stated road type:
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 5 of 20
(1) East West Freeway:
(2) North/South Parkway:
(3) Branders Bridge Road:
(4) Bradley Bridge Road:
(5) Happy Hill Road Extended
(a) At Tracts 6 & 7 and only that
portion of Tract 4 where
located at the intersection
of the North/South Parkway
and Happy Hill Rd Extended
(b) The balance of Tract 4 and at
all other Tracts:
50 feet setback
50 feet setback
50 feet setback
50 feet setback
No minimum
50 feet setback, unless
waived or modified at tentative
subdivision or site plan review
Setbacks for stated Use Types along any other roads in existence or
proposed are stated in the Use Type description in Section V.
K. Greenway /Trai1 System. Along the North/South Parkway, within the 50 ft.
setback or adjacent thereto, a park greenway system serving as the spine
into which other trails connect shall be provided.
IV. Requirements and Uses for Specified Use Tvpes
A. Uses Permitted with Certain Restrictions
1. Family day-care homes, provided that
(a) No more than five children exclusive of the provider's own
children and any children who reside in the home receive care
at anyone time during a 24-hour day.
(b) Permitted for all residential Use Types
2. Yard Sales, provided that the sale:
a. Is accessory to Use Type on the same property
b. Does not exceed two days in duration
c. Is conducted by the owner or lessees of the property on which it
occurs and includes only personal property owned by the seller and
usual to a household, and
d. Does not occur on the same property more than four times in any
one calendar year and not more than twice within a 30-day period.
e. Permitted for All Use Types except J.
3. Home occupation, provided that:
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 6 of 20
a. In addition to family member employees that live on the
premises, two employees shall be permitted to work on the
premIses.
b. The use is within a dwelling, accessory structure or both
provided that the total area for the use does not exceed 25% of
the floor of the dwelling or 250 square feet, whichever is
greater,
c. The use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the
property for dwelling purposes and no external alterations,
which would cause the premises to differ from its residential
character by the use of colors, materials, lighting or
construction, are permitted.
d. No commodity is stored or sold on the premises except for
light inventory.
e. No more than one vehicle and one single axle trailer not
exceeding 13 feet in length and 3,200 pounds used in
conjunction with the home occupation may be parked on the
premises. No equipment shall be stored outside the dwelling
or accessory structure that would indicate that a business is
being conducted on site except for the equipment stored on
the vehicle or trailer used in conjunction with the business.
The vehicle and equipment for a home occupation shall be
parked on the premises where the home occupation is
conducted, but a trailer must be parked, except for loading
and unloading, either in the rear yard or so that its view is
screened from adjacent properties or public roads. A vehicle
used for towing shall not be permitted to have a vehicle in tow
or on its flatbed while it is parked on the premises, and
f. No assembly or group instruction shall be permitted with a
home occupation. Individual instruction on a one to one basis
is permitted. Only two clients may be on the property at any
one time.
g. Permitted for all residential Use Types.
B. Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures
1. In addition to those accessory uses, buildings and structures
permitted in an R-12 or C-4 District, accessory uses, buildings and
structures shall be permitted and restricted as follows:
a. An accessory dwelling unit ("ADU"), is a habitable living unit added
to, created within, or detached from a single-family dwelling and
provides basic requirements for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and
sanitation. ADU's are subject to the following:
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 7 of 20
(1) Only one ADU per lot
(2) Lots permitting ADUs shall be detailed and shown on
the tentative subdivision plan and record plat.
(3) ADUs may be located in the principal residence or
garage, or, if the lot is at least 6,000 square feet, in a
detached structure.
(4) One of the residences shall be occupied by an owner
of the property or an immediate family member (as
defined by the Chesterfield County Code) of the
property owner.
(5) The ADU shall not be larger than 50% of the gross
floor area of the primary residence.
(6) One off street parking space required for an ADU.
This requirement may be met using tandem (end-to-
end) spaces.
(7) The ADU unit shall not be subdivided or otherwise
segregated in ownership from the primary residence.
(8) Permitted for Use Types A, Band D
b. Tennis courts and similar recreational facilities. (Permitted for all Use
Types except Use J.)
c. Swimming pools and adjoining deck areas; provided that no
swimming pool wall shall be located within six feet of an adjacent lot
or parcel nor in a required front or corner side yard. (Permitted for
All Use Types except Use J.)
d. Buildings and structures devoted to management office,
maintenance and groundskeeping purposes and equipment storage.
(Permitted for Use Types C, E, F, G H, I and K only.)
Medical or Dental laboratories, only when provided in conjunction
with medical or dental offices. (Permitted for Use Types I and K only.)
Setbacks for accessory structures shall conform to the following
setback requirements:
From any side property line: A minimum of three (3) feet
From the rear property line: A minimum of ten (10) feet
From the corner side property line: A minimum of not less than the
required front yard minimum setback for the principal Use Type.
From the rear property line abutting a natural or wetland common
area: A minimum of five (5) feet.
From the front property line: A minimum of the lesser of either V2
the depth of the lot or eighty (80) feet.
3. Height for accessory structures shall conform to the following
setback requirements:
e.
2.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 8 of 20
a. The maximum height for an accessory structure shall not exceed the
height of the principal structure to which the accessory structure is
accessory .
v. Use Types
A. Use A: Detached Home
Use A is permitted in Tracts 1, 2, 3, and 4.
1. Principal Structures
a. Lot area and width. Each lot shall have an area of not less than
4,500 square feet and a lot width of not less than forty (40) feet at
the front building setback line.
b. Percentage of lot coverage. All buildings, including accessory
buildings, on any lot shall not cover more than sixty-five (65) percent
of the lot's area.
c. Setbacks. Where Use A is adjacent to roadways detailed in Section
III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum setback
requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, the setbacks for Use A
shall be the following:
(1) Front yard. A minimum of ten (10) feet in depth.
Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary
to obtain the required lot width at the front building
setback line.
(2) Side yard. A minimum of three (3) feet in width.
(3) Corner side yard. A minimum of ten (10) feet in depth.
(4) Rear yard. A Minimum of twenty (20) feet in depth.
B. Use B: Estate Home
Use B is permitted in Tract 5.
1. Principal Structures.
a. Lot area and width. Each lot shall have an area of not less than
20,000 square feet and a lot width of not less than (60) feet at the
front building setback line.
b. Percentage of lot coverage. All buildings, including accessory
buildings, on any lot shall not cover more than fifty (50) percent of
the lot's area.
c. Setbacks. Where Use B is adjacent to roadways detailed in Section
III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum setback
requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, the setbacks for Use B
shall be the following:
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 9 of 20
(1) Front yard. A mmImum of ten (10) feet in depth
Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary
to obtain the required lot width at the front building
line.
(2) Side yard. Two (2) side yards shall each be a minimum
of five (5) feet in width.
(3) Corner side yard. A minimum often (10) feet in depth.
(4) Rear yard. A minimum of twenty (20) feet in depth.
C. Use c: Townhome
Use C is permitted in Tracts 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10.
Townhome development shall conform to the following:
1. Principal Structures.
a. Lot area and width. Each lot shall have an area not less than 1,520
square feet and a lot width of not less than nineteen (19) feet at the
front building setback line.
b. Percentage of lot coverage. All buildings, including accessory
buildings, on any lot shall not cover more than seventy (70) percent
of the lot's area.
c. Setbacks. Where Use C is adjacent to roadways detailed in Section
III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum setback
requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, the setbacks for Use C
shall be the following:
(1) Front yard. Minimum of five (5) feet in depth.
Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary
to obtain the required lot width at the front building
setback line. Provided, however, where sidewalks and
street trees are provided between the unit and right of
way, setbacks may be reduced to zero (0) feet.
(2) Side yard. Minimum of ten (10) feet in width for each
end unit abutting a private or public street or parking
area. Minimum of five (5) feet in width for each end
unit abutting another building..
(3) Corner side yard. A minimum often (10) feet in depth.
(4) Rear yard. Minimum of fifteen (15) feet in depth.
(5) Common Area. A minimum common area of five (5) feet
in width shall be provided adjacent to all groups of lots
except where the groups front or abut a public street.
g. Driveways and parking areas. All roads, driveways and parking
areas serving the general public shall have concrete curbs and
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 10 of 20
gutters. Driveways, alleys, roads and parking areas for individual
townhomes shall not be required to have curbs and gutters.
h. Group or row design. The total number of lots within each attached
group shall not exceed twelve (12).
D. Use D: Zero Lot Line Dwelling
Use D is permitted in Tracts 2,3,4,6 and 10.
1. Principal Structures.
a. Lot area and width. Each lot shall have an area of not less than
4,500 square feet and a lot width of not less than forty (40) feet at
the front building setback line.
b. Percentage of lot coverage. All buildings, including accessory
buildings, on any lot shall not cover more than sixty-five (65) percent
of the lot's area.
c. Setbacks. Where Use D is adjacent to roadways detailed in Section
III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum setback
requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, the setbacks for Use D
shall be the following:
(1) Front vard. Minimum of ten (10) feet in depth.
Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary
to obtain the required lot width at the front building
setback line.
(2) Side yard. Two (2) side yards, one a minimum of ten
(10) feet in width with one a minimum of zero (0) feet.
(3) Corner side yard. A minimum often (10) feet in width.
(4) Rear yard. A minimum of twenty (20) feet in depth.
E. Use E: MultifamilJl CommunitJl
Use E is permitted in Tracts 4, and 10.
Use E is also permitted in Tracts 2 and 3 if organized as a condominium as
defined in and subject to the Virginia Condominium Act,
1. Principal Structures
a. Parcel area and density. The minimum size shall be 20 gross acres.
The development's density shall not exceed fourteen (14) dwelling
units per gross acre except that in C-4 areas, the density may be
increased to eighteen (18) dwelling units per gross acre; however,
with provision of deck or underground parking, densities may be
increased to 25 units per gross acre.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 11 of 20
b. Percentage of parcel coverage. All buildings, including accessory
buildings, on any parcel shall not cover more than 50 percent of the
parcel's area. No accessory building on any parcel except for private
garages and recreation, maintenance and management office
buildings on any parcel shall cover more than 250 square feet.
c. Setbacks. Where Use E is adjacent to roadways detailed in Section
III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum setback
requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, the setbacks for Use E
shall be the following:
(1) Setbacks from roads and property lines. All
structures shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet
from interior roadways. All structures shall be set back
a minimum of thirty (30) feet from all property lines
unless adjacent to Use Types E and H, in which case
there shall be no minimum setback.
d. Drivewavs and parking areas. All roads, driveways and parking
areas shall have concrete curbs and gutters.
e. Roads. A second road access (public or private) shall be designed
and constructed to a public road prior to occupancy of more than
fifty (50) units. Additional accesses may be required, at the time of
site plan approval, where more than two hundred (200) units are
constructed. As used herein, the term "access roads" shall be those
roads which connect residential clusters to public roads. Access
roads shall have a minimum pavement width of twenty-four (24) feet.
f. Parking. 1.75 spaces for each dwelling unit are required.
F. Use F "Mansion House" MultifamilJl Dwelling
Use F is permitted in Tracts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10.
1. Principal Structures
a. Elevations. The exterior appearance and elevations of the structure
shall be in keeping with the appearance and elevations of a large,
Single Family dwelling unit. However, the structure houses multiple
individual dwelling units.
b. Repetition. No more than one (1) Mansion House Multifamily
Dwelling shall be permitted on a lot, not more than two (2) may be
located side by side with no more than three (3) located on anyone
side of the street on anyone block. The record plat shall identify
those lots on which Use F is permitted in accordance with these
stated restrictions.
c. Lot area and width. Each lot shall have an area not less than 10,000
square feet and a lot width of not less than 80 feet at the front
building setback line.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 12 of 20
d. Percentage of lot coverage. All buildings, including accessory
buildings, on any lot shall not cover more than seventy-five (75)
percent of the lot's area.
e. Setbacks. Where Use F is adjacent to roadways detailed in Section
III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum setback
requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, the setbacks for Use F
shall be the following:
(1) Front yard. Minimum of five (5) feet in depth.
Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary to
obtain the required lot width at the front building setback line.
Provided, however, where sidewalks and street trees are
provided between the unit and right of way, setbacks may be
reduced to zero (0) feet.
(2) Side yard. A minimum of three (3) feet in width.
(3) Corner side yard. A minimum of five (5) feet in depth.
(4) Rear yard. A minimum of fifteen (15) feet in depth.
f. Unit limit. The total number of units within each structure shall not
exceed twelve (12).
g. Driveways and parking areas. Driveways, alleys, and parking areas
for individual units shall not be required to have curbs and gutters.
1.75 spaces for each dwelling unit are required.
G. Use G: Town Center Residential
Use G is permitted in Tract 6,7 & 10.
1. Principal Structure
a. Live/Work Space meaning a structure detailed in Use I or Use K as
applicable, housing any of the uses detailed in Section I.1. or K.1.
below where at least one of the persons engaged in the stated
operation also resides in the unit.
b. Attached residential dwelling unit meaning a residential dwelling
located in or above any of the operations detailed in Section I.1. or
K.1 below and housed in Use I or Use K as applicable. The
residential unit may be occupied and/ or owned by a different party
than occupies and/ or owns the retai1/ office establishment in the Use
I or Use K portion of the structure.
c. Architectural Style. All structures shall comply with the
requirements of the Emerging Growth District.
d. Parking
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 13 of 20
(1) Parking space requirements for Use G are included in the
requirements for Parking for Use I or Use K as applicable
and no additional spaces are needed for Use G.
e. Setbacks. Where Use G is adjacent to roadways detailed in Section
III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum setback
requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, there shall be no
minimum setbacks for Use G.
f. Height. The maximum height for a Use G shall not exceed four (4)
stories
H. Use H: Assisted Livinf! Communitv
Use H is permitted in Tracts 3,4 and 10
1. Principal Structures
a. Parcel area and density. The minimum parcel size shall be 5 gross
acres. The parcel's development density shall not exceed 20 assisted
living units per acre.
b. Kitchens. Units may include a sink and other permanent kitchen
appliances, such as a stove or refrigerator.
c. Assisted Living. The facility must meet the definition of an Assisted
Living Facility as detailed in Section 63.2-100 of the Code of Virginia.
d. Percentage of parcel coverage. All buildings, including accessory
buildings, on any parcel shall not cover more than 50 percent of the
parcel's area. No accessory building on any parcel except for private
garages and recreation, maintenance and management office
buildings on any parcel shall cover more than 250 square feet.
e. Setbacks. Where Use H is adjacent to roadways detailed in Section
III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum setback
requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, the setbacks for Use H
shall be the following:
(1) Setbacks from roads and property lines. All structures
shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from interior
private roadways. All structures shall be set back a minimum
of thirty (30) feet from all property lines, unless adjacent to
Use Types E or H, in which case a minimum setback of fifteen
(15) feet shall be maintained.
f. Driveways and parking areas. All roads, driveways and parking
areas shall have concrete curbs and gutters. The number of total
parking spaces required is one and a half (1-1/2) spaces for every
three (3) assisted living units.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 14 of 20
I. Use 1: Town Center Commercial
Use I is permitted in Tract 6.
1. Permitted Uses
No buildings, structures or premises shall be used, arranged or
designed to be used except for one or more of the following uses:
(a) Offices.
(b) Libraries.
(c) Brokerages.
(d) Churches and/ or Sunday schools.
(e) Convalescent homes, nursing homes and rest homes.
(f) Group care facilities.
(g) Museums.
(h) Nursery schools and child or adult care centers and
kindergartens.
(i) Propagation and cultivation of crops, flowers, trees and shrubs
which are not offered for sale.
m Public and private forests, wildlife preserves and conservation
areas.
(k) Travel agencies to include travel arranging and transportation
ticket services.
(1) Massage clinics.
(m) Underground utility uses.
(n) Access to any land which is located in an agricultural, office,
business or industrial district or used for agricultural, office,
business or industrial purposes.
(0) Art school, gallery or museum.
(p) Funeral homes or mortuaries.
(q) Laboratories, medical or dental.
(r) Medical facilities or clinics.
(s) Messenger services.
(t) Post offices and mailing services.
(u) Communication studios, stations and/or offices exclusive of
towers.
(v) Schoo1s/ colleges, public and private.
(w) Schools - music, dance and business.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 15 of 20
(x)
(y)
(z)
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ee)
(ff)
(gg)
(hh)
(ii)
OJ)
(kk)
(ll)
(mm)
(nn)
(00)
(pp)
(qq)
(rr)
(ss)
(tt)
(uu)
(vv)
(ww)
(xx)
(yy)
Telephone exchanges.
Bakery goods store.
Banks and savings and loan associations with or without
drive-in windows.
Barber or beauty shop.
Book, stationery, newspaper or magazine store.
Camera store.
Candy store.
Convenience store.
Drugstore / pharmacy.
Dry cleaning, pick-up and drop off; coin-operated dry
cleaning; pressing; laundry and Laundromat; not to include
dry cleaning plants.
Florist shop.
Grocery store.
Hardware store.
Restaurants, including but not limited to fast food or carry-out
restaurants.
Shoe repair shop.
Shopping centers.
Tailoring and dressmaking shops.
Video rental and sales stores.
Antique shops, not to include pawnbrokers, indoor and
outdoor flea markets and secondhand stores.
Appliance stores.
Artist material and supply stores.
Bicycle sales and rentals.
Catering establishments.
Clothing Stores.
Communication studios, offices and stations, exclusive of
towers.
Curio or gift shops.
Department stores.
Eyewear sales and services.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 16 of 20
(zz)
(aaa)
(bbb)
(ccc)
(ddd)
(eee)
(fff)
(ggg)
(hhh)
(iii)
Ojj)
(kkk)
(lll)
Furniture stores.
Health clubs.
Hobby stores.
Jewelry stores.
Locksmith operations.
Meat or seafood markets.
Motor vehicle accessory stores.
Musical instruments stores.
Office supply stores.
Paint and wallpaper stores.
Pet shops, including pet grooming.
Photography studios.
Radio, television and other home entertainment, sales and
servIces.
(mmm) Rental of health and party equipments; and small home
hardware, tools and equipment.
(nnn)
(000)
(ppp)
(qqq)
(rrr)
(sss)
(ttt)
(uuu)
(vvv)
Sewing machine sales, instruction and services.
Sporting goods sales.
Toy stores.
Veterinary clinics.
Feed, seed and ice sales.
Clothing consignment stores.
Hotels and Motels.
Repair services excluding motor vehicle repair.
Schools - commercial, trade, vocational and training.
(www) Temporary outdoor Christmas tree sales.
(xxx) Temporary construction trailers/buildings devoted exclusively
to construction activities on the premises and to be removed upon
completion or abandonment of construction activities.
(yyy) Public or private parks, playgrounds and / or athletic fields
(zzz) Prepared food and fruit and vegetable vendors
(aaaa) Uses such as sidewalk cafes, vending areas, farmers' market,
garden centers and/or other displays may be permitted outside of
the buildings and in the sidewalk areas, provided that a minimum of
six (6) feet in width is maintained for pedestrian circulation.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 17 of20
2. Principal Structures
a. Architectural Style. All structures shall comply with the
requirements of the Emerging Growth District.
b. Parking. Three spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor
space for commercial uses shall be provided for Use I
c. Setbacks. Where Use I is adjacent to roadways detailed in
Section III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum
setback requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, there
shall be no minimum setbacks for Use I.
d. Height. The maximum height for a principal building for Use I
shall not exceed four (4) stories.
e. Design. This use type will be organized and developed in a
neotraditiona1 manner such that street trees and sidewalks
are required for businesses fronting roads. The location and
spacing of trees will be determined and approved during the
site plan process. The intent is not to require a single
species be planted throughout an entire area; however, the
director of planning may require a particular species in a
particular location based on existing area landscaping.
J. Use J: Pumo Station
Use J is permitted on Tract 10, 11 A or 11 B
A public wastewater pump station shall be permitted on Tracts 10, 11A or
11B.
K. Use K: Regional Mixed Use Commercial
Use K development is permitted on Tract 10.
1. Uses
Use K includes those uses permitted by right or with restrictions
including the following:
a. All those uses permitted by right and with restrictions for Use
I: Town Center Commercial.
b. Automobile Self Service Stations.
c. Greenhouse or nurseries.
d. Printing Shops.
e. Motor Vehicle sales and rentals.
f. Communication Towers subject to the following:
1. There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use.
2. The base of the tower shall be enclosed by a minimum
six (6) foot high fence, designed to preclude trespassing.
The fence shall be placed so as to provide sufficient
room between the fence and the property line to
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 18 of 20
accommodate evergreen p1antings having an initial
height and spacing to provide screening of the base of
the tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment or
structures from adjacent properties. In conjunction
with site plan submission, or prior to release of a
building permit, whichever occurs first, a landscaping
plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for review and approval.
3. The color and lighting system for the tower shall be as
follows:
a.) The tower shall be gray or another neutral color,
acceptable to the Planning Department.
b.) The tower shall not be lighted.
c.) The tower shall be a monopole structure.
d.) Any building or mechanical equipment shall
comply with Section 19-595 and 19-570 (b) and
(c) of the Zoning Ordinance relative to
architectural treatment of building exteriors and
screening of mechanical equipment, except that
the screening required of mechanical equipment
located on the building or ground from adjacent
properties and public rights of way would not be
required for the tower or tower-mounted
equipment.
e.) At such time that the tower ceases to be used for
communications purposes for a period exceeding
twelve (12) consecutive months, the
owner / developer shall dismantle and remove the
tower and all associated equipment from the
property.
g. Commercial Automobile parking.
h. Recreational establishments commercial- indoor and outdoor.
1. Hospitals.
J. Carpenter and cabinetmakers' offices and display rooms.
k. Cocktai110unges and nightclubs.
l. Contractors' offices and display rooms.
m. Electrical, plumbing or heating supply sales, servIce and
related display rooms.
n. Fraternal uses.
o. Park and ride lots.
p. Home centers.
q. Indoor flea markets.
r. Liquor stores.
s. Motor vehicle washes.
t. Repair services, including motor vehicle repair.
u. Second hand and consignment stores, excluding motor vehicle
consignment lots.
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 19 of 20
v. Taxidermies.
w. Theaters including drive-in Theaters.
x. Veterinary hospitals and / or commercial kennels.
y. Automobile service stations.
z. Warehouses.
aa. Outside storage as accessory to a permitted use.
bb. Continuous outside display of merchandise for sale, as
accessory to a permitted use.
cc. Public and private utility uses, so long as they require a
structure, to include all water, waste water, solid waste
disposal, electric, gas, communications and natural gas,
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and petroleum products
transmissions facilities; in addition, natural gas, liquefied
petroleum gas and petroleum products transmission facilities
above or below ground. The following utility uses shall be
permitted without obtaining a conditional use: public water
and waste water lines and appurtenances; service lines to
individual users; and cables, wires or pipes above or below
ground when such uses are located in easements on public
roads or in public roads.
2. Principal Structures
a. Parking. Three spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor space
for commercial uses shall be provided for Use K.
b. Setbacks. Where Use K is adjacent to roadways detailed in
Section III. J. above, setbacks shall conform to the minimum
setback requirements for such roadways. Otherwise, there shall
be no minimum setbacks for Use K.
c. Height. The maximum height for Use K shall not exceed four (4)
stories.
VI.
Tract Summary of Uses
1. Tract 1
Use A (Detached Home) is permitted as well as all applicable uses
detailed in Sections III and IV above.
2. Tract 2
Use A (Detached Home), Use C (Townhome), Use D (Zero Lot Line),
Use E (Multifamily Community) as a condominium and Use F
(Mansion House Multifamily) are permitted as well as all applicable
uses detailed in Sections III and IV above.
3. Tract 3
Use A (Detached Home), Use C (Townhome), Use D (Zero Lot Line),
Use E (Multifamily Community) as a condominium, Use F (Mansion
This page is blank.
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
Branner Station
June 20, 2007
Page 20 of 20
House Multifamily) and Use H (Assisted Living) are permitted as well
as all applicable uses detailed in Sections III and IV above.
4. Tract 4
Use A (Detached Home), Use C (Townhome), Use D (Zero Lot Line),
Use E (Multifamily Community), Use F ("Mansion House" Multifamily)
and Use H (Assisted Living) are permitted as well as all applicable
uses detailed in Sections III and IV above.
5. Tract 5
Use B (Estate Home) is permitted as well as all applicable uses
detailed in Sections III and IV above.
6. Tract 6
Use C (Townhome), Use D (Zero Lot Line), Use F (Mansion House),
Use G (Town Center Residential) and Use I (Town Center
Commercial) are permitted as well as all applicable uses detailed in
Sections III and IV above.
7. Tract 7
Use F ("Mansion House" Multifamily Dwelling), Use G (Town Center
Residential) and all applicable uses detailed in Sections III and IV
above are permitted.
8. Tract 8
Recreational Facilities and Civic/Social uses as defined by Section
III. All applicable uses detailed in Sections III and IV above are
permitted.
9. Tracts 9A and 9B
All applicable uses detailed m Sections III and IV above are
permitted.
10. Tract 10
Use C (Townhome), Use D (Zero Lot Line), Use E (Multifamily
Community), Use F ("Mansion House" Multifamily Dwelling), Use G
(Town Center Residential), Use H (Assisted Living Community), Use J
(Pump Station) and Use K (Regional Mixed Use Commercial) are
permitted as well as all applicable uses detailed in Sections III and IV
above.
11. Tract 11 A and 11 B
Use J (Pump Station) is permitted as well as all applicable uses
detailed in Sections III and IV above.
#1201258 v4 001473.03101
This page is blank.
...
~'~
~ !~'
.
.~
'j;'" .:.
t"'!' ...~ ~-.
l,..Jl ,... ....
1 ~-~l;tjj. ~
This page is blank.
II
This page is blank.
'11"1"1
I _ ,,'
. I~. ,
~ "
This page is blank.
_~trAfJIN--,-~
~... ."-.="i
~!I
,...
--
~
~~1,....,
~~~
~ _.mIIi.~~
-~
This page is blank.
~!.
1;.~ " u. .'. .' ~c "
.. .'0':.,
'W
"\..
. ''1&,-=.,..~
~~'""~~
~
'lI,t
~ .
l~ . ~.'
~i~..-,.. '~H'~ ..'
"'"
,.~,'. '~&""~!'<"'{~~"$''':'''9l
~~~
~...
~, -
"ft- _ ...
.~~"'~'
~S-=;~"
!!1"""'~....-.="" .
~~,~.
~~~)'I
". r
b, ~ 1
".,
.,; ~; I
.. '. -~ :+.,
~JI.. >l ~. ":' 'r)
. 11
..~"..'!l: :
c#!!
"'ffRN' . .._.,~' ., ~
=:.,.:..,., "'.:
~. - '-"_.... '. I
. :'-'- ""'- . '''.' -. ..,.
This page is blank.
LEGEND
-L
.
o
.
*
Future Lane Configuration
Existing Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Proposed Traffic Signal
Modified Traffic Signal
S, T Storage, Taper Length (in feet)
Ill""'" Channelized Turn
- Existing Route
- - Proposed Major Arterial
- . Proposed Limited Access
... ., Proposed Connector
e Phase I
e Phase II
e Phase III
e Phase IV
e Phase V
NOT TO SCALE
Updated by:
T3 Design
April 20, 2007
.
Intersection Geometry
Shown in Phases
Figure
4
This page is blank.
c
u.
:c
'4.0"-'
1':._-(
'::t
Q......'...
, . . .
",.,
:"DI'.~
.,.- ',",'
:i5
This page is blank.
I
,,;
.1
I !
~'i.~.
~
; ~
1---.
i~
"""
~
JL
,
\
m.'.Ji'7j'H'"". 'J-
........'.~. ..'.:.:",.._.
,'_,d.' . ~.. ,:"-=' I. _; .
This page is blank.
'liffi ::!
.
~
f
This page is blank.
06SN0244
2025 Build-Out Road
Levels of Se .
AM Peak Ho Peak Hour
INTERSECTION
LEVELS OF SERVICE
/
This page is blank.
~:
~,;4'~
. '. ....~
..... ....
iI'
This page is blank.
f~j\U' K e LA z.e)
CHESTERFIELD CO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
RE: BRANNER STATION REZONING CASE NO. 06SN0244
, FROM: Michael A. Uzel & Heritage Drive Neighborhood Watch
~~~ l1d 3900 Heritage Drive ~(dt~~,r~ f;~<'-t. f:.Qjb
~ Z(~ Chester, Va. 23831 f!~ r.~"'~ "~~11. ~'-~~.,
~., .~.. (804) 5.26-2628 '-u::-..e/.J. t..~ b .~. ~d.-
\ .. ~!~ /~lJ1rt f ,~'N/~" ~~, ~~.~
/(it" Vl~~~"'"
REASONS TO DEFER THIS ZONING CASE AND REFER
IT BACK TO PLANNING:
1. Planning Commission Analysis and Recommendations.
2. Questionable Open-Ended Agreement for the Developer to
pay for and build the Off-Site Roads (N-S & E-W Freeways).
3. Lack of Written Notification to the Public in the Path of Off-
Site Roads.
1. Planning Commission Analysis and Recommendations.
After reading the Planning Staff Report, it is hard to believe
the Planning Department recommends approval of this
zoning request.
A. Quote: "Property exceeds density suggested by the
Southern & Western Area Plan." (P.2)
B. Quote: "Proffers do not adequately mitigate the impact of
this development on capital facilities, as outlined in the
Zoning Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan." (P.2)
C. Quote: "While the road improvements offered address the
impacts on road infrastructures, the remaining proffered
conditions fail to fully address the impact of this request on
schools, parks, library, and fire stations in accordance with
the Board's policy." (P.2)
D. Quote: "The application fails to address concerns
relative to parking, buffers, and sidewalks as discussed
herein." (P.2)
E. Quote: "Therefore... the proffered conditions do not
assure that adequate service levels are maintained as
necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of
County citizens." (P.2 and P.33) (bold type is mine).
F. Quote: "IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT REVISIONS
TO THIS CASE WERE NOT RECEIVED AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PER
"SUGGESTED PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES."
THE PROCEDURES SUGGEST THAT THIS CASE
SHOULD BE DEFERRED IF THE COMMISSION, STAFF
AND MEMBERS FROM AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS
HA VE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THOROUGHLY
REVIEW THESE REVISIONS." (P.3) (bold type is mine).
These reasons alone should be enough to defer this zoning
request.
2. Questionable Open-Ended Agreement for the Developer
to pay for and build the Off-Site Roads.
The Staff report states that there will be a Contract between
the County and the Developer to pay "All reasonable costs"
for right-of-way acquisition (P. 13), and that "the applicant
is required to construct the off-site road improvements
regardless of the cost." (P.24). (bold type is mine).
My Parents taught me many years ago that if something
sounds too good to be true, it usually is too good to be true. I
believe that is the case here.
Questions:
A. How is this agreement enforceable if the Developer
declares bankruptcy?
B. What are the ramifications if the County/ Developer
cannot obtain the right-of-way (example - over the
railroad tracks near Chester Road)?
C. If a future Board of Supervisors chooses not to pursue the
off-site right-of-ways, is the Developer allowed to
proceed with the development and is he relieved of his
obligation to pay anything in lieu of building the off-site
roads? According to the Staff Report, this seems to be
the case. (P. 13-Q. and P.25).
D. How about if there is disagreement with the cost of right-
of-way acquisition by the County or road construction
costs? Already, the cost estimates of the Developer and
that of the County do not agree ($72 million vs. $128
million). (P.24 of Staff Report)
Prior to your vote on this case, there should be some
safeguards in place, such as escrow of funds from the
developer for road construction or bonding the developer to
insure that taxpayers are not left holding the bag.
3. Lack of Written Notification to the Public in the Path of
Off-Site Roads.
The off-site roads are required by proffer in this zoning
request. As such, these roads are an integral part of the
development, to the point that the Developer has agreed to
pay for these roads "no matter what the cost."
The County has an ordinance in place whereby all adjacent
property owners to a rezoning request must be notified in
writing at least 21 days prior to any hearings for rezoning.
There has been no such notice to property owners along the
proposed right-of-ways for the off-site roads. In fact, the
routes are vague and not well-defined (the E- W Freeway, for
example, could be anywhere in a mile-wide corridor from the
Branders Bridge Road to Route 1, per Jim Banks of County
Transportation). The tax-paying citizens most affected
(those who may loose their homes because of it) have not
been informed in writing of this impact on them. These
roads would have to go through populated areas. The
routes should be determined, and citizens along those routes
should be notified in writing of such proposed right-of-ways,
prior to the Board considering this rezoning request, so they
may have their input in the zoning process.
In conclusion, there are many unanswered Planning questions
concerning this development. For the above reasons, I ask that the
Board in its wisdom defer this rezoning request and have Planning
address the issues I've outlined.
"11\;' / ;..... '1f\;;tJ~
'Y ~~~/ / ~ ----./
~ ~' ~ -d ,,' " " " ;y.Ji
~::""-\'.\d'U .:', / ~: ~, .","', "~
t"\. ,\,~ ,--r:r:r.~ · .~Jl s> .:',',,' 'r:r
1 " \ Route 1 (Jeff. ~aJls) ',~,.., ~!:II)(~' ~~.....,A>r: : \~,~, '. ~
, ' " / \'~' V 0/\"" " 'IE', '~t8'" ':" '.:, ";," "
, ,(' / ::l l.l" t':l ," . ,
l /~/. . ~ I-l , .'," . ,,"'"
~ \~ " ", .
'. "~, ' ' , . ' ,..... '
, .~ \, . .' '.\ ....'.,,':,., ~',,',
:.- ' , ~,"'" ," ,
~ (r.:;' .".:. , /J" ......~,(.' :
, I r. .' , ' ,,' " ", ' <Pc,.: ~:' . :'~!:l .' ' ' , ,
~/ <~,','" ;<<','~':- ~'" .".,~~ ~~" ,~,.., "
~:..::, " ":"':'\":':':':>'.~~"" ~v"~I'::':':'::rf~~"9~ "
:;:' ", .'", 9<'" ',,',:..,,,,' 'li~ ...'f.t ,,::.~r..,..tZ.'~ ~ ~"'~ "'. <:~
",:'.,'," ....... ":':':.:.....:~::,',,':,:'>~ ' .... ~~".'...::::.',~L~ ~ '6 ,~o """':::\~:'~~'{"'~~~
',', ," .....:::: ':'~~ " ,'ti... '~". "'::,,:'.r 'vI' '!:<
,",":1/':'" ,"'",1\'.";...... '.,','.,J;.I...:, '. ,.' rr: '- -,~
("'" Jffw.'~ "'r;j'<':1;-;'l,>>. :".', '. ':'" ' !-:'.,.-. ,":,":,~\:g.~. ~~
{::.'f....?;--~tQ..' >J.'....,:>," '~'...:~I..:',:~'~' ",' , ,,'1-;J:"1;;;i,,':O ~~ ~~
['h' :.--.,.'>' , ,'. "H ~ " ' C<: "$ ~
~'.'_ '_=' '~"~..,'':,:""~",',,,,. ,"',<::,,:',:'~' '",~0~ ~ :,' g ~ ~~1
~- ~- ~"""'~l' '*"~~',,, ....:~,'~ ~o.., , . .!i :~Cij-~ ~!
, ';>'~""""'-\'AY ~( t.;;i :~ U----~
. - 9;"'" , ,"" s.~ _J ' . ~\J~' ,~ .....
~, '. '0'$ ,~'~ "':'''',~,'' o~~~ '. ' , 1'TI.' ',,, "',',:','.',,:::' .
~,~~(:~~,"\2:"~~" ,~~~ I' '. ~[~' .'".S(., 7"':i~<~~~t~~: ,
~~-',",~"~\\,' \ n ,,-<O""~~:~' ,
: "'~:r >';' f', '\\\ ,..t " ',.:', ~~ " : .,~ 5~ '7- ~
~,*.~' \~ , '~..'~, " ., ' ,".'~~ :-. :.,:~ a' , ".~ ~!~,.", ~ .
l::~ ~'~", ,,... Q)~ ';""~'C' ""o~", .r;t-.
~:'/ ,"" "\~'<''''','::;,~'" , \J":':"':'-96--::,:".."J.",' ~
" " \, ", ,"",,' ":'., '. ,'''''1 ~" ,,' ,',,' "
, , ," ~' ~,., '~. ,,(I).., ,', ,
'~. "'.",',;"','. ",' '~~""", ,,"~"" ~..."", . .
,. -".:Q--: ,....;.;,:,'".,,',,:~,,\itc:: ':'0 ' ~. '::;""c;l~,"/ "
4 {:. r. .:~"!?""'!"""":'--':I 1\ ~" / ~ ->0-',"~"I I, I , +-",,' ,,'~\-' :.~,', '
:;~ .. <"",.."y(,,,.,t) /" \, ~O:' '.' ,:It'.' r:/J. ,,' "'" ,
~.,~ '\ "''\''''''' '": t 1.[~":'i',,?/~)/\."~1 '/ "... ,\../ """.,"'.,1 I,. " "', .".... '~,."'" '
...J"'--,"'\",\ \ '.:.\.'.\-r....:! .;~'~..)~~?.,. .~("(1.':""',' .... 'R'll"',, '" ~ I ',"r\tL...:-t:T. ~ ',' I' ,
I -' ," \'. ,"", I;,. f . ""'11.):1 <6-">2" r ",,- " " '. , " " " , . '" , , "!:l " , , ,
. .~ ../..../".., ,-i' "1 \~ L::9:1.~ t' .:, ~ "'~("..., ,"").~. I ,t' I' I , " "., (1) ~ '
,......,J.'~..., \ ,,/\-:'~' '...,.....Y'..,...'/:l:~~.:<J'..;t 'I' t' .".', I 1 .0"" ," ,,: II i;J. I.. ...... .''/
,.,.;.:\~;(<...\ 'v' \,\J: .\,',::-'r~.7 .' ..',", :::"""""', :,"":::::::. ';;:-;::' &'., , , ~0:'~
".,.,..I,"i,'.~'.,"\ ) "/, ,\:)" ..' 0 ". ,^,' .... """, ",,,,,,,,, ,to..: x' 'Wt,,, , """" ,V :J?i, ' iiIIlIIl! ".', '1
., ,., .. '.., ., 'Y',. .... t" .. '"'' ~ ," .. '~iI! " ,"
\....~':v(^\.Jr ... ~...~/ (\ ~~ r",- I , '., -, , ,I ," .." % 't ,.,.,11' ....! ~~ " I '\.,'" '\
.' "".l" 4 .~ \0 '"I... .).0( '~';,\' . ." . ~ ' ',' ."'" I, , : ..' ",,', '"," ....,.~ ' I I ",-,
,''\;lL'>:'~~~<'.., .. /'..,[ I'>,~ \;,', . "~~:. ,,',', : ,"'" ":...~ ' '...':.", '. ',' :=:,~ ' "(1 '\. "".... -0 ~
"'.""'."".<.~ /1~ . .". . - ,," , .. '","'" , '" ,.,,' " """ <::>;';;', ~"\." ":"-,' ,'\.,,"," ..."
,~;"'~"I'\\,'\.<':iVJ'\ rA.)J'fI"~ - . '2..:" " :. ','",,' ~ ';\ ,,',' :,: '"" .',: : .9 \.I) '" '. .....1lIIl~'\''\'' '~" '\.'\\" ~~
'......- ',">^,..;'< ....,. flfl "'" .--,'::" "',,",,'7' ': "', ',..." ,; ''''~' ..,!"I"I;.'\."" "" \"."." ,"
i::'\<h;-.' . 'nos'~ ,~"f.o'."~~-':'.; ~.' ;,:::,:,">'""',,,..",r<',""',::-,::':,,'.':";'.':':",..:,~:",,::,,~,,\~~~~~~~~~~ ~~"
. L lb.... AI L. ,',"'. """ "''':"\''''''''''\''0 ,\,,'\. .,,'\..."\
/.;~.. .:, . ,,{1.,'~_-;. r. 'i..B:,f,\,,;.:, " ',"\.",,,,,:"\.,\,\,,\,\.,\.:\~, ~
-;,-:-.": . . 'r\; "-':''':':'- 0."\\",,, '\ ~ ~~.....'" ~'\..~~'\''':'\~ ",\~ ,"
),~ '. ..' -';'- '. \,,:'"-f ..---..1 ~'\.'\...."0..~'\.'\..'\~~~ 0.."\:'\"'''~:\~ \...'\.y...~",
';" " -'-". ~~" ~ ''''\~'\.'''' ~ ~,,''\'\ '\~\ ....'\.~~~'\
. ,t.:.:.:::;:~.E~~:<'~..>...... "~~'.... 'o>y ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~'\~~~~~" ~ '\~
:,'.' ':": >;.,' , . ~/''''' \ ~ ; ~:\~~ ' '\"" :\'~~'\",~"" ~ :S:~\ \~ ,'\,'\ .'.'~'>(.
. ,~, 'W . I,. ;':,\ :\:\,'\..,\, " ,'\ ....,,'\,'\. " :'\ ,,_
'~.,;"~ >'; . · ! ' : ;....\(\:.> ,,~,~~ ' ~\ ~ ~~~ -'\.s.. ,'\~~ ~\~ '\
..: ,. 1- ~: "..,,:: ;':.~' \..,);:: '> \. ~~'\'\~'\.'\ ~\~"'~""''''~\~Z "'Y'.,'\ " ,~
-". ~ .~ ,~'T",\ h'" .-, ~~"'~ O~~:\''\'' ~~
\J~~~\.~":';:,'~- ,:"",~~ ~~'.~~%_' ~~ ~~'
...!.)' ::t;t~ ....-.. ~L.r._~"'~~,\~ ~~'~. rf1,~~(",~": _' ..~. '" ~~
:: /. ..- /", ~.~~~~ t~~ ~~~0-"'\'~"'""'\"",,,,\.0-.'\" ~~ ., ,,,......J
J:- --..--' ," N :'\~ ~ " ...." ,~:-.., ',""j./'.;):"."L f ,\\ " ',..
".L;::::: - ,.-. 0 '''._''~:'o ",,\ :'\~~ ,~-..,,; ."'.',../'),/.":,>< /,'.'
;':/:"~:'.'" />'. : :>>'\.."'~:'\ ~~,,~~~ )'. .:., L., '\ /.,,1. .'i'I~.j /
:- .'-'~/.,n'~ Z ......:;. ~~~:\'\:~'0: '--~'~~ I :.~j r-..,.:'\Y':/ //";"""'" 0'0'" '~-..,1
-ill' II 1ft '.- "~~,.,,,.:\.,,,\",, __....1 ..".... ".,' I'.. '.' ",.-
.' .t.\~ ...' v, /': "0:\:"::\'~~ "... ~~ . .. """~</?";"" ~~.,,:.,: .....;_, ". ...
!..::..I ~';"''} ,^ -. fllf1;" ~ ":--.: :\ , -;/. .... . ') : ,~~ ',.J . 'n;..." .
........... \,..... .~.. 'ft' ';' ,1.1 ... C. !,-.;,:-~.(~ \:,:<.'~'\ .....~.~~\, '/,!_.~i.~.'J-'"
,. 0 - .._-"';' ~ /,;<.. ;':,' 1(... "'" = ......!'..... '/ 'r' . -, I"
. ...7 .' '...._..~. I ,1'" , /, "',-.
J~
.:,.
/.'
-':.. I
'/
<,.
'-
~,
~~
~ ~
:'\ \ ';1
".,,:,,-'\. ,~
.'\' ~
.....
,,' .'\ "-
· ~'.
" '.
_....
.'-
-
I....
: (/) ~/
-w~
,
/
I
-
.'
-'. ....
I !!t'hili 111,IIi' lilll !'l(JPII'11l
.h;,i\ Intllhi' ;~n!\\lh
.1' I, ,;'11. ,d PV(\pit' \0 111.ll II
~ ,J II,,' Whllbollll' ,")\1111111.
lhhllll\ .Il1d Hill <";1".111 ;WJl'l'
. r(lll1ll1ll111t\'.based atlllosphere
n IS pdlt or whallllaKcs the
, sp,-,'Ial
wOllld hh. 1<' '\.'e thl' )'.llod
01 hk lllatntallll'd. l'Vl'1I as
mllllloll grows," says (ilhbolls
he Sloan brothers moved with
ttnily to Enon in 1948, settling
I'm III W hat is now known as
manco. Gibbons Slo,Ul, like
mgtime Enon resident", notes
: Illost ohviOlL" diflcrence
:n the area then versus the area
as the rural aspect of En on.
t was a vel)' rural area; Enon
I Road was not even paved."
ibbons and Bill both attended
\lementary when there were
10 school buses for the entire
he first and second grades were
led, and grade one through
were held at Enon Elementary,
,tudents in grades eight through
attended Thomas Dale High
ill Sloan remembers attending
at the Enon Fire Department,
ching tugboat rides on the
River to the gravel pit and back
when he was growing up in
"Ie didn't have the activities
uth have now," says Gibbons,
re were a lot more community-
LCtivities then."
;)th brothers believe that
~ Enon has grown. and traffic
pulation are quickly becoming
challenges, the tight-knit qual-
Ie community still remains,
ike most other Enon residents,
tat Enon's rural family-based
tion will continue to influence
vth.
t's a great area to raise kids,
re are outstanding schools,
setting is becoming vel)'
:d," remarks Gibbons. Even
e construction of the new
lementary School, as well as a
school, Enon's growth prom-
~ontinue to be a forefront issue,
Will YlllH \;V\;:l)' \"Il<::;tt:lHI:IU I..ULllllY
school and conduct interviews with
school employees, the School Board,
adminisu'ators and parents.
\HtlCU, lilt: ~lIpCJ ilUCllUCIIl WIll Ul:JlVCI !\UJ.I.!Oll~ l.lt:pW 1.I!I':!ll.,'".\I;
it to the School Board, after which the
superintendent and staff will study it
and prepare a response to the report llJaT!(l:(j
_ ^ _..___...~_____,___,._.__._._~_.___._._,.,__.___._ _..,__.__4__...__.____._._...~_~__._.___.__'_.,_
Planning Commission Relieves Stoney
Right of Way Proffer
,by .Ni(;~. J?eI~,(~~q . , , , . . , , , , , , . , , , . . . , , . , H ,
Village News
It's heen a long baltle. hut Stoney
Glen subdivision is a few steps closer
towards completion.
La"t week. the Planning Com-
mission approved a request by Stoney
Glen 1.1,(, to hl' relieved of a require-
ment to dedicate 60 feel of right of
way along Harrowgate Rd, The right
of way dedication was a proffered
condition in the subdivision's previ-
ously granted zoning case. While
Stoney Glen LLC is willing to dedi-
cate the right of way, Columbia Gas
must first sign a quit claim for VDOT
to maintain roads within the subdivi-
sion, something that they have yet to
offer assurance that they will do. '1
"Ten feet of the 60 foot right of
way goes into Columbia Gas' 30-
foot easement. Underneath the road
Rt. 10 used to be is no longer, Four ..~
lanes wide and still jammed with
bumper-to-bumper traffic in the busy
aftemoon hours, Rt. 10 is an up-and-
coming challenge for the Enon area,
George Emerson agrees that a six- to
eight-lane road is the future for Rt lO.
"I think it's important for Route
10 to develop in a manner that's high-
quality, and that lends itself to be aes-
thetically pleasing," says Emerson.
Rural and industrial, small-town
comforts, and big-business accessibil-
ity: Enon encompasses it all. Home to
beautiful neighborhoods, high-quality
business centers, good schools, and
an abundant history as Chesterfield's
"oldest continuously inhabited settle-
ment," the Enon area is a wonderful
place to live, work, and play.
"I love the community feel of
Enon." says Cl)'stal Monroe, "There
are so many good churches and close-
knit neighborhoods:' And in a day
and age where close-knit communi-
ties are harder and harder to come by,
Enon, Vrrginia is a like a breath of
there, there are two eighteen-inch gas
transmission lines that serve all of
Tidewater," says John Easter. lawyer
representing Stoney Glen LLC, "We
have been working on this issue for at
least eight months:'
The transmission lines will he
crossed perpemhcularly hy two right
or way acceSSl'S into the subdivision,
ll1e Planning Commission had origi-
nally required the dedication to help
mitigate the impact of the proposed
dCVl'll'pl1ll.'ill :ll.::unmlOdate
lilt un' \'(lad Il11prUH'ments along Har-
ro\\',~at" Rd.
StOlley (ill'1\ l.l( . IS clII'rently
in talks witll Columbia Gas in an
attempt to resolve the issue and
receive assurance hy Columbia Gas
they will n!li:r the quit claim. 'Ih:
case \\'ll1l11:Xt be revll'weLl by Ihe
Board ofSupelvisors dw'ing their
meeting on Wednesday, September
26
Branner Station
Continued from page 1
the homes or businesses they
would serve.
Off-site road phases two
through six would include a four-
lane road to Rt. 288 and two lanes
of the east-west freeway to 1-95,
The transportation
department has indicated that
fewer than 20 property owners
would be affected in the land
acquisition efforts to build the
road.
Hunt has also proffered land
that the school board intends
to use for a high school and an
elementary school. According to
Marshall Trammell, the price of
land for schools has skyrocketed,
and getting some land for schools
is above and beyond the proffers
the developer is encouraged to
make.
The development would also
include commercial space in its
"town center" area, which would
be designed much like the current
traditional neighborhood trend in
which retail and office uses are
mixed with residential use with an
old town flavor,
The Board of Supervisors
meets at 6:30 p,m, on September
26 in the public meeting room
in the county's administration
building at the comer of Iron
~__~..:I~ _ ___...1 T _..: _.__...1~
Branner Station
By the Numbers
1,614 acres
75 acres for high school
32 acres for elementary school
34.5 acre for civic use
4,998 maximum residential units
allowed
$72,809,920 cost of off-site roads
900 maximum number of apart-
ments allowed
400 maximum assisted-living
units
70,000 sq. ft. of commercial
space in town-center
o roads will connect to the Glebe
Point development
1 Y2 plus miles of major road
improvements to Branders Bridge
Rd.
20 number of years to complete
project
400,000 maximum commercial
sq. ft. including southern commer-
cial center.
2009 year in which project could
begin
2644 students development will
produce
68,000 daily vehicle trips daily
after completion
2,449 single-family homes
1,331 townhouse/condominiums
908 apartments
300 assisted living units
Ca~1 W,
Board of Supervisors Meeting
September 26, 2007
RE: 06SN0244 Rezoning Case Branner Station
Mr Chairman:
We respectfully request that one of three options be exercised in this rezoning
case. Either deny this request or send it back to the planning commission to
allow for proper public involvement for residents to the north of Ironbridge Road.
Many residents shown in the red circle are unaware of the transportation
implications of the case from Branner Station to Route 288. If public involvement
is not important, a third option is to add two conditional amendments to this
rezoning case:
1. Any reference to a 50 MPH design speed be stricken and replaced with
a context sensitive design speed.
2. Fully protect the Chester Linear Park where it exists today and utilize
adjacent right-of-way for the proposed highway
This Board and future Boards have been placed in a very difficult position. Over
the next 25 years, if future boards fail to secure right-of-way for proposed road
improvements, HH Hunt can build out their development to 5,000 homes and
66,000 vehicle trips per day without building the necessary roadway
improvements. The developer has let you down because of poor community
involvement practices by our county transportation department. The
transportation department has underestimated the desire of neighbors to the
north of lronbridge Road to protect their existing Linear Park at all costs. Despite
questions to the transportation department, no one present can tell your
community with any certainty what exactly we are getting in place of our existing
Linear Park. This is unacceptable. Our county transportation department has
placed this board in this position by not doing proper public involvement over the
past two years.
Who can tell your community how many meetings have been held to discuss the
condemnation of our Linear Park and replacing it with a minimum four lane
highway with posted speeds at 40-45MPH and more projected daily traffic than
. Route 288 at Route 10 (43,000 Vehicles per day)
. lronbridge Road at 288 (38,000)
. 1-295 at Route 10 (36,000)
. Route 1 at 288 (24,000)
. Hull Street Route 360 at 288 (41,000)
. Midlothian Turnpike at Coalfield Road (41,000)
Some of these roads such as Midlothian and Hull Street are not freeways and
have more than 4 lanes in each direction. More of our citizens die or are injured
on Midlothian Turnpike and Hull Street than any other place in our county. This
Here are some facts that begin to speak to this Board about mistakes of the past
and what is blindly envisioned by some for our future:
. Chesterfield is ranked as the 8th highest jurisdiction in terms of death and
injuries on our highways in the state. 14th for pedestrian deaths & injuries.
. Over 2,500 citizens are injured or killed each year on Chesterfield's
transportation system.
. Midlothian is ranked as the 1 ih worst corridor in the state with 16 deaths
or injuries per mile each year.
. Hull Street is ranked 17th in the state with 12 deaths or injuries per mile
each year.
This transportation system is sick and it is killing and hurting our most valuable
asset, us! Why would this board contemplate another wide, high speed arterial
that is envisioned to match or exceed our worst performing highways like Hull
Street or Midlothian Turnpike?
Let's switch gears for a second to capacity and an incomplete traffic impact
analysis. What happens when the development's traffic volumes get to Route
288 or 1-95? These highways are not planned for any additional travel lanes.
Let's be honest, there is less traffic capacity available on Route 288 today than
any of this Board envisioned at this point.
. The Route 288 - Chester Road Interchange is over capacity and is in need
of significant loops and additional auxiliary lanes.
· The signalized intersection at Centralia Road at Chester Road with at
grade rail crossing will be over capacity with proje~cted traffic from Branner
Station.
Yet, none of these public highways were included in the traffic impact study. Has
this Board contemplated these important issues or can we expect Northern
Virginia traffic south of the James River in our future trips to Richmond?
The overarching fatal flaw of all this traffic analysis is that the transportation
mode selected (highways) does not match the chosen land use density or
address the existing capacity issues with existing regional roads such as 1-95 or
Route 288. Funds are simply not available because this transportation system is
not sustainable in an energy constrained era. Previous boards have tried to use
the wrong tools to solve our transportation problems. New techniques and tools
are available to create a visionary transportation system that will last into the next
century. Will this board or future boards be bold enough to plan our
transportation system for 2030 or 2050?
Since the proposed intersection configuration at Chester Road favors the new
North / South Arterial, the name of Chester Road should be changed to Branner
Station Parkway. Of course this is in jest; however, anyone traveling on Chester
Road would be required to sit at a double left turn at a traffic signal even get to
the Village of Chester. When did this decision to make Chester Road a minor
road occur? Why is it not in any current plan? Our outdated thoroughfare plan
shows the proposed north/south arterial intersecting Chester Road, and Chester
Road still being the main road. Where was the public involvement? Will Chester
keep its name and identity as a sleepy railroad village? Will a high speed bypass
have the same impact on Chester businesses as 1-95 did to Route 1 businesses?
Additionally if roundabouts are better than traffic signals, why are roundabouts
only found within the Branner Station development and not outside the
development at the intersection of Chester Road or Ecoff Road or Route 10?
The rail corridor that the proposed north/south arterial passes through has been
identified as a Rail Corridor of the Future. It will require a grade separated
crossings and additional bridge height to meet higher clearance standards. The
clearance at the grade separated railroad crossing has to be 21 feet for double
stack trains. This will be particularly tricky as there are wetlands and creeks as
well as tight geometrics near the rail line. This will require significant earthwork
and huge environmental impacts between Chester Road and the rail line.
Chester Road itself is located in a flood plain and as a result will have to meet
significant Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act requirements. Will the new high
speed roadway following Chester Road have to be built on structure to avoid
environmental impacts? Has this additional cost been calculated?
What will the final cross section of the roadway look like when it is built? Will it
just be 4 lanes as planned or will it actually be 8 lanes like Hull Street or
Midlothian Turnpike to handle the projected traffic? Who will build the additional
4 lanes to handle the projected traffic? Will our Linear Park still exist? What
about the environmental issues in the area? Where is the public involvement?
Your community is concerned about any possible shortcuts the developer might
make outside the boundaries of their interest. How many Chester houses will be
impacted? Will the National Environmental Protection Act and other
commonplace state/federal transportation procedures be followed or will the
developer be able to "streamline" the process with the ultimate bottom line goal
of minimizing their expenses? If you need help here, the private sector will cut
corners despite claims to the contrary. What if there is disagreement about
design or environmental issues? What process has been established between
the county and the developer to resolve these issues?
This Board may have the transportation department's 1 ~189 vision of what the
county transportation system should look like. This vision was from an era when
oil and energy was abundant and no one was contemplating $5 to $8 for a gallon
of gas. A barrel of oil is currently at $83 and rising. What is the prognosis of
energy consumption and energy imports in the Commonwealth? I encourage
you to read Virginia's Energy plan which plainly defines Virginia's growing energy
gap, particularly in the petroleum sector. Here are a few facts from the plan:
· 94% of the state's transportation sector relies on petroleum
. 75% of all petroleum goes to the transportation sE~ctor
. 43% of all energy uses goes to the transportation sector.
. Virginia is the 14th highest state in energy consumption.
The eighties were popular for many things, including a windshield view of life and
livability. This county's transportation system's vision is living in the interstate era
of the 1950's and 60's. The county's thoroughfare plan, a relic from the 80s, has
given you a vision that will never be completed due to a constrained energy
marketplace. When are we going to recognize that an oil constrained
transportation system of today looks completely different than that 1980s vision?
The Chester Plan's Vision has it right: "People can walk from home to the village
center, along tree-lined streets, their completed linear Ipark, or to the many
pocket and community parks in the area. " It goes on to state: 'There is a well-
maintained, efficiently planned high quality transportation network that includes
excellent roads, alternative transportation to Richmond, ,and a high-speed rail
access in the village."
On the visionary side of the county, our public school system just submitted a
$25,000 Safe Routes to School grant to create a plan to get more of our youth
walking and biking to school, safely and efficiently. Millions of federal dollars are
available to be leveraged for trail and sidewalk construction as well as
encouragement for biking and walking activities. Have you seen Route 10 during
school hours? Some would say that this school traffic in the morning supports
funding new roads; others with vision would say that Linear Parks that are safe
and efficient for bicyclists and walkers are the answer to relieve congestion. At
least 25% of all morning peak period congestion is relatE~d to school trips. These
trips could easily be transferred to linear parks as the extended linear park would
connect at least 5 neighborhood schools. It is important to note that the land
proffered for schools cannot educate our children. Only qualified teachers in
state-of-the-art buildings can and neither is being providl3!d by the development.
The transportation department was unable to provide answer questions related to
the proposed typical section at the planning commission. A typical section
should be provided in this rezoning case such that the developer, county, and
citizens understand what you are approving. Using the VDOT Roadway Design
Manual, we put together two typical sections in a few hours. The first typical
section is the proposed 50 MPH design speed of the north/south arterial. A high
design speed translates to a wide right-of-way requirement of 110 feet. It creates
a fast highway that is not context sensitive, nor safe for pedestrians to cross. An
additional 28' would be required for left and right shoulders. It includes four 12'
lanes that are the same width as interstate standards. A high design speed also
requires additional right turn lanes at intersections adding another 12 feet. A
median should be provided with room for single left turns. A high design speed
does not allow for street trees as they are not allowed within the clear zone. Add
it a sidewalk that no one wants to walk on and the minimum cross section is 110'
with no linear park and no buffer provided to the adjacent communities from the
high speed roadway. Keep in mind that the right of way impacts for buffer
requirements and slope tie-ins would make the total cross section even higher.
The pedestrian network listed in the Chester Plan may be minimally
accommodated by the transportation department standards on the proposed
highway by providing a 5' sidewalk and utility strip buffer. Unfortunately, in a
stroke of brilliance, pedestrians would not be encouraged to use the facility due
to the excessive design speed and projected traffic volumes. Imagine trying to
walk along the brand new sidewalks along Hull Street. Not very appealing is it?
It's for good reason, pedestrians have a 15% chance of being killed at 20MPH
and more than 85% chance at 40MPH. This is the result.
Any roadway built in the Village should preserve the linear park and provide a
context sensitive speed limit of 30MPH with context sensitive design speed of 30-
35 MPH. The Virginia Department of Transportation design manual states "The
lower (40 mph and below) speeds apply in the central business district and
intermediate areas. The higher speeds are more applicable to the outlying
business and developing areas." Reducing the design speed will cost less to
construct and maintain and provide a right-of-way savings of over 33' in the
typical section (over one third less space than a 50MPH design). Minimizing the
footprint of the roadway, would provide a context sensitive solution, decrease
environmental impacts, and be more in line with traffic next to a full functioning
linear park. A landscape architect should create the vision and present a village
boulevard design concept for engineers to design and build. This design should
be implemented at a minimum from Chester Road to Bradley Bridge Road and
keep the existing linear park. It may take a few seconds longer; however, it
would not create a barrier in the community. These decisions would also be in
concert with surrounding neighborhoods' families and youth being able to bicycle
or cross the street to attend events at Goyne Park or the 5 neighborhood schools
along an extended linear park. Three roundabouts are also included to safely
and efficiently move traffic and provide a gateway to the Village.
-
What do some of our county plans say?
· On page 3, under Important Resources, the Comprehensive Plan denotes
Developing and promoting open space corridors as a framework to protect
the natural environment and scenic values and provide outdoor recreation
health opportunities.
· In our Water Quality Plan, we should seek opporlunities to establish a
linkage between the preservation of riparian corridors and the
establishment of future "green way" corridors by the Chesterfield County
Parks Department.
· From the Green Infrastructure Report: Protecting Resources for Future
Generations. The seventh goal in the county's current Parks and
Recreation Master Plan is to incorporate the public interest in greenways,
blue ways and trails into the plan. As our communities become more
urbanized and traffic congestion increases, citizens want parks and trail
systems close to residences and offices. Support the goals of the
proposed Greenways and Trails Strategic Plan presented in June 2003.
This document provides awareness of current and potential linear
corridors of open space within the county. The committee suggests that
the goals, action steps and measurements should be considered in the
development of a green infrastructure plan.
· According to our Public Facilities Plan, without our Chester Linear Park,
we live in what would be a natural trail deficient area.
Shortfalls have been identified in all types of public use trails. Trail
development on park sites will not address all identified trail shortfalls. The
county will pursue other opportunities for recreational trail development,
including use of abandoned railroad right-of-ways, utility right-of-ways, and
floodplain trail development along rivers, creeks and their major
tributaries. The county will continue to work throu:9h the zoning process to
acquire land or easements needed to provide trail connections.
Demand for linear trails, green ways, and blue ways necessitates the
development of a plan for a linear parks system along with specific
strategies for creating the system. This process should be coordinated
with other long-range plans and adjacent jurisdictions.
· From a Chesterfield Brochure: Greenways are important because...
· Connecting homes to shops and offices is good for businesses and
convenient for customers.
· Fewer cars mean fewer crowded roads and less air pollution
· Trails, natural views and green spaces attract homebuyers.
· Walking on pathways is healthy for both the body and the mind.
· People out walking promote community awar€'ness while deterring
crime,
· Trails cost less to build and maintain than many other recreational
facilities, and can benefit everyone.
· The whole family may participate, while enjoying each other's company
and the outdoors.
Our Comprehensive plan adopted in October 2006 shows the Linear Park as a
public park and a pedestrian connector. From the Chester Plan, when
describing our Linear Park, it was noted that "Where there was interest and
consensus on the value of a pedestrian network connection, the segment was
shown on the map."
So there is a huge disconnect between the Chester Plan vision where it states
"their completed linear park" and what county transportation staff
recommends.
Staff recommends that two new roadway facilities remain on the Thoroughfare
Plan in the Chester Plan area:
"One of those is listed as the North/South Arterial- In the early 1980's, the
County acquired from the then Seaboard Coast Line Railroad a right-of-way,
approximately 100 feet in width, from Chester Road to Branders Bridge Road.
The alignment of this North/South Arterial falls within the abandoned railroad
right-of-way. It is unlikely that this roadway will be completed in conjunction with
future development. Public funds will have to be provided for its completion.
Note: The land use plan identifies a pedestrian network adjacent to this right of
way. The pedestrian facility could be provided as sidewalks along the road
or as a trail outside of the 100-foot wide right of way. "
So a high speed, high volume dangerous Hull Street type facility with a 5'
sidewalk is okay by the county transportation department. The fact that they just
built sidewalk along Hull Street is admirable, but also laughable. On the positive
side, it is an accommodation, but it is not functional. Let's be frank... it's not
livable and everyone here knows it. Staff thought so much of this proposed
North/South highway corridor that it isn't even listed in the Richmond Region's
Long Range Transportation Plan. Meanwhile, our linear park is listed in the
Richmond Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan as a glowing example of
forethought and the proper way to build communities "Chesterfield has built a few
small greenway trails, such as Chester Linear Park (a rail trail) and has plans to
include trails as a part of other park development projects. 11
Our linear park has also received positive press from the Chesterfield Observer
"Chester Linear Park, a converted railroad right-of-way near Ecoff Road, is
another example of a green way "open space" project used for hiking. "With
Chesterfield Parks and Recreation Director Mike Golden reporting that, according
to a recent survey, "walking and hiking are the most popular recreational
activities here. 11 and in the Richmond Times Dispatch "Trails create
communities, " said Endries, chairman of the Green Infrastructure Group, a
citizen-based organization aimed at promoting green ways and preserving trails
for future generations. 11 "One of the group's current initiatives is to create a trail
that would connect the existing Chester Linear Park to Colonial Heights and the
Appomattox River. That trail would be about 7 miles long, and Endries hopes it
will be completed in two to five years. "
Due to poor community involvement practices from the county department of
transportation, you have been cornered. They believe it is okay to replace a
nature trail with a highway and not have a conversation with the folks along the
corridor. They will tell you that they have had 2 years of dialogue and now it is
time for action; but they will not be able to tell you whethler the linear park will
remain or whether it will be condemned and paved through. They won't even
propose a typical cross section describing the layout. What is the county actually
getting for "free" from Chester Road to Ironbridge Road? What is the cross
section? Your community just knows our linear park is in jeopardy and there was
not one meeting with the affected residents. Your community is also aware that
the developer is counting on our support of the linear park such that they could
potentially complete their resource intense development without completing all of
the off site roadway improvements.
Those with vision have created the county's Green Infrastructure Group, and
organizations like the East Coast Greenway are ready tCi put Chester on their
map as they build a trail from Maine to Florida. Those with vision would see the
value of Chester being on the trail; much like towns alonlg the Appalachian Trail.
You may tell us to get into our cars and drive to the park where you can walk on
a nature trail. Seems like a waste to us as we prefer to put on our shoes and
walk out our front door and walk or bike all the way from Chester to the
Appomattox River on a nature trail. I think this board may underestimate your
community's resolve to protect our linear park, It's time to show vision and
leadership. Will we see this board show vision and thou1ght as we leave our
legacy on this proud county through expansion, not deletion of our linear parks?
In utilizing and conserving natural resources of the nation, the one characteristic more essential
than any other is foresight. -Theodore Roosevelt
Therefore, following Roosevelt's advice, we respectfully request that one of three
options be followed. Either deny this request or send it back to the planning
commission to allow for proper public involvement for residents to the north of
lronbridge Road. Residents are unaware of the transportation implications of the
case. If public involvement is not important, a third option is to add two
conditional amendments to this rezoning case:
1. Any reference to a 50 MPH design speed be stricken and replaced
with a context sensitive design speed.
2. Fully protect the Chester Linear Park when:! it exists today and
utilize adjacent right-af-way for the proposHd highway
Would all of those in the audience supporting this statement, please stand now.
Thank you.
~+
o
~
~
II
~
CO
S
'"C
G)
G)
c.
UJ
c
C)
.-
m
G)
C
:I:
D..
:E
'+-
o
+-'
..c
0>
C:::
CO
+-'
o
I-
..... 0
~
~ID .....
t~~ .....
1IJoj
I
I
.
.....
~
.....
~
i~ ..L-
':I"" ...........--
..
.. 0
~
en
Q)
en c
Q) CO
C .-J
CO C
L- 0>
CO Q) :J C
N 0- l- .- 0)
+ ~ +-' 0-
Il ..c CO
Q) 0> ()
+-' fJ)
en CO C::: "'C
L- +-'
CD en ~ c
"'C L- CO
Q) L-
:J +-' .CO .-J
0 C .- CO
..c ><
en N :J E
<( .-
~ C
L- .-
:J CO ~
0 c
LL 0
;.......
"'C
"'C
<(
-\.
o
<
-.
-
-
Q.)
. . . . . cc
;o()~r"'UCD
~~-~~m
_. -0 I a. CD 0
~~~~~5.
CD r:i - Q) :::::!. CD
>< _.--0 Q) <
-. CD 03 CD :J Q.)
~~<a.'TIa..
:J -. CD G> '
(,Q .- - ",' C
::r-Q)\11
_ ",.-:J-
:J' 00 :5 CD a. (i)
CD ~ CD :E '< -.
Q) a 00 Q) cg
, " '<
~~mo b>
~ -. -0 0 ~
:J C1J::r (")
CC-OCD CD
-CDCIJ '"C
Q) CD'- r+
:J a. CD
Q.CIJ'
C
00 0
CD ~
-....E!I-=,,~~~T .
--I
o
.-
Q)
;0
(,Q'
::r
.-
o
....,
o
o
::s
...
CD
><
....
en
CD
;1
en
:E
Q)
'<
II
-.....J
I\.)
+
-.
....
<-
(I)
c
CD
en
--
(Q
::s
(JJ
"'C
(I)
(I)
c.
~
W
Q
3:
-c
J:
"-"
om
::r><
CD -.
C1J~
..... - .
CD :J
,CC
r
:J
CD
Q)
,
"'U
Q)
,
"
Sept~mb~t 24, 2007
To: Members of the Chesterfield County Board of
Supervisors
Ref: Branner Station Development Proposal
On behalf of the 283 people who have signed a
petition opposing the Branner Station development, I'd
like to share some of the comments/concerns we
residents have. The 283 names on this petition
represent a cross section of districts in the county
and prove that many residents are overly concerned with
the county's residential growth pattern.
On page 21 of the County Planning Commission's staff
analysis report, it states that approximately 2,644
students will be generated by this development, 1,147
of those will be elementary school children. The
proffered site would accommodate a school for 795
students, not enough to accommodate the development.
Today, our county schools are at or over capacity and
using many trailers. If you consider all the
developments currently in the approval/development
stage now, it is easy to see why our schools are so
overcrowded. These are problems that need to be
addressed NOW before additional developments are
approved.
On pages 23-25 the Planning Commission analysis report
states that traffic will generate approximately 66,800
average daily trips IF this development is approved and
will be larger than any of the county's existing
developments. Yet the plan concedes that future road
improvements will be necessary, to include the
east/west highway the developer proposes to build,
Harrowgate Road, and a portion of Iron Bridge Road to
Route 288. The road problems will not end with the
developer's offer to create a highway and widen some of
the other main access roads per this analysis report.
Where will the money come from once this developer has
long gone and left our roads in complete chaos with the
addition of 5,000 residences?
While the QevelQpe~ ha5 done an excellent jOb of
showing us what size homes are planned, where are the
pictures of the new roads? And exactly what areas will
this east/west highway affect in terms of lost homes?
Why haven't these residents been informed that if this
development is approved they stand to lose their homes?
On page 27, the developer's conditions fail to address
the impact on capital facilities for 300 of the 4,988
units. This amounts to a $4 million loss. Who will
pay for the difference in these infrastructure costs?
We ask the Board what is more important-being prepared
to save a life or home or arriving at your destination
10 minutes earlier?
Based on the number of emergency medical calls this
development could cause, how does the county plan to
address the impact this shortfall will cause to
existing county residents?
On pages 31 and 32, the developer wants to sidestep the
county requirements to lower requirements on the
parking requirements. This developer should be held
accountable for all county requirements just as all
other developers are held accountable.
To summarize the planning department's comments on page
27, I quote "the applicant falls short of mitigating
the impact on schools, parks, libraries, and fire
stations in accordance with the Board of Supervisors'
policy and the proffered conditions do not adequately
mitigate the impact on the capital facilities and
thereby do not assure that adequate service levels are
maintained as necessary to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of county citizens."
Because there are many complex issues that have not
been adequately addressed, such as the roads and
capital facilities infrastructure costs, we request
that the Board deny this development proposal.
~
(~--~
-~- , ..-."
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner Station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner Station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
[IIt:23 $E /
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner Station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
!
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
21 flr--"
VA Jfj{
I!,l/ /J 2,1..f3K
i U/+ 2.?BiS
VA-d.3~3SI
11ft ~'3~32
~,
'it""3.!;
/e5~ 2.
_ . 'i:S i t~'bf53fJ
.Jc .5 -" . L.. If-<=)4- 3 J..s- e.e l- . C I-I~ "ft.". f4 it J~.J I
~ ~'~~ a~ ~~' ~ ~Sj/
, ~ .=~" __ 1 Rk;-:O~ ~ ~.c/ ' '/) I {:-I;.c'~t7:"%~~1
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner Station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
;;
I .
-z.. 3 3?2--
-23~
~ .9.36 SJ-
Vo-. ~3g3$
tIA 231S!)5
7:..59
>l
I \/ f1 d3g38
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner Station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
Name
Street Address
~:;J,.~~o0f
. "I ",?F-">J.
"'" /}-J
~r-)38 ?
The following Chesterfield County residents are
opposed to the Branner Station housing/retail
development on Branders Bridge Road:
~
/I
/~
ItJ 1/
;'
,
'y
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner Station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
~ OZItf'J
.d.3-iO~
d3~
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner Station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
7v~ ~ 0':;
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner Station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
Name
~77tl
;;8'31
~~ ~nl
CJ~~-k/ r/"k 7~ lS) I
& ~Te/2.- viA ,;t;?'t31
CL-t C6h:/ 1./) 7;v JI
e C"' 236'31
'35~1
vi
The following Chesterfield County residents are
opposed to the Branner Station housing/retail
development on Branders Bridge Road:
Street Add:rr€ss
... Lj {, ,
Ira
:1D \ 'Y. rL
~~~~~
Name
The following Chesterfield County residents are opposed to
the Branner Station housing/retail development on Branders
Bridge Road:
Name
street Address
.