91SN0220
(i.
e
e
December 11, 1991 BS
ADDENDUM
91SN0220
(Amended)
Robert J. Martinko
Matoaca Magisterial District
South line of Bensley Road
and north line of Beach Road
REQUEST: (Amended) Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-2S) plus
amendment to previously granted rezonings (Cases 875012 and 88SN0089)
relative to density. Specifically, the applicant requests to. rezone
approximately 244 ~ 8 acres to R- 25 wi th a density of o. 63 units per
acre and increase the density on the adjoining already zoned 494.3
acres. The existing R-25 property was zoned with a density of 0.50
units per acre. The applicant proposes to increase that density to
0.55 units per acre.
In response to the Transportation Department's concerns outlined in the ttRequest
Analysis", the applicant, on December 9. 1991, submitted revised proffered
conditions which require the payment of the full cash proffer rather than cash
plus road improvements. The revised proffers are consistent with the Board of
Supervisors' cash proffer policy.
Further, on December 10, 1991, as a result of the". County Attorney's note that
paragraph 1 did not reference the correct section of the State Code, a revision
to the introductory paragraph of the proffered conditions, as discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting, was submi.tted.
On motion of Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mra Perkins,. the Commission recommended.
approval of this request and acceptance of the following proffered conditions:
(NOTE: 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.)
PROPFERED CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC)
The property owners and applicant in this rezoning case, pursuant
to Section 15.1-491.2:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended)
and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for themselves
and their successors or assigns, proffer that the development of
the Property known as Chesterfield County Tax Map 109-4-( 1)-1
(t1Property A") and the Property known as Chesterfield COtmty Tax
Map 110-9-(1)-2 and 109-3-(1)-1 (tlProperty B") under
consideration will be developed according to the following
conditions if, and only if, the rezoning request for R-25 and the
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
,
/
1.
Property A shall be developed as a single family
residential subdivision with an overall density not
exceeding 0.63 dwelling units per acre.
2.
At the time designated below, the applicant,
subdividert or his assignee, shall pay the following
cash payment for Property A to the County of
Chesterfield for infrastructure improvements within the
service district as designated by the Capital
Improvement Program. The applicant shall pay the
following applicable cash proffer fee:
a. At the time of building permit application
the cash payment, if paid prior to January 1,
1992, shall be the amount currently approved
by the Board of Supervisors (the lIBoardtt) not
to exceed $2,000 for each residential lot to
be constructed on Property Aj or
b. Should the Board approve an in.crease in the
cash proffer fee the following shall be paid
at the time of building permit application as
outlined below:
(1) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $3,000 f or each residential lot
to be constructed on Property A if paid
between January 1, 1992 and June 30,
1992, inclusive; or
(2) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $4,000 for each res i dent ial- lot
to be constructed on Property A if paid
between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993,
inclusive; or
(3) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $4,000 for each residential. lot
to be constructed on Property. A adjusted
upward by an increase. in t he Marshall.
and Swift Building Cost Index. between
July I, 1992 and July 1 of the fiscal
year in which the payment is made if
paid after June 30, 1993.
c. Provided the County determines there is a
need for a park site in the area of Property
A, the developer may donate land to the
County to fulfill such need. In return, the
developer shall receive a credit against the
cash proffer designated for parks and
recreation for those lots in Property A
subject to cash proffers. (For example, if
the cash proffer were paid under the current
2
PC/91SN0220/DECI1JJ
e
e
~,
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
e
.
developer shall receive a credit against the
cash proffer designated for parks and
recreation for those lots in Property A
subj ect to cash proffers. (For example, if
the cash proffer were paid under the current
policy in place on the date of the Proffer
Statement's execution such fee would be $80
per lot.)
If tbe cash proffers are not expended for the purposes
designated by the Cap! tal Improvement Program wi thin
fifteen years from the date of payment they shall be
returned in full to the applicant ar his assignee.
3.
Property B shall be developed as a single family
residential subdivision with an overall density not
exceed~ng 0.55 dwel~ing units per. acre.
4.
At the + time designated below, the applicant,.
subdivider, or his assignee, shall pay the following
cash payment' for Property B to the County of
Chesterfield for infrastructure improvements within the
service district as designated by the Capital
Improvement Program. The applicant shall pay the
following applicable. cash proffer fee:
a. At the time of building permit application
the cash payment, if paid prior to January 1,
1992, shall be the amount currently approved
by the Board not to exceed $2 J 000 for each
residential lot to be constructed on Property
B in excess of the 0.5 units per acre density
originally approved under rezoning cases
878012 and 88SN0089; or
b. Should the Board approve an increase cash
proffer fee as outlined below then the
following shall be paid at the t~ of
building permit application for each
residential lot constructed on Property B in
excess of the 0.5 units per acre density
originally approved under rezoning cases
875102 and 88SN0089;
(1) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $3tOOO for each residentia~ lot
to be constructed on Property B if paid
between January 1, 1992 and June 30,
1992, inclusive; or
(2) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $4,000 for each residential lot
to be constructed on Property B if paid
3
PC/91SN0220/DECI1JJ
(STAFF/CPC)
,
t
between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993,
inclusivej or
( 3) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $4,000 for each residential lot
to be constructed on Property B adjusted
upward by an increase in the Marshall
and Swift Building Cost Index between
July 1, 1992 and July 1 of the fiscal
year in which the payment is made if
paid after June 30, 1993.
c. Provided the County determines there is a
need for a park site in the area of Property
B, the developer may donate land to the
County to fulfill such need. In return, the
developer shall receive a credit against the
cash proffer designated for parks and
recreation for those lots in Property B
subject to cash proffers. (For example, if
the cash proffer were paid under the Proffer
Statement I s execution such fee would be $80
per lot.)
If the cash proffers are not expended for the purposes
designated by the Capital Improvement Program within..
fifteen years from the date of payment they sha11 be
returned in full to the applicant or his assignee.
5.
To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time
of the complete development of the proposed project,
the developer. applicant. subdivider, or his assignee,
shall be responsible for the following:
a. Dedication of a 70 foot wide right of way for
the north/south collector road and
construction of a two-lane road section to
VDOT Urban Collector Standards (40 mph Design
Speed) wi thin that dedicated right of way
generally running in a north/south direction
through Property A and Property B as
generally shown on the tentative plan titled
"Tentative Subdivision Plan, Brandy Oaks,l1
prepared by Mayton and Associates, Consulting
Engineers, and dated September 4, 1991 and
last revised December 3, 1991 ("Exhibit An).
The Design Standards are those applicable on
the date of the acceptance of the proffers as
modified'by the Transportation Department.
b. Dedication to the County 45 feet of right of
way measured from the ::enterlines of Beach
and Hensley Roads along the applicant's
e.
4
PC/91SN0220/DEC11JJ
e
-~
.It
.. -. '"
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
AYES: Unanimous.
e
e
c . Construction of left and right turn lanes at
each approved access from Beach and Hensley
Roads if warranted and as determined by the
Transportation Department.
d. Relocation of th~ ditch line along Beach and
Hensley Roads to provide an adequate shoulder
adjacent to the applicant's property that is
the subject of this rezoning request.
e. Dedication to the County a 70 foot wide right
of way for an east-west collector through the
property as generally shown on the sketch
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
f . Construction of a two-lane road section to
VDOT Urban Collector Standards (40 mph Design
Speed) for that portion of the east-west
colle~tor located on the applicant's property
as generally shown on the sketch attached
hereto as Exhibit A. The Design Standards
are those applicable on the date of the
acceptance of the proffers as modified by the
Transportation Department.
6. The applicant or his assigns shall be entitled to
construct up to thirty-four (34) lots fronting on the
north/south collector as shown on Exhibit A. Nine (9)
J
lots shall front on Hensley Road and access that
roadway as shown on Exhibit A. The total number of
lots with frontage on Hensley Road or the north/south
collector shall not exceed forty-three (43) lots. All
lots fronting on Hensley Road or the northJsouth
collector shall have front yard building setbacks of 75
feet and the building setback line shall be recorded on
the record. plat.
7 . Prior to any final check plat approval a phasing plan
for the required road tmprovements identified in
Proffer 5 a-f shall be submitted to and approved by the
Transportation Department.
-5
PC!91SN0220!DECllJJ
e
.
J~ly-t6J-I99t-€P€
Sept~ber-t1;-i99~-€P€
No~@mber-t9i-i99t-ep€
Bee~b~r-g,-i99i-6P6
December 11, 1991 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
91SN0220
(Amended)
Robert J. Martinko
Matoaca Magisterial District
South line of Hensley Road
and north line of Beach Road
REQUEST: (Amended) Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25) plus
amendment to previously granted rezonings (Cases 87S012 and 88SNOOS9)
relative to density. Specifically, the applicant requests to rezone
approximately 244.8 acres to R-25 with a density of 0.63 units per
acre and increase the density on the adjoining already zoned 494.3
acres. The existing R-25 property was zoned with a density of 0.50
units per acre. The applicant proposes to increase that density to
0.55 units per acre.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A single family residential subdivision is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
THE COMMISSION IS SCHEDULED TO CONSIDER THIS REQUEST ON DECEMBER 9, 1991. STM'F
WILL ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE COMMISSION'S A.CTION AT THE BOARD'S PUBLIC HEARING.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval, subject
concern as discussed herein.
reasons:
to the applicant addressing the transportation
This recommendation is made for the following
A. The proposed zoning coupled with the proffered conditions conforms
with the Western Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, which
designates the property and surrounding area for low density
residential development of 1.5 units per acre or less.
B.
Provided the
proffer, the
facilities.
applicant
proffered
clarifies
conditions
the Hensley Road reconstruction
address the impact on capital
(NOTE: THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND
THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A tfSTAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF.
CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(STAFF)
The property owners and applicant in this rezoning case, pursuant to
Section 15.1-491(a) of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the
Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for themselves and their
successors or assigns, proffer that the development of the Property
known as Chesterfield County Tax Map 109-4-(1)-1 ("Property An) and
the Property known as Chesterfield County Tax Hap 110-9-( 1 )-2 and
109-3-(1)-1 ("Property Btt) under consideration will be developed
according to the following conditions if, and only if, the rezoning
request for R-25 and the amendment to the proffer conditions existing
on Property B are granted. In the event the rezoning request is
denied, the proffers shall innnediately be null and void and of no
further force or effect.
(STAFF)
1.
Property A shall be developed as a single family residential
subdivision with an overall density not exceeding 0.63 dwelling
units per acre.
(STAFF)
2.
At the time designated below, the applicant, subdivider, or his
assignee, shall pay the following cash payment for Property A to
the County of Chesterfield for infrastructure improvements within
the service district as designated by the Capi tal Improvement
Program. Subj ect to acceptance of Proffer 5. g ., the applicant
shall pay the following applicable cash proffer fee:
a. At the time of building permit application the cash
payment, if paid prior to January 1, 1992, shall be the
amount currently approved by the Board of Supervisors
(the "BoardU) not to exceed 60% of $2,000 ($1,200) for
each residential lot to be constructed on Property A;
or
b. Should the Board approve an increase in the cash
proffer fee the following shall be paid at the time of
building permit application as outlined below:
(1) The amount approved by the Board not to exceed 60%
of $3,000 ($1,800) for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property A if paid between January
1, 1992 and June 30, 1992, inclusive; or
(2) The amount approved by the Board not to exceed 60%
of $4,000 ($2,400) for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property A if paid between July 1,
1992 and June 30: 1993, inclusive; or
e
2
91SN0220/PC!DEC11J
e
(STAFF)
(STAFF)
. .
(3) The amount approved by the Board not to exceed 60%
of $4,000 ($2,400) for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property A adjusted upward by an
increase in t he Marshall and Swift Building Cost
Index between July 1, 1992 and July 1 of the
fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid
after June 30, 1993.
c. Provided the County determines there is a need for a
park site in the area of Property A, the developer may
dona te land to the County to fulf ill such need. In
. return, the developer shall receive a credit against
the cash proffer designated for parks and recreation
for those lots in Property A subject to cash proffers.
(For example, if the cash proffer were paid under the
current policy in place on the date of the Proffer
Statement's execution such fee would be $80 per lot.)
Such cash proffer credit shall be in addition to those
referenced in 2.a. and 2.b. above.
If the cash proffers are not expended for the purposes designated
by the Capital Improvement Program within fifteen years from the
date of payment they shall be returned in full to the applicant
or his assignee..
3.
Property B shall be developed as a single family residential
subdivision with an overall density not exceeding 0.55 dwelling
units per acre.
4.
At the time designated belowJ the applicant, subdivider, or his
assignee, shall pay the following cash payment for Property B to
the County of Chesterfi~ld for infrastructure improvements within
the service district as designated by the Capital Improvement
Program. Subject to the acceptance of Proffer 5.g~, the
applicant shall pay the following applicable cash proffer fee:
a.. At the time of building permit application the cash payment,
if paid prior to January 1, 1992, shall be the amount
currently approved by the Board not to exceed 60% of $2,000
($1,200) for each residential lot to be constructed on
Property B in excess of the 0.5 units per acre density
originally approved under rezoning cases 875012 and
88SN0089; or
b. Should the Board approve an increase cash proffer fee as
outlined below then the following shall be paid at the time
of building permit application for each residential lot
constructed on Property B in excess of the 0.5 units per
acre density originally approved under rezoning cases 878102
and 88SN0089;
( 1) The anlount approved by the Board not to exceed 60:70
of $3,000 ($1,800) for each residential lot to be
3
91SN0220}PC/DEC11J
(STAFF)
constructed on Property B if paid between January
1, 1992 and June 30, 1992, inclusive; or
(2) The amount approved by the Board not to exceed 60%
of $4,000 ($2,400) for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property B if paid between July 1,
1992 and June 30, 1993, inclusive; or
(3) The amount approved by the Board not to exceed 60%
of $4,000 ($2,400) for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property B adjusted upward by an
increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost
Index between July 1, 1992 and July 1 of the
fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid
after June 30, 1993.
c. Provided the "County determines there is a need for a
park site in the area of Property B, the developer may
donate land to the County to fulf ill such need. In
return, the developer shall receive a credit against
the cash proffer designated for parks and recreation
for those lots in Property B subject to cash proffers.
(For example, if the cash proffer were paid under the
Proffer Statement's execution such fee would be $80 per
lot.) Such cash proffer credit shall be in addition to
those referenced in 4.a. and 4.b. above.
If the cash proffers are not expended for the purposes designated
by the Capital Improvement Program within fifteen. years from the
date of payment they shall be returned in full to the applicant
or his assignee.
5~
To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of the
complete development of the proposed pro j ect, the developer,
applicant, subdivider, or his assignee, shall be responsible for
the following:
a. Dedication of a 70 foot wide right of way for the
north! south collector road and construction of a two-lane
road section to VDOT Urban Collector Standards (40 mph
Design Speed) within that dedicated right of way generally
running in a north! south direction th.rough Property A and
Property B as generally shown on the tentative plan titled
"Tentative Subdivision Plan, Brandy Oaks, II prepared by
Mayton and Associates, Consulting Engineers, and dated
September 4, 1991 and last revised December 3, 1991
("Exhibit AU). The Design Standards are those applicable on
the date of the acceptance of the proffers as modified by
the Transportation Department.
b. Dedication to the County 45 feet of right of way measured
from the centerlines of Beach and Hensley Roads along the""
e
4
e91SN0220/PC/DECllJ
(STAFF)
. .
applicant I S property that is the subject of this rezoning
request.
c. Construction of left and right turn lanes at each approved
access from Beach and Hensley Roads if warranted and as
determined by the Transportation Department.
d. Relocation of the ditch line along Beach and Hensley Roads
to provide an adequate shoulder adjacent to the applicant's
property that is the subject of this rezoning request_
e. Dedication to the County a 70 foot wide right of way for an
east-west collector through the property as generally shown
on the sketch attached hereto as Exhibit A.
f. Construction of a two-lane road section to VDOT Urban
Collector Standards (40 mph Design Speed) for that portion
of the east-west collector located on the applicant's
property as generally shown on the sketch attached hereto as
Exhibi t .A. The Design Standards are those applicable on
the date of the acceptance of the proffers as modified by
the Transportation Department.
g. In lieu of the transportation cash proffer as detailed in
Proffers 2 and 4, reconstruction of a section of Hensley
Road to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial Standards (SO mph Design
Speed) from the entrance of the Summerford Subdivision north
along Hensley Road for a distance of approximately 1, 150
feet. The reconstructed section shall. have a total pavement
width of 24 feet. Hensley Road shall be reconstructed so
that the existing centerline is approximately in the current
location and shall include a 10 foot shoulder adjacent to
Property B. Such road improvements shall not include any
off-site right of way acquisition. The Design Standards are
those applicable on the date of the acceptance of the
proffers as modified by the Transportation Department. All
construction of the Hensley Road improvements detailed
herein shall be bonded or completed as determined by the
Transportation Department at the time of the recordation of
the first record plat for Property A or recordation of the
first record plat for Property B which accesses Hensley
Road, whichever shall occur first.
6.
The applicant or his assigns shall be entitled to construct up to
thirty-four (34) lots fronting on the northl south collector as
shown on Exhibit A. Nine (9) lots shall front on Hensley Road
and access that roadway as shown on Exhibit A. The total number
of . lots with frontage on Hensley Road or the north/south
collector shall not exceed forty-three (43) lots. All lots
fronting on Hensley Road or the north/south collector shall have
front yard building setbacks of 75 feet and the building setback
line shall be recorded on the record plat.
5
91SN0220!PC/DEC11J
(STAFF)
7 .
Prior to any final check plat approval a phasing plan for the
required road improvements identified in Proffer 5 a-f shall be
submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Fronts the south line of Hensley Road and the north line of Beach Road and
is located at the eastern terminus of Brandy Oaks Drive. Tax Map 109-3 (1)
Parcell, Tax Map 109-4 (1) Parcell and Tax Map 110-9 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet
29) .
Existing Zoning:
A and R-25
Size:
739.1 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - A; Single family residential and vacant
South - R-25 and A; Single family residential or vacant
East A and R-25j Single family residential or vacant
West A and R-25; Single family residential or 'vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities:
Water:
Use of the public water system is required by Ordinance and intended.
Line sizing and looping may be necessary to satisfy minLmum fire flow
requirements.
An overall water plan is required to be submit'ted to the Utilities
Planning Section for review an~ approval in accordance with Appendix
12 of the Chesterfield County's Water and Sewer Specifications and
Procedures. The Ut il i ties Department suggests that this plan be
submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the submittal of the
tentative subdivision plan so as not to delay approval of the
tentative subdivision plan.
6
91SN0220!PC/DECllJ
e
e
e
e
Wastewater:
Pu bli c wastewater system is not available. In accordance wi th the
Subdivision Ordinance, the average lot size can be no less than 40,000
square feet in any subdivision utilizing septic tank and drainfield
systems, at least ninety (90) percent of all lots in the subdivision
must be at least 40,000 square feet in size and no lot can be less
than 30,000 square feet in size.
Drainage and Erosion:
Site drains via tributaries northeast to Swift Creek. No on- or off-site
drainage or erosion problems exist or are anticipated. It may be necessary
to acquire off-site drainage easements; however, developments normally have
adequate outfalls available.
Fire Service:
Clover Hill Fire Station, Company #7. Provide County water and fire
hydrant placement for fire protection purposes in compliance with
nationally recognized standards (i.e., National Fire Protection Association
and Insurance Services Office).
This development will have a moderate impact on fire/rescue services in
this area. It is estimated that approximately thirty-six (36) calls per
year will be generated by this development. Clover Hill Fire Station
currently has a 5 ix ( 6) to ten (10) minute response time in this area.
This development, in conjunction with those presently developing and
proposed for this area, will generate the need for an additional station
within the next ten (10) years.
Schools:
Approximately 101 school age children will be generated by this rezoning
and amendment. The site lies in the Grange Hall. Elementary School
attendance zone: capacity - 641, enrollment - 656; Bailey Bridge Middle
School attendance zone: capacity - 1,200, enrollment - 991; and Clover
Hill High School attendance zone: capacity - 1,800, enrollment - 1,932. A
new elementary school is currently needed to serve the area, however,
funding is not available. A new middle school 'is scheduled to open in Fall
1991 and the new Manchester High School is scheduled to open in Fall 1992.
This development will ~ave slight impact on area schools. Residential
growth in the Route 360 west area will accelerate the need for an
elementary school in the Winterpock area which is currently anticipated for
completion in the late 19901s. School attendance ~rea.configurations will
change from time to time as student growth occurs in the area. For the
immediate fu~ure. Grange Hall would be the nearest school with available
space. Relief will be provided in the Spring Run Road area at such time as
const~uction of Alberta Smith Elementary School is funded (currently
projected for 1994). In Fall 1991, Bailey Bridge Middle School will open
and include all neighborhoods which feed south of Route 360. Clover Hill
7
91SN0220/PC/DECllJ
will continue to be the area high school until the new Manchester High
School is opened in Fall 1992.
Transportation:
This development could generate approximately 4,250 average daily trips.
These vehicles w~ll .be distributed along Beach Road which had a 1990
traffic count of 1,310 vehicles per day and Hensley Road which had a 1986
traffic count of 367 vehicles per day.
The Thoroughfare Plan identifies Beach Road and Hensley Road as major
arterials with a recommended right of way width of ninety (90) feet. The
applicant has proffered to dedicate forty-five (45) feet of right of way,
measured from the centerlines of Beach and Hensley Roads in accordance with
that Plan. (Proffered Condition 5.b.)
The Thoroughfare Plan also identifies a north} south collector road from
Beach Road through the subject property to Hensley Road. The Plan includes
an east/west collector road from the proposed north/south collector
extending eastward. The recommended right of way width for these
collectors is seventy (70) feet. The applicant has proffered to dedicate
the right of way and construct a two-lane road for the north! south and
east/west collectors through the subject property (Proffered Conditions
S.a., 5.e., and 5.f.). Staff will require dedication of these rights of
way with recordation of the first subdivis~on plat, as part of the approved
phasing plan.
Access to maj or arterials, such as Beach Road and Hensley Road, and the
northl south and east/west collectors should be controlled. The current
R-25 zoned parcel was granted tentative subdivision approval (Brandy Oaks)
with four (4) lots fronting Hensley Road and thirty-seven (37) lots
fronting the north/south collector. The applicant's proffer would permit
the developer to front nine (9) lots on Hensley Road and front thirty-four
(34) lots on the north/south collector. The proffer would also require a
minimum seventy-five (75) foot front yard building setback on all lots
which front either Hensley Road or the north; south collector (Proffers
Condition 6). Staff supports this proffer.
Mi tigating road improvements must be provided for requested densities to
achieve an acceptable level of service. The applicant has proffered to:
1) construct additional pavement along Beach and Hensley Roads at each
major access to provide left- and right-turn lane~J if warrantedj 2)
relocate the ditch along Beach and Hensley Roads for the entire property
frontage to provide an adequate shoulder; and 3) reconstruction of
Hensley Road, from the Summerford Subdivision entrance to 1,150 feet north.
Staff and the applicant are discussing clarification of the Hensley Road
reconstruction proffer and expect to resolve all concerns prior to the
Planning Commission public hearing.
e
8
e 91SN0220/PC/DECllJ
.
.
Fiscal Impacts:
FINANCIAL IMPACT ON CAPITAL FACILITIES
PER UNIT
H New Dwelling Units 178.00* 1.00
Population Increase 503.74 2.83
Number New Students
Elementary 51.62 0.29
Middle 23.14 0.13
High 26~70 0..15
Total 101~46 0.57
Net Cost for Schools 453,010 2,545
Net Cost for Parks 35,066 197
Net Cost for Libraries 21,716 122
Net Cost for Fire Stations 29,726 167
Total Net Cost 539,518 3,031
(excluding roads)
*Maximum lots attainable on agricultural property at a density of .63=154
lots~ Maximum new lots attainable via amendment relative to density on
already zoned property = 24 lots. Total maximum new lots attainable is 178
lots~
The proposed zoning and land uses and potential development of 178 new lots
will have a fiscal impact on capital facilities. Cash proffers have been
received to address this impact consistent with the Board of Supervisors'
cash proffer policy. Of note is the following:
1) The applicant has proffered transportation construction
improvements in lieu of cash for that portion of the cash proffer
allocated to transportation ( 40.%) (Proffered Condi tion 5. g . ) .
Staff and the applicant are discussing this proffered condition
and hope to resolve concerns prior to the Planning Commission
public hearing~
2) The applicant has identified an area of the subject property
which may be appropriate for a County park 5 i te. Should the
County determinet via the established site selection processt
that acceptance of this land would be appropriate, the applicant
may agree to donate the same to the County (Proffered Conditions
2~c. and 4.c.). Should this donation occur, the applicant will
receive a credit against that portion of the cash proffer
des igna ted for Parks and Recreation. The calculated credi t is
consistent with the Board of Supervisors I cash proffer policy.
9
91SN0220jpC/DEC1IJ
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Western Area Land Use and Transportation.
Plan which designates the subject property and surrounding area for low
density residenti~l development of 1.5 units per acre or less.
Area Development Trends~
The areas bordering the request site are currently zoned Agricultural (A)
and Residential (R-25). The R-25 property is being developed as part of
Brandy Oaks Subdivisione Brandy Oaks Subdivision was tentatively approved
wi th a total. of 639 acres. Subsequently, sixty-six (66) lots have been
recorded on approximately 145 acres, ranging in size from approximately
31 J 000 square feet to approximately 162,000 square feet (3. 72 acres) in
area. The average size of lots currently recorded is approximately 96,500
square feet (2.2 acres).
Zoning History:
On February 25, 1987, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable
recommendation by the Planning Commission, approved rezoning to Residential
(R-25) on a portion of the request property (Case 875012). Additionally,
on October 26, 1988, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable
recommendation by the Planning Commission, .approved rezoning to Residential
(R-25) on a second portion of the request property (Case 88SN0089). These
properties have since been granted tentative subdivision approval as Brandy
Oaks. At the time of rezoning. proffered conditions were accepted
requiring that Brandy Oaks Subdivision have a minimum lot size of 30,000
square feet and an overall density not to exceed 0.50 units per acre. At
that density, the currently zoned property could yield a maximum of 247
lots. The proposed amendment is to increase the density on the current
R-25 zoned property to a maximum of 0.55 units per acre, which would yield
an additional twenty-four (24) lots, in excess of the 247 already approvede
Additionally, the applicant wishes to rezone the Agricultural (A) property
to Residential (R-25) and has proffered conditions that the density will
not exceed 0.63 units per acre, which would yield 154 lots. The number of
lots that could be developed with approval of this request would be 178.
If the requested amendment and rezoning are approved, the total number of
lots in the overall development would be 425, of which 247 are already
approved.
Conclusions:
The proposed zoning, coupled with the proffered conditions, conform with
the Western Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, whic11 designates the
property and surrounding area for low density residential development of
leS units per acre or less. Further, the proposed use is comparable to,
and compatible with, existing and anticipated .area developmente
e
10
91SN0220!PC/DECllJ
e
e
.
Provided the applicant clarifies the Hensley Road reconstruction proffer,
the proffered conditions address the impact on capital facilities.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (7/16/91):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for
sixty (60) days.
Staff (7}17/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new or revised information
should be submitted no later than July 22, 1991, for consideration at the
Commission's September public hearing.
Applicant and Staff (8/2/91):
A meeting was held to discuss the proposed zoning and possible proffered
conditions.
Applicant (8/26}91):
The applicant requested a thirty (30) day deferral.
Planni~g Commission Meeting (9/17/91):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for
sixty (60) days.
Staff (9/18/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any substantial changes should be
submitted no later than October 1, 1991, for consideration at the
Commission's November public hearing.
Applicant (10/4/91):
The applicant submitted an amended application and proffered conditions.
Applicant (11/7/91):
. The applicant submitted revised proffered conditions, as discussed herein.
,
11
91SN0220/PC/DECllJ
.Applicant (11/15/91):
The applicant submitted revised proffered c6nditions.
Applicant (11}19/91):
The applicant submitted revised proffered conditions.
Planning Commission Meeting (11/19/91):
The Planning Commission deferred this case to a special meeting on December
9, 1991.
Applicant (12/4}91):
The applicant submitted revised proffered conditions, as' discussed herein.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday J December 11, 1991, beg inning at 2: 00
p.m., will take under consideration this request.
12
91SN0220!PC/DEC11J
e
e
.
.U.
, I.~~~.f'
~f~~~... . 4"- -.
... . ... ~ . ... .-
!
9ISN0220(AMENDED) -
REZ:[illA TO R-25
~AMEND REZONING
29
t
\
i
I
/"
. I ~)J"7t
-. " 1J1~~~r
I . \ 1\ ldrh.Y--:~~X"q\~ ~
I I - ~).1rtJ/-->J J) ,
\ \, I , 07~U~ ~ ~~\.~
" . " '~-" \~~j" . ~~: .
N ~0;':, ~. t" ~~~ ....
...' ~=:r . \..' . ... y.._~~. ,';'~ .
. ~ ,4" " . '. 11<~~ ~~,~ . .:-..
~ ,. :.,~ ~..r :\.:. J'l . -""". mtZ . "
"//j -' .' .~...., i ' '''.-: , "'7 :...-' "'-..~ A. ' ,
,t\, '. . of - {r' /. -: ~~'l< '.
. J:,. ~ - - -/ ."1/# ~" . L.:>JT..-::=:- V,- \--., ~
~\. '/. -~ -" ~~, I', --/-' 1/ ~ ..... V;C ~,. '.
~ . . r _ -,I. I ~ 7" _~. jj:.... _,
~ · I · - " . , "-Fl::ft~ '~\~;) '.J, rt... '. ~ ~I/ ~J I ".
:00,,; , I., -- . . ~ '''':.L: /t'1'., II (L ,\..
) . !&::. I! Ill/V Y. , J l\ :"11. . .',
. ~J I . '---' I X.f'" I J ,'/ . 1"'" I . ~ .'
'0" /- /'~ " , r~ -.~. '1//. /~~ 17-. ~ J':~~' . ".
~. -. '. , -: , ." . - ~ ~"""""- '1:'\:'\.1 .~
. - ~ . . ' \ : ......-; ~~"~. . Ya . :~ ~~ _" . . . ".
' ~.~. ~~ "/-: - I~' ~kf'1~. '. ::.
:....:-, .' ~~~ ~ ....;,.^~ ' . \ - 1 . . ~ ,,><Iv, .... "':' ": .
. · " "-J '- ; "___ ~,
' ." " . ,., ,', · , .' - -, · t R v -:I- ';
...:,),,:,:, :.:; ". ; .,.> .,.,.. , '~ ,'7s.)'~. ~ ") t: q~ I ~ " .
." .; '," -.': <:.... I - 0 J:- ') I. . · ( :'-:=--::;:---.N:;:-. .... l!iI '~'
".., .# ~-,- ~. ~~ ~. ~~I J .~~ ...._ , .~ '. .
. ,~. :..: " :.".'.:@ - ....:.......... ,-" .~ .~' ..! ' .. .,.. .!':" - . '.',
:- t '.. .' '.~~ / , ",....-:::;:-. ~l - ~-~., " 'j ~ . f
" . . "','('..a,..., ", " .. '. ~ ~ . _
: I . 'J III""'" j . I .c::.::: -... -.;";,,"-:- , U ~, L .' '" . .
~"''-''':'".' " ,~~.~. " .....~.-=-'\ .'(.rr-t-"t ~-;".'-~.. R, : ., CI . " .~ ~~ 4~~., ':.
,01 ;.,:, ,'/~~ -"M~' - . V:~ , ". Ill- l~' V:.. I ~ k t __,
'~ '. . ~', , . : , '. :\ ". '. . '.:::-J .......' , /' ./ '" ...:~ ~" ___ . ./,~
i '. . I .: '.' " 't" ',... " , " ~_ .2:..J. .~ ~ _ ~ { -:-:~:~_'~
"';,' .' - ' ", .' ':'. -ff1j~-"'---;;,~-~ ~ -=-1"'--
~ '.' '. . " " I , I '- ""...... .~. __ = -r ---' __ 17'7:..
" ,...; ".' ,':, <! '.~ -: :. . ...,. "":~'.., . , · .. I i (>-(;....._ ........ ~I ),. _': '
· ('. · '. .. .' . . , . , .,. .- / " , . -~~. Y \ II/ L ,
-.. , .. " . .. . J\ ....\:\..""\:: ,
'. ' , ~. " -"'.1t . , _ ,
:'~, .. ~'" ",~: . ,:~;~ '~:~~~~~ I.'~.~ ';l}/I I ,~~ ~ ~ r '
,. " . ',' ....., -11~~ .- · rf' "/ ( ':- .. :;>' A :\\ ~t:"""'\. ~II rJ I ~ -:=.t . . .
" '. , ..'; · . ---J~ I 'iJ c:.... --=---. 'V &\ ' =-- I frq \ ....
.. . , '. . ~ ~ ',. 'I _. \ I . :t- i ,,-, L ...
::'::~ ' :::..~.;;' ., ~~~~Q' ',- r; 1 ;' , . ~~. ~ '1'- F ll{ .~~. .' .
. .". & " f-..1.... I ~
'. r-~ '. ..j ~~:;7?i~~, . .ij. 1llSA. LI ~
. "'~););;/ ~D I -.c ~ ~ ~ '. ~ tn:i' fer li(~ _
. I.~" . ~~Y;''''ev7 ~,- ...... ~ ~ :WI
EXHIBIT A · ~ I \: I . '~'f~ ,~, 20-1
-'II , ..... I '-. It ) : ........ ~.9'\ S N02
e
f
.
.
o
O:z
~Q
0::00
~ w-
::E~
::E~\ .
:J:J
VJCI) ....
r- - ---
I -------
J
I
I
I
I
I
,
"""
"
'"
"-
J
r
I
'-
I
,
,
I
_1
r---
I
\
,
,
\
,)
z
~
"
~ I SN 022..0-2.
'. "T1IJ .
. .fJ I ,/
· I---l--
- - 1 /O..~
~ -' .,.,. I \.
. ,!
I __
I~----
,
,
I
......... ...,.~ ... ...,
, '.' .
CJ-
+ - Q:
e
"
.,.
."
,/
"'.
"
...."'..
.......
.."
(-',
J
\
\
\
\
\
--
..;
,.
.; N
.....-- .,
· - ........ .,. ':7
"
,~
'" .J _ _ ... _ ..... .... __ .
I ...._
I
I
I
I
.: -J
_.
../
,
(
,
\
\;
\
,
"-
"
'"
co- -
~
.1 I\.
· ~h ~(
ol:} .
.~;- I
.....-.-
'.
~ '
e
e
'9ISJUoe:<;1.C)
---
ROBERT J t MARTINKO ·
STATEMENT OF PROFFERS
September 25, 1991
Revised November 4, 1991
Revised November 14, 1991
Revised November 18, 1991
Revised December 2, 1991
Revised December 3, 1991
Revised December 9, 1991
Revised December 11, 1991
The property owners and applicant in this rezoning case, pursuant
to ~15.1-491.2:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and
the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for themselves and
their successors or assigns, proffer that the development of the
Property known as Chesterfield County Tax Map l09-4-(1}-1
(Uproperty AU) and the Property known as Chesterfield County Tax
Map 110-9-(1)-2 and 109-3-(1)-1 (uproperty alt) under
consideration will be developed according to the following
conditions if, and only if, the rezoning request for R-25 and the
amendment to the proffer conditions existing on Property E are
granted. In the event the rezoning request is denied, the
proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further
force or effect.
1
e
e
1. Property A shall be developed as a single family residential
subdivision with an overall density not exceeding 0.63
dwelling units per acre.
2. At the time designated below, the applicant, subdivider, or
his assignee, shall pay the following cash payment for
Property A to the County of Chesterfield for infrastructure
improvements within the service district as designated by
the Capital Improvement Program. The applicant shall pay
the following applicable cash proffer fee:
a. At the time of building permit application the
cash payment, if paid prior to January "1, 1992,
shall be the amount currently approved by the
Board 0 f Supe rvi sor s ( the uSoard It ) not to exceed
$2,000 for each reside~tial lot to be constructed
on Property A; or
b. Should the Board approve an increase in the cash
proffer fee the following shall be paid at the
time of building permit application as outlined
below:
(1) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $3,000 for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property A if paid between
January 1, 1992 and June 30, 1992, inclusive;
or
2
e
e
(2) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $4,000 for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property A if paid between
July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993, inclusive; or
(3) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $4,000 for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property A adjusted upward by
any increase in the Marshall and Swift
Building Cost Index between July 1, 1992 and
July 1 of the fiscal year in which the
payment is made if paid after June 30, 1993.
c. Provided the County determines there is a need for
a park site in the area of Property A, the
developer may donate land to the County to fulfill
such need. In return, the developer shall receive
a credit against the cash proffer designated for
parks and recreation for those lots in Property A
subject to cash proffers. (For example, if the
cash proffer where paid under the current policy
in place on the date of the Proffer Statement's
execution such fee would be $80 per lot). Such
cash proffer credit shall be in addition to the
alternative referenced in 2.d. below.
d. At the option of the County and in lieu of the
part of the cash proffer for roads listed above,
3
e
e
the developer may provide equivalent road
improvements, as determined by the Transportation
Department, along Hensley Road between Beach Road
and Spring Run Road. These improvements shall not
include those improvements identified in Proffer 5.
If the cash proffers are not expended for the purposes
designated by the Capital Improvement Program within fifteen
years from the date of payment they shall be returned in
full to the applicant or his assignee.
3. Property B shall be developed as a single family residential
subdivision with an overall density not exceeding 0.55
dwelling units per acre.
4. At the time designated below, the applicant, subdivider, or
his assignee, shall pay the fOllowing cash payment for
Property B to the County of Chesterfield for infrastructure
improvements within the service district as designat~d by
the Capital Improvement Program. The applicant shall pay
the following applicable cash proffer fee:
a. At the time of building permit application the
cash payment, if paid prior to January 1, 1992,
shall be the amount currently approved by the
Board not to exceed $2,000 for each residential
lot to be constructed on Property B in excess of
4
e
e
the 0.5 units per acre density originally approved
under rezoning cases 875012 and 88SN0089; or
b. Should the Board approve an. increase cash proffer
fee as outlined below then the following shall be
paid at the time of building permit application
for each residential lot constructed on Property B
in excess of the 0.5 units per acre density
originally approved under rezoning cases 875012
and 88SN0089; :
(1) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $3,000 for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property B if paid between
January 1, 1992 and June 30, 1992, inclusive;
or
(2) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $4,000 for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property B if paid between
July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993, inclusive; or
(3) The amount approved by the Board not to
exceed $4,000 for each residential lot to be
constructed on Property B adjusted upward by
any increase in the Marshall and Swift
Building Cost Index between July 1, 1992 and
July 1 of the fiscal year in which the
payment is made if paid after June 30, 1993.
5
e
e
c. Provided the County determines there is a need for
a park site in the area of Property B, the
developer may donate land to the County to fulfill
such need. In return, the developer shall receive
a credit against the cash proffer designated for
parks and recreation for those lots in Property B
subject to cash proffers. (For example, if the
cash proffer where paid under the current pOlicy
in place on the date of the Proffer Statement's
execution such fee would be $80 per lot.) Such
cash proffer credit shall be in addition to the
alternative referenced in 4.d. below.
d. At the option of the County and in lieu of the
part of the cash proffer for roads listed above,
the developer may provide equivalent road
improvements, as determined by the Transportation
Department, along Hensley Road between Beach Road
and Spring Run Road. These improvements shall not
include those improvements identified in Proffer 5.
If the cash proffers are not expended for the purposes
designated by the Capital Improvement Program within fifteen
years from the date of payment they shall be returned in
full to the applicant or his assignee.
6
e
e
5. To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of the
complete development of the proposed project, the developer,
applicant, subdivider, or his assignee, shall be responsible
for the following:
a. Dedication of a 70 foot wide right-of-way for the
north/south collector road and construction of a
two-lane road section to VDOT Urban Collector
Standards (40 mph Design Speed) within that
dedicated right-of-way generally running in a
north/south direction through Property A and
Property B as generally shown on the tentative
plan titled "Tentative Subdivision Plan, Brandy
Oaks, It prepared by Mayton and Associates,
Consulting Engineers, and dated September 4, 1991
and l"ast revised December 3, 1991 ("Exhibit A").
The Design Standards are those applicable on the
date of the acceptance of the proffers as modified
by the Transportation Department.
b. Dedication to the County 45 feet of right of way
measured from the centerlines of Beach and Hensley
Roads along the applicant's property that is the
subject of this rezoning request.
c. Construction of left and right turn lanes at each
approved access from Beach and Hensley Roads if
7
e
e
warranted and as determined by the Transportation
Department,
d. Relocation of the ditch line along Beach and
Hensley Roads to provide an adequate shoulder
adjacent to the applicant's property that is the
subject of this rezoning request.
e. Dedication to the County a 70 foot wide right-of-
way for an east-west collector through the
property as generally shown on the sketch attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
f. Construction of a two-lane road section to VDOT
Urban Collector Standards (40 mph Design Speed)
for that portion of the east-west collector
located on the applicant's property as generally
shown on Exhibit A. The Design Standards are
those applicable on the date of the acceptance of
the proffers as modified by the Transportation
-Department.
6. The applicant or his assigns shall be entitled to construct
up to thirty-four (34) lots fronting on the north/south
collector as shown on Exhibit A. Nine (9) lots shall front
on Hensley Road and access that roadway as shown on
Exhibit A. The total number of lots with frontage on
Hensley Road or the north/south collector shall not exceed
B
· . f2/11/1991 11158 FROM eMOnd HOMes
TO ?4e2
P.02
.
forty-three (43) lOe8. All lots fronting on Hensley Road or
the north/south. collector shall have, front yard building
setbacks of 75 feet and the building setback line shall be
recorded on the record plat.
7. Prior to any flnal check plat approvai a phasing plan for
the required road improvements identified in Proffer S a~f
shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department.
APPLICANT:
RICHMOND DSVELOPMENT, INC.
By:
J
)
.~
u:\prof15.rh
9