91SN0199
r\ ~ .' )
.
.
3nne-r8;-t991-6P6
September-19,-i99i-€P€
No~emh~r-i9i-i99i-6P6
December 11, 1991 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
91SN0199
Henry E. Myers, Jr.
Dale Magisterial District
Southeast quadrant of Iron Bridge and Lori Roads
REQUEST .:
Rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Community Business (B-2)
Community Business (C-3).
to
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Commercial uses are planned. The applicant has proffered to restrict
uses to all permitted or restricted Neighborhood Business (C-2) uses,
plus one (1) automobile service station, a C-3 use.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON PAGES 1, 2 AND
3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reason:
While the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan designates the
property for office and light commercial uses, a more orderly development
would be achieved if additional property were included in this request to
achieve an overall site design with coordinated access and internal traffic
circulation; compatible architectural treatment; and appropriate land use
transitions. The applicant has not indicated a willingness to include
additional property in the request to address these concerns.
(NOTE: THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH uSTAFF!CPCU WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND
THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A ttSTAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF.
CONDITIONS 'WITH' ONLY A "epe" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC)
1 .
Uses shall be restricted to all permitted or restricted
Neighborhood Business (C-2) uses plus one (1) automobile
service station.
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/CPC)
(STAFF/cpc)
(STAFF/CPC)
"
. '
2.
The architectural treatment of all buildings, to include any
service station, shall be similar to, and equal in quality
to, Chesterfield Meadows West Shopping Center. Further, the
architectural treatment of any service station shall be
similar to, and equal in quality to, that approved by the
Planning Conuniss ion on November 20 J 1990, and as shown on
the elevations prepared by Freeman/Morgan Architects, dated
8/27/90 for Bellgrade Texaco at the intersection of Huguenot
Road and Promenade Parkway. Pump canopies shall be attached
to the main building, be constructed of the same or similar
materials as the main building, and be architecturally
compatible with the main building. Detailed renderings
depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site
plan review.
3.
Public sewer shall be used.
4.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the following
shall be accomplished for fire protection:
aoa For building permits obtained on or before June 30,
1991, the owner/developer shall pay to the County
$150.00 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. If
the building permit is obtained after June 30, 1991,
the amonnt of the required payment shall be adjusted
upward or downward by the same percentage that the
Marshall Swift Building Cost Index increased or
decreased between June 30, 1991, and the date of
payment. With the approval of the County1s Fire Chief,
the owner/developer shall receive a credit toward the
required payment for the cost of any fire suppression
system not otherwise required by law which is included
as a part of the development.
OR
b. The owner J developer shall provide a f ire suppress ion
system not otherwise required by law which the County's
Fire Chief determines substantially reduces the need
for County facilities otherwise for the protection.
5.
Access to I ran Br idge Road shall be 1 imi ted to one ( 1 )
entrance/exit. The exact location of this access shall be
approved by the Transportation Department.
6.
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the initial
development, additional pavement shall be constructed along
the northbound lanes of Iron Bridge Road to provide a
right-turn lane at the approved access and extend north to
the existing Lori Road turn lane. Prior to issuance of any
occupancy permit for more than one site, the additional lane
shall be extended to the southern boundary line of the
subject property.
e
2
91SN0199!PC!DEC111
e
l\
.
.
(STAFF/CPC)
7 .
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, the property
owner shall provide to the County $8,000 f or the
construction of a sidewalk across the Route 10 frontage of
the subject property. Unless the construction of a sidewalk
is committed as determined by the Transportation Department
between the subject property and Beach Road within five (5)
years of the date of payment to the County, the $8,000 shall
be returned to the property owner.
(STAFF/CPC)
8.
The additional runoff generated by development of this
property shall be directed towards the existing culverts
located under Lori Road.
(STAFF/CPC)
9.
The required setback along Lori Road shall be maintained as
a buffer and shall comply with Sections 21.1-226 through
21.1-288 of the Zoning Ordinance.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Southeast quadrant of Iron Bridge and Lori Roads. Tax Map 95-3 (1) Parcel
7 and Tax Map 95-7 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 31).
Existin>; Zonin~,:
A and B-2
Size:
6.0 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zonin~ & Land Use:
North - A; Public/semi-public (Chesterfield County Central Library)
South - B-1 and Aj Commercial or vacant
East - A and R-TH; Vacant or townhouse residential
~est - R-15, 0, and 0 with Conditional Use; Single
family residential, office, commercial or vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities
Water:
Use of the public water system is required by Ordinance (Chapter 20,
Article II) and inteJlded. Adequate flow and pressure should be
available to supply the domestic and fire protection needs for the
proposed use.
3
91SN0199/PC/DECI11
Wastewater:
Use of the public wastewater system intended (Proffered Condition 3)
and may be required by Ordinance if proposed uses utilize more than
3,000 gallons of water per day.
Drainage and Erosion:
Drains to Swift Creek. No existing or anticipated on- or off-site drainage
or erosion problems. Due to the recently completed VDOT Route 10 widening
project, adequate downstream outfalls should exist. The applicant has
submitted a proffered condition requiring that the additional runoff
generated by the development be directed toward the existing culverts under
Lori Road. (Proffered Condition 8)
The request property has some wetlands characteristics. In conjunction
with first site plan submission, documentation from the Corps of Engineers
that development will be permitted with respect to wetlands must be
submitted to Environmental Engineering.
Fire Service:
Airport Fire Station, Company 1115. Provide County water flows and fire
hydrants for fire protection purposes in compliance with nationally
recognized standards (i.e., National Fire Protection Association and
Insurance Services Office).
The proposed zoning and land uses will generate additional need for fire
protection services. Prof fers have been received to address this need.
(Proffered Condition 4)
Transportation.:
This request will not limit development to a specific land use, therefore,
it is difficult to anticipate traffic generation. The applicant has
indicated that a maximum of two (2) uses could be developed. Based upon
automobile service station and convenience market trip rates, development
could generate approximately 2,966 average daily trips. These vehicles
will be distributed along Lori Roadt which had a 1990 .traffic count of
3,102 vehicles per day, and Iron Bridge Road (Route 10), which had a 1989
traffic count of 19,580 vehicles per day.
Development of this property must adhere to the Zoning Ordinance relative
to access and internal circulation (Article 7). Give~ the anticipated
density of development) an additional right-turn lane on Route 10 is not
required. The applicant has committed to participate in the construction
of a sidewalk along Route 10 (Proffered Condition 7). Access to Lori Road
will be restricted based upon the proffered buffer condition (Proffered
Condition 9). Access to Lori Road will not be approved by the
Transportation Department unless the developer constructs necessary turn
lanes on Lori Road. The applicant has proffered that direct access to
Route 10 will be limited to one (1) entrance/exit (Proffered Condition 5).
This access should be located towards the southern property line to provide
I
e
4
91SN0199}PC/DEC11I
.
\
\.
.
.
adequate separation from the Lori Road/Deerfield Drive/Route 10
intersection.
Mitigating road improvements must be provided for the requested densities
-to achieve an acceptable level of service. The applicant has proffered to
construct additional pavement along Route 10. (Proffered Condition 6)
At the time of site plan review, the Transportation Department will make
specific recommendations regarding access, internal circulation and
mitigating road improvements. Based upon the proffered conditions and the
applicant I s intent to restrict the density of development, the
Transportation Department can support this request.
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Central Area Land Use and Transportation.
Plan, which designates the property for office and light commercial uses.
Area Development Trends:
This portion of the Iron Bridge Road corridor is characterized by a mix of
agricultural~ residential, office and commercial zonings and land uses and
public/semi-public use (Chesterfield County Courthouse Complex). The
request property is part of a larger tract of land, lying between Iron
Bridge and Lori Roads and currently zoned Agricultural (A), which is owned
by the applicant. This tract is vacant, with the exception of one (1)
single family residence along Lori Road, in the vicinity of the Courthouse
Complex.
Site Design:
The request property lies within an Emerging Growth Area. Within Emerging
Growth Areas, uses that have drive-in windows, such as banks and savings
and loans, and uses with gasoline pumps are only permitted when
incorporated into a project of one (1) or more parcels with an aggregate
size of ten (10) acres or more. The request property, which consists of
six (6) acres, fails to conform to this ten (10) acre requirement. At a
minimum, an overall access plan, for the request property, plus additional
acreage to satisfy the ten (10) acre requirement, must be submitted and
approved in conjunction with site plan review.
The applicant has agreed to provide a buffer along Lori Road to ffi1D1ID1Ze
the impact of the commercial uses on adjacent residential and
public/semi-public uses. (Proffered Condition 9)
Architectural Treatment:
In addition to the architectural requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the
applicant has proffered that all buildings will be similar to, and equal in
quality to, Chesterfield Meadows West Shopping Center, located on the west
line of Iron Bridge Road, across frc~ Centralia Road. Further, the
5
91SN0199!PC!DEC11I
applicant has proffered that any service station developed on the property
would be similar to, and equal in quality to, that approved for Bel1grade
Texaco. (Proffered Condition 2)
Conclusions:
-"
The Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan designates the property
for office and light commercial uses. While some limited retail use may be
appropriate on the subject property, a more orderly development would be
achieved if additional property were included in this request to achieve an
overall site design with coordinated access and internal traffic
circulation, compatible architectural treatment, and appropriate land use
transitions. Specifically, the request property is part of a larger tract
of land lying between Iron Bridge and Lori Roads which is owned by the
applicant. This larger tract totals approximately thirty-two (32) acres,
including the request property, and is designated on the Central Area Plan_
for office and light commercial uses. The applicant has not indicated a
willingness to include this entire tract in the request. The applicant has
stated that a consultant has indicated that a majority of the adjacent
property is occupied by wetlands; however, there is no indication from the
Corps of Engineers that the property is not developable. Until there is a
definitive answer on the developability of the entire tract, staff is not
in a position to support piecemeal zoning and development in the area.
Inclusion of additional property would also address the Ordinance relative
to the ten (10) acre requirement for uses with drive-in windows or gas
pumps.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (6/18/91):
At the request of th~ applicant, the Commission deferred this case for
ninety ( 90) days to allow time for the applicant to meet wi th concerned
c it izens , the Commiss ion from the District and staff in an attempt to
resolve concerns expressed herein.
Staff (6/19/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new information should be
submitted no later than July 15, 1991, for consideration at the
Commission's September public hearing.
Staff (8/29/91):
As of this writing, no new information has been submitted.
6
91SN0199!PC/DEC111
.
r
I
e
\
\. .
.
.
Applicant (9/17/91):
The applicant submitted two (2) additional proffered conditions to address
concerns relative to drainage and buffering along Lori Road. (Proffered
Conditions 8 and g)
Applicant (9/19/91):
The applicant submitted revised Proffered Conditions 6 and 7 to address
transportation concerns.
Planning Commission Meeting (9/19/91):
The Commiss ion deferred this case for sixty ( 60) days to allow the Dale
District Commissioner to study the proposal further.
Staff (9/23/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised
information should be submitted no later than October 7, 1991, for
consideration at the Commission's November public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting (11/19/91):
The applicant did not accept the staff's recommendation, but did accept the
Planning Commission's recommendation.
There was opposition present from the Branch's Colony townhouse community.
Concern was expressed that the development would adversely impact the
adjacent residential neighborhood.
Mr. Miller stated that the proffered conditions would require a buffer
along Lori Road and that Mr. Myers did not intend at this time to access
Lori Road.
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded
recommended approval of this request
conditions on pages 1, 2 and 3.
by
and
Mr. Belcher, the Commission
acceptance of the proffered
AYES: Messrs. Miller, Belcher and Mrs. Boisineau.
NAY: Mr. Warren.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, December 11 , 19 9 1 , beg inning at 2: 00
p.m., will take under consideration this request.
7
91SN0199/PC/DECllI
\.
.+~~......++~..
: : : : : : : : : : : :. . ~ : : : ~ :: : :: > : : >.
.::: ::~::::> ::~ ~::>-::::::<::~::
:: : : : ~ : :: ~ ~ -B~ ~:3..:: ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ : : ~ : : :
...I.~~..+, ... .~"'~,,+,.+"...,
. . . ~ . . ... . . . . . I
. - ~~~~.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..'-
*,,'
r{'.....
. . ~....I..~
... . . . I . . . . 1 ~
, .. .f'"
<
....."'.......+......
.......... ~ ~. +.... +. + ~ ~. ~ +.... +........... + +
....... .....~ ...........................
.. . ~ +............... .... ...........++. ......
.~
. ~
. . ~ ~~T:~ CV~: : : : : q c .: : : : : : ~~~. ~ : : ~ :
.. I.~........+............~..
/' : : : : : : : : : : : : ~ : : : ~ : : : : : ~: : : : : : : : : : :
... ~.. ~.............. +....... r" 11-....+..............
... + I........~..... .............................
...........~ I.........................~.
.. ..
I ~... . .. ... . . ~ _. ~ + . . . . . ~.. . + .. "', ~...../.....I ._..:... _ -: __. . ..
N U R 5 ~ N G H 0 ,..~ s:"
~..
. . . . . . .. ................................ ~ .. 91 S NO 19
. : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :.: : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9
::::::):~::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::REZ.A a 8 2 TO C 3::::::":
....-.................................... , - - ...... .
....................................... . ...
.. :I: : : : : : : . - : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : SH 31
. ............. ...........+............................
· . : : : ~ ~ :.~ : ; : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ : : : ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ : Z:: : : : : : : : : : : · : . : : .
. : : : : : : ; ~ \ ~ ~ ~ \~ T ) \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ j ~ \ ~ ~ ~ : : : .' ~
. . : : _: : : ~ : \ j ~ \ : : j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ : : \ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ \ j ~ ~ j j : ~ ~ ~ ~ : U 1) j ~ j j j \
. . . . . . . . . .. ........ . . ...........: ~ :,':: t: : : : : : : : :
--.0 /. _ . . . . . . . .
,
,
A
)BSTRUCTtON
L\M\'TS
~