92SN0259REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
90SN0259
(Amended)
Charles M. and Louis D. Marchetti
Midlothian Magisterial District
South line of Midlothian Turnpike
REQUEST: (Amm~ded) Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Corporate Office (0-2) on
5.3~ acres and to Community. Business (C-3) on 21.16 acres.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A mix of office and commercial uses, to be developed in conjunction
with proposed office uses, commercial uses and townhouse dwellings on
adjacent property to the south (Case 91SN0231, Bonarco Associates), is
.-..~_-_,~-.planne'd, ..... --'
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENTAL OF A REQUEST TO RR~ONE ~ ENTTWR
PROPERTY TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS (C-3), AS' SHOWN,, ON, Tm~.- ATT~C~n MAP TITr.~n
'q~EQUESTAS CONSIDERE~.B~:T~E'PLANNINGCOMMYgSIO~"
STAFF I~COMMENDATION
Recomm-nd denial of rezoning for the following reasons:
The proposed Community Business (C-3) zoning and land use do not
conform to the Midlothian Area Community l.mnd Use and Tranaportation
Plan, which designates the property as a P]mnned Transition Area.
SpecificaLly, the Plan states that th~ area is appropriate for mixed
use development that contributes to an overall transition to a
scale, pedestrian-oriented environment in Mid_lothian Village. The
~.lan notes that acceptable uses woul~ include office, medium density
housing (seven (7) to fourteen (14) units per acr~), personal services
and community facilities.
.0
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Sections 21.1-226 through
Z1.1-228.
The architectural trea~m-nt of the Community Business (C-3)
.development shall, be similar to that of Chesterfield Meadows, Laburn%~a
Park and/or Midlothian Market Place Shopping Centers. The
architectural treatmmnt of the development in the Corporate Office
(0-2) tract, identified as Tract A on "The Plan", shall be compatible
with the architectural treatment in the Community Business (C-3)
tract.
The architectural treatment of. the development in the Corporate Office
(0-2) tract, identified as Tract B on "The Pla~", shall be compatible
with the architectural treatm,mt of the Residential Townhouse (R-TH)
development as required by Zoning Case No. 91SN0231. Specifically,
the buildings shm]] have a traditional, colonial style with brick and
frame facades similar in appearance to the Westham Green Community on
Ridge Road in Henrico County. Roof tres~m~t shall-- have- the
appearance of cedm~ shingles.
Within the Co~.,nity Business (C-3), an~ the Corporate Office (0-2)
tracts, the elevations of the rear wall of any building(s) visible
from Farnham Drive shali be constructed with architectural
consistent with the overall architectural treat~=~t of the individ~ai
tracts.
Within the Co~nity Business (C-3) tract, the following uses sh~11
not be pe~ttad:
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Funeral homes or mortuaries;
Occult Sciences such as pmlm read, rs, astrologers, fortunm
tellers, tea leaf readers, prophets, etc.;
Automobile and motorcycle sales, services and/or r~pairs;
Taxid~r~e~; ~. ......
Veterinary hospitals and/or commprc~l k~--nels;
Material recl~.t~tion receiving centers;
Cocktail lounges and nightclubs;
Hospitals;
Hotels;
Coin operated dry cleaning,
laundromats;
Warehouses;
Pawn shops;
Satellite Dishes;
Theaters;
Residential multifam~ly and townhouses;
Outside public address syst-m~.
pressing, laundry and
Within the Corporate Office (0-2) tract, identified as Tract B on "The
Plan", the uses permitted shall be restricted to the following:
Ae
Offices;
Churches and/or Sunday Schools;
Convalescent homes, nursing homes, rest hom~s;
3 90SN0259/PC/APR22G
E.
F.
G.
Group care facilities;
Libraries;
Muse,,m~;
Nursery schools, child or adult day care centers
kindergartens;
Temporary construction trailers/buildings provided that:
and
(1) The temporary structure shall be devoted exclusively to
construction activities on the premises; and
(2) The temporary structure shall be removed upon
completion or abandonmmnt of the construction
activities.
Within the Corporate Office (0-2) tract, identified as Tract A on "The
Plan", the following uses shml] not be permitted:
-mo
Fire stations and rescue squads;
Golf courses;
Hospitals;
Towers;
Hotels;
Funeral homes or mor~,~ries.
Prior to obtaining a building permit in the Co~m~,,~ity Business (C-3)
or Corporate Office (0-2) tracts, one of the following shall be
accomplished for fire protection:
For building permits obtained on or before June 30, 1991,
the owner/developer shall pay to the County $150 per 1000
square feet of gross floor area. If the building pc=mit is
obtained after June 30, 1991, the amount 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 County's 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 developmmnt.
OR
Be
The owner/developer shall provide a fire suppression system
not otherwise required by law which the County's Fire Chief
determines substantially reduces the need for County
facilities otherwise necessaryfor fire protection.
10..' Site plans shall be submitted for Planning Commission review and
approval as set forth in Section 21.1-276 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The developer shall notify the last known Presidents of the Stonehenge
Country Club and the Stonehenge Civic Association at least twenty-one
(11) days prior to the Planning Commission's consideration of the site
plan of the t~m~ and date of site p]~ consideration.
4-. 90SN0259/PC/APR22G
11.
No improvements in the C-3 tract other tba~ parking and driveways
shall be constructed or installed within 370 feet of the near~st
corner of the residence located at 804 Farnhmm Drive and better known
as Tax Map 16-15 (4) Stonehenge, Section D, Block FF, Lot 1.
12.
The size of the existing culverts located under the existing Farnh~m
Drive, which drain to the existing pond located on the Stonehenge Golf
and Country Club property, shall not be increased.
With the exception of that portion of the property which drachm to the
existing pond on the Stonehenge Golf and Country Club property,
sto~mwater sha-~l be stored so that the storage vol,~mm is thmt of a 50
year post-developm-nt storm with a release of a 10 year
pre-development storm. For that portion of the property which
to the existing pond on the Stonehenge Golf and Country Club property,
stormwater shm~.l be stored so that the storage volume is that of a 50
year post development storm with a release of ~ two year
pre-development storm -
14.
For any drainage area which will ult~mmtmly drain to the existing pond
on the Stonehenge Golf and Country Club property, the developer
not opt out of the Chesapeak~ Bay Preservation Act reservations.
15.
Within the Community Business (C-3) tract, m maximm~ of 7100 square
feet of gross floor area per gross acre, inclusive of out parcels,
shall be perm/tted. Fu~hmr, there shall be a mmY~,,,, of fi~ (5)
out-parcels.
I6.
The mn~imum density of the Community Business (C-3) tract sba!l be
147,000 square feet of shopping center or equivalent do~sities, as
approved by the Trm~sportationDepartm~-t.
i7. Access to Route 60 shall be ]~m~ted to four (4) entrances/exits as
~.=.¥~ generally depicted on "The Plan". The western access'~-sb~]] .... be
designed and constructed to be shared with the adjacent properties to
the west. The eastern access shall be designed an~ constru~tmi to be
shared with the adjacent properties to the east. Thm mxact locatiom
of these accesses shm]] be approved by the Transportation Department.
Prior to site plan approval, access easeamnts, acceptable to the
Transportation Department, shall be recorda~ for both locations.
18.
Access shall be provided to the adjacent property to the south (Tax
Map 16-15 (1) Parcel 5). The exact location of th~s access shall be
approved by the Transportation Department. ~rior to site plan
approval, access eas~-~nts, acceptable to the Transportation
Department, shall be recorded.
19.
To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of complete
development, the developer shall be responsible for the following:
(a)
Construction of an additional lane of pavement (i.e., third
through lane) along the eastbound lanes of Route 60 for the
entire property frontage.
5 90SN0259/PC/APR22G
(b)
Construction of additional pavement alone the eastbound lanes of
Route 60 at each approved access to provide a separate ri§hr turn
lane.
(c)
Relocation of the crossover on Route 60 located towards the
eastern property line. The exact location of the relocated
crossover shall be approved by the Transportation Dep~nt.
(d) Construction of additional pavement within existing median along
the westbound lanes of Route 60 at each crossover that serves the
property to provide dual left turn lanes.
(e) Full cost of traffic signalization at the two (2) crossovers that
serve the property, if warranted, as determined by the
Transportation Depar~mnt.
(f)' Construction of a six lane typical section (i.e., two inbound
lanes and four outbound l~nes) for each entrance/exit that aligns
a crossover on Route 60.
(g) ~ Dedication to the County of Chesterfiel~t, free and
any additional right of way (or easements) required for the
improv-~mnts identified above, and in the traffic impact study,
prepared by J. K. T~mons & Associates dated October, 1991,
revised January, 1992.
20.
Prior to site plan approval, a. phasing plan for required road
improvements identified in Proffered Condition 19 with supporting
traffic analysis, if requested by the Trmn~portation DepOt, shall
be submitted to and approved by the Trmn~portation Depar~---t.
21.
There shall be no access from the Com~anity Business (C-3) tract or
the Corporate Office (0-2) tract, identified as Tract A on "The piton",
to existing or relocated Farmhmm Drive.
~rth~r, there sb~l be no vehicular access between the Community
Business (C-3) tract and the Corporate Office (0-2) tract, identified
as Tract B on "The p]mn" .which would allow vehicular movements from
the C-3 tract, through the referenced 0-2 tract to either exiting or
relocated Far-hmm Drive.
22.
Prior to the granting of final certificates of occupancy for more than
50,000 sq~re feet in the Community Business (C-3) tract, Farntmm
Drive shall be relocated as generally shown on "The Pimp", improved to
state standards and opened to traffic.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
· ronts the south line of Mid_lothian Turnpike, east of Farnham Drive.
Map 16-11 (1) Parcels 32, 33 and 34 (Sheet 7).
Tax
9.0SN0259/PC/APR22G
Existin~ Zoning:
A
Size: '
26.5 acres
Existin~ Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - B-2 with Conditional Use Pl~--edDevelopment; Commercial (undar
development)
South - R-15 with Conditio~] Use Planned Development; Vacant.
East - A; Vacant
West - A; Single family residential or vacant
PUBLIC FACILITTW-~
Utilities:
Water:
The request site lies within the Robious Pressure Zone and water is
supplied by the Swift Creek Treatment P!~nt. ~ 16 inch water m~, is
located on-site along the south sid~ of Midloth~- Turnpikm. The
results of a computer-s~--,]mte~t flow test indicate that admqtu~te fl~w
and pressure should be available to supply the dommstic and fire
protection needs of the proposed use. Th~ use of the public watmr
system is required by OrdiNance (Chapter 20, Article I_I) and intendS.
Sewerage:
The request site lies within the Falling Creek Drainagm Baain and is
served by the Fa]ling Creek Wastewater Treatm--t P]m-t. A 33 inch
wastewater t~mk is locate~ approximately 400 feet from the west lime
of the site. The use of the public wastewater system is required by
Ordinance (Chapter [8, Section 18.1-55) and intende~.
Drainage and Erosion:
The majority of the site drains south, tkro%~gh vaca~t prope~y m~d an
existing golf course, and eventually into Falling Creek. Portions of the
site fronting Midlothiam Turnpike drain to the northwest, through an
eroding cbmnnel located in front of adjacent property to the west. The
request site is sparsely to heavily vege~ted, with so~ m~nor erosion
probl~mm occuz-ri~g on denuded area~.
It appears that the applicants intend to direct ~ra~nmge for the entire
parcel into a storm sewer system, which would empty directly into Failing
Creek. The golf course to the south experiences flooding along Fa/ling
7 9OSN0259/PC/APR22G
Creek. Off-site easements and drainage improvements may be necessary to
control increased runoff. Although retention/detention is not required for
protection of buildings or roads, it is recommended thmt storm water
mmnagement basins be utilized end designed based on water
(Proffered Conditions 12, 13 and 14)
The streets shown on the conceptual plan (Farnham Way and Farnham
Boulevard) do not conform to the criteria for the base n~m, (i.e., Farnh~m)
and suffix (i.e., Way or Boulevard) within the Street N~mlng/House
Numbering Ordinance. New D~mm~ for these roads, which conform to this
Ordinance, must be provided at the time of road plan approval.
Fire Service:
Midlothian Fire Station, Company #5. County water flows and fire hydrants
must be provided for .fire protection purposes in compliance with nationally
recognized standnrds (i.e., Natio~a~ Fire Protection Association' and
Insurance Services Office).
The proposed zoning and land uses will generate additionm] need
--~rotecti~n services. The applicants have submitted a proffere~-'~conditi~n
to address this need. (Proffered Condition 9)
Transportation:
The applicants have proffered a m~x~ &-nmity on the C-3 tract of 147,000
square feet of shoppi~E center which could generate approximately 8,990
average daily trips. The applicants hav~ not proffered a maximum d~ity
on the two (2) 0-2 tracts. Based on the general office trip rate, the
office development could generate 'approxlm~taly 740' average daily trips,
for a total project trip generation of 9,730 average daily trips. These
vehicles will be primarily distributed along Midlothian Turnpike (Route 60)
which had a 1990 traffic count of 37,260 vehicles per day.
Due to the vertical alignm-nt of Route 60, east of the subject property,
sight distsDce is 14m~tmd at the existing crossover located towards the
eastern p~operty line. VDOT ham indicated that relocation of the existing
crossover to the west and regrading the med/an on Route 60 will provide
acceptable sight distance. St~*f is still concerned that adequate sight
distance may not be provided at the relocated crossover without regrmd~ng
Route 60. This issue will be addressed at the time of site plan review.
Development of this property must adhere to the Zoning Ordlnmnce relative
to access and internal circulation (Article 7). A proffer ba~ .been
submitted which l~m~ts access to Route 60 to four (4) entrances/exits; two
(2) of these accesses will be served by crossovers. The easternmost access
and t_he westernmost access will be shared with adjacent properties
(Proffered Condition 17). The applicants have also proffered to provide
access to the adjacent property to the south (Proffered Condition 17).
Mitigating road improvements must be provided for the requested d-n~ities
to achieve an acceptable level of service. To evaluate the impact of this
request, a traffic analysis was submitted and approved. The applicants
have proffered to: 1) construct a third through lane along Route 60 for
the entire property frontage; 2) construct a separate right turn lane along
8
9.0SN0259/PC/APR22G
Route 60 at each approved access; 3) relocate the crossover on Route 60
located towards the eastern property line; 4,) construct dual left turn
lanes at both crossovers on Route 60 that serves the property; 5)
contribute full cost of traffic signalization at both crossovers, if
warranted; and 6) construct a six lane typical section (i.e., two inbound
lanes and four outbound lanes) for each entrance/exit that aligns a
crossover on Route 60 (Proffered Condition 19). At the t~m~ of site plan
review, specific recommendations will be provided regarding access and
internal circulation.
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Midlothian Area Co~ity Land Use and
Transportation Plan~ which designates the property for planned transition
uses to include neighborhood office, perso-m! services, medium density
housing and community facility uses. The Plan furthez notes that'-natural
buffer areas should be provided to preserve the integmity of the landscape
and to provide pedestrian access to a trail system. The Planned Trmmmition
Area is intended to promote decreasing ]mnH use intensities in and around
centers thmt serve community trade areas.
Area Development Trends:
Property along the north line of Midlothian Turnpike is zoned and being
developed comm-rciaily. Specifi~]]y, Wal-Mart and Sam's Deparem~t Store
are being developed. Adjacent property to the south and east is zoned
residentially and agriculturally and is also vacant. As noted herein,
a~jacent property to the south is currently the s~bject of a companion
zoning case for commercial, office and townhouse residential uses (Case
9iSN0231, Bona~co Associates). Adjacent property to the west is zoned
agriculturally and is occupied by a single family residence or is vacant.
Site Design:
The conceptual plan depicts a C-3 shopping center tract plus two (2) 0-2
tracts. Access for these tracts would be provided via four (4) accesses to
Midlothian Turnpike (Proffered Condition 17). Access to Far~h~- Drive, for
the C-3 tract and the westernmost 0-2 tract, identified as Tract A would be
prohibited (Proffered Condition 21). The shopping center would have a
mmxjmnm of five (5) outparcels and a d-n-~ity of 7,100 square feet of gross
floor area per acre (Proffered Condition 5). In addition, the p]m, depicts
how the request property would be developed with adjacent property to the
south, located along the north and south lines of Farmh~m Drive, and which
is the subject of a companion zoning casa (Case 91SN0231, Bon~rco
Associates). Uses with the C-3 and 0-2 tracts would be restricted
(Proffered Conditions 6, 7 and 8). The request property lies within the
Emerging Growth Area. New construction ~,-~t conform to the deveiopm-nt
standards of the Zoning Ordinance which address access, parking,
landscaping, architectural trite-ut, setba~_ks, signs, buffers, utilities,
and screening of dumpsters and loading areas.
9 90SN0259/PC/APR22G
The applicants have proffered to submit site plans to the Planning
Commission and to notify Stonehenge Civic Association of the time and date
of such submission (Proffered Condition 10). In addition, the applicants
have proffered that buildings on the C-3 tract will be set back 370 feet
from the nearest residence in Stonehenge Subdivision. Parking areas and
driveways would be permitted within the 370 foot setback. (Proffered
Condition 11)
Architectural Treatment:
The applicants have proffered that arckitectural treatment of the C-3 tract
and the adjacent 0-2 tract, identified as Tract A, will be s~milar to that
of Chesterfield Meadows, Laburnum Park and/or Midlothian Market Place
Shopping Centers (Proffered Condition 3). The applicants have furthar
proffered that the architectural trea~*~mnt of the 0-2 tract, identified as
Tract B, would be compatible with the architectural treatment of
anticipated townhouse residential development along Farnb~m Drive, and that
the elevations of th~ bamk~ of buildings visible from Farn~mm Drive will be
constructed of elmmmnts consistent with overall development. (Proffered
Conditions 4 and 5)
Further, in Emerging Growth District areas, no building exterior which
would be visible to any agricultural or residential district or any public
right of way may consist of architectural materials inferior in qT,e]!ty,
appearance, or detail to any other exterior of the s~m- building. There
is, however, nothing to preclude the use of different materi~l
different building exteriors, but rather, the use of inferior matarim]~ on
sides which face adjoining property. No portion of a build!n~ constructed
of unadorned concrete block or corrugated amd/or sheet metal may be visible
from any adjoining agricultural or residential district or any public right
of way. No building exterior may be constructed of unpainted concrete
block or co£~ugated and/or sheet metal. Mechanical equipment, whether
ground-level or rooftop, must be shieldad and screened from public view and
designed to be perceived as an integral part of the buildJng.
Buffers & Screening:
The Zoning Ord~nmnce requires that solid waste storage areas (i.e.,
dumpsters, garbage cans, trash compactors, etc.) be screened from view of
adjacent property and public rights of way by a solid fence, wall, dense
evergreen plantings or architectural feature, be separated fr~m any
residentially zoned property or any property being used for residential
purposes by the principal building and that such area within 1,000 feet of
any residentially zoned property or property used for residential purposes
not be serviced between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. In addition,
sites must be designed and buildings oriented so that loading areas are
screened from amy property where loading areas are prohibited and from
public rights of way.
With the approval of this request, outside storage would be permitted as a
restricted use. Outside storage areas must be screened from view of
adjacent properties which have no such areas and public rights of way.
Adjacent property to the south is zoned Residential (R-15) while adjacent
property to the east and west is zoned Agricultural (A) and is occupied by
10
90SN0259/PC/APR22G
single family residences or is vacant. The Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum seventy-five (75) foot buffer along the southern and western
property boundaries of the C-3 tract, and a fifty (50) foot buffer along
the southern, eastern and western boundaries of the 0-2 tracts. The Zoning
Ordinance would . allow modification of these buffers by the Planning
Commission at the time of site plan review if adequate screening can be
provided in a lesser width. The applicants have proffered not to seek
relief of the required 0-2 buffer, adjacent to residentially and
agriculturally zoned property to the east, through the scbmmmtic or site
plan review processes (Proffered Condition 1). In addition, the applicants
have proffered a 100 foot buffer along the southern boundary of the C-3
tract. (Proffered Condition 2)
Conclusions:
The proposed Community Business (C-3) zoning and land use do not conform to
the Midlothian Area Community Lm~d Use and Transportation Plan~ which
designates the property for Plm~ned Transition Area uses. Specifically,
the Plan designates the request property and s11rro,~ndlnE area for m~xeduse
development that contributes to an overmll transition to the ~m~11.~ scale,
pedestrian-oriented environment of Midlothian Village located to the west.
To this end, primary uses within Pl~ned Transition Areas should includm
neighborhood office, medium to high density residential, personal services,
and community facilities designed to promote decreasing land use
intensities and min~mlze the impact of traffic. Such development should be
compatible with surrounding neighborhoods in scale and quality. The
current proposal fails to comply with these goals.
The proposed C-3 zoning and l~-d use is representative of intmn~e
commercial developm-nt, more typical of the Midlothian Turnp~k- corridor
east of Courthouse Road. Such dev~lopm--t is' typically automobJ/m-oriented
and has a tendency to attract customers from a larger service ar~. In
addition, given the size and shape of the property, it is doubtful that an
¥~ropriate mi~xed use developer, with good tr~-~itional'uses~ ca~-~be
d~veloped on the request property exclusively. Approval of this
could establish a precedent for strip con.unity scale, commercial
development along this portion of Midlothian Turnpike, in the vic~mlty of
Midlothian ViI]mge and Stonehenge Subdivision. Further, approval of this
request could adversely affect th. ability to develop a quality residential
neighborhood on adjacent properties, thereby placing pressur~ to allow more
intense developm~t on the adjacent property.
Although the proposed Corporate Office (0-2) zoning and land use conforms
to the Plan, any request for such uses should include the entire property.
In this mm~mer, m properly designed and coordinated developm-nt could be
ensured, while at the smm- tlmm establish .proper land use transitions.
CASE HISTORY
Applicants (8/30/9~):
The applicants requested a sixty (60) day deferral and indicated that all
adjacent property owners had been notified of the request.
11 90SN0259/PC/APR22G
Planning Co~mission Meeting (9/18/90):
At the request of the applicants, the Co,~issiom deferred this case for
sixty (60) days.
Staff (9/19/90):
The applicants were advised in writing that any new or revised information
should be submitted no later than September 24, 1990, for considmration at
the Commission's November 20, 1990, meeting.
Applicants (11/1/90):
The applicants requested a sixty (60) day deferral and indicated ~hmt all
adjacent 'property owners would be notified.
Planning Commission Meeting (11/20/90):
At the request of the applicants, the Commission deferred this case for
sixty (60) days to the January 15, 1991, meeting.
Staff (11127190):
The applicants were advised in writing that any new or revised ~nformation
should be submitted no later thm~ Decp~her 3, 1990, for considaration at
the January 15, 1991, meeting.
Staff (12/19/90):
To date,':'n~ ne~ information ham been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (1/15/91):
At the request of the applicants, the Commission deferred this case for 120
days, to the May 21, 1991, meeting.
Staff (1/16/91):
The applicants were advised in writing that any new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 18, 1991, for consideration at the
May 21, 1991, P]mnn~ng Gommission meeting.
12
90SN0259/PC/APR22G
Applicants (5/1/91):
The applicants requested a sixty (60) day deferral and notified
adjacemt property owners of the request.
Planning Commission Meeting (5/21/91):
At the request of the applicants, the Commission deferred this request for
sixty (60) days.
Staff (5/23/91):
The applicants were advised in writing that any new or revised ~nformation
should be submitted no later than May 28, 1991, for consideration at the
Commission' s July meeting.
Applicants (6/26/91):
The applicants requested a thirty (30) day deferral to allow this case to
be considered at the same public hearing as a rezoning request on a~jacent
property to the south and west.
Planning Commission Meeting (7/16/91):
At the request of the applicants, the Commission d~ferred this case for
thirty (30) days.
Staff (7/17/91):
'~Th-~ applicants were advised in writing thzt any new or revised ~nformation
should be submitted no later tham July 22, 1991, for consideration at the
Commissionts August public hearing.
Staff (7/2'6/91):
To date no new or revised information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (8/20/91):
At the request of the applicants, the Co~ission deferred this case for
sixty (60) days.
13 90SN0259/PC/APR22G
Staff (8/21/91):
The applicants were advised in writing that any significant new information
should be submitted no later than September 3, 1991, for consideration at
the Commission's October public hearing.
Staff (9/23/91):
To date, no new information has been received.
Applicants (lO/g/gl):
A traffic analysis was submitted to the Transportation Department.
Applicants (10/10/gl):
Proffered Condition 6 relative to cash proffers for fire
-- ~ubmitte~. - ---~-
Planning Commission Meeting (10/15/91):
At the request of the applicants, the Co~ssion deferred this case for
sixty (60) days.
Staff (10/16/91):
The applicants were advised in writing that any substantial chanEas to the
application should be submitted not later than Nov--,her 4, 1991, for
consideration at the Cnmm~ssion's Dec-mher 17, 1991, public hearing.
Staff (li/~/91~
The Transportation Department completed the review of the traffic mnmlysis
and requested revisions.
Staff (11/22/91):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Applicants (12/16/91):
A revised traffic analysis was submitted.
14 g0SN0259/PC/APR22G
Planning Commission Meeting (12717/91):
At the reqnest of the applicants, the Commission deferred this case for
sixty (§0) days to allow further discussions with area property owners.
Staff (12/19/91):
The applicants were advised in writing that any subs~mntiai changes or new
information should be submitted no later than Jan,,m~y 6, 1992, for
consideration at the Commission's February public hearing.
Staff (1/13/92):
The Transportation Depar~mmnt completed the review of the revised traffic
analysis and requested revisions.
Staff (1/1§/92):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Applicants (1/21/92):
Revised and new proffered conditions were submitted. The applicants worm
advised that the revisions could not be reviewed and evaluated prior to the
Co~-4ssion's February public hearing.
Planning Comm~.ssion Meeting (2/18/92):
.-..~--t~.h~ request of the applicants, the Commission deferred thi~ 'case .for
· thirty (30) days.
Planning Comm~ssionMeeting (2/19/92):
The applicants were advised in writing that any significant nmw or revised
information should be submitted no later ~hm~ February 24, I992, for
consideration at the Commission's March public hearing.
Applicants (2/25/92):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
Staff (3/2/92):
A meeting is scheduled with the applicants, area property owners and
Midlothian and Clover Hill Districts Commissioners on March 3, 1992. Staff
15 90SNO259/PC/APR22G
will advise the Commission of the results of that meeting at the March
public hearing.
Staff, Applicants, Area Property Owners and the Midlothian District Commissioner
(3/3/92):
A meeting was held to further discuss the proposed rezoning to C-3 of the
entire property. The applicants indicated that they were not in a position
to reduce the density or intensity of the development.
Planning Commission Meeting (3/17/92):
The applicants did not accept the recnmmmndation.
There was opposition present. Concern was expressed that the proposed
zoning and land uses represented com~-rcial encroacbm-nt into a residential
area and failed to provide appropriate land use transitions. Concerns were
also exp~ressed relative to traffic, d~nmities, b~ffers an~..i~.pot~_en~l'
---~dverse'~mpacts upon area residmnces.
Mr. Miller indicated that a deferral may be appropriate to allow the
applicants an opportunity to address these concerns.
Mr. Easter indicated that the applicants have had an opporO,nity to address
these concerns and had failed to do so.
Mr. Easter indicated that it was the general consensus of the citize~m that
long-range planning is needed and desired. He stated that the
Comprehensive Plan provides that vehicle. He indicated that once a plan is
adopted, it should only be set aside for extremely good reasons. He stated
that he did not feel that a good reason existed in this case. He presented
a~ chart of similar types of projects on Midlothian Turnpike. He indicated
that this chart showed that these projects were substantially larger in
gross..~sq .u~r. e footage than most of the shopping centers on Midloth~an
Turnpikef'and that most projects have access to two (2) arterials versus
only one (1) arterial, as is the case with these projects. He indicated
that his concerns were the size of the project; the d-nmity; and access to
only one arterial. He also indicated that there were already traffic
probl-m~ on Midloth~an Turnpike and those prob]-m~ would continu~ with
growth. He further indicated that there was also a traffic problem on
Farnham Drive, and this project could increase those problmm~. He stated
that the request did not represent a good use of the property.
Mr. Gulley indicated that th~s case had a n,,mher of problpm~: (1) the
land use did not conform to the Midlothian ¥i]]aRe Pla~; (2) the density
and the size of the proposed buildings; and (3) the ineffectiveness of the
buffers. He indicated that he shared the association's concerns that the
commercial would be built before the townhouses. Re indicated that he
sympathized with the Country Club in trying to resolve drainage probl-m~;
however, the proposals were about more than drainage and erosion. Re
stated there were also concerns as to the affect this development would
16 90SN0259/PC/APR22G
have on Stonehenge residents. He also indicated that it had been pointed
out that the Country Club never received any legal proffers, regarding
drainage. Mr. Gulley stated that he was a strong advocate of long-range
plans. He indicated for these reasons he could not support these requests.
On motion of Mr. Easter, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission. resolved to
recommp-nd denial of the request to rezone the entire property to Community
Business (C-3), as depicted on the attached map titled "Request as
Considered by the Planning Commission."
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Cunningb~m, Easter and Marsh.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Miller.
Applicants (3/31/92):
An amended application was submitted as discussed herein. Specifically,
the original request was for rezoning 26.5 acres to Coam~nity Business
(C-3). The amended request is for rezoning 5.34 acres to Corporate Office
(0-2) and 21.16 acres to Community Business (C-3).
Applicants (4/8/92):
The proffered conditions, as outlined herein, were submitted.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, April 22, 1992, beginning at 7:00 p.m.,
will take under consideration this request.
17 90SN0259/PC/A~R22G
Illllllllllll ~llllll~l Illl~
7~
OLDE COACH.
LL ~'
IIlIIIIIIll
]REEK!.~
itlllllt~Ilg!llllJa.tllIIlli
IliiIIIIIIII
/
/
I
t
I
'"', ,. P-~ -~,.--1 ......
'\ 90SNO259_(AMENDED) J~-91SNO231(AMENDED)
\. REZ:~A TO 0-2 '<',, ~REZ:~R-15 TO
'! mA TO C-$
SH. 7 . . ~, ~'""~ I':C1R-15 TO R-TH
,...~-. ./'x '~//','"'~/'SH. 7
....,.....'"'" ..X ,---"~
, ~' ',, .... ' ~.~,,, ~,---~-"1-1 t ~',.-'''tx, ~'ti"/~, ""--2 ,,. ~--'-""
IIIIIllllll~
COACH/
,AGE ~'
MILLSTONE
CREE
III III IIII I l~...!l!llll II~
to
¢
~,::,!~:: ::::: 'i_ -
.................. ~ R-/5
RIS"
~ ,N02_.59 (AMENDED):
'x '~ ~A TO C-3
~, ~ ~'o 0-2
7
,4
i
7C
C
OLDE
Illlltllll
llllillllJt~!~,ltlillJe!!!!lli!
I
,
/
/
\
\
LEGEND
~ WATER LINES
~SEWER LINES
90SN0259 (AMENDED) ]~-91SN0231 (AMENDED)
~. REZ:~A TO 0-2 '~~15 TO 0-2
"~ DA TO C-:5 ~x// I~R-15 TO C-3
'SH. 7 . /~ ~R-15 TO R-TH
I ---~ ~'"'~ I ~'~ t~' .~ ...... l ~~) . ~-- ~ -"
NOT
STONEHE
CONSIDERED BY-