91SN0231August-RS~-~99f-~P~
8¢tober-~5~-~99~-~P~
Beeember-~7-~99~-~P~
February-~8~-~99R-~P6
April 22, 1992 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
91SN0231
(Amended)
Bonarco Associates
REQUEST:
Midlothian Magisterial District
North and south lines of Farnb~m Drive and
Southwest quadrant of Midlothian Turnpike and Farmh~m Drive
(Amended) Rezon~ng from Residential (R-15) to Community Business
(C-3) on 7.42 acres to Corporate Office (0-2) on 7.78 acres, and to
Residential-Townhouse (R-TH) on 24.16 acres.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A mix of commercial uses, office uses and townhouse dwellings, to be
developed in conjunction with adjacent property to the north (Case
90SN0259, Charles M. and Louis D. Marchetti), is plmnned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENTAL OF A REQUEST TO R~MONE 12.18 ACRES TO
COMMUN~ BUSINESS (C-3) AND 28.46 ACRES TO RESIDENTTAL-TOWN~OUSE (R-TH) WIT~
CONDITIONAL USE PLANNED DEVELOPMEFf, AS DEPI~ ON TEE ATTAC~m~ MAP TI~V.~D
"REQUEST AS CONSIDERED BY THEPLANNING COMMISSION."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
The proposed Cc~mmity Business (C-3) zoning and land use do not
conform to the Midlothian Area Community Land Use and Transportation
Plan, which designates th. property as a P]~n-e~t Transition Area.
Specifically, the Plan states that the area is appropriate for mixed
use development that contributes to an overall transition to a smaller
scale, pedest=ian-oriented enviromm-nt in Midlothian Village. The
Plan notes that acceptable uses would include office, medium density
housing (seven (7) to fourteen (14) units per acre), personal services
and community facilities.
The proposed Community Business (C-3) zoning md land use is
incompatible with area residential zoning and represents an
encroachment into an approved and planned residential area. Approval
of Co,.-..~nity Business (C-3) zoning and land use could adversely affect
the ability to develop a quality residential neighborhood on the
remainder of the request site and establish a precedent for more
intense development on adjacent properties~
Although the proposed residential townhouse and Corporat~ Office (0-2)
zonings and land uses conform to the Plan, any request for such uses
should include the entire property. In this mm-~er, a properly
designed and coord~nmted development could be ensured, while at the
smme time establish proper land use transitions.
The applicant hm~ failed to address
transportation, as outlined herein.
concerns relative to
(NOTE: TEE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION. THE
PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER Urger CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH
"ST~d~F/CPC" WERE AGR~ UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND TEE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH
ONLY A "STAFf, ARE' RECOMMMNDED SOT.~.Y BY STA~, CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC"
ARE ADDITIONAI. CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ) ..... .:~
(NOTE: The applicant's ~r~ c~n~Ltti~ms stetro that thru p~ff~ ~~
for ~ p~ff~ c~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
Where the proffers reference "The Plan", "The Plan" shall be tb~t plmn prepared
by J. K. T~mmons and Associates, title Bonarco/Marchetti Zoning Plmn (Amended),
dated April 2, 1992. -
The property owner 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 Chester~iel~ County, for themselves and their successars or assi~m, proffer
that the-'development of the property under consideration will be developed
according to the following proffers if, and only if, the rezoning request
submitted in Case No. 91SN0231 is granted with only those conditions agreed to
by the applicant. In the event Case No. 91SN0231 is denied or approved with
conditions not agreed to by the applicant, the proffers shall ~mm~d/ately be
null and void and of no effect.
Within the Corporate Office (0-2) tract identified as Tract B on "The
Plan", there shall be no relief sought through schmmmtic or site plan
review of the required fifty (50) foot buffer adjacent to Tax Map
16-15 (1) Parcel 1 and Tax Map 16-15 (4) Stonehenge, Section D, Block
~F, Lot 1. Within this buffer, in lieu of the number and spacing of
evergreens as required by the Zoning Ordinance, such evergreens shall
conform to the initial size as required by the Zoning Ordinance but
shall be placed such that there is one evergreen for each eight (8)
lineal feet.
2
91SN0231/PC/APR22H
e
Ye
A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern boundary of
the Community Business (C-3) tract. This buffer shall conform to the
requiremmnts of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.1-226 through
21.1-228.
The architectural treatment of the Community Business (C-3)
development shall be s~m41ar to that of Chesterfield Meadows, Laburn%m~
Park and/or Midlothian Market Place Shopping Centers. The
architectural treatment of the development in the Corporate Office
(0-2) tract, identified as Tract A on "The Plan", shall be compatible
~ith the architectural trea~m-nt 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 Plan", shall be compatible
with the architectural treatment of the Residential Townhouse (R-TH)
development.
Within the Community Business (C-3), and the Corporate Office (0-2)
tracts, the elevations of any rear wall of any building(s) visible
from Faz~hmm Drive shall be constructed with architectural elmw~nts
consistent with the overall architectural treatment of the individual
tracts.
Within the Community Business (C-3) tract, the following uses shall
not be permitted:
G.
H.
I.
L.
M.
N.
Q.
P.
~neral homes or mortuaries;
Occult Sciences such as pmlm reade=s, astrologers, fortune
tellers, tea leaf readers, prophets, etc.;
Automobile and motorcycle sales, services and/or repairs;
Taxidermies;
Veterinary hospitals and/or co-~-rcial kennels;
Material recl~mmtion receiving centers;
Cocktail lounges and nightclubs;
Hospitals;
Hotels;
Coin operated dry cleaning,
Iaundromats;
Warehouses;
Pawn shops;
Satellite Dishes;
Theaters;
Residential multifamily and townhouses;
Outside public address systpm-~.
pr es sing, 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
B.
C.
D.
Offices;
Churches and/or Sunday Schools;
Convalescent homes, nursing homes, rest homes;
Group care facilities;
3 91SN0231/PC/APR12H
10.
Bo
Libraries;
Muse~m~;
Nursery schools, child or adult day care centers
kindergartens;
Temporary construction trailers/buildings provided that:
(1)
<2)
and
The temporary structure shall be devoted exclusively to
construction activities on the premises; and
The temporary structure shall be removed upon
completion or abandonment of the construction
activities.
Within the Corporate Office (0-2) tract, identified as Tract A on "The
Plan", the following uses shall not be permitted:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Fire stations and rescue squads;
GoLf courses;
Hospitals;
Towers;
Hotels;
Funeral homes or mortuaries.
Prior to obtaining a building permit in the Commonity 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 permit is
obtained after June 30, 1991, the amount of the required
payment shall be adjusted upward or downward by the samm
percentage that the Marshall Swift Building Cost Index
increased or decreased between June 30, 1991, and thm 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 development.
OR
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 necessary for fire protection.
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
(21) days prior to the P]snning Gommission's consideration of the site
plan of the t~m, and date of site p]mn consideration..
4
91SN0231/PC/APR22H
i1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
No improvements in the C-3 tract other than parking and driveways
shall be constructed or installed within 370 feet of' the near~st
corner of the residence located at 804 Farntmm Drive and better known
as Tax Map 16-15 (4) Stonehenge, Section D, Block FF, Lot 1.
The size of the existing culverts located undez the existing Farnb~m
Drive, which dra4n 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 drains to the
existing pond on the Stonehenge Golf and Country Club property,
stormwater shall be stored so that the storage volume is that of a 50
year post-development storm with a release of ~ 10 year
pre-development storm. ~or that portion of the property which drains
to the existing pond on the Stonehenge Golf and Country Club property,
stormwater shall be stored so that the storage volume is that of a 50
year post ~evelopment storm with a release of a~ two year
pre-developmm~t storm. ' ........
For any drs~nage arma which will ult~mmtely drain to the existing pond
on the Stonehenge GoLf and Country Club property, the developer shall
not opt out of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act r~servations.
Within the Community Business (C-3) tract, a-maximax of 7100 sqnare
feet of gross floor ar~a per gross acre shall be permitted.
The m~ximum density of the Coam~nity Business (C-3~ tract shall be
51,000 square feet of shopping center or equivalmnt densities, as
approved by the Tr~n-~portation Depar~m--t.
Access to the Com~m~ty Business (C-3 tract shall be provided from
Route 60. The mxact location of this access(es) shall be approved by
the Transportation Deparh--nt. Access sb~l ] be provided from Route 60
wit.,the initial develo~t of the Co,,-,,unity Business (C-3) tract.
Prior to site plan approval, access' eas-m-~t(s), acceptable to the
Transportation Deparh.-~t, sbm]] be recorde~ to Route 60.
To provide for am adeqnate roadway system at the t~m- of complete
development, the developer shall be responsible for the following:
(a)
Construction of an additionm] lane of pavement (i.e., third
through lane) along the eastbound lanes of Route 60 for the
entire property frontage of the adjacent parcels to the north
(Tax Map 16-11 (1) Parcels 32, 33 and 3~).
(b)
Construction of additional pavement along the eastbound lanes of
Route 60 at each approved access to provide a separate right turn
lane o
Construction of. additional pav~m-~t with4- existing media~ along
the westbound ]~nes of Route 60 at each crossover that serves the
property, as determined by the Transportation Depar*m-nt, to
provide dual left turn lanes.
5 91SN0231/PC/APR22~
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Construction of 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.
(e) Full cost of A traffic signml at either the crossover on Route 60
that aligns Whitten Parkway or the crossover on Route 60, just
east of the Whitten Parkway intersection, if warranted, as
determined by the Trmnmportation Department.
(f)
Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted,
any additional right of way for (or easements) req,,~d for the
improvements identified above, and in the traffic 4mpact study,
prepared by J. K. T4~mons & Associates dated Jan%u~ry, 1992.
Dedication of a sixty (60) foot wide right of way to Chesterfield
County, free and unrestricted, from Far, btam Drive to the western
property line. The exact location of this stub road right of way
shall be approved by the Transportation Departm~t.
Prior to site plan approval, a phasing plan for rg~uired ~=g~__d
improvements identified in Proffered Condition 18 with support_~ng
traffic analysis, if requested by the Transportation Department, shall
be submitted to and approved, by the Tr~n-~portation Department.
There shall be no access from the Community Business (C-3) tract or
the Corporate Office (0-2) tract, identified as Tract A on "The Plan",
to existing or relocated Farnham Drive, and there sh,]l be no
vehicular access between the Community Business (C-3) tract and the
Residential Townhouse (R-TH) tract.
Prior to the granting of final certificates of occupancy for more than
25,000 square feet of building(s) in the Community Business (C-3)
tracts, Farmhmm Drive shai1 be relocated as generally shown on "The
Plan", constructed to state st~ndmrds and opened to traffic.
Prior to site plan approval, an accems easmm~_nt(s), acceptable to the
"~ra~s~ortation Department, sh~] l be recorded from Farnham Drive
through the Corporate Office (0-2) tract, identified as .Tract B on
"The Plan", to the adjacent property to the north.
Within the R-TH tract, a m~ximum of 124 residential townhouses sh~l ]
be permitted.
Residential townhouses shall have a minimum of 1,600 square feet of
finished, heated living area.
The architectural appearance of the resident~ml townhouses shall be
traditioD~i, colonial style with brick and frmmm facades s~m~mr in
appearance to the Westhmm Green community on Ridge Road in Henrico
County. Roof treaem-_nts shall have the appearance of cedar shingles.
91SN0231/PC/APR22_H
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
North and south lines of Farnham Drive, and southwest quadrant of Farnham
Drive and Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-15 (1) Part of Parcel 5 (Sheet
7).
Existing Zoning:
R-15 with Conditional Use Planned Develop~_e~t to permit cluster hom~s.
Size:
39.36 acres
ExistinKLand Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - A and R-15, and B-2 with Conditio~m] Use Planne~lDevelopment;
Single fmm~]y residential or vacant
South - R-15; Public/semi-public (Stonehenge Golf Club)
East - RrlS; Single fmm~ly residential or vacant
West - A and R-15; Vacant
PUBLIC FACII.TTIES
Utilities:
Water:
.... Use of public water required by Ordinance and is available.
Sufficient flow and pressure should be available to supply domestic
and fire flow needs for the proposed uses. Use of public water
intended.
Hastewater:
Use of the public wastewater system is required by Ordinance for the
proposed residential uses and is available. Comm-raiai uses may be
required to utilize the public system if a specific use dischmrges
more than 3,000 gallons per day and/or is within 200 feet of a
~astewater line extended with development of the site. Use of public
wastewater intended.
Drainage and Erosion:
The request property is bounded by the Falling Creek floodplain and th~
Stonehenge Golf Course. The site drains through either the golf course
property or directly into Failing Creek after flowing beneath Far~b~m
7 91SN0231/PC/APR22H
Drive. A substantial portion of the property that drains toward the golf
course flows into an existing small pond adjacent to the southern property
line. A small portion of the property may also drain to the east, into the
Routes 60/147 Drainage District. Amy water that dra~n-~ towards the
District must pay a pro-rata share for i~rovements in conjunction with
recordation of any right of way, or prior to obtaining building permits.
The request property is sparsely to heavily vegetated. Some ~Linor erosion
problems exist on the sparsely vegetated areas. That portion of the
property lying between Falling Creek and Fa/-~bmm Drive is located within
the 100 year floodplain. Existing culverts under Farnh~m Drive may not be
sized to handle add/tional runoff to the north. In addition, the golf
course frequently floods from Falling Creek; however, the golf course is a
permitted use within a floodplain and is, therefore, subject to flooding.
Off-site easements may be necessary to control runoff, particn]mrly in
those areas where the property does not drain directly into Falling Creek.
The existing pond and dra~nmge structure on the adjacent golf course
property is in excess of fifteen (15) years old; therefore, water from
those areas that drain into the golf course pond should be retained on~s. ite
by storing the fifty (50) year post-development and releasing-~e tw0--(~-)
year pre-development rates, or the pond should be analyzed and the
necessary improvements made such that the primary spillway passes the ten
(10) year storm. Storage should be provided such that it is not necessary
to increase the capacity of the culverts under existing Farnham Drive.
(Proffered Conditions 12 and.13)
The property adjacent to Falling Creek is subject to the 100 foot
conservation area require~ents of the Chesapeake Bay Regulations.. Further,
the remaining portions of the property are subject to the water quality
aspects of the Chesapeake Bay Ordinance. (Proffered Condition 14)
The streets shown on the concept,,al plan (Farnham. Way and Farnham
Boulevard) do not conform to the criteria for the base name (i.e. ,. Farnh~m)
and suffix (i.~., Way or Boulevard) within the Street Naming/House
Numbering _Ordinance. New ~m~ for these roads, which conform to this
Ordinance', ,-,st 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 standards (i.e.,. National Fire Protection Association and
Insurance Services Office).
The proposed zoning and land %t~e~ will generate additional need for fire
protection services. The applicant has submitted a proffer to address this
need. (Proffered 'Condition 9)
Schools:
Based on the applicant's Textual Statement, a total of 124 dwelling units
could be constructed. Approximately 73 school age children could be
9&SN0231/PC/APR22H
generated by this development. The site lies in the Gordon Elementary
School attendance zone: capacity - 718, enrollment -- 723; Midlothian
Middle School zone: capacity - 1,350, enrollment -' 1,397; and Monacan High
School attendm-ce zone: capacity - 1,750, enrollment -' 1,810. No further
additions to these schools are currently planned.
School zone configurations in NorthernChesterfleld will be affected by new
construction and rapid area growth. A new el-m-~tary school will be needed
by 1996 to relieve Gordon, Davis and R-~m~ El-m-n~m~"f Schools. Since the
applicant bm~ agreed to l~m~t the number of dwelling units penmitte~ to
that permitted under the current zoning, cash proffers for school impacts
has not been requested.
Transportation:
The applicant has proffered a. mm~imum density on the C-3 tract of 51,000
square feet of shopping center which could generate approximately
average daily trips (Proffered Condition 16). The applicant hms not
proffered a maximum density on the two (2) 0-2 tracts, based un the
general office trip rate, developmemt of the office tracts could generate
approximately 980 average daily trips. Based. on' the m~Y~,, density
proffered on the RT5 tracts, development of 1/4 residential townhouses
could generate approx~mmtel~ 785 average daily trips, for ~ total, project.
trip generation of 6,405 average daily trips (Profferext Condition 23).
These vehicles will be distributed along Midlothian. Turmpike (Route 60)
~hich ha~ a 1990 traffic aount of 37,260 v~_iclea per day, an~ Farn~m
~rive which had a 1991 traffic count of 2,604 vehiclea per day.
Development must adhere to the Zoning Ord~.nmnce relative to access and
intemnal circulation (Article 7). A proffer has been submitted, which
restricts access from the C-3 tract and 0,2. tract (Tract A) to Farnhmm
Road; therefore, access for these two tracts must be provident to Route 60
through the adjacent property to the north (proffered Condition
.-~.e~.trictiu~ access to Far~hmm Drive from these c~rcial and offic~tracts
will necessitate residents i~ th, subdivisions south of ~ subject
propert7 to travel along Route 60 in order to access the developments.
Access should be provided to Farnham Drive to ~mprove traffic flow to
site. Residents in the neighborhoods south of the site oppose any access
to ~arnham Drive because of a potential increase in cut-through traffic on
Far~h~m Drive and-other subdivisio~ streets. The applicant-.has.',.pro~fer~d
that no access will be provided to Farnbs~ Drive (Proffered Condition 20).
Staff recommends that the proffer not be accepted.
Mitigating road improvements must be provided for requested densities to
achieve an acceptable level of service. To evaluate the impact of this
request, a traffic analysis was submitted and approved. The applicant has
proffered to: 1) construct a third through lane along Route 60 across the
frontage of the adjacent property to the north; 2) construct a separate
right turn lane along Route 60 at each access that serves the property; 3)
construct dual left turn lanes along Route 60 at each crossover that serves
the property; 4) 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; 5) full cost of a traffic signal at either the
9 91SN0231/PC/APR22H
crossover on Route 60 that aligns Whitten Parkway or the crossover on Route
60 just east of the Whitten Parkway intersection; and 6) dedicate a sixty
(60) foot wide right of way from Farntmm Drive to the western property line
(Proffered Condition 18). The applicant has also proffered to
reconstruct/realign Farnhmm Drive to create two T-intersections (Proffered
Condition 21). The 0-2 tract, identified as Tract B, and the RTH tracts
will access existing or realigned Farnh~m Drive. The applicant has not
proffered to construct turn lanes or install a traffic signal, if
warranted, at the intersection of Farnham Drive and Route 60. Without a
commitment to provide those intersection improvements, the Trmn-~portation
Department cannot support this request.
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Midlothian Area Community Land Use and
Transportation Plan, which designates the property for planned transition
uses to include neighborhood office, personal services, medium den~.__it3'
housing and community facility uses. The Plan furth-_r notes-'~at natural
buffer areas should be provided to preserv~ th, integrity of the landscape
and to provide pedestrian access to a trail system. The Planned Transition
Area is intended to promote decreas~nE land use intensities in and around
centers that serve community trade areas.
Area Developm--nt Trends:
Property to the north and west, along Midlothian Turnpike, is zoned
residentially and agriculturally and is currently vacant or occupied by
single family residences on large parcels of land; however, a request for
rezoning to Co...-.unity Business (G-3) and Corporate Office (0-2), on the
majority of this adjacent property, is currently pending (Case 90SN0259,
Charles M. and Louis D. Marchetti). Adjacent property to the south and
east is zoned residentially and is occupied by single fmm{ly residences in
Stonehenge_ Subdivision, public/semi-public use (Stonehenge Golf Club), or
is vacant.
Zoning History:
On November 26, 1980, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable
recommendation by the Planning Commission, approved rezoning from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) with Conditional Use Planned
Development on the majority of the request property to permit cluster homes
(Case 80S131). One hundred twenty-four (124) cluster units were planned on
the subject property.
Site Design:
The conceptual plan depicts the proposed commercial and office tracts north
af ~arnham Drive to be developed in conjunction with adjacent property to
the north and northeast which is the subject of a companion zoning case
(Case 90SN0259, Charles M. and Louis D. Marchetti).. Access to the C-3
tract and the 0-2 tract, identified as Tract A, is planned through this
,~. 10 ~ 91SN0231/PC/APR22H
adjacent property (Proffered Conditions 17 and 20). In addition, the
applicant has further proffered to prohibit access for these tracts to
Earnham Drive (Proffered Condition 20). The Residential Townhouse (R-TH)
and Corporate Office (0-2) tract identified as Tract B would be permitted
access to a relocated Farnb~m Drive. Uses within the C-3 and 0-2 tracts
would be restricted (Proffered Conditions 6, 7 and 8). The proposed
residential townhouse tract would be located south of the commercial and
office tracts.
The request property lies within the boundmries of an Emerging Growth
District Area and, as such, development must conform to standards which
address access, parking, ' landscaping, architectural treatment, setback-~,
signs, buffers, utilities and screening of dumpsters and loading ar~as.
The applicant has proffered to suhmit, site plans to the Planning Commission
and to notify Stonehenge Civic Association of the time and date of such
submission. (Proffered Condition 10)
The applicant's zoning proposal could result in C-3 uses "backing--up" to
~arob~m Drive and Residential uses across Far-ham Driv~ fronting or siding
~arobmm Drive. Typically, land use transitions and compatibility ar~ best
accomplished where uses back up to each other with appropriate· buffers
between.
Architectural Treatment:
The applicant h~-~ proffered that architectural treatment of the C-3 tract
and the 0-2 tract, identified as Tract A will be similar to that of
Chesterfield Meadows, Laburnum Park and/or Midlothian Mmvket Place Shopping
Centers (Proffered Condition 3). The applicant has further proffered that
the architectural treatment for the R-TH tract s~m{]mr to that of the
Westb~m Green co-,-,unity on Ridge Road in Henrico County (Proffered
Condition 25), that the architectural trea~m-qt of the O-2 tract identified
as Tract B would be compatible with that of the R-TH tract (I~roffered
· .-.~i__o~.ditio~,4) amd that the elevations of the backs of buildings with C-3 and
0-2 tracts visible from Far~h~m Drive will be constructed of elements
consistent with the overall development. (proffered Condition 5~
Further, in the C-3 and 0-2 tracts, Emerging Growth District standards will
require that 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 quality, appearance, or detail to
any other exterior of the same building. There is, however, nothing to
preclude the use of different mate=isis on different build4ng exteriors,
but rather, the use of inferior materials on sides which face adjoining
property. No portion of a building constructed of ~mmdorued concrete block
or corrugated and/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
corrugated andfor sheet metal. Mecbmnical equipm-nt, wheth-r ground-level
or rooftop, must be shielded and screened from public view and designer to
be perceived as an integral part of the building.
In the R-TH tract, the Zoning Ordinance states that buildings should be
designed to impart harmonious proportions and to avoid monotonous facades
i1 9ISN0231/PC/APR22H
or large bulky masses; and should possess architectural variety, but
enhance an overall cohesive residential character. The Ordinance further
states that character should be achieved through the creative use of design
elements such as balconies and/or terraces, articulation of doors and
windows, sculptural or textural relief of facades, architectural
ornamentation, varied roof lines, or other appurtenances such as lighting
fixtures and/or planting. The Ordinance also suggests that rows of six (6)
units should be clustered and employ sufficient variety of setbacks between
units to avoid monotonous facades and bulky ma~ses.
Buffers & Screening:
In the C-3 and 0-2 tracts, the Zoning Ordinance 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 from 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._-:~a~d
6.:00 a.m. In addition, sites must be designed and buildings' -' ~riented-s°
that loading areas are screened from any property where loading areas are
prohibited and from public rights of way.
With the ap~proval of the C-3 zoning, outside storage would be pemmitted as
a restricted use. Outside storage ar-~ must be screened fr~m view of
adjacent properties which have no such areas and public rights of' way.
Adjacent property to the north and east of the C-3 and 0,2 tracts are zoned
agricultura~ ] y and residentially; however, as noted herein, adjacent
property to the north is currently the subject of a companion zoning case
for rezoning to C-3 and 0-2 (Case 90SN02_59, Charles M. and Louis D.
Marchetti). The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum fifty (50) foot buffer
along the eastern boundary of the easternmost 0-2 tract, adjacent to a
residence in Stonehenge Subdivision. The applicant has proffered not to
seek relief of this required buffer through the schematic or site plan
revi~ p~esses (Proffered Condition 1). In addition, the applicant has
proffered a 100 foot buffer in the C-3 tract adjacent to Farnbmm Drive and
between the C-3 tract and the proposed R-TH tract which lies on the north
side of Farnham Drive. (Proffered Condition 2)
In the R-TH tract, the Ordinance would require a fifty (50) foot buffer
along those boundaries adjacent to Residential (R-15) zoning.
Staff questions the ability of the 100 foot buffer in the C-3 tract
adjacent to Farnham Drive to provide effective screening and ~d use
transition.
Conclusions:
As previously noted, the proposed Community Business (C-3) zoning and land
use do not conform to the Midlothian Area Co-,,,,~nity Land Use and
Transportation Plan, which designates the property for Planned Transition
Area uses. Specifically, the Plan designates the request property and
12 91SN0231/PC/APR22J{
surrounding area for mixed use development that contributes to an overall
transition to the smaller scale, pedestrian-oriented environment of
Midlothian Village located to the west. To this end, pr~mmry uses within
Planned Transition Areas should include neighborhood office, medium to high
density residential, personal services, and community facilities designed
to promote, decreasing land use intensities and minimize the impact of
traffic. Such development should be compatible with surrounding
neighborhoods in scale and quality.
The proposed C-3 zoning and land use is representative of intense
commercial development, more typical of the Midlothian Turnpike corridor,
east of Courthouse Road. SUch ~evelopm~t is typically automobile-orientad
and has a tendency to attract customers from a larger service area.
Approval of C-3 zoning and land use could establish a precedent for slm~l mw
commercial developm~-t along this portion of Midloth~mn ~urnpike, in the
vicinity of Midlothian VilLage and Stonehenge Subdivision. While it might
be contended that property lying on the north side of Mid_lothian Turnpik~
has been approve~ for community retail-type services s~m~ ~ar to- that
proposed on the request side, the relationskip of that property to ar~a
residential development is much different than that which exists on the
subject site.
Although the proposed residential townhouse end corporate office zombies
and land uses conform to the Plan, any request for such uses should include
the entire property. In this manner, a properly designed and coordinated
development could be ensured, while at the same t~mm es.tablish appropriate
l~nd use transitions.
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recomm-~d-d.
CASE HISTORY
Plan~'.z~g_ ~ Commission Meeting (8/20/91):
At the request of the applicant, the Comm~ssiom deferred this case for
sixty (60) days.
Staff (8/21/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new ~nformation
should be submitted no Later than Sept-mber 3, 1991, for consideration at
the Commission's October public hearing.
Staff (9/23/91):
To date, no new information has been received.
13 91SN0231/PC/APR22H
Plannin§ Commission MeetinE (10/15/91):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for
sixty (60) days.
Staff (10/16/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any substantial chanEes should be
submitted no later than November 4, 1991, for consideration at the
Gommission's Dec-mher 17, 1991, public hearing.
Staff (11/22/91):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (12/17/91):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this ~ase for
sixty (60) days.
Staff (12/19/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any substantial changes or new
information should be submitted no later tha~ January 6, 1992, for
consideration at the Commission February public hearing.
Staff (1/10192):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Applicanfi'(2/f~]92):
The applicant submitted a request to amend the application for rezoning to
C-3 of 12.18 acres, to R-TH of 28.46 acres plus Conditional Use Planned
Development on the entire 40.6 acres.
In addition, the applicant submitted a number of proffered conditions. The
applicant failed to submit the required fee and, therefore, the amendment
was not processed.
Staff (2/17/92):
Staff advised the applicant that we could not process the amendment until
the required fee was paid.
14 91SN0231/PC/APR22}{
Planning Comm{ssion Meeting (2/18/92):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for
thirty (30) days.
Staff (2/19/92):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised
{n~ormation should be submitted no later than Feb~,~y 24, I99l, for
consideration at the Commission's March public hearing.
Staff (3/2/92):
To date, no new information has been submitted. A meeting is scheduled-
with the applicant, ar~a property owners and the Midlothian and CloverHill
~istricts Commissioners on Mmr~h 3, 1992. Staff will advise
of the results of that meeting at theM arch public hearing.
Staff, Applicant, Area Property Owners and the Midlothian District Cnmm~ssione~
(3/3/92):
A meeting was held to further discuss the proposed rezoning to C-3 and R-T~
with Conditional Use Plmn-ed Development. The applicant indicated that
they were not ih a position to reduce the density or intmn~ity of the
development.
Planning Commission Meeting (3/17/92):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation.
There was opposition present. Concern was expressed that the proposed
zoning and land uses represented commmrcial encroachment into a r~sidential
area and failed to provide appropriate land use transitions. Concerns were
aiso expressed relative to traffic, densities, h~ffers and potential
adverse impact upon area residences.
Mr. Miller indicated that a deferral may be appropriate to allow the
applicant an opportunity to address these concerns.
Mr. Easter indicated that the applicant has had an opportunity to address
these concerns and had failed to do so.
Mr. Easter indicated that it was the general consensus of the citiz-n$ thmt
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 extr-m-iy 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 Midiothian Turnpike. He indicated
15 91SN0231/PC/APR22~t
that this chart showed that these projects were substantially larger in
gross square footage than most of the shopping centers on Midlothian
Turnpike; and that most projects have access to two (2) arterim]m versus
only one (1) arterial, as is the case with these projects. .Ne indicated
that his concerns were the size of the project; the density; and access to
only one arterial. He also indicated that there were already traffic
problems on Midlothian Turnpike and those problem~, would continue with
growth. He further indicated t_hat there was also a traffic problem on'
Farnham Drive, and this project could increase those probl-m~. He stated
that the request did not represent a good use of the property.
Mr. Gulley indicated that the case had a number of probl~m~: (1) the land
use did not conform to the Midlothian Village Plan; (2) the density and
the size of ehe 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. He 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.
stated there were also concerns as to the affect this developmmnt would
have on Stonehenge residents. He also indicated that it had .been
out that the Country Club never received any legal proffer~i- regarding
drainage. Mm. G,,lley stated that he was a strong advocate of long-range
plans. He indicated for these reasons he could not support these
On motion of Mr. Easter, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission resolved to
recommmnd denial of the request to rezone the property to Community
Business (C-3) and Residential Townhonse (R-TH) with Conditional Use
Planned Development, as depicted on the attached map titled "Req,,e~t as
Considered by the Planning Commission."
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Cunningham, Easter and Marsh.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Miller.
Applicant (3/31_/92):
An amended application was. submitted as discussed herein. Specifio~lly,
the original request was for rezoning 12.18 acres to Community Bus,nmos
(C-3) and 28.46 acres to Residential Townhouse (R-TH) with Conditional Use
Planned Development.
The amended request is for rezoning 7.78 acres to Corporate Office (0-2),
7.42 acres to Co~monity Business (C-3), and 24.16 acres to Residential
Townhouse (R-TH).
Applicant (4/8/92):
The proffered conditions, as outlined herein were subEuitted.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, April 22, 1992, beginning at 7;00 p.m.,
will take under consideration t~is request.
16 91SN0231/PC/APR2ZE
,4
iii!1111111
¢
OLDE COACh,
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
+ + '1- -I, ++++++4-+++
++++4,+++++++++++++
lillltlll
OLDE COACh/
+++++
++++++++++++
STONEHENG
I
~91S N0231 (AMENDED)
~ ~'~-'15 TO O- 2
~'"~ DR-15 TO C-3
/k__/'~ I"~R-15 TO R-TH
'/-,,~SH. 7
A
D!
A
¢
OLDE COACH/,
ililllllllt~.~l!.lllllLILIal.lllllli
t
?
.I
t
/
/
+++
xx LEGEND /-'~--
\x ~ATER LINES
\ -~"-'~S~ER LINES
-15'
~ \ \ ... .... .: .....
~x 90SNO~59(AMENDED) :91SNObOl(AMENDED)
~ REZ:~A YO 0-2 '< ~REZ:~R-15 TO 0-2
"~. ~A TO C-3 :~ ~R-~5 TO C-
SH. 7 . /'~ ~R-15 TO R-TH.
.,.,,,,," ~ : "xJX~.,,~ ~'/'~
,. ~..,,,t:, ..... _: ~ ~--:~[ :,,....:~- ~:- ..... )~ ,~--" ...-.,
-NO~' ~NCt_uOED
/
. I: ~ ~: .... ~ ~ . / ~~ ~ ~::~X ~ ~
...... ..... ~~~ ~..- · ...: ....~.
. . · .... .... ~ 5~ ~.:~. ,..~.~.
. ~,~~i~ ~ ~ ~~ ,,.,.,,~ .,,.,,..~.,.. ~.::~:~ ~ ~
............................. ' ....
::~ ~ ~:~ _
.......................... ~,, .....
:::::::::::::::::,'~ ~-:
:::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~: '-~'
................. ~ ......... _~'~ ~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
,:.: ...... :.:.:,:::.:~..:~/ I ~ ',..'.. L'-..'. '..-'.'','-... ,~,:~ 2',,'.:-~ ~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
============================= I ~E .,-. Y. :'~'-.'. :'-; ·
.... -'~ ..::'[ ...... ' .'
........ ... --:..
.... ~,~ ...... ::::::'
~,~::::::::::,:.. ~,. ~ ~..:....?.~~~
~ .....................
: ........... ~j.... .......
:::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::: , /
:~::"~" / REQ~ST AS CONSIDERED BY~ ~ ~
'::~ ii ! THE P~ANNING COMMISSION
4 '~ ) ~ ~. ~/ ~
~ ~ SH. ? ~ ) ~ R-15 TO R-TH
' ~X
Stonehenge Civic Association
P.O. Box 84
Midlothian, Virginia 23113
April 21, 1992
Members of the Board of Supervisors, County of Chesterfield~ Virginia The Honorable Harry Daniel, Chairman
The Honorable Art Warren, Vice Chairman
The Honorable Ed Barber
The Honorable Whaley Colbert
The Honorable Jack McHale, III
Rezoning Requests by Bonarco and by Marchetti
(91SN0231) (90SN0259)
Bentlemenm
It is difficult, after 24 months with these projects, that I do not feel
a point has been reached which would give me a reason to go to my
neighborhood and ask for their support.
Obviously, the prospective developers have visions which are in contrast
with the area south of Midlothian Turnpike and east and west of Fapnham
Drive. This area has remained undeveloped and was brought into the
Midlothian Area Community Land Use Plan without objection by the owners~
who are the current persons/entities requesting rezoning.
Why should there be any O-3 zoning allowed in that area ? If any
zoning is considered for that area, why would it ever be considered at a
level in significant contrast to the land use plan and in significantly
higher levels than those levels for similar~developments in areas which
have been designated for 0-3 ?
I~ the infrastructure ready ir, the area to serve the transportation and
drainage needs of existing and approved developments ? Both see~ to be
currently strained and getting worse annually. How can we consider ~he
requests which are in contra~t to a land use plan which already ~a~ be
too little, too late.
In reality, we can consider and we must consider those requests which
are brought to our governing bodies through proper procedures. However,
we do not need to approve plans which are not good for the overall
health, welfare and safety of our communities. We have established
la~d use plans and should be comfortable making decisions within the
context of those plans, unless there is a very good reason to deviate.
You have a great deal of responsibility~ the residents look to you for
your wisdom. Please contact me directly if I can assist, clarify,
muster a workshop meeting with some of our Association representatives.
With best personal regards,
Sincerely,
James E. Harris, President
m Konnoth and Mary Ann Harmon
1 lC J40 Durrington Drive
Richmond, VA 23236
April 16, 1
A. S. Warren
Clover Hill Supervisor
Chesterfield County
3401 Silliman Terrace
Chesterfield VA 23832
Dear Sup~ervlsor Warren:
We are residents of Stonehenge Subdivision and moved from a major urban area. in
1983. We have enjoyed our "little bit of country" and have made an extra effort to
be active, contributing citizens. But now we are threatened by big business and
commercial developers encroaching in a way that could eventually ruin this
desirable, residential community.
We understood the original plan for the undevelped land entering from Route 60
onto Farnham Drive to be for high quality condominiums and cluster homes in this
same area. Now we are deeply concerned that you may be unduly influenced by the
hollow promises made by "big dollar" contributors. Please don't forget us, the
families who live in and have built this community into the desirable
neighborhood. We have made our investment based on prior planning.
The latest proposal by Marchetti and Bonarco (rezoning cases #90SN0259 and
91SN0231) will create an unneeded and undesired, high density shopping center
development and high density apartments which will be the magnet and final
connection for a new flow of unsafe, high volume traffic from Courthouse Road,
through Smoketree, into and out of Stonehenge onto to Route 60. How can there be
enough retail dollars to support another shopping center near the size of
Chesterfield Town center less than a mile away?
Thi~ kind of commercial development requires "out-front" county investment in
more police and fire protection. What if this designed development becomes yet
another vacant shopping center lot along Route 60 and empty apartments along a
beautiful golf course? Let's be realistic. Our economy is not in a position to
sustain this kind of growth without taking a breath. We also question how much
study has been given to the current drainage problem in the area. A problem
already exists and may be complicated on sub-surface drainage if this proposal is
approved.
Page two
April 16, 1992
The oMginal decision to allow commercial development on Courthouse Road instead
of using this road as a connector between Routes 60 and 360 was Wi~tTIpII~. We, the
residents, must now live with this decision. But, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT let
another retail development be placed so that it draws traffic through a residential
area which already includes two (2) schools and a church.
We respect the decision of your Planning Commission. They said #0 to this
proposal. They are the experts; they also said #0 to the Courthouse Road proposal.
We hope you believe in the wisdom of their expert advice. We are not so naive as to
believe that there will never be a commercial use of this property on Route 60.
But the density ef this proposal will not serve the best interests of the entire
community now or in the future.
Thank you for your serious consideration.
Mary Ann Harmon