07SN0386
September 18, 2007 CPC
October 16, 2007 CPC
October 24, 2007 BS
November 20, 2007 CPC
November 28, 2007 BS
January 9, 2008 BS
January 15, 2008 CPC
January 23, 2008 BS
STAFF’S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
07SN0386
Broad Street Partners Commercial LLP
Bermuda Magisterial District
Elizabeth N. Scott Elementary; Chester Middle;
and Thomas Dale High School Attendance Zones
East line of Jefferson Davis Highway
REQUEST:Rezoning from Agricultural (A), Community Business (C-3), General Business
(C-5) and Residential (R-7) to Community Business (C-3) with Conditional Use
to permit multifamily uses plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit
light industrial uses and exceptions to Ordinance requirements.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A mixed use development consisting of commercial, industrial and multi-family
residential uses is planned. The residential component of this development is to
be limit to 385 dwelling units (Proffered condition 15). This would yield a
density of approximately 5.9 units per acre on the residential tract.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF
THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON PAGES 2 THROUGH 8.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval subject to the applicant addressing concerns relative to the impact on
capital facilities and standards for sidewalks, street trees, front loaded garages and focal points.
This recommendation is made for the following reasons:
Ю±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ Ú×ÎÍÌ ÝØÑ×ÝÛ ½±³³«²·¬§¬¸®±«¹¸ »¨½»´´»²½» ·² »®ª·½»
A.The proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Jefferson Davis Highway
Corridor Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for general commercial
and residential use of 7.01 to 10.0 units per acre and under certain circumstances,
industrial uses.
B.The proffered conditions do not adequately address the impacts of this
development on necessary capital facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance
and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the needs for roads, schools, parks,
libraries and fire stations is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, the
Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement Program, and the impact of this
development is discussed herein. The proffered conditions do not mitigate the
impact on capital facilities, thereby insuring adequate service levels are
maintained and protecting the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
C.The request fails to adequately provide the specific design standards relative to
the provision of sidewalks, street trees and a focal point as well as minimizing the
visual impact of garage doors facing the street, typically provided for higher
density residential projects.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSEDOR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY
PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE
AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY
A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A
"CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONSRECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.)
CONDITION
(STAFF/CPC)A minimum of fifty (50) foot buffer shall be provided along Osborne Road.
This buffer width shall be measured from the ultimate right of way line of
Osborne Road. This buffer shall meet the Ordinance requirements for fifty (50)
foot buffers. (P)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
The Owners and the Developers for themselves and their successors or assigns (the “Developer”)
in this zoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended)
and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, proffer that the development of the property
known as Chesterfield County Tax Identification Numbers 798-656-4174, 798-656-7198, 798-
656-8099, 798-657-3703, 798-657-5657, 799-655-4194, 799-656-0212, 799-657-3802, 799-658-
6575 (Part), 800-656-5991, 798-657-0830, 800-658-9359 (the “Property”) under consideration
will be developed according to the following conditions if, and only if, the rezoning request for
C-3 with a conditional use (CU) and with a conditional use planned development (CUPD) is
granted. In the event the request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the
Developer, the proffers and conditions shall immediately be null and void and of no further force
or effect.
îðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
The application contains one exhibit described as follows:
Exhibit A (Tract Plan) – Plan titled “Exhibit A: Land Use Plan,” dated September 24, 2007,
prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., showing Tract boundaries.
(STAFF/CPC) 1. Master Plan. The Textual Statement dated October 10, 2007, shall be
considered the Master Plan for the development. (P)
(STAFF/CPC) 2. Timbering. Except for timbering approved by the Virginia State
Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or diseased
trees, there shall be no timbering on the Property until a land disturbance
permit has been obtained from the Environmental Engineering
Department and the approved devices installed. (EE)
(STAFF/CPC) 3. Ponds. If any of the existing ponds on the Property remain, the dams
shall be retrofitted and certified. If any of the existing ponds on the
Property are used for stormwatermanagement, the pond(s) shall be
retrofitted in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for
BMP basins. (EE)
(STAFF/CPC) 4. Utilities. The public water and wastewater systems shall be used, except
for sales facilities and/or construction offices. (U)
(CPC) 5. Cash Proffers. The applicant, subdivider,or assignee(s) shall pay the
following to the County of Chesterfield prior to the issuance of any
residential building permit for infrastructure improvements within the
service district for the Property in excess of 312 dwelling units:
A.$15,600 per dwelling unit in excess of 312 dwelling units located
on the Property, if paid prior to July 1, 2007. At the time of
payment, the $15,600 will be allocated pro-rata among the facility
costs as follows: $602 for parks and recreation, $348 for library
facilities, $8,915 for roads, $5331 for school facilities, and $404
for fire stations.
B.Provided, however, that if any building permits issued in excess of
312 dwelling units on the Property are for senior housing, as
defined in the proffer on age-restriction, the Developer shall pay
$10,269 per dwelling unit if paid prior to July 1, 2007, or the
amount approved by the Board of Supervisors, not to exceed
$10,269 per dwelling unit as adjusted upward by any increase in
the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2006
and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid
after June 30, 2007. At the time of payment, the $10,269 will be
allocated pro-rata among the facility costs as follows: $602 for
íðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
parks and recreation, $348 for library facilities, $8,915 for roads,
and $404 for fire stations. Payments in excess of $10,269 shall be
prorated as set forth above.
C.Provided, however, that if any building permits issued in excess of
312 dwelling units on the Property are for affordable housing, the
Developer shall pay $0 per dwelling unit. Affordable housing
shall be defined as any dwelling unit constructed for a household
whose income is sixty (60) percent or less than the area median
income (ex: Richmond MSA or other defined area used by the
funding agency or group) and affordable housing funding or
financing is provided by VHDA or other similar agency or non-
profit group (e.g. Better Housing Coalition) that provides funding
or financing in keeping with the Federal Tax Credit program for
affordable housing. In addition, a deed restriction shall be placed
on the affordable housing units requiring them to meet the
affordable housing criteria for a minimum of fifteen (15) years.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any affordable
housing unit, the Developer of the affordable housing shall provide
documentation to the County that the funding or financing has
been provided for the construction of affordable housing in
keeping with the Federal Tax Credit program. Examples of such
documentation include a “Section 42M letter” from VHDA or a
“carry forward allocation agreement” as those terms are used
and/or defined by VHDA from time to time, or other
documentation that is reviewed and approved by the Chesterfield
County Attorney.
D.Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or
as otherwise permitted by law. Should Chesterfield County
impose impact fees at any time during the life of the development,
the amount paid in cash proffers shall be in lieu of or credited
toward, but not in addition to, any impact fees, in a manner as
determined by the County. (B&M)
(STAFF/CPC) 6. Transportation Density. The maximum density of the development shall
be 250,000 square feet of light industrial; 250,000 square feet of
warehouse; 570,000 square feet of shopping center; and 385 apartments,
or the equivalent density as determined by the Transportation
Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC) 7. Access.
A.Prior to any site plan approval, access easements, acceptable to the
Transportation Department, shall be recorded across the Property
to ensure future shared cross access with Tax ID 801-656-2576 and
ìðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Tax ID 798-658-0445. The use of the easement(s) and any
construction required for the easement(s) use shall occur if and
when Tax ID 801-656-2576 or Tax ID 798-658-0445 requires such
access. All improvements necessary to facilitate the use of the
easement(s) shall be the sole responsibility of others.
B.Direct vehicular access from the Property to Jefferson Davis
Highway (Route 1) shall be limited to three (3) entrances/exits.
Two (2) entrance/exit points shall align with the existing
intersections on Jefferson Davis Highway that serve Redwater
Ridge Road and Trollingwood Lane. The remaining direct
entrance/exit to Jefferson Davis Highway shall be limited to right-
turns-in and right-turns-out only. The exact locations of these
accesses shall be approved by the Transportation Department.
C.There shall be no direct vehicular access from the Property to
Osborne Road. (T)
(STAFF/CPC) 8. Dedication. The following rights-of-way shall be dedicated, free and
unrestricted, to Chesterfield County prior to any site plan approval, in
conjunction with recordation of the initial subdivision plat, or within sixty
(60) days from the date of a written request by the Transportation
Department, whichever occurs first:
A.Sixty (60) feet of right-of-way on the east side of Jefferson Davis
Highway (Route 1) measured from the centerline of that part of
Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) immediately adjacent to the
Property.
B.Thirty-five (35) feet of right-of-way on the south side of Osborne
Road measured from the centerline of that part of Osborne Road
immediately adjacent to the Property. (T)
(STAFF/CPC) 9. Transportation Improvements. To provide an adequate roadway system,
the Developer shall be responsible for the following improvements. The
exact design of these improvements shall be approved by the
Transportation Department. If any of the improvements are provided by
others, as determined by the Transportation Department, then the specific
required improvement shall no longer be required by the Developer of the
Property.
A.Construction of additional pavement along the northbound lanes of
Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) at each approved access to
provide separate right turn lanes.
ëðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
B.Construction of additional pavement along the northbound lanes of
Jefferson Davis Highway at the Home Depot shopping
center/Redwater Ridge intersection to provide dual left turn lanes.
C.Construction of additional pavement along the southbound lanes of
Jefferson Davis Highway at the Home Depot shopping
center/Redwater Ridge Road intersection to provide dual left turn
lanes.
D.Construction of additional pavement along Redwater Ridge Road
at its intersection with JeffersonDavis Highway to provide a six
(6) lane typical section (i.e. four (4) westbound lanes - two left turn
lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane, and two (2)
eastbound lanes).
E.Restripe the exiting lanes of the southernmost access that serves
the parcel identified as Tax ID 798-655-1253 (Home Depot
shopping center) at its intersection with Jefferson Davis Highway
to provide an eastbound left turn lane and an eastbound through
lane/right turn lane.
F.Full cost of traffic signal modifications at the Jefferson Davis
Highway/Home Depot shopping center/Redwater Ridge Road
intersection, as determined by the Transportation Department.
G.Full cost of traffic signalization at the Jefferson Davis
Highway/Trollingwood Lane intersection as determined by the
Transportation Department.
H.Construction of additional pavement along the southbound lanes of
Jefferson Davis Highway at the Trollingwood Lane intersection to
provide dual left turn lanes.
I.Construction of additional pavement along Trollingwood Lane at
its intersection with Jefferson Davis Highway to provide a six (6)
lane typical section (i.e. four (4) westbound lanes - two left turn
lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane, and two (2)
eastbound lanes).
J.Restripe the exiting lanes of the northernmost access that serves
the parcel identified as Tax ID 797-656-6244 (Bermuda Crossroad
Lane) at its intersection with Jefferson Davis Highway to provide
an eastbound left turn lane and a through lane/right turn lane.
K.Construction of additional pavement along the eastbound lanes of
West Hundred Road (Route 10) at the Jefferson Davis Highway
êðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
(Route 1)/West Hundred Road (Route 10) intersection to provide
dual left turn lanes.
L.Full cost of traffic signal modifications at the Route 10/Route 1
intersection, as determined by the Transportation Department.
M.Construction of additional pavement along the northbound lanes of
Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) at the Jefferson Davis
Highway (Route 1)/Osborne Road intersection to provide dual left
turn lanes.
N.Construction of additional pavement along the westbound lane of
Osborne Road to accommodate two (2) receiving lanes for the dual
northbound left turn lanes from Route 1.
O.Full cost of traffic signal modifications at the Route 1/Osborne
Road intersection, as determined by the Transportation
Department.
P.Relocation of the ditch to provide an adequate shoulder along the
south side of Osborne Road for the entire Property frontage along
Osborne Road.
Q.Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, of any
additional right-of-way (or easements) required for the
improvements identified above. In the event the Developer is
unable to acquire any “off-site” right-of-way that is necessary for
the road improvements described in this Proffered Condition,
excluding Proffered Conditions 9.D. and 9.I., the Developer may
request, in writing, that the County acquire such right-of-way as a
public road improvement. All costs associated with the acquisition
of the right-of-way shall be borne by the Developer. In the event
the County chooses not to assist the Developer in acquisition of the
“off-site” right-of-way, the Developer shall be relieved of the
obligation to acquire the “off-site” right-of-way and shall provide
the road improvements withinavailable right-of-way as
determined by the Transportation Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC) 10. Phasing Plan. Prior to any site plan or tentative subdivision plat approval,
a phasing plan for the required road improvements, as identified in
Proffered Condition 9, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Transportation Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC) 11. Age Restriction. Except as otherwise prohibited by the Virginia Fair
Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and such other applicable
federal, state or local legal requirements, dwelling units designated as age-
éðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
restricted shall be restricted to “housing for older persons” as defined in
the Virginia Fair Housing Law and nopersons under 19 years of age shall
reside therein. (P)
(STAFF/CPC) 12. Senior Housing. Any dwelling units designated for senior housing as
defined in Proffered Condition 11 shall be noted on the site plan. Such
dwelling units shall be grouped together as part of the same development
section(s). (P)
(STAFF/CPC) 13. Buffers.
A.A minimum of two hundred and seventy five (275) feet of
separation (“Separation Area”) shall be provided between any
multifamily residential building and any industrial building. This
area is generally shown on Exhibit A as the Resource Protection
Area located on Tracts B and C.Within the Separation Area, a one
hundred foot buffer shall be provided (based on the zoning
ordinance requirements for a 100 foot buffer). The buffer may be
provided within Tract B or C or both tracts, based on site
conditions, as determined at the time of site plan review.
B.No construction shall occur within the RPA area as generally
shown on Exhibit A; however, landscaping and screening as
permitted by Ordinance; signs, security fencing, utilities and roads
which run generally perpendicular through the RPA; pedestrian
walkways and similar uses may be permitted at Subdivision or Site
Plan review.
C.A seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be provided along the western
property line of Tax Identification Number 800-658-9359 that is
north of the creek (“Northwestern Property”). This buffer may be
reduced to fifty (50) feet at the time of site plan review provided a
screen is included within the buffer. If the residential properties
adjacent to the Northwestern Property have been developed as
commercial or industrial uses at the time a site plan is approved for
the Northwestern Property, then no buffer shall be required. (P)
(STAFF/CPC) 14. Security. Prior to any site plan or subdivision approval for the dwelling
units, the owner or its successor shall either (a) enter into a contract with
the County providing for the permanent presence of a Chesterfield County
police officer on the premises for a minimum of ten (10) hours per week
for 52 weeks a year or (b) annually submit a security plan to the
Chesterfield County Police Department for review and approval. The
department’s review may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the
type, frequency and severity of crimeat the property to determine if the
plan requirements should be modifiedup to and including the owner or its
èðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
successor entering into a contract with the county or other approved entity
for providing on site security personnel. The owner or its successor shall
implement the approved security plan as may be modified from time to
time. (PD)
(STAFF/CPC) 15. Density: The maximum number of dwelling units permitted on Tract B
shall be 385 units.(P)
(STAFF/CPC) 16. Affordable Housing Density. The maximum number of affordable
housing units, as defined in Proffered Condition 5.C., permitted on Tract
B shall be 60 units. (P)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
East line of Jefferson Davis Highway, north of Redwater Ridge Road, south line of
Osborne Road and west line of I-95. Tax IDs 798-656-4174, 7198 and 8099; 798-657-
0830, 3703 and 5657; 799-655-4194; 799-656-0212; 799-657-3802; 800-656-5991; 800-
658-9359; and 799-658-Part of 6575.
Existing Zoning:
A, C-3, C-5 and R-7
Size:
190.8 acres
Existing Land Use:
Commercial, manufactured home park and vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North- R-7, A and C-3; Single-familyresidential, commercial or vacant
South- C-3 and C-5; Commercial or vacant
East- C-3 and I-3: Vacant
West- C-3 and C-5; Commercial
çðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
There is a twenty-four (24) inch water line extending along the east side of Jefferson Davis
Highway within an easement across this site.A twelve (12) inch water line extends along
Redwater Ridge Road and terminates adjacent to the southwestcorner of this site and an
existing eight (8) inch water line extends along the north side of Osbourne Road, opposite
the northern boundary of this site. The applicant has proffered to use the public water
system. (Proffered Condition 4)
Public Wastewater System:
The public wastewater system is available to serve this site. There is a twelve (12) inch
wastewater trunk line extending across the northern portion of the request site and an eight
(8) inch collector line along the southern boundary of this site.The twelve (12) inch
Moore’s Lake wastewater trunk line extends across the eastern boundary of this site. The
applicant has proffered to use the public wastewater system. (Proffered Condition 4)
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
The property drains to the northeast under I-95 to Redwater Creek and then to Proctors
Creek and the James River. There are no existing or anticipated on- or off-site drainage
or erosion problems.
The property is wooded and should not be timbered without obtaining a land disturbance
permit from the Department of Environmental Engineering (Proffered Condition 2). This
will insure that adequate erosion controlmeasures are in place prior to any land
disturbance.
Water Quality:
The stream adjacent to, and through part of, the northern portion of the property is
perennial and is subject to a 100-foot conservation area inside of which uses are very
limited. A perennial flow determination will need to be performed and submitted to the
Department of Environment Engineering, Water Quality Section, for approval for any
additional streams on the property. If any additional streams on the property are found to
be perennial, they will also be subject to a 100-foot conservation area.
If any of the ponds are to remain on the property, the dams will have to be analyzed for
structural stability and hydraulic capacity and retrofitted.If they are to be used as
BMP’s, the ponds must be retrofitted inaccordance with Environmental Engineering
requirements for BMP’s. (Proffered Condition 3)
ïððéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Department of Economic Development is in support of the rezoning proposed in case
07SN0386 Moore’s Lake. The project will bring additional light industrial property to the
market that is buffered and correctly positioned adjacent to Interstate 95 and across from the
northeast quadrant of I95 and Rt. 10, which continues to develop for light industrial uses. In
addition, the project proposes to renovate a blighted property in the Jefferson Davis Highway
Corridor. Portions of the property were included in the recent Enterprise Zone boundary
amendment to encourage just such commercial and industrial development. The Department of
Economic Development rarely supports residential development but in this case, as part of a
mixed-use development, the residential component is a product that makes the project
economically feasible and will provide needed quality worker housing for the growing
businesses in the area.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for schools, parks, libraries, fire stations, and transportation facilities is identified in the
County'sPublic Facilities Plan,Thoroughfare Plan, and Capital Improvement Program and
further detailed by specific departments in the applicable sections of this request analysis.
Fire Service:
ThePublic Facilities Plan indicates that fire and emergency medical service (EMS) calls
are expected to increase forty-four (44) to seventy-eight (78) percent by 2022. Six (6)
new fire/rescue stations are recommended for construction by 2022 in the Plan. In
addition to the six (6) new stations, the Plan also recommends the expansion of five (5)
existing stations.
In the Textual Statement (Items III.B.2.e. and f.), the applicant is requesting the minimum
distance between multifamily dwellings be fifteen (15) feet and building height the lesser
of sixty-five (65) feet or four (4) stories. It should be noted this will be reviewed at the
time of site plan submittal in accordance with the 2003 International Fire Code. Aerial
access fire lanes might be required if buildings are over thirty (30) feet in height.
In the Textual Statement (Item III.B.2.g.), the applicant is requesting the option of having
gated access to the property. This too will be reviewed at the time of site plan submittal
in accordance with the 2003 International Fire Code. In addition, the Fire Department
supports Ordinance requirements for provision of a second access to a public road prior
to the issuance of occupancy permits for more than fifty (50) dwelling units.
Based on 385 dwelling units, this request will generate approximately 104 calls for fire
and emergency medical service (EMS) each year. The applicant has failed to fully
address the impact on Fire and EMS facilities. (Proffered Condition 5)
The Dutch Gap Fire Station, Company Number 14, and Bensley Bermuda Volunteer
Rescue Squad currently provide fire protection and emergency medical service. When
ïïðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
the property is developed, the number of hydrants, quantity of water needed for fire
protection, and access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review process.
Schools:
Approximately 204 students (Elementary:89, Middle: 50, and High: 65) will be
generated by this development. Currently, this site lies in the Elizabeth Scott Elementary
School attendance zone: capacity - 900, enrollment – 722; Chester Middle School zone:
capacity – 864, enrollment – 988; and Thomas Dale High School zone: capacity - 1,851,
enrollment - 2,434. The enrollment is based on October 1, 2007 and the capacity is as of
2006-2007.
This request will have an impact at the middle and high school levels. There are
currently six (6) trailers at Chester Middle and thirteen (13) at Thomas Dale High
Schools.
The new Elizabeth N. Scott Elementary School opened this fall and the new Elizabeth B.
Davis Middle School is scheduled to open in 2008. The new elementary school provides
relief for elementary schools in the Chester area and the new middle school will provide
relief for Chester and Carver Middle Schools. This portion of the county continues to
experience growth and these schools, will provide much needed space.
This case combined with other residential developments and zoning cases in the area, will
continue to push these schools over capacity,necessitating some form of relief in the
future. The applicant has not offered to fully address the impact of this development on
school facilities. (Proffered Condition 5)
Staff has major concerns with the “affordable housing” portion of Proffered Condition 5.
For such units, the Developer has not offered to address their impacts. Affordable
housing generates school children and in some cases generates a greater number of
students on average than would be yielded in conventional housing. Therefore, as noted
above, the developer has not fully addressed the impact the development would have on
schools.
Libraries:
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors’ policy, the impact of development on library
services is assessed countywide. Based on projected population growth, The Public
Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space throughout the County.
The development noted in this case would most likely affect the Chester Library or the
Central Library. The Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space
in the Chester area. The applicant has not offered to fully address the impact of this
development on library facilities. (Proffered Condition 5)
ïîðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Parks and Recreation:
ThePublic Facilities Plan identifies the need for three (3) regional, seven (7) community
and twenty-nine (29) neighborhood parks by 2020. In addition, there is currently a
shortage of community and neighborhood park acreage in the county. The Public
Facilities Plan identifies a need for 354 acres of regional park space, 252 acres of
community park space and 199 acres of neighborhood park space by 2020. The Plan also
identifies the need for linear parks and resource based-special purpose parks (historical,
cultural and environmental) and makes suggestions for their locations. It also addresses
the need for addition of recreational facilities to include sports fields, trails, playgrounds,
court games, senior centers and picnicking area/shelters at existing parks to complete
build-out and identifies the need for water access and trails along the James and
Appomattox Rivers and their major tributaries, Swift and Falling Creeks. Co-location of
facilities with middle and elementary schools is desired.
The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact of this proposed
development on these parks and recreation facilities. (Proffered Condition 5)
Transportation:
The subject property (approximately 191 acres) is located along the east side of Jefferson
Davis Highway (Route 1), just north of East Hundred Road (Route 10). Approximately
14 acres of the property is located within the Jefferson Davis Highway Enterprise Zone.
The applicant is requesting rezoning to General Business (C-5) with a Conditional Use to
permit multi-family uses plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit light
industrial uses. The Transportation Department cannot support this application due to the
following issues: 1) Traffic impact of the residential development is not addressed per
the Board of Supervisors’ Cash Proffer Policy, and 2) the potential for the county to assist
the developer with acquisition of “off-site” right-of-way along roads that are not part of
theThoroughfare Plan.
This request will not limit development to a specific land use; therefore it is difficult to
anticipate traffic generation. The applicant has proffered a maximum density of 250,000
square feet (sf) of light industrial, 250,000 sf of warehouse, 570,000 sf of retail, and 385
apartment units, or equivalent density based on traffic generation (Proffered Condition 6).
The development could generate approximately 26,100 average daily trips (ADT). These
vehicles will be distributed along Route 1, which had a 2006 traffic count of 25,278
vehicles per day between Route 10 and Route 288. Based on the current volume of
traffic it carries during peak hours, Route 1 in this location is a four-lane highway that
accommodates (Level-of-Service C) the volume of traffic it currently carries. No public
road improvements in this part of the county are currently included in the Six-Year
Improvement Plan.
TheThoroughfare Plan identifies Route 1 as a major arterial with a recommended right-
of-way width of 120 to 200 feet and Osborne Road as a collector with a recommended
ïíðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
right-of-way width of seventy (70) feet. The applicant has proffered to provide right-of-
way dedications consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan (Proffered Condition 8).
Access to major arterials, such as Route 1, should be controlled. The applicant has
proffered to limit vehicular access to three (3) access points along Route 1 (Proffered
Condition 7B). Two (2) access points will align with the existing intersections on Route
1 that serve Redwater Ridge Road and Trollingwood Lane. The remaining access shall
be limited to right turns-in/right turns-outonly, generally located midway between the
other accesses. The applicant has proffered no direct vehicular access to Osborne Road
(Proffered Condition 7C).
The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. In order to assist with
evaluating this request, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted to and approved
by staff. Consistent with the TIA, the applicant has proffered to construct the following
road improvements:
1)Construction of right turn lanes for all approved access points along Route 1;
2)Route 1/Redwater Ridge Road/Home Depot shopping center Intersection:
a. Construct dual left turn lanes in northbound and southbound
directions;
b.Construct 6-lane typical sectionon Redwater Ridge Road at its
intersection with Route 1;
c.Provide full cost of traffic signal modifications.
3)Route 1/Trollingwood Lane/Bermuda Crossing Lane Intersection:
a.Construct dual left turn lanes southbound into Trollingwood Lane;
b.Construct 6-lane typical section on Trollingwood Lane at its
intersection with Route 1;
c.Provide full cost of traffic signalization.
4)Osborne Road, relocation of ditch to provide adequate shoulder along the
south side of Osborne Road for the entire property frontage.
5)Route 1/Route 10 Intersection:
a.Construct dual left turn lanes from eastbound Route 10 to northbound
Route 1;
b.Provide full cost of traffic signal modifications.
6)Route 1/Osborne Road Intersection:
a.Construct dual left turn lanes from northbound Route 1 to westbound
Osborne Road;
b.Construct additional lane along westbound Osborne Road to
accommodate dual left turn lanes;
c.Provide full cost of traffic signal modifications.
Acquisition of “off-site” right-of-way will be necessary to construct several of the road
improvements noted above. According to Proffered Condition 9Q, if the developer needs
“off-site” right-of-way for these proffered road improvements, excluding 9.D. and 9.I and
is unable to acquire it, the developer may request the county to acquire the right-of-way
as a public road improvement. All costs associated with the acquisition will be borne by
ïìðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
the developer. If the county chooses not to assist with the right-of-way acquisition, the
developer will not be obligated to acquirethe “off-site” right-of-way, and will only be
obligated to construct road improvements within available right-of-way.
Area roads need to be improved to address safety and accommodate the traffic increase
generated by this residential development. The applicant’s request for the residential part
of the development is not consistent with the Board of Supervisors’ Cash Proffer Policy.
As development continues in this part ofthe county, traffic volumes on area roads will
substantially increase. Cash proffers alone will not cover the costs of the improvements
needed to accommodate the traffic increases.
VDOT’s “Chapter 527” regulations, dealing with development Traffic Impact Study
requirements, have recently been enacted. Staff has been meeting with VDOT to attempt
to understand the process and the impact of the regulations. VDOT has indicated that in
addition to the analysis provided to the county, VDOT will require the developer to
analysis the Interstate 95/Route 10 interchange.At this time, it is uncertain what impact
VDOT’s regulations will have on the development process or upon zonings approved by
the county.
As previously noted, without the applicant addressing the traffic impact of the residential
development, the Transportation Department cannot support this request.
ïëðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
PERUNIT
Potential Number of New Dwelling 385*1.00
Units
Population Increase 1047.202.72
Number of New Students
Elementary89.710.23
Middle 50.050.13
High 65.070.17
TOTAL204.820.53
Net Cost for Schools 2,058,980$5,348
Net Cost for Parks 232,540604
Net Cost for Libraries 134,365349
Net Cost for Fire Stations 155,925405
Average Net Cost for Roads 3,442,6708,942
TOTAL NET COST 6,024,480$15,648
* Based on a proffered maximum of 385 dwelling units (Proffered Condition 15). The actual
number of dwelling units and corresponding impact may very.
As noted, this proposed development will have an impact on capital facilities. Staff has
calculated the fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, roads, parks, libraries, and
fire stations at $15,648 per unit. The applicant has been advised that a maximum proffer of
$15,600 per unit would defray the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by this proposed
development. The applicant has further been advised that a maximum proffer of $10,269 per
dwelling unit would offset the cost of capital facilities necessitated by the age-restricted portion
of the development, as it will haveno increased impact on school facilities.
The applicant has offered $15,600 for each dwelling unit in excess of the 312 dwelling units
currently allowed on the property (Proffered Condition 5). This would be the equivalent of
offering $2,958 for each of the 385 new units that are proposed. The applicant has been advised
that, per policy, credit is not given for those dwelling units permitted under existing conditions of
zoning or agricultural lots, nor will consideration be given to the transfer of allowable units from
other properties.
Conditions proffered by the applicant seek further to eliminate the cash proffer for building
permits issued in excess of 312 for “affordable housing” units. The applicant has been advised
that the county does not have an affordable housing program and there is not one in
ïêðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
development. Moreover, based on proffer policy, the Board will accept cash proffer payments
based on the impact established at the time of rezoning. While the language offered in the proffer
is deemed acceptable, because the county does not have an affordable housing program, current
policy does not offer consideration for affordable housing units. Conditions as proffered in this
case do not adequately address the impact of the proposed development on capital facilities.
Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed
and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash proffer in this case.
Staff recommends the applicant fully address the impact of all units on capital facilities.
The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, through their consideration of this
request, may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this request that may
justify acceptance of proffers as offered for this case.
Police:
The applicant is proposing to build a high-density residential project as part of the overall
development. With the support of the county administration, the Police Department
seeks to have developers of new high density residential projects implement its
recommendations for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) which
are planning and designing principles that constitute proactive crime prevention tools.
Through CPTED principles, proper design and effective use of the environment can lead
to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime. In addition, the Police Department
recommends that high-densityresidential projects either enter into a contract for the
permanent presence of a police officer on the premises or annually submit a security plan
to it for review and approval.
The applicant has addressed the Police Department's security concerns in its submissions;
accordingly, the Police Department supports this request. (Proffered Condition 14)
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor Plan which suggests
the property is appropriate for general commercial and residential use of 7.01 to 10.0
units per acre and under certain circumstances more intense uses such as high density
residential, commercial and industrial uses. Specifically, the property is located in a
flexible redevelopment area. In these areas the Plan suggests certain criteria be
considered during the rezoning process for any proposed more intense uses. This criteria
includes, among other things: Parcels supporting more intense uses shall be of sufficient
size to establish substantial, viable areas of more intense use; adequate setbacks and
buffers should be required; and no intense commercial/industrial uses shall be located
adjacent to single family residential uses.
ïéðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Area Development Trends:
The area is characterized by a mixture of commercial and residential uses to the north
along Osborne Road and commercial or vacant properties to the west along Jefferson
Davis Highway and to the south and east. A mix of residential, commercial and
industrial uses is anticipated to continue in the area, as suggested by the Plan.
Zoning History:
On December 13, 1972, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation
from the Planning Commission, approved rezoning with Conditional Use to allow
apartment units on property which included the request property (Case 72-110C). The
Zoning Ordinance required that Conditional Uses expire unless within eighteen (18)
months from the date it is granted, a valid building permit was obtained. Building
permits were not obtained to construct the apartments. Therefore, Case 72-110C expired.
On November 25, 1987, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation
from the Planning Commission, approved rezoning to allow industrial uses on a portion
of the request property. (Case 87S138)
On February 28, 2001, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation from
the Planning Commission, approved rezoning to allow limited commercial uses and
industrial uses on a portion of the request property. (Case 01SN0176)
Site Design:
The 190.8-acre request property is proposed for Community Business (C-3) zoning with
Conditional Use to permit multi-family uses plus Conditional Use Planned Development
to permit light industrial uses and exceptions to Ordinance requirements. A mixed-use
project consisting of residential, commercial, and industrial uses is planned.
A Land Use Plan submitted with the application divides the property into three (3)
development tracts, one designated as a commercial area, a second as a residential area
and the third as an industrial area. The boundaries and sizes of tracts may be modified
provided they maintain their relationship with each other and with adjacent properties.
(Textual Statement II)
The request property lies within the Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor District. Unless
specifically regulated by proffered conditions and the Textual Statement, redevelopment
of the site or new construction must conform to the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, which address standards to encourage reinvestment and revitalization of the
area. Such standards address access, parking, landscaping, architectural treatment,
setbacks, signs and screening.
ïèðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Uses Permitted Within Tracts:
As previously noted, the development is separated in to three (3) tracts or use areas:
Commercial (Tract A), Residential (Tract B) and Industrial (Tract C). Uses permitted
within these areas and minimum developmentstandards for each use are outlined in the
Textual Statement and further described herein.
Commercial: (Tract A)
Tract A consists of approximately 67.9 acres. This area is to be developed
commercial and office uses (Textual Statement III.A). Specifically, Community
Business (C-3) uses, which include office uses, would be permitted. As
previously noted, development would be required to meet Jefferson Davis
Highway Corridor District standards for Community Business (C-3) uses, except
as provided in the Textual Statement and proffered conditions.
Residential: (Tract B)
Tract B, designated as a Residential area is comprised of approximately 65.7
acres. Only multifamily residential uses are permitted in Tract B (Textual
Statement III.B). Development of multifamily units would conform to the
requirements of the Multifamily Residential (R-MF) Zoning District unless
otherwise provided for in the Textual Statement (Textual Statement III.B). In
addition, buildings within Tract B are to front on a street, open space, courtyard or
parking area. The applicant has agreed residential development will be limited to
a maximum of 385 units. (Proffered Condition 15). A maximum of sixty (60) of
these units could be affordable housing units. (Proffered Condition 16).
Industrial: (Tract C)
Tract C consists of approximately 57.2 acres. This area is to be developed for
industrial uses (Textual Statement III.C). In addition, sales, service, repair and
rental of tools and equipment, utility trailers and farm implements and machinery
would be permitted.
Parking:
For Tracts A and B it is requested that on-street parking be allowed to count towards the
required number of parking spaces for all uses (Textual Statement III. A. and B.). Given
the intended urban character of the development, Staff supports such exception.
Except for the provision of counting on-street parking as discussed above, parking for
uses in Tract A will be calculated based on Zoning Ordinance requirements.
The Ordinance requires the provision of two (2) off-street parking spaces for each
dwelling unit in Tract B. An exception is requested to permit parking within garages or
ïçðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
other enclosed or covered parking areas to be credited towards this minimum requirement
(Textual Statement III.B.). While staff supports such exception since it reduces the
amount of impervious area and furthers the intended new urbanism theme, the developer
and future owners should be cautioned that it will not be possible in the future to convert
garages into living space.
Parking for uses in Tract C will be calculated based on Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Other Development Standards:
As previously noted, development within Tracts A and C will conform to the
requirements of the Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor Standards, except as modified by
the Textual Statement and proffered conditions. In addition to Ordinance requirements,
the Textual Statement contains additional development standards for Tract B.
Typically, where exceptions to Ordinance development standards (i.e. minimum
setbacks) are requested for residential developments, there are specific design standards
suggested by staff in an effort to achieve superior quality and housing sustainability for
higher density residential projects. These standards address street trees and sidewalks,
open space, and focal points, among other things. As previously noted, in Tract B
development is to comply with multifamily residential requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance except as modified by the Textual Statement. Reduced setbacks for
development within this tract are proposed. The requirements offered for Tract B are not
totally consistent with those typically required by the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors on similar residential projects recently approved(Textual Statement III.B.2).
Where these requirements differ are with respect to sidewalks and street trees, focal point
and garages. Specifically, the applicant has agreed to provide sidewalks, but not on both
sides of streets or areas where homes front.In addition, the applicant has not agreed to
provide street trees. The applicant notes that due to the design and layout of the
residential tract there would be no need for the typical sidewalks or street trees.
While the applicant has agreed to provide a minimum of one (1) acre of useable open
space, out of a total of approximately 6.6 acres, of this one (1) acre a minimum of .25
acres can serve as a focal point. Typically in such developments, a minimum of .75 acres
is provided as a focal point. The typical focal point should be provided.
The applicant has not offered to provide the typical setback for any front-loaded garages.
In such developments the policy has been that front loaded garages be located no closer
to the street than the front façade of the dwelling unit. This standard should be applied in
this case.
Recreation Areas:
Development requirements for the multifamily tract will require the provision of a
recreation area which would include both active and passive recreation uses. However,
îððéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
the applicant wishes to have the option of providing active or passive uses as well
(Textual Statement III.B.2.h.).
Building Height:
The maximum building height for developmentin Tract B would be four (4) stories or
sixty-five (65) feet, whichever is less (Textual Statement III.B.2). Height restrictions of
the Zoning Ordinance for structures in commercial and industrial districts will regulate
buildings in Tracts A and C.
Buffers and Screening:
Buffers are designed to provide horizontal distance and open space between certain uses;
preserve vegetation; provide transition and separation; and, reduce noise and glare. Since
the request property is proposed for rezoning to C-3 with multifamily residential and
industrial uses permitted by Conditional Use and Conditional Use Planned Development,
no buffer is required by the Zoning Ordinance between the proposed commercial and
residential or commercial and industrial uses. There is nothing offered with this case to
maintain any open space or to provide a buffer between the commercial and residential
uses. Proffered Condition 13.A. only requires a minimum 275-foot of separation
between any multifamily residential building and any industrial building in Tracts B and
C. The proffer provides that within this area a 100-foot buffer will be provided and that it
could be located totally within either tract or split between tracts.
Proffered Condition 13.C. requires the provision of a seventy-five (75) foot buffer along
that portion of the western property line of property identified as Tax ID 800-658-9359
lying north of the creek on the northernmostportion of the property. This buffer may be
reduced under certain circumstances. Additionally, a buffer should be provided to
minimize the impact of development on residential uses north of Osborne Road.
(Condition)
A Resource Protection Area (RPA) is located on portion of the property. The applicant
has agreed no construction will occur within this RPA, excepted as noted in Proffered
Condition 13.B.
Further, the applicant has provided that loading areas within Tract C will be oriented
away from or screened from dwelling units in Tract B. (Textual Statement III.C.2.b.)
Age Restriction:
Proffered Condition 11 provides for the optionof limiting occupancy of some or all of
the proposed dwelling units to “housing for older persons” as defined in the Virginia Fair
Housing Law. While during the initial marketing of the project this restriction may be
clear to prospective occupants, there is a risk that long-term, dwelling units may be
occupied by individuals that do not meet this age-restriction. Given staff’s inability to
pro-actively enforce this condition, staff recommends that this proffer not be accepted.
îïðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Proffered Condition 12 requires any housing units designed for occupancy by seniors to
be grouped together and identified on site plans in an effort to accurately track the
impacts on capital facilities and long term enforcement of the occupancy restrictions.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor Plan
which suggests the property is appropriate for general commercial and residential use of 7.01 to
10.0 units per acre and under certain circumstances industrial uses. Specifically, among other
criteria, the industrial uses would have to be on a parcel of sufficient size to provide a substantial
and viable area for the use; adequate setbacks and buffers; and the use should not be located
adjacent to single family residential uses.
However, the proffered conditions do not adequately address the impacts of this development on
necessary capital facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Specifically, the needs for roads, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations is identified in the
Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement Program, and the
impact of this development is discussed herein. The proffered conditions do not fully mitigate
the impact on capital facilities, thereby insuring adequate service levels are maintained and
protecting the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
Given these considerations, approval of this request is recommended, subject to the applicant
addressing concerns relative to the impact on capital facilities and standards for sidewalks, street
trees, front loaded garages and focal points.
CASE HISTORY
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (9/18/07):
The applicant submitted a revised Textual Statement and plan along with revised
proffered conditions.
Planning Commission Meeting (9/18/07):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to October 16, 2007.
______________________________________________________________________________
îîðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Staff (9/18/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than September 24, 2007, for consideration at the
Commission’s October 16, 2007, public hearing.
Also, the applicant was advised in writing that a $230.00 deferral fee must be paid prior
to the Commission’s public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (10/1/07, 10/2/07, 10/10/07, 10/11/07 and 10/12/07):
An amended plan, Textural Statementand proffered conditions, were submitted
Applicant (10/3/07):
The deferral fee was paid.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Planning Commission Meeting (10/16/07):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their November 20, 2007,
public hearing.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Staff (10/17/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than October 22, 2007, for consideration at the
Commission’s November 20, 2007, public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Board of Supervisors Meeting (10/23/07):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their November 28, 2007, public
hearing, pending the Commission’s recommendation on this case.
Applicant (10/24/07, and 11/01/07):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
îíðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Planning Commission Meeting (11/20/07):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their January 15, 2008, public
hearing.
Staff (11/21/07):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than November 26, 2007, for consideration at the
Commission’s January 15, 2008, public hearing.
Applicant (11/28/07):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (11/28/07):
This case was carried over to the Board’s January 9, 2008, meeting since the Procedures
of the Board prohibit consideration of zoning cases after November 6, 2007, given that a
majority of the Board was not re-elected.
Applicant (11/30/07 and 12/4/07):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (1/9/08):
Since the Commission deferred consideration of this case to their January 15, 2008
meeting, the Board cannot act on this request on January 9, 2008.
Staff (12/11/07):
If the Commission acts on this case on January 15, 2008 it will be schedule for the
Board’s consideration on January 23, 2008.
Applicant (1/15/08):
Revised and additional proffers were submitted .
îìðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Planning Commission Meeting (1/15/08):
The applicant did not accept staff’s recommendation, but did accept the Planning
Commission’s recommendation. There was support and opposition present. Those in
support noted the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and represents the
desired project to help revitalize the Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor. Those in
opposition noted the difficulty in relocating the displaced residentsand their homes and
the lack of spaces within the county to move to.
Mr. Hassen indicated this is a difficult case and his concern for the limited available
space for displaced residents. He noted, however the significant road improvements, and
the revitalization efforts.
On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Mr. Bass, the Commission recommended
approval subject to the conditions and acceptance of the Proffered Conditions on pages 2
through 8.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Bass, Brown, Hassen, and Waller.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 beginning at 6:30 p.m.,will take
under consideration this request.
îëðéÍÒðíèêóÖßÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
This page is blank.
Textual Statement
Broad Street Partners Commercial, LLP
June 29, 2007
Revised September 18, 2007
Revised October 1, 2007
Revised October 2, 2007
Revised October 8, 2007
Revised October 10, 2007
This application contains one (1) exhibit described as follows:
Exhibit A (Tract Plan) – Plan titled “Exhibit A: Land Use Plan,” dated September 24, 2007,
prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., showing Tract boundaries.
±
I.Rezone. Rezone 190.8 acres (the “Property”) from A, C-3, C-5 and R-7 to C-3 with a
Conditional Use Planned Development (“CUPD”) and Conditional Use (“CU”) to permit
zoning ordinance exceptions as described herein, and as provided in the accompanying
proffers.
II.General Conditions for Tracts A, B, and C.
To accommodate the orderly development of Tracts A, B, and C, the Tracts shall
be located as generally depicted on the Tract Plan, but their location and size,
including further divisions into Sub-Tracts (a designated portion of a Tract), may
be modified (such as moving the location of a Tract boundary) so long as the
parcels generally maintain their relationship with each other and any adjacent
properties. A plan for Tract modification shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval. Such plan shall be subject to appeal in
accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan appeals.
Sub-Tract divisions may be created at the time of Tentative Subdivision or Site
Plan approval and shall not require a separate review as a Tract modification,
provided there is no adjustment in the overall Tract boundary.
III.Requirements and Exceptions for Specific Tracts.
A.Tract A (Commercial/Office).
1. PermittedUses.
Permitted Uses shall be limited to uses permitted by right and with certain
restrictions in the Community Business (C-3) District.
2. Requirements.
a.Except for the exceptions and modifications to the Zoning
Ordinance that are set out in the Textual Statement, all uses shall
1
This page is blank.
conform to the requirements of the Jefferson Davis Highway
Corridor Standards for office and commercial uses.
b. Parking.
If on-street parking is permitted, those spaces shall be counted
towards the required number of parking spaces for all uses.
B.Tract B (Multifamily Residential).
1. PermittedUses.
Permitted Uses shall be limited to apartments.
2.Requirements for Tract B.
a.Except for the exceptions and modifications to the Zoning
Ordinance that are set out in the Textual Statement, the uses shall
comply with the Multifamily Residential District (R-MF) standards
of the Zoning Ordinance.
b. Parking.
(i)If on-street parking is permitted, those spaces shall be
counted towards the required number of parking spaces.
(ii)Any garage parking or other type of enclosed and/or
covered parking area shall be counted toward the
calculation of the required parking spaces, including
tandem garage spaces.
c. Setbacks.
(i)All dwelling units shall beset back a minimum of fifteen
(15) feet from interior private driveways, proposed rights-
of-way, and fire lanes.
(ii)All dwelling units shall be set back a minimum of seven
and one-half(7.5) feet from any parking space or detached
garage(s) or detached covered parking space(s), unless the
garage or covered parking is incorporated into the dwelling
units, then there shall be no setback.
(iii)Dwelling units shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from
adjacent property lines that are external to the Broad Street
Partners project.
2
This page is blank.
d.Location of Buildings. Buildings shall front on a street, open
space, courtyard, or parking area.
e.Distance Between Buildings. The minimum distance between
multifamily residential buildings shall be fifteen (15) feet.
f.Building Height. Building shall be the lesser of sixty-five (65) feet
or four (4) stories in height.
g.Access. Access to the Property may be gated with a system
approved by the Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Department.
h.Recreation Area Required. The required recreational area shall be
provided for passive and/or active recreational use.
i.Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be provided along the streets, open
spaces, courtyards, or parking areas where buildings front.
Sidewalks shall be provided to facilitate pedestrian access to and
between Tracts A and B.
j.Open Space. A minimum of 10% of Tract B shall be devoted to
open space. Open space shall include Resource Protection Areas.
Of this open space, a total minimum of one (1) useable acre [which
may or may not be divided into three (3) separate areas, provided
the minimum area for each part of the open space is one fourth
(0.25) of an acre]. At least one of the following facilities shall be
provided within the open space (orwithin each part, if divided):
clubhouse, hardscaped areas with benches, plazas, courtyards,
neighborhood parks, tot lots, trails, and recreational facilities and
one of the areas (if divided) shall serve as the focal point.
k.Driveways. All driveways shall be hardscaped.
C.Tract C (Industrial).
1. PermittedUses.
a.Permitted Uses shall be limited to uses permitted by right and with
certain restrictions in the I-1 District.
b.Tool and equipment rental, sales, repair, and service.
c.Utility trailer and truck rental, sales, repair, and service.
d.Farm implements and machinery sales, service, rental and repair
establishments.
3
This page is blank.
2.Requirements in Tract C.
a.Except as set forth herein, Industrial development on the Property
shall comply with the Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor
Development Standards.
b.Loading areas shall be oriented away or screened from the
dwelling units, if such areas are visible from the dwelling units, as
determined at the timeof site plan review.
\4632571.8
4
This page is blank.
This page is blank.
This page is blank.
Wj..Jt~t ~U~JNt~$ IrAlrl... ~ .
CHESTERFIELD.
CHAMBER of COMMERCE ·
*
November 9, 2007
Dear Members of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors,
The Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the rezoning of the
property currently occupied by the Americana Trailer Park off of Jefferson Davis
Highway. The plan for a mixed use development called Moores Lake Commons on that
property will revitalize a portion of our county that is in great need of support.
The fact that industrial is part of the plan along with retail and residential is of particular
interest to the Chamber. The opportunity to bring jobs to the area is welcomed just as
much as the opportunity to provide improved housing options.
While an unfortunate byproduct of the revitalization is the displacement of the Americana
residents, it appears that the developers have allocated adequate resources ($1 million
dollars) to assist current residents in. moving. Additionally, the developer has planned
more than $3 million dollars in much needed road improvements.
The Moores Lake Commons project appears to be exactly the type of project Chesterfield
County needs. The Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce urges this board to
approve the rezoning request for Moores Lake Commons.
Sincerely,
~j
Chairman, Ches erfield County Chamber of Commerce
January 9, 2008
Ms Dorothy Jaeckle, Supervlsor
Bermuda District,
Chesterfield County, Virginia
PO Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Dear Dorothy,
The Board of the Chester Business Association is in full support of the proposed
development known as "Moores Lake Commons. H
This project:
.. Is in accord with the County's Comprehensive Plan for General Commercial
and Residential Development
.. Is in accord with the goal of revitalizing the Jeff-Davis. Corridor. (A portion
of the property is in the Jefferson Davis Enterprise Zone)
.. Will generate tax revenues far beyond those derived from current usage
.. Will contribute to improving Chesterfield's mix of residential/commercial
tax revenues
.. Will drastically decrease the demand for County services over what is now
consumed by residents of the area
. Includes substanial off-site road improvements
The CBA hereby encourages you and the whole of the Board of Supervisors to vote
positively for the necessary re-zoning that is needed to make the Moores Lake
Commons project a reality.
Sincerely,,,
~.~
Colin Connelly, President
Chester Business Association
cc: Sam Hassen, Bermuda District, ChesterfieLd County Planning Commission
September 24, 2007
Chesterfield County Planning Commission
Post Office Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832..()()4()
Case 07SN0386-Broad Street Partners Commercl.al, LLP
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing to you to express my support of the Broad Street Partners rezoning
case. I . support . Broad Su-eet Partners' plan to develop a mixed...use community on
propertY located near the intersection of Jefferson Davis Highway and Route 1 Q. I have
been a partner in Presidential Motor Inn. Association for 32 years. Weownproperty
located at 12149 Jefferson Davis Highway, near the southwest comer of the proposed
proj ect.
The Jefferson Davis conidor is continuing to improve over time. However,this
improvement willonlyoontinue to occur if larger scaleproj@ts, such as the BroadStreet
Partners project, can catalyze; new growth and .'raise the bar" for development standards
in the area. I am hopeful that the County will recognize the long term investmenttbat
could be realized from approving the Broad Street PBrtnersdevelopment
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about our support.
Sincerely,
/~\?~(/#J(j
Bernard 1. Kart
Presidential Motor Inn Association
Cc: Samantha Dunkle
September 24th, 2007
RECEIVED
SEP 2 6 2f1fJl
DIREC1'OR p . .
'LANNINi ,"
., . . 1'''7
Chesterfield County Planning Commission
Post Office Box 4()
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832-0040
Re: Case~Proposed Rezoning of Property on Jefferson Davis Highway
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing to you to express my support of the proposed rezoning to permit
cornmercial~ residential::multifamily...and light industrial development on the properties
located near the intersection of Jefferson Davis Highway and Route 10. 1 currently own
Bubble Wash II, LLC, a car wash located at 12001 Bermuda Crossroad Lane, across the
street from the property currently under consideration.
The proposed mixed-use development would help to continue to revitalize the
Jefferson Davis corridor. The project will attract new businesses which will help the
economic growth in the area. The developer has proposed high quality housing which
will also be an asset to the area The housing will attract new people to support existing
and future businesses in along Jefferson Davis Highway.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about our support.
Sincerely,
~~------
,//
./
./' Young You
.// Bubble Wash II, LLC
Cc: Samantha Dunkle
FROM : AAA PLUt'IB I NG
FAX NO. :757 565 3542
Nov. 1~ '-~~~ l~!~gPf;\ Pi
November 12, 2007
Chesterfield County Planning Commissioo
Post Office Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832-0040
Re: Case 07SN0386..,.. Proposed Rezoning of Property on Jefferson Davis Highway
Dear Planning Coounissioners:
In regard to approval of the proposed rezoning of the multi-use devclopn:t.ent located near
the intersection of Jefferson Davis Highway and Rt 10, I would like to express my full
:iupport for the planned development of this project I am impressed with the design of
the residential multifamily, commercial and light industiial opportunities. 1'h.e new
housing should offer excellent OptiOll5 for the residential growth impacting our area from
the Fort Lee expansion.
Thankyo'4
~f~
Howard Jones '
Nov 19 07 03:40p
804-496-6001
Texas Roadhouse, Virginia
Date: November 12, 2007
Chesterfield County Planning Commission
PO Box 40
Chesterfield, Va 23832
Re: Case 07SN0386 - Proposed Rezoning of Property on Jefferson Davis Highway
Planning Commission:
AS a strong supporter ot the ChestertleJd county"S smart commercIal growth plan, 1 wish
to offer my support for the reference application. My company, Texas Roadhouse, has
lllterest m cxpanamg to the Jetterson Uavls Hwyl West Hundred corndor as a result ot
the planned multi use development.
Sincerely,
p,1