99SN0172J[h-i~.~"y ~ n -~ nnn r~'nt-~
February 24, 1999 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
99SN0172
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
Bermuda Magisterial District
East line of South Chester Road
Rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Multi-family Residential (R-MF) with
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a child care center and bulk
exceptions, as outlined in the Textual Statement.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A multi-family complex currently exists on the property (Ashton Creek
Apartments). This development is non-conforming. Rezoning and Conditional
Use Planned Development is sought to bring the complex into conformance with
the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the multi-family residential uses, a child care
center would be permitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND ACCEPTANCE OF
THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON PAGE 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval subject to the propereg owner addressing the density limitation, as suggested
by the Plan. This recommendation is made for the following reasons:
mo
The Chester Village Plan suggests the property is appropriate for residential use
of 2.51 to 8.0 units per acre. A density of 9.06 units per acre does not comply
with the adopted Plan.
Bo
The proposed child care center will provide a neighborhood service for area
residents.
Co
Multi-family residential use currently exists on the property as a non-conforming
use, as well as on adjacent property to the north. With the approval of this
request, there would be no increase in the number of units that have developed on
the property. Further, the granting of the bulk and development standards
exceptions would allow redevelopment of the property consistent with the existing
site design.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER 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 CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
(STAFF/CPC) 1.
The plan prepared by E.D. Lewis and Associates, P.C. dated
March 28, 1998, with a revision date of May 27, 1998, shall be
considered the Master Plan and the summary, submitted with the
application, dated August 28, 1998, shall be considered the Textual
Statement. In general, any new or redevelopment of the site shall
comply with the Master Plan and Textual Statement, except as
modified herein. (P)
(NOTE: Except as modified by the Master Plan, Textual Statement
and conditions herein, development must conform to the R-MF
standards of the Zoning Ordinance.)
(STAFF/CPC) 2.
Except where the R-MF standards are more restrictive, any child
care use shall conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
for Neighborhood Office (0-1) Districts in Emerging Growth
Areas. (P)
pROFFERED CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC) 1.
Direct access from the property to South Chester Road shall be
limited to one (1) entrance/exit. The access shall be the existing
entrance/exit from the property to South Chester Road unless
otherwise approved by the Transportation Department.
(STAFF/CPC) 2.
A maximum of 232 dwelling units shall be permitted on the
property.
99SN0172/WP/FEB24K
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
East line of South Chester Road, south of Curtis Street.
and 41).
R-7
Size:
Tax ID 790-650-8154 (Sheets 32
25.6 acres
E;~isting Land Use:
Multi-family residential
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - R-7; Multi-family residential
South - R-7 and A; Single family residential or vacant
East - R-7; Single family residential or vacant
West - R-7; Single family residential or vacant
UTILITIES
The property is served by the public water and wastewater systems. Continued use of the public
water and wastewater systems is intended and is required by County Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
The property drains directly into tributaries of AshtOn Creek. There are no existing or
anticipated on- or off-site drainage or erosion problems.
Water Quality:
Existing improvements predate the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) requirements
and are subject only to the Floodplain Management Ordinance. Any redevelopment must
conform to CBPA requirements for redevelopment. These requirements are less strict than
3 99SN0172/WP/FEB24K
CBPA requirements for new development; however, redevelopment could be affected by
these standards.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for fire, school, library, park and transportation facilities is identified in the l~blic
Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the FY1999-2003 Capital Improvement Program. This
proposal will not increase the number of dwelling units from that which currently exists.
Therefore, there should be no additional impact on these facilities.
Fire Service:
This property is currently served by the Bensley Fire/Rescue Station, Company Number
3 and Bensley-Bermuda Rescue Squad. Since this proposal will not increase the number
of dwelling units from that which currently exists, there should be no increase in the
number of emergency calls for fire and rescue services per year.
Schools: Libraries: and Parks and Recreation:
Since this proposal will not increase the number of units from that which currently exists,
there should be no additional impact on these facilities.
Transportation:
Currently, there are 232 multi-family units constructed on the property. As part of that
development, right-of-way was dedicated, turn lanes provided and a single access
constructed onto South Chester Road.
The property owner has proffered that the maximum density will not exceed the existing
232 dwelling units (Proffered Condition 2). Based on multi-family dwelling unit trip rates,
approximately 1,530 average daily trips would be generated. These vehicles are
distributed along South Chester Road which had a 1998 traffic count of 2,755 vehicles per
day.
The Thoroughfare Plan identifies South Chester Road as a collector. Access to collectors,
such as South Chester Road, should be controlled. The applicant has proffered to limit
direct access from the property to South Chester Road to one (1) entrance/exit (Proffered
Condition 1). This access will be the existing entrance/exit (Creek Way) onto South
Chester Road from the property.
Should the property be redeveloped and a site plan submitted in the future, specific
recommendations will be provided regarding internal circulation.
4
99SN0172/WP/FEB24K
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
Due to the fact that there will be no increase in the number of dwelling units from that
which currently exists, there will be no net increase in the impact on capital facilities.
(Proffered Condition 2)
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Chester Village Plan which suggests the property is
appropriate for residential use of 2.51 to 8.0 units per acre.
Area Development Trends:
Adjacent property to the north has been developed for multi-family residential use (Hyde
Park). Property to the south is zoned Residential (R-7) and is occupied by single-family
residential uses or is vacant. Chester Run Subdivision is located to the east and is zoned
R-7. Residential (R-7) property to the west, west of South Chester Road, is occupied by
single-family residential uses in South Chester Subdivision or is vacant. The Plan
anticipates the existing residential development trends to continue in the area.
Zoning History:
On February 3, 1971, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a use permit to allow a 492
trait multi-family residential development on the request site and adjacent property to the
north (Case 71-8A). Subsequently, the 232 units which exists on the request property
were constructed. The remaining portion of the property which was the subject of the
original request has been developed as Hyde Park Apartments.
In 1973, a County-wide rezoning had the affect of rendering the previously granted use
permit null and void and therefore, the existing improvements non-conforming. Should
there be significant damage to the existing improvements reconstruction would not be
permitted. Further, significant improvements to a non-conforming use is not permitted.
During research to establish the zoning of the property, the current stares of the zoning
came to light. The property owner desires to bring the existing improvements into
conformance with the Ordinance for f'mancial reasons.
Site Design:
As noted herein, the request property has been developed for 232 multi-family units
(Ashton Creek Apartments) yielding a density of 9.06 units per acre. Any redevelopment
5 99SN0172/WP/FEB24K
of the property or new development must conform to the development standards of the
Zoning Ordinance for Multi-family Residential (R-MF) use, except as modified by the
Master Plan and Textual Statement. Any child care use should conform to Zoning
Ordinance requirements for such uses in O-1 Districts. (Condition 2)
Solid Waste Storage Areas:
The Zoning Ordinance requires that any new solid waste storage areas (i.e., dumpsters,
garbage cans, trash compactors, etc.) be screened from view and that such areas not be
serviced between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
CONCLUSIONS
The Chester Village Plan suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 2.51 to 8.0
units per acre. A density of 9.06 units per acre exceeds that recommended by the Plar~. The
proposed child care use will provide a service to area residents. The granting of the bulk
exceptions will allow renovation of the existing project consistent with existing improvements.
Given these considerations, approval of this request is recommended, subject to the property
owner addressing the density limitation, as suggested by the Plan.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (1/19/99):
The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Cunningham indicated that given the fact that this is an existing project and there
would be no increase in the number of units permitted, he could support the request.
On motion of Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Mr. Marsh, the Commission recommended
approval of this request subject to the conditions and acceptance of the proffered
conditions on page 2.
AYES: Unanimous.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, February 24, 1999, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
99SN0172/WP/FEB24K
TEXTUAL
99SNOIT2
ASHTON CREEK APARTMENTS
ILMF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
ZONING ANALYSIS - REQUIRED CONDITIONS
STATEMENT
AUGUST 28, 1998
J.N. 20,685R
a) Parcel Siz~
& Density
· Minimum parcel size - 20 acres
· Maximum density - I0 D.U.'s/
Gross acre
Complies
Yes
Yes
Fails
Remarks
25.6 Acres
232 uuits/25.6 Ac. =
9.06 units/Ac.
b) Percentage of
parcel coverage
· All building including accessory
building - not more than 40% of
parcel area
Yes
All buildings - 101,894 SF
(2.34 Ac.)
2.34 Acd25.6 Ac. = 9.14%
· Accessory buildings, except
garages, recreation, maintenance
and management offices, not
more than 100 SF
Yes
Recreation Center
2,538 SF
c) Dwelling units
· Not more than 10 D.U.'s/1 floor
level
Yes
4 b.u.'s/floor maximum
d) Setbacks ~om
Roads & Property
lines
· All structures - Minimum 25'
from interior private driveways
· All structures - Minimum 15'
from any parking space.
Yes
Yes
Building 23 - 20.1'
Building 4 - 10.5' from porch
Building 9 - 14.4' from porch
· All structures - Minimum 50'
from any proposed R.O.W.
· All structures - Minimum 50'
fi'om all property lines unless
adjacent to another RMF District,
then minimum 30' setback.
Yes
Yes
Building 1 - 32.4' & 47.4'
Building 2 - 31.4'
Building 3 - 31.2'
Building 4 - 32.4'
Building 5 - 37.5'
Building 6 - 34.6' & 41.6'
Building 7 - 36~.' & 38.1' & 48.2'
Building 10 - 31.5' & 34.4'
Building 11 - 32.0' & 32.1'
Building 12 - 31.4'
Distance between · Minimum - 30' + 5' for Yes
buildings each s~ory above 3
*Buildings 12 & 13- 5.6'
*Buildings 14 & 15 - 5.6'
*Buildings 16 & 17 - 5.6'
Buildings lg & 19 =28.4'
*Buildings 19 & 20 - 5.8'
*Buildings 21 & 22 - 5.8'
*Buildings 24 & 25 - 5.8'
* These buildings have connecting roof structures linking the two buildings together (form a sort of'breez~y'). The
originnl site plan indicates individual, separate buildings. Per Chesterfield County Planning, this roof would be
considered a canopy, and would not be considered connect the two buidings as one.
0 Sidewalks
Driveways &
Parking areas
h) Roads
i) Recreation Area
· Sidewalks shall be provided
& shown on site plan
· All roads, driveways and parking
shall have curb & gutter
· All drives & parking - Minimum
15' from existing & proposed
R.O.W., except for major
arterials, then 50'
· 2nd road access (public or
private shall be designed
and constmctad, prior to
occupancy of more
than 50 units.
· Additional access points may
be required, attime of site
plan approval, for more than
200 units.
· Access road - Minimum 30'
pavement width.
All other private streets and
drives - Minimum 24' pavement
· Conveniently accessible and not
less than 10% of gross acreage -
not less than 1.5 acres.
Complies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fails
Ye5
Yes
Remarks
Boulevard enwance was
acceptable as a second
access a~ the time of
site plan approval. It
would not be acceptable
if it were submitted today.
Atthe time of site plan
'approval, a third point
of access was not
Boulevard entrance - 15'
per lane.
-b58,960 SF = 1.354 Ac.
1..354 Ac./25.6 Ac. = 5.29%
Il
C.¢. WELLS
SCHOOL
;NO~'~2
:~ ~-:~'TO R-MF' ~.~
WITH C.U.IPD.
;H. 32 8141 /~-/
"LEWIS & ASSOCIATE~'
,LN. 20,685