|
Staff Summary Report:
Staff and
the appropriate referral agencies have reviewed this request
for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance, and other relevant policies and regulations.
Staff and referral agency findings, comments, and
recommendations are summarized below. The actual responses
from referral agencies are available upon request.
A.
Zoning Office:
The Zoning Office provided the following comments:
1.
The density is calculated incorrectly for the RR-2
zoning district. Zero credit is given for the area in
floodplain. With the corrected calculation, sufficient
density will exist to support the proposed lots, but the
Concept Plan should be corrected to accurately reflect the
Zoning Ordinance provisions.
2. There is nothing in the Design Guidelines that commits the
developer to certain elements that continue to be promoted
in the overall guidelines/proffers Concept Plan and which
were noted in prior comments as issues. Language is needed
to:
a. Assure that features such as porches and other
elements are provided in exchange for the reduction in front
yards (the justification for the reduction notes it allows
such features to be provided).
b. Require the garages to be set back further than the
main building face, diminishing the dominance of garages
along what are supposed to be pedestrian oriented spaces.
(The diagrams on page 13 of the Guidelines have been changed
to show such setbacks for garages on all but one housing
type, but no language ties the development to such
pedestrian-oriented designs and other diagrams throughout
the guidelines continue to show models where the garages are
the dominant feature of the house).
c. Commit to significant variety in housing. On page
13 of the Guidelines, a standard is established that no
adjoining homes will have the same "facade design”. What
was discussed at the prior meetings was committing to not
just variety in styles, but also in rooflines, heights,
building sizes, major elements and well as style and
details. Such a variety is a hallmark of traditional
development.
3. The language as currently proposed (modifications on page 26/27)
would allow dead-end alleys up to 1200 feet in length. Dead
ends should be limited to minor alley stubs serving no more
than 2-3 homes.
4. Staff continues to have concerns about the proposed reduction in
front yards on corner lots. Reducing the second front on the
corner lot to 5-10 feet might be appropriate along block
faces where no homes face (i.e. side streets). But on the
many block sides where the side of one home is adjacent to
the front of an adjoining home, the narrower setback will
disrupt the consistent street pattern being established. In
such cases, a minimum 15- foot setback should be
maintained.
5. The Guidelines continue to request approval of a parking
reduction for the commercial area without providing any
information about the types and mixes of uses. Staff
believes that a parking reduction may ultimately be
appropriate, but that such approval should not be granted at
this time without additional information being provided
about the mix of uses. Perhaps the guidelines could allow
such a reduction subject to administrative approval by the
Director or Zoning Administrator that parking is sufficient
for the specific uses proposed.
6. The landscaping issues raised in the previous comments do not
appear to have been entirely resolved. Staff is strongly
supportive of the proposed sections showing street trees in
planting strips within the right-of-way easement, but it is
not clear that such trees have been authorized by VDOT and
the language on page 42 under justification also creates
ambiguity. If the trees are not allowed within the
right-of-way, the proposed minimal setbacks for homes should
not be approved or streets will be without landscaping.
7. In proffer 1.2.1, "shall be zoned" would be clearer if it stated
"shall be located within the area zoned".
8. In proffer 1.8., the applicant shall dedicate "up to 4 and
one-half (4.5) acres of land" would allow the applicant to
donate no land, or .5 acres, at the discretion of the
applicant. Unless the Board does not wish the county to
determine how much of the 4.5 acres it needs for the
facility, the proffer language should not be approved as
written. The proffer should state that the applicant "shall
dedicate 4.5 acres of land," with lesser acreage allowed if
approved by the Board.
9. In proffer 1.8.2., "As soon as possible after dedication" is
vague language inappropriate for a proffer statement as it
cannot be administered or enforced. If the Board does not
care when the land is prepared, the language could remain
(or be deleted and have the same affect). If the Board
wants to assure the land is prepared by a certain timeframe,
staff would suggest adding more specific language tying the
land preparation to a certain timeframe or prior to a
certain stage of development.
10. Proffer 2.1 seems to disallow approval of any house permits prior
to 18 months after rezoning approvals. While such a target
date is unlikely to be achievable, it is not clear if this
is intended.
11. Proffer 5.1.2 states that the HOA is responsible for "the
maintenance of any street trees located in common open space
areas" and "maintenance of any street trees located within
the street tree easement(s)." The documents should also
include requirement for maintenance of street trees in the
VDOT right-of-way, where most street trees are proposed to
be located per the concept. In addition, the Zoning
Ordinance requires the maintenance of all required
landscaping, in open spaces and common areas, not just the
street trees. This language should not conflict with the
more stringent Zoning Ordinance requirements (and it cannot
release the applicant from the Zoning Ordinance requirement,
so simply creates confusion).
12.
Open spaces have improved significantly, with
meaningful breaks/connections to the floodplain open space
along the western edge of the PRD development, and the
addition of the large open space for public use on the
northern tract. However, individual blocks continue to have
extraordinary density with no relief. The proposed blocks
are large (i.e. 600 -700 feet long). In traditional
development forms, small pocket parks would be provided
within each block to provide relief, particularly on the
townhouse blocks where units will have zero personal open
space.
B.
Parks & Recreation:
The Parks
and Recreation Department submits its comments on the
aforementioned proposal as follows:
1.
Trail Easements: Stream Valley would like 50 to 75
feet, but that could be reduced to 30 to 35 feet if a
minimum of 20 to 25 feet of conservation easement is
provided on either side. Trail would be located out of the
2-year storm and be field located by Parks & Recreation.
East/West Connector trail could be on either side of the
road within a 50 to 75 feet easement. Both easements need to
run from boundary to boundary.
2.
As per discussions on March 2, 2006 concerning trails
in the stream valley below commercial area along Route 17,
the requested changes include:
a.
Connectors to main county trail could be relocated as
to provide better access to Community Center.
b.
Would like entire trail connector installed during
construction of homes and businesses, while the equipment
and materials are on site and site is disturbed for
development.
3.
HOA documents need to be reviewed by Parks &
Recreation and County Attorney.
4.
Comments will be made once Parks and Recreation can
view more detailed recreation areas, but nice to see they
are planned.
C.
VDOT:
Subsequent to the VDOT comments noted below, the
applicant has met with VDOT and staff to address the
outstanding issues. Staff anticipates resolution to these
comments in the near term.
The
Warrenton Residency and Culpeper District staff reviewed the
above referenced rezoning dated December 20, 2005, and has
the following comments:
1.
After further review of the internal capture rates
used in the TIA and the Land Development Manual, VDOT
policy indicates in Chapter 6-4 that shopping centers, and
general office building, with support services already have
allowed for internal capture in their traffic distributions
and should not include any additional internal capture.
Therefore, the use of ITE codes 710 and 820 as used in this
TIA should not allow for any additional capture, and those
trips should be added to the total trips on Exhibit 8B on
page 23. The comment response indicates that the Land
Development Manual recommends using the most up-to-date and
reliable information, but this is only for trip generation
not internal capture. Internal capture was also applied to
the residential units which also appears inconsistent with
VDOT policy. Chapter 6-5, Item 3, indicates that further
reductions can be taken on a case-by-case basis, but only
with evidence of a bonafide traffic study of a similar
development.
2.
VDOT has also looked at whether taking passby trips
is appropriate based on the location of the commercial site
within the development and the method of access.
3.
On page 84 of the TIA the queue lengths for the
intersection of Route 17 and 28 are indicating that the 95th
percentile volume exceeds capacity and the queues may be
longer. The queue indicated is 1101 feet, but it appears it
may be longer. Animation of the intersection through
Synchro may be helpful in demonstrating the impact on this
intersection.
4.
The revised TIA and Concept Development Plan are
indicating a combined thru and right turn lane on Route 28,
but the Department would not support the elimination of the
existing right turn lanes on Route 28 and combining them
with the thru movement.
5.
Page 30 of the TIA demonstrates that the following:
-
Route 17 and 28 WB approach is deteriorating from an
LOS of E to LOS F, but even with the mitigation
measures has not been mitigated to meet background
traffic conditions;
-
Route 28 and SW Access are deteriorating from an LOS
C to LOS F with the development, but no mitigation
measures have been provided. An asterisk is shown
for the delay on the northbound approach. This is a
new intersection being created by the subdivision,
and needs to meet a minimum level of service of C;
-
Route 28 and Oak Shade Road (Rte 661) is shown with
a level of service F at background and for total
with the development, but the delay increases from
176.9 to 249.6 and no mitigation measures have been
indicated. The improved results is incorrectly
indicating a LOS of E rather than F. VDOT is
evaluating a project at this intersection to
construct a left turn lane, and the intersection
could be evaluated with and without the turn lane.
6.
No resolution has been reached as to the proposed
location of the Church Street and Route 28 intersection and
its proximity to the intersection of Route 17.
7.
Comments 14 and 15 from VDOT’s November 16, 2005
letter are indicated as being acknowledged, but do not
appear to have been revised on the TIA.
8.
Sheet 7 of the Concept Development Plan does not
indicate which of the streets will be constructed with each
of the typical sections. Street widths will need to be
determined based on anticipated traffic counts, and will not
necessarily be the same width for all state maintained
roads. Streets that are intended to be state maintained
will need to be in conformance with the 2005 Subdivision
Street Requirement Manual and Road Design Manual.
Right-of-way widths should be even.
9.
VDOT recommends a four-lane divided road section for
Church Street rather than a four-lane undivided road.
10.
Planning and Design Guidelines were only received in
our office on January 10, 2006 and VDOT has not had
sufficient time to review them.
D.
Engineering:
The
Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
plan and provided the applicant the comments noted below.
In response, the applicant has provided a comment/response
letter and requested additional modifications.
Engineering
has outlined three significant issues of concern:
1.
Low Impact Development (LID) – the first and probably
most important aspect of LID is to preserve natural drainage
areas in their natural state. The applicant has done a good
job of preserving the Bowens Run corridor; however, there
are four significant drainage swales and a spring within the
densely developed areas that should be preserved in their
natural state. These were discussed previously with the
engineer but are not preserved in this plan.
2.
SWM/BMP’s should be provided for by the applicant for
the entire proposed parcel identified as “community use”
(possible fire department). The SWM/BMP Facility must be
provided along with the first development plan associated
with this parcel.
3.
The alleys are shown in such a way that they will
become stormwater collection areas. (Page 18 Planning and
Design Guidelines) The alleys should be crowned and ditches
or storm sewer pipes should be provided. Significant icing
and flooding could occur with the design presented.
The
following details specific concerns:
1.
Under no circumstances shall any use, activity, fill,
and/or development within the floodplain adversely affect
the capacity of the channels or floodways of any
watercourse, drainage ditch or any other drainage facility
or system which would increase flood heights and/or
velocities on adjacent or downstream properties.
2.
A detailed hydrologic and hydraulic flood analysis
should be required for the Bowens Run flood corridor
extending from the upper property limits, downstream to the
roadway crossing of Route 656, Remington Road. This study
must compare the pre-developed (existing) condition to the
post-developed (rezoned) condition and must demonstrate that
downstream properties will not be subject to greater
flooding potential.
3.
The proposed connections to Route 28 is to line up
with the road connections on the south side of Route 28 as
depicted on the final construction of Wexford Mews. These
connections need to line up to facilitate traffic movement
across Route 28.
4.
The following conditions should be required for the
special exception for fill in the floodplain:
a.
The crossing shall be designed to accommodate all
Federal, State, and Local requirements and shall incorporate
river-training and counter-sinking techniques.
b.
The crossing shall not be sized any larger than
necessary to convey the applicable design storms for the
relevant category of roadway (based on traffic estimates)
unless mutually agreed to and requested by the Fauquier
County Engineering Office and VDOT.
c.
In all cases, proposed crossings of the FEMA
floodplain shall be aligned and designed to traverse
floodplains and the natural stream in locations where
disturbance to the floodplain is minimized. (i.e. – in
areas where floodplain top widths are the smallest and where
the natural stream can be crossed perpendicularly without
requiring natural stream channel relocation unless otherwise
directed by the County Engineer.)
d.
Should multiple structures be required to accommodate
the projected discharges, the primary cell of the crossing
shall be sized to conform to the natural stream
characteristics (as defined by stream width, existing bed &
banks, invert elevations, etc.) These characteristics must
be field surveyed and be included with final plan
submittal. The primary cell shall be located in the actual
location of the incised streambed. Additional cells of the
crossing must be designed to only be activated at such time
as the overbank region would normally be activated with
higher volumes of stormwater runoff (as determined by the
County Engineer). Invert elevations of the additional cells
shall be established no lower than the natural overbank
elevation where they will be placed. Should the cells be
constructed as a single structure, the crown elevation of
all cells must be designed to match each other. Depending
on the individual site conditions, the additional cells may
be constructed separately from the primary cells but must
meet Fauquier County and VDOT requirements at the time of
final design review.
e.
A detailed flood study must be prepared to County
Specifications and submitted to FEMA for CLOMR/LOMR
processing. These items must be completed or bonded with
Fauquier County until complete.
f.
Proper permits are to be obtained from DEQ, DOE,
and/or VMRC for any work in waters of the US and/or the
state.
g.
The CLOMR must be approved through FEMA prior to the
approval of the final construction plans.
5.
Stormwater management pond embankments are not to be
in the floodplain.
6.
Evidence of all applicable State and Federal permits
are to be submitted with the first submission of the Final
construction Plans. This includes but is not limited to the
COE/DEQ wetlands permit.
7.
The County recommends that no below grade basements
be constructed on soils with high water table due to wetness
unless the foundation drainage system of the structure is
designed by a licensed professional engineer to assure a dry
basement and preclude wet yards and recirculation of pumped
or collected water. Unless, in the opinion of the County
Engineer, the topography of the lot in relation to the
overlot-grading plan precludes grading the site to drain the
basement to daylight, all basements shall be designed to
gravity daylight without assistance from mechanical means.
All discharged water (mechanical or gravity) must be
conveyed to the subdivision stormwater collection system and
discharged though the stormwater management faculties.
Drainage easements, where necessary, shall be placed on the
final plat. A note shall be placed on the final plat
stating that “Basements are not recommended in mapping units
5A, 14B, 74B, 78A, and 79A. Basements in these mapping
units are subject to flooding due to high seasonal water
tables. Sump systems may run continuously, leading to
possible premature pump failure.”
8.
Applicant should provide 100 year detention and 100
year overland relief to help mitigate against downstream
flooding.
9.
No stormwater runoff generated from new development
shall be discharged into jurisdictional wetland without
adequate treatment.
10.
An overlot grading plan is to be provided as part of
the Final Construction Plans. It is to show reasonable
accommodations for downspout discharges and sump pump
discharges into adequate surface drainage facilities.
11.
A second access point should be provided prior to the
100th lot being recorded.
12.
Proof of provisions for adequate fire flow as
outlined by the Office of Emergency Services will be
required with the first submission of the Final Construction
Plans.
13.
Houses are not to be located in existing swales or
streams. These areas shall be preserved to the maximum
extent practicable.
14.
It appears that almost all of the area east of
Bowen’s Run has soils characterized as having a high water
table. The area west of Bowen’s Run has roughly 50% of the
soils that are characterized as having a high water table.
15.
Site distance is to be provided for alley/street
connections. Site distance will also be necessary when
entering alley from the garages. Garages should be set back
away from the alley so a driver can see when backing out of
a garage before entering alley.
16.
If the alley does not have an outlet, some type of
turn around is to be provided.
17.
Infiltration trenches are not allowed for SWM/BMP
facilities in residential subdivisions.
18.
WSA’s permission will be required to relocate their
access roads.
19.
Each phase of the subdivision must meet the minimum
requirements of the SWM Ordinance as well as the overall
project.
20.
The termination point of existing Bower’s Run Road
should have a cul-de-sac.
21.
Credit for vegetative filter strips (buffers) are to
meet the design guide lines in the Virginia Stormwater
Management Handbook Minimum Standard 3.14. The phosphorus
removal credit is 10%.
22.
Engineering has also submitted “Subdivision
Ordinance and Design Standards Manual References for
drainage preservation:”
Subdivision Ordinance Section
9-13(B) (2) - Adverse environmental impact of the
development should be minimal. The criteria for
determination is as follows:
Lack of adequate drainage excessive environmental impact
with respect to drainage, shall be deemed to exist if
surface or subsurface water retention and/or runoff is such
that it constitutes a danger to the structural security of
proposed dwelling units or other on-site structures.
In addition, inadequate drainage shall be deemed to exist
where proposed site grading and development creates harmful
or damaging effects from erosion and siltation on downhill
and/or downstream land and no adequate remedy is provided.
Subdivision Ordinance Section
9-13(B) (3) - Adverse environmental impact of the
development should be minimal. The criteria for
determination is as follows:
Layout and Design - The development should be designed so as
to provide a quality environment for residents by minimizing
its adverse impact. General considerations for minimal
impact are as follows:
(1) Road and street layout should utilize topography so that
unnecessary cuts and fills are avoided.
(5) All major streams and rivers, especially those upon which
flood control, water impoundment, and recreation facilities
are located or planned, should be left in the natural state
where adequate or improved to provide for the maintenance of
water quality standards.
DSM203.2 - The final stormwater management
plan, in addition to the information from the Concept Plan,
shall include all of the information required in the Major
Site Plan or Construction Plan checklists. (Page D-14)
(Critical to have the Concept Plan reflected properly at
Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Application stage)
DSM201.8.2 - Natural drainage/channel
characteristics and drainage divides shall be preserved to
the maximum extent practicable. Drainage analyses shall be
considered within each drainage area. (Page D-6)
DSM201.8.6. Conveyance - All
stormwater conveyance practices shall be designed to convey
stormwater to allow for the maximum removal of pollutants
and reduction in flow velocities. This shall include, but
not be limited to:
A. Maximizing of flow paths from
inflow points to outflow points; (Page D-7)
DSM201.8.9 - In subdivisions, all
SWM/BMP facilities shall be placed in a common area unless
prior approval has been obtained from the program
administrator. Further, proposed or natural drainage ways
shall not occur across or upon individual lots unless prior
approval has been obtained from the program administrator.
Proposed lot lines shall observe natural drainage ways to
the maximum extent practicable. (Page D-7)
DSM203.2.1 - A stormwater management concept plan shall be
required with all preliminary plan and rezoning
applications, and will include all information...to evaluate
the environmental characteristics of the project site, the
potential impacts of all proposed development of the site,
both present and future, on the water resources, and the
effectiveness and acceptability of the measures proposed for
managing stormwater generated by the project site. (Page
D-13)
DSM203.2.1.C - A written or
graphic inventory of the natural resources at the site and
surrounding area as it exists prior to the commencement of
the project and a description of the watershed and its
relation to the project site. This description should
include a discussion of soil conditions, forest cover,
topography, wetlands, and other native vegetative areas on
the site. Particular attention should be paid to
environmentally sensitive features that provide particular
opportunities or constraints for development. (Page
D-14)
E.
Drainage Modification Summary:
Based on the
Engineering Office’s comments, and to comply with the
Bealeton Service District Plan, the applicant has requested
modifications to Zoning Ordinance Sections 12-609, 12-610,
and 12-702(1) and to Subdivision Ordinance Sections
9-5(A)(16) and (28) that require compliance with the Design
Standards Manual and the Stormwater Management Ordinance.
Following is a portion of the applicant’s justification for
the proposed modifications.
Pursuant to Sections 12-609, 12-610,
and 12-702(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, all site plans must
comply with Chapter 2 of the Design Standards Manual. See
Appendix A, of the applicant’s justification. In addition,
Sections 9-5(A) (16) and (28) of the Subdivision Ordinance
require compliance with the Fauquier County Stormwater
Management Ordinance, which has recently been incorporated
into the new Design Standards Manual. Again, see Appendix
A.
In order to meet the Fauquier County
Comprehensive Plan’s planning requirements for the Bealeton
Service District, which are directly applicable to this
property, the applicant requests the following modifications
to the Design Standards Manual to accommodate the unique
conditions that are found on the Freedom Place site. The
provisions of these modifications and the justifications
provided thereto have been crafted in such a way as to
insure that the purpose and intent of the County’s
regulations are met and satisfied to an equivalent degree
during the development of the property subject to this
rezoning. These modifications are merely providing
flexibility in the provision of stormwater management for
the subject property in order to accomplish the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals and the combined vision for
Freedom Place. For the purposes of this application, and no
other, the following modifications are requested and shall
be deemed to apply to all future development at Freedom
Place:
Design
Standards Manual
Section
202. Definitions.
“Channel" means a natural or artificial watercourse
with a definite bed and banks that conducts continuously or
periodically flowing water.
“Natural
Drainage/Channel” means any natural or existing channel,
stream bed, or watercourse that carries surface or
groundwater, but is not wholly dependent for its flow on
surface drainage from its immediate area or from outfalls of
man-made systems designed to handle stormwater runoff such
as culverts, storm drain pipes, roadway drainage ditches or
other manmade channels. It further includes nontidal
waterways that are part of the natural topography that
usually maintains a continuous or seasonal flow during the
year, and is characterized as being irregular in
cross-section with a meandering course. Constructed
channels such as drainage ditches or swales shall not be
considered natural.
“Watercourse” except as a natural drainage/channel is
otherwise defined above, means a permanent or
intermittent stream or other body of water, either natural
or man-made, which gathers or carries surface water.
“Body of
Water” means any significant natural
pool of water with a normal water surface elevation, such as
an ocean, a lake, a pond, or a stream.
“Streambed” means
any natural or man-made channel in which a perennial or
intermittent stream flows.
“Outfall”
means the lower end of a watercourse; the open end of a
drain, culvert, etc. where the discharge occurs.
Section 201.8. General Drainage Requirements
(2) Natural drainage/channel characteristics
and drainage divides shall be preserved to the maximum
extent practicable, provided that for purposes of
REZNO5-LE-001 natural drainage/channel associated with the
site shall be deemed to include only those areas identified
on Exhibit A, attached hereto. Drainage analyses shall be
considered within each drainage area.
(9) In subdivisions, all SWM/BMP facilities
shall be placed in a common area unless prior approval has
been obtained from the program administrator. Further,
proposed or natural drainage/channel shall not occur across
or upon individual lots unless prior approval has been
obtained from the program administrator; and provided
further that the applicant shall be permitted to propose
suitable means of accommodating surface and subsurface
drainage in order to avoid any requirement that it be
required to eliminate or relocate proposed residential lots
on the property subject to this rezoning.
Legal Justification
No Fauquier County Ordinance defines a “natural drainage
/channel,” and there are a number of approaches to drainage
channels that are acceptable in standard industry practice.
The applicant has based its proposed definition on
prevailing definitions used in the industry, and the use of
those terms found in the Virginia Administrative Code,
specifically 4VAC 50-30-10, which provides definitions
applicable to the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Act. The close relationship of that Act to the issues
involved here make the definitions in the state regulations
of significant use.
Sansom v. Board of Supervisors,
257 Va. 589, 594-95, 514 S.E.2d 345 (1999) provides that
“[w]hen . . . a statute contains no express definition of a
term, the general rule of statutory construction is to infer
the legislature's intent from the plain meaning of the
language used.” Hubbard v. Henrico Ltd. Partnership,
255 Va. 335, 340, 497 S.E.2d 335, 338 (1998) (citing City
of Virginia Beach v. Flippen, 251 Va. 358, 362, 467
S.E.2d 471, 473-74 (1996); Marsh v. City of Richmond,
234 Va. 4, 11, 360 S.E.2d 163, 167 (1987)). An undefined
term must be “given its ordinary meaning, given the context
in which it is used.” Dep't of Taxation v. Orange-Madison
Coop. Farm Serv., 220 Va. 655, 658, 261 S.E.2d 532,
533-34 (1980). “The context may be examined by considering
the other language used in the statute.” City of Virginia
Beach v. Bd. of Supervisors of Mecklenburg County, 246
Va. 233, 236 -37, 435 S.E.2d 382, 384 (1993).
Although the Appendix to the DSM contains a definition that
arguably applies to a natural channel, it does not apply in
this case because it is part of Technical Bulletin Number 1
developed by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation and was designed to address outfalls from a
developed site. That definition is insufficiently precise
concerning the particulars of this application because it
was not intended to be used for this purpose.
Thus, it is prudent in these
circumstances to define essential terms clearly, so that
there will not be disagreement in the future as to the
intent of the language employed.
In the
judgment of the applicant’s engineers, the only natural
drainage/channel on site is Bowers Run. Attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference is a depiction of the
existing natural drainage/channel, entitled “Natural
Drainage/Channel Exhibit” prepared by Bowman Consulting
Group and dated March 2006. The Bowers Run watercourse is
defined as a special flood hazard area designated Zone A on
the effective FIRM, by FEMA. Bowers Run has a defined bed
and bank system with a normal water surface elevation and
thus qualifies as a channel, streambed and watercourse. It
is not wholly dependent on surface flows from the immediate
area or the outfall of man-made stormwater runoff collection
systems for flows, and as such qualifies as a natural
drainage/channel.
As opposed
to the conditions described above for Bowers Run, those
drainage areas served by an outfall for man-made roadway
ditches or culverts, are not natural drainage/channels.
Further, a drainage area that has no defined bed and bank
system, is not identified as a permanent or intermittent
stream and is not a body of water with a normal water
surface elevation is neither a channel, streambed or
watercourse and, as such, is not a natural
drainage/channel. Finally, a drainage area with flows that
are wholly dependent on surface flows from the immediate
area is not a natural drainage/channel.
Equivalent Alternative Proposed by the Applicant
The
applicant proposes to address the conveyance of surface
water present on the site using standard engineering
practices in conformity with Federal, State and Local
regulations. The applicant agrees to implement the
following construction measures in order to comply with the
County’s Ordinances and Regulations to an equivalent degree
(the “Engineering Solution”). These measures are designed
to ensure public safety and the protection of future
homeowners from damage which could be caused by a 100-year
storm event.
1. The County’s Ordinances require overland relief for the 10-year
storm event. The applicant will provide overland relief
onsite such that no habitable structures will be inundated
by surface flows generated by the 100-year storm event.
2. Construction within the 100-year floodplain of Bowers Run will
be limited to trail and road crossings, and utility
installation. All required state and federal permits will
be obtained prior to the start of construction. The
applicant reserves the right to plant within the 100-year
floodplain of Bowers Run.
3. Drainage systems are customarily designed for the 10-year storm
event, but the applicant will design its system to handle
25-year storm flows in order to avoid overland flow in the
event of such a storm.
4. The applicant shall provide an enhanced extended detention
facility, in lieu of extended detention otherwise required.
5. Residential lots will be located outside the 100-year
floodplain for Bowers Run.
6. Stormwater runoff generated offsite that enters the site will be
conveyed through the site pursuant to Section 4-7 of the
Subdivision Ordinance, with easements placed over any
channels or storm drain pipe systems engineered to handle
said flows.
7. Single-family attached homes will be slab-on-grade with
no basements.
8. Single-family detached homes with basements shall be designed
with subsurface drainage measures designed and certified by
a geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Virginia.
See the proposed additional proffer, below.
9. Stormwater management ponds will be located outside the 100-year
floodplain for Bowers Run.
The
engineering solution described above will be incorporated
into all site and subdivision plans to be submitted to the
County following the approval of this rezoning. The
employment of the engineering solution will be a correction
of the existing problematic erosive flow present on the
site, and a distribution of the stormwater entering onto the
property in compliance with applicable County and State
regulations.
Finally, in
response to the County’s concerns regarding high water
tables in areas where homes with basements are proposed on
the applicant’s Development Plan, the applicant is proposing
a proffer that directly discusses this issue, similar to
that contained in other recently approved rezoning
applications.
“The
Applicant will construct homes within the PRD district that
will include basements, subject to the following conditions:
1.
No below grade basements shall be constructed on
soils with high water tables, unless the building foundation
drainage system of the structure is designed by licensed
professional engineers to assure a dry basement and the site
is graded so as to preclude standing water in yards and
limit the recirculation of pumped or collected water, and
approved by the County.
2.
Drainage easements, where required, shall be
indicated on the final subdivision plat.
3.
The deeds conveying each unit with a basement shall
include the following language:
This house has been constructed on property that has
been determined to possess a potentially high subsurface
water table. A foundation drainage system for this home has
been designed and constructed according to standard
engineering practices. The property owner is advised that
any disturbance or alteration of this foundation drainage
system may result in excess water in the yard or basement of
the home, and that any such disturbance is undertaken at the
sole risk of the property owner. The owner is advised to
consult with a certified civil or geotechnical engineer
prior to undertaking any land disturbance activity, which
means any activity that changes the volume, velocity, or
peak flow discharge rate of rainfall runoff from the land
surface. This may include the grading, digging, cutting,
scraping, or excavating of soil, placement of fill
materials, paving, construction, substantial removal of
vegetation, or any activity that bares soil or rock or
involves the diversion or piping of any natural or man-made
watercourse that may affect the foundation drainage
system.”
F.
Planning Office Evaluation of the Drainage
Waivers/Modifications Justification:
Although the
proposed drainage waivers/modifications are not consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, the
applicant may request them as the proposed development is a
Planned Residential District (PRD). In addition, it seems
reasonable to request these types of waivers/modifications
in an area that the Comprehensive Plan clearly identifies as
a more densely developed area; a town center.
Preservation
of environmental features is integral to the character of
Fauquier County. Natural drainageways would be considered
within that category. This review is done for all
development projects. Because this project is within the
Bealeton Service District and within a PRD and the
Comprehensive Plan envisions it to be developed at a higher
density than parcels outside of the Service District, the
request for waivers and modifications should be considered.
In some instances, due to the nature and layout of the
development, although some of the site’s preexisting
environmental features may not be preserved, the overall
project benefits due to conceptual layout and dedicated open
space may outweigh the loss of some of the those features.
The
applicant has tried to fulfill the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan with its neo-traditional design. In
keeping with this theme, it has produced Design Guidelines
that include a variety of housing types. The Concept Plan
avoids the typical cul-de-sac style subdivision and shows a
grid pattern layout with pedestrian walkways and linkages to
open space areas. Church Street, the spine road of the
project, is a meandering collector roadway that provides
project access and traffic flow as an alternative to Route
17.
The
Comprehensive Plan envisions the Bealeton Town Center with a
well defined edge of parks and natural areas. The town
center itself shall be designed in a generally rectilinear
pattern of blocks and interconnecting streets and alleys,
defined by buildings, street furniture and landscaping, a
place to be shared equally by pedestrians, bicycles and
cars. An important feature is the town square and town park
located in the core of the town center. In order to
maintain this theme, and allow for the density intended, it
is reasonable to consider approval of the modifications
requested.
For the Engineering Office analysis of the applicant’s
Drainage Waiver/Modifications request, see Attachment 5. |
