PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA REQUEST

PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA REQUEST

Applicant: Board Meeting Date:

Robert N. Springer April 21, 2003

Staff Lead: Department:

Robert C. Counts Community Development

Topic:

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING RZ 03-L-02, THE REZONING OF 90 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL (RA) TO RESIDENTIAL, 4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE (R-4) WILLIAM F. AND LEWIS N. SPRINGER, AND DELORISE GORDON, OWNERS, AND ROBERT N. SPRINGER, APPLICANT

Topic Description:

This application requests the rezoning of 90 acres from Agricultural (RA) to Residential, 4 Dwelling Units/ Acre (R-4). The subject property is identified by PINs: 6889-54-9393-000, 6889-7474-0648-000, and 6889-75-2303-000. The property is located on Virginia Route 28, south of Route 17, near the intersection of Route 661.

The property is bounded on the south by Route 28. The properties to the West include a vacant R-A zoned property and the Southcoate Village subdivision, which is zoned (R-2). The property to the East is also zoned R-2 (2 Dwelling Units/ Acre ). The properties to the north are zoned RA.

Action Requested of the Board:

Conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of the attached Ordinance.

Staff Analysis:

Staff and appropriate referral agencies have reviewed this request for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other relevant policies and regulations. Key agency findings are summarized below.

Conformance With Comprehensive Plan

The subject property is located within the Bealeton Service District and is planned for low-density residential development (1-3 units per acre). The applicant has requested an R-4 zoning designation in order to “facilitate a design that deviates from the more conventional cul-de-sac pattern.” The proposal attempts to reflect the design guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan by providing “ a generally rectilinear pattern of blocks and interconnecting streets.” While the application seeks the higher density of the R-4 zoning designation, the actual proffered development density is slightly less than 2.2 dwelling units per acre. The Planning staff had suggested the higher zoning classification to gain the added flexibility of lesser yard and set back requirements as a way to implement a more urban street pattern as preferred in the adopted Bealeton Service District Plan. Staff has suggested and would support the proffering of the lower development density within the R-4 zoning district. The resulting development density would be in the middle of the planned density range for this site and consistent with the adjoining R-2 zoned properties.

The applicant has also responded to the Comprehensive Plan by dedicating approximately 2.77 acres, fronting a proposed major collector road, to future public use.

Transportation

The applicant has attempted to provide transportation patterns that reflect the design guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the applicant has addressed the need for a collector road that would ultimately link this site to both Route 29 and Route 28 without requiring the use of Route 17. Through a process of several iterations of the proposed plan, the applicant has responded to a number of transportation related concerns generated by the reviews of VDOT, the County Engineer , and the County Zoning Office. These include the following:

1. Route 28 is currently in design for widening to a four lane divided highway. It is requested that sufficient right-of-way be provided along this property's frontage to accommodate this project. The estimated right-of-way must include a clear width of 55 feet measured from the existing centerline. Additional right-of-way will be needed in the vicinity of the Subdivision’s intersection with Route 28 to construct a right turn lane.

2. A 15-foot wide utility easement outside the future right-of-way along Route 28 is also requested.

3. Locate the BMP/SWM facility so the widening of Route 28 will not impact the facility's construction.

4. The intersection of the main entrance should provide separate left and right turn lanes onto Route 28.

5. Any additional dedication required to eliminate the difference between the existing right-of-way width on Route 661 and the typical width of 50 feet (25 feet from centerline) is requested.

6. Where possible, lot access should be from streets with the lowest volume classifications, rather than from the collector road. This might be accommodated by the design of alleyways to the rear of homes located along the collector road.

7. The applicant should coordinate the exact location of the inter-parcel connector to Southcoate Village ’s approved construction plan location.

8. Streets that stub to the property line must provide adequate cul-de-sacs for the temporary conditions.

9. Open space areas should be connected.

Summary and Planning Commission Recommendation:

The Planning Commission originally considered this rezoning request in October 2002. At that time, the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, deferred action on the application in order to allow the applicant more time to address concerns relating to transportation issues, open space, and the buffering of adjacent properties.

The applicant’s proposed rezoning now represents a thoughtful response to both the Comprehensive Plan and community input. The applicant has demonstrated both a willingness to cooperate with the County and the ability to find workable solutions to community concerns. Based on the applicant’s response to issues raised by the Lee District Supervisor and Planning Commissioner, the Planning Commission voted to forward RZ 03-L-02 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval. This recommendation is made subject to the applicant’s statement of proffered conditions reflecting specific concerns of the commissioners relating to the phased development of the proposed Subdivision. These concerns, included in the Planning Commission’s motion of approval, are as follows:

That the proposed 197 lots will not be built out in less than six (6) years.
That the initial year of development (whenever that occurs) will not produce more than 33 building lots.
That the subsequent cumulative rate of development will not exceed 33 building lots per year.
That, while annual lot development need not be equally paced, no more than 66 lots will be produced in any single year, regardless of the pace of development in previous years.

The applicant has addressed these and other concerns in the proffer statement. However, staff questions the validity of the requested credits toward cash contributions contained in proffers 8.3 and 8.4. The applicant has indicated the belief that the Lee District Supervisor and Planning Commissioner had accepted these credits in prior discussions. The applicant has, however, agreed to additional discussions on the proposed proffers and will be meeting with the Lee District Supervisor prior to the April 21^st meeting to resolve this issue and amend the proffer statement if necessary.

In deference to an existing area farm known as Fox Meadow, the applicant has agreed to change the name of this proposed subdivision prior to seeking approval of a Preliminary Plat.

Attachments: