|
Staff
Analysis:
Staff and
the appropriate referral agencies have reviewed these
requests for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance, and other relevant policies and
regulations. A summary of staff and referral agency
findings, comments, and recommendations are provided below.
The actual responses from referral agencies are available
upon request.
The last
staff report from March 8, 2007 is provided as Attachment
5. It contains information on the Comprehensive Plan for
the Bealeton Service District and the Village of Liberty.
Engineering
The Engineering Department has reviewed
plans for the referenced project.
1.
The question of the location of 100 year flood plain
location remains. This office continues to believe that
planning for this project must be based on the currently
recognized legal flood plain as determined by FEMA until
better information becomes available, is presented to the
County and FEMA for acceptance, and is approved by the
County and FEMA. The proffers should be amended to state
that the final design submission will utilize the FEMA
established flood plain (latest edition) for development of
the project and the applicant will conform with all County
and FEMA requirements in relation thereto.
Staff
notes that the applicant is working with the County to
incorporate language in the proffers to address this
comment. At present, the CDP shows both the FEMA 100-year
floodplain and the proposed revised floodplain that the
applicant has modeled. This information has not yet been
submitted to FEMA or the County for review. Although there
are no floodplain impacts associated with the residential
development, that require Special Exception approval, the
future extension of the East/West Connector through the
property will have impacts to both wetland and floodplain.
The engineering office should review that data to determine
if the location of the proposed crossing and its sizing are
appropriate.
Zoning
The Zoning
Office has the following comments:
1.
The Application for Special Exception – Category 20
must be approved before Preliminary Plan or Site Plan
approval can be granted.
Review of
Proffers (Dated 4/13/07):
2. Line 8 of the 1st paragraph has date of proffers as
October 26, 2006; correct date. This incorrect date is
repeated in 2nd line of indented matter under
first paragraph.
3. Line 10 of the 1st paragraph has date of plan as
January 26, 2007; correct date.
4. I.A. seeks to vest rezoning to regulations in effect at date of
rezoning. This conflicts with Code and should be removed.
5. I.C. Proposes phasing at 35 units per year, with 1st
35 units to be built within 1 year of rezoning. This
proffer is essentially meaningless as preliminary plats,
final construction plans and final plats must be submitted
and approved before construction again, and it is unlikely
that construction will commence for at least one year after
rezoning approval. Therefore, as written, this proffer
would likely allow all units to be constructed in the same
year. For a meaningful proffer, staff would suggest that 35
units be allowed per year, with the 1st year
measured from the date of final plat approval.
- II. A.
Although the response letter indicates the change was
made, in fact the previously suggested language for this
section has not been revised to reflect that the 56th
occupancy permit shall not be issued until the two
recreation facilities are constructed.
Suggested Language:
II.A. The recreation facilities (Village Pocket Park
(inclusive of trails and landscaping) and Neighborhood
Village Green-Active Recreation Area (inclusive of trails,
tot-lot, landscaping and activity field)) shall be built
concurrently with the dwelling units adjacent to the
facilities. In no case, shall the 56th occupancy
permit be issued prior to the construction one of
these two recreation facilities. All other
open space, landscaping and open space elements, including
trails shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the 100th
building permit for the project.
7. The meaning of IV.G. is not understood and therefore will be
difficult to administer. The proffer states that a $4,500
per unit credit will be given “for any proffer otherwise
made applicable to the Bealeton Bypass.” The language seems
to suggest a $4,500 reduction in one of the amounts
proffered earlier. There is no transportation credit.
Perhaps the credit is to be taken against the school
proffer. Clarify if the $500 emergency services credit is
intended to reduce the amount in D from $3,003.00 per unit
to $2,500.00 per unit.
Transportation
The Warrenton Residency staff reviewed
the above referenced rezoning and has the following
comments:
1.
VDOT continues to recommend that any roads that are
required for the development of the adjacent properties or
in accordance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan be
constructed to the property line. The grades should be
looked at on the adjacent parcels to ensure the construction
of the road does not prohibit the adjacent parcel connecting
to the road. In accordance with the VDOT Land
Development Manual Chapter 3-10 Section V, the
construction of any improvements in association with the
County Comprehensive Plan, regional transportation plans, or
VDOT’s Six-year Plan should be provided by the developer.
2.
Right-of-way width shown on the Concept Development
Plan (CDP) on sheet 4 need to match the widths shown on the
typical sections on sheet 5.
3.
Based on a VPD of 590 shown for the potential traffic
volume to be diverted from existing Old Marsh Road through
the proposed subdivision, the right-of-way width for this
connection should be 58 feet for a category II road. From
this connection to the East/West Connector should also be a
category II road with sufficient road width and right-of-way
width.
4.
On site road improvements proffer III.C.1 needs to be
worded that Colonial Crossing Parkway shall be constructed
in accordance with GS-7 Geometric Design Standards for Urban
Collector Street in the Road Design Manual.
5.
Proffer III.B. is indicating that the County or VDOT
shall acquire additional right-of-way for the offsite road
improvements if the developer is unsuccessful. VDOT does
not acquire right-of-way for developer required frontage
improvements. In addition, VDOT does not have a procedure
for escrowing funds for any improvements that the developer
was unable to complete. The comment response letter is
indicating the money will be escrowed with Fauquier County,
but the proffer is still indicating VDOT.
6.
VDOT continues to recommend that the four lane road
section be constructed through the first intersecting road
for the subdivision (not Old Marsh Road), and then tapered
back to a two-lane road section. Comment response indicates
that applicant is paying cash for transportation to assist
with the extension of the comp plan road; however, VDOT did
not see cash contribution for transportation improvements.
In addition, this comment does not refer to the extension of
the East/West Connector it is for the portion of the road
leading up to the proposed development.
7.
The frontage improvements to Route 17 at the
intersection with Colonial Crossing Parkway should be
completed in the initial phase, and we recommend the
re-alignment of the intersection be performed prior to any
occupancy permits being issued. Comment response is
indicating that the proffers have been changed, but the copy
provided our office dated January 26, 2007 states they will
be performed within 24 months of approval of the
construction plan, and that they will be part of the first
phase. There is no reference to them being completed prior
to the first occupancy permit.
8.
In response to comment 10 from our September 26, 2006
letter regarding a signal being needed at the intersection
of Route 17 and 663, a meeting was held with the developer’s
representatives on December 1, 2006. Money was to be
earmarked for signalization at the three intersections shown
as being impacted by the proposed development. There does
not appear to be any reference to this intersection in the
proffers, and as noted in comment 6 above there is no money
shown in the proffers for general transportation
improvements.
Water
and Sewer
Staff notes
that the WSA indicated that it has no comment or objection
to this project and is prepared to serve the development
with both water and sewer service. These services are
conditioned on the developer designing and constructing all
aspects of the water and sewer facilities associated with
the project in accordance with the Authority’s Operating
Code and, of course, paying all applicable fees. WSA has
also verbally agreed to the location of the pump station
shown on the project plat.
Staff
notes that the proposed Category 20 Special Exception
conditions state that the location of the pump station shall
be in conformance with the location shown on the Special
Exception Plat. In addition, there is language that
requires the sizing of the pump station to accommodate both
the residential and future commercial development (to be
located adjacent to the proposed Colonial Crossing
subdivision).
WSA’s
indication that it can provide water and sewer for this
project is critical in light of the exceptionally limited
sewer capacity as noted in the WSA’s draft report on the
Remington Wastewater Treatment Plant, Enhanced Nutrient
Removal, Preliminary Report (Dated, February 2007). This is
a new study, along with the County’s Business Development
Strategies Preliminary Findings and Recommendations Report
(Dated, January 26, 2007). Both pose concerns about the
availability for sewer to this and other proposed
residential development in the Bealeton, Opal and Remington
Service Districts. The County needs to review the
applicant’s residential and commercial projects as a
package.
Summary and Recommendations:
Staff
recommends the public hearing be left open and the Board of
Supervisors postpone action. Although the applicant has
addressed many of the previous referral agency comments,
there are still VDOT and engineering technical issues
associated with the proffered road improvements.
Staff has
met with Supervisor Stribling, the applicant and its
representative and notes that they have worked diligently to
respond to the complex issues raised. The latest submittal,
dated April 6, 2007 and April 13, 2007, reflects issues
discussed in that meeting. The applicant has proffered a
3-year phasing plan for the development and proffered the
total number of units built will not exceed ninety-five
(95).
VDOT
continues to recommend that any roads that are required for
the development of the adjacent properties or in accordance
with the County’s Comprehensive Plan be constructed to the
property line. VDOT also continues to recommend that the
four lane road section be constructed through the first
intersecting road for the subdivision (not Old Marsh Road),
and then tapered back to a two-lane road section. Since
VDOT is ultimately who will take over the roads for
maintenance, their concerns must be rectified. The County
does not want to reach the construction phase only to find
that VDOT had not accepted the public road proffers in
principle. The result could be extensive delays and project
redesign. County staff continues to recommend a second
entrance for the development. There is only one (1) way for
ingress/egress shown on the Concept Development Plan. One
access point is also a concern due to the residential
traffic volume that will be generated with the upcoming
commercial rezoning only exacerbating the problem.
Engineering
still has questions regarding the location of the 100-year
flood plain on the project site. The project design must be
based on the current FEMA map until better information
becomes available, and is presented to the County and FEMA
for acceptance, and is approved by the County and FEMA. The
proffers should be amended to state that the final design
submission will utilize the FEMA established flood plain
(latest edition) for development of the project and the
Applicant will conform with all County and FEMA requirements
in relation thereto.
At the time
of preparation of this report, it is still not clear as to
whether the applicant has permission from the School Board
to utilize Independence Avenue as an emergency access for
Fire & Rescue personnel and apparatus. Staff hopes to have
more information on that issue in time for the Board
meeting. Otherwise, the applicant will need to consummate
the agreement at the Preliminary Plat stage.
Staff
notes that the following paragraph may no longer apply, as
the applicant has indicated verbally that it will rewrite
and clarify this section of the proffer.
The current
Proffer Policy, for single family dwelling units, identifies
$28,503 per unit for monetary contributions; the applicant’s
proposal is consistent with this policy. However, the
applicant is seeking a credit for a 55-foot right-of-way
reservation on an adjoining property under the applicant’s
control as it relates to proffered contributions of $4,500
per unit for the Bealeton Bypass and $500 per unit for
Emergency Services. It is not clear from the proffer
language whether the applicant is seeking a credit from the
regular Proffer Policy contributions or is seeking relief
from a contribution to the Bealeton Bypass and a portion of
the Emergency Services contribution. Also, it is not clear
what value the applicant has placed on this off-site
reservation. If the value is $5,000 per unit ($4,500 + $500
X 95) or $475,000, the proffer could be revised to more
clearly explain the intent. To staff’s knowledge there has
been no assessment made of the value of this off-site
reservation, nor is there a Proffer Policy requirement of
$4,500 per unit for either the Bealeton Connector or the
East/West Connector.
The
following highlights project changes received since the last
hearing:
·
Incorporation of a phasing plan of three (3)
years with no more than 35 units built in any one year, with
the computation of years to begin at the date of rezoning
approval, provided that, after the second year, any unbuilt,
unoccupied units may be delivered without regard to time
phasing;
·
Conformance with the County monetary Proffer
Policy;
·
A credit applied to the monetary proffers in
consideration of the reservation of a 55-foot strip for
future public use along the northerly portion of the
property as follows: 1) $4,500 per unit for any proffer
applicable to the Bealeton Bypass and 2) $500 per unit for
Emergency Services;
·
Revised lot layout;
·
Reservation of a “Roadway Extension Corridor”
a 110-foot wide area to accommodate a feasible option for
road alignment for the East-West Connector, past the point
that the applicant proposes to build it (as shown on the CDP);
and
·
Inclusion of note on plat, per County
Engineer, regarding basements not recommended in soil
mapping units with high shrink swell potential.
The
following list represents items that are still outstanding
and had been listed in the Board report from 3/8/07:
·
Addition of the proposed commercial portion of
the parcel to the rezoning request. As the applicant and
property owner are now the same, there is the opportunity
for a more complete evaluation of this section of the
Service District;
·
Address in the proffers and on the CDP, VDOT’s
recommendation to construct a 4-lane road section of the
East-West Connector through the first intersecting road for
the subdivision;
·
Justification for rezoning (per Chapter 6 of
the Comprehensive Plan) for a density higher than one
dwelling unit per acre (application is closer to 2 units per
acre);
·
Incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID)
principles – relocation of lots, flood easements, and house
setbacks from floodplain (25-foot requirement);
·
VDOT acceptance of the Traffic Impact Analysis
and the proposed roadway improvements;
·
VDOT and staff recommend that the developer
design, construct and build “Colonial Crossing Parkway”
along the property frontage and through the edge of the
property;
·
Size the culvert crossings that will need to
cross the two major drainage ways under the proposed
East-West Connector reservation areas to determine the
ponding area;
·
Verify the alignment of the East-West
Connector corridor to determine if it is in an agreeable
location with respect to adjoining properties;
·
Relocate lots to protect swales and
drainageways. Most major drainageways and swales appear to
be addressed, but there are still some concerns;
·
Provide a copy of the floodplain study for
review;
·
Revise proffers so that the County and VDOT do
not have the responsibility of acquiring right-of-way or
easements for the project development;
·
Mitigation of Bealeton regional transportation
impacts and a monetary contribution to the Bealeton
Transportation Fund for the Bealeton Connector. The
applicant appears to be seeking a credit toward these
impacts;
·
Architectural guidelines proffered to
demonstrate that the proposed new development will blend
with the existing character of the adjacent Village of
Liberty. (Staff notes that this is not a requirement of
the rezoning. If the commercial and residential had been
done collectively in a Planned Residential Development (PRD)
then the architectural guidelines would be required. This
development is proposed at the outer edges of the service
district and in a transitional location that is adjacent to
rural zoned properties and the Village of Liberty.)
|
