PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA REQUEST

Owner/Applicant:

Board of Supervisors Meeting Date:

Donald R. Tharpe, Trustee

 

May 10, 2007

Staff Lead:
Melissa Dargis, Assistant Chief of Planning

Department:
Community Development

 

Magisterial District: Lee
Service District:
Bealeton

PIN:
6899-29-5691-000 (60 Acres) & 6990-10-5075-000

Topic:

Colonial Crossing Rezoning REZN05-LE-014 and Special Exception SPEX06-LE-020, Lee District

 

Topic Description:

Rezoning:

The applicant has submitted a proffered request to rezone the parcel identified as 6990-10-5075-000, currently zoned Village (V) (3.1 acres in size) and a 60-acre portion of parcel 6899-29-5691-000 (85.03 acres total size), currently zoned V and Rural Agricultural (RA), to Residential-4 (R-4).  The applicant seeks rezoning approval in order to construct a development of 95 single family detached dwellings.

Special Exception:

This companion application was submitted requesting an above ground sewer pumping station(s) (Category 20 Special Exception) to serve the proposed development. 

Project Update:

On March 8, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this item.  It was postponed for 60 days, at the applicant’s request, to allow for project refinements and a new submittal.  The Department of Community Development has received a response regarding the Colonial Crossing Stormwater Management Concept Plan (April 6, 2007); and received new draft proffers (April 13, 2007).  In addition, the applicant, its representatives and staff met with Supervisor Stribling to discuss the project.

While working with the previous applicant, staff made several requests for the entire parcel to be considered for a comprehensive and coordinated rezoning (both residential and commercial elements).  The response was that the property owner would be submitting the commercial application at a later time, after the residential rezoning and that Toll Brothers was not a commercial developer.  Now that the applicant and the owner are same, County staff had initially recommended that the Board of Supervisors request the applicant combine his residential and commercial projects.

Another acceptable option was to submit the commercial rezoning so the Board of Supervisors was aware of the overall plan for the entire project.  The applicant had indicated that such an application was targeted for April 2007; no filing has occurred to date.  However, the applicant has met with staff to discuss some basic application concepts.  The applicant will need to select one for final refinement and eventual submission as a commercial rezoning.

Staff has become more focused on the forthcoming commercial rezoning on site since the circumstances have changed, with the Board’s priority placed on business development, and the issues regarding Remington Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) capacity and expansion costs cited in two recent studies.  The referenced reports are:  (1) Business Development Strategies, Preliminary Findings and Recommendations (Fauquier County; Dated: January 26, 2007) and (2) Remington Wastewater Treatment Plant, Enhanced Nutrient Removal, Preliminary Engineering Report (Fauquier County Water & Sanitation Authority; Dated:  February of 2007). 

The Remington WWTP has an existing capacity of 1.4 million gallons per day (mgd), while it processes an estimated 0.96 mgd.  It needs to be noted that, over the past 5 years, 1,201 residential units (lots, apartments) have been approved through the rezoning or subdivision process, have yet to have homes constructed, and would be served through this facility.  The residential unit total represents an estimated sewer demand of 312,000 gpd and does not reflect pending commercial projects.  Examples of the residential projects include:  the Craig Property, Colonial Downs, Ellerslie Farm, Fox Haven, Freedom Place, Green Springs (Willow Creek) Jackson Chase, Laurenwood, Liberty Station, Rappahannock Landing, Revere Woods, Walthem Commons and Wexford Mews.  Until sewer expansion cost and construction funding issues are resolved, the question of whether to approve additional residential rezoning applications should be taken into consideration.

 

Action Requested of the Board of Supervisors:

Conduct a public hearing and consider the attached Ordinance and resolutions.

Two options have been prepared:

1.         A resolution for denial, based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the Rezoning and Special Exception (Category 20: Above Ground Sewer Pumping Station); or

2.         An Ordinance for rezoning approval and a resolution, with conditions, for approval of the Category 20 Special Exception.

 

Planning Commission Recommendation:

On October 26, 2006, the Planning Commission forwarded this item to the Board of Supervisors with a unanimous recommendation of denial.  Attached is the Commission’s resolution recommending denial.  When the applicant requested action of the Planning Commission, the project was not ready for referral to the Board of Supervisors as there were still several major refinements needed.  The following items were identified as areas that needed to be addressed:

·           Provision of the WSA preferred location for the proposed pump station.

·           Construction of the pump station to ensure it is large enough to accommodate additional equipment and capacity for the commercial acreage on this parcel (note: commercial is not part of this rezoning application).  Future hook-up of the commercial property should not impact residential community.

·           Preliminary floodplain study results assisting in lotting revisions and East-West Connector alignment, as required.

·           Proper road alignment of “Colonial Crossing Drive” with the East-West Connector (as shown on the Freedom Place Preliminary Plat).

·           Reservation of an area large enough to accommodate a feasible option for road alignment for the East-West Connector (right-of-way for this road requires a minimum of 110 feet), past the point that the applicant proposes to build it (as shown on the CDP).

·           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).

·           Modifications to the buffer adjacent to the portion of the parcel designated for commercial to allow for preservation of environmental features.

·           Incorporation of a phasing plan for the development.

·           Consideration of the current proffer policy (Note: facilities impacts and voluntary proffer contributions {approximately $28,000 per unit under current proffer policy} exclusive of transportation impacts).

·           Incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) principles – relocation of lots, flood easements, and house setbacks from floodplain (25-foot requirement).

·           Inclusion of note on plat, per County Engineer, regarding basements not recommended in soil mapping units with high shrink swell potential.

·           VDOT acceptance of the Traffic Impact Analysis and the proposed roadway improvements.

·           Refinements to the proffer statement to address any project revisions.

Staff notes that since the Planning Commission meeting, some of these items have been addressed.  Please refer to the Summary & Recommendations section of this report for an updated list.

 

Land Area, Location and Zoning:  

The properties are located east of the intersection of Marsh Road (Route 17) and Old Marsh Road (Route 837) north of Independence Avenue.  A map of the properties is shown below:

 

                         

Neighboring Zoning/Land Use:

The property is zoned mainly Rural Agricultural (RA), but a portion on the northwest side is zoned Village (V) and a small piece on the southwest corner is zoned Commercial-1 (C-1).  The parcels are bounded by V and RA to the north; RA to the east and south; Route 17 forms the boundary of a portion of the west side of the parcel and it is adjacent to RA and V zoned land.

Consistent with the RA zoning category, this property is located in a district that contains areas where agriculture and forestry are the predominant uses or where significant agricultural land or large lot type residential development exists.  The parcel also contains V zoning which is within the Village of Liberty; the development will be adjacent to this Village.

 

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.

  1. 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.)

 

Identify any other Departments, Organizations or Individuals that would be affected by this request:

Fauquier County Department of Community Development
Virginia Department of Transportation

ATTACHMENTS:

1.                  Statements of Justification

2.                  Proposed Proffers

3.                  Project Plats

4.                  Planning Commission Resolution

5.                  March 8, 2007 Board Report

6.                  Response to Comments Letter dated April 6, 2007

7.                  Ordinance to Approve REZN05-LE-014

8.                  Resolution to Deny SPEX06-LE-020

9.                  Resolution to Deny SPEX06-LE-020 and SPEX06-LE-020

Back to Agenda...