|
Staff
Analysis:
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. New staff and referral agency findings,
comments, and recommendations are summarized below. The
actual responses from referral agencies are available upon
request.
Zoning Comments:
Zoning Staff provided the following comments on April 15,
2005:
1.
This property was rezoned from RA to R1 in 1990
subject to the following proffer limitation: If
Preliminary Plans for the Golf Course Community are not
approved by the Fauquier County Approving Agency by the end
of calendar year 1992, the remainder is to be deed
restricted as non-common open space. The proffers also
state “if at any time in the future the portion of the
property which is developed as a golf course ceases to be a
golf course said property shall revert to non-common open
space and shall be deeded in perpetuity as non-common open
space in accordance with the non-common open space zoning
regulations.” The applicant now proposes, with this
amendment, to develop portions of the non-common open space
required under the prior proffers. The response for this
application states that this amendment would improve upon
the existing conditions. Please identify how this
application would better meet the needs of the county by
changing conditions that were set by the board for improving
the site conditions.
2.
Lots allowed/proposed: The number of lots proposed
originally increased with the 1989 rezoning, and has
increased again between the 1st submission of
this rezoning and the 2nd submission:
1st
sub. 2nd sub.
1990
Rezoning Current Prop. Current
Prop.
# Lots
38 50
85
The response indicates
that this application is proposing an increase in lots for
low and moderate income family housing. Please identify
each lot with specifications meeting the guidelines as set
in Appendix B, as follows
A.
The developer must provide assurance to the County
that the units to be provided for the housing of low and
moderate in come families will continue to be available for
the purpose for at least five (5) years. This assurance
shall take the form of a proffer tender in accordance with
the section 15.2298, Code of Virginia or other mechanism
approved by the Board.
B.
The dwelling units to be provided for housing low
and moderate income families shall include a range of
housing types suitable to the needs of the community in
which located (i.e., shall include an appropriate mix 0f
1,2,3 and 4 bedroom units.)
C.
The number and portion of subsidized dwellings in a
proposed development shall not result in an undue
concentration of families with limited means in the
community or in the proposed development.
D.
Developments qualifying for the incentives in this
Appendix shall be located in areas where the provision of
public services is most feasible. Such areas include
service districts and adjacent R-1 zoning districts where
utilities are currently available to support the density of
a proposed development.
3.
The applicant shows access to the R-2 portion of site
being provided through adjoining properties. Prior to any
subdivision the applicant would have to secure any required
easements to develop that access. Language has been
added to the proffer statement (pg. 3, second #1) indicating
that applicant shall provide access through an interparcel
connection with an adjoining residential property. Please
note that if permission for such access has not been and
cannot be secured through the adjoining property as
proffered, the project will not be able to be built without
a proffer amendment. Note further that this proffer in no
way ties the adjoining property owner to any requirement to
provide such access.
This item is understood but again, if access is not
secured with easements, the proffer cannot tie any adjoining
property owner to this requirement and further restricts the
applicant from access in another area without going through
the process again for an amendment. The proffer should
state: “we will be responsible for gaining access from
adjoining property owners for access.”
4.
The applicants proffer identified certain active
recreation uses that are not consistent with the zoning
ordinance provisions for active recreation. Trails do not
qualify as active recreation uses under the zoning ordinance
and should not be characterized as such in the proffer
language. Ordinance provisions cannot be changed through
proffer language.
Such active recreation area has been shown on the plan.
Please define what will be located in this area to meet the
active recreation provisions and further meet the
requirements of the ordinance. Proffer conditions do not
change Zoning Ordinance requirements.
5.
The proposed proffers assume that affordable units
are not subject to the proffer policy therefore no
contributions are proposed for the affordable units. The
proffer policy does not address whether affordable units are
intended to be exempt; therefore the Commission and Board
should address this issue.
This has not been changed to reflect proffer
contributions for such lots. Proffers are designed to
offset the increase to the community by the development
impacts. Low and moderate income housing will impact the
area as any other lot would and are not exempt from proffer
provisions.
6.
The rezoning increases the density on the property by
47 units. Typically proffers would begin with the 39th
lot (including the existing lots). The proffers do indicate
payments would start after the 32nd new lot
(which is the 39th lot total). The proffers
propose no payment for affordable units.
The response states that this is consistent with the
Proffer Policy. Please identify how this is consistent with
the total lots, total contributions for lots and the
breakdown how this meets the guidelines set by the board to
absorb the impacts of such development.
Additional Comments:
Please note that it is not possible to do a full evaluation
of the conceptual plan’s compliance with zoning regulation
until more detailed plans are filed at later stages. Future
plans must comply with all regulations of the zoning
ordinance, except for those that are specifically waived as
part of the rezoning application and approval.
Please clarify the future use for the non common open space
parcel. If this lot is to be used as a lot for a SFD then
the proffers should reflect this as an additional lot.
Engineering
Considerations
The
Engineering Department has reviewed the referenced plan
submitted in April 2005 and has the following comments:
1.
The concept SWM/BMP plan does not meet the minimum
County requirements. Conservation easements on private
residential lots do not qualify. BMP/credit for qualifying
open space will be limited to jurisdictional wetlands and
flood plain areas that do not have overlying encumbrances.
SWM/BMP’s are to be provided for the 72 lots that are being
proposed. The site for analysis is to be the 31 ac tract
identified as PIN 6981-44-4079 that is proposed to be
developed. A separate analysis for the 5 additional lots on
parcel 6981-27-6354 is to be provided. The existing pond on
PIN 6981-27-6354 may be utilized to meet the County
requirements. Proffer condition IV, 4 is not in conformance
with BMP conservation credit allowed.
2.
Almost all of the soils shown are characterized as
having a high water table and/or being hydric. This is an
indication of possible wetlands. USCOE/DEQ permits should
be required prior to preliminary plan approval. The creek
should be protected.
3.
The proposed road through the Green Meadows
Subdivision will eliminate some of the BMP treatment
facilities in the Green Meadows Subdivision and that
subdivision will no longer meet the minimum requirements of
the Fauquier County Stormwater management Ordinance. This
subdivision should address how this is to be remedied. At
this time, not enough information is available to determine
if proffer condition IV, 4 will satisfy the minimum
requirements.
4.
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
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.” Proffer condition IV, 2 may not be in
conformance with this.
5.
The area proposed for development appears to have
been slated for non-common open space in perpetuity in
condition #5 of the rezoning of May 1, 1990. Can lots and
common open space replace this previous condition since some
of the lots from this previous rezoning appear to have been
recorded?
6.
Typical street section should be based on traffic
counts.
7.
The cul de sacs to the north should be connected to
allow for better traffic movement.
8.
The streets in the Green Meadows Subdivision were
designed for internal traffic only. An additional 720 VPD
generated by this subdivision may exceed the design
volumes. The Green Meadow Subdivision roads have not been
accepted into the State Road System at this time, so there
is no public street access to this site.
9.
Since the drainage area to the creek is substantially
more than 100 acres, the final construction plans will
require that drainage easements will be required at the 100
year flood water surface elevation to preserve the
inundation zone. Houses should not be constructed in the
inundation zone. Lots 47, 48, 67, 66, 13, 14, 15, 16, 35,
49, 50, 65, 34, and others may have to be relocated.
10.
Based on soils types shown the proposed dry ponds are
not appropriate. Proffer conditions IV, 4 is contradictory
to this.
11.
No stormwater runoff generated form new development
shall be discharged into jurisdictional wetland without
adequate treatment.
12.
An overlot grading plan is to be provided as part of
the Final Construction Plans. It is to show downspout
discharges and sump pump discharges.
13.
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.
14.
Houses are not to be located in existing swales or
streams. These areas shall be preserved to the maximum
extent practicable.
Soil
Scientist
After
reviewing the County Soil Survey information in the office
for the above stated rezoning application stamped by Timothy
W. Vaughan, the following comments are made.
1.
Lots 1-6 primarily consist of 47C, Elioak – Fauquier
complex, and 16B Meadowville silt loam. Map unit 47C is
rated good for general development while 16B is rated poor
due to intermittent high water tables and concentrated
runoff.
2.
Lots 1 – 37 and the remaining portion of the property
predominantly consists of soils rated very poor for general
development and may contain wetlands. A small portion of
these areas are rated good.
3.
The majority of the parcels are mapped as hydric
soils or as map units with potential for hydric soil
inclusions. A wetland determination and/or permits from the
Corps of Engineers will be essential on this site. See
attached map.
4.
Wetness and high shrink-swell ratings are problems on
a majority of the soils on these parcels. Also, soils
having a low bearing capacity when wet. Therefore, a
geotechnical study is recommended for this site.
VDOT
The Warrenton Residency staff reviewed the above referenced
rezoning dated March 24, 2005, and has the following
comments:
1.
Traffic Impact Analysis is indicating that Green
Meadows is a 47-unit subdivision, but the preliminary plan
was approved for 93 units.
2.
There are two access points to Green Meadows that are
both called Clarkes Meadow Drive, but it is unclear from the
study which one was evaluated because the study does not
reflect the second access.
3.
Data collection for the traffic counts on Clarkes
Road were not included with the TIA. In 2001, VDOT’s
traffic count indicated an ADT of 291. A lower count than
this appears to be indicated in the TIA.
4.
Per VDOT’s February 2, 2005 comments, the 2005
Road Design Manual Appendix B Subdivision Street Design
Guide indicates that streets with a vehicle per day
count of 400 to 2000 should have a curb to curb width of
36-foot. Phases 1 and 2 of Green Meadow were designed with
a 36-foot road section for Clarkes Meadow Drive from Route
608 to Jay Logan Drive. However, Phases 3 and 4 were only
designed with a 30-foot road section for the remainder of
Clarkes Meadow Drive. Green Springs subdivision is
proposing to access on the portion of road that is only
designed for a 30-foot road section. The additional traffic
generated by the proposed development will be 720 vehicles
per day not including the traffic in Green Meadows. The
comment response letter stated that the TIA indicated that
the additional traffic would not have an adverse impact on
the roads. However, the TIA is only looking at the
intersections, and does not address the width of the roads
Under “Other Development” the TIA is listing the Clarkes
Property with 48 units, but it does not indicate where this
development is located. Provide additional information.
5.
VDOT’s previous comments questioned how the access
through the adjoining property to Route 29 would be
utilized. The comment response letter indicated this was
still being reviewed with the County. In order to insure
that all entrances are sufficient, this issue needs to be
determined prior to final comments on the rezoning.
6.
Who determined which intersections needed to be
reviewed with the TIA? Due to the close proximity of Route
608/Route 17 to the intersection of US 29 and Route 17, it
appears that this intersection should have been evaluated.
If access is going to be made to Route 29, that intersection
should also be included.
7.
According to our Subdivision and Commercial Entrance
Worksheet, based on the traffic counts indicated in the TIA
the turn lanes on Route 17 should be 400 feet of left turn
lane and taper and 350 feet of right turn lane and taper.
Provide information regarding the length of the existing
turn lanes and tapers.
8.
Per our previous comments, demonstrate with a sight
distance profile that the proposed access on Clarke Meadow
Drive meets the current minimum sight distance requirements.
9.
Per our previous comments, a typical section needs to
be provided for the proposed streets. The streets will need
to be constructed in accordance with the 2005 Subdivision
Street Requirements Manual and Road Design Manual, and
it should be indicated on the plan that the streets are
being proposed for public street purposes.
Kellerco
After reviewing the TIA, Kellerco has the following
comments.
1.
Percentage of Heavy Vehicles is Too Low
A 2% assumption was used in all the HCS analyses for not
only Route 17 through traffic but also turning movements
in/out of Sheetz. Hopefully, the March 9, 2005 traffic
count included truck classification because 2% is believed
to be too low for both Route 17 and the Sheetz driveway
movements. Either the 2% needs to be confirmed with actual
data or more realistic heavy vehicle percentages need to be
used in all the HCS analyses.
2.
Application of Annual Growth Rate of 8% Only to
Route 17 Through Movements for 2007 Background Traffic Needs
to be Reassessed
Since Sheetz’s driveway traffic is obviously related to
Route 17 traffic, it seems that if Route 17 through traffic
increases 16% in two years all the turning movements in/out
of Sheetz should not be 0% for two years. The four major
movements should therefore be increased at the same rate;
i.e. +16%, to reflect increased Sheetz traffic as the Route
17 through traffic increases. As noted in item 1, the
appropriate heavy vehicle percentages need to be applied to
these four Sheetz movements.
3.
Residential Site Trip Distribution Should be
Confirmed
While a 90%/10% geographic distribution has been used for
both the Clarke’s property and Green Springs property, this
percentage distribution should be compared to other
residential distributions used in other area TIA’s. For
example, this location may attract more residential traffic
to/from the Fredericksburg area making the 10% too low.
4.
No Turn Lane Dimensions are Provided on Route 17
so the Need to Lengthen Existing Left/Right Turn Lanes
Cannot be Confirmed to Serve Higher Traffic Volumes
Existing left/right turn lane lengths need to be indicated
for Route 17 to verify that increased turning movement
traffic in 2007 does not justify longer left/right turn
lanes.
5.
Signal Warrant Analysis Needs to be Done for 2007
Since the Route 17 through volumes are so high and the side
street delay for the Sheetz driveway is LOS D and could be
LOS D with the suggested item 1 and 2 comments, an updated
TIA should included a signal warrant analysis.
6.
No Mention of Possible Long-Term Changes in Assess
or Land Use
A year or so ago Sheetz discussed a site plan for expansion
and access modification. Presumably this expansion is not
anticipated by 2007 because it would impact the Route
17/Sheetz/Clarkes Road interchange. Also, the Opal
Comprehensive Plan introduced a relocation of Clarkes Road
to the east so it could extend east of Sheetz. This
relocation was discussed along with the Sheetz expansion.
Summary and Recommendations:
It is
recommended that the Board of Supervisors hold the public
hearing on this item. Staff strongly encourages the
applicant to request postponement to allow for additional
time to work out project refinements and to allow the
referral agencies to comment on the revisions. The June 2,
2005 proffers and anticipated revised CDP reflect a prior
submission that has not been reviewed by the referral
agencies. The County also needs to better understand the
affordable housing proposal, as well as how it will continue
effectively through time. The applicant has met with staff
and indicates that a new version of the Concept Development
Plan will be provided to the Planning Office. Although this
item may not make it in time to be part of this report.
The
applicant has been working diligently with staff to address
referral agency comments (site access, engineering issues,
trails and recreation and proffer revisions) and refine the
project to address those concerns. However, the site access
via the Green Meadows subdivision remains unresolved. The
applicant indicates that they will have a proffer to address
a second access point based on discussions with VDOT. In
addition, both VDOT and Kellerco comments on the TIA should
be addressed.
Staff also
notes the inclusion of the affordable units, via proffers,
is a project enhancement as there is a need for this type of
housing in the County. However, more detail regarding the
type of unit, how the lot is conveyed to the home builder,
the cost, the projected house cost, as well as details
regarding re-sale limitations placed on the lot and the
qualified homeowner, if any, is needed.
|
