|
Transportation:
Comprehensive Plan Transportation:
The
short-term action plan outlined in the Bealeton, Opal and
Remington Service District section of the Fauquier County
Comprehensive Plan addresses the Route 28/17 intersection.
The plan states, “with a 4% annual traffic growth rate, this
intersection as currently configured would operate at the
peak hours with a LOS D in 2010 and LOS F in 2020. Both
results are unacceptable for traffic flow, and require road
improvements. In 2010, the Route 28/17 intersection needs
to have both of the Route 28 approaches widened to four
lanes, while the same approaches in 2020 would need to be
expanded to six lanes.” The applicants have proffered
additional right-of-way on Routes 28, 17 and 837 sufficient
for deceleration and/or acceleration lanes along the
frontage of the property, as required by VDOT. The
underlying issue with this proffer is that the applicants’
plan to do individual site plans for each use may not
trigger any required improvements by VDOT.
The
Comprehensive Plan calls for a new road, Church Street, to
be the spine of the northwest quadrant of Bealeton. This
site needs to integrate with that future road. The
Comprehensive Plan also shows a new local access road
through the properties which the applicants have shown on
the Concept Development Plan as an internal road from
Entrance A to Entrance B. This internal road is proffered.
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA):
The TIA (Attachment 7) examined the potential traffic
impact of the proposed project upon the future area road
network. The study area includes Route 17 (Marsh Road) from
Old Marsh Road to Village Center Drive and Route 28 (Catlett
Road) from Oak Shade Road to Station Drive. The TIA modeled
16,800 square feet of specialty retail, 13,000 square feet
of pharmacy, a 3,900 square foot bank, a 2,880 square foot
fast-food restaurant and a 3,200 square foot fast-food
restaurant. Build-out is anticipated to occur by the year
2011 in one phase. Only two drive-through special
exceptions are being sought at this time, not four as
modeled in the TIA.
The TIA provides analyses for three (3) scenarios:
Scenario A assumes access to the site via a
right-in/right-out only site-driveway to be located along
the west side of Route 17 and along the north side of Route
28, respectively. Scenario B assumes access to the site via
a right-in/right-out only site-driveway to be located along
the west side of Route 17 as well as via a
left-in/right-in/right-out only site-driveway to be located
along the north side of Route 28. Scenario C assumes access
to the site via a right-in/right-out only site-driveway to
be located along the west side of Route 17 as well as via a
full access site-driveway to be located along the north side
of Route 28.
The most recent Concept Development Plan sheet 3
(Attachment 1) shows a right-in/right-out on Route 17
(Entrance A), a public road with an entrance off future
Church Road (Entrance B) to be opened when Church Road is
continued, and a frontage road entrance off future Church
Road. The applicants have also proffered a private frontage
street from existing Route 837 entrance on Route 17 along
the front of the property to the Church Road intersection.
In addition the applicants have proffered to rebuild the
portion of existing Route 837 which fronts Route 17 into the
site and then turn existing Route 837 north along the
eastern boundary of the site. The entrance situation is
further complicated by the fact that an entrance is only
allowed on a lesser street (future Church Road) unless a
waiver is granted allowing additional access (Route 17) due
to safety reasons. Such a waiver has not been requested by
the applicants.
The TIA includes suggested improvements to achieve Levels
of Service “C.” The suggested improvements included in the
TIA have not been proffered. The applicants contend that
because each potential user will have to go through the site
plan process and comply with all of the regulatory
requirements in effect at that time, including conducting an
additional TIA in accordance with VDOT regulations, many of
the items will be addressed at that time.
Planning Staff is not supportive of this incremental
approach. The rezoning stage is the appropriate stage to
holistically evaluate a project. While the applicants have
proffered TIA’s for each potential user prior to going
through site plan, if the uses are analyzed individually,
they may not trigger necessary improvements.
Suggested improvements are included on Page 2 of the TIA.
Several of these have been proffered by others and these
projects may not be completed. The applicants have not
committed to doing the improvements that are being
necessitated by this development. The TIA indicates
suggested improvements at the intersection of Route 17 and
Route 28, but none of these have been addressed in the
proffers.
The applicants have provided a copy of an “Agreement to
Fund Road Improvements at the Intersection of Route 28 and
Church Road.” That agreement has not been carefully
reviewed by staff or signed by the involved parties.
Staff and Review Agency Comments:
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. Combined comments from various review
agencies sent to the applicants on the first submission,
dated July 28, 2008, are included as Attachment 4.
Planning:
Issues
identified during review of the applications, and analyzed
in this staff report, that need refinements include, but are
not limited to:
- Lack
of conformance to the Comprehensive Plan as it relates
to uses, design standards, and site layout;
-
Assurance that the development will not be entirely
retail;
-
Proffer revisions (see below);
- Access
is not allowed from both Route 17 and 28 without a
waiver request;
- All
entrances as shown on the Concept Development Plan have
not been modeled in TIA nor approved by VDOT;
-
Service levels E and F without suggested traffic
improvements; and
- VDOT
comments have not been addressed.
Zoning
Office:
Article 5-006, General Standards
General
standards for special exceptions seek to ensure that the
requested use does not adversely affect neighboring
properties. Zoning Staff has been unable to conduct a
comprehensive review of the most recent submission because
the materials submitted are inconsistent and it is not clear
what is actually being proposed or proffered.
Proffer Analysis:
At the
writing of the staff report comments had not yet been
received from the Zoning Office on the May 20, 2009
submittal. Comments are expected prior to the Board of
Supervisors June 11, 2009 public hearing and will be
forwarded upon receipt. Comments on the previous submittal
are as follows:
Zoning Staff
has reviewed the proffers dated February 13, 2009. Staff
would note that few of staff’s prior comments on the
proffers have been addressed. Staff continues to have major
concerns about the clarity and enforceability of the
proffers, as proposed. More specifically:
1.
The proffers related to transportation continue to be
unclear and may not result in comprehensive assessment of
traffic impacts and design and construction of
transportation improvements necessary to support the
development. Most problematic is the proposal to study each
individual building as it is proposed with a site plan,
rather than the development as a whole. While construction
of improvements is reasonably phased with development,
typically the design and analysis occurs up-front on a
development such as this one. The proffers do not clearly
establish time triggers for some improvements. The proffers
also do not address any off-site intersection improvements
that are necessary according to the applicants’ TIA to
support the project. More specifically:
A. Proffer #4A-provides for improvements on a piecemeal basis.
B. Proffer#4B-Not clear that what is depicted on the Concept
Development Plan (CDP) is the same as VDOT regulations;
proffer is therefore self-contradictory.
C. Proffer#4C-No time trigger for new internal public street
construction.
D. Proffer #4D-No time trigger for inter-parcel access construction.
Possible Proffers:
-
The applicants shall design the entire street
system for the project in conjunction with the approval of
the first site plan for a building on the property.
Construction of the improvements may be phased, with the
County and VDOT determining the extent of improvements
necessary with each phase.
-
The applicants shall design and construct a new
public street from east to west through the center of the
property, as generally shown on the Concept Development
Plan. Such street shall have a temporary connection from
the western end of the street through the adjoining
properties to Route 28 as approved by the County and VDOT.
The street, including the temporary connection to Route 28,
shall be constructed and usable before any Certificate of
Occupancy is issued for any building on the property.
-
All public streets and public street improvements
shall be completed and turned over to VDOT prior to any
Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the final building
in the development.
-
The applicants shall contribute $________ to the
County to be utilized toward traffic improvements identified
in the Traffic Impact Study as necessary. The payment
shall be made prior to approval of the first site plan for
the property, and the amount shall be adjusted based on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), with the amount noted above
considered to be January 2009 dollars.
2.
The proffers presume approval of waivers to access,
landscaping and yard requirements, yet such waivers have not
been analyzed by the applicants or requested. As Proffers
cannot override Zoning Ordinance requirements this creates
some confusion. If the proffers related to waivers are
maintained, at a minimum, language should be added
clarifying the alternatives to occur if a waiver is not
granted. Likewise, several proffers rely on future County
agreements with the applicants. It is not clear what
occurs if the applicants do not reach agreement with the
County on issues. Specifically:
A. Proffer#4F-Unclear (what happens if applicants do not agree with
County terms?).
B. Proffer#4G-Presumes approval of access waiver (what happens if
waiver is not approved?).
C. Proffer #7C-In conflict with Zoning Ordinance; presumes waiver or
modification.
3. The proffers limiting certain C-2 uses allow many uses which do
not appear to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
vision for the property, including: gasoline station, auto
dealership, contractor’s storage yards, warehousing, truck
stop, firing range, travel trailer park, retail over 50,000
square feet, car wash, impoundment lot, auction, commercial
processing of agricultural products; warehousing,
wholesaling, bottling plant.
Possible Proffer: The following uses shall not be
allowed: Category 9: Outdoor Recreation; Category 14: Motor
Vehicle Related Uses; Category 15: Wholesaling and
Processing; Category 17: General Industrial; Category 18:
Agricultural; Category 19: Extraction; Category 21:
Transportation
4. The proffers related to architecture and design begin to promote
a coordinated character for the shopping center, with a
traditional form facing the internal street and a more
suburban-style shopping center character facing Routes 17
and 28. Staff has concerns that the proffer regarding
height may lead to strangely designed building forms
(Proffer #7F) as it seems to allow/promote a 12’ deep false
façade for a second story facing the internal street. It
has alternatively been suggested that development should not
face the internal street but rather Routes 17 and 28; if
this is the BOS’ desire, then alternative proffers are
needed to assure this alternative form of development.
5. The proffer related to drive-through facilities is vague (Proffer
#7D). It is unclear what is intended and therefore not
enforceable….what does “shall be designed to coordinate with
buildings facing and abutting the public street right-of-way
mean”? Also, it does not address the number or types of
drive-through lanes allowed.
Possible proffer: No more than three uses
on the property shall have drive-through facilities, and
these shall be allowed only for a single fast food
restaurant, a bank and a pharmacy. A single drive-through
lane is approved for the fast food restaurant and the
pharmacy; two lanes are approved for the bank.)
6. The landscaping proffers (Proffer #7I) are unclear. The proposed
landscaping does not appear to meet the minimum landscaping
requirements and may not be compatible with minimum
requirements. The proposed landscaping relies in part on
VDOT approval of landscaping in the right-of-way, without
any review from VDOT on whether it is possible and no
back-up plan where it is not possible. Historically,
planting allowed in VDOT right-of-way has been quite
limited.
7. Proffer #7K sets forth procedures for an appeal of the Zoning
Administrator’s interpretation of a proffer that differs
from those set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. In both
cases, the appeals go to the Board of Supervisors, but the
Proffers establish a unique timeline. Proffers cannot
override ZO requirements or obligate the County, so this
proffer does nothing but add confusion.
8. Proffers have not been provided on the following key issues which
will affect the form and character of development:
A. Shared parking in order to minimize parking.
Possible Proffer: The applicants shall design the
project utilizing shared parking between uses, with the goal
of reducing the amount of parking and pavement provided.
B. Mix of uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
(Office/Institutional Mixed Use).
Possible Proffer: No more than 50 percent of the
total square footage within the project shall be retail or
restaurant uses.
C. Stormwater Management approach.
Possible Proffer: All stormwater management facilities shall
be underground.
D. Screening of Parking/Loading or Services. Since the buildings are
proposed to face the internal street, these features by
default are likely to be very visible from Routes 17 and
28.
Possible Proffer: Any parking, loading or other
service areas visible from Routes 28 and 17 shall be
completely screened from view from those streets.
E. Signage.
Possible Proffer: All building signage shall be
located in a sign band located between the first and second
floors. Signage shall be coordinated throughout the project
to create a coordinated, cohesive effect. No freestanding
signage shall be allowed in the project except for a single
freestanding sign along Route 17 and a single freestanding
sign along Route 28, each to provide signage for multiple
uses within the project. The freestanding signs shall be
monument type signs no more than 12 feet in height and with
an architectural base constructed from stone, brick or other
natural materials.
Engineering Office:
Future
Actions (Shall be addressed on the final construction plan):
- The
proposed underground StormTech systems are located in
soils subject to intermittent high water table. A soil
analysis will be required to ensure that the site
conditions are suitable for a StormTech chamber system
and whether measures are needed to exclude groundwater
from entering the facility. The soil types within the
subsoil profile, extending a minimum of 3 feet below the
bottom of the facility, shall be identified to determine
whether the infiltration rate or permeability of the
soil will support the use of infiltration practices in
accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management
Handbook or otherwise result in BMP credit taken only as
a detention practice.
- A
pretreatment measure shall be used to remove sediments
or other substances from the stormwater run-off before
it enters the underground StormTech system. (Fauquier
County Design Standards Manual A204.1 #4)
-
Hydrologic and hydraulic design calculations to
demonstrate 10-year overland relief with the storm drain
system plugged shall be provided. (Fauquier County
Design Standards Manual A201.8 #6)
- The
“C” factor, CN, Tc and other pre-condition assumptions
will be evaluated with the final construction plans
based on values from the Fauquier County Design
Standards Manual.
These will be addressed during site plan stage.
Soils
Office:
Findings:
1. Based off the Fauquier County Soil Survey and The Interpretive
Guide to the Soils of Fauquier County, the majority of
the site is rated “GOOD” (71B) for general development
potential using central water and sewer, but bedrock may be
encountered between 40-60” below existing grade. The
remainder of the site is rated “FAIR” (74B) to “POOR” (14B)
due to issues with a high seasonal water table, low bearing
capacity, depth to bedrock, potential for shrink-swell
clays, and soil map unit 14B may have hydric soil
inclusions. All of the soils on the property are listed as
Prime Farmland (14B is listed as Prime farmland if protected
from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing
season).
2. The proposed underground SWM facility is located in a soil that
contains a high seasonal water table, poor permeability with
depth, low bearing capacity when wet, potential for
shrink-swell clays, and is shallow to bedrock (20-40”). Be
advised that the facility will have to be designed to
overcome these issues.
3. Comments may change substantially when preliminary soil
report is submitted.
Future
Actions:
Preliminary
Soil Report
Geotechnical
Investigation
These
will be addressed during final site plan stage.
VDOT:
Comments
have not yet been received from VDOT on the May 20, 2009
submittal. Previous comments are listed below:
“The
Warrenton Residency staff has reviewed the proffers provided
dated February 13, 2009, and they do not address all of our
comments from November 12, 2008. There are still issues
with both the TIA and the Concept Development Plan that have
not been addressed.
- One of
the issues with the TIA is the proposed
right-in/right-out entrance on Route 28 not being
included in the TIA. VDOT will not approve an entrance
at this location without it being evaluated. The
proffers only indicate this will require a Zoning
Ordinance waiver, and does not address the VDOT approval
necessary.
-
Applicants have not sufficiently identified who will be
responsible for the improvements indicated in the TIA,
and how they will address the decrease in level of
service indicated in the TIA.
-
Proffers refer to transportation improvements to be done
as shown on the CDP, but there are none shown.
-
Applicants indicate they will address many of the issues
at the TIA with the site plan, but have not committed to
providing one with each site plan. Individual site
plans may not trigger the warrants for a TIA.
-
Applicants are indicating street trees and benches will
be provided along the public street, but it is unclear
which streets this refers to. Benches will likely
create a fixed hazard within the right-of-way, and would
not be allowed.
- A berm
with landscaping is proposed for Route 28, but it is not
clear if this would be within the right-of-way. Without
any design or location to review, VDOT cannot agree to
placement within the right-of-way.”
VDOT
comments in their entirety, dated November 12, 2008, are
included as Attachment 8.
The
applicants have not addressed many of the previous comments
related to transportation. The applicants contend that the
TIA assumed more traffic than will actually be generated by
the site. TIAs are proffered for each site plan submitted
for approval.
It is the
applicants’ view that because Virginia Code Section
15.2-222B provides for VDOT comment on rezoning approvals
not VDOT approval, the technical comments related to the TIA
had not been addressed. Previous comments on the TIA by
VDOT and MCV Associates are included in the initial comments
generated after first review of the applications included as
Attachment 4.
Planning
Commission Summary and Action of October 30, 2008:
The Planning
Commission discussed this item at its work session. A
public hearing was held. One person from Culpeper County
spoke in favor of the project and thought it would bring
jobs to the area. The applicants’ representative stated
that the applicants would like to postpone action on the
application until the next regularly scheduled meeting to
allow time to work on clarifying the proffers.
Planning
Commission Summary and Action December 10, 2008:
The Planning
Commission discussed this item at its work session. A
public hearing was held. Two individuals spoke in
opposition to the proposal, specifically as it relates to
the architectural aspect and community appeal of the
project. The applicants requested the Planning Commission
postpone action until the January public hearing to allow
time to work on the numerous issues that were identified in
the staff report.
Planning
Commission Summary and Action January 29, 2009:
The
applicants requested this item be postponed prior the
Planning Commission’s work session. A public hearing was
held. Two individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal,
specifically as it relates to the ultimate layout of the
site. The applicants requested the Planning Commission
postpone action until the February public hearing to allow
time to work on the issues that were identified in the staff
report.
Planning
Commission Summary and Action on February 26, 2009:
The Planning
Commission discussed this item at its work session. The
Commission expressed a desire to work with the applicants on
further refining the project to address the many concerns
that had been raised by staff during the review of the
project. The applicants requested the Planning Commission
move the application forward to the Board of Supervisors
with a recommendation as it had been early advertised for
the Board’s March 12, 2009 agenda. The Planning Commission
voted unanimously to forward the project with a
recommendation of denial. Reasons for denial included: the
proposal was not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
as it relates to uses, design
standards and site layout in the Bealeton Service District;
the proposal was not in conformity with all the applicable
special exception standards of Article 5 of the Zoning
Ordinance; the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) indicates the development will produce
service levels of E and F and the traffic impacts of the
proposed use have not been mitigated.
Board of
Supervisors Summary and Action on March 12, 2009:
The Board of
Supervisors held a public hearing wherein four members of
the public spoke; two in opposition and two in favor of the
requests. The applicants’ representative requested the item
be postponed for thirty days to allow time to address issues
raised by staff and several Supervisors.
Summary and Recommendation:
This
application has been under consideration since June 2008.
During that period, some of the significant concerns raised
by staff and referral agencies have been addressed by the
applicants. The applicants have not proposed proffers that
would address many issues of consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, or that adequately address
transportation impacts of the proposed project. The
applicants have indicated that they are unable to do so
because they do not know the actual tenants on the site and
the range of limitations suggested by staff would eliminate
or reduce some of the potential marketing opportunities for
the site. Staff agrees that this is the case. Proffers
that would bring the ultimate uses and layout of the site
into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan would likely
reduce marketability of the site to some users unwilling to
vary from their preferred building layouts.
Staff
believes that the remaining issues are significant, and
therefore recommends denial of the proposal as it is
currently presented. No commitment to transportation or
other improvements beyond what would typically be required
through the site plan process have been proposed, which in
this case may be insufficient to actually address traffic
impacts of the project.
Staff is
diligently working with the owners and their representative
toward a better project. Proffers could be added which
would significantly improve the design and ultimate
appearance of the development, mix of uses, and circulation
into and through the site. As proffers are voluntary, the
County cannot impose such proffers, but the County can
decline to approve the Rezoning unless the applicants choose
to address the identified issues through proffers.
If the Board
of Supervisors wishes to deny the requests, a resolution has
been included. If the Board of Supervisors wishes to
approve the applications, staff has developed a Resolution
with recommended Conditions of Approval for the
drive-through Special Exceptions (Resolution 2) and an
Ordinance approving the Rezoning. The owner’s
representative has indicated he is not in agreement with
some of the proposed conditions. The conditions would apply
only to the Special Exception applications; they do not
address the Rezoning. Proffers address Rezonings, and these
are voluntary. |
