|
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 current staff and referral agency
findings, comments, and recommendations are provided below
for the Proffer Statement dated May 30, 2007. The actual
responses from referral agencies are available upon request.
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.
Water
and Sewer
The WSA
provided the following comments on the most recent proffers:
1.
Regarding item V.B. - The sentence “The applicant
reserves the right to connect to the WSA systems in the most
economical location consistent with sound engineering
principles” must be stricken from the proffer
statement. ALL applicants are required to connect to the
WSA systems at locations as directed by the Authority and/or
in accordance with its Water & Sewer Master plan.
Connections are required to be in such a manner as to
comply with the Authority’s Operating Code. Applicants are
not permitted to “reserve the right” to make their
connections based on any other consideration. Further, I
question whether the County has the legal authority to
encumber the FCWSA with a “proffer” which might be construed
to allow an applicant to connect to one of the Authority’s
systems in a manner which is not wholly consistent with our
regulations. Finally, please remove the references to the
Authority’s “Oversizing Policy” from this section of the
proffers. WSA has seen nothing associated with this project
which indicates that the developer will qualify for an
agreement under this policy. The water line sizes needed
for this project (as defined within the Authority’s Utility
Standards Manual, fire flow requirements and the Water
Master Plan) will be sufficient for both this project and
the future needs in that area (provided the County does not
further increase their desired fire flows). WSA does not
want the developer to get the idea that he may be eligible
for something which is not applicable to his project.
2.
Regarding item V.C - The Authority has not been
consulted regarding the “appearance” of the pump station.
It is not uncommon for design features which are included
to address aesthetic concerns to interfere with the
operability of a facility. WSA recommends that the
Authority be included in discussions on the layout and
appearance of the required pump station BEFORE the proffers
encumber the developer with some requirement or requirements
which may not meet the Authority’s standards for sewage
pumping facilities. Regarding the sizing of the pump
station, the Authority routinely works with developers to
determine the design capacity of pumping stations to be
constructed by them and owned by the Authority. There are
factors other than “anticipated future flows” which must be
accounted for in the initial and ultimate design of a pump
station. Please simply require that the pump station be
designed and sized as required by the Authority and in
accordance with the Water & Sewer Master Plan.
3.
Regarding item V.D. - The developer’s primary
connection point to the Bealeton water system will be into
the Authority’s water lines on the high school property.
The condition that an easement be available at no cost
to the developer needs to be removed (developers routinely
have to pay for off-site utility easements). This
connection is necessary in order to provide water to
the subdivision (also see comment #1, above). However, this
connection does not constitute a “loop.” Looping involves
connecting to the water system at more than one non-adjacent
location. The loop, which will be required by the
Authority, runs under Route 17 and connects to the Freedom
Place subdivision. Of course, ultimate physical completion
of the loop will be dependent upon the construction of both
projects, but each will be required to provide a portion of
it. This is consistent with the Authority’s Water Master
Plan. Please revise this part of the proffers to simply
require that a loop be constructed as required by the
Authority.
Schools
School
Administration has provided the following comments:
1.
Section III.B.5: It is unclear to whom the emergency
access easement will be dedicated. In addition, the
department believes the proffer needs to state what will
occur if the School Board does not grant the easement such
as “If the School Board does not grant permission to use
Independence Avenue, the emergency access will be relocated
to an area that does not impact Independence Avenue.”
2.
Section IV.A.2 The proffer amounts noted herein
should be adjusted to reflect CPI increases since the
proffer policy was adopted. {Note: The CPI adjustment is
reflected within the Proffer Statement; reference IX.
Miscellaneous Provisions (A)}
3.
Section V.D. Clarify whether the water line loop
constructed in an existing WSA easement. If not, then the
developer should be required to discuss an easement and the
possible impact to school property with the School Board
prior to rezoning approval.
Parks &
Recreation
The
Department provides the following comments on the May 30,
2007 proffers:
The
Department is concerned with text change found on page 6
Section III Transportation Improvements B.3. Concerned with
change from shall to may be, seems that
where appropriate is the key phrase. If structure is
appropriate, it should not say maybe. In addition, “the
County” needs to be added to the line, “subject to VDOT
approval” as not all trails are within the VDOT
right-of-way.
Summary and Recommendations:
The
applicant has addressed referral agency comments and met
with VDOT and technical staff to discuss the engineering
technical issues associated with the proffered road
improvements. Although the applicant’s willingness to
quickly respond to staff comments is appreciated, it needs
to be noted that referral agencies daily work assignments
and deadlines do not adjust well to draft Proffer Statements
being re-submitted several times over a short time period.
Staff is waiting to receive revised drainage calculations,
per a technical meeting at VDOT on May 24, 2007. This
material is essential in order for technical staff to be
able to comment on the project. Depending on the referral
agencies responses to the Proffer Statement revisions, and
the drainage calculations, staff may need to respectfully
request that the Board of Supervisors consider closing the
public hearing and allowing for a 30-day postponement to
ensure that the technical issues are resolved.
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 proffer
submittal, dated June 4, 2007, seeks to incorporate issues
discussed in meetings with staff and referral agencies.
During
preparation of this report, staff continues to be in contact
with the applicant’s representative who is working on
responses to the comments received, thus far, from referral
agencies. Due to the extremely short turnaround time to
review the proffers received on May 30, 2007, staff has not
received all referral agency comments. The final version
dated June 4, 2007, represents the inclusion of refinements
made based on the referral agency comments in this report.
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. Although
this remains the ultimate recommendation, VDOT and the
applicant have found consensus in new proffer language that
addresses this issue by committing to building the two land
road with the ultimate grading and preparation for the full
size 4-lane road bed.
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. The applicant is
working on that issue and it has been addressed in the
proffers to allow for future agreement, if approved by
Schools Administration, at the Preliminary Plat stage.
The
following highlights project changes received since the last
hearing:
·
Extension of right turn lanes on Route 17;
·
Design criteria for the East-West connector;
·
Phasing plan of 35 units per year, from date
of Site Plan approval;
·
Language to allow for the adjustment or
deletion of lots to allow for the least impactive alignment
of the East-West connector within the 110 foot dedication
area;
·
Bealeton Bypass monetary contribution of
$4,500 per unit, contingent on approval of the road by VDOT
within 15 years; and
·
Fire and Rescue monetary contribution of $500
per unit, contingent on approval by VDOT of the road in 15
years.
|