PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA REQUEST

Owners/Applicants:

Board of Supervisors Meeting Date:

Grace Lim and James Lim (a.k.a. In Seok Lim)

 

July 9, 2009

Staff Lead:
Holly Meade, Senior Planner

Department:
Community Development

 

Magisterial District:
Lee

Service District:
Bealeton

PIN:
6899-16-6332-000
6899-16-9374-000

 

 

Topic:

REZN08-LE-007, SPEX08-LE-028, and SPEX08-LE-030:  Applicants Wish to Rezone 6.7 Acres From Rural Agricultural (RA) to Commercial – Highway (C-2) and 1.56 Acres From Commercial – Highway (C-2) With Proffers to Commercial – Highway (C-2) With Revised Proffers.  Applicants are also Requesting Two Category 13 Special Exceptions to Allow for Drive-Throughs to Accommodate a Bank and Pharmacy 

Note:  SPEX08-LE-029, drive-through for a restaurant was withdrawn by the applicant on May 20, 2009.

 

Project Update:

Revised proffers (Attachment 1a), which are not dated, were signed by the Owners/Applicants and received by the Department of Community Development on June 26, 2009.  These proffers address many of the previous concerns that had been raised by the Board of Supervisors and staff.  The proffers include a sketch plan (Attachment 1b).  In staff’s view, this sketch plan would cause problems in the future, because it does not match the Concept Development Plan (Attachment 1c) that has been proffered.  Staff suggests that the sketch plan be redrawn to match the Concept Development Plan, or that the sketch plan be deleted.  Staff also suggests the hand-marked Concept Development Plan dated June 26, 2009 be redrawn by the applicant as it includes many strikethroughs and is now quite unclear.

The current proffers do not allow incompatible Commercial Highway (C-2) uses to locate on the property.  The uses which are prohibited include auto repair garage, gas station, car wash, and automobile and equipment sales, rental and service.  The applicant has committed to a minimum of two (2) two-story buildings on the site, with one of these being the corner building at the intersection of Route 17 and Route 28.  The site is limited to two drive-throughs, which are required to be located so they are not visible from the local frontage road or Bowers Run Road.  (Staff note – the proffers do not restrict the drive-throughs to a bank and pharmacy.)

The site will be designed so that a local frontage road runs parallel to Route 28 and Route 17.  A new public road will also be constructed on the applicant’s property along the northern boundary of the site.  Buildings will front these streets and have functional entrances on all streets.  Sidewalks will be located between the new roads and the buildings and contain a variety of landscaping and street furniture. 

Provisions have not been made in the proffers for road widening on Route 17 and Route 28.  It is anticipated that the frontage road will relieve Route 17 and Route 28 of some congestion.  A network of interconnected streets, as shown in the Bealeton Plan, is also planned to take traffic off Routes 17 and 28.  Transportation proffers do include the construction of (a) entrance and necessary improvements at Route 17 and Bowers Run Road, (b) intersection improvements at Route 28 and Church Road, (c) local frontage lane and its off-site connection to future Church Road, (d) reconstruction of Route 837 on the site, and (e) new public road along northern boundary of the property.  While the applicant provided the County Attorney an Agreement to Fund Road Improvements at the Intersection of Route 28 and Church Road, this is not referenced in the proffers.  It will be the applicant’s responsibility to resolve how to fund these improvements.

Some design provisions have been proffered.  Curb cuts have been limited, building materials are specified, and earth tones are required.  Free standing signs have been limited to two monument signs a maximum of eight feet in height.  Building mounted signs, awning signs, and small projection signs are allowed.

Topic Description/Analysis:

See staff report dated June 11, 2009, contained in Attachment 1d.

 

Location, Zoning and Current Land Use: 

The properties are located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Route 17 and Route 28 in Bealeton and are zoned a combination of Commercial (C-1 with proffers) and Agricultural (RA).  The larger property is currently vacant with the smaller piece containing several unused structures.

Zoning Map

Limzoning

                    

Surrounding Zoning and Current Land Use: 

Property to the north is zoned Planned Residential Development (PRD with proffers, former Freedom Place) and Agricultural (RA) and is a combination of vacant and residential.  Property to the south across Route 28, is zoned Commercial (C-2) and is the location of Quarles Oil, Inc.  Property to the east across Route 17 is zoned a combination of Commercial (C-2) and Agricultural (RA) and is the location of Popeye’s and Liberty High School.  Property to the west is zoned Planned Residential Development (PRD) with proffers and is currently vacant although it is the site of the Freedom Place rezoning.

Comprehensive Plan/Land Use: 

The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Institutional/Office/Mixed Use. The wider application of mixed-use urban planning concepts is encouraged in this area which is specifically targeted for mixed-use development.  Any proposal for mixed-use development in this area needs to maintain a strong commercial presence.  This land use category should emerge as the new, traditional downtown of Bealeton with a dominant presence of commercial uses, both office and retail.  Institutional uses are specifically sought in this area.  The applicant has proffered that retail or office uses will be located on the ground floor of all buildings and that at least fifty percent of all ground floor floor-space fronting the local frontage road will be in retail use.  (Residential uses are currently not allowed in the C-2 District.  Should this change in the future, the second floors could be used for residential uses.)  

The Comprehensive Plan calls for streets laid out in a traditional town form.  The current proffers create this form with buildings fronting the local frontage lane, on-street parking and most parking set behind the buildings.

For commercially based mixed-use areas, design principles are critical and are outlined in the amended Bealeton Comprehensive Plan.  These design principles include but are not limited to the following:  pedestrian orientation, predominantly multi-story buildings, parking behind the principle structures, buildings and building entrances placed directly behind the sidewalks, mix of uses within buildings, appropriately scaled window and door openings on the first floor, street furniture, coordinated landscaping and hardscaping, including street trees, pedestrian crossings with special pavers, pocket parks and civic spaces, and signage keeping with a traditional town.  Many of these design features have now been proffered. 

Land Use Plan

limcp

 

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.”  However, roads in the Bealeton area are no longer experiencing traffic growth rates of 4% annually.  In lieu of road widening, the applicant is proffering a local frontage road to add road capacity to the area.  This is in keeping with the Bealeton Boulevard concept called for in the Bealeton Plan.  The applicant has also proffered improvements at the intersection of Route 28 and future Church Road and at the intersection of Route 17 and Bowers Run Road (Route 837) which must meet Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) specifications.

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.

Board of Supervisors Summary and Action on June 11, 2009:

The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing wherein one member of the public spoke in opposition to the traffic and duplication of existing services in the area.  The applicant requested the item be postponed for thirty days to allow time to continue working toward a better project. 

Recommendation:

If the Board of Supervisors wishes to recommend approval of the applications, staff recommends doing so subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached resolution.  If the Board of Supervisors wishes to recommend denial, a resolution has been prepared for that action as well.

Requested Action of the Board of Supervisors:

Conduct a public hearing and consider the attached resolutions.  Resolution 1 is for denial.  Resolution 2 (or Alternate Resolution 2) and the proposed Ordinance are for approval.

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

Department of Community Development
Department of Economic Development
Commissioner of the Revenue
Citizens of Bealeton

ATTACHMENTS:

1a.         Proffer Statement Not Dated, Signed June 26, 2009

1b.        Sketch Plan Received June 26, 2009

1c.         Hand-marked Concept Development Plan Received June 26, 2009

1d.        Board of Supervisors Staff Report Dated June 11, 2009 (Including Attachments)

 

Back to Agenda...