Beaver PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA REQUEST

PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA REQUEST
Owner/Applicant:	Board of Supervisors Meeting Date:
Donald K. Beaver	July 15, 2002
Staff Lead:	Department:
Elizabeth A. Cook	Community Development
Topic: REZONING REQUEST #RZ02-L-07, DONALD K. BEAVER, BEAVER PROPERTY LEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Proposal: The owner originally requested that the Board of Supervisors approve a rezoning for a 1.618-acre parcel in the Bealeton Service District from RA (Agricultural) to C-2 (Commercial Highway) for the purpose of constructing a fast food restaurant. Now the applicant is requesting a C-2 zoning designation with no use restriction specified. The property is located at the northwestern quadrant of the intersection of Route 17 (Marsh Road) and Route 28 (Catlett Road). In addition, the property has a small amount of frontage on Bowers Run Drive (Route 837). General Analysis: On the day of the Planning Commission required action, the applicant submitted a proffer statement for consideration. The applicant did not agree to postpone action in order to allow Planning Commission review and analysis. The current proffer statement offers no limitation on the proposed C-2 uses for the site. Some of the uses permitted in the C-2 zoning district include retail uses, a convenience store, building material sales, kennel, veterinary clinic, financial institutions, offices of less than 5,000 square feet, fast food and other restaurants, service stations, car wash, truck, heavy equipment, and farm equipment sales, recreational vehicle parking, and an auction. The Commercial-Highway District is designed primarily to allow highway related commercial uses where vehicle access is the norm. In regards to location, the Zoning Ordinance states that C-2 areas should be located to provide convenient automobile access, while not overly congesting the existing transportation facilities. In general, primary highway access should be a prerequisite. The minimum size for the C-2 district is five acres. However, the Zoning Ordinance defines minimum size of a district to be the "smallest contiguous amount of land, which can be rezoned to any zoning district unless the area to be rezoned is contiguous to an area already in the same zoning district as that proposed." The parcel meets the minimum district size since it is adjacent to properties that exceed five acres in size and are already zoned C-2. The adopted Comprehensive Plan for the Bealeton Service District designates this property for Medium Density Residential uses, or four to six dwelling units per acre. It should be noted that the current Comprehensive Plan contemplates only commercial neighborhood land use designations on the west side of Route 17, south of its intersection with Route 28. The requested rezoning designation and some of the uses permitted in the C-2 zoning district are not consistent with the currently adopted Plan.
For the Board of Supervisors' information, the Bealeton Service District Citizens Committee has submitted its proposed land use plan for the Bealeton Service District to the Planning Commission for its consideration and public hearing in July. This draft plan designates the subject property for Institutional/Office uses. It is staff's evaluation that a stand-alone, highway-oriented commercial use as permitted in the C-2 district is not consistent with this proposed designation. A commercial use in concert with an office development created through consolidation of adjacent parcels and not oriented to the highway traffic would be more in keeping with the proposed land use designation. Traffic access could also be developed more efficiently and safely through a larger project with controlled access points properly spaced from the intersection of Route 17 and Route 28. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) initially acquired, through a "Quick Take" action, the subject property as part of the proposed interchange at the Route 17 and Route 28 intersection. On June 2, 2002, the applicant's representative provided a copy of a June 12, 2002 letter from Commissioner Philip A. Shucet of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. That letter indicated that the VDOT attorney has been instructed to invalidate the acquisition and return the property to Mr. Beaver. During its review of the initial request, VDOT indicated opposition to the request, due to conflicts with the proposed access point and its proximity to the Route 28/17 intersection, and existing traffic patterns. It is further noted that under VDOT guidelines, no access can be granted on Route 17 or Route 28 due to criteria regarding allowable distances between a proposed commercial entrance and primary road intersections. If rezoned, access would only be permitted on Route 837. Route 837 is currently in poor condition, and the approval of any use with this road as its sole access will require significant off-site improvements by either the applicant or the use of public funds. The applicant's proffers make no reference to Route 837. Proffer Analysis: The proposed proffers indicate that the applicant will secure dedication to the County of right-of-way or easements from adjacent property owners for the delivery of interior on-site travelways, as deemed necessary by the County, VDOT, and the applicant, to provide safe and adequate ingress and egress to and from Route 28 and Route 17. The language of this proffer needs revision since it provides the applicant the ability to void what the County and VDOT may consider adequate interparcel access. The applicant has also proffered to dedicate right-of-way for interparcel access to adjacent properties at the time of first subdivision final plat or final site plan for the adjacent properties. Timing of this dedication to a future action on adjoining parcels is somewhat problematic, and it is not clear that these necessary interparcel connections can be delivered. Further, the applicant proffers to construct temporary means of access as required by VDOT, if the construction of the actual interparcel connections is not done concurrently with the development. The proffers do not indicate who actually is committed to and will build the interparcel connection. The applicant has clearly not stated that he will build the interparcel connection. In addition, VDOT has indicated access to Route 17 or Route 28 from the subject property will not meet minimum separation requirements for issuance of any entrance permit.
The final transportation proffer indicates that the applicant will dedicate right-of-way for future improvements to Route 28 and Route 17 sufficient for deceleration and/or acceleration lanes along the frontage of the property at the time of first final record plat for any lot bordering Route 28 or Route 17, as deemed necessary by the County, VDOT, and the applicant. This proffer may not be binding if the applicant does not agree. In addition, this parcel may not be subdivided, which might result in no dedication. A traffic impact analysis was not submitted, and would help clarify the impacts of this proposed rezoning, what road improvements would be necessary, and where those improvements are needed. Applicant completion of such a study would help the Board of Supervisors in its deliberations.
Requested Action of the Board of Supervisors:
Hold a public hearing and take appropriate action. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to deny this rezoning as recommended by the Planning Commission, an ordinance is presented in Attachment 1. An alternative ordinance for approval is included as Attachment 2. For the Board of Supervisors’ information, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on April 25, 2002. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of this request on May 30, 2002.
Financial Impacts Analysis:
No financial impact analysis was required.
Identify any other Departments, Organizations or Individuals that would be affected by this request: VDOT
Attachments 1. Ordinance for Denial 2. Ordinance for Approval 3. Staff Reports