PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA REQUEST
Supervisors Meeting Date:
REZONING REQUEST #RZ02-L-07, DONALD K. BEAVER,
LEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
The owner is
requesting 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) with certain uses
removed by proffer. A
specific user has not been identified by the applicant.
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).
Subsequent to the Board of Supervisorsí July public hearing,
the applicant submitted a revised Proffer Statement.
This proffer statement provides that the property will not
be developed with uses from the following Zoning Ordinance
Temporary Uses, 3-309 Outdoor, 3-310 Recreation and Amusement,
3-311 Public and Quasi-Public, 3-318 Agriculture, 3-319
Extraction, and 3-320 Public Utilities.
As noted in the
previous Board report, the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the
Bealeton Service District designates this property for Medium
Density Residential uses, or 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre;
therefore, the requested rezoning designation is not consistent
with the currently adopted Plan.
In addition, the draft Bealeton Service District 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 Routes 17 and 28.
Staff continues to
recommend that the applicant submit a traffic impact analysis (TIA)
prior to Board action on the rezoning.
This TIA would identify the impacts of this development and
the appropriate measures to mitigate those impacts. With that information, the Board could more thoroughly
evaluate the applicant's proposed proffers.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) advises
that a TIA will be required during the site plan process.
VDOT advises that an
entrance permit will not be issued for this property to have
direct access to Route 17 or Route 28 due to entrance to
intersection separation requirements defined by Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and VDOT.
If rezoned, access would only be permitted on Route 837.
Route 837 is a residential road 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.
current proffers provide for right-of-way dedication for future
improvements to Routes 28, 17, and 837 sufficient for deceleration
and/or acceleration lanes along the frontage of the property.
The applicant has agreed to secure and construct
proffers indicate that the applicant will secure dedication to the
County of right-of-way or easements from adjacent property owners
and will construct necessary improvements in conjunction with
other landowners' 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 Routes 28, 17 and 837.
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. 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 applicant has committed to diligently pursue
acquisition of any necessary right-of-way and/or temporary or
permanent easements to construct the necessary interparcel access
proffered, if the right-of-way and/or temporary or permanent
easements are unavailable, the applicant will request that the
County acquire the necessary right-of-way/easements through its
powers of eminent domain. Further,
the applicant agrees to provide the necessary documents for that
process including a Letter of Credit equal to the appraised value
of the property to be acquired and of all damages to the residue
and the costs incurred by the County in acquiring the
transportation proffer indicates that the applicant will dedicate
right-of-way for future improvements to Routes 28 and 17
sufficient for deceleration and/or acceleration lanes along the
frontage of the property at the time of site plan review for any
lot bordering Route 28 or 17, as deemed necessary by the County,
VDOT, and the applicant.
above, a traffic impact analysis was not submitted, which would
help clarify the impacts of this proposed rezoning, what scale of
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.
Without a specific user identified, it is more difficult to
analyze what impact a proposed rezoning would have on the
neighboring properties and existing traffic patterns.
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, a resolution
is included. As an
alternative, an ordinance for approval is included.
Board of Supervisorsí 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.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission did not
have adequate time during its deliberation to analyze the original
proffer statement proposal, which was presented at the time action
was requested. The
current proffer proposal is much different than the original
proposal since it deals more specificially with access
improvements and eliminates potential uses allowable in the
requested C-2 zoning district designation.
financial impact analysis was required.
any other Departments, Organizations or Individuals that would be
affected by this request:
Ordinance for Approval
Resolution for Denial
Revised Proffer Statement