|
Staff Analysis
Staff and the appropriate referral agencies have reviewed
this request for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance, and other relevant policies and
regulations. Findings, comments, and recommendations are
summarized below. The detailed responses from referral
agencies are available upon request.
Staff notes that no new comments have been received
since the Planning Commission hearing. The referral agency
comments below represent comments on the most recent project
submittal (September 6, 2007).
Zoning Office
The
Zoning Office indicates that its comment letter from the
August 30th Planning Commission meeting still
stands:
1.
The subject property is located within Section D of
the Edgewood East project, which was approved as a Major
Residential Development by Special Exception in 1986. The
applicant is seeking to amend the special exception to
remove a portion of the open space tract “G1” from the
Edgewood East Special Exception. The purpose of the
amendment is to free the land from all restrictions so that
it can then be separated by a boundary line adjustment from
the larger “G1” lot and developed independently as a day
care center, which is allowed in the R-1 zoning district
with approval of a special permit in accordance with Zoning
Ordinance (Z.O.) Sections 3-305.1, 5-006, 5-501, and 5-503.
2.
The subject portion proposed for a Day Care Center
was shown in the special exception plat and on all
subsequent plan and plat approvals for Edgewood East as open
space. The special exception amendment and subsequent
boundary line adjustment to create the portion proposed for
the Day Care Center will result in a decrease in the common
open space in the Edgewood East subdivision, but the amount
provided is still proposed to meet the minimum 50%
requirement.
3.
The Applicant has modified the proposed plan with
this submission to address previously identified zoning
issues, as follows.
a.
Additional landscaping has been provided, reducing
the extent of the landscape waiver that will be requested in
conjunction with the site plan. The increase has been
accomplished by:
- providing landscaping within the
floodplain; and
- providing an additional 20’ area along Route 28 for
landscaping, and clarifying that some landscaping will be
allowed within the easement along this street.
b.
The size of the facility has been reduced, reducing
the number of projected staff to 9 employees. Additionally,
the drop-off area has been revised to provide a free
movement lane and can accommodate 3-4 vehicles at any one
time. The amount of parking required by the ordinance is 2
spaces per 3 employees plus whatever space deemed necessary
for the use. The 14 spaces now proposed more adequately
address parking requirements than did the prior proposal.
Proposed Special Exception/Permit Condition
The day care center shall be limited to no more than nine
(9) employees.
4.
The site continues to be tightly constrained and
zoning staff is concerned that other issues may arise after
final engineering during site plan approval. While approval
of the special permit and special exceptions does not
authorize any waivers or variations from zoning ordinance
requirements, applicants often feel that the permit
overrides requirements. Staff is requesting a general
condition be added to the approvals reiterating that the use
must meet all zoning ordinance and other code requirements
or it cannot be built.
Proposed Special Exception/Permit Condition
The proposed building and layout shall be redesigned to
meet all zoning ordinance and other code requirements on
site, with the size of the building to be reduced if
necessary to meet such requirements.
5) In order to meet side and rear setback requirements, the
submission includes part of the floodplain within the lot to
be created. The zoning ordinance does not specifically
prohibit floodplain from being within a lot except for
certain cluster lots, but the special exception and special
permit standards include provisions for protecting water
quality, addressing drainage, and protecting adjoining
properties, and these standards are better addressed by
keeping the floodplain off the development lot, rather than
placing a portion of it on the tightly constrained lot where
it will more likely be impacted.
Proposed Special Exception/Permit Condition
No floodplain shall be located on the newly created lot;
all floodplain shall remain within the open space portion of
the lot for Edgewood East.
6) Impacts to the floodplain have been expanded with the
current submission. In addition to the installation of
underground sanitary sewer and disturbance for construction
of the building and parking areas, actual construction of
permanent sidewalks is now occurring within the floodplain.
No calculations have been provided to demonstrate the
proposed impacts will not affect the flood plain pursuant to
Section 4-407.3 of the zoning ordinance. In addition, staff
does not believe sidewalks are allowed within the
floodplain, pursuant to Section 4-405.4, which only allows
incursions into the floodplain for “yard areas, pervious
parking and loading areas, pervious airport landing strips,
etc.”
Proposed
Special Exception/Permit Condition
No sidewalks or walkways shall be located within the
floodplain unless they are pervious. Prior to approval of
the site plan, calculations shall be provided to demonstrate
compliance with Section 4-407.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
VDOT
VDOT indicated they have no comments on the most recent
submittal.
Engineering
The
Engineering Department has reviewed the submission and has
the following comments on the September 6, 2007 submittal:
1.
The Applicant presents a sketch purportedly to show
technical information. State Law and County Code provide
that technical information submitted for review by a
regulating agency must be prepared and presented according
to accepted professional standards by a licensed
professional. This submittal does not conform to this
standard.
The
following comments dated June 6, 2007 were not addressed in
the June or July submittals or the September 6, 2007
submittal for this project and thus, are presented again
(with minor addition) for consideration and response by the
applicant.
1.
In view of the on-site soils (with intermittent high
ground water table and potential inclusions of hydric soils)
and the history of this area (wetlands are known to exist in
the area), a COE Jurisdictional Determination (JD)
necessary.
(Staff note: applicant is awaiting renewal of JD.)
2.
It appears that fill of this site within the 100 year
floodplain elevation may be necessary to develop the site.
That fill is inconsistent with County floodplain
regulations. A Category 23 Special Exception must be
submitted and areas of fill clearly identified along with
calculations to support the request.
(Staff
note: addressed in conditions.)
3.
The concept plan submitted for a system to meet SWM/BMP
needs is acceptable in concept but because of site
constraints is problematic. Is unlikely that it can be
correctly implemented as follows:
·
The low water level orifice invert (289) is
below the lowest contour shown for the receiving waters (the
creek at 290).
·
Regulations for the type of system proposed
require that there be at least 3 feet below the system to
the ground water table (FCDSM TB No.8-4). Soils data for
this site shows intermittent high ground water table and the
proposed system is based on the dry pond extended detention
pond concept. The provided geotechnical report was not
intended to evaluate this site. Borings were taken along
the top of newly constructed roadways, which includes mostly
backfill materials used to construct and elevate the roadway
according to appropriate design standards.
·
Elevations for the SWM system are all below
the 100-year floodplain elevation.
·
Test holes are necessary prior to final
design.
(Informational comment.)
Staff Report:
The first
issue raised by this application is whether or not to amend
the existing Special Exception for Edgewood East to remove
the subject area from open space. When Edgewood East was
approved by Special Exception as a major development in
1986, the subject area was shown on the concept plan for the
development as open space, and it was subsequently
calculated and shown as open space on every plan and plat
approved by the County. The applicant is able to request
that the original project Special Exception be amended to
reduce the amount of open space, because the project was
slightly over the minimum 50% open space required.
Therefore, removing the area from the Special Exception does
not take the project below the open space requirement.
Because it is not unusual for projects to be approved with
more than the minimum amount of open space, this application
raises the broader question of when it is appropriate to
reduce open space after a project is built-out.
In this
particular case, although the open space was shown on every
plan and plat approved by the county, including the final
plat for the phase recorded in the land records, the
covenants recorded with the phase did not specify that this
land would be open space, in conflict with the recorded
plan. In addition, although the Homeowners Association (HOA)
has been incorporated with the State Corporation Commission,
it has not been turned over to the residents of the
development by the developer. In addition, the
development’s open space has not been turned over to the
residents as there is no HOA. This is in violation of Zoning
Ordinance requirements. These factors combine to allow the
applicant to apply for the amendment and utilize the open
space without approval of the HOA or individual owners in
the project.
Summary
and Recommendations:
Since the
September 26, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the
applicant has met with each of the members of the Board of
Supervisors and staff to discuss the project. A site visit
was conducted with Supervisor Stribling and staff to observe
the subdivision’s common area (trails, tot-lot and open
space) that the applicant indicated was restored to as-built
conditions, per the Planning Commission’s request. It was
noted that the trails had been raked, open areas mowed and
woody vegetation had been removed from the tot-lot and dam.
However, debris stockpiles were observed along the creek and
within the proposed project site; a weir structure required
placement of gravel to repair an undercut area; and the pipe
outlet required clearing of sediment. The applicant has
indicated that these amenities will be restored to as-built
condition, as outlined in the Special Exception conditions.
Staff
discussed the following item with the applicant and the
Planning Commission had recommended that the applicant take
the following action prior to Board of Supervisors taking
action on this proposal:
Prior to
boundary line adjustment to create the requested lot, the
applicant shall provide a written communication to notify
homeowners of the schedule and process for the Edgewood East
Homeowners Association (HOA) turnover (from the developer to
the residents) for Sections C, D & E and schedule a meeting
with the residents to discuss that issue. The applicant
shall provide a copy of the letter with a list of the
recipients (residents) to whom it was sent to the Zoning
Administrator. (The actual; timing of the establishment of
the HOA and the conveyance of the open space to the HOA will
be upon recordation of the Boundary Line Adjustment to
create the proposed site.)
To date,
this action has not occurred. This condition (number 8 in
the resolution) resulted from input received during public
hearing from Ashley Glen Sections C, D & E residents’
testimony. It was apparent that not all residents were
aware of the subdivision covenants; that an HOA was required
to be established; and what the obligations of the HOA would
be for the residents.
Staff notes
that the proposed parking and number of employees appears
adequate for the site. The site also appears to meet the
landscaping requirements. However, the site continues to be
tightly constrained and staff is concerned that other issues
may arise after final engineering during site plan
approval. Approval of the special permit and special
exceptions does not authorize any waivers or variations from
Zoning Ordinance or other requirements.
Since the
original submittal the applicant has changed its Category 23
(fill in the floodplain) Special Exception request. It
notes that activities in the floodplain will now include
installation of an underground sanitary sewer lateral from
the proposed lot to the existing sanitary sewer main located
east of the site and an outlet pipe for the stormwater
management/BMP facility will also traverse the floodplain so
it can discharge to Craig’s Run. Construction activities
may require equipment and minor land disturbance to occur
within the floodplain limits and fringes.
A text
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard
setback for the use from 150 feet to 90 feet has been
approved. (This pertains to the setback from Route 28.)
Thus, the proposed design of the site meets Zoning Ordinance
requirements. However, staff notes the Parks and Recreation
Departments comment regarding safety. “The Department is
concerned about location of “fenced recreation area” even
with the attempt at mitigation using the landscaped mounds.
This seems very close to Route 28 and will be even closer
after expected future widening of Route 28.”
The
proposed resolution of approval contains Special Exception
conditions to address the aforementioned issues, referral
agency comments and refinements subsequent to the site
visit with Supervisor Stribling.
|
