Attachment 1 O17-10 BACKGROUND REPORT Quantico Village, LLC (Applicant) is requesting a reclassification from the B-1, Convenience Commercial and B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning Districts to the R-3, Urban Residential High Density Zoning District, to allow for the construction of 86 townhouse residential units on Tax Map Parcel Nos. 13-37 and 13-42A (Property), on 12.58 acres, located on the south side of Telegraph Road, 1,200 feet east of Jefferson Davis Highway. The zoning map below highlights the rezoning area in red outline. Zoning History Zoning Map The Property was rezoned from R-4, Manufactured Home to B-2, Urban Commercial on October 17, 2006 with proffers. The current proffered B-2 zoning development scheme envisions a mixed use of commercial and residential apartment units in up to 180,200 square feet of buildings. The residential uses were not specifically proffered, but there are proffer contributions of $10,000 per unit. The residential units would have been permitted at the time in the B-2 district under the Commercial Apartment use designation. Subsequently on September 2, 2008, the Commercial Apartment use was deleted as a permitted use from the B-2 Zoning District. In September of 2009, a site plan was submitted for 180,200 square feet of office/warehouse space but was not approved. No other development activity on the Property has occurred to date. Existing Conditions The Property is surrounded by a variety of residential uses, including single-family detached, townhome, and mobile home units. The parcels to be developed are currently undeveloped. No resource protection areas have been identified. There are wetlands that bisect the Property.
Attachment 1 O17-10 Page 2 The site has varying topography including a level high plateau on the eastern end, steep slope down to a level area in the middle of the Property where the wetlands are located and steep slopes upward to a peak in the western portion of the site. The elevations are clearly identified on the existing conditions exhibit, page 2 of the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Site Aerial View The GDP (Attachment 6) depicts the proposed design of the site to include 86 townhouse lots. A 10-foot buffer and a board fence will be present along the Property boundaries to the east, north, and south. There will be a single access point off of Telegraph Road, with dedicated left and right turn lanes out of the site, and a deceleration lane on Telegraph Road. The internal streets are designed to account for the varying topography. The townhouse units in the eastern portion of the Property sit on the upper plateau. A neighborhood street circles down to the central area of the site where more townhouse units sit at a lower elevation. Retaining walls would likely be required between these two areas. Secondary vehicle access was requested by Fire and Rescue staff, but the Applicant was unable to secure a connection at this time. To address this concern, vehicle turn-around areas for emergency vehicles would be provided in the central area of the Property. The western portion of the Property would remain undeveloped open space where the topography is more severe. The GDP reflects 7.92 acres of open space accounting for approximately 63% of the Property. This exceeds the 25% minimum required by the R-3 Zoning District. The open space will be used for stormwater management facilities, wetland preservation, natural areas, and community recreation. For community recreation use, a tot lot is proposed to be constructed, in the location shown on the GDP. The tot lot will include a swing set, sliding and climbing equipment, and a bench.
Attachment 1 O17-10 Page 3 Generalized Development Plan Transportation A transportation impact analysis (TIA) was not required with this application. It was estimated that the use would generate up to 504 vehicle trips per day (VPD), which is under the 1,000 VPD threshold requiring a TIA. In addition, as noted in this report, this zoning action would reduce the potential amount of traffic to 25% of what might occur under the current B-2 Zoning District. The B-2 zoning of the site, allowing up to 180,200 square feet of office space, is equivalent to 1,984 VPD. In addition to the proposed entrance improvements, the applicant will need to meet site distance requirements on Telegraph Road which will be reviewed as part of the preliminary plan. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Boswell s Corner Planning Area. This Planning Area includes a conceptual land use plan, which recommends the site for business and industry and highway commercial future land use.
Attachment 1 O17-10 Page 4 Boswell s Corner Planning Area - Land Use Concept Redevelopment Area Plan The Boswell s Corner Redevelopment Area Plan (RDA Plan), a separate element of the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2011, applies to this area as well and includes a higher level of detail. The RDA Plan as it was being developed envisioned a mixed-use urban scale development pattern, including a grid pattern network of streets and various types of residential and commercial uses. This is reflected in many of the illustrations in the RDA Plan, as shown on page 5. The RDA Plan identifies residential uses in the location of the subject Property. Upon adoption of the RDA Plan, due to the proximity to Quantico and potential conflicting uses, new residential use was limited with the approval resolution specifying that no more residential should be permitted beyond what already exists or is permitted by-right. Therefore, the proposal is not fully consistent with the goals of the RDA Plan. An argument can be made that the residential uses fit the concept envisioned for this area, although the use may not be in concert with the final recommendations of the RDA Plan.
Attachment 1 O17-10 Page 5 Portion of Boswell s Corner Master Redevelopment Plan Site highlighted in Red Staff notes that the residential use does fit in with the adjacent established residential neighborhoods and commercial development of the site may not be realistic without consolidation with adjacent parcels. Military Influence Area Zones Given the proximity to Marine Corps Base Quantico (Base), the proposed development lies within the Military Influence Area Zone (MIA Zone), as identified in the recently amended Comprehensive Plan. The MIA Zone is divided into sub-zones. The Property is within Zone 2.2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies use compatibility of various uses in each zone, by low, moderate or high impact. In Zone 2.2, residential is identified as having moderate impact. MIA Zones
Attachment 1 O17-10 Page 6 Mitigation recommendations include sound attenuation, height limits, lighting controls and special reviews. As an attempt to address this issue, the Applicant is proffering to incorporate soundproofing construction materials, and provide real estate marketing disclosure notices to notify future purchasers that activities on the Base make noise and can be distracting. Proffers require construction design specifications for the exterior walls, roofs, and windows that reduce ambient exterior noise levels within each residential unit to a 45dBa Ldn (Average Daily Noise Level) or less. The application was provided to Base staff. In discussions with the Base Planning staff, they were not opposed to the project. Fiscal Impacts Staff notes that the County-wide average annual fiscal impact is -$1,368.06 per single-family attached dwelling unit, based on a study prepared for the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Applied to all 86 new dwellings, this equals a negative impact of -$117,653.16 annually. That impact is based on the average sales price of single-family, attached dwelling units in the County and is not reflective of the sales prices of homes within the proposed development. Monetary Proffers Staff notes that this application was submitted on June 30, 2016, prior to the effective date of the amended residential proffer legislation pursuant to Virginia Code 15.2-2303.4. A proffer statement dated January 24, 2017, was submitted with this application (Attachment 4). Monetary proffers include per-unit contributions of $14,500 for the 86 new lots. This amount is below the recommended County proffer guideline of $41,557 for townhomes. No consideration of by-right credits can be made in this case given the B-2 zoning, and fact that the prior commercial apartments are no longer a permitted use. As County proffer guidelines recommend, the proffer contribution is allocated to different public facility types. The table on the following page shows a comparison of the proffer guidelines to the recommended proffer as it relates to public facility types for townhouse units: Public Facility Type County Guidelines Applicant Proffer Parks and Recreation $8,923 $4,277.50 Schools $18,299 $5,365.00 Libraries $737 $348.00 Fire and Rescue $951 $449.50 Transportation $12,082 $3,741.00 General Government $565 $319.00 Total $41,557 $14,500.00 Proffer Summary The Applicant submitted the following proffers: Require the property to be developed in conformance with the GDP with some modifications permitted for the location of the entrance and stormwater management facilities; Limit the development to 86 townhouse dwelling units;
Attachment 1 O17-10 Page 7 Require the construction of a tot lot prior to the 16 th occupancy permit being issued; Require the payment of $14,500.00 per unit in cash proffers upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each unit, subject to annual adjustments; Require the installation of a right-turn lane on Telegraph Road into the development, as shown on the GDP; Require the architectural design of the townhomes to be in conformance with submitted architectural photo; and For the purpose of mitigating land use compatibility issues with the Military Influence Area, require: o Construction design specifications that reduce ambient exterior noise levels within each residential unit to a 45 dba Ldn (Average Daily Noise Level) or less; o Disclosures be provided to each purchaser regarding the developments proximity to Quantico Marine Corps Base (QMCB); and o Notification statements about QMCB be placed on all plans of development. Architectural Design For purposes of this rezoning, the architectural design of the buildings shall be in general accordance with the attached photograph marked as Exhibit A, as referenced in the proffer statement. The townhomes will be required to be constructed in accordance with these renderings. The design of these townhomes is in conformance with several of the recommendations in the Neighborhood Design Standards (NDS) Plan, including the varying style and materials, wall plane recesses, and projections from one unit to the next, and breaking up of continuous roof lines with gables. Architectural Elevations Exhibit A
Attachment 1 O17-10 Page 8 EVALUATION CRITERIA: Stafford County Code Sec. 28-206 lists 12 criteria to be considered at each public hearing for reclassification. 1. Compliance of the request with the stated requirements of the district or districts involved - The request is in compliance with the stated requirements of the R-3 Zoning District. 2. The existing use and character of the property and the surrounding property - The Property is currently vacant with conditions that create some development challenges. Land surrounding the site includes a variety of residential uses, commercial uses, a place of worship and undeveloped land. Much of the surrounding uses are buffered from this site with the exception of the mobile home park and a section of the townhome neighborhood. 3. The suitability of the property for various uses - The conditions of the site make it suitable for uses that can be developed in separated sections; the topography and sensitive natural resources require smaller development pads. The proposed use will likely require less grading and environmental impacts than the development concept contemplated with the current B-2 zoning. 4. The trend of growth and development in the surrounding area - A variety of residential uses exist in the vicinity. The vision for the future of the area supports more business and industry uses in this area. 5. The current and future requirements of the County for land - No County needs are identified on the site. 6. The transportation requirements of the project and the County, and the impact of the proposed landuse on the County s transportation network - The site has access to an existing 2-lane road. This project would reduce potential impacts from what is currently permitted by-right. 7. Requirements for schools, parks, recreational lands and facilities, and other public services, potentially generated by the proposed classification - The proposal would increase the impacts on parks, recreational lands, schools, and other public facilities. The monetary proffers include per-unit cash contributions for these facilities. Based on the proffer guidelines, impacts would not be fully mitigated. 8. The conservation of property values in the surrounding area - The proposed development should not have a negative effect on any property values in the surrounding area. Proffers would ensure an aesthetically pleasing development. Screening and buffers should minimize impacts to lower density residential uses. 9. The preservation of natural resources and the impact of the proposed uses on the natural environment - The site contains sensitive natural resources including wetlands and steep slopes. Many of the wetlands and an area of the site with the most severe steep slopes are being avoided. 10. The most appropriate use of land - The Land Use Plan recommends this area for business and industry use. The proposed uses are not consistent with this Comprehensive Plan recommendation. Despite this, the use is compatible with existing adjacent residential uses.
Attachment 1 O17-10 Page 9 11. The timing of the development of utilities and public facilities, and the overall public costs of the development - The area is served by existing water and sewer utilities. The Applicant would install any required transportation and utility improvements for the project at their expense. The development will generate a need for additional public services, which are partially mitigated through monetary proffers. 12. The consistency, or lack thereof, of the proposed rezoning with the Stafford County Comprehensive Plan as in effect at that time - The proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations regarding the Boswell s Corner Planning Area land-use recommendations, including Redevelopment Area Plan recommendations. The use is consistent with the NDS Plan and Military Influence Area recommendations. SUMMARY OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FEATURES: POSITIVE: 1. The proposal is consistent with the established residential development pattern in the vicinity. 2. Residential use would reduce potential impacts to the transportation network, compared to existing commercial zoning. 3. Proffered building design is consistent with many of the NDS Plan recommendations. 4. The proposed use fits with the RDA Master Plan conceptual drawings. 5. The proposed use is consistent with Military Influence Area recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan NEGATIVE: 1. The proposed use is inconsistent with the Boswell s Corner Planning Area land use recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Monetary proffers are below the per-unit amount recommended in the Proffer Guidelines to offset development impacts. RECOMMENDATION: At its meeting on January 25, 2017, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-1 (Mr. Boswell abstained) to recommend denial of the application. Staff recommends denial of this application. Although the residential use fits in with the existing residential uses and would reduce potential transportation impacts, the proposal is inconsistent with the future vision for the area.
O17-10 PROPOSED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF STAFFORD STAFFORD, VIRGINIA ORDINANCE At a regular meeting of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors (the Board) held in the Board Chambers, George L. Gordon, Jr., Government Center, Stafford, Virginia, on the 7 th day of March, 2017: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMBERS: VOTE: Paul V. Milde, III, Chairman Meg Bohmke, Vice Chairman Jack R. Cavalier Wendy E. Maurer Laura A. Sellers Gary F. Snellings Robert Bob Thomas, Jr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On motion of, seconded by, which carried by a vote of, the following was adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE STAFFORD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO RECLASSIFY FROM THE B-1,CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL AND B-2, URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE R-3, URBAN RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT, TAX MAP PARCEL NOS. 13-37 AND 13-42A, LOCATED WITHIN THE GRIFFIS-WIDEWATER ELECTION DISTRICT WHEREAS, Quantico Village, LLC, submitted application RC16151348, requesting a reclassification from the B-1, Convenience Commercial and B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning Districts to the R-3, Urban Residential High Density Zoning Districts on Tax Map Parcel Nos. 13-37 and 13-42A, located in the Griffis-Widewater Election District; and WHEREAS, the Board carefully considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff, and the public testimony, if any, received at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the requested zoning amendment is compatible with the surrounding land uses and meets the criteria for a rezoning in Stafford County Code Sec. 28-206; and
O17-10 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Board finds that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice require adoption of this Ordinance to reclassify the subject property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Stafford County Board of Supervisors on this the 7 th day of March, 2017, that the Stafford County Zoning Ordinance be and it hereby is amended and reordained by amending the Zoning District Map to reclassify from the B-1, Convenience Commercial and B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning Districts to the R-3, Urban Residential High Density Zoning District, Tax Map Parcel Nos. 13-37 and 13-42A, with proffers entitled Voluntary Proffer Statement, dated June 30, 2016, as last revised on January 24, 2017. TCF:JAH:mz
R17-44 PROPOSED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF STAFFORD STAFFORD, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION At a regular meeting of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors (the Board) held in the Board Chambers, George L. Gordon, Jr., Government Center, Stafford, Virginia, on the 7 th day of March, 2017: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMBERS: VOTE: Paul V. Milde, III, Chairman Meg Bohmke, Vice Chairman Jack R. Cavalier Wendy E. Maurer Laura A. Sellers Gary F. Snellings Robert Bob Thomas, Jr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On motion of, seconded by, which carried by a vote of, the following was adopted: A RESOLUTION TO DENY THE REQUEST TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE STAFFORD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO RECLASSIFY FROM THE B-1, CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL AND B-2, URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE R-3, URBAN RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT, TAX MAP PARCEL NOS. 13-37 AND 13-42A, LOCATED WITHIN THE GRIFFIS-WIDEWATER ELECTION DISTRICT WHEREAS, Quantico Village, LLC, submitted application RC16151348, requesting a reclassification from the B-1, Convenience Commercial and B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning Districts to the R-3, Urban Residential High Density Zoning Districts on Tax Map Parcel Nos. 13-37 and 13-42A, located in the Griffis-Widewater Election District; and WHEREAS, the Board carefully considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff, and the public testimony, if any, received at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the requested zoning amendment is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and does not meet the criteria for a rezoning in Stafford County Code Sec. 28-206;
R17-44 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Stafford County Board of Supervisors on this the 7 th day of March, 2017, that application RC16151348 be and it hereby is denied. TCF:JAH:mz
Voluntary Proffer Statement OWNER: PROJECT NAME: PROPERTY: Chesapeake Holdings KB, LLC Quantico Village TM 13-37, consisting of 12.1826 acres and TM 13-42A, consisting of 0.4022 acres as shown on Boundary Survey, sheet 1 of 1 prepared by Webb and associates, dated June 29, 2016 REZONING REQUEST: B-1 Convenience Commercial/B-2 Urban Commercial to R-3 Urban Residential High Density CASE NUMBER: 16151348 DATE: June 30, 2016 Rev. October 6, 2016 Rev. January 24, 2017 Pursuant to Section 15.2-2303, Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia as amended and City Code 72-22.4, the Owner voluntarily proffers the following conditions which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning districts identified above. References in this Voluntary Proffer Statement to plans and exhibits shall include the following: 1. Zoning Reclassification Generalized Development, Sheets 1 3 prepared by Webb and Associates, dated June 29, 2016, last revised October 6, 2016 and entitled Quantico Village 2. Boundary Survey, sheets 1 of 1 prepared by Webb and Associates, dated June 29, 2016. 1. Land Use A. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the Property shall be in conformance with the Generalized Development Plan ( GDP ) by Webb and Associates dated June 29, 2016. The maximum number townhouses shall be 86 and will be generally located in the areas depicted on the GDP. The entrance location and/or storm water management facilities and dimensions of undeveloped areas shown on the GDP are subject to modification and/or change due to requirements of final engineering and/or compliance with governmental regulations including, but not limited to USACE, DEQ, VDOT, DHR etc. The General Development Plan is made a part of and is attached to this Proffer Statement. 1
2. Common Area Amenities A. Common Area Amenities. Applicant shall construct a tot lot. Tot lot shall contain, a swing set, sliding and climbing equipment, and a bench. Tot lot shall be completed prior to the 16 th occupancy permit being issued. 3. Cash Proffers A. Cash Proffers. Applicant shall pay cash proffers of $14,500 per unit to the County of Stafford. Cash proffers will be paid per unit upon the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 1. Cash Disbursements shall be allocated accordingly: a. Parks & Recreation: $4,277.50 b. Schools: $5,365.00 c. Library: $ 348.00 d. Fire & Rescue: $ 449.50 e. Transportation: $3,741.00 f. General Government: $ 319.00 B. Annual Adjustments. The cumulative percentage increase (or decrease) in the Marshall & Swift Building Cost Index, for the most recently published twelve months, shall be added to (or subtracted from) the amount proffered, in the year following the rezoning, and added to (or subtracted from the recalculated amount for each subsequent year. 4. Transportation A. Turn Lane Improvements Telegraph Road. Applicant shall install right turn into the development as shown on the GDP. 5. Design Standards A. Architectural Design. Townhomes will be constructed in accordance with the townhomes shown in Exhibit-A. B. Military Influence Area Mitigation Measures For purposes of mitigating any military land use compatibility issues relating to all residential units, the Applicant agrees to the following mitigating measures: 1. To utilize construction design specifications for the exterior walls, roofs and windows that reduce ambient exterior noise levels within each residential unit to a 45dBa Ldn (Average Daily Noise Level) or less (which shall be determined prior to building permit issuance). 2
2. To provide purchasers of the subject units disclosure notices regarding Quantico Marine Corps Base and its proximity to the project on initial deed of transfers. 3. To provide notification statements about Quantico Marine Corps Base on all plans of development. The Applicant acknowledges that the foregoing Proffers are reasonable. The signatory below signing on behalf of the Owner covenants and warrants that he is an authorized signatory of the Owner for this Proffer Statement. Applicant Quantico Village, LLC By:. Chad Webb, Managing Member Given under my hand this 24th day of January 2017. Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Fredericksburg, To Wit: I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Chad Webb, in his capacity as Managing Member for Quantico Village, LLC whose name is signed to the foregoing bearing the date of January 24, 2017, has this day personally appeared before me in my State and City aforesaid and acknowledged the same. Notary Public:. My Commission Expires: January 31, 2018. Registration: 125325 Given under my hand this 24 th day of January 2017. 3
EXHIBIT-A 4
Attachment 5 O17-10 R17-44 LAND USE ACTION REQUEST BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Date: March 7, 2017 [ X ] New [ ] Revised [ ] Unfinished REQUEST: Reclassification from B-1, Convenience Commercial and B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning Districts to the R-3, Urban Residential High Density Zoning District on Tax Map Parcel Nos. 13-37 and 13-42A. Conforms with the Comprehensive Plan? [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A CONDITIONS: See proposed Ordinance O17-10 APPLICANT: Name: Address: Chad Webb Quantico Village, LLC 1003 Bragg Road Fredericksburg, VA 22407 TAX STATUS: Paid through May 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approve [X] Deny [ ] At its meeting on January 25, 2017, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-1 (Mr. Boswell abstained) to recommend denial of Application RC16151348. TIMING: Application Date June 30, 2016 (submitted); June 30, 2016 (completed) Advertisement Date/s February 21, 2017 and February 28, 2017 Plan. Comm. Action Date January 25, 2017 (Required) May 5, 2017 Proposed Board Action Date March 7, 2017 (Required) June 29, 2017
Attachment 6 Page 1 of 3
Attachment 6 Page 2 of 3
Attachment 6 Page 3 of 3
Attachment 7 Page 1 of 1
Attachment 8 Page 1 of 2
Attachment 8 Page 2 of 2
Attachment 9 Page 1 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 2 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 3 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 4 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 5 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 6 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 7 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 8 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 9 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 10 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 11 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 12 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 13 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 14 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 15 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 16 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 17 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 18 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 19 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 20 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 21 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 22 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 23 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 24 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 25 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 26 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 27 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 28 of 28
Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2017 2. RC16151348; Reclassification - Quantico Village - A proposed zoning reclassification from the B-1, Convenience Commercial and B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning Districts to the R-3, Urban Residential High Density Zoning District, to allow for the development of 86 townhouse dwelling units on Tax Map Parcel Nos. 13-37 and 13-42A. The property consists of 12.58 acres, located on the south side of Telegraph Road, 1,200 feet east of Jefferson Davis Highway, within the Griffis-Widewater Election District. (Time Limit: May 5, 2017) Mr. Harvey: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Again, recognize Mike Zuraf for the presentation. Mr. Zuraf: Good evening again; if I could have the computer again please. Okay, this item is for a rezoning for a project known as Quantico Village. This is a request for a reclassification from the B-1, Convenience Commercial, and B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning Districts to the R-3, Urban Residential Zoning District, on two properties that cover an area of 12.58 acres. The applicant is Quantico Village, LLC. This would be for development of an 86-unit townhouse community. The site itself is on the south side of Telegraph Road, 1,200 feet east of Jefferson Davis Highway. The boundaries are highlighted with the blue line on the map that you see. The surrounding zoning and uses include a variety of residential uses on R-1, R-2, and R-4 Residential Zoning Districts. There s also a place of worship, some undeveloped land, and Quantico Marine Corps Base borders part of the site as well. With the history of this site, back in 2006 the site was rezoned from R-4, Manufactured Home zoning to B-2, Urban Commercial. The original development scheme envisioned a mixed use of commercial and residential apartment units, up to 180,000 square feet of building area. The residential fit under a commercial apartment use that was allowed at that time. In 2008, commercial apartment use, that use was deleted from the B-2 Zoning District. In 2009 a site plan was submitted for office warehouse uses but was never approved. Staff notes that given the development inactivity, the zoning district use changed deleting the commercial apartments as a by-right use and lack of specificity in the proffers, the apartments would likely not be vested. Staff notes that an official vesting determination on that has not been made though at this time. Also, no other development activity has occurred on the site since 2009, the last site plan request. Here s an aerial view of the site. The area is currently undeveloped and covered with forest land. There is no Resource Protection Areas. There are some wetlands that bisect the central area of the site. There is a high level a level high plateau area on the eastern end of the property that ll serve as one of the development pad locations. There s a steep slope then down to a kind of another level area in the middle of the site, and then steep slopes upward to a tall him on the eastern end of the site, which is on the left side of the screen. Here is an image of the General Development Plan that was submitted. And you have a single access point off of Telegraph Road, with dedicated turn lanes that the applicant would construct. Internal streets are to account for the varying topography on the site. Just to kid of highlight what I ve been talking about, this area is basically one sitting at a higher level on the site. And then there s steep slopes that kind of go down then to this other development area in the middle part of the site. And the western part is in this location which, because of the extreme topography, would remain undeveloped. There likely would be retaining walls required between this upper and lower area as part of the development details of the site. And in lieu of providing secondary vehicle access, there are vehicle turnaround areas for emergency vehicles provided in this area that s a greater distance from the entrance off of Telegraph Road. And that had been reviewed by Fire and Rescue staff and they deemed those turnarounds to be acceptable in this case. Open space accounts for approximately 63% of the property. The requirement in the zoning district would be 25%, so they far exceed that. And then a tot lot is proposed as a community amenity in this location of the site. Looking at this in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, the plan identifies the site as being within the Boswell s Corner Planning Area. This Planning Area includes this conceptual future land use plan; it recommends the site for Business and Industry and Highway Commercial Future Land Use. There are also other elements of the Comp Plan Page 1 of 6
Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2017 Mr. Coen: Mr. Zuraf? Just real quickly on that slide. The area in yellow, the residential, is it logical to believe that they were already there before the Boswell Planning Area was created? Mr. Zuraf: Yeah, the area to the left, that depicts the existing townhouse project. There are 136 townhouse units that were there since I d say the early 2000s approximately. And the yellow area to the right, those are older large lot residential single-family detached homes in that location. Mr. Coen: Thank you Mr. Zuraf. Mr. Zuraf: So, there s another element of the Comprehensive Plan in this location. There is the Boswell s Corner Redevelopment Area Plan. It s a separate element that was adopted back in 2011 that applies to the area. This includes a little higher level of detail. The RDA Plan, as it was developed, envisioned a mixed use urban scale form of development, including a grid pattern network of streets and various types of residential and commercial uses at the time it was being developed. This image reflects one of the Master Concept Plans and a highlight of the location of this site in relation to that. So the plan identified residential uses at the time, but when the plan was adopted, due to the proximity to Quantico and potential impacts, the new residential uses was limited in the approval resolution specifying no more residential than already permitted. So, the use is not fully consistent with the goals of the Redevelopment Plan, although an argument could be made that the residential uses fit in the Concept Plan that was published and as part of the approval. Other than that, staff would note the residential use does fit in with the adjacent established residential uses. And commercial development of this site may not be realistic in this kind of location without consolidation with other adjacent parcels. Mr. Apicella: Mr. Chairman, before we go on, I m a little confused here that we have a Redevelopment Plan that might say one thing and a Boswell s Corner Plan that might say something different. So, how do those two pieces fit together, and which of the two pieces, if either, take any precedence? One promotes commercial; the other has a mixed use, you know, feel to it although there s some caveat that says residential that s already there kind of fits that bill. Mr. Zuraf: Yeah, it does, you know, create some confusion and again, it s those were the images that were created. The plan originally had a higher level of residential recommended; but when it was approved, there was no work to change these images and change the land use that was shown. But there was specific language in the resolution of the approval that limited the residential in this area. And the latest Comp Plan amendment with the latest Future Land Use Plan just adopted this year with recommendations for commercial development I would suggest take precedent over residential, in addition to the fact that the approval resolution discouraged the amount of residential on the plan. I m just acknowledging that there s definitely confusion on our documents when somebody s looking at that and thinking one thing. Another element of the Comp Plan deals with the proximity of this site to Quantico. A new element adopted in the plan reflects the military influence areas and the Military Influence Area Zones. These zones are divided into subzones, and this whole effort was a result of the Joint Land Use Study that occurred that started about two years ago and finished up last year between the counties of Stafford, Prince William, and Fauquier and the Base. And through this these compatibility zones were developed with kind of a matrix chart, similar to the Airport Compatibility Overlay that identifies what uses are appropriate at different levels. And residential in this location is identified as having a moderate impact. There are mitigation recommendations which include sound attenuation, height limit considerations, lighting controls, and special reviews. This evening you received a modified proffer statement that includes mitigation measures new mitigation measures under proffer 5.b. to address this concern, including sound attenuation measures and disclosure notification to new purchasers Page 2 of 6
Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2017 of the proximity to Quantico. The application was also provided to Marine Corps Base Quantico staff. In discussions with Base planning staff, they did not express concerns with this proposal. They did note that they looked at the nearby Midway Island facility that s to the south of this site. They have communication equipment and they had concerns with that regarding the height of structures and they determined that the height of the structures that would occur on this site would not be an impact. So they didn t have a problem with any potential conflicts with that federal facility. The latest proffer statement also includes an increased proffer amount from $10,000 to $14,500 per unit for the 86 new lots. The amount is below the recommended County proffer guideline of $41,557 for townhomes. And in other cases there have been consideration of by-right credits made in cases, but that s not done in this case given the situation with the changes to the B-2 zone and commercial apartments. Staff notes that the application was submitted prior to the effective date of the new proffer legislation that applies to any zoning reclassification. So this request is subject to the old County proffer guidelines. Mr. Apicella: Mr. Zuraf? Mr. Zuraf: Yes. Mr. Apicella: How does this compare, the monetary contributions proposed here to what we recently approved at the Courtyards at Colonial Forge? Mr. Zuraf: That amount was I believe approximately $24,000 per unit in that case. Mr. Apicella: So this is $10,000 or so below that per unit? Mr. Zuraf: Yes. Mr. Apicella: Okay, thank you. Mr. Zuraf: This slide illustrates the building elevations included and referenced in the proffers showing the general type of character and quality of the architectural design of the dwelling units. The design of these townhomes is in conformance with several of the recommendations in the County s Neighborhood Design Standards Plan which includes the varying style and materials, wall plane recesses and projections from one unit to the next, and breaking up of continuous roof lines with features such as gables. The proffers submitted require development of the site in conformance with the General Development Plan, limits the development to 86 no more than 86 townhouse units, requires construction of a tot lot prior to the 16 th unit, the contributions I ve already mentioned, transportation improvements at the entrance, also constructing the dwellings in conformance with the images we just saw, and then the new Military Influence Area mitigation efforts that were just provided to you this evening. With the evaluation of this request, there are several positives. The proposal is consistent with the established residential development pattern in some of the nearby properties. The residential use would reduce the potential impacts to the transportation network, compared to what the potential is under the current B-2 Zoning District should that build out. The proffered building design is consistent with the Neighborhood Design Standards Plan recommendation. The proposed use fits with the RDA Master Plan concept drawings that we went over. And then also minimizes any potential land use conflicts with the Marine Corps Base Quantico. We previously had that identified as a negative, but we ve moved that over to a positive aspect given the latest proffers that were being offered on that. With the negative findings, the proposed use is inconsistent with the latest Boswell s Corner Planning Area land use recommendation which envisions commercial development in this location. And monetary proffers are below the proffer guideline Page 3 of 6
Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2017 recommendations to offset potential development impacts. Given these issues and these factors, staff would recommend denial of the application despite the positive aspects that were cited. And at this point we will take any questions. Mr. Coen: Any questions for Mr. Zuraf? And seeing none, okay, thank you Mr. Zuraf. So now we go and ask if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Webb: Good evening Chairman and Commission members. My name is Dan Webb and I m going to be representing our group in this application. Just a few things I d like to point out; I think Mike covered most everything great. You know, we feel like it really does fit well with what s constructed there. There are townhouses, a trailer park nearby, and other residential units. When we started this, we looked at the Comp Plan and when I looked at the Boswell Corner Redevelopment Plan, you know, it was very specific that residential should be here. And I know that there are some other sections in the Comp Plan that seem to contradict that but, when we started that, that was something that we really picked up on. We also met with Steve Hundley who is the Marine Corps Base Quantico Community Plan and Liaison Officer. We met with him early on and he looked at the project and he had no opposition. He said the Base, you know, certainly isn t going to come out in favor of it, but with them not coming out in opposition should say a whole lot. You know, Mike also mentioned one of the things that we just modified in our proffers is the construction materials, you know, to help mitigate the noise for the Military Land Use Compatibility. And one of the other major things is we re really reducing the potential traffic that our site would generate. With the way that it s zoned right now, it would generate close to 2,000 vehicle trips per day. What we are proposing now would limit that to right around 500 vehicle trips per day. You know, back in 2006 when the project was rezoned from R-4 to the B-2, the R-4 allowed a density of 7 dwelling units per acre, which would generate about 88 dwelling units. When the B-2 Commercial was zoned, there was an allowance for up to 75 apartments on that property, you know, with a $10,000 a lot proffer. So, we feel as though, you know, going to the R-8 which would allow us to do 7 units to the acre -- you know, we are limiting ourselves to 86 -- we re right in the same number of units that has always been envisioned there. Part of the Boswell Corner Redevelopment Plan, to me what it states is that there shouldn t be any increase in the density that is allowed when that was approved in 2011. I understand in 2008 that the by-right commercial apartments were eliminated, but we still feel as though that the 75 units, there s a potential that they were vested and that they were always considered as part of the by-right use. The other item, if I could have the computer? One of the things that we re doing, we are constructing a turn lane here along Telegraph Road and we are constructing this access road, along with water and sewer that we ll be bringing up through this same area up to the project. What this is going to allow is the development of these two commercially zoned parcels right here which I think could have a real benefit. They were part of the entire project at one point, all owned by the Boswell family. And as we re bringing this road in it s going to provide the ability for those properties to develop, along with the clientele that we re going to be putting back behind the project. That s really all that I have. I d be glad to answer any questions that you may have for me. Mr. Coen: Okay, back to the camera. Any questions? I just have one question; how many bedrooms are we envisioning? Mr. Webb: Um, I mean, I would say you re going to be right around 3, 3 to 4. Mr. Coen: Okay, thank you. Alright, thank you. Are there no more questions? Seeing none, thank you sir. Thank you Mr. Webb. I now will open up the public hearing. Remember, this is an opportunity to speak on this item. The same ground rules apply as before. When you come up, speak to the Planning Page 4 of 6
Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2017 Commission as a whole. You have 3 minutes to speak. Please state your name and address when the green light comes on. The yellow light indicates you have 1 minute left, and the red light indicates that you should quickly wrap up your comments. So, is there anyone here to speak on this item? Alright, seeing none I close the public hearing. Is there any motions or actions or activity by anyone on the Board? Mr. English: Mr. Chairman, I m going to make a motion that we deny this application due to the fact that it doesn t with staff recommendations of what I m going as far as the impacts and the proffers. Mr. Coen: Okay, we have a motion to deny by Mr. English. Is there a second? Mrs. Vanuch: I ll second. Mr. Coen: Seconded by Mrs. Vanuch. Anything else Mr. English? Mr. English: No sir. Mr. Coen: Alright, anything Mrs. Vanuch? Mrs. Vanuch: I just echo Darryl s comments. Sorry, I m losing my voice. Mr. Coen: I m surrounded by two people who are both ill. Alright, any other comments from anyone else? Mr. Apicella. Mr. Apicella: Mr. Chairman, on the one hand I agree that the project could reduce the amount of potential traffic, and that s a positive. But I m still stuck with the fact, and that s why I asked the question about what may be an inconsistency but, as staff indicated, the Boswell s Corner Plan as it exists now takes precedence and it does call for commercial. And there s at least a potential for an access point off of Route 1, if they can negotiate an entrance along that parcel. And the other thing that strongly struck out at me, and that s why I asked the question about the last townhouse rezoning, or R-3 rezoning that we had come in front of us just a couple months ago, was significantly greater the proffer amount that was offered in that case. So, in this particular case, I don t believe the proffers come close to the County s guidelines and they do not sufficiently mitigate the impact, especially in comparison of what we ve gotten in the past. So, I apologize, but those are the reasons I m not going to support it. We re one stop on this two stop journey, so we ll see how it goes from here. Thank you. Mr. Coen: Alright. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Coen: Yes Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes: I would I actually understand what the new iteration with our Comp Plan (inaudible). I m not sure that this is inconsistent given that it s got the commercial pieces that are abutting Telegraph Road. I think that that kind of complements. The dynamic that still drives me though is while our proffer guidelines, when they were in place or whatever status they are now considered, I don t think we would have ever gotten to those levels. I think we ve always wrestled with that reality. The fact is, I do echo Mr. Apicella s comments in that the level is significantly below the other similar levels we ve been seeing Page 5 of 6
Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2017 on these types of projects, larger townhomes and other items, and I think that that s really that and one other nitpicky point would be the problematic aspects I have on the application. If we were beyond that, then I would have just talked about a second tot lot or something else or more centrally located tot lot on the GDP. But, I mean, that would have been hugely on the margins of miniscule of the items. But I think the issue that might be considered to be confronted when this goes to the Board of Supervisors, at least as one person here, I really only sit on the level of proffers given the realities of school and other dynamics and how it has to offset and mitigate the implications it has on the County. That s really the only thing that holds me in a compromised position. So, that s it. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Coen: Thank you Mr. Rhodes. Anyone else? Alright, I will echo the sentiments of everybody who s spoken about the consistency with other proffers, and I ve been consistent on that my entire time on this body of trying to be consistent about how we get and what we get in proffers, particularly if it s 3 to 4 bedrooms. That s a large number. And so there are many logical reasons, as staff pointed out in his report. I go along with what staff has said which was to go for rejection of it. Alright, so we have a motion before us to deny the Quantico Village application; if we will vote. Alright, and so the motion for denial has passed by 6 to 1 with 1 abstention, which was Mr. Boswell 6 to 0 with 1 abstention (Mr. Boswell abstained). Page 6 of 6