This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sitterle, AICP, CZA Director of Planning & Community Development August 16, 2013 Zoning Map Amendment ZMA #13-01. Rezoning of R-6 and R-15 lots adjacent to Falmouth and East Lee Streets and Oliver City Road. The Planning Commission will hear an application to rezone Residential R-15 and Residential R-6 lots for the purpose of accommodating a proposal for a subdivision with 135 housing units and an associated collector road providing a connection between Oliver City Road and Falmouth Street at the intersection with Old Meetze Road. The request will consist of 16.63 acres of R-15 zoned property to be rezoned to R-6 residential for 90 dwelling units, and 1.87 acres of R-6 zoned property to be rezoned to R-15 residential for 45 dwelling units on cluster lots. The total site consists of seventeen (17) individual parcels (GPIN #6984-61-1989, 6984-61-3713, 6984-61-6433, 6984-61-0388, 6984-611248, 6984-60-3988, 6984-60-5961, 6984-61-7028, 6984-60-4644, 6984-60-3323, 6984-60-7614, 6984-70-0416, 6984-60-7123, 6984-70-3768, 6984-60-9854, 6984-707966, 6984-71-5025) totaling 46.68 acres located east of Falmouth Street, south of East Lee Street and west of Oliver City Roads. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as suitable for low-density residential use for single-family detached residential dwellings up to 2.5 dwellings per net acre. The applicant is BRS Mosby LLC. (REVISED)
BACKGROUND Pin Numbers: 6984-61-1989, 6984-61-1248, 6984-60-4644, 6984-60-7123, 6984-71-5025 6984-61-3713, 6984-60-3988, 6984-60-3323, 6984-70-3768, 6984-61-6433, 6984-60-5961, 6984-60-7614, 6984-60-9854, 6984-61-0388, 6984-61-7028, 6984-70-0416, 6984-70-7966,
Property Owners: Property Address: Lot Size: Current Zoning:
Historic Fields LLC, David Dobson, Keystone Lake Estates Inc, Various Various proposed: 0.126 acres + Residential R6 & R15
Vacant and abandoned properties.
This is a request to rezone 16.63 acres of R-15 zoned property to R-6 residential for 90 dwelling units, and 1.87 acres of R-6 zoned property to be rezoned to R-15 residential for 45 dwelling units on cluster lots. The purpose of this request is to better accommodate residential development, allowing for a total of 135 housing units on 46.68 acres. The proposed density is 2.9 units per acre. The proposed subdivision is located south of Meetze Road, east of Falmouth Street, south of Oliver City Road, and north of Old Meetze Road. The parcels in question consist predominantly of vacant properties, with a few abandoned properties. All parcels adjacent to the subdivision are zoned for residential uses. More intensive residential uses including Residential Townhouse and Residential Multi Family are located on the west side of Falmouth Street. The entirety of the proposed subdivision is located with area(s) designated as Low Density Residential by the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Town of Warrenton Comprehensive Plan: This designation includes single-family detached residential dwellings at densities ranging from existing levels of development (no change) up to 2.5 dwellings per acre, contingent upon adequate pedestrian and vehicular access, compatibility with surrounding properties and mitigation of potential impacts. Certain areas specified in the text are intended to remain at densities well below 2.5 dwelling units per acre. These include the areas of existing low density historic neighborhoods along Winchester and Culpeper Streets. Like Winchester and Culpeper Streets, Falmouth has important buildings that establish the historic character of the entrance to the downtown. The lots with historic buildings and the lots adjacent to them should be maintained as very low density uses, with only very carefully designed, small scale infill structures that preserve the essential character of the street. Parcels within the proposed subdivision are currently zoned R15 and R6. Per the Zoning Ordinance, the legislative intent of the R15 and R6 districts are: R-15 This district is composed of low density, single-family dwellings and other uses which are customarily incidental to them. This district is designed to implement the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and stabilize and protect the essential low-density residential characteristics of the district, by encouraging a suitable environment for family life and by prohibiting all activities of a commercial nature except home occupations. To these ends, development is limited to relatively low densities and permitted uses are limited to single-family dwellings, plus certain compatible uses by special use permit. In order to provide flexibility in adapting new development to the natural constraints of a site, provisions are allowed for residential units to be clustered in return for the preservation of additional open space on the site. R-6 This district is composed of medium to high concentrations of predominantly residential uses, generally intended to encompass and preserve those residential structures which have developed over the years along the traffic arteries serving the Central Business District. The regulations of this district are designed to stabilize and protect these areas while at the same time allowing compatible changes to
occur in an effort to ensure that the use of these areas is economically feasible and to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Per Article 11-3.9.12 the criteria considered for zoning map amendments includes:
1. whether the rezoning request, if granted, would further the public interest, and whether it conforms with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. whether the rezoning is consistent with the town's Future Land Use Plan, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and established character of the area and land use patterns; 3. whether the rezoning is justified by changed or changing conditions; 4. whether the rezoning, if granted, would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent districts; 5. whether utility, sewer and water, transportation, school, recreation, stormwater management and other facilities exist or can be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the property if it were rezoned; 6. whether the rezoning will be compatible with properties and uses in the vicinity and not have an adverse impact on these properties or their values; 7. whether there are adequate sites available elsewhere in the Town for the proposed use, or uses, in districts where such uses are already allowed; 8. whether the impact that the uses that would be permitted if the property were rezoned will have upon the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and traffic safety in the vicinity and whether the proposed rezoning provides sufficient measures to mitigate such impacts; 9. whether a reasonable and viable economic use of the subject property exists under the current zoning; 10. whether the effect of the proposed rezoning on environmentally sensitive land or natural features, wildlife habitat, vegetation, water quality and air quality is compatible with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan; 11. whether the proposed rezoning encourages economic development activities in areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan and provides desirable employment and enlarges the tax base; 12. whether the proposed rezoning considers the current and future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes, including housing and business, as determined by population and economic studies; 13. the effect of the proposed rezoning to provide moderate housing by enhancing opportunities for all qualified residents of the Town; and 14. the effect of the rezoning on natural, scenic, archaeological, or historic features of significant importance.
ANALYSIS Land Use & Housing The proposed rezoning will not create an isolated district with zoning unrelated to adjacent parcels. The transition from R-15 to R-6 would occur in a logical pattern, as the area currently transitions from R-15 to R-6. This would not change based on the proposal, as the rezoning consists of a boundary
adjustment between the two districts. The rezoning will create additional R-6 parcels adjacent to parcels presently zoned R-6, thus compatibility should not be an issue given proposed layout and present zoning. Additionally, the rezoning and development should not have a significant impact to the character of Falmouth Street, as three of the new residences will have frontage on Falmouth Street. A portion of the proposed subdivision is within and also abuts the Historic District. The character of the Historic District should be protected and maintained. Additionally, the Oliver City neighborhood will be unaffected by direct connection from the proposed subdivision. The subdivision will also not front on Oliver City Road. This neighborhood is zoned R-15, and all parcels of the proposed subdivision adjacent the Oliver City neighborhood will remain a low density with R-15 zoning. The entire area is indentified by the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential, which recommends densities up to 2.5 units per acre. The proposed rezoning and subdivision layout exceed this recommended limit with a density of 2.9 units per acre, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Considering only areas zoned R6, development could far exceed the recommended densities of the Future Land Use Map. For example a total of 25.22 acres of R6 land is proposed. This area contains ninety (90) proposed units, or 3.57 units per acre. The Zoning Ordinance identifies the R-6 district as suitable for medium to high density concentrations of predominately residential uses, which would be around 5 dwelling units per acre. As noted by the Comprehensive Plan 2009 supplement, most land with the Town is already zoned for urban development, thus no further rezoning is needed to accommodate a reasonable amount of development within the Town. The plan also notes that growth projections estimate that land available to residential development will essentially be exhausted within one to two decades. However, development does not always fallow a predictable model, thus the proposed rezoning may be justified in this respect due to changing conditions of land availability. Staff does note that development of the property without a rezoning should be considered economically viable. The present zoning districts (2006) in the vicinity of the project area are generally consistent with the 1991 Zoning Map. The proportion of R6 and R15 lands in the vicinity have been similar for a substantial period of time. Any reasonable investment-backed expectations have been met based on by-right development of the property as presently zoned. Rezoning from one residential classification to another will have no effect on land availability for business and commercial uses. This proposal is not expected to have a negative impact on the Economic Goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning would aid in meeting the objective of accommodating a population gain of 4,000 residents (year 2000 to 2025), as well as increase the general housing stock. The population of Warrenton in the year 2000 was 6,670. With a present population of slightly over 9,600, the Town would need to provide housing for slightly more than an additional 1000 residents over the next 12 years to stay consistent with the objective of the 2000-2025 Comprehensive Plan. Per the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Supplement, approximately 164 acres of undeveloped residentially zoned lands are available within the Town, 155 acres of which are zoned R6, R10, and R15. Assuming a density of 3.0 units per acre across the board, these lands could accommodate an additional 1,132 residents. Further rezoning is not necessary to house the additional population as mentioned by the Comprehensive Plan. The percentage of renter occupied units in Warrenton has steadily declined since 1970 when 53 percent of occupants were renters. In 2000, 42 percent of the population rented. Given the fact that 95 percent of available residential lands are zoned for single family homes, a majority of residential development going forward will be single family homes. This will further dilute the percentage of rental housing within the Town. Additionally, multi-family housing is a primary source of affordable units. The proposed rezoning would not have a positive effect on the Town’s goal of encouraging
affordable housing options and the objective of establishing a broad choice of housing types including workforce housing.
Transportation The proposal to include a collector road would serve the public interest by providing an alternative means of access for traffic travelling toward East Lee Street or East Shirley Avenue. The traffic impact on Falmouth Street would be reduced. The proposal for the “spine” or collector road would be consistent with the general alignment of the route as conceptualized in the Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the traffic analysis provided by Bowman Consulting, Falmouth Street, Old Meetze, and the proposed Spine Road will maintain an “A” level of service during AM and PM peak hours. This is the most preferable level of service, defined as “free flow”. The applicant submitted a supplement to the May 21, 2013 traffic impact study in response to the Commission’s request to include additional intersections in the review such as Falmouth Street and East Lee Street, East Lee Street/Walker Drive/Oliver City Road, and Shirley Avenue/Falmouth Street. The consultant for the Town, Kimley-Horn and Associates, had concerns about several aspects of the study. Primarily, it was noted that the intersection at Lee Street/Walker Drive and Oliver City Road is anticipated to change from a level of service (LOS) E to a LOS F for the southbound left turn lane with the new development. The Shirley Avenue/Falmouth Street intersection is estimated to operate at a level of service F for westbound traffic on Shirley Avenue and have increased queuing lengths with the proposed development. The applicant is not proposing any mitigation for the Shirley Avenue/Falmouth Street intersection or the Oliver City Road/East Lee Street/Walker Drive intersection. It should be noted that the proposed traffic impact with the previous by-right development was a concern and that efforts have been made to propose the connector road to alleviate problems with driveways connecting to the spine road with the new proposal. While there are no mitigation efforts proposed, the connector road would be built in phases over time and there would be opportunity for mitigation in the future with improvements to the Oliver City Road/East Lee Street/Walker Drive intersection working in concert with the Town of Warrenton to develop alternatives.
Environmental An existing field located wetland area is located within the area proposed to be rezoned to R6. The increased density allowed will have no effect on the wetland if development is proposed on the site regardless. Disturbance of this area will be regulated by the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and any permitting will be reviewed and issued by those agencies. These wetland areas may be developed as part of a by-right development without a rezoning, subject to permitting from the Corps of Engineers and Virginia DEQ. However, preservation of wetlands and other sensitive environmental areas is identified as an objective of the Comprehensive Plan. Jurisdictional Determination letter. This letter confirms the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction of waters and wetlands on the property. It does not authorize any work in the wetland areas or indicate that mitigation has been approved. The applicant is not able to continue with the required joint permit through the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Quality until the erosion and sediment control plan and construction drawings are drafted. Documentation of the permit and approval will be a requirement for site plan approval and before the land disturbance permit can be issued. Utilities Water and sewer lines presently exist within a reasonable distance to the proposed subdivision. Per the 2002 Water and Sewer Utility Master Plan-Capacity and Growth Evaluation conducted by WhitmanRequardt & Associates, water and sewer resources will reach capacity at total build-out of the Town with its present boundaries. The proposed rezoning would allow for a modest increase in the number of units possible. Such an increase may be considered negligible, but it does represent an increase in demand. Based upon the capacity and growth evaluation, any increases to present built-out scenarios may possibly be an additional burden to the Town’s water and sewer capacity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the application in relation to the criteria listed above and has found that the request for rezoning meets the criteria listed Article 11-3.9.12 Zoning Ordinance. Factors not positively addressing the criteria of Article 11-3.9.12 should not have a detrimental effect. The applicant did not offer voluntary proffers per Article 11-3.9.17 of the Zoning Ordinance as amended. Per Article 11-3.9.17, it is possible that conditions could be proffered by the applicant during the Planning Commission meeting. If amenable, the following conditions are offered for consideration (Revised per Commission discussion): 1) The preliminary plat to be submitted will be in substantial conformance with the rezoning plan submitted for ZMA #13-01, provided all ordinance requirements of the plat are met. 2) The open space areas designated on the plan for ZMA #13-01 are coincident with those proposed as part of a future preliminary plat submission provided all ordinance requirements be met. These areas should include effective landscaping, vegetation, existing trees in order to provide visual buffers and adequate 'transitions' between the development and the Oliver City and Falmouth Street neighborhoods.
3) Applicant agrees that no driveways will enter onto the connector road, and the connector road will not connect onto Oliver City Road or Old Mill Lane in order to protect the character of the Oliver City neighborhood and prevent increased traffic on Oliver City Road or Old Mill Lane. 4) Applicant agrees to limit homes with Falmouth Street driveways to three (3), as indicated by the most recent plan in order to protect the character of the Falmouth Street neighborhood and prevent increased traffic on Falmouth Street. 5) Applicant agrees to develop roads and lots in a manner that allows the new connector road to connect directly to East Lee Street and serve as a natural extension of Walker Drive; and allows Oliver City Road to connect to the new connector in a way that protects the neighborhood and promotes safety of traffic moving onto or off of Oliver City Road. 6) Applicant agrees to build/preserve the road tie-in in order to enable future connection to Monroe Estates and connectivity of neighborhood streets. 7) Applicant agrees that a portion of the subdivision directly abuts and is also a part of the Historic District, which should be protected. 8) Applicant agrees to connect a sidewalk on proposed Partisian Court across the 'open space' to Oliver City Rd (across the creek, near pump station) in order to allow Oliver City neighborhood residents walking access to new roads which lead up to the new intersection at Williams Way and Falmouth Street. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission considered the request at the meeting on July 17, 2013. There was considerable discussion about the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. Several residents were in attendance to voice their concerns about the rezoning proposal. The Commission had concerns about the traffic study and asked that additional intersections be added to the study for consideration including the Lee Street/Walker Drive/Oliver City Road intersection, the intersection of Falmouth and Lee Streets, and the Shirley Avenue/Falmouth Street intersection. To allow for consultant review of the revised traffic study, the Commission voted 6-0 in favor of tabling the application for thirty days. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Application Statement of Justification Revised Traffic Impact Study supplement Kimley-Horn and Associates review memo
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.