Staff report



Download 109.67 Kb.
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size109.67 Kb.



FAIRFAX

COUNTY





APPLICATION FILED: March 3, 2004

PLANNING COMMISSION: July 28, 2004

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Not yet Scheduled

V I R G I N I A



July 14, 2004
STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION RZ/FDP 2004-PR-006
PROVIDENCE DISTRICT
APPLICANT: Whitestone Investments, Inc.
PRESENT ZONING: R-1 & HC
REQUESTED ZONING: PDH-12 & HC
PARCEL: 39-2 ((1)) 56
ACREAGE: 1.31 acres
DENSITY: 9.16 du/ac
OPEN SPACE: 32%
PLAN MAP: Residential, 12-16 du/ac
PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.31 acres from the R-1 (Residential, 1 du/ac) and HC (Highway Corridor) Districts to the PDH-12 (Planned Development, 12 du/ac) and HC Districts to permit development of 12 single-family attached dwelling units at an overall density of 9.16 du/ac and approval of the Final Development Plan (FDP).
WAIVERS/MODIFICATIONS: Waiver of the minimum district size requirement

Waiver of the service drive requirement

Waiver of the Comprehensive Plan trail requirement

Variance of the limitation on fence height in a front yard


STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that RZ 2004-PR-006 be denied; however, if it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to approve RZ 2004-PR-006, staff recommends that the approval be subject to the execution of proffers consistent with those contained in Appendix 1 of the staff report.
Staff recommends denial of FDP 2004-PR-006.
It should be noted that it is not the intent of the staff to recommend that the Board, in adopting any conditions proffered by the owner, relieve the applicant/owner from compliance with the provisions of any applicable ordinances, regulations, or adopted standards.
It should be further noted that the content of this report reflects the analysis and recommendation of staff; it does not reflect the position of the Board of Supervisors.
For information, contact the Zoning Evaluation Division, Department of Planning and Zoning, 12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 801, Fairfax, Virginia 22035 5505, (703) 324 1290.










Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Reasonable accommodation is available upon 7 days advance notice. For additional information on ADA call (703) 324-1334 or TTY 711 (Virginia Relay Center).








A GLOSSARY OF TERMS FREQUENTLY

USED IN STAFF REPORTS MAY BE

FOUND AT THE BACK OF THIS REPORT

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION
Proposal: The Applicant, Whitestone Investments, Inc. is requesting to rezone the subject property from the R-1 District (Residential; 1 du/ac) and HC (Highway Corridor Overlay District) to the

PDH-12 District (Planned Development Housing; 12 du/ac) and HC for the construction of 12 single-family attached houses at an overall density of 9.16 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and approval of the Final Development Plan (FDP).


Location: South side of Leesburg Pike (Route 7), approximately 400 feet east of George C. Marshall Drive and north of Dominion Way.
Proposed Density: 9.16 du/ac
Open Space: 0.41 acres (32%)
Waivers and Modifications:


  • Waiver of the 2 acre minimum district size, as required by Par. 1 of Sect. 6-107, to permit a PDH District consisting of 1.31 acres.




  • Waiver of the service drive requirement along the property’s Leesburg Pike (Route 7) frontage.




  • Waiver of the Comprehensive Plan major paved trail requirement along the property’s Leesburg Pike (Route 7) frontage.




  • Variance of the limitation on fence height per Par. 8 of Sect. 16-401, to permit a fence greater than 4 feet in height in the front yard.



LOCATION AND CHARACTER
Site Description:
The subject property is located on the south side of Leesburg Pike (Route 7), approximately 3000 feet east of the interchange between Interstate 495 (I-495) and Route 7. The dwelling located on the property was recently demolished; a brick wall and driveway are the only remnants of the former house site. The property is currently covered with various upland hardwood species including tulip poplar, cherry and maple. A concrete retaining wall is located in the northeast portion of the property’s Route 7 frontage, and an existing 4 foot wide sidewalk is located along Route 7. The existing grade of the site slopes significantly downward to the north (Route 7).

Surrounding Area Description:


Direction

Use

Zoning

Plan

North

(Across Leesburg Pike) Office Buildings

C-2, HC

Residential, 5-8 du/ac

East

Single Family Attached Dwelling Units

R-16, HC

Residential, 12-16 du/ac

South

Single Family Attached Dwelling Units

R-16, HC

Residential, 12-16 du/ac

West

Office Buildings

C-3, HC

Office



BACKGROUND
Site History:
There is no relevant zoning history associated with the site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS (Appendix 4)
Plan Area: I
Planning District: Jefferson
Planning Sector: Jefferson North (J10)
Plan Map: Residential, 12-16 du/ac
Plan Text:
There is no site specific Comprehensive Plan text for the application property. The Plan Map indicates that the site is planned for residential use at a density range of 12-16 du/ac. Please see Appendix 4 for relevant Comprehensive Plan text.

ANALYSIS
Conceptual Development Plan/Final Development Plan (Copy at the front of staff report)
Title of CDP/FDP: “Whitestone’s Addition to Marshall Heights, Providence District, Fairfax County, Virginia”
Prepared By: Huntley, Nyce & Associates, Ltd. (Charles J. Huntley)
Original and Revision Dates: September 3, 2002, with revisions through June 17, 2004
The Conceptual Development Plan/Final Development Plan (CDP/FDP) consists of 5 sheets showing the following information:
Sheet one (1) is the cover sheet displaying the zoning plat, general notes, zoning requirements, typical section, soils map and a vicinity map.
Sheet two (2) is the layout.
Sheet three (3) is the landscape plan, including a proposed planting schedule.
Sheet four (4) is the tree cover plan, showing two trees (partially) on site to be preserved, and includes a tree cover tabulation and a lighting detail.
Sheet five (5) is the existing vegetation map and provides an existing vegetation table and a site condition narrative.
The CDP/FDP proposes a site layout that depicts:


  • Twelve (12) lots for the construction of single family attached dwelling units at a density of 9.16 du/ac. Each dwelling is proposed to be 26 feet wide and will include a two-car garage and a minimum 18 foot long driveway, to accommodate a total of 4 parking spaces per unit. An additional 13 visitor parking spaces are located within the development.




  • The proposed site access will be provided through an extension of Hutchison Grove Court from the Marshall Heights development to the east of the subject property.




  • The proposed lot sizes for the interior lots (Lots 2-7) will be 26 feet wide, while the corner lots will be 32 feet wide. Each lot will be approximately 62 feet in length. All of the lots will have a minimum 200 square foot privacy rear yard enclosed by a 6 foot tall board-on-board fence. Lots 1–8 will face west and back up directly against the Marshall Heights development to the east; Lots 9 and 10 will face north and abut the Marshall Heights development to the south; and Lots 11 and 12 will face east, away from the Tysons Office Park to the west. Each dwelling will have a 6 foot overhang over the driveway. No elevations have been provided; however, the Applicant has proffered that the proposed dwellings (26’ x 40’) will be constructed of a “colonial design” with brick facades on the front and sides.




  • The limits of clearing and grading consume the entire site, with the exception of a portion of the right-of-way dedication, as well as a section at the southern portion behind Lots 9 and 10 and a small portion at the northeastern corner of the site. These limits of clearing and grading indicate the preservation of on-site and off-site poplar and cherry trees identified by the Urban Forester for protection, though Staff is of the belief that these limits are inadequate to ensure protection of those trees.




  • The Applicant has proffered to a right-of-way (R-O-W) dedication along Leesburg Pike (Route 7) in the amount of 68 feet from the centerline of the road (5,068 square feet).




  • A stormwater management (SWM) facility (dry pond) is to be located in the northwestern portion of the property. Outfall from the SWM Pond is proposed to connect to the storm sewer in Leesburg Pike, though a note on the CDP/FDP states that outfall will be provided through a connection to the SWM Pond on the Tysons Office Park to the west if deemed appropriate. Maintenance access to the SWM Pond will be provided from an existing driveway from Leesburg Pike.




  • On-site recreational amenities include 6 benches and a trail connection to the sidewalk along Leesburg Pike.




  • A subdivision sign will be provided on the north side of the entrance to the site, and five (5) 14 foot tall mounted lights will be placed throughout the proposed development.




  • A 6 foot tall board fence with brick columns will be located in the northern portion of the property for aesthetic purposes, but will not extend past the stormwater access drive. Because the fence will be located in the front yard, the Applicant has requested a variance to permit a fence greater than 4 feet in height to be located in the front yard.




  • As illustrated on Sheet 3 of the CDP/FDP, landscaping consisting of deciduous, evergreen and shrub species will be provided to buffer the proposed development from the Tysons Office Park to the west and Leesburg Pike. The Applicant has proffered to landscape the SWM Pond in accordance with the Public Facilities Manual (PFM) to increase its aesthetic quality, but has not depicted any proposed landscaping in this area at this time.


COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
The Comprehensive Plan recommends residential development at a density of 12-16 du/ac for the subject property. The applicant has proposed to construct 12 dwellings at an overall density of 9.16 du/ac. This proposal falls below the density recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan.

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Fairfax County expects new residential development to enhance the community by fitting into the fabric of the neighborhood, respecting the environment, addressing transportation impacts, addressing impacts on public facilities, being responsive to our historic heritage, contributing to the provision of affordable housing, and being responsive to the unique site specific considerations of the property. For the complete Residential Development Criteria text, see Appendix 15.
Site Design (Development Criterion #1)
This Criterion requires that the development proposal address consolidation goals in the Comprehensive Plan, further the integration of the development with adjacent parcels and not preclude adjacent properties from developing according to the recommendations of the Plan. The proposal intends to develop the subject property below the recommended density of the Comprehensive Plan (12-16 du/ac). There are no Comprehensive Plan consolidation issues with the subject property and adjacent properties because this is the last remaining vacant parcel in the immediate vicinity.
The development proposal should provide a logical and functional design with appropriate relationships within the development, including appropriately oriented dwelling units and usable yard areas within the individual lots. Convenient access to transit facilities should be provided where available, and all aspects pertaining to utilities shall be identified. The development proposal involves 12 single family attached dwelling units oriented towards Hutchison Grove Court; the rear yards will abut the Marshall Heights subdivision to the east (Lots 1–8) and south (Lots 9 & 10) and the Tysons Office Park to the west (Lots 11 & 12). Each unit will have an 18 foot long minimum driveway and 8 foot deep minimum rear yards. Staff has expressed concerns pertaining to the layout of the development. Although the proposal is below the Plan recommendation for the site (12–16 du/ac), the triangular shape of the site presents design challenges which are not met by the size (26’ X 40’) and number of units (12). The proposed layout creates an overcrowded site that provides minimal rear yards and a lack of usable open space and amenities generally associated with a “P” District. Staff recommended reducing the size and/or number of units to provide larger rear yards and more usable open space. The Applicant has proffered to not permit the installation of decks in the rear yards of Lots 1–8, yet does not prohibit them on Lots 9–12. The two detached sets of units (Lots 9 & 10 and 11 & 12) appear to be shoe-horned into the development. Staff believes that at least two of these units should be deleted (which would also provide for some additional open space.) Staff is concerned about the minimally sized rear yards (10 feet), which will all be fenced with a 6 foot tall board-on-board privacy fence. It is Staff’s opinion that the proposed rear yards are significantly undersized considering the proposed size of the dwelling units. An asphalt trail will provide a connection to the existing sidewalk along Leesburg Pike for residents to access nearby Metrobus stops.
Open space should be usable, accessible and integrated. Appropriate landscaping and amenities should be provided. The open space requirement for the PDH-12 District is 30%, the CDP/FDP proposes that 32% (0.41 acres) of the site will be provided as open space. Staff is concerned with the lack of usable open space, which is primarily comprised of the Stormwater Management (SWM) Pond. There are no transitional screening and barrier requirements, though it is noted that lots in the Marshall Heights development to the east and south of the subject property, are located a minimum of 24 feet from the subject property’s eastern and southern boundaries. The lots in the proposed development immediately abut the property line. The site will be landscaped with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs, primarily around the SWM Pond and the western property boundary. An asphalt trail located on the north side of proposed Lot 12 will access the existing sidewalk along Leesburg Pike. The site will have an interior sidewalk network, which will connect to the Marshall Heights subdivision to the east, and five colonial style mounted lights will be located throughout the development.
Neighborhood Context (Development Criterion #2)
While developments are not expected to be identical with the existing development within which they are to be located, this Criterion states that they should fit into the fabric of the community. The subject property is surrounded by Section 4 of the Marshall Heights subdivision to the east (R-16; 13.11 du/ac), Section 1 of the Marshall Heights subdivision to the south (R-16; 13.76 du/ac), Leesburg Pike to the north and the Tysons Office Park (C-3) to the west. Though the density proposed by this application is lower than the surrounding residential development, the proposed 26’ wide dwellings will be significantly larger than those within the surrounding Marshall Heights development. Staff recommended either reducing the number of units or increasing the number of units while decreasing the size of the lots and dwellings. The Applicant has not pursued either of these recommendations which Staff believes would provide an opportunity for a better site design that is more compatible with surrounding development.
Environment (Development Criterion #3)
This Criterion requires that developments respect the natural environment by conserving natural environmental resources, account for soil and topographic conditions and protect current and future residents from the impacts of noise and light. Developments should minimize off-site impacts from stormwater runoff and adverse water quality impacts. The Environmental Assessment memo is based upon the CDP/FDP and proffers dated March 31, 2004, which have been revised; this staff report is based upon the CDP/FDP and proffers dated June 17, 2004. Staff believes that the issue of water quality has been satisfied by the Applicant, though the following outstanding environmental issues remain unresolved (the unresolved issue of tree cover discussed later in report).
Issue: Transportation Generated Noise (Appendix 5)
Objective 4 of the Comprehensive Plan, Policy Plan states that new residential development should not expose people in their homes to transportation generated noise levels in excess of 45 dBA DNL and/or exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dBA DNL. Staff had repeatedly requested that a noise study be provided; the Applicant initially refused to address this concern, but did submit a noise study on July 9, 2004. Staff was unable to complete an analysis of this study prior to publication of this report, but will prepare an addendum prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
In the interim, Staff performed a preliminary in-house evaluation of the existing, and projected, transportation generated noise levels from Leesburg Pike on the subject property. Based on this evaluation, it was estimated that the majority of the site would be impacted by noise levels between 65–70 dBA DNL. This preliminary analysis by Staff has resulted in the request that the Applicant submit a noise study, and provide appropriate acoustical measures to mitigate transportation generated noise in accordance with the Plan guidelines. The Applicant has submitted a proffer indicating that a noise study will be submitted to DPWES prior to the submission of a site plan, and will provide appropriate noise mitigating construction techniques. However, due to the uncertainty of what mitigation measures will be necessary to achieve the stated levels, and the potential impacts of these measures on the design of the site, Staff was not satisfied with this proffer alone. Due to the extremely late submission of the noise study, staff was unable to determine what CDP/FDP and/or proffer revisions may be necessary to ensure that adequate noise mitigation measures will be incorporated into this proposal. Therefore, this major issue remains unresolved.
Tree Preservation and Tree Cover Requirements (Development Criterion #4) (Appendix 6)
This Criterion states that all developments should be designed to take advantage of existing tree cover and developed appropriately to disturb as little existing tree cover as possible, including the extension of utility improvements to the site. The central portion of the site is covered with black cherry, tulip poplar, red maple and black locust species, which are in poor to fair condition, and not considered a priority for preservation. The Urban Forester has indicated the presence of off-site trees worthy of preservation, which the Applicant should ensure protection of during all phases of construction. The CDP/FDP shows limits of clearing and grading that consume the entire site, with the exception of small tree preservation areas in the southern and northeastern portions of the property, which Staff believes are inadequate to ensure the protection of these off-site trees. The Applicant has proffered to the submittal of a landscape plan with all site plans, which will provide for landscaping in the planting areas of the SWM Pond to the maximum amount feasible according to the PFM. A tree preservation plan will also be submitted, and appropriate tree protection fencing will be provided for those trees indicated on the CDP/FDP for preservation. It is Staff’s belief that the entire site will be cleared and that all proffers pertaining to tree preservation are inadequate because it is highly unlikely that those trees shown for protection on the CDP/FDP will actually be preserved. Therefore, this issue remains unresolved.
Transportation (Development Criterion #5) (Appendix 7)
This Criterion requires that developments provide safe and adequate access to the road network, and encourages pedestrian and transit methods of transportation, public streets and the interconnection of streets. Alternative street designs may be considered when conditions merit their construction. The Applicant has proposed a 5,068 square foot dedication (68 feet from centerline) along Leesburg Pike in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. It would be desirable for the CDP/FDP to show the grading for a future third lane in the R-O-W dedication to ensure that the grading of the site will not necessitate the unnecessary or excessive use of retaining walls; however, this issue will be addressed at the time of site plan submission.
Public Facilities (Development Criterion #6)
Criterion 6 states that residential developments should offset their impacts upon public facility systems (i.e. schools, parks, libraries, police, fire and rescue, stormwater management and other publicly owned community facilities). Impacts may be offset by the dedication of land, construction of public facilities, contribution of in-kind goods, services or cash earmarked for those uses, and/or monetary contributions to be used toward funding capital improvement projects. (Specific Public Facilities issues are discussed in detail in Appendices 8 – 13).
Fairfax County Public Schools (Appendix 8)
The proposed development would be served by Freedom Hill Elementary School, Kilmer Intermediate School and Marshall High School. Current membership at Freedom Hill and Marshall are under capacity, while Kilmer exceeds capacity; 2007-8 projections indicate Freedom Hill and Kilmer exceeding capacity with Marshall under capacity. The total number of students generated by this development is projected to be 3 elementary school students, 1 intermediate and 1 high school students. An appropriate contribution would be $37,500, which the Applicant has proffered to the Board of Supervisors for capital improvements to the school pyramid serving this area.
Fairfax County Park Authority (Appendix 9)
The proposed development will add approximately 26 persons to the current population of the Providence District. The CDP/FDP shows that 6 benches will be provided on-site for passive recreation. Residents need access to outdoor recreational facilities including playground/tot lots, basketball, tennis and volleyball courts and athletic fields. The Applicant has proffered to provide the required $955 per unit contribution to the Marshall Heights Homeowners Association (HOA), which this proposed project intends on joining. Par. 1C of Sect. 16-404 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that recreational cash contribution proffers must specify the usage of such funds, yet the Applicant’s recreational proffer does not indicate how this $11,460 recreational contribution will be used by the Marshall Heights HOA. The Applicant has also proffered to provide $6,900 to the Fairfax County Park Authority for recreational facility development within the area.
Fire and Rescue (Appendix 10)
The subject property is serviced by the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department Station #13, Dunn Loring. The requested rezoning currently meets fire protection guidelines, as determined by the Fire and Rescue Department.
Sanitary Sewer Analysis (Appendix 11)
The subject property is located within the Pimmit Run (G1) watershed and would be sewered into the Blue Plains Treatment Plant. An existing 8 inch pipe located in an easement and approximately 170 feet from the property is adequate for the proposed use.
Fairfax County Water Authority (Appendix 12)
The subject property is not located within the Fairfax County Water Authority service authority area. Adequate domestic water service will need to be acquired from the City of Falls Church.
Utilities Planning and Design, DPWES (Appendix 13)
The analysis notes that there are no downstream complaints on file relevant to this proposed development. The Applicant will need to ensure that the Stormwater Management (SWM) Pond is sufficiently sized, and will need to provide a permanent access to such SWM facility.
Affordable Housing (Development Criterion #7)
This Criterion states that ensuring an adequate supply of housing for low and moderate income families, those with special accessibility requirements, and those with other special needs is a goal of Fairfax County. This Criterion may be satisfied by the construction of units, dedication of land, or by a contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. The Applicant has proffered to contribute one half of one percent (0.5%) of the projected sales price of the houses to the Housing Trust Fund. The proffer states that the contribution will be made at the time of building permit issuance for each unit, which is not in accordance with Fairfax County policy. The entire contribution should be made prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Therefore, this issue is unresolved.
Heritage Resources (Development Criterion #8)
This Criterion requires that developments address potential impacts on historical and/or archaeological resources through research, protection, preservation, or recordation.
Issue: Heritage Resources (Appendix 9)
The Fairfax County Park Authority Memorandum dated March 29, 2004, addresses the potential historical significance of the dwelling located on the property, and recommends appropriate archaeological action should an initial investigation of the dwelling merit further archaeological studies. The dwelling shown on the initial CDP/FDP has been removed from the property; therefore no cultural resource studies are deemed necessary.

ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS (Appendix 14)
WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS

The following waivers and modifications are requested with this application



Section 6-107 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that PDH Districts be located on parcels of land 2 acres and larger. This proposal is to permit a PDH District of 1.31 acres. Because this is the only vacant parcel in the immediate vicinity, Staff could support this waiver if the other issues presented in this staff report are resolved.




  • Waiver of the service drive requirement along Leesburg Pike (Route 7)

Leesburg Pike (Route 7) is classified as a principal arterial roadway. In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, all primary highways must be served by an adjacent and parallel service drive unless this requirement is waived by the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES). The Comprehensive Plan shows that Leesburg Pike should be widened in this area, and the Applicant will be dedicating an adequate amount of right-of-way for this to occur. Furthermore, no service drives exist on either of the adjacent properties that front on Leesburg Pike. Staff could support this waiver if the other issues presented in this staff report are resolved.




  • Waiver of the trail requirement

The Countywide Trails Plan Map shows an 8 foot wide major paved trail on the south side of Leesburg Pike. The Applicant has stated that the presence of an existing 4 foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Leesburg Pike justifies this waiver request. The Fairfax County Park Authority does not support this waiver (see Appendix 9). The Applicant may request a waiver of this trail construction from DPWES during site plan review, though it is noted that this waiver may not be granted, thereby requiring the Applicant to construct the trail. The Trails Committee has not formally acted on this trail waiver request, and Staff is reluctant to support such a waiver where no provisions are supplied by the Applicant in lieu of constructing the trail.




  • Variance of the limitation on fence height per Par. 8 of Sect. 16-401

Fences in front yards may not exceed 4 feet in height per Par. 3A of Sect. 10 104. The Applicant has proposed to locate a 6 foot tall board fence with brick columns in the front yard of the project, approximately 2 feet from the property line (after right-of-way dedication) along Leesburg Pike. The fence is intended for aesthetic purposes only, and will not provide any acoustical mitigation, as a noise study has yet to be submitted. The standards associated with approval of a variance require that the strict application would inhibit or frustrate the purpose and intent of the PDH District and that such variance would comply with the Zoning Ordinance standards discussed later in this report. Staff is reluctant to support this variance until a noise study is submitted, which may require a fence that provides acoustical mitigation of transportation generated noise in a different location, and at a greater height, than that shown on the CDP/FDP.



Maximum Density/Bulk Regulations
The maximum density permitted in the PDH-12 District is 12 du/ac. The Applicant proposes a development of 9.16 du/ac. In the PDH-12 District there are no minimum lot size requirements or minimum yard requirements for single-family attached dwelling units, except that the application is subject to the standards set forth in Part 1 of Article 16, as described further below. The required open space in the PDH-12 District is 30%; the Applicant is proposing to provide 32%.

OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
P-District Standards
The requested proposal must comply with, among others, the Zoning Ordinance provisions found in Section 16-101, General Standards, and Section 16-102, Design Standards.
Section 16-101 General Standards
General Standard 1 states that the planned development shall substantially conform to the adopted comprehensive plan with respect to type, character, intensity of use and public facilities. Planned developments shall not exceed the density or intensity permitted by the adopted comprehensive plan, except as expressly permitted under the applicable density or intensity bonus provisions. The proposed PDH-12 development at a density of 9.16 du/ac would not exceed the Comprehensive Plan density recommendation of 12-16 du/ac. Therefore this issue has been resolved.
General Standard 2 states that the planned development shall be of such design that it will result in a development achieving the stated purpose and intent of the planned development district more than would development under a conventional zoning district. The intent of the PDH District is to design a development that presents excellence in design that is greater than would be permissible in a conventional R District. It is Staff’s belief that the proposal as submitted is designed with the intention of maximizing the economic potential of the site with little regard for an effective design that is compatible with surrounding residential development. Staff does not believe that this proposal is more efficient than a conventional R-12 designation; it should be noted that as designed, the development would not be able to satisfy the R-12 angle of bulk plane or minimum yard requirements (see discussion on Design Standard 1 later in report). Staff does not believe that the proposal satisfies the requirements of the PDH District because the lots are too big, resulting in crowding along Hutchison Grove Court. The rear yards of Lots 1-8 coincide with the eastern property boundary. Though the Applicant has proffered to not permit the construction of decks on Lots 1-8, the typical section provided on the CDP/FDP does not show how decks could be constructed on Lots 9-12, which have 10 foot rear yards. Staff had suggested that that the lots be re-oriented with larger rear yards, though the Applicant has not pursued this suggestion because it would result in the loss of units. The Applicant has not submitted any architectural elevations of the proposed dwellings, and the proffers do not satisfy Staff’s concern as to whether the proposed dwellings will be compatible with surrounding residential properties. On-site recreational amenities include 6 benches and an asphalt trail connection to the sidewalk on the south side of Leesburg Pike. Though the Applicant has proffered to a $955 per unit recreational contribution to the Marshall Heights HOA, the proffer does not specify what, if any recreational purposes it will be used towards. For all of these reasons explained here, it is Staff’s belief that this Standard has not been satisfied.
General Standard 3 states that the planned development shall efficiently utilize the available land, and shall protect and preserve to the extent possible all scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topographic features. The subject property will be completely cleared and graded with the exception of a portion of the R-O-W dedication and small sections at the southern and northeastern portions of the site. The Applicant has proffered to preserve those trees indicated on the CDP/FDP for preservation, and has committed to submit a landscape plan that will provide for plantings within the planting area of the SWM Pond. Staff is concerned that the limits of clearing and grading do not realistically provide for the protection of the two trees shown for preservation on the CDP/FDP, and that the entire site will be cleared. Therefore, this Standard has not been satisfied.
Standard 4 states that the planned development shall be designed to prevent substantial injury to the use and value of existing surrounding development, and shall not hinder, deter or impede development of surrounding undeveloped properties in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan. The subject property is the last remaining vacant parcel in the immediate vicinity, and all of the surrounding parcels of land are developed according to their Plan recommendation. Staff is concerned that the number and size of the proposed units creates a crowded site design, along with the uncertainty of their architectural appearance, could be incompatible with surrounding residential development. Therefore, it is Staff’s belief that this Standard has not been satisfied.
Standard 5 states that the planned development shall be located in an area in which transportation, police and fire protection, other public facilities and public utilities, including sewerage, are or will be available and adequate for the uses proposed; provided, however, that the applicant may make provision for such facilities or utilities which are not presently developed. As previously stated in the public facilities analysis of this staff report, adequate public facilities exist, with the exception of domestic water service which will have to be obtained from the City of Falls Church. Therefore, Staff believes that this Standard has been satisfied.
Standard 6 states that the planned development shall provide coordinated linkages among internal facilities and services as well as connections to major external facilities and services at a scale appropriate to the development. The property will be accessed by an extension of Hutchison Grove Court through the Marshall Heights development to the east. Pedestrian walkways will line both sides of Hutchison Grove Court on the subject property, and will connect to the pedestrian walkway of the Marshall Heights development to the east. An asphalt trail connection will also be provided to connect to the existing sidewalk along Leesburg Pike. The Applicant requests a waiver of the Comprehensive Plan trail requirement, which Staff does not support at this time because no provisions have been afforded by the Applicant in lieu of constructing the trail. Therefore, Staff believes that this standard has not been satisfied.
Section 16-102 Design Standards
Design Standard 1 states that in order to complement development on adjacent properties, at all peripheral boundaries of the planned development district, the bulk regulations and landscaping and screening provisions shall generally conform to the provisions of that conventional zoning district which most closely characterizes the particular type of development under consideration. The most similar conventional zoning district to the PDH-12 District is the R-12 District, whose minimum yard requirements this application fails to satisfy. The bulk standards for the R-12 District includes minimum front yards controlled by an angle of bulk plane (ABP) of 15°, but not less than 5 feet; minimum side yards controlled by an ABP of 15°, but not less than 10 feet; and minimum rear yards controlled by an ABP of 30°, but not less than 20 feet. As proposed, Lots 1–8 will have fenced rear yards of 8 feet and 10 feet from the eastern property boundary; Lot 9 will have a 15 foot fenced rear yard; while lots 10-12 will have fenced rear yards of 10 feet. It is Staff’s belief that the proposal provides insufficient rear yards and buffering between this proposal and adjacent development. Therefore, Staff does not believe that this Standard has been satisfied.
Design Standard 2 states that other than those regulations specifically set forth in Article 6 for a particular P district, the open space, off-street parking, loading, sign and all other similar regulations set forth in this Ordinance shall have general application in all planned developments. This proposal provides 32% open space, which satisfies the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 30%. The proposal will provide 2-car garages and minimum 18 foot driveways for each lot and an additional 13 visitor parking spaces for a total of 61 parking spaces on site. Therefore, this Standard has been satisfied.
Design Standard 3 states that streets and driveways shall be designed to generally conform to the provisions set forth in this Ordinance and all other County ordinances and regulations controlling same, and where applicable, street systems shall be designed to afford convenient access to mass transportation facilities. In addition, a network of trails and sidewalks shall be coordinated to provide access to recreational amenities, open space, public facilities, vehicular access routes, and mass transportation facilities. The Applicant is proposing to construct an extension of a private street, Hutchison Grove Court, to provide access to this property. Four foot wide sidewalks will line both sides of Hutchison Grove Court, connecting to the Marshall Heights sidewalk. An asphalt trail will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk along Leesburg Pike. The Applicant has requested a waiver of the Comprehensive Plan trail requirement, which is not supported by Staff because no provisions have been provided in lieu of construction. Therefore, Staff believes that this standard has not been satisfied.
Overlay District Requirements
Highway Corridor Overlay District (Section 7-600)
The provisions of 7-608, Use Limitations, apply additional standards for users in the HC. These conditions apply to drive-in banks, fast food restaurants, quick-service food stores, service stations and service station/mini-marts. The provisions of the HC do not apply to this application.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff Conclusions
Staff believes that the application, as submitted, has not satisfied the requirements for rezoning the subject property to the PDH-12 District. The applicant’s noise study was submitted immediately prior to the publication of this report. Outstanding issues concerning noise will be discussed in an Addendum, which will be published prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Staff believes that the site design is overcrowded, providing lots with insufficiently sized rear yards. The PDH District provides flexibility, but density should be achieved by creative design, not at the expense of compatibility with the existing community, which in Staff’s opinion has not been done. The Applicant should submit architectural elevations of the proposed single family attached dwellings, provide greater detail of the typical lot section and to construct the Comprehensive Plan recommended trail along Leesburg Pike. Staff also suggested redesigning the site with fewer units, or increasing the number of units while reducing their size so as to provide a more effective design. For all of these reasons, Staff does not support the application as submitted.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that RZ 2004-PR-006 be denied; however, if it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to approve RZ 2004-PR-006, staff recommends that the approval be subject to the execution of proffers consistent with those contained in Appendix 1 of this staff report.
Staff recommends denial of FDP 2004-PR-006.
It should be noted that it is not the intent of staff to recommend that the Board, in adopting any conditions proffered by the owner, relieve the applicant/owner from compliance with the provisions of any applicable ordinances, regulations, or adopted standards.
It should be further noted that the content of this report reflects the analysis and recommendations of staff; it does not reflect the position of the Board of Supervisors.

APPENDICES


  1. Draft Proffers

  2. Affidavit

  3. Statement of Justification

  4. Plan Citations

  5. Environmental Analysis

  6. Urban Forestry Analysis

  7. Transportation Analysis

  8. Fairfax County Public Schools

  9. Fairfax County Park Authority

  10. Fire and Rescue

  11. Sanitary Sewer Analysis

  12. Fairfax County Water Authority

  13. Utilities Planning and Design, DPWES

  14. Zoning Ordinance Provisions

  15. Residential Development Criteria

  16. Glossary

DRAFT PROFFERS

WHITESTONE INVESTMENTS, INC.


July 12, 2004
Pursuant to Section 15.2-2303 (a) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and Section 18-204 of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned, as the applicant in the above-referenced Rezoning CDP/FDP Application and the owner of the Property (the "Applicant") for themselves and their successors and assigns, which is the subject matter thereof, being approximately 1.31 acres identified as Tax Map 39-2-001-56, hereby proffer that the development of the Property will be subject to the following terms and conditions should the application be approved:


  1. Substantial Conformity. The Property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the CDP/FDP dated 9/03/03, revised to 6/17/04, and notes thereon, prepared by Huntley, Nyce & Associates, Ltd. The Applicant does not intend by this proffer to waive the right to make minor engineering modifications permitted and/or rendered necessary by the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance, or the Public Facilities Manual, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

2. Marshall Heights HOA. a. The Applicant shall request of the Marshall Heights HOA prepare the annexation of the Application Property into the Marshall Heights HOA to own, manage and maintain the open space, private street, recreational facilities and all other community owned land and improvements. In the event that the Application Property is not approved by the Marshall Heights HOA for annexation into the Marshall Heights HOA, the Applicant shall establish a seperate HOA to own, manage and maintain the open space, private street, recreational facilites and all other community owned land and improvements. The HOA documents shall in either event contain the following: (i) a covenant which shall be recorded providing the garages shall only be used for purposes that will not interfere with the intended purpose of garages (parking of vehicles); (ii) a restriction that no decks will be constructed on Lots 1-8. The aforesaid covenant shall be recorded among the land records of Fairfax County in a form approved by the County Attorney prior to the sale of any lots and shall run to the benefit of the HOA, to be established or joined, and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Initital purchasers shall be advised in writing of the use restrictions prior to entering into a contract of sale.


b. Pror to approval of the record plat for development lots within the Application Property, the Applicant shall submit the documents establishing the HOA, or those documents joining the Marshall Heights HOA, to the County of Fairfax for review and approval. The HOA shall be established, or the Property shall join the Marshall Heights HOA, prior to approval of the record plat for developmenatal lots within the Application Property.
c. All contracts for the sale of homes will comply with the Virginia State Code disclosure laws advising that that the homes will be part of an HOA and are subject to the rules and regulations of same.

3. Limits of Clearing and Grading. The applicant shall conform to the limits of clearing and grading as shown on the CDP/FDP subject to the installation of utilities and/or other public improvements as determined necessary by the Director of DPWES. If it is determined necessary to install utilities and/or other public imprivements outside of the limits of clearing and grading as shown on the CDP/FDP, they shall be located in the least disruptive manner necessary as determined by the Urban Forestry Division. A replanting plan shall be developed and implemented, subject to approval by the Urban Forestry Division, for any areas outside the limits of clearing and grading that must be disturbed.


4. Energy Conservation. All dwellings shall meet the thermal standards of the CABO Model Energy Program for energy efficient homes, or the equivalent, as determined by DPWES, for either gas or electric energy homes.
5. Stormwater Management. Applicant shall implement stormwater management techniques and facilities generally as shown on the CDP/FDP to control the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff caused by development of the Property, as approved by DPWES (or as waived or modified by DPWES) in accordance with the Public Facilities Manual. If Stormwater Management cannot be fulfilled in substantial conformance with that shown on the CDP/FDP as determined and approved by DPWES then a Conceptual Development Plan Amendment/Final Development Plan Amendment may be necessary. In any event, the storm water management facility shall have an adequate outfall as required by the PFM as approved by DPWES.
6. Public Schools Contribution. At the time of final site plan approval, Applicant shall contribute the sum of $3125.00 per dwelling unit (total $37,500.00) to the Board of Supervisors for capital improvements to the school pyramid serving the Property.
7. Recreation Contribution. The sum of $955.00 per unit as the PDH recreation contribution shall be paid to the Marshall Heights Homeowners Association if the Property is annexed; otherwise, said sum shall be paid to the homeowner’s association for the Property. Said sum shall be paid at the time of final site plan approval.
8. Fairfax County Park Authority Contribution. In addition to proffer 7 above,At the time of final site plan approval Applicant shall contribute the sum of $575.00 (total $6900.00) to the Fairfax County Park Authority (FCPA), to be used by the Fairfax County Park Authority only for recreational facility development within the service area of the Property.
9. Architectural Design. The dwellings to be constructed shall be of colonial design with brick facades on the front and sides.
10. Noise Study. The traffic noise study performed by Miller, Beam & Paganelli, Inc. dated July 8, 2004 indicates that proposed Lots 1 and 12 may be impacted by noise levels in rear yards and proposed Lots 1, 2, 11 and 12 may have interior noise impacts. To mitigate these impacts, Applicant will provide the following as deemed required:
Applicant shall achieve a maximum interior noise level of approximately 45dBA Ldn in any area identified as affected by levels above 65 dBA Ldn. All units or floors of units within this impacted area will have the following acoustical attributes as determined by DPWES:

  1. Exterior walls shall have a laboratory sound transmission class (“STC”) rating of at least 39.




  1. Doors (excluding garage doors) and windows shall have an STC rating of at least 28. If glazing (excluding any glazing in a garage door) constitutes more that twenty percent (20%) of any façade, then such glazing shall have the same STC rating as that façade.




  1. Measures to seal and caulk between surfaces shall follow methods approved by the American Society for Testing and Materials to minimize sound transmission.




  1. Exterior noise levels in the rear yards impacted by noise from Route 7 shall be mitigated through the construction of architecturally solid wood or masonry fencing from the ground up with no gaps or openings, as approved by DPWES.

11. Dedication for Route 7. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, At the time of final site plan approval, or upon demand by Fairfax County, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors in fee simple highway right-of-way for future improvements by others to Route 7 by others in the amount of 68 feet from the present centerline as shown on the CDP/FDP.


12. Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the time of the issuance of the building permit for each dwelling unit Applicant shall contribute a sum equal to 0.5% of the value/sales price of said dwelling, as determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development in consultation with Applicant, to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
13. Density Credit. Advanced density credit is reserved consistent with Section 2-308 of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance for all eligible dedications described herein or as may be lawfully required by Fairfax County or VDOT pursuant to the Public Facilities Manual (PFM), at the time of subdivision plan approval for the Property.
14. Driveways. Driveways shall be a minimum of 18 ft. in length between the inside edge of the sidewalk and the garage door.
15. Broadband Connectivity. All dwellings shall be pre-wired with broadband, high capacity data/network connections in multiple rooms, in addition to standard phone lines. This may be offered as an option to homebuyers which will satisfy this proffer.
16. Lighting. All lighting on the site shall be in conformance with the performance standards for outdoor lighting contained in Part 9 of Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance
17. Signage. The identification sign depicted on the CDP/FDP shall conform to the provisions of Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
18. Privacy Fences. A 6 foot tall board on board privacy fence shall be installed to enclose the rear of each dwelling.
19. Landscape Plan/Tree Preservation. (a) A Landscape Plan incorporating the landscaping shown on Sheet 3 of 5 the CDP/FDP shall be submitted with the initial and all other submissions of the subdivision plan for review and approval by the Urban Forestry Division. In order to provide a natural appearance to the proposed stormwater management facility in the northeast corner of the property, the Landscape Plan shall include landscaping in all permitted planting areas of the stormwater management pond, in keeping with the planting policy of the PFM, as approved by DPWES The Applicant shall coordinate said Landscape Plan with the Urban Forestry Division to select tree species that provide the largest net gain to air quality; (b) The CDP/FDP shows the intended preservation of two existing trees on-site, and the planting of many additional trees; the two trees noted as to be preserved shall shall be shown on an approved Tree Preservation Plan and shall be protected by tree protection fencing. Tree protection fencing, consisting of four foot high, 14 gauge welded wire attached to 6 foot steel posts driven 18 inches into the ground and placed no farther than 10 feet apart, shall be placed at the limits of clearing and grading as shown on the approved erosion and sedimentation control sheets. The tree protection fencing shall be made clearly visible to all construction personnel. The tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the performance of any clearing and grading activities on the site. Prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading on the site, Applicant shall verify in writing that the tree protection fencing has been properly installed.

Clearing, grading, and construction shall strictly conform to the limits of clearing and grading as shown on the CDP/FDP. The Applicant shall have the limits of clearing and grading marked with a continuous line of flagging prior to the pre-construction meeting and shall clearly delineate the limits of clearing and grading with such flagging throughout the construction period. After final site plan and record plat approval, and before or during the pre-construction meeting, the Applicant shall walk the limits of clearing and grading with an Urban Forestry Branch representative to determine where adjustments to the clearing limits can be made to increase the survivability of trees at the edge of the limits of clearing and grading, if any. The County Urban Forester may require field located modifications of such plans to the extent these modifications do not alter the number of dwelling units shown on theCDP/FDP, reduce the size of the proposed units, significantly move their location on the lot or require the installation of retaining walls greater than 2 feet in height. No root pruning or trenching shall occur prior to this final walk-thru with the Urban Forester


BINDING EFFECT
20. These proffers will be binding upon the Applicant and its successors and assigns.

SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW


Applicant/Owner:

WHITESTONE INVESTMENTS, INC.

BY:





The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page