March 11, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Stafford County Planning

1 Board of Supervisors Gary F. Snellings, Chairman Laura A. Sellers, Vice Chairman Meg Bohmke Jack R. Cavalier Paul V. Milde, III Cord A. Sterling Robert “Bob” Thomas, Jr. Anthony J. Romanello, ICMA‐CM County Administrator March 11, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Stafford County Planning Commission FROM: J SUBJECT: RC1400155; Reclassification – George Washington Village The application is for a reclassification of Assessor's Parcels 28-87; 29-32, 29-36, 29-38A, 29-39C, 29-81, 29-82 and 29-83; 37-63; and 38-1, 38-1A, 38-3, 38-4, 38-4C, 38-55, 38-58C, 38-58D, 38-66, 38-69, 38- 70, 38-70A, and 38-71 from the A-1, Agricultural; A-2, Rural Residential; R-3, Urban Residential – High Density; B-2, Urban Commercial; and M-1, Light Industrial Zoning Districts consisting of 1,051.59 acres to the P-TND, Planned Traditional Neighborhood Development Zoning District, to allow for the development of a planned community, proposed to include up to 2,957 residential units and up to 1,550,000 square feet of commercial floor area. A public hearing on the application was initiated on December 10, 2014, continued to January 14, 2015, February 11, 2015 and again to this meeting. During the meeting, staff addressed several questions the Commission had. The applicant reviewed modifications to the proffers and addressed other features of the project. The Commission had follow-up questions that are summarized below. Requests directed to Staff: 1. Requested an evaluation of how the amended application addresses previous comments, including any new comments and issues. Attachment 1 is the original summary of issues with a response to each comment, including several new comments. 2. Provide the turn-key cost to construct a fire and rescue station (excluding operation/staffing costs). Also, questioned if it would it be optimal to collocate the fire and rescue station with the station planned at the Stafford Regional Airport. The following cost estimates illustrate the approximate costs associated with constructing, equipping, and operating a basic fire and rescue station for this project based on current cost estimates except as noted. These figures are estimated at levels consistent with a neighborhood style facility appropriate for this development. The estimates are slightly lower than that of a full- scale, fire and rescue station. These figures would increase over time. 1300 Courthouse Road, P. O. Box 339, Staﬀord, VA 22555‐0339 Phone: (540) 658.8600 Fax: (540) 658.7643 www.staﬀordcountyva.gov Memorandum to: Stafford County Planning Commission March 11, 2015 Page 2 of 3 · $4,000,000 for the construction of a 10,000 Square Foot Fire Station for Engine & Medic Apparatus, Crew Quarters, and Flex Use/Community Space · $550,000 for a Class A Engine · $200,000 for a Patient Transport Unit · $900,000 for Annual Personnel Staffing of the Engine (from the Public Safety Staffing Plan) · $402,000 for Annual Personnel Staffing of the Ambulance/Medic (from the Public Safety Staffing Plan) It is absolutely critical to highlight the fact that the immediate and most significant impact to Fire and Rescue services is the need to provide the Engine and Ambulance/Medic crew required based on the size and scope of this development. Although the revised site location is recognized as an acceptable component of the necessary infrastructure, it alone does not provide for the physical resources needed to respond to the significant operational impact that this development will have on Fire and Rescue services. After review of the proposed development and analysis of the future needs for both the airport and the George Washington Village project, the Fire and Rescue Department does not believe that a co-located facility would be compatible or in the best interest of future resource deployment. The ultimate needs, timing and response requirements within these two very different areas of service would not be achieved in a single facility at or near the airport. 3. Requested a copy of the slide presented at the February 11th meeting with an overlay of the draft Airport Impact Areas over the development plan. Attachment 2 includes this slide. 4. Will a Phase 1 be conducted for the cemeteries. This is addressed in the Attachment 1 Summary of Issues & corresponding plats in Attachment 3. 5. Obtain additional comments from the School Board following amendments to the application. This request has been forwarded to the School Board staff. As of the release of this memo, no additional response has been provided. 6. Obtain the impact this project may have on law enforcement. Staff is in the process of obtaining this information from the Sheriff’s Department. 7. Determine if the stated in-kind proffer values are accurate? Staff has requested background information for the basis for the cost estimates in the proffer statement and to date, has not received this information. 8. Concern was expressed that there may be a trend toward fewer brick and mortar stores, making it difficult for this much retail to be realized. The Commission requested staff obtain information on the latest trends in retail from Economic Development. Memorandum to: Stafford County Planning Commission March 11, 2015 Page 3 of 3 A Retail Study commissioned by Economic Development and several recent articles that outline retail trends are provided in Attachment 4. 9. Requested staff evaluate the fiscal impacts of the project. Staff has prepared a Review of Fiscal Impacts and Proffer Contributions for the project and will provide it under a separate cover. Requests directed to the Applicant: • Consider moving the phasing of the commercial development to an earlier point in the development, relative to the residential units. • Consider expanding the number of properties eligible for water hook-ups to parcels beyond immediate adjacent parcels. • Questioned the location of three cemeteries believed to be on the site. The applicant stated there are no cemeteries on the property. The first point in Attachment 1 includes additional information. • Questioned if the applicant would replace any wells that are impacted, how long it might take, if pump and haul would work, and if providing a public water hook-up is the only alternative, provide more information as to how the process works. • Research the history of well impacts that occurred during the development of Augustine North. Also included are the latest draft proffers, dated February 11, 2015 (Attachment 5), proposed Ordinance O15-01 and proposed Resolution R15-05 (Attachment 6). The time limit for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation is March 11, 2015. JAH:mz Attachments (6) Attachment 1 Page 1 of 8 Summary of December 10, 2014 Staff Report Issues and Concerns George Washington Village (Originally prepared on January 14, 2015) Status Update (Amended on March 11, 2015) Cultural Resources 1. There are several resources present, including three cemeteries, a farm complex, and structures. The applicant is in the process of performing a Phase 1 Cultural Resources Study in the areas identified by staff, which will be submitted once complete. In addition, the applicant is proffering to complete the work prior to developing the site. Staff recommends the evaluation of the Phase 1 study prior to approval of the rezoning, as supported by policy 9.1.3 in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant noted that two of the cemeteries are off-site. These areas are excluded from the area being rezoned, but are located on the edge of the development. Staff notes there may be two other Cemetery sites within the subject property. Attachment 3 includes portions of the boundary plat and GDP that identify the location of the known cemeteries and potential development in the vicinity. Also, staff identifies the potential locations of the two other cemeteries. Staff would recommend a Cemetery evaluation be conducted in the areas of the subject property immediately around the known cemeteries and confirmation of the presence of the other cemeteries. The Stafford County Historical Commission was scheduled to discuss the cultural resources on the George Washington Village site on March 5th, including cemetery sites, but their meeting was cancelled due to inclement weather. Regulating Plan/Generalized Development Plan 2. Staff notes that the applicant has not submitted a perennial stream evaluation for the site to verify the location of the CRPA. The CRPA serves as a basis for the limits of the T-1 zone. Since the transect zones are established upon zoning approval, staff recommends the rezoning not be approved until the CRPA limits are confirmed. No change to this comment. 3. Staff notes that the T-4 zone requires three types of residential units. Although three residential dwelling types are noted in the Regulating Plan, the location of Village units are not identified in the layout on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The Village units should be identified on the GDP. No change to this comment. Page 1 of 8 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 8 4. It is required that all residential areas are within pedestrian sheds around civic buildings and uses. Staff notes that the active park, identified as a civic use, does not qualify under the pedestrian shed definition. Another use will need to be added or the plan that is consistent with the pedestrian shed requirements. The applicant has resolved this comment as a result of modifications to the development plan. See additional comments at the end of this section. 5. A residential unit mix consistent with the GDP is stated within the monetary contribution section of the proffers, but the language does not establish those unit numbers as maximums. No change to this comment. Transportation 6. Several intersections along Courthouse Road, with the exception of the Ramoth Church/Winding Creek Intersection, are projected to have a failing Level of Service (below Comprehensive Plan recommendations) or further degrade (intersection delay).

Load more