TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TOWNOF WARRENTON (627i tance ena ty naetma Teimonege ses toxou ost TBolatetit STAFF REPORT Chairman Harre and Members of the Planning Commission Sarah A. Sitterle, AICP, CZA SAS Director of Planning and Community Development August 14, 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 15-01); Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 15-01); Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA 15-01); Special Use Permit (SUP 15-03); - Orchard Ridge Multi-Family Development ~ Applications for a proposed 288-unit multi-family development on property (37.4598 acres) at 615 Falmouth Street. The subject parcels (GPIN 6983-69-8183 and 6983-78-1685) are zoned Industrial. The project area includes 16.328 acres. The following are being requested per the 2006 Zoning Ordinance: Comprehensive Plan Amendment per Article 11-3.8 to change the contemplated zoning and land use of the project area to Residential Multi-Family (High Density Residential); rezoning of the project area to Residential Multi-Family (RMF) per Article 11-3.9; Special Use Permit per Article 11-3.10 to apply Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions per Articles 3-4.5.5 and 9-3; a text amendment per Article 11-3.9 to increase the allowable building height in Article 3-4.5.8 for multi-family buildings in the RMF District; and waivers for building height, and parking requirements per Articles 3- 45.8, 7-3, 9-36, and 10-7.12, The applicant is Orchard Development Corporation, and the property owner is Premium Business Parks International, LLC. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning district from Industrial to Residential Multi-Family (RMF), Special Use Permit to apply Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions, a Zoning Text Amendment for modification of building height requirements for buildings in the RMF District, and parking and building height waivers per Article 10-7.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The project includes a proposal to construct 288 multi-family dwelling units within 9 buildings. The project would require a subdivision of 16.328 acres to accommodate the rezoning request that is limited to this project area. An access drive that connects to Falmouth Street adjacent to Kingsbridge Court is, proposed to accommodate primary access to the site. 1ANALYSI! Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is being proposed under the Virginia Code Section 15.2- 2232 and identified as a “Commission Permit” in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance under Article 11-3.8.1 to change the land use and zoning designation of the abovementioned property from light industrial to high density residential (Residential Multi-Family — RMF). ‘The applicant has noted that the Comprehensive Plan includes a goal to encourage affordable housing options that supports the Town’s workforce housing options. ‘The applicant has provided a market study that indicates that the subject property would be well suited for a rental property project such as the one being proposed. The applicant has provided a summary of all property in the Town of Warrenton that is zoned RMF. There is currently no other property of this area that is vacant to accommodate the scale of the proposed project. The existing multifamily developments in the ‘Town are at capacity with waiting lists to rent units. The Town of Warrenton Comprehensive Plan (2000-2025) indicates that the subject property should be reserved for industrial development. Industrial land is needed to provide local employment opportunities to residents and to increase the local tax base. The Comprehensive Pian presents an appropriate balance of land uses based on the future population, and the amount of industrial land included in the Plan is based on population projections and a reasonable ratio of employment. Conversion of the proposed parcel represents a 13.8% removal of remaining industrial land (based on the 2009 tabulation). The applicant must address the balance of uses and the impact of the removal of industrial zoning on the future support of the Town population. At the July 15, 2015 worksession, the applicant responded to this concem, Mr. Fallon directed the members to section 3 of the application package which included a map of the multi-family residential units and multi-family zoning in the Town as well as one PUD that has multi-family residential housing on it. He stated there was a chart on the availability of multi-family housing. He stated multi-family housing is marketable housing and PUD is normally subsidized housing and indicated the units on Academy Hill as of March 2015 were full and there is a waiting list for those units. Mr. Fallon pointed out that there is no demand for industrial land but there is a high demand for affordable housing. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a park at this location to provide recreation and uses complementary to the Warrenton Greenway Trail, Parcel A in the proposal would be consistent with this park, but there are no details of the development of this parcel. Access to the trail could be ensured through proffers for sidewalk improvements to Old Meetze Road and a connection to the trail or a contribution to the trail/sidewalk fund, The applicant noted during the July 15, 2015 worksession that the surrounding property owners did not want a connection to the property through a trail or sidewalks.The Comprehensive Plan also considers the appropriateness of adjacent land uses and the orderly transition of land uses. Some of the issues associated with this site are the potential for noxious or hazardous impacts from the adjacent industrial development; the need for accessibility to high-density uses; and the adjacency of single-family uses across Old Meetze Road. ‘The density of the property suggested by the Comprehensive Plan is for industrial uses, The proposed conversion is too high-density, with residential units that will likely include children, The strain on the Fauquier Public School System must be considered. The applicant responded during the July 15, 2015 worksession with the following comments, Mr. Fallon stated that staff's report stated that the density was too high and there should be school proffers considered. He indicated National Association of Home Builders has done a nationwide study of multi-family density and children of multi-family density. According to their figures in Virginia we would have approximately 42 children at this project. The Fauquier County Public School ten year enrollment (Mr. Fallon provided handout) for Bradley and Brumfield Elementary Schools indicates that the capacity is currently below and ten year projections for enrollment reflect it will be down. Fauquier County Public Schools will not have to add additional classrooms in order to accommodate the 42 children estimated for this project. Additionally, the County is responsible for the school system, everyone in Town pays taxes including this project and Mr. Fallon indicated he had spoken with Mr. Granger, Center District Supervisor, about this issue and he did not have a problem not having a proffer. This is an affordable housing development and they cannot add to the rent of these units in order to recover the profier. Rezoning As with all requests for a Zoning Map Amendment, the Planning Commission must utilize the criteria provided for in Article 11-3912 Criteria for Consideration of Zoning Map Amendments, 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; 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. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Light Industrial with a proposed park. According to the Town of Warrenton Comprehensive Plan: These areas include light manufacturing, flex industrial uses and wholesale commercial uses, with limited office uses, with floor area ratios generally not exceeding 0.35 on a single site. These areas have been designed to provide additional types of employment opportunities within the Town in addition to services and commercial retail uses. The Town owned business park on Walker Drive has proven to be very successful in providing space for existing businesses to expand, as well as providing an area to attract new businesses. Industrial land uses designations should be limited to light industrial uses that do not generate inordinate amounts of noise, smoke, dust, odors, heat, or electrical disturbances. Particular attention should be given to vehicular access and reducing the impact on adjacent properties. The park designation includes public and private parkland and park facilities, passive and/or active. It includes the three Town parks: Eva Walker, Academy Hill , and Rady Park, as well as the Warrenton Branch Trail. It also includes proposed additional small parks and “greens” that should be developed in conjunction with new residential neighborhood development. These are shown on the future land use map only as symbolic green circles, indicating that the specific size, design, function and configuration of these parks will depend upon the particular needs and attributes of the proposed development and surrounding uses. The subject parce! is currently zoned Industrial (1), and is surrounded by industrial zoning to the ‘east, south, and west and low density residential zoning to the north. The requested rezoning from Industrial (1) to Residential Multi-Family (RMF) is an awkward transition of uses. The proposed residential units will be significantly different from the adjacentindustrial uses and incompatible with the nuisance associated with Route 29. Additionally, the RMF zoning would be much higher density than the R-15 residential zoning to the north. The R- 15 district allows no more than 3 units per acre, and density is often lower in actual development (1.75-2.25 DU/AC). The proposed project density is over 17 units per net acre. Substantial buffering and screening is necessary to mitigate the departure from the adjacent uses. The applicant noted during the July 15, 2015 worksession that screening and buffer details would be provided at the site plan stage. The Economic Development Manager had concerns about the transition from Industrial to multifamily use and provided the following points for consideration: © To grant the application for rezoning for the Orchard Ridge Apartments, the Town would lose a substantial piece of industrial land and the opportunities to derive tax and economic benefits from it for perpetuity. It would also limit the types of future uses appropriate for the remaining portion of the parcel. © Similarly, the shortage of sewer capacity facing the Town would also suggest limited flexibility to rezone commercial and industrial properties. A recent report to the Town Council indicated the Town could exceed its sewage/waste-water capacity as early as 2017, based on current zoning, It is reasonable to expect that 288 apartment units would generate significantly more sewage/waste-water than many industrial and commercial uses. Expanding capacity will require millions in capital investment over an extended period of time. Further investigation is required to project the marginal cost of applications such as Orchard Ridge Apartments. * Providing affordable housing is an amiable goal for the ‘Town to support. * Rezoning commercial or industrial land, however, may work against the Town’s overreaching goals for economic development and fiscal stability, as well as endanger viability of future commercial projects because of a lack of sewage/waste-water capacity. ‘The Commission has expressed concerns about the proposed development at this location and whether other options existed. The applicant has indicated there are no other options with available land zoned RMF within the Town’s limits to meet the demand for affordable housing. There are concerns about the remnant parcel that will remain industrial. The future proposed use of the remnant parcel is unknown at this time. The existing use of the former Virginia Wire Factory building is for warehouse space and is partially vacant. The applicant expressed that the property owner has not received interest in the property to use it for industrial purposes. ‘There may be a proposal at some future time to rezone the property with an Industrial Planned Unit Development (I-PUD) overlay district, which would provide flexibility with the combination of uses of the parcel. The remnant parce! would not meet the minimum 25-acre requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and the applicant is seeking a condition with the Special Use Permit for ADU provisions that would reserve a portion of the residential component of the project to credit toward a potential I-PUD designation.Zoning Text Amendment The application requests a Zoning Text Amendment per Article 11-3.9 to increase the allowable building height for multi-family buildings in the RMF District. The application requests a text amendment to Section 3-4.5.8 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase maximum building height in the RMF district from 45 feet to 55 feet. Each foot in building height over 45 feet would require a one foot increase to front, side and rear setbacks, with an exception that the added setback may be absorbed by stepping back the 2nd or 3rd stories of the building. The proposed text amendment is a direct modification to the existing code section, which would allow any multi-family building to execute the additional height, if the requisite setbacks are provided. While the additional height might work for this site/development, it would not necessarily be appropriate for other RMF sites in the Town. The height regulations in the surrounding district do not support the requested height exception. ‘The Industrial and R-15 districts allow a maximum height of 35 feet. The additional height may enable a greater economy of scale (construction cost efficiency) for the proposed developments, but would further create @ contrasting scale with the surrounding area. It is suggested that the text amendment include a provision that applies only to multi-family buildings proposed for higher density such as those that would have ADU provisions. Please see the enclosed Draft Proffer Statement in the application package for details regarding the suggested proffers. The applicant is proffering land use, building management, enhanced landscaping, open space, compliance with Article 9-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, environmental standards including building and community design, energy efficient appliances, water conservation and efficiency, recreation and social facilities, a pedestrian connection to the Warrenton Greenway through the proposed park on Parcel A, access to the site at Falmouth Street, a community shuttle van, utilities including water and sewer tap fees, water service from Falmouth Street, installation of an off-site water line on Old Meetze Road, sewer service for the project under the Warrenton Branch Greenway, sewer discharge with a $100,000 proffer to abate 1&1 or improve the pump station and phasing of the project per the proposed schedule. Please note the utilities subheading under the Special Use Permit portion of this report for comments on the draft profiers. Special Use Permit As with all requests for a Special Use Permit, the Planning Commission must utilize the criteria provided for in Article 11-3.10.3 Evaluation Criteria; Issues for Consideration. The list provided below specifies the evaluation criteria applicable to this particular case, 1. Whether the proposed Special Use Permit is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 2. The level and impact of any noise emanating from the site, including that generated by the proposed use, in relation to the uses in the immediate area. 3. The proposed location, lighting and type of signs in relation to the proposed use, uses in the area and sign requirements of the Warrenton Zoning Ordinance.4, The glare or light that may be generated by the proposed use in relation to the uses in the mediate area. 5. The compatibility of the proposed use with other existing or proposed uses in the neighborhood, and adjacent parcels. 6. The location and area footprint with dimensions (all drawn to scale), nature and height of existing or proposed buildings, structures, walls, and fences on the site and in the neighborhood. 7. The nature and extent of existing or proposed landscaping, screening and buffering on the site and in the neighborhood. 8. Whether the proposed Special Use Permit at the specified location will contribute to or promote the welfare or convenience of the public. 9. The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed use, the adequacy of access roads and the vehicular and pedestrian circulation elements (on and off-site) of the proposed use, all in relation to the public’s interest in pedestrian and vehicular safety, efficient traffic movement and access in case of fire or catastrophe. 10. Whether the proposed use will faci transportation. 11, Whether the proposed Special Use Permit will be served by essential public facilities, services and utilities. 12, The effect of the proposed Special Use Permit on environmentally sensitive land or natural features, wildlife habitat and vegetation, water quality and air quality. 13. The location of any major floodplain and steep slopes. 14, The location and screening of parking and loading spaces and/or areas. fate orderly and safe road development and A Special Use Permit (SUP) is required to obtain the density bonus necessary for the project. ‘The SUP provisions are contained in Section 11-3.10 and identify the procedures and criteria for SUP consideration. The Zoning Ordinance also has Supplemental Provisions to guide the review of affordable housing proposals and is contained in Section 9-3. These two sections together guide the evaluation of this proposal and not just Section 9-3 as provided in the application. The regulations of Section 11-3.10 include application documents to be provided in the application and specific evaluation criteria to be considered in the SUP review process ‘The proposed mix of units includes both market rate and affordable units. The market study notes projections of the 60% AMI target for rental rates and the number of units that are considered as affordable housing. The applicant indicated that the Market study was done in conformance with Virginia Housing Department Authority guidelines (VDHA) which refers to phase one as 160 units but the plan is not to phase this project but to build as the units fill up. It was noted that the study reflects that phase one will include 80 units which are at or below 60% AMI and the applicant clarified that the mix of units would be a 50/50 split of affordable and market rate units. The applicant has indicated that VHDA guidelines require a yearly audit to maintain the mix of units ‘The request as presented is an awkward transition of uses. The RMF District is residential and four (4) zoning districts from the existing I District. That means that the new residences will be significantly different from the adjacent use and produce a difficult buffering condition,Exceptional landscaping, use of berms/fencing and distance is necessary to attempt to mitigate the departure from the adjacent potential use. In the other direction/north, the dwellings along ‘Old Meetze Road represent five (5) different districts from the existing R-15 zoning. While the use is still residential, the difference in density and site development intensity is considerably apart. The R-15 District is no more than 3 units per acre and often lower in actual development (1.75-2.25 DU/AC). The project density is over 17 units per gross acre or roughly 5.9 times the density of the adjacent property. Again, substantial buffering and screening is required to mitigate the differences. Section 9-3 of the Warrenton Zoning Ordinance provides and special conditions for consideration of affordable housing. This includes an appropriate living environment, demonstration of 25 year commitment to affordability, limitations of density bonus, site design characteristics consistent with Section 9-20, parking restrictions (9-3.6) and procedures for offering the units first to residents of Warrenton and Fauquier County. The review of living environment is includes a convenient, safe and pedestrian-friendly site that blends in with the surrounding area. ‘This would be difficult to achieve with the substantial differences in the adjacent uses (industrial, low-density residential and expressway arterial). ‘The site appears to depend on the remnant parcel for outfall of storm water in either the adjacent pond or stream, The pond was subject to a Phase I and II Environmental Analysis under EPA standards (reports, available in the Planning Office), These revealed sensitive materials on-site and in the pond that must be considered in any stormwater management program. Traffic Impact Traffic impact for the development was evaluated by Bowman Engineering and a copy of the report dated February 13, 2015 was provided with the application. ‘The following intersections were evaluated as part of the study: a) Falmouth Street and Main Street and East Lee Street b) Falmouth Street and Meetze Road ©) Falmouth Street and Kingsbridge Court/Site Entrance 4) Falmouth Street and E, Shirley Avenue (U.S. Route 17/29 Bypass) e) E. Lee Street and Walker Drive/Oliver City Road Background traffic conditions, which represent future conditions without the proposed development, were calculated for the years 2017 and 2023. These background traffic volumes were calculated by applying a | percent per year growth rate to existing traffic and adding trips generated by the Warrenton Crossing (formerly Mosby's Crossing) development. These steps were agreed upon at the scoping meeting with VDOT and the Town of Warrenton. The background traffic conditions also assumed that the “Spine Road” between Oliver City Road and the intersection of Falmouth Street and Old Meetze Road will be built as part of the Warrenton Crossing development. Peak hour trips generated by the proposed development were calculated, These calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9" Edition in accordance with calculations contained in the scoping agreement. Peak hour totals of in and out trips are as follows.AM Peak Hour 145 trips PM Peak Hour 176 trips For comparison purposes, the estimated trips were calculated based on the existing zoning (industrial). Assuming a 0,3-0.4 FAR for the 14.6 acres, this results in approximately 190,800- 254,400 square feet of development. Applying the trips rates for ITE Land Use Code 110 (Light Industrial) to the estimated development area results in the following peak hour trips: AM Peak Hour 176-234 trips (31-89 trips more than the proposed residential use) PM Peak Hour 185-247 trips (9-71 trips more than the proposed residential use) Site generated trips were assigned to the area roadways consistent with the agreed-upon trip distributions, These trips were added to 2017 and 2023 background traffic volumes to result in total future traffic with the development for each of these years. Capacity analyses were conducted for existing traffic volumes, background traffic volumes, total future (2017) traffic volumes, and total future plus six years (2023) traffic volumes. The Synchro Version 8 software package was utilized. The level of service standard in the area is LOS D. The intersection capacity analyses show levels of service E or F at the following traffic movements. 2017 Falmouth Street and E. Shirley Avenue (U.S. Route 17/29 Bypass) Southbound left tum lane and right-turn lane movements in PM peak hour — changes from LOS E to F with Orchard Ridge traffic E, Lee Street and Walker Drive/Oliver City Road Southbound left tum movement in AM and PM peak hours - AM peak hour changes from LOS D to F with Orchard Ridge traffic, PM is LOS F without and with Orchard Ridge traffic 2023 Falmouth Street and Main Street and East Lee Street Westhound shared left/thru lane in PM peak hour — changes from LOS D to E from 2017 to 2023, Falmouth Street and E. Shirley Avenue (U.S. Route 17/29 Bypass) Southbound left tum lane and right-tum lane movements in PM peak hour ~ LOS F in 2017 and 2023E, Lee Street and Walker Drive/Oliver City Road Southbound left turn movement in AM and PM peak hours ~ LOS F in 2017 and 2023 Southbound thru movement in PM peak hour ~ changes from LOS D to E from 2017 to 2023 Underlined movements added from 2017 results Vehicle queuing analyses were conducted at the study intersections. All queues are estimated to be contained within the existing storage with the following exceptions: E. Lee Street and Walker Drive/Oliver City Road during the AM peak hour under existing conditions and during the PM peak hour under 2017 background, 2017 future, and 2023 future conditions. Falmouth Street and E. Shirley Avenue (U.S. Route 17/29 Bypass) in the PM peak hour under 2023 future conditions. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at the Falmouth Street and E. Shitley Avenue (U.S. Route 17/29 Bypass) intersection and showed that Warrants I and 2 are satisfied under existing and background conditions. Under 2017 future conditions, Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are satisfied. Kimley-Horn understands that the Town has proffer money available at this intersection from the Wal-Mart site approval. ‘Tum lane warrant analyses were conducted at the intersection of Falmouth Street and Kingsbridge Court/Site Entrance and neither left nor right turn lanes satisfied warrants, The traffic study did not identify traffic mitigation measures to address the traffic movements, with poor levels of service or that exceed the queue storage length. The traffic study did not address a potential scenario where the future “Spine Road” will not be complete by occupancy of the Orchard Ridge development. The trip assignments assume 40 percent of the Orchard Ridge traffic will use the “Spine Road.” Therefore if the road is not open to traffie, then the traffic impacts from Orchard Ridge will be larger at other study intersections. If Orchard Ridge is approved, the Town should consider a condition of occupancy to have the “Spine Road” open or require the applicant to provide a supplemental traffic analysis demonstrating the traffic impacts without the “Spine Road” and appropriate mitigation. It should also be noted that the analysis indicated an assumption of single lane exit at the site driveway onto Falmouth Street. Consideration should also be given to preserving the opportunity to provide separate left and right turn exit lanes to include a shared access with the surrounding undeveloped industrial zoned property, Additionally the Town should encourage future planning for interparcel access to minimize the number of future driveways along Falmouth Street. In summary, the Town’s traffic engineer suggested that the following items be considered: 101. Review the assumption for utilizing old traffic data from 2011 and 2013 as well as the summer counts from 2013. If acceptable, request that the applicant clarify the “calibration” process for adjusting the data to the existing year. 2. Request the applicant address mitigation at the Falmouth Street and E. Shirley Avenue (U.S. Route 17/29 Bypass) intersection and the E. Lee Street and Walker Drive/Oliver City Road intersection. The Town should explore the opportunity to utilize available proffer funds from the Wal-Mart site approval. 3. Request the Applicant allow for future separate left and right exit lanes at the site driveway as well as interparcel access to adjacent undeveloped properties. Parking and Waiver Request . ‘The parking standards are based on studies of parking by land use and, in fact, were assessed for apartments based on their size. ‘That is why the ratios for a studio apartment are different than for a 2 bedroom apartment. The applicant provides a comparative survey of similar dwelling units and requests a parking ratio more consistent with those developments. There is no indication whether those developments are successful or if the auto ownership is less with affordable dwellings — issues that could influence a change in parking standards. The applicant has provided a table with the parking summary and it is included for consideration as part of the parking waiver request to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces based on the actual need versus the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which may not be indicative of current schools of thought regarding parking availability. Based on a strict interpretation of the Ordinance, the following is required per Article 7- Multifamily dwellings + one and one half (1.5) spaces per dwelling unit for efficiency units + two (2) spaces per dwelling unit for one-bedroom units + two and one-half (2.5) spaces per dwelling unit for two-bedroom units + three (3) spaces per dwelling unit for three or more bedroom units Article 9-3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance has special considerations for Affordable Dwelling Units: In order for developers to achieve densities that are allowed under the ADU density bonus, the following reductions may be allowed with the approval of Town Council: - Single room occupancies: 1.0 parking space per unit ~ Studio/Efficiency: 1.25 parking spaces per unit - One Bedroom: 1.5 parking spaces per unit - One Bedroom and Den: 2.0 parking spaces per unit This would equate to a need for 657 parking spaces per Article 7-3, rrThe Warrenton Planning Director has some administrative latitude in waiving parking requirements. Up to 10% of the parking demand from the Zoning Ordinance can be waived to reflect the character of development or the availability of general parking in the area and opportunities for consolidation of parking among uses. In addition, the special parking standards for affordable dwelling units (section 9-3.6) does not cover the range of units proposed in the application (2, 3 bedrooms units not included). ‘The Planning Director has the opportunity to interpret the code standard to the application and determine the most appropriate requirement. This has not been considered nor has the potential for parking consolidation with the adjacent, industrial uses. ‘These options should be explored prior to a blanket waiver of a requirement, Altemative Parking Interpretation: 72 one bedroom units x 1.5 spaces/unit 108 spaces 198 two bedroom units x 2.0/unit 396 * 18 three bedroom units x 2.5/unit = 45 Total 549 spaces * Assumes that a two bedroom unit is the same ratio as a one bedroom with den As noted above, the ADU parking provisions would allow for a reduction to 549 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a reduction to 523 parking spaces in favor of providing a possible park with “Parcel A” on the property. Town Council would consider whether a reduction as proposed would be appropriate. Utilities 1. Water Sewer Utility: Under the special use permit application the project will place a higher demand on the water and sewer utilities than estimated in the most recently completed capacity study. The following comments are provided: a. The Town in April completed an updated of the Water Sewer Capacity Study which evaluated the town’s obligations for service and water/sewer assets available, The study included current service levels, vacant properties with site plans, vacant properties and limited forecast for redevelopment of currently served properties. The study involve both in-town and out of town parcels identified for service in the Town County Master Water Sewer Agreement. The result of the study projects that at buildout the town utility assets will be committed as follows: i 71% of assets (80% is a trigger level for VDH) 106% of assets (95% is a trigger level for DEQ) 12b. At2-3% growth rates the study projects that buildout will occur at approximately 2025 to 2030. Under current conditions the sewer is projected to reach the 95% trigger for DEQ at 2022. The key study recommendations were to continue the reactivation of Wells #3 and #4 and for sewer to develop a more aggressive remediation program to address inflow and infiltration (181) with the goal of reducing I&I by 200,000-300,000 gallons per day in the next 3 years. This would bring the buildout level down to the 95% or below. c. The study uses 700 gallons per day per acre water/sewer use for industrial zoned properties. The proposed project consists of 16.32acres, which are part of a larger 37.46 acres parcel. The water/sewer allocation for the development is (16.32 acres X 700 gallons per day ) 11,424 gallons. The developer has proposed a mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom units and their usage from other like projects: 1, 72(IBR) @ 61 gpd = 4,392 gallons 2. 198 2BR) @ 9tgpd = 18,018 gallons 3, 18(3BR) @ 150 gpd * 2,700 gallons Total = 25,110 gallons *This is a town estimate on existing 3 BR apartments. The developer data is very low compared to existing apartments in town, Highlands apartments average 150-160 gpd. Even considering the water saving fixtures of the units the proposed usage is considered low and is probably 15% above the usage of Warrenton residents. Therefore it is felt that the total demand will be approximately 28,876 gallons per day (25,110 x 1.15). 4. As outlined above, the proposed project will place an additional 17,452 gallons per day on the utility system. i. Water: The capacity study results indicate that that the increased demand on the water supply is minimal. fi, Sewer: The capacity study results for sewer at buildout, being at 106% capacity, is compounded by the additional 17,452 gallons per day and will require mitigation measures if approved or a restriction on the balance of the original parcel. iii, Currently the town is in the process of trying to assess the cost of abating a gallon of I&I and the potential and practicality of any increase in capacity of the treatment plant, That information is not available at this, time. 132. If approved by the Commission, it is recommended that the Council be advised that sewer ¢. With only 16.32acres of the parcel’s 37.46 acres being developed, the question is what are the development plans for the remaining 21.14 acres? The entire parcel 0f 37 acres would support the proposed 288 unit development with the study allocation of 26,222 gallons. A deed restriction on the remaining acres would satisfy the utility demand. Proffer Statement a. The payment of water sewer availability fees are not a proffer, but the cost of developing a property and based on water fixtures and the Town Code. 'b. “Looping” of the water lines will be a site plan requirement and there will be no “tap fee” credit looping the line in Old Meetze Road. . Thea a proffer, but a cost of project development. d. At this time the Town does not have enough information on the cost to remediate the additionall 7,452 gallons per day to assess if the$100,000 is an appropriate amount, impacts be assessed once they can be quantified by staff. Draft SUP Conditions Please note the attachment for the draft Special Use Permit conditions attached with this report The following comments are provided regarding the draft conditions provided with the application: 1 There is a concern about the applicability of the residential portion of the proposed development applying to a future I-PUD rezoning of the 21 acre remnant industrial parcel. There should be a basis for transferring the residential units from one parcel to another to count towards a residential use requirement of a planned unit development. There should be a direct tie to the Zoning Ordinance that allows this sort of transfer of rights for a future potential rezoning. There is no known future use of the remnant parcel at this time, The draft conditions contain the requirements of Article 9-3 for ensuring availability of affordable dwelling units 25 years into the future and the marketing toward the workforce in the Town and County. It was suggested that conditions be carefully worded to avoid conflicts with the Fair Housing Act. Potential suggested conditions. 2. The emergency access gate should be controlled by remote rather than lock and key for easier emergency response access ‘There should be additional recreational amenities such as another tot Jot or in a location near the Warrenton Branch Greenway on the southeast portion of the property 14 uiring of utility easements on and off the site to support the project is notSTAFF RECOMMENDATION: At this time, staff believes the proposal to generally be in keeping with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements; however, the Commission has expressed some concems with the proposal and has provided comments regarding these concerns. Therefore, staff recommends approval, but notes the concems should be thoroughly reviewed to the Commission's satisfaction: 1 Change in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project given the location, density and the shift to a residential development 2. Uncertainty about the development of the remnant industrial parcel 3. Transfer of residential use to count toward a potential rezoning to Industrial Planned Unit Development for the remnant parcel 4, Potential traffic impacts and future use of the emergency access road, or need for an additional access point. 5. Utilities impact and abatement 6. Impact on schools ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application/Special Power of Attorney 2. March 27, 2015 Comment Letter from Staff 3. May 19, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4. Memorandum from CCM and Associates dated May 7, 2015 5. July 9, 2015 Comment Letter from Staff 6. Draft Special Use Permit Conditions from Applicant 7. TIA Comment Response memo from Applicant provided at July 15, 2015 Planning Commission worksession 8. Email from Applicant dated July 10, 2015 regarding density of project area 9. Fauquier County Public Schools enrollment information dated October 2014 10. Memorandum from Kimley Hom and Associates for TIA review dated July 31, 2015 11, Applicant response to questions from Dr. Harre dated August 11, 2015 12, Email from Brandie Schaeffer dated August 12, 2015 13, Emails from adjacent property owner, Steve Wojcik 15