——– Forwarded Message ——–

Subject:RE: Updated Query to Planning Staff on Small Area Plans (PC Hearing Agenda for July 15, 22 on Innovation)
Date:Fri, 31 Jul 2020 20:03:56 +0000
From:Horner, Rebecca <RHorner@pwcgov.org>
To:Stephenson, Ralph & Kathy
CC:McGettigan, David <dmcgettigan@pwcgov.org>, Donohoe, Stephen L. <sdonohoe@pwcgov.org>, Cynthia Moses-Nedd <cmnedd@hotmail.com>, Taylor, Don <windyknoll2@gmail.com>, colesplanning@gmail.com <colesplanning@gmail.com>, jmcpwccommission@gmail.com <jmcpwccommission@gmail.com>, McKay, Patti <pattimckay@msn.com>, Berry, Richard <Riccar1110@aol.com>, Rob Perry <occoquanplanning@gmail.com>, neabscopc@gmail.com <neabscopc@gmail.com>

Good afternoon,

The draft Innovation Park Small Area Plan provides the number of anticipated households in the study area on page 95 in the table, which is copied below.  This indicates that the build-out of the small area plan would have between 2,377 and 4,073 dwelling units.  This number includes the existing 311 garden apartments (The Regency) that are in the R-16 zoning district shown on page 12.  The Regency Apartments development is considered complete and no additional units are anticipated. It has a density a little over 12 units/acre.

The plan does not estimate price ranges for housing units nor is a fiscal impact analysis prepared or included; however, having a vibrant, mixed-use town center in Innovation Park is expected to attract additional jobs and support the growing George Mason University.  The region’s Transportation Planning Board has set a goal of locating jobs and housing together to reduce the region’s traffic congestion. The draft Innovation Park Small Area Plan does exactly that by locating housing near jobs.  Innovation Park currently has over 5,800 jobs with a potential growth to over 28,000 jobs. In addition, the Mobility section of the draft Innovation Small Area Plan lays out a robust set of transit options including a new VRE Station, commuter bus service, and shuttle service.  This, with the internal trip capture that occurs in a mixed-use community, is expected to reduce the traffic impacts of the plan.

Based on input from the School District, the plan does quantify the projected impacts on schools (p. 208) as well as other services in the Small Area Plan’s Level of Service section. 

From discussions with the School District, our understanding is that the boundaries have been approved for Gainesville High School (previously the 13th High School) which will go into effect for the 2021-2022 school year. I further understand that portions of Unity Reed (formerly Stonewall Jackson High School) would fall into the boundary of the new Gainesville High School. In addition, my understanding is that Patriot High School’s boundary will be adjusted and take some students in the southwestern portion of the draft Innovation Park Small Area Plan. With the new boundaries, high school students living in the study area would be expected to attend either Unity Reed or Patriot High School. As for Marsteller Middle School, the projected 2024 capacity drops from the current 104.3% to 91.9%. This is understood to be accomplished by elementary school cohorts that feed into Marsteller MS are trending smaller. This is a trend the PWC school system has expressed seeing in many locations within the Division. As for Ellis Elementary school capacity, the current School’s CIP does show that an additional elementary school (Rosemont Lewis) scheduled for 2023-2024 would offer relief of the capacity at Ellis Elementary. Lastly in the Level of Service for Schools section on page 208, the draft Plan does mention that if student generation warrants, staff will evaluate a new Elementary school potentially utilizing an DPPO – Densely populated pedestrian-oriented developments elementary school design in or adjacent to the Town Center.

Detailed impacts are evaluated during the rezoning process.  The Comprehensive Plan, as well as its small area plans, is a guide for rezonings, but does not rezone any property.  Each development would be evaluated separately through the rezoning process which requires public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Supervisors. The rezoning for the Innovation town center is REZ2016-0030.  This rezoning is on hold pending a resubmission by the applicant.

Small Area Plans provide in-depth planning of an area with workshops to solicit citizen input.  These planning efforts are coordinated and completed by the Prince William County Planning Office.  In the current Comprehensive Plan, the centers of commerce/centers of community proposed in 2010 identified areas where this type of detailed planning should occur, but it was to be largely coordinated by the developer when they brought in a project for review. The 2010 update to the Land Use chapter did identify two centers of commerce and one center of community; they are Innovation, Potomac Town Center and Triangle, respectively.  All three areas had already had sector plans providing the detailed planning to implement the center concepts.  The centers of commerce/centers of community tool remains in the plan.

The draft Innovation Small Area Plan was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in July.

Thank you,

Rebecca Horner, AICP, CZA

Deputy County Executive

Prince William County

703-792-6854

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:42 PM Patti McKay Planning Commission <pattimckay@msn.com> wrote:
Ralph and Kathy,
FYI, I will be asking these questions tonight during the public hearing. I know the answers to a few of them but agree these need to be addressed publicly. If you aren’t attending, David M will try to answer as best as he can and you can listen to the audio.

Thank you,
Patti McKay, Planning Commissioner, Brentsville District, Prince William County

From: Stephenson, Ralph & Kathy <stephenrkg@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 10:52 AM
To: McKay, Patti (PlngCmsn);
Cc: Jeanine Lawson <jlawson@pwcgov.org>
Subject: Patti, Jeanine PLS NOTE — Updated Query to Planning Staff on Small Area Plans (PC Hearing Agenda for July 15, 22 on Innovation)  

Hi, Patti (info Jeanine).  Hope you and your loved ones are all safe and doing okay during the pandemic and economic downturn.

Just wanted to bring to your attention the following two emails to Planning Staff (dating back to 10 July; see below), which, to our great disappointment, have gone completely unanswered.

The topic of the two emails is the county’s Small Area Plans (SAPs).  The Innovation SAP, for example, as currently written, is, to a great extent, a mindless data dump, with a nearly useless profusion of documents — at least for purposes of public scrutiny — a collection of mind-numbing bureaucratic box checking exercises that inundate with formalism, but do nothing to illuminate or educate the public on effects.  None of the SAPS have economic, tax, traffic, schools, or environmental impact statements.  Their primary purpose seems to be to achieve residential developer goals, while obscuring this purpose from ordinary citizens with a welter of confusing and pointless detail.  The SAPs’ executive summaries, so-called, are no such thing.

The only way to head off big problems in residential development policy before they become unstoppable train wrecks is to stop or redirect them early in the process.  These SAPs look way too much like the Centers of Commerce and Centers of Community developer fantasies proposed 10-12 years ago, which while a delightful fantasy for developers would have been a nightmare for the rest of us.

Could you and Supervisor Lawson please pressure planning staff to do their jobs and give us impact statements on the Innovation SAP, including total number of houses and answers to questions 1-4 immediately below?  We can’t believe that, as taxpayers, we’re paying over $10,000 per year in real estate taxes (not including the state taxes we pay) to subsidize such shoddy work, such a lack of professionalism.  (We’re cc’ing Supervisors Vega and Candland, as this problem, undoubtedly, is not limited to Brentsville District’s SAPs.)

Sincerely, Ralph & Kathy Stephenson, Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth

Only in the bright light of public scrutiny can the common good be secured,
while in darkness and obscurity the interests of the powerful and affluent prevail.

From: Stephenson, Ralph & Kathy <stephenrkg@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 4:57 PM
To: Horner, Rebecca <RHorner@pwcgov.org>; Planning <planning@pwcgov.org>
Cc: [names, email addresses withheld]
Subject: Updated Query to Planning Staff on Small Area Plans (PC Hearing Agenda for July 15, 22 on Innovation)

Ms. Horner, planning staff (info planning commission):

Thank you for the info below and attached.  As taxpayers, homeowners, and concerned citizens very involved in county land issues for the last 15 years, we have some questions for you regarding small area plans (SAPs), and we’d appreciate answers to our questions as soon as possible.  Please note that these questions were first submitted a week ago — with no acknowledgement yet that you’ve even noticed our message.  We’ve updated and slightly reworded the questions so their meaning should be clear, but if there is any need for further clarification, please advise and we’ll further clarify.

1.  We notice that the attached Innovation SAP has no info on how many residential houses/apartment units the county intends to allow residential developers to build.  So what is the number of houses and of apartment units intended?  We note that the R16 zone on p. 12 of the SAP plan designates a very high density of 16 dwelling units per acre.

2.  What are the price ranges at which the county estimates the houses and/or apartment complexes will be sold?  And thus what will be the tax-negative impact on county residents?  What will be the impact on our already overcrowded roads and schools?

3.  Are small area plans, in general, written for the benefit of residential developers, or for the entire county and its citizens?  If for the entire county, why do the executive summaries and bodies of each SAP not have summary and detailed info, respectively, regarding all the questions in #s 1-2 above — i.e., impact statements?

4.  What is the difference between these small area plans, which continue to multiply around the county, and the extremely unpopular 22-25 centers of commerce/centers of community plan that was proposed 10-12 years ago and rejected by the public?

Please advise.

Sincerely,

Ralph & Kathy Stephenson, Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth

Only in the bright light of public scrutiny can the common good be secured,
while in darkness and obscurity the interests of the powerful and affluent prevail.

On 7/10/2020 2:09 PM, Stephenson, Ralph & Kathy wrote:

Ms. Horner, planning staff (info planning commission):

Thank you for the info below.  As concerned citizens heavily involved in county land issues for the last 15 years, we have some questions for you regarding small area plans (SAPs), and we’d appreciate answers to our questions as soon as you can provide them.

1.  We notice that the attached Innovation SAP has no info on how many residential houses/apartment units you intend to build.  So what is the number of houses and of apartment units you intend to build?  We note that the R16 zone on p. 12 of the SAP plan designates a very high density of 16 dwelling units per acre.

2.  What are the price ranges at which you [expect] the houses and/or apartment complexes [to be sold]?  And thus what will be the tax-negative impact on county residents?  What will be the impact on our already overcrowded roads and schools?

3.  Are these small area plans written for the benefit of and at the urging of residential developers, or for the entire county and its citizens?  If for the entire county, why do the executive summaries and bodies of each SAP not have summary and detailed info, respectively, regarding all the questions in #s 1-2 above — i.e., impact statements?

4.  What is the difference between these small area plans, which continue to multiply around the county, and the extremely unpopular 22-25 centers of commerce/centers of community plan that was proposed 10-12 years ago and rejected by the public?

Please advise.

Sincerely,

Ralph & Kathy Stephenson, Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth

Only in the bright light of public scrutiny can the common good be secured,
while in darkness and obscurity the interests of the powerful and affluent prevail.

———- Forwarded message ———
From: PWC Alerts <noreply@everbridge.net>
Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020, 3:28 PM
Subject: Planning Commission Public Hearing Agenda for July 15, 2020
To: stephenrkg@gmail.com <stephenrkg@gmail.com>

You have subscribed to updates from Planning Commission Agenda:

Attached is the Planning Commission Public Hearing Agenda for July 15, 2020.

For additional information, please see the Prince William County Planning Commission Web page.

To register to speak remotely at Citizens’ Time or on scheduled cases, please click HERE! Note: Signup to speak remotely closes at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2020. However, in-person comments are also allowed at Citizens’ time during the hearing.

To submit comments on the scheduled cases, email ClerkPC@pwcgov.org.

To contact the Prince William County Planning Office, please call 703-792-7615 or email us at planning@pwcgov.org.

Thank you!