Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA197800008 Staff Report 1978-05-23May 23, 1978 STAFF REPORT ZMA-78-08 ( Amendment to ZMA-77-15 ) - J. W. Wright and Frank Kessler - Wilder Tract Tax Map 61, Parcels 198, 199, 200, and 201 Location: Between Meadow Creek and the city limits just east of Park Street Extended and at the end of Wilder Drive in the city. Acreage: 14.462 acres Existing Zoning: RPN/R-1 Requested Zoning: RPN/R-1 History The Planning Commission previously approved a similar application to this one on September 13, 1977, subject to 9 conditions ( see attached letter ). Subsequently, the same application was approved on September 21, 1977 by the Board of Supervisors subject to the same conditions ( see attached letter ). Subsequent to that, the Planning Commission approved the Wildwood Final Plat on October 27, 1977, subject to 11 conditions ( see attached letter ), and the Charlottesville City Planning Commission approved the plat on November 9, 1977. Existing Zoning in the Area Wildwood and Idlewood Subdivisions are zoned R-1 Residential in the city and Woodhaven Subdivision is zoned R-2 in the City. Properties to the north are zoned R-2 Residential with the exception of the Cochran's Mill Antique Store which is zoned B-1 Business. Densities allowed in these zones are as follows: City of Charlottesville Zones R-1 Residential R-2 Residential Wildwood Subdivision Idlewood Subdivision Albemarle Count R-2 Residential Applicant's Proposed RPN/R-1 Density ( du/acre ) 5.4 12.1 ( single-family attached ) 7.3 ( single-family detached ) 4 du/acre 5 du/acre 6.0 ( townhouse ) 5.3 ( single-family detached ) 8.4 ( duplex ) 2.43 du's/gross acre 7.06 du's/net acre As can be seen in the chart above, the proposed density of the requested RPN/R-1 designation is considerably less than the existing R-2 zoning allowed on the site, and is much less than densities allowed in aaiacent nrnnPrH P.q_ Applicant's Revised Proposal The applicant is proposing only a slight revision of the approved Wildwood RPN/R-1 plan. The changes are: (1) the total number of dwelling units has been reduced from 37 to 35; and (2) the interior roads are no longer to be state maintained; instead they will be private roads with the necessary homeowner's maintenance agreements as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Impact Analysis Acreage Density Total Dwelling units Population School Enrollment Vehicle Trips/day School Enrollment 14.462 2.43 du/acre gross 35 112 24.5 students 245 K-5 10.29 students 6-8 5.705 students 9-12 6.79 students TOTAL 22.785 students Summary of Proposed Land Uses Acres % of Site Residential lots 4.963 34.3% Streets 1.449 10.0% Common Area 8.050 55.6 % Total 17462 100% Staff Report- May 16, 1978 Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. No dwelling units are to be built on slopes of 25% or greater without County Engineering Department approval of site work; 2. Water and Sewer facilities to be approved by, and dedicated to, the Albemarle County Service Authority; 3. County Engineering Department approval of private roads' speci- fications; 4. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for common spaces, recreational facilities, and private roads; 5. Grading permit required prior to subdivision approval; 6. Dedication to Albemarle County of a 15 foot wide strip for future construction of a bycicle and pedestrian trail as shown on plan received September 12, 1977; 7. Uses in the flood plain of Meadow Creek shall comply to Article 9A of the Zoning Ordinance; 8. Removal of cul-de-sac at Cottonwood Road and restoration of disturbed areas. 9. Wildwood Court and Cottonwood Road shall have street lights similar to thosi� on the existing Cottonwood Road; 10. All utilities are to be located underground; 11. Connection of roadways and sidewalks to Cottonwood Road as well as removal of the existing cul-de-sac shall be done at the applicant's expense. 12• Staff approval of tot lot location and equipment. Comprehensive Plan Conformance The Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for park/flood plain useage. At the time the Comprehensive Plan was developed, the Army Corps of Engineers flood plain study for Meadow Creek was not available. Staff has reviewed this site in the context of the Corps' Study and the criteria established for conservation of stream valleys and found that the majority of the Wilder Tract Plan is in com- pliance in terms of areas to be developed and areas to remain open space. It appears, however, that at least three of the proposed building sites will infringe on slopes which are in excess of 25% and thus violate the Comprehensive Plan's recommend- ations against any building on slopes 25% or greater. Staff Comment The applicant is proposing to locate 35 single-family dwelling units on this site at a gross density of 2.43 dwelling units per acre , and maintaining more than 55% of the site in common area. Three tot lots are shown in the common area. The remainder of the common area would remain wooded and would contain that portion of the site in the 100 year flood plain. In staff opinion, the RPN/R-1 approach as presented in the preliminary plat is appro- priate to this site. Steep slopes and flood plain have, with the exception of the three lots mentioned above, been respected and the common area is more than twice that required under the RPN designation. In addition, the staff has recommended that the applicant construct and provide an easement for a bicycle trail along the Meadow Creek frontage. Furthermore, the proposed density of development is less than -2 the potential density allowed under existing zoning. However, the maximum potential density under the existing R-2 zoning ( 8.4 du/acre ) is probably not possible due to the steep terrain of the site. In the staff's opinion, the proposed density would be harmonious with surrounding development. The reason this amendment is back before you is that when the road plans were drawn up certain vertical and horizontal sight distance requirements of the Virginia Department of Highw ys and Transportation could not be met without a drastic regrading of the si Rather than regrade the slidt, the developer has chosen to develop using private roads. The staff has no objection to the development of this property with private roads. It should be noted that although the "private roads" requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance call for an 18 foot wide prime and double seal surface, that the developer has indicated that the roads would meet Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation pavement and design standards with the exception of vertical and horizontal sight distance.