HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200030 Staff Report 2012-11-08Lrf2C;l1 ZA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP201200030 Estes Park- Preliminary Staff: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner
Site Plan
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing:
November 13, 2012 Not applicable
Owners: Clifford Fox Applicant: Scott Collins- Collins Engineering; Alan
Taylor- Riverbend Management
Acreage: 12.75 acres Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 32 Parcels 33 and 34 By -right use: PRD- Planned Residential
Location: [Attachment B] In the southeast quadrant of
Development- residential (3 -34 units /acre) with limited
the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth
commercial uses per ZMA2010 -011
Crossing, approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in
the Community of Hollymead.
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Lots: 68 DA— X RA —
Proposal: Request for approval of preliminary site plan Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density Residential
for 68 single family attached units on 12.75 acres. residential (6.01 — 34 units/ acre); supporting uses
such as religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses.
Character of Property: The property currently has one Use of Surrounding Properties: The property to the
older residence and outbuildings on it. The gently rolling north is residential with two churches and a daycare
terrain includes a stream with steep slopes running from facility, property to the east is the Forest Ridge duplex
the northwest to the southeast across both parcels. residential neighborhood, property to the west is the
Worth Crossing townhouses, and the property to the
south is the Dominion Power substation.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: None Identified
1. Site plan matches the approved rezoning
application plan.
2. Submittal meets preliminary site plan
requirements.
3. No conditions were required during the rezoning
for additional landscaping.
4. No ordinance requirement for screening
between residential uses; applicant is providing
some screening along adjacent residential area.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends approval with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 13, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: SDP201200030 Estes Park- Preliminary Site Plan
APPLICANT: Scott Collins- Collins Engineering; Alan Taylor- Riverbend Management
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Clifford Fox
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
Request for approval of preliminary site plan for 68 single family detached units on 12.75 acres.
Attachment A].
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Urban Density Residential — residential (6.01 — 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious
institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses.
PLANNING HISTORY
ZMA2010 -011- Approval of a rezoning from R1- Residential to PRD- Planned Residential Development
on April 11, 2012.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
This application has been called up for review by an adjacent owner [Attachment C]. Some of the
concerns include loss of privacy, tree cover and vegetative buffer, and property resale value.
STAFF COMMENT:
The preliminary site plan was reviewed by all members of the Site Review Committee. Planning staff
had been in contact with the adjacent owner and required a preliminary landscape plan be submitted by
the applicant. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that includes a staggered row of evergreen
trees between Estes Park and residential units at the end of Moubry Lane [Attachment A]. The
ordinance does not require that screening, landscaping or fencing be provided between like uses, such
as residential.
There is also concern about construction noise and various construction activities. The Zoning
Ordinance allows construction noise from 7am until 10pm all days of the week. This type of noise is
exempt from the noise ordinance per Section 4.18.
During the rezoning of the property, no conditions or proffers were required that would address the
adjacent owner's concerns [Attachment D].
SUMMARY:
The plan meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and approved ZMA regarding landscaping
and buffer of the site from adjacent parcels. The plan cannot be denied based on the lack of
landscaping buffer provided in the area in question.
OTHER MATTERS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION:
Staff notes that there is a variation request with this application. Variations need to be approved by the
Board of Supervisors per Section 18 -31.8 Special Exceptions of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is
recommending approval of these variations, and providing this to the Planning Commission for
informational purposes only. The following are the changes being proposed with the variation
Attachment E]:
1. Increase the road width by one foot from 28 feet from face of curb to face of curb to 29 feet from
face of curb to face of curb.
2. Modify note on application plan to allow parking on one side of the street
3. Revise the unit type from attached single family to detached single family (an allowed use within
the Planned Residential Development zoning)
4. Slightly shift the location of the connection to Moubry Lane.
No action or recommendation is required from the Planning Commission based upon the Board of
Supervisors adopted policy for areas of Special Exception.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan with the following conditions to be addressed
during final site plan:
Recommended conditions:
Plannina approval to include:
Meet all the requirements in Chapter 18 Section 32 for final site plans, including landscape
plans, and lighting plans.
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final plans.
Approval of variations and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA2012 -008) by the Board of
Supervisors
Engineering approval to include:
Applicant to provide documentation and agreements for the use of offsite stormwater
management at Forest Lakes Pond. If no documentation or agreement can be given, and
approved the satisfaction of the County Attorney's Office, all stormwater management must be
contained on site.
The plan must meet all engineering requirements of the Water Protection, Subdivision, and
Zoning Ordinances in addition to all engineering standards detailed in the County's Design
Manual.
Virginia Department of Transportation approval to include:
Show sight distances and sight line profiles at the proposed street connection to Worth
Crossing. The minimum intersection sight distance for a 35 mph design speed is 390 feet.
Include road profiles and traffic projections.
The minimum spacing of tangent curb between entrances is 50 feet.
The entrance off of Worth Crossing needs to meet VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F
standards.
The minimum width of entrance on a local road is 24 feet between curbs for a minimum throat
length of 35 feet or more.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval to include:
Final water and sewer construction plans will be required for review
for final site plan.
Fire & Rescue approval to include:
Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field
inspection and verification.
Hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet per travelway
Streets less than 32 ft in width shall be marked on one side "Fire lane No Parking" per
Albemarle County Code.
Turning radii need to be marked on the final site plan.
E911 approval to include:
The applicant should contact the property owners of TMP 046134 -00 -00 -00500 and TMP 046134 -
00-00-005A to discuss the road labeled as `Public Road D'. As the adjacent property owners
that are currently addressed off of Worth Crossing will need to be re- addressed to reflect the
new proposed road. A letter signed by both owners confirming a road name has been agreend
upon will need to be submitted from all property owners that will be affected by the new road.
The applicant will need to contact this office with a list of three (3) potential road names for
approval. The following road names are listed: `Road A', `Road B', `Road C'
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Location /Detail Maps
C. Adjacent Owner Letter
D. ZMA2010 -011 Proffers
E. Variation Request Letter
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this Preliminary Site Plan:
Move to approve SDP2012 -030 subject to the conditions as recommended by staff.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to deny this Preliminary Site Plan:
Move to deny SDP2012 -030. Should a commissioner motion to deny, he or she should state the
reason(s) for denial.