HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200500123 Executive Summary 2006-01-03COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP 200500123 The Woodlands Preliminary
Site Plan
AGENDA DATE: January 10, 2006
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: Yes INFORMATION:
SUBJECT /PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Request for preliminary site plan approval and CONSENT AGENDA: No
critical slopes waiver for 294 multi - family ACTION: INFORMATION:
condominium units on 24 acres zoned R -15,
Residential. The property is located in the
Scottsville Magisterial District on east side of
Sunset Avenue Extended [Route # 781 ] between
I -64 and Redfields Road [Route #1270].
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Bill Fritz
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report
REVIEWED BY:
David Pennock
APPLICANT and PROPERTY OWNER: WOODLANDS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE LLC
BACKGROUND:
This is an application for a site plan for 294 multi - family residential units. A waiver to allow the disturbance of
critical slopes is required for approval of this project. An adjacent property owner has requested Planning
Commission review.
DISCUSSION:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed this application and recommends approval of the site plan if the Planning
Commission approves the waiver to allow disturbance of critical slopes. Staff has reviewed the modification of
critical slopes. The review has resulted in mixed findings for and against approval of the waiver.
Factors favorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. Approval of the request would not result in negative effects identified in Section 4.2.
2. The critical slopes on this property are not identified in the Open Space Plan.
Factors unfavorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. Alternative designs are possible that would reduce the impacts on critical slopes without effectively
prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the use of the property or resulting in significant degradation of the site
or adjacent proper ties
RECOMMENDATION:
Generally staff finds that this request is consistent with the criteria of Section 4.2.5a for granting a modification and
therefore is able to recommend approval to the Commission of a modification of Section 4.2.3. If the Commission
makes the necessary positive findings required by Section 4.2.5b, staff also recommends approval of the site plan
subject to conditions.
STAFF PERSON: William D. Fritz, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 10, 2006
SDP 200500123 The Woodlands Preliminary Site Plan
PROPERTY OWNER: Woodlands of Charlottesville LLC
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
Request for preliminary site plan approval for 294 multi - family condominium units on 24 acres zoned R-
15, Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 76 Parcels 46C, 46C2 and 46C3 is located in the
Scottsville Magisterial District on the east side of Sunset Avenue Extended [Route # 781] between I -64
and Redfields Road [Route #1270]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density
in Urban Area 5.
CHARACTER OF AREA:
This is a wooded parcel located south of I -64 on the east side of Sunset Avenue. The Redfields
Subdivision is located directly to the west and multi - family housing (Sherwood Manor) is located
adjacent to the east. Multi- family housing is also located to the north of I -64 on Sunset Avenue.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
This property has been the subject of a number of subdivisions resulting in the existing configuration and
the transfer of land to allow the construction of Sherwood Commons (now known as Sherwood Manor).
As part of the subdivision approvals land was provided for the extension of Mountainwood Road as a
public road connection to Sunset Avenue. This reserved land is shown on Attachment B page 2 of 6.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This area is shown as Urban Density in Urban Area 5.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
This application has been appealed to the Planning Commission by an abutting property owner
(Attachment C). Approval of this application requires Planning Commission approval of a modification
to allow disturbance of critical slopes.
STAFF COMMENT:
This project has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee and can be approved subject to Planning
Commission approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes.
REVIEW OF MODIFICATION OF SECTION 4.2.3 TO ALLOW ACTIVITY ON CRITICAL
SLOPES.
The proposed development includes activity on critical slopes. Staff has reviewed this request as required
by Sections 4.2 and 4.2.5 of the zoning ordinance. This review is divided into two parts, a review for
impact on aesthetic resources and a review of the engineering impacts.
Before this proposal may be approved, a modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary.
The request for a modification has been reviewed for both Engineering and Planning aspects.
Review of the request by Current Development Planning Staff.
taff.
2
This review is focused on the criteria in Section 4.2 and the potential loss of aesthetic resources.
The Open Space Plan is the primary tool used by staff to identify aesthetic resources. The maps in the
Open Space Plan include inventory maps which show all resources. The composite map indicates the
resources that are of the highest significance or are part of a system forming a significant resource, such
as a stream valley or mountain range. The Open Space Plan shows "critical slopes" on this property on
the inventory map 1 (attachment D) but these slopes are not shown on the composite map (attachment
E). Based on the content of the Open Space Plan, staff opinion is that the critical slopes on this site do
not represent a significant aesthetic resource.
The Architectural Review Board has conducted a preliminary review of this request. While the ARB did
not comment specifically on the presence of critical slopes, they did cite concerns about the site design.
The ARB is concerned about the design and location of retaining walls, and the impact of lighting and
parking on I -64. Although retaining walls are proposed at this site due to the existing topography, the
ARB's concerns are not generated solely by the disturbance of critical slopes on the site. Even if no
critical slopes were impacted, development of the site would likely still require the use of retaining walls
and portions of the development would likely remain visible from I -64. It cannot be said that the
disturbance of critical slopes significantly increases the impacts development of this site may have on the
entrance corridor.
Based on the lack of identified resources in the Open Space Plan, approval of this request will not, in the
opinion of staff, result in the loss of aesthetic resources.
Review of the request by Current Development Engineering Staff.
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
This site has approximately 3 acres of existing critical slopes. Approximately 0.5 acres appears to have
been created during previous construction of both the State Route named Sunset Avenue and the
adjoining apartment complex. The remaining 2.5 acres of existing critical slopes appear to be natural.
Critical slope are to be disturbed to install retaining walls, grading to install travel ways and parking, and
to create areas for dwellings, recreation, and stormwater facilities.
Areas
Acres
Total site
24.08
Critical slopes
3.0
12.5% of site
Critical slopes disturbed
2.7
90% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
There are alternative alignments and connections to the existing roadways that may not affect the critical
slope to the extent proposed by this plan.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2:
"movement of soil and rock"
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any
movement of soil.
"excessive stormwater runoff'
Stormwater runoff will be attenuated to release at a predevelopment rate, but the volume will be
significantly increased in this area. Runoff will be controlled by the drainage plan proposed.
"siltation"
Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper
stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
Approximately half of the critical slopes are proposed to be replanted to restore some of the sites
natural character. 10'to 20'+ retaining walls surround the site.
"septic effluent"
This is not a concern, as public sewer will service the site.
Based on the review above, there are engineering concerns with the disturbance of the critical slopes as
shown. The existing platted Right of Way through the site makes the required connections to existing
roadways without the extent of critical slope disturbance as proposed.
Summary of review of Modification of Section 4.2
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a modification of Section 4.2.3. The
preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5a. Staff has included the provisions
of Section 4.2.5b here, along with staff comment on the various provisions (Staff comments are in
italics.)
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case
upon finding that: (Amended 11- 15 -89)
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by
the developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or
(Added 11- 15 -89)
Staff opinion is that approval would not meet this provision.
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other
unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of
section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would
result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or waiver
shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the
area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11 -15-
89)
Denial of all or part of the request would alter the design of the project. Alternative
building design, taller buildings, or structured parking may allow for the same number of
units. However, taller buildings or structured parking would likely cause a greater impact
to I -64, which is an Entrance Corridor. If alternative designs were not used the number of
residential units would be reduced in the development areas. Approval of the request
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89)
Staff is not able to identify any public purpose that would be served by granting this
modification.
El
This analysis results in the following findings:
Factors favorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. Approval of the request would not result in negative effects identified in Section 4.2.
2. The critical slopes on this property are not identified in the Open Space Plan.
Factors unfavorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. Alternative designs are possible that would reduce the impacts on critical slopes without
effectively prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the use of the property or resulting in
significant degradation of the site or adjacent proper ties
Generally, staff finds that this request is consistent with the criteria of Section 4.2.5a for granting a
modification, and therefore is able to recommend approval to the Commission of a modification of
Section 4.2.3. If the Commission makes the necessary positive findings required by Section 4.2.5b, staff
also recommends approval of the site plan subject to conditions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and if the
Planning Commission approves the disturbance of critical slopes staff recommends approval of the site
plan subject to the following conditions:
The Current Development Division shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until
tentative final approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be
signed until the following conditions have been met:
1. Current Development Planner approval to include:
a. Landscape Plan to include conservation plan and provision of fifteen (15) percent tree
canopy.
b. Lighting Plan
c. Provision of a sidewalk on the north side of "proposed new road" connecting to the
internal sidewalk opposite the clubhouse.
d. Provision of a sidewalk extending from the end of the existing sidewalk on the north side
of Mountainwood Road connecting to the internal sidewalk adjacent to the clubhouse.
e. Approval of plat combining parcels and dedicating right of way for "proposed new road ".
2. Current Development Engineer approval to include:
a. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
b. Stormwater Management Plan.
3. Albemarle County Building Official approval to include:
a. Design of all retaining walls of over 4 feet in height.
b. Design and location of barriers located at the top of all walls of 4 feet in height or greater.
4. Albemarle County Service Authority Approval to include:
a. Water and Sewer plans.
5. Fire and Rescue Division approval to include:
a. Adequacy of fire flow.
b. Location of Fire Hydrants.
6. Architectural Review Board approval.
7. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans for "proposed new road" as a
public road connecting existing Mountainwood Road to Sunset Avenue.
8. Approval of Road Names.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Reduced Preliminary Site Plan
C. Letter from adjacent property owner requesting Planning Commission Review.
D. Inventory Map from the Open Space Plan
E. Composite Map from the Open Space Plan
F. Architectural Review Board Action Letter
31