Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200500314 Executive Summary 2006-03-14COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SUB -05 -314: Central Virginia Capital - Lots A, B, and C SUBJECT /PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Application for preliminary plat approval to create three (3) lots on 4.80 acres. This application also includes a request, pursuant to Section 14- 404(C), for a waiver of the requirement that all lots shall have reasonable access from only one street, established at the time of subdivision. STAFF CONTACT(S): David Pennock AGENDA DATE: March 14, 2006 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: No ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report REVIEWED BY: AGM PROPERTY OWNER & DEVELOPER: Central Virginia Capital, LLC BACKGROUND: The subject parcel, Tax Map 55, Parcel 57, is a 4.80 acre property that is zoned R -1 (Residential) and is located on Lanetown Road [Route #684], approximately 0.6 miles from its intersection with Railroad Avenue [Route #788] (Attachment A). The property is split by Lanetown Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates it as both Neighborhood Density in Rural Area 3 (area north of Lanetown Road) and CT -1 and CT -2 in the Crozet Community (area south of Lanetown Road). The applicant intends to subdivide the property in order to create one lot (shown on Attachment B as Lot C) that includes an existing house on the south side of Lanetown Road, as well as two lots on the north side of Lanetown Road (shown as Lots A and B) in an area that has one accessory structure, but is otherwise wooded. The applicant wishes to utilize existing driveways for Lots A and C, with Lot B accessed via a future driveway. DISCUSSION: Due to the physical limitation created by Lanetown Road, Lot C must use a different entrance than either Lot A or Lot B. Thus, the waiver request discussed herein applies only to a shared point of access for Lots A and B. Staff has reviewed the modification request. The review has resulted in mixed findings for and against approval of the waiver. Factors favorable to this request include: Approval would allow use of existing driveways and alleviate the need for creation of a new shared access for Lots A and B. Factors unfavorable to this request include: 1. There are no physical barriers which effectively prohibit or prevent compliance with the ordinance. 2. The intent of this section of the Subdivision Ordinance is in part to reduce the numbers of entrances on State roads, and thus reduce conflict points with the flow of traffic. Allowing a separate entrance for Lot B would be contrary to that goal. The Site Review Committee has reviewed this application and recommends approval of the preliminary subdivision plat. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a waiver of Section 14- 404(A) to allow a separate entrance for Lot C. Generally, staff finds that the waiver request for Lots A and B is not appropriate in this circumstance, and therefore cannot recommend approval of a waiver to allow separate entrances for Lots A and B. The preliminary plat is otherwise consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary subdivision plat, subject to the following condition: 1. The preliminary plat must be amended to reflect a more uniform shape for the portion of Lot C shown north of Lanetown Road. STAFF CONTACT: PLANNING COMMISSION: David E. Pennock, AICP March 14, 2006 AGENDA TITLE: SUB -05 -314: Central Virginia Capital - Lots A, B, and C REQUEST: Application for preliminary plat approval to create three (3) lots on 4.80 acres. This application also includes a request, pursuant to Section 14- 404(C), for a waiver of the requirement that all lots shall have reasonable access from only one street, established at the time of subdivision (Attachment Q. The subject parcel, Tax Map 55, Parcel 57, is a 4.80 acre property that is zoned R -1 (Residential) and is located on Lanetown Road [Route #684], approximately 0.6 miles from its intersection with Railroad Avenue [Route #788]. The property is split by Lanetown Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates it as both Neighborhood Density in Rural Area 3 (area north of Lanetown Road) and CT -1 and CT -2 in the Crozet Community (area south of Lanetown Road). PROPERTY OWNER & DEVELOPER: Central Virginia Capital, LLC CHARACTER OF THE AREA: Proposed Lot C has an existing dwelling, as well as two small driveways. Two streams cross through this property. The area near each stream is wooded. This property is gently sloped. Proposed Lot A has an existing accessory structure and one small driveway. A stream feeds through the rear of Lot A from a culvert under the railroad tracks and intersects a second stream along the western property line. Most of the rest of proposed Lots A and B is thickly wooded and are also gently sloped. BACKGROUND: The preliminary subdivision application for this property was originally submitted in October, 2005. The application review was deferred twice in order to address comments made by members of the Site Review Committee. This item was referred for Planning Commission review by an adjacent property owner in November, 2005, in accordance with Section 14 -218 of the Subdivision Ordinance (see Attachment D). In addition, a request was submitted by the applicant for waiver of Section 14- 404(A) in order to allow individual drives to serve each of the lots. The subject property is split by Lanetown Road, which is the northern boundary of the development areas indicated in the Crozet Master Plan. In addition, Lanetown Road serves as the boundary for extension of water based on the current service area. Proposed Lot C is eligible for water only to existing structures. The existing dwelling on Lot C is served by public water and a private septic drainfield. Proposed Lots A and B are not eligible for public water or sewer connections. The reason the above discussion is relative to the preliminary plat review is due to minimum lot sizes and other area requirements. Although the minimum lot size for R -1 zoned property is 45,000 square feet (ref. Chapt. 18, Sec. 13.3), general regulations apply to lot area based on provision of central or public water or sewer. Whichever is the greatest area requirement is what applies to the property (district versus general regulation). Lots (such as Lot C) served by either water or sewer, but not both, must be at least 40,000 square feet. However, lots served by neither water nor sewer must be at least 60,000 square feet (ref. 18- 4.1.3), regardless of the underlying zoning district requirements. Thus, proposed Lots A and B must each be a minimum of 60,000 square feet, as neither is eligible to connect to public water or sewer. The area of the portion of Tax Map 55, Parcel 57 south of Lanetown Road (proposed Lot C) is only 39,435 square feet. However, Section 2.1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the reduction of lot area below the minimum specified for each zoning district. With no opportunity to qualify for a variance, Lot C must be at least 45,000 square feet in size. The applicant was unable to acquire additional acreage to add to proposed Lot C. Thus, the current proposal indicates a sliver of property, approximately 5,585 square feet in size, on the north side of Lanetown Road to be a part of Lot C. Section 14 -402 of the Subdivision Ordinance prohibits "peculiarly shaped elongations designed solely to provide required square footage of area." In this case, though, the situation exists currently, and is being made no worse under the subdivision proposal. Staff has reviewed many proposals for the location of this sliver of property and believes that its indicated location will have minimal impact on any of the proposed lots or adjacent properties. The required stream buffer on Lot A can not be disturbed, as this area is a reservoir watershed. As such, while not ideal, the location within this buffer does not adversely affect proposed Lot A or C. Staff is requesting that the shape of this piece be modified so that it doesn't come to a sharp point. Staff notes that the adjacent property owner's letter of request for Planning Commission review of this preliminary plat includes a number of concerns (see Attachment D). Staff has met with the author as well as other neighbors and has addressed many of the concerns. Two of the outstanding items are to be addressed during final plat review. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) reviewed the preliminary plat and commented that "each lot will be a standard private entrance for a single family unit" (Attachment E). Each specific driveway location must have VDOT approval prior to final plat recordation. In addition, neighbors have indicated that the septic system serving the existing house may not be functioning correctly. During field inspections, staff was unable to verify if this is the case. The applicant must verify with the Health Department that the existing system is suitable prior to final plat approval. REVIEW OF WAIVER TO SEC. 14 -404: 14 -404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway. Each lot within a subdivision shall be located as follows: A. Each lot, other than a corner lot within the development areas, shall have reasonable access to the building site from only one street, shared driveway or alley established at the same time as the subdivision; provided that a lot may be located so that its driveway enters only onto a public street abutting the subdivision if.• (i) the commission grants a waiver under subsection (C); (ii) the subdivider obtains an entrance permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation for the access; (iii) the entrance complies with the design standards set forth in sections 14- 410(F) and 14- 410(G); and (iv) the subdivider demonstrates to the agentprior to approval of the finalplat that the waiver does not violate any covenants to be recorded for the subdivision. For purposes of this section, the term "reasonable access" means a location for a driveway or, if a driveway location is not provided, a location for a suitable foot path from the parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance to the building site; the term "within the subdivision " means within the exterior boundary lines of the lands being divided. B. If the subdivision is within the rural areas, all subsequent divisions of the residue shall enter only onto such street(s) shown on the approved final plat and shall have no immediate access onto any public street. This section of the Subdivision Ordinance serves to limit the number of new entrances off of existing public roads. In accordance with section 14- 404(C), the Commission may approve a waiver or variation if it finds that: (i) the county engineer recommends an alternative standard; The County engineer has not recommended an alternative standard. (ii) because of unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interests of the subdivider, strict application of the applicable requirements would result in significant degradation of the property or to the land adjacent thereto; The division of the property by Lanetown Road is seen as an unusual condition; proposed Lot C must use a different entrance than proposed Lots A and B. Regarding Lots A and B, there are no unusual conditions that will require use of separate entrances. - requiring the standard would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; The granting of this waiver does not seem to contradict any of the stated purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance in Section 14 -101. However, allowing a separate entrance for Lot B would be contrary to the goals of Section 14 -404, which limits new entrances on to existing public roads. granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto; Proposed Lots A and C each have existing driveways. Extending the existing drive on Lot A to serve Lot B would require a minimum of between 150 and 200 feet of new roadway to be constructed across Lot A. To minimize the length of this drive, the construction of one new entrance to serve both lots, near the common property line, may be a more practical way to share access. However, as indicated in the applicant's letter, construction of a new entrance for Lot B with continued usage of the existing entrance for Lot A may limit the amount of disturbance necessary by eliminating the need for the extension of the existing drive as a "subdivision road ". Staff has reviewed the modification request. The review has resulted in mixed findings for and against approval of the waiver. Factors favorable to this request include: 1. Approval would allow use of existing driveways and alleviate the need for creation of a new shared access for Lots A and B. Factors unfavorable to this request include: 1. There are no physical barriers which effectively prohibit or prevent compliance with the ordinance. 2. The intent of this section of the Subdivision Ordinance is in part to reduce the numbers of entrances on State roads, and thus reduce conflict points with the flow of traffic. Allowing a separate entrance for Lot B would be contrary to that goal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a waiver of Section 14- 404(A) to allow a separate entrance for Lot C. Generally, staff finds that the waiver request for Lots A and B is not appropriate in this circumstance, and therefore cannot recommend approval of a waiver to allow separate entrances for Lots A and B. The preliminary plat is otherwise consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary subdivision plat, subject to the following condition: 1. The preliminary plat must be amended to reflect a more uniform shape for the portion of Lot C shown north of Lanetown Road. Attachments: A - Vicinity Map B - Copy of Proposal for this Property C - Letter of Request for Waiver (from applicant) D - Letter of Request for Planning Commission Review (from neighbor) E - VDOT Preliminary Subdivision Plat Comment Mik; request Ar oc ojj �56, i ^i mi 67 � a,* FQ� Cap; It LL kinuk tv�,ip 14sed br lite to ve tell all Ly me too 10 Tl i v- 1) SO Fo� �,-,�NvZ1"N; 0 A* Q W PUf L I fA�LT 100 Ad, "g "4 4rz, Aoi'ow' v4sn OVA Ole + I V m Z " Of MAIL oil Rat, lei w A 0 1 u 4144F A ct-, j out 'q T119jcu io ui Sr v i r c VW Yes' i for _4 A juni 4 � AT i wvc d l tart -ow bit 1 w� v$ "a 4"'i VW1 -"x�c is r December 14, 2005 Mr. David Pennock County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville. VA 22942 -4596 FAX 972 -4126 Ph 296 -5832 RE: Sub 2005 -0314 Costal Va. Capital — Lots A, B, C, D Dear Mr. Pennock: I have two concerns with the proposed plan: The surrey corner stake does not appear to be in the same area as when I had my land surveyed, but this is something that I will have to address with the new land owners. The existing house had problems with septic system and even replaced septic field once before. Now again there could be problems, with odors sometimes in the summer. This was with two people living in the house. Does this plan have a secondary drain field for existing house in the plans? This problem is even more serious because of streams on both sides of the property. I will be out of town on the 20 "' of December, so I am writing this letter instead. Sincerely, Ernest L. Morris 1409 Lanetown Road Crozet, Va_ 22932 434 -823 -5969