HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200600193 Staff Report 2006-08-08COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name;
Staff: Bill Fritz, Allan Schuck and Glenn
SUB 2006 -193 Bundoran Farm
Brooks
Planning Commission Public Hearing: August
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: (not
8, 2006
applicable)
Owners: Edge Valley Preservation LLC,
Applicant: Edge Valley Preservation
all parcels except Tax Map 86 -22A
Elizabeth P Scott Life Estate, (Tax Map 86-
22A)
Acreage: 2,301 acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 86, Parcels 13,13A, 16C1,
By -right use: Rural Area uses.
22, 22A, 23, 23A, 23B, 23C, 24C, 24D, 25,
26 and Tax Map 87, Parcels 1B, 2, 3
Location: Near North Garden on Plank Road
and Edge Valley Road
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Magisterial
Proffers /Conditions: (Yes or No)
Proposal: Creation of 92 lots. Multiple
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 92 lots are
waivers /modifications are required as well as
proposed. Unused development rights have
private street authorization.
been assigned for future possible use.
DA (Development Area): Not applicable
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
RA (Rural Area): Rural Area 3
Area 3. Portions of the property are in the
Mountain Resource Area.
Character of Property: Mixture of farm,
Use of Surrounding Properties: Mixture of
woodland and orchard with some residences.
farm, woodland with some residences.
STAFF CONTACTS: William D. Fritz, AICP
Allan Schuck
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 8, 2006
SUB 2006 -193 Bundoran Farm
APPLICANT: Edge Valley Preservation
PROPERTY OWNER: Edge Valley Preservation LLC all parcels except Tax Map 86 -22A
Elizabeth P Scott Life Estate (Tax Map 86 -22A)
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
Request for approval of a preliminary plat to allow the creation of 92 lots. The property, described as
Tax Map 86, Parcels 13, 13A, 16C1, 22, 22A, 23, 23A, 23B, 23C, 24C, 24D, 25, 26 and Tax Map 87,
Parcels 113, 2, 3 contains approximately 2,301 acres zoned RA, (Rural Areas). The proposed
development is located west of Route 29 and is located on the northeast and southwest side of Plank
Road (Route 692) and the north and south side of Edge Valley Road (Route 696). This site is located in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas
in Rural Area 3.
CHARACTER OF AREA:
This is large a development covering approximately 3.6 square miles. The properties consist of varied
topography. Large fields and orchards cover the lower portions of the property. The upper slopes are
wooded. Several residences are scattered throughout the property. A cluster of farm buildings
(Bundoran Farm) are located on the north side of Edge Valley Road. Several streams and ponds are on
the property. The pond on Edge Valley Road (Lake Scogo) has significant associated wetlands. The
highest parts of these properties include portions of Long Arm Mountain, Tom Mountain and Israel
Mountain. The following parcels (of this project) are within the Hardware Agricultural Forestal District:
Tax Map 86, Parcel 24C and Tax Map 86, Parcel 24D and Tax Map 87, Parcel 3. Adjacent properties to
the east and west are also in the Hardware Agricultural Forestal District. Nearby land to the north and
south are in conservation easement.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
Tax Map 87 -3 has had several Special Use Permits for the Albemarle County Fair. Those permits are:
SP -1987 -109, SP- 1988 -90, SP- 1992 -19 and SP -1996 -045. Copies attached.
Tax Map 86 -25 has had two actions to approve a private landing strip. On November 13, 1974 the
Board of Supervisors approved a special permit (SP 421), with conditions, for a landing strip on this
parcel. The Board deleted Condition #4 on March 27, 1975. Copies attached.
Tax Map 86 -16C1 was divided on 11/16/87, resulting in the current parcel configuration. A copy of the
approved plat is attached.
On August 18, 2005, John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, prepared a letter of zoning
compliance for all of the parcels included in the Bundoran Farm subdivision. That letter is attached.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
2
This property is designated as Rural Area. Portions of this property are within the Mountain Resource
Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan's Open Space Plan. Those areas are Long Arm Mountain
(1000 foot elevation) Tom Mountain (900 foot elevation) and Israel Mountain (900 foot elevation).
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
This application was not appealed to the Planning Commission. Therefore the Commission does not need
to take an action on the subdivision plat. However, in order for staff to administratively approve the plat
the Planning Commission must act on several waivers /modifications. The sections of the County Code
that require waivers /modification are:
Chapter 14, Section 232(A) — Private Street Authorization
Chapter 14, Section 404 - Access
Chapter 18, Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.3 — Critical Slopes (streets and building sites)
Chapter 18, Section 4.2.2(a)(1) — Building Sites (shape)
The applicant has submitted a justification for each request and it is included as Attachment E.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: (the page number for each item is provided)
Chapter 14, Section 232(A) — Private Street Authorization
Bundoran Farm Drive (Staff recommends Denial) — page 5
Bundoran Farm Lane (Staff recommends Denial) — page 6
Silo Hill Drive (Staff recommends Denial) — page 7
Scout Hill Drive (Staff recommends Denial) — page 9
Gooding Road (Staff recommends Denial) — page 10
Quarry Lane (Staff recommends Denial) — page 11
Sprouse Road (Staff recommends Denial) — page 12
Carpenter Drive (Staff recommends Denial) — page 13
Long Hollow Lane (Staff recommends Denial) — page 15
Hightop Drive (Staff recommends Denial) — page 16
Quartz Hill Lane (Staff recommends Denial) — page 18
Shepherd Lane (Staff recommends Denial) — page 19
Long Arm Lane (Staff recommends Denial) — page 20
Chapter 14, Section 404 — Access
Staff recommends approval subject to conditions— page 21
Chapter 18, Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.3 — Critical Slopes disturbance (streets and building sites)
Building site location for Lot A6 (Staff recommends Denial) — page 23
Building site location for Lot F1 (Staff recommends Denial) — page 26
Building site location for Lot H1 (Staff recommends Denial) — page 29
Building site location for Lot H7 (Staff recommends Denial) — page 32
Building site location for Lot H10 (Staff recommends Denial) — page 34
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Bundoran Farm Drive (Staff recommends Denial) —
page38
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Gooding Road (Staff recommends Approval) — page 39
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Sprouse Road (Staff recommends Denial) — page 40
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Carpenter Drive (Staff recommends Denial)— page 40
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Quartz Hill Lane (Staff recommends Denial) — page 41
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Hightop Drive (Staff recommends Denial) — page 41
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Long Arm Lane (Staff recommends Denial) — page 42
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Lot B13 (Staff recommends Denial) — page 43
Chapter 18, Section 4.2.2(a)(1) — Modification of Building Sites (shape)
Lot Al I (Staff recommends Denial) — page 45
Lot H13 (Staff recommends Denial) — page 46
STAFF COMMENT:
REVIEW OF CHAPTER 14, SECTION 232W TO ALLOW USE OF PRIVATE STREETS.
The applicant has submitted a request that all streets within the development be authorized as private
streets. County Engineering staff has analyzed each street as required by Chapter 14, Section 234
(Procedure to authorize private streets and related matters) and Section 412 (Standards for private streets
only) of the County Code.
General analysis of private street request:
The applicant is requesting that the subdivision streets be granted three separate approvals:
1) The authorization for private streets rather than public streets, allowed by 14- 232A.1.
2) A reduction in the street design standard from Rolling Terrain to Mountainous Terrain,
allowed by section 14- 412(A)(3)(a).
3) A further reduction in the street design standards to allow lesser road widths. This is only
allowed by the general waiver section 14- 225.1.
Adequate justification has not been presented for these requests, and there do not appear to be any
significant engineering reasons for them. In terms of the ordinance requirements;
14- 232A.1 (i) property in the Rural Areas or Village Residential zoning district:
The property is zoned RA.
14- 232A.1 (ii) private road would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation
to the environment:
For each street, the applicant has provided computation results that show the proposed private street
construction would have less earthwork than a public street for the alignment proposed. However,
there are many different street alignments, so these results are not conclusive.
14- 232A.1 (iii) no alternative public street alignment is available:
There are many possible alternative alignments the applicant can use to meet the VDOT Rolling
Terrain Standard to accommodate public streets.
14- 232A.1 (iv) no more lots are proposed on the private road than could be created on the public
road:
The difference in right -of -way width and vertical alignments do not affect the lot yield in this subdivision.
El
14- 232A.1. (a) the total volume of grading for construction of a public street would be thirty (30)
percent or more than that of a private road in the same alignment:
With a few exceptions, the applicant has demonstrated that a public street along the same alignment
would increase earthwork by more than 30 %. However, it appears that alternative alignments could
bring the volume differences below 30 %. The particulars of grading on each street are different, and if
the Commission were to use this as a basis for approval, some streets could be public, and others private.
With this possibility in mind, the details of the engineering analysis for each street have been shown
below.
14- 232A.1. (b),Environmental impacts including, but no limited to, erosion and sedimentation,
stormwater runoff, surface water pollution, loss of tree cover...:
Environmental impacts, other than volume of earthwork, will not be significantly different between public
streets and private streets along the same alignments in this subdivision. Please refer also to the
discussion on critical slopes.
Based on the information above, engineering recommends denial of the private street requests for
the entire subdivision. Details for each of the streets are presented below.
Bundoran Farm Drive
.. �.fi
.
24.9 A,: ..
An Approximate length
Aa ?' A C. of Critical Slope
- - -��� 23.2 AC. - :��!±. =.�_ G . Disturbance
4
._..-
i.. -.. — Approximate
R
Limits of Fill Area
■
_— - 1- __
A13
A7
�_.
- �7
25.1 AC
26.3 AC.
--
R14
21.2 AC -.
Approximate
f>
.. 1
.•
Limits of Cut Area
End Point of
Bundoran Farm
x.15 �.
Drive and Start
'p
57.2 AC.
Point of Bundoran
Farm Lane
#,� •''s.
,'a
�.
910 AC.
R
The street section described below, will connect to the existing portion of Bundoran Farm Drive. The
existing portion of Bundoran Farm Drive has never been approved as a private street by the County
through a subdivision plat. The initial section has an asphalt surface and is approximately 0.307 miles
long and intersects with State Route 692, Edge Valley Road. The existing conditions meet the VDOT
Rolling Terrain standards.
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in two areas of the
street; approximately 700' of fill area from Station 36 +00 to 43 +00 (shown in Area 1 on the graphic) and
approximately 350' of cut area from Station 46 +00 to the END (shown in Area 2 on the graphic).
Approximately 1050' of the proposed 5006' of road is in extreme cut and fill areas.
The vertical grades could be lessened by using an alternative alignment to eliminate a significant amount
of cut and fill from the total excavation.
Bundoran Farm Lane (see graphic for Bundoran Farm Drive)
Bundoran Farm Lane is an extension of Bundoran Farm Lane that is proposed to serve only 3 -5
subdivision lots. However, the plan shows this road portion serving 6 lots.
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.948
0.948
Width of section (ft)
avement +shoulder +shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16 +2 +2 = 20'
**
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
14.0%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 37 +10 = 33'
22'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 48 +50 = 18'
@ Station 28 +90 = 11'
6'
2'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
22854
11816
Volume of fill (cubic yards)
31058
9554
Volume of Earthwork (cy)
53912
21370
% increase in earthwork
100[(53912- 21370)/21370]= 152%
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in two areas of the
street; approximately 700' of fill area from Station 36 +00 to 43 +00 (shown in Area 1 on the graphic) and
approximately 350' of cut area from Station 46 +00 to the END (shown in Area 2 on the graphic).
Approximately 1050' of the proposed 5006' of road is in extreme cut and fill areas.
The vertical grades could be lessened by using an alternative alignment to eliminate a significant amount
of cut and fill from the total excavation.
Bundoran Farm Lane (see graphic for Bundoran Farm Drive)
Bundoran Farm Lane is an extension of Bundoran Farm Lane that is proposed to serve only 3 -5
subdivision lots. However, the plan shows this road portion serving 6 lots.
31
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.313
0.313
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder+shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
13 +2 +2 = 17'
**
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
14.0%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 11 +00 = 24'
16'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 1 +00 = 30'
13'
31
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
25826
10203
Volume of fill (cubic yards)
18280
6094
Volume of Earthwork (c)
44106
16297
increase in earthwork
100[(44106- 16297)/16297]= 171% *
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 13' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in two areas of the
street; approximately 700' of fill area from Station 5 +50 to 12 +50 (shown in Area 4 on the graphic) and
approximately 550' of cut area from Station 0 +00 to 5 +50 (shown in Area 3 on the graphic).
Approximately 1250' of the proposed 1651' of road is in extreme cut or fill areas.
The vertical grades could be lessened by using an alternative alignment from Bundoran Farm Drive to
eliminate a significant amount of cut and fill from the total excavation.
Silo Hill Drive
E3 i
.a AC.
D 5
7 A
oa Brae a. ua
as m P Pc Ix•n
is 69G P..Pn IXxwii �. .
R
fT
L-I
Tr
Approximate length of
Critical Slope
Disturbance
53,x- Approximate Limits of Fill
Area
Approximate Limits of
Cut Area
Silo Hill Drive is shown as two sections on the plans. Section 1, 0.33 miles, extends from State Route
7
692, Edge Valley Road, at Station 0 +00 to 18 +00 where it splits into Silo Hill Drive - Section 2 and
Scout Hill Lane.
In section 1, 12 % grades are shown from Station 6 +00 to 8 +00. Engineering recommends that Section
1 be designed to meet the VDOT Terrain Standards with a maximum grade of 10 %.
Silo Hill Drive Section 2 is analyzed below:
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
** Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in three areas of the
street; approximately 300' of fill area from Station 16 +00 to 18 +80 (shown in Area 1 on the graphic) and
500 `of fill area from Station 22 +50 to 27 +50 (shown in Area 3 on the graphic) and approximately 370'
of cut area from Station 18 +00 to Station 22 +50 (shown in Area 2 on the graphic). Approximately,
1170' of the proposed 1742' of road for Silo Hill Drive Section 2 is located in extreme fill or cut areas.
The vertical grades could be lessened by using an alternative alignment to eliminate a significant amount
of cut and fill from the total excavation.
Scout Hill Drive
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.532
0.532
Width of section (ft)
avement +shoulder +shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16 +2 +2 = 20'
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
16.0%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 25 +50 = 11'
S'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 28 +00 = 7'
7'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
3204
2175
Volume of fill (cy)
8036
4360
Volume of Earthwork (cy)
11240
6535
% increase in earthwork
100[(11240- 6535)/6535]= 72%
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
** Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in three areas of the
street; approximately 300' of fill area from Station 16 +00 to 18 +80 (shown in Area 1 on the graphic) and
500 `of fill area from Station 22 +50 to 27 +50 (shown in Area 3 on the graphic) and approximately 370'
of cut area from Station 18 +00 to Station 22 +50 (shown in Area 2 on the graphic). Approximately,
1170' of the proposed 1742' of road for Silo Hill Drive Section 2 is located in extreme fill or cut areas.
The vertical grades could be lessened by using an alternative alignment to eliminate a significant amount
of cut and fill from the total excavation.
Scout Hill Drive
a w —3 10.22AC + Approximate length of
■ Critical Slope
Disturbance
•� 3B4.'6`rT`
28.4 AC.s'.a
53,6 Approximate Limits of Fill
Area
,N
B5 '
m ?8.9,x,
Approximate Limits of
64 .5 "� r. 610 Cut Area
AC
35:4 - AC.
Sect
2t
+. r I r4
}y ,,
2.7 rl,y B 3 '4 +I 1
4 g ,V '0 AC, ysr�0
8 yfr • ... /�'�•
TWP
OBNElITH lAlp TRUST
%.& 7fT P. f0G PLAT
89 a .
26.1 AC. \
- I .:�:._ - -.. _ .. _ _r 'ply, � ✓ '•}
f — •:rt.�oaar
STATE ROUTE 692
u PLANK ROA
wATI [PUBLIC ROAD bald f _ f
SLATS , /, >� .�_- -_� -•~ w -�� ~M
TQ FIATTLESViLtSSrr +
h7
Scout Hill Drive extends westward from its intersection with Silo Hill Drive.
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.634
0.634
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder+shoulder
20 +4 +4= 26'
13 +2 +2 = 17' **
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
16.0%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 3 +00 = 12'
2'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 9 +50 = 11'
0'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
10628
1055
Volume of fill (c)
5113
692
Volume of Earthwork (c)
15741
1747
increase in earthwork
100[(15741- 1747)/1747]= 801%
16 +2 +2 = 20' **
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 13' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in two areas of the
street; approximately 450' of fill area from Station 0 +00 to 4 +50 (shown in Area 6 on the graphic) and
approximately 850' of cut area from Station 4 +50 to 13 +00 (shown in Area 5 on the graphic).
Approximately 1300' of the proposed 1300' of road is located in extreme cut and fill areas.
The vertical grades could be lessened by using an alternative alignment from Silo Hill Drive to eliminate a
significant amount of cut and fill from the total excavation.
It is noted that if Silo Hill Drive is to be authorized as a private street then Scout Hill Lane will
automatically be authorized as a private street since its only connection is to Silo Hill Drive.
Gooding Road
29A Ac�
C4
i+ +' 381 AC
�- 12.9 ,v J. 23
40
�; ■ ry�- r - � `3
i_
�� •
.. 4.4 A;.
C5
C i y
. ti ! '. 11y r1C � ■
Critical Slope Disturbance Approx. Limits of Fill Area Approx. Limits of Cut Area
Currently, Gooding Road is an asphalt surfaced access that is approximately 10 feet wide. It begins at
the intersection of State Route 692, Edge Valley Road, and proceeds south.
10
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.367
0.367
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder+shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16 +2 +2 = 20' **
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
12.0%
10
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
5.14'
5.36'
Maximum cut height (ft)
15.40'
12.14'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
2127
1341
Volume of fill (c)
995
698
Volume of Earthwork c
3122
2039
increase in earthwork
100[(3122-2039)/2039]= 53%
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
** Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork difference are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in three areas of the
street; 150' of fill area from Station 15 +00 to 16 +50 (shown in Area 1) and 100' of fill area from 18 +00
to 19 +00 (shown in Area 3) and approximately 150' of cut area from Station 16 +50 to 18 +00 (shown in
Area 2). Approximately, 400' of the proposed 1936' of road is located in extreme cut or fill areas.
Quarry Lane
Critical Slope Disturbance
Approx. Limits of Fill Area Approx. Limits of Cut Area
Quarry Lane is an existing driveway and farm road. It begins at the intersection of State Route 692,
Edge Valley Road, and proceeds south.
11
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.129
0.129
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder+shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16 +2 +2 = 26' **
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
10.0%
Side sloe
2.5:1
2.0:1
11
(horizontal:vertical)
Public Road
Private Road
Maximum fill height (ft)
5.14'
5.36'
Maximum cut height (ft)
15.40'
12.14'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
1656
1656
Volume of fill (c)
195
195
Volume of Earthwork (c)
1851
1851
% increase in earthwork
100[(1851-1851)/1851]=0%
4'
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
** Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
The applicant has demonstrated that the total volume of grading for construction of a public road would
not be thirty (30 %) percent or more than that of a private road in the same alignment.
Sprouse Road
Critical Slope Disturbance Approx. Limits of Fill Area
Approximate Areas of Cut Area
Sprouse Road is an existing logging road. It begins at the intersection of State Route 692, Edge Valley
Road, and proceeds south.
12
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.097
0.097
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder+shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
13 +2 +2 = 17'**
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
16.0%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 2 +50 = l'
4'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 5 +00 = 27'
14'
12
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
3725
989
Volume of fill (c)
125
368
Volume of Earthwork (c)
3850
1357
increase in earthwork
100[(3850- 1357)/1357]= 184%
40'
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 13' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in two areas of the
street; approximately 150' of fill area from Station 1 +50 to 3 +00 (shown in red on the graphic) and
approximately 250' of cut area from Station 3 +00 to the END (shown in green on the graphic).
Approximately, 400' of the proposed 511' of the proposed road is located in severe cut or fill area.
Carpenter Drive
rF
y�9
- -A
C ::1
Carpenter Drive is shown as two sections. Section 1 extends from State Route 692, Plank Road, from
Station 0 +00 to 28 +50 where it turns into Carpenter Drive Section 2.
In Section 1, 10.9 % grades are shown from Station 5 +50 to 12 +50. Engineering recommends that
Section 1 be designed to meet the VDOT Terrain Standards with a maximum grade of 10 percent. The
remainder of Section 1 is analyzed below:
(Carpenter Drive. Section 1)
13
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.537
0.537
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder+shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16 +2 +2 = 20' **
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
14.67%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
13
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 23 +40 = 12'
12'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 14 +00 = 5'
1'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
5443
2706
Volume of fill (c)
2614
2311
Volume of Earthwork (c)
8057
5017
increase in earthwork
100[(8057 - 5017)/5017]= 61%
2.0:1
(Carpenter Drive, Section 2)
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 13' and 16' wide pavement sections and only 2' shoulders.
Section 1: Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in two areas
of the street; approximately 900' of cut area from Station 12 +50 to 21 +00 (shown in Area 1) and
approximately 200' of fill area from Station 21 +00 to Station 23 +00 (shown in Area 2). Approximately
1100' of the proposed 2833' of road is in extreme cut or fill areas.
Section 2: Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in two areas
of the street; approximately 600' of fill area from Station 3 +50 to 9 +50 (shown in Area 3) and
approximately 800' of cut area from Station 9 +50 to Station 17 +50 (shown in Area 4). Approximately
1400' of the proposed 2833' of road is in extreme cut or fill areas.
The vertical grades, proposed for both sections, could be lessened by using an alternative alignment to
eliminate a significant amount of cut and fill from the total excavation.
14
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.317
0.317
Width of section (ft)
avement +shoulder +shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
13 +2 +2 = 17' **
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
16.0%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 6 +00 = 20'
13'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 13 +50 = 11'
1'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
12357
3960
Volume of fill (cy)
9883
2533
Volume of Earthwork (cy)
22240
6493
% increase in earthwork
100[(22240- 6493)/6493]= 243%
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 13' and 16' wide pavement sections and only 2' shoulders.
Section 1: Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in two areas
of the street; approximately 900' of cut area from Station 12 +50 to 21 +00 (shown in Area 1) and
approximately 200' of fill area from Station 21 +00 to Station 23 +00 (shown in Area 2). Approximately
1100' of the proposed 2833' of road is in extreme cut or fill areas.
Section 2: Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in two areas
of the street; approximately 600' of fill area from Station 3 +50 to 9 +50 (shown in Area 3) and
approximately 800' of cut area from Station 9 +50 to Station 17 +50 (shown in Area 4). Approximately
1400' of the proposed 2833' of road is in extreme cut or fill areas.
The vertical grades, proposed for both sections, could be lessened by using an alternative alignment to
eliminate a significant amount of cut and fill from the total excavation.
14
Long Hollow Lane
II.
Approximate length of Critical
F7 Mope Disturbance
{:fin
211.0 A C-
.J
—
..
Approximate Limits of Fill Area
:+ yy F8 ( �
_1f — 23.4 ALrL
Approximate Limits of Cut Area
t ,
nrK
1--l-
41;1
left'
Long Hollow Lane begins at the intersection of State Route 692, Plank Road, and proceeds north.
15
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.738
0.738
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder+shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16 +2 +2 = 20' **
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
13.67%
15
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 35 +30 = 12'
13'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 34 +50 = 5'
6'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
2351
2456
Volume of fill (c)
2055
1561
Volume of Earthwork c
4406
4017
increase in earthwork
100[(4406-4017)/4017]= 10%
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
** Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork difference is achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in three areas of the street;
approximately 150' of cut area from Station 34 +00 to 35 +50 (shown in Area 1) and 150' of cut area
from Station 37 +50 to 39 +00 (shown in Area 3) and approximately 150' of fill area from Station 35 +50
to 37 +00 (shown in Area 2). Approximately 450' of the proposed 3984' of the proposed road is in
extreme cut and fill areas.
The applicant has demonstrated that the total volume of grading for construction of a public road would
not be thirty (30 %) percent or more than that of a private road in the same alignment.
Hightop Drive
5: H4 ■
f- 27 5 Ate.
_ i`iz
ti
'28 G.. 11-C �L
4
16 :.F l
4 24.3 A
D
1
j 23.a RG. 1 h13 I
{ i a ``ti
IL aR' T': N:. ns •�♦
..> �• PP. eae . moo. •. me lti•:
4
A
j H7"
S- .. .- -_.•� ..
Y; .: One posble alternative treet
-.route not Ie(cated'ovar-the am.
ties M•,` 'His App�rox. length of Cn 'c
AcSlop Disturbance
i'
^'r, �;., 4 r,1 Approxi Limits of
Fill A
aA aria "• H72 4. 21.2 AC. -
w-0
E 13.8 AC.
16
Hightop Drive begins at the intersection of State Route 692, Plank Road, and proceeds south.
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in three areas of the
street; approximately 1900' of fill area from Station 14 +50 to 20 +50, 46 +00 to 50 +00, and 58 +00 to
67 +00 (shown in red on the next page). Approximately 1900' of the proposed 6784' of road is located in
severe fill areas.
The vertical grades could be lessened by using an alternative alignment to eliminate a significant
amount of cut and fill from the total excavation.
This road alignment goes over an existing dam. VDOT does not approve public streets over dams unless
significant improvements are made to the dam, and the County accepts responsibility for maintenance.
Alternative designs are available where the street would not need to go over the existing dam. Stream
buffer and critical slope disturbances would be roughly the same.
17
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
1.285
1.285
Width of section (ft)
avement +shoulder +shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16 +2 +2 = 20' **
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
16.0%
Side slope
horizontal:vertical
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 64 +00 = 59'
41'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 46 +00 = 20'
20'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
11397
11529
Volume of fill (cy)
44416
29971
Volume of Earthwork (cy)
55813
41500
% increase in earthwork
100[(55813- 41500)/41500]= 34%
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in three areas of the
street; approximately 1900' of fill area from Station 14 +50 to 20 +50, 46 +00 to 50 +00, and 58 +00 to
67 +00 (shown in red on the next page). Approximately 1900' of the proposed 6784' of road is located in
severe fill areas.
The vertical grades could be lessened by using an alternative alignment to eliminate a significant
amount of cut and fill from the total excavation.
This road alignment goes over an existing dam. VDOT does not approve public streets over dams unless
significant improvements are made to the dam, and the County accepts responsibility for maintenance.
Alternative designs are available where the street would not need to go over the existing dam. Stream
buffer and critical slope disturbances would be roughly the same.
17
Quartz Hill Lane
145. t�i'.1 t
Approximate Length of Critical
y . lope Disturbance
24.3 A
Approximate Limits of Fill Area
Approximate Limits of Cut Area
Quartz Hill Lane intersects with Hightop Drive, and is proposed to serve only 3 -5 subdivision lots.
However, it appears this portion serves 6 lots or more.
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
I:
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.329
0.329
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder +shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
13 +2 +2 = 17' **
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
15.36%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 5 +00 = 5'
1'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 7 +20 = 4'
1'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
4281
4187
Volume of cut (cy)
9511
8407
Volume of Earthwork (cy)
13792
12594
increase in earthwork
100[(13792- 12594)/12594]= 10%
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
I:
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 13' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork difference are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in four areas of the street;
approximately 380' of fill area from Station 0 +50 to 1 +30 and 4 +00 to 6 +50 (shown in Areas 1 & 3) and
approximately 470' of cut area from Station 1 +30 to 4 +00 and 6 +50 to 8 +50 (shown in Areas 2 & 4).
Approximately 850' of the proposed 1735' of road is located in severe cut or fill areas.
It is noted that if Hightop Drive is approved as a private street then Shepard Lane will need to be
approved as a private street since its only connection will be to a private street.
Shepherd Lane
No proposed critical slope disturbances.
Street design = VDOT Rolling Terrain
Shepherd Lane intersects with Hightop Drive and Long Arm Lane, and is proposed to serve only 3 -5
subdivision lots. However, it appears this portion serves 6 lots or more.
Public Road
7H 3
Length in miles
0.104
0.104
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder +shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16+2+2=20**
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
4.3 A'.
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 4 +00 = 3'
3'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 1 +00 = 6'
6'
H 1 2 -
:::
666
A
117
No proposed critical slope disturbances.
Street design = VDOT Rolling Terrain
Shepherd Lane intersects with Hightop Drive and Long Arm Lane, and is proposed to serve only 3 -5
subdivision lots. However, it appears this portion serves 6 lots or more.
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
19
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.104
0.104
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder +shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16+2+2=20**
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
10.32%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 4 +00 = 3'
3'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 1 +00 = 6'
6'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
666
666
Volume of fill (cy)
117
117
Volume of Earthwork (cy)
783
783
increase in earthwork
100[(783- 783)/783]= 0%
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
19
The applicant has not demonstrated that a public road along the same alignment would increase
earthwork by more than 30 %.
It is noted that if Hightop Drive is approved as a private street then Shepherd Lane will need to be
approved as a private street since its only interconnection will be to a private street.
Long Arm Lane
�.' .''.* Ate, '. �' .r; - VN
4. 3 •�; I?,vn as k i
�f h 115
'� ?1.
� P A G.
k �' Approximate Length of
Critical Slope Disturbance
`�. Approximate Limits of
Fill Area
72.2 AC
4{�
Approximate Limits of
M1`� x'., Cut Areas
Long Arm Lane intersects with Hightop Drive and is proposed to serve only 3 -5 subdivision lots.
However, it appears this portion serves 6 lots or more.
20
Public Road
Private Road
Length in miles
0.421
0.421
Width of section (ft)
pavement +shoulder+shoulder
18 +4 +4= 26'
16 +2 +2 = 20' **
Right -of -way or easement
width
40'
40'
Maximum Grade
10.0%
12.0%
Side slope
(horizontal:vertical)
2.5:1
2.0:1
Maximum fill height (ft)
@ Station 13 +70 = 48'
38'
Maximum cut height (ft)
@ Station 5 +00 = 45'
4'
Volume of cut (cubic yards)
29566
7729
20
Volume of fill (c)
17882
12308
Volume of Earthwork (c)
47448
20037
increase in earthwork
100[(47448- 20037)/20037]= 137%
* These figures are the applicant's. The applicant has not supplied field run profiles for this analysis as required by Section 14-
234A.1. These are computer generated results. The applicant has not supplied earthwork computations by station.
* * Current standards require a minimum pavement width of 18' with 4' shoulders for streets with a project traffic volume of 400
ADT or less. The applicant is proposing a 16' wide pavement section and only 2' shoulders.
Earthwork differences are achieved mainly through differences in vertical grades in four areas of the
street; approximately 1250' of cut area from Station 1 +00 to 10 +50 and 16 +00 to 19 +00 (shown in
Areas 1 & 3) and approximately 850' of fill area from Station 10 +50 to 16 +00 and 19 +00 to 22 +00.
Approximately 2100' of the proposed 2224' of road is located in severe cut and fill areas.
It is noted that if Hightop Drive is approved as a private street then Long Arm Lane will need to be
approved as a private street since its only connection will be to a private street.
REVIEW OF MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 14. SECTION 404 TO ALLOW LOT D12 TO
ACCESS THE PUBLIC STREET DIRECTLY
Lot D12 is located at the intersection of Edge Valley Road and Plank Road and currently has multiple
entrances. The Planning Commission may approve access directly to an existing public street if it grants a
waiver in accord with Section 14 -404C (full language of Section 14 -404 is included as Attachment F).
Staff has analyzed each of the provisions of Section 14 -404C and offers the following comments:
(i) the county engineer recommends an alternative standard
The county engineer does not recommend an alternative standard. While critical slopes do separate this
lot from any area where internal roads are proposed, the lots could be reconfigured such that no loss in
lots occurs and access could be provided by internal streets.
(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 property does not have an unusual size, topography, shape or location. A potential unusual
condition is provided in the applicant's justification for the waiver: "We are NOT proposing the use of
this lot for a homesite; instead the use for this lot will not differ significantly from its current use as a farm
facility. The exact program for this facility is, as yet, undetermined although its determined that the
program will be consistent with the guidelines set for the RA district's By -Right uses." The area of Lot
D 12 is currently an orchard. If the Commission were to restrict the use of the property to agricultural
uses this may be adequate justification for allowing a separate access point. Providing a separate access
point would eliminate potential conflicts between residential and agricultural use of a common road.
In reviewing a waiver request, the commission may allow a substitute design of comparable quality, but
differing from that required, if it finds that the subdivider would achieve results which substantially
satisfy the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the
requirement.
21
The substitute design that would satisfy the purpose of the ordinance would be to limit the use of Lot
D 12 to agriculturally associated uses and to use the existing entrances except as they may require
modification as recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation. This action will result in
minimal change to the area and will maintain an agricultural use.
Staff recommends conditional approval of a modification of Section 14 -404 to allow Lot D 12 to access
Plank Road directly. Staff's recommended conditions are:
1. The use of Lot D 12 shall be limited to activities as permitted by Albemarle County Code,
Chapter 18, Section 10.2.1(3), 10.2.1(4), 10.2.1(5), 10.2.1(7), 10.2.1(12), 10.2.1(17), 10.2.1(20),
as it exists on July 21, 2006.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Virginia Department of Transportation to
install any required improvements.
3. Access to Lot D 12 shall be limited to existing entrances except as they may require modification
as recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Any entrance shall comply with
the design standards set forth in Albemarle County Code, Chapter 14, Section 410(F) and 410(G)
4. The subdivider shall demonstrate to the agent prior to approval of the final plat that the waiver
does not violate any covenants to be recorded for the subdivision.
REVIEW OF MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18 SECTION 4.2.1 AND 4.2.3 TO ALLOW
ACTIVITY ON CRITICAL SLOPES.
This application has 12 separate critical slope waiver requests. Staff has analyzed each request
individually. The 12 requests are:
Building site location for Lot A6 (Staff recommends Denial)
Building site location for Lot F1 (Staff recommends Denial)
Building site location for Lot H1 (Staff recommends Denial)
Building site location for Lot H7 (Staff recommends Denial)
Building site location for Lot H10 (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Bundoran Farm Drive (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Gooding Road (Staff recommends Approval)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Sprouse Road (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Carpenter Drive (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Quartz Hill Lane (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Hightop Drive (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Long Arm Lane (Staff recommends Denial)
Due to the nature of the request staff has deviated from the traditional report format for this critical
slopes analysis. The review is still based on the requirements of Sections, 4.2 and 4.2.5 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The Bundoran Farm project has approximately 760 acres of existing critical slopes. All critical slopes
appear to be natural. Critical slopes are to be disturbed to install streets, houses, and potentially septic
fields, driveways and outdoor living areas.
Areas Acres
22
Total site
2300
Critical slopes
760
33% of site
Critical slopes disturbed
4.5
Less than I% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
Disturbance of critical slopes to install driveways, roads and utilities is exempt if no reasonable alternative
locations exist to locate these structures. Staff has taken the view that with a development of this size,
alternatives exist for all areas of disturbance and no exemptions have been granted.
BUILDING SITE CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST
Building site location for Lot A6
For this lot the applicant has shown two building sites. One of the building sites meets the requirements
of the ordinance. The applicant has requested a modification to allow the construction of a second house
on this lot.
i
'f
l
23 2 A, -
r� f�• -r
2
Staff and the applicant will address each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 4.2. The
applicant's comments are in italics.
"movement of soil and rock"
Dependency house site and septic will not be within area of critical slope.
23
It is likely that disturbance of critical slopes will occur. With proper erosion and sediment control
measures movement of soil and rock would be limited.
"excessive stormwater runoff and siltation"
Since the dependency lot will serve more as a cottage residence, the roof area will be minimal therefore
reducing the likelihood of excessive stormwater runoff or siltation.
No size limit has been proposed for the "cottage residence ". It is unlikely that a single family dwelling
would result in excessive stormwater runoff and measures, such as rain gardens, to reduce runoff and
siltation exist. The proposed location of the "cottage" is adjacent to and includes the headwaters of an
intermittent stream.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
It is precisely out of a desire not to disrupt the character, viewshed and aesthetics of the site as it exists today that
this dependency site is set back into the woods, and while the 30, 000 sf envelope exists on critical slopes, the
dependency house site will not. Beyond the aesthetic value, the economic and cultural value of keeping the
pasture in agricultural use and large contiguous forest in forestall use has been taken into great consideration.
The proposed "dependency site" is located at an elevation of approximately 820 feet. The Mountain Resource area
identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan begins at 900 feet. The proposed house location is in the
wooded portion of the site and would have limited visibility. If clearing were to occur, the visibility would be much
greater. It is the opinion of staff that an alternative form of development, Rural Preservation Development, would
result in less impacts to visibility caused by streets and house locations. A Rural Preservation Development would
also provide for permanent designation of and protection of agricultural and forestal lands. A Rural Preservation
Development would likely result in shorter streets and less impact caused by visibility, grading and impervious area.
"septic effluent"
The dependency homesite and septic areas will, in fact, not be within the critical slope area of the
30, 000 sf building site (alternative septic systems will be incorporated if necessary to keep this area out
of critical slopes).
Without detailed information on the location and design of the house and drainfield, it is difficult to
provide comment on this provision. It is highly unlikely that a house site and area for primary and reserve
drainfield could be found that did not impact the critical slopes.
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
The applicant has requested this waiver to allow for the construction of a second home on Lot A
6. Strict application of the requirement of Section 4.2 would forward the purpose of Chapter 18.
24
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 proper ties. 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
The applicant has requested this waiver to allow for the construction of a second home on Lot A
6 One building site meeting the requirements of the ordinance is shown on this lot. Denial of
this request would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property.
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.
Staff can identify no public purpose to be served by granting a modification to allow the
designation of a second dwelling on a proposed lot in the Rural Areas.
This analysis results in the following findings.
Factors favorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. None
Factors unfavorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. Allows second dwelling on a proposed lot in the Rural Areas.
Generally staff finds that this request is not consistent with the criteria of Section 4.2.5a for granting a
modification and therefore is not 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
has no recommended conditions.
25
Building site location for Lot F1
•ti
r .1
{
F2
B.8 AC
F1
i'9 A
' S
•5 �
'1
i
,I
1
2 QL
-fir:, '. ' �rla `•� , �
ti
`,
Sf:
27.0 PIG.
Staff and the applicant will address each of the concerns of Zoning Ordimance section 4.2. The
applicant's comments are in italics.
"movement of soil and rock"
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
movement of soil and rock.
It is likely that disturbance of critical slopes will occur. The house site is shown on critical slopes. With
proper erosion and sediment control measures movement of soil and rock would be limited.
"excessive stormwater runoff and siltation"
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
excessive stormwater runoff and siltation.
The house site shown is on critical slopes. It is unlikely that a single family dwelling would result in
excessive stormwater runoff and measures, such as rain gardens, to reduce runoff and siltation exist.
26
� 4
1
F2
B.8 AC
F1
i'9 A
' S
•5 �
'1
i
,I
1
2 QL
-fir:, '. ' �rla `•� , �
ti
`,
Sf:
27.0 PIG.
Staff and the applicant will address each of the concerns of Zoning Ordimance section 4.2. The
applicant's comments are in italics.
"movement of soil and rock"
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
movement of soil and rock.
It is likely that disturbance of critical slopes will occur. The house site is shown on critical slopes. With
proper erosion and sediment control measures movement of soil and rock would be limited.
"excessive stormwater runoff and siltation"
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
excessive stormwater runoff and siltation.
The house site shown is on critical slopes. It is unlikely that a single family dwelling would result in
excessive stormwater runoff and measures, such as rain gardens, to reduce runoff and siltation exist.
26
"loss of aesthetic resource"
It is precisely out of a desire not to disrupt the rural character, viewshed and aesthetics of the site as it
exists today that this house site is set back into the woods and out of the pastureland, and while the
30, 000 sf envelope exists on critical slopes, every effort will be made to keep the home site and septic
area out of the area of critical slope. Beyond the aesthetic value, the economic and cultural value of
keeping the pasture in agricultural use and large contiguous forest in forestall use has been taken into
great consideration.
The proposed house is located at an elevation of approximately 900 feet. The Mountain Resource area identified in
the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan begins at 900 feet. The proposed house location is located in the wooded
portion of the site and would have limited visibility. If clearing were to occur the visibility would be much greater. It
is the opinion of staff that an alternative form of development, Rural Preservation Development, would result in less
impacts to visibility caused by streets and house locations. A Rural Preservation Development would also provide for
permanent designation of and protection of agricultural and forestal lands. A Rural Preservation Development would
likely result in shorter streets and less impact caused by visibility, grading and impervious area.
"septic effluent"
The septic areas will, in fact, not be within the critical slope area of the 30, 000 sf building site
(alternative septic systems will be incorporated if necessary to keep this area out of critical slopes).
Without detailed information on the location and design of the house and drainfield, it is difficult to
provide comment on this provision. It is highly unlikely that a house site and area for primary and reserve
drainfield could be found that did not impact the critical slopes.
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:
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
Alternative locations for a building site that meet the requirements of the ordinance exist on this
property. Strict application of the requirement of Section 4.2 would forward the purpose of
Chapter 18.
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 proper ties. 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
Alternative areas on the property do meet the requirements of the ordinance for a building site..
27
Denial of this request would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the
property.
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.
Staff can identify no public purpose to be served by granting a modification to allow the
designation of dwelling on critical slopes in a Mountain Resource area on a proposed lot in the
Rural Areas.
This analysis results in the following findings.
Factors favorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. None
Factors unfavorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. Multiple alternative locations for a building site meeting the requirements of the ordinance
exist on the proposed lot.
2. Approval of this request would allow construction of a home in or very near to the Mountain
Resource Area as shown in the Open Space Plan.
Generally staff finds that this request is not consistent with the criteria of Section 4.2.5a for granting a
modification and therefore is not 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
has no recommended conditions.
W.
Building site location for Lot Hl
� L. 7�Y'Y•
Un
r•'
� T
W ri
r ~
r
I
• w�
Staff and the applicant will address each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 4.2. The
applicant's comments are in italics.
"movement of soil and rock"
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
movement of soil and rock.
It is unlikely that no disturbance of critical slopes will occur. The house site is shown very near critical
slopes. With proper erosion and sediment control measures movement of soil and rock would be limited.
"excessive stormwater runoff and siltation"
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
excessive stormwater runoff and siltation.
It is unlikely that a single family dwelling would result in excessive stormwater runoff and measures, such
as rain gardens, to reduce runoff and siltation exist.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
It is precisely out of a desire not to disrupt the rural character, viewshed and aesthetics of the site as it
exists today that this house site is set back into the woods and out of the pastureland, and while the
30,000 sf envelope exists on critical slopes, every effort will be made to keep the home site and septic
29
area out of the area of critical slope. Beyond the aesthetic value, the economic and cultural value of
keeping the pasture in agricultural use and large contiguous forest in forestall use has been taken into
great consideration.
The proposed house location is located in the wooded portion of the site and would have limited visibility. If clearing
were to occur the visibility would be much greater. It is the opinion of staff that an alternative form of development,
Rural Preservation Development, would result in less impacts to visibility caused by streets and house locations. A
Rural Preservation Development would also provide for permanent designation of and protection of agricultural and
forestal lands. A Rural Preservation Development would likely result in shorter streets and less impact caused by
visibility, grading and impervious area.
"septic effluent"
The septic areas will, in fact, not be within the critical slope area of the 30, 000 sf building site
(alternative septic systems will be incorporated if necessary to keep this area out of critical slopes).
Without detailed information on the location and design of the house and drainfield, it is difficult to
provide comment on this provision. It is highly unlikely that a house site and area for primary and reserve
drainfield could be found that did not impact the critical slopes.
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
Lot HI is being created using land from two existing parcels, Tax Map 86, Parcel 13A and Tax
Map 86, Parcel 16CL The development right for this lot is coming from Parcel 13A. In order
to convey a development right, lot HI must obtain 2 acres and a building site from Parcel 13A.
They are obtaining the 2 acres but no building site meeting the requirements of the ordinance is
available without granting a waiver, (the Kernel Rule). All the development rights from Parcel
16C1 have been allocated to other proposed lots. The County has consistently applied the
Kernel Rule and approval of this waiver would be a departure from near 26 years of consistent
practice. Therefore, in staff's opinion based on consistent administrative practice, this proposed
lot is not lawful. Strict application of the requirement of Section 4.2 would forward the purpose
of Chapter 18.
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 proper ties. 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
Parcel 13A (the parcel which has an available development right) consists of approximately 205
acres. Alternative locations to utilize the development right exist. Denial of this request would
not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property.
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.
Staff can identify no public purpose to be served by granting a modification to allow the
designation of building site including critical slopes on a proposed lot in the Rural Areas.
This analysis results in the following findings.
Factors favorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. None
Factors unfavorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. Multiple alternative locations for use of the development right from Parcel 13A exist.
2. Approval of this waiver would authorize a lot that does not meet the Kernel Rule.
Generally staff finds that this request is not consistent with the criteria of Section 4.2.5a for granting a
modification and therefore is not 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
has no recommended conditions.
31
Building site location for Lot H7
l Yl
F11
L
k ._r
L _
,r
�F rte.
•ti
IY
' 22.E
s r ■ - Ue
�N r _ -
e�--I�H Y
Staff and the applicant will address each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 4.2. The
applicant's comments are in italics.
"movement of soil and rock"
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
movement of soil and rock.
It is likely that disturbance of critical slopes will occur. The house site is shown very near critical slopes.
With proper erosion and sediment control measures movement of soil and rock would be limited.
"excessive stormwater runoff and siltation"
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
excessive stormwater runoff and siltation.
It is unlikely that a single family dwelling would result in excessive stormwater runoff and measures, such
as rain gardens, to reduce runoff and siltation exist.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
32
It is precisely out of a desire not to disrupt the rural character, viewshed and aesthetics of the site as it
exists today that this house site is set back into the woods and out of the pastureland, and while the
30, 000 sf envelope exists on critical slopes, every effort will be made to keep the home site and septic
area out of the area of critical slope. Beyond the aesthetic value, the economic and cultural value of
keeping the pasture in agricultural use and large contiguous forest in forestall use has been taken into
great consideration.
The proposed house location is located in the wooded portion of the site and would have limited visibility. If clearing
were to occur the visibility would be much greater. It is the opinion of staff that an alternative form of development,
Rural Preservation Development, would result in less impacts to visibility caused by streets and house locations. A
Rural Preservation Development would also provide for permanent designation of and protection of agricultural and
forestal lands. A Rural Preservation Development would likely result in shorter streets and less impact caused by
visibility, grading and impervious area.
"septic effluent"
The septic areas will, in fact, not be within the critical slope area of the 30, 000 sf building site
(alternative septic systems will be incorporated if necessary to keep this area out of critical slopes).
Without detailed information on the location and design of the house and drainfield, it is difficult to
provide comment on this provision. It is highly unlikely that a house site and area for primary and reserve
drainfield could be found that did not impact the critical slopes.
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:
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
Alternative locations for a building site that meet the requirements of the ordinance exist on this
property. Strict application of the requirement of Section 4.2 would forward the purpose of
Chapter 18.
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 proper ties. 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
Alternative areas on the property do meet the requirements of the ordinance for a building site..
Denial of this request would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the
property.
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
33
would be served by strict application of section 4.2.
Staff can identify no public purpose to be served by granting a modification to allow the
designation of building site including critical slopes on a proposed lot in the Rural Areas.
This analysis results in the following findings.
Factors favorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. None
Factors unfavorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. Multiple alternative locations for a building site meeting the requirements of the ordinance
exist on the proposed lot.
Generally staff finds that this request is not consistent with the criteria of Section 4.2.5a for granting a
modification and therefore is not 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
has no recommended conditions.
Building site location for Lot H10
fi4� frr
H9 5 v.
25.3 AC...,
�4 {17•v
.1
Y_2.2 A.
r' t
H
s
.1
. A C1.
Staff and the applicant will address each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 4.2. The
applicant's comments are in italics.
"movement of soil and rock"
Gi!
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
movement of soil and rock.
It is likely that disturbance of critical slopes will occur. The house site is shown very near critical slopes.
With proper erosion and sediment control measures movement of soil and rock would be limited.
"excessive stormwater runoff and siltation"
House site and septic will not be within area of critical slope therefore reducing the likelihood of
excessive stormwater runoff and siltation.
It is unlikely that a single family dwelling would result in excessive stormwater runoff and measures, such
as rain gardens, to reduce runoff and siltation exist.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
It is precisely out of a desire not to disrupt the rural character, viewshed and aesthetics of the site as it
exists today that this house site is set back into the woods and out of the pastureland, and while the
30, 000 sf envelope exists on critical slopes, every effort will be made to keep the home site and septic
area out of the area of critical slope. Beyond the aesthetic value, the economic and cultural value of
keeping the pasture in agricultural use and large contiguous forest in forestall use has been taken into
great consideration.
The proposed house location is located in the wooded portion of the site and would have limited visibility. If clearing
were to occur the visibility would be much greater. It is the opinion of staff that an alternative form of development,
Rural Preservation Development, would result in less impacts to visibility caused by streets and house locations. A
Rural Preservation Development would also provide for permanent designation of and protection of agricultural and
forestal lands. A Rural Preservation Development would likely result in shorter streets and less impact caused by
visibility, grading and impervious area.
"septic effluent"
The septic areas will, in fact, not be within the critical slope area of the 30, 000 sf building site
(alternative septic systems will be incorporated if necessary to keep this area out of critical slopes).
Without detailed information on the location and design of the house and drainfield, it is difficult to
provide comment on this provision. It is highly unlikely that a house site and area for primary and reserve
drainfield could be found that did not impact the critical slopes.
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:
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
Alternative locations for a building site that meet the requirements of the ordinance exist on this
35
property. Strict application of the requirement of Section 4.2 would forward the purpose of
Chapter 18.
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 proper ties. 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
Alternative areas on the property do meet the requirements of the ordinance for a building site..
Denial of this request would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the
property.
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.
Staff can identify no public purpose to be served by granting a modification to allow the
designation of building site including critical slopes on a proposed lot in the Rural Areas.
This analysis results in the following findings.
Factors favorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
1. None
Factors unfavorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
2. Multiple alternative locations for a building site meeting the requirements of the ordinance
exist on the proposed lot.
Generally staff finds that this request is not consistent with the criteria of Section 4.2.5a for granting a
modification and therefore is not 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
has no recommended conditions.
PRIVATE STREET CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST
The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slope for grading incorporated with the new construction
proposed on TMP- 86 -13, 13A, 16C1, 22, 23A, 22A, 23, 2313, 23C, 24C, 241), 25, 26, 87 -1B, 2, & 3, was received
on 18 July 2006. They are shown on the preliminary plat, rev. date 17 July 2006.
The engineering analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slope areas, within the above parcels, appear to be natural. The critical slope disturbances are in the form
of subdivision construction for single family residences and streets.
Areas Acres
Total site in Bundoran Farm 2300
Subdivision
Critical slopes
760
Approx. 33% of development
Critical slopes disturbed
4.5
Approx. 0.6% of critical slopes
These numbers were provided by the applicant and are aggregate totals. A breakdown of these numbers by particular
areas of disturbance on the plan was not provided.
In general, the distrurbed acreage above is much less than would be estimated by County staff. In the analysis of each
particular road, a common statement is that the disturbance for the road far exceeds the amount stated by the
applicant. This difference is accounted for by the roadway slopes, and necessary erosion control traps and diversions
which will necessitate more land disturbance than the applicant has calculated.
Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed for the entire subdivision:
1. "movement ofsoil and rock ": Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative
stabilization with approved erosion control measures constructed within the standards of Virginia
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations will prevent any movement of soil.
2. "excessive stormwater run - off ": Stormwater runoff will be controlled by the drainage / stormwater
management plan required for this site.
3. "siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water": There are existing intermittent streams located
within the subdivision that will be disturbed. The areas of critical slope disturbance for street
construction are shown in a picture during that particular street analysis. Engineering recognizes the
proposed street design and construction as being imperative to providing access to the site. However, the
applicant has not provided alternative street and lot layout alignments that could reduce the critical slope
disturbances currently shown on the plans. The proposed street design mostly follows existing farm
roads throughout the property. Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during
construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
4. "loss of aesthetic resource ": The site has existing wooded areas and existing farm and grazing lands
throughout the property. It appears that the loss of aesthetic resources will be necessary with the
proposed plan. The surrounding properties and traffic along Plank Road and Edge Valley Road will be
able to see some of the proposed disturbance.
5. "septic effluent": No septic systems or drainfields are proposed in this project, as it is a proposed
street.
In accordance to County Code section 18- 4.2.6; the applicant has not demonstrated that no reasonable alternative
location or alignment exists for the proposed streets within this proposed subdivision. The following proposed streets
will disturb critical slopes: Bundoran Farm Drive, Bundoran Farm Lane, Gooding Road, Sprouse Road, Carpenter
Drive, Quartz Hill Lane, Hightop Drive, and Long Arm Lane. The driveway access (2 lot subdivision) to Lot B 13
from Bundoran Farm Drive disturbs critical slopes.
A brief description and analysis of each street is provided.
37
Bundoran Farm Drive and Lane:
24.9 A.:: ?:12
f 23 2
AA Approximate length
A5 AC of Critical Slope
23.2 AC. Disturbance
i `• ti ... 4
74.4 AG.
Approximate
•4 r -
Limits of Fill Area
A7
■ - ;`I. nip
25,1 RC
26.3 AC.
A'a ;J. Approximate
LI.L
Limits fC t1 imi s o u Area
AG.
' End Point of
a Bundoran Farm
A15 Drive and Start
k 57,2 AC. Ly
r.. Point of Bundoran
.: -..._ g Farm Lane
s
. _u
91.0 Ac.
s,
r _ ,.. - ;'
As shown above, the proposed grading for these two streets will intrude upon three distinct areas of critical slopes.
These areas are labeled (A, B, Q in the picture. The critical slope disturbance far exceeds the amount stated by the
applicant when considering the required grading for this area. As shown above, the applicant has plenty of area
outside of critical slopes to construct the streets.
Engineering does not recommend a critical slope waiver for Bundoran Farm Drive and Lane.
'91 N
Gooding Road:
f
' f4 '
lr°
38
'• AC. -..
! U2 i
\ .;. 12.9 ,v G. - __ ?. 2$.•
ff ;
\. 40 R't
\ 10.1 AC
`'
Ds y
1� ■ iii �� �■ _ '_�". ",` ��.
Cb
C
21,11 AC� c�
1L 9 A- I
Critical Slope Disturbance Approx. Limits of Fill Area Approx. Limits of Cut Area
Gooding Road is an existing 10' wide asphalt access. Its current alignment is shown in the above picture. The
proposed street would be best suited to follow the current alignment of the access. This access will need to be
upgraded to meet the required VDOT Rolling Terrain Standards for this proposed street. This upgrade will require
the disturbance of critical slopes in this area.
Engineering recommends a critical slope waiver for Gooding Road.
Sprouse Road:
As shown on the next page, the proposed grading for this street will intrude upon a distinct area of critical slopes.
This area is labeled (A) in the picture. The critical slope disturbance is minimal and could be avoided with a reduction
in the proposed radius of the street. This street will required more critical slope disturbance than shown by the
applicant to accommodate the required VDOT Rolling Terrain Standards for this street. As shown in the picture, the
applicant has plenty of area outside of critical slopes to the north of the proposed alignment to construct the street.
Engineering does not recommend a critical slope waiver for Sprouse Road.
M
Sprouse Road:
Cq
38.1 AC.
c
23.
W.1 AC.
i L
1 1�
i
I
1
,
AC "
Critical Slope Disturbance Approx. Limits of Fill Area Approximate Areas of Cut Area
Carpenter Drive:
21.9 AC..
vV ii5 ;o eFlro' p 1
�Se tion 4 4a
Section 1 ^ ■/� _ T13
A %
i'�■ i
1 t3 2 27,8 AG,
t
F,4 �m
i3 7. C A °FFA x.
F. oA •�
■
E1 prox. lehgth of Critica lope
'>
F 11 isturbance
4,6 AC. 29 8 AC Approx. Limits of F' Area
Approx. Limits f Cut Area
A E12
As shown above, the proposed grading for these two sections of Carpenter Drive will intrude upon four distinct areas
of critical slopes. These areas are labeled (A, B, C, and D) in the picture. The critical slope disturbance far exceeds
the amount stated by the applicant when considering the required grading for this area. As shown above, the applicant
has plenty of area outside of critical slopes to construct the streets.
Engineering does not recommend a critical slope waiver for Carpenter Drive.
40
Quartz Hill Lane:
T. H I"
`4 4.4 AC.
4
24.E
R
h : � :.:TAB for
y`ro-.Fl 48
1.
Approximate Length of Critical
Slope Disturbance
Approximate Limits of Fill Area
Approximate Limits of Cut Area
As shown above, the proposed grading for Quartz Hill Lane will intrude upon three distinct areas of critical slopes.
These areas are labeled (A, B, C) in the picture. The critical slope disturbance far exceeds the amount stated by the
applicant when considering the required grading for this area. As shown above, critical slopes will be disturbed by
any street alignment to access this area. It appears the applicant could rearrange the proposed lot layout to provide
access to this area and maybe able to provide access outside of critical slopes to construct the streets.
Engineering does not recommend a critical slope waiver for Quartz Hill Lane.
Hh!htop Drive:
As shown on the next page, the proposed grading for Hightop Drive will intrude upon five distinct areas of critical
slopes. These areas are labeled (A, B, C, D, and E) in the picture. This alignment shown on the next page follows an
existing farm road. Section A is the existing dam and sections that adjoin the existing farm road. Section E will
include a stream crossing as well as a large proposed fill area. The critical slope disturbance far exceeds the amount
stated by the applicant when considering the required grading for this area. As shown, the applicant has plenty of area
outside of critical slopes to construct the streets.
Engineering does not recommend a critical slope waiver for Hightop Drive.
41
Hi2htob Drive:
7 6 fir.
F 5s ;5
51
�. Fi6 ".0 AG. 1
23.c A h13`' i
{ i M 24.3 A
{ •• _ - A
j H7
22.3 AC.
V �B�uS S.
One pos ible altemartive treet
`.route not I .cated- bV6rthe< am.
`r N}.:t. �.■ ..
Y f Hi 3 H16 Aporox. length of Cri 'c
D
,• �,.
Slope Disturbance
Approxi Limits of
�v
r 2 �' i Fill A a
H12 21.2 AC.
E 13.8 A..^ _.
ar
Long Arm Lane:
As shown on the next page, the proposed grading for Hightop Drive will intrude upon three distinct areas of critical
slopes. These areas are labeled (A, B, Q in the picture. Section B will include a stream crossing as well as a large
proposed fill area. The critical slope disturbance far exceeds the amount stated by the applicant when considering the
required grading for this area. As shown, critical slopes will be disturbed by any street alignment to access this area
as shown from Hightop Drive. It appears the applicant could rearrange the proposed lot layout to provide access to
this area outside of critical slopes to construct the streets.
Engineering does not recommend a critical slope waiver for Long Arm Lane.
42
Lone Arm Lane:
:.. .
4,3 Ate.
GN �r� i21x "1
13.5 A k
III`
Approximate Length of
Critical Slope Disturbance
V.
V.
r` Approximate Limits of
Fill Area
<.
H11..
22.- AC. , � Approximate Limits of
Cut Areas
t } T ae
Lot B13 Access:
Lot B 13 needs to access an internal subdivision street in accordance to County Code section 14 -404. The applicant is
showing this access from Bundoran Farm Drive through Lot B 14. This access will require the disturbance of critical
slopes.
Engineering recommends accessing Lot B 13 from Silo Hill Drive through an access easement through either Lots B 10
or B 11. It appears that this access can be provided without disturbing critical slopes.
This access is shown on the picture on the next page.
43
Lot B13 Access:
uyekr
k 1�
-814
811 Approximate Length oftritical °t.
'- V 28.9Ac. '.Slope Disturbance
B 4 �.
ti.x `s
B10 N.
:4
36.4 -AG.
'£ Alte ative access options
This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. A portion of
this subdivision is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005.
Based on the above review, there are engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the critical slopes as
shown on the plans.
Engineering recommends approval to the critical slope waiver for Gooding Road. Engineering recommends denial to
the waiver for all the remainder of the proposed streets.
REVIEW OF MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18 SECTION 4.2.2(A)(1) TO MODIFY THE
BUILDING SITE REQUIREMENTS.
Each lot is required to have a building site. The prior portions of this report address the inclusion of
slopes of 25% or greater in the building site. Each building site must also meet the area and shape
requirements of Chapter 18, Section 4.2.2(A)(1) which states:
Dwelling units. Each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an area of thirty thousand (30, 000)
square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a
ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. The
building site shall have adequate area for locating two (2) septic drain fields approved by the Virginia
Department of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter.
44
The shape of the building site may be modified administratively as provided for in Chapter 18, Section
4.2.2(A)(3) which states:
Modification or waiver. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5 of this chapter, the director of planning and
community development may modify or waive the rectangular shape required by subsections (1) and (2)
if, after receiving the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health, the director ofplanning
and community development finds, based on information provided by the developer, that: (i) the parcel
has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; (ii) no reasonable
alternative building site exists; and (iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less
degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to.
Each lot has been evaluated and an administrative waiver has not been granted for these lots, A11 and
H13. An administrative waiver cannot be granted because no preliminary recommendation on these lots
from the Health Department has been received. This failure to grant an administrative waiver may be
considered a denial. The Commission may grant a modification as provided for in Chapter 18, Section
4.2.2(A)(4) which states:
Appeal. A developer may appeal the denial of a modification or waiver to the planning commission and,
thereafter, to the board of supervisors, pursuant to section 4.2.5.
The applicant has submitted a request to modify the shape. A discussion of each lot follows.
LOT All
• 5
y�r.�upl� rr, r 5 Fyt' f ,' t
ti+ • i
N SFCFT 0
All
�f
I :f 4 ti4�
24.2. ,1, '4
_ k
Ir
if5
l xY R5 .�. r• #5 l -
w -�'-
`�i r-- .I ,� �.�ikh .;�1: i f • r Mfr � •5 .i •
This lot is proposed as a 24.2 acre lot. The building site proposed meets the 30,000 square foot
requirement. The shape does not meet the 5:1 ratio. As justification for the modification the applicant
has stated: "The location of the homesite on this lot was carefully selected based on topography and an
45
effort not to disrupt the views and character of the surrounding pasture land (in order to keep the
homesites out of viable agricultural lands). To keep the homesite where it accommodates the projects
objectives yet meets the required building site area, we've had to modify the shape of the rectangle
slightly although we've maintained the area of 30,000 sf within the designated building site."
The criteria for determining if a modification is appropriate are: (Staff comments in italics.)
(i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition;
Lot A11 is being created from a parent parcel that is 492 acres and while it does contain significant
areas of critical slopes it also contains significant buildable areas throughout the property.
(ii) no reasonable alternative building site exists; and
Significant buildable areas exist throughout the property.
(iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent
parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to.
Alternative lot configurations would allow for meeting the requirements of the ordinance. These
alternative configurations would have no greater impact than that currently generated by the proposed
subdivision. As a negative factor approval of this modification will allow the proposed building site
adjacent to an intermittent stream.
Based on the above findings, staff recommends denial of a modification of the building lot shape.
LOT H13
■
� — L�
.e
iM.X%r-
kI EX P3 -
I�MD.ti
� �• ~Y _F }J �
1
S
' 1
S
• 1.4
S
i 1
L7 JF r ■
X12
This lot is proposed as a 5.9 acre lot obtaining a development right from Tax Map 86, Parcel 13A which
is a 205 acre parent parcel. The building site proposed meets the 30,000 square foot requirement. The
shape does not meet the 5:1 ratio. As justification for the modification the applicant has stated: "The
location of the homesite is at the base of a hillock away from a nearby road. The site was carefully
selected in the field based on topography and an effort not to disrupt the views and character of the
surrounding landscape (and set back away from viable agricultural land). In order to keep the homesite
where it accommodates the projects objectives yet meets the required building site area, we've had to
modify the shape of the rectangle although we've maintained the area of 30,000 sf within the designated
building site."
(i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition;
Lot H13 is being created from a parent parcel of 205 acres. This parent parcel contains significant
areas of critical slopes and a perennial stream. The parent parcel has significant buildable areas
throughout the property.
(ii) no reasonable alternative building site exists; and
Significant buildable areas exist throughout the property.
(iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent
parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to.
Alternative lot configurations would allow for meeting the requirements of the ordinance. These
alternative configurations would have no greater impact than that currently generated by the proposed
subdivision.
Based on the above findings staff recommends denial of a modification of the building lot shape.
As a general comment on both of these modification requests staff offers the observation that use of the
Rural Preservation Development option will allow for the clustering of lots in areas suitable for
development. Large tracts of land suitable for agriculture and forestry could be preserved intact to
facilitate continued farming activity and preservation of forestall land.
SUMMARY:
Staff has made recommendations for the various waivers /modifications and private road authorization.
Based on the Commission's action, staff will act on the preliminary subdivision plat. Staff has previously
notified the applicant that as a condition of approval of the preliminary plat will be the removal of any lot
of less than 21 acres being created from Tax Map 86, Parcel 24D and Tax Map 87, Parcel 3 as these
parcels are within the Hardware Agricultural Forestal District.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Action letters for SP 421, SP- 1987 -109, SP- 1988 -90, SP- 1992 -19 and SP- 1996 -045.
C. Subdivision plat creating TMP 86 -16C1
D. Letter of Zoning Compliance
E. Applicant's request and justification for waivers and modifications
F. Section 14 -404 of the Subdivision Ordinance
G. Subdivision Plat
47
ATTACHMENT F
14 -404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway.
Each lot w-ithin a subdivision shall be located as follows:
A. Each lot, other than a career 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 drives -ay enters only onto a public street abutting
the subdivision if (1) the commission grants a waiver snider subsection (Q: (ii) the subdivi €ter obtains an
entrance permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation for the access; (iii) the entrance complies
ivith the design standards set forth in sections 14 -410(F) and 14-410(G): and (iv) the subdivider
demonstrates to the agent prior to approval of the final plat that the waiver does not violate any covenants
to be recorded for the subdivision- For pinposes of this section, the terns -reasonable access" means a
location for a drip, n ay or, if a driveway location is not provided, a location for a siutable foot path from
the parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance to the building site: the term " %within the subdiT-isian"
means within the exterior bou ndar�y lines of the lands being. divided.
B- If the subdivision is within the Waal 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 to
any public street -
C- The requirements of this section may be waned by the cormussion as provided in section
14- 225 -1- In reviewui lg a waiver request, the conuriission shall deter +tee whether: (i) the county engineer
recommends an alternative standard; or (ii) because of imusual size, topography, shape of the property-.
location of the property or other imusual 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- In appraling a walver, the commission shall fund that regiu'fm' g the standard
woidd not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the
waiver woidd not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the
area, to sound engineering practices, aind to the land adjacent thereto- In reviewing a waiver request, the
cornnussion may allow a substitute design of comparable quality- but differing from that required, if it finds
that the subdivider would achieve results which substantially satisfy the overall pinposes of this chapter in
a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the requirement-
.•