HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200500347 Staff Report 2006-08-22pF AL�
3�d t i
LrRc��ti�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: Sherwood Farms (Lots M1 &
Staff: David Pennock, Allan Shuck, Glenn
M2)— Private Street authorization request
Brooks
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
August 22, 2006
N/A
Owners: V.G. Sullivan, Elizabeth Pratt,
Applicant: V.G. Sullivan, Elizabeth Pratt,
Harold Igoe, Jr., Brenda P. Hawkins, et al
Harold Igoe, Jr., Brenda P. Hawkins, et al
Acreage: 4.225 Acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 76N, Subdivision 3, Parcel M
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas
Location: Mountain View Drive [Private] in
Sherwood Farms Subdivision
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Proffers /Conditions:
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: 2
DA RA - X
Proposal: Request for authorization to
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in
allow additional lots to access off of an
Rural Area 4
existing private street, with waivers of
street standards, in accordance with
Sections 14 -232 and 14 -234.
Character of Property:
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single -
family Residential
Factors Unfavorable: Generally staff finds
Factors Favorable:
that this request is not consistent with the
criteria of Section 14- 232(a) and 14- 234(c)
for granting a modification to allow private
streets in the rural areas.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial to the Commission of the requested waiver.
STAFF CONTACT: David E. Pennock, AICP; Allan Shuck, EIT; Glenn Brooks, PE
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 22, 2006
AGENDA TITLE: SUB 2005 -347: Sherwood Farms Lots M1 & M2 — Private Street
authorization request
PROPERTY OWNER: V.G. Sullivan, Elizabeth Pratt, Harold Igoe, Jr., Brenda P. Hawkins, et al
APPLICANT: V.G. Sullivan, Elizabeth Pratt, Harold Igoe, Jr., Brenda P. Hawkins, et al
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
Request for preliminary plat approval to create two (2) lots on 4.225 acres. The property is zoned Rural Areas,
RA. The property, described as Tax Map 76N, Section 3, Parcel M, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District on Mountain View Drive [Private] in the Sherwood Farms Subdivision. This proposal includes a request
for authorization to allow additional lots to access off of the existing private street. The current condition of
Mountain View Drive does not meet the private street standards specified in Section 14 -412 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. Thus, the applicants have also requested a waiver of the private street design requirements, as they
do not intend to upgrade the existing street.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SUB 921, SUB 82 -138, SUB 84 -127: This subdivision was approved in phases beginning in 1976, with
subsequent revisions as new land was added and to move lot lines. The most recent activity in proximity to Lot
M was in 1984 and 1986, which resulted in the creation of "Lots 1 through 5 ", including the adjacent lot.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 4.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
Approval of this application requires Planning Commission approval in order to utilize existing private streets, in
accordance with Section 14 -234 of the Subdivision Ordinance. As part of this analysis, staff has analyzed the
condition of the existing road, as well as the standards required by ordinance and those recommended by the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for similar roads. The applicant is also requesting to waive
these standards, which requires Planning Commission approval.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14 -232:
ENGINEERING REVIEW:
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has submitted a private road request for Sherwood Farms Subdivision. Engineering staff has
performed the following review:
Waiver and Ordinance Provisions:
The applicant has requested to use Mountain View Drive (private) with no additional improvements. The
following sections of the County Code have been reviewed as part of this request:
1. The authorization of private streets. [ 14- 232A.1 ]
2. A request to use the existing private street. [14 -234D]
3. The existing conditions of Mountain View Drive compared to the design standards of the private
street according to the VDOT Rolling Terrain Standard or the VDOT Mountainous Terrain
Standard. [14- 412A.3]
2
Compliance with Subdivision Ordinance section 14- 232A.1;
14 -232A. I (i) property in the Rural Areas or Village Residential zoning district:
The property is zoned Rural Areas.
14 -232A. I (ii) private road would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the
environment:
The applicant is proposing no improvements or construction activities related to the existing private street.
14- 232A.I (iii) no alternative public street alignment is available:
The existing private street currently exists to serve the entire subdivision. It appears that no alternative
public /private street alignment is available to serve this subdivision without redistributing the existing lot lines
of the subdivision through multiple parcels that are not in common ownership.
14 -232A. I (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 alignment does not affect the lot yield in this subdivision.
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:
The applicant has not demonstrated that a public street along the same alignment would increase earthwork by
more than 30 %. There is no difference between public and private standards or earthwork in this case.
14- 232A.1. (b),Environmental impacts including, but no limited to, erosion and sedimentation, stormwater
runoff, surface water pollution, loss of tree cover...:
In this case, environmental impacts, other than volume of earthwork, will be no different between a public road
and private road along the same alignment. Any stream buffer and critical slope disturbances would be the same.
Description of the existing private street:
Sherwood Farms Subdivision is served by an existing private street. The applicant has submitted an as -built road
plan showing the existing vertical grades and curvatures of the existing private street, Mountain View Drive.
Engineering staff has reviewed the as -built conditions in the field and as shown on the as -built road plans, dated
30 March 2006.
In accordance with the Albemarle County Code, Section 14 -412A (3)(A), "each private street serving six (6)
or more lots shall satisfy VDOT standards, provided:
For private streets in the rural areas, the commission may approve VDOT standards for mountainous
terrain if the subdivider demonstrates, identifiable reason, the general welfare, as opposed to the
proprietary interests of the subdivider, would be better served by the application of those standards.
The following table compares the two VDOT Public Street design standards to the existing conditions of the
private street:
VDOT Design
VDOT Design
Standards for Public
Standards for Public
Streets at Rolling
Streets at Mountainous
Existing Conditions of the
Terrain
Terrain
Private Street
Length in miles
0.663
0.663
0.663
Width of section (feet)
Min. pavement = 18 ft.
Min. pavement = 18 ft.
Pavement width varies from 12
Pavement +shoulder +shoulder
Min. shoulder = 4 ft.
Min. shoulder = 4 ft.
to 16 ft.
Total width = 26 feet
Total width = 26 feet
Shoulder width = 3 -4'
Total width= 18 -24 ft.
Right -of -way or easement
Min. R/W = 40 feet
Min. R/W — 40 feet
50 foot easement shown on plat
width
Stat.12 +00- 14 +50: 13.49%
Maximum grade
Max. grade = 10%
Max. grade = 16%
Stat.17 +00- 19 +00: 13.62%
Stat.27 +80- 29 +43: 15.01%
Minimum CL radius
Min. Radius = 120 ft
Min. Radius = 120 ft
Appears to exceed 120 ft radius
Min. Length = 6 ft.
Min. Length = 6 ft.
Minimum Clear Zone
(measured from
(measured from
Length varies from 2 to 8 ft.
pavement edge)
pavement edge)
Based on the review of Section 14- 232A.1, Engineering staff does not recommend that the private street request
be approved. Similarly, in accordance with Section 14- 234(D), Engineering recommends that improvements be
made to the existing private street so it will meet the requirements of Section 14- 412A.3(A), which are the
VDOT mountainous terrain standards.
SECTION 14 -234:
Per Section 14- 234(c), the Commission may authorize one or more private roads to be constructed in a
subdivision if it finds that one or more of the circumstances described in section 14 -232 exists and that:
The private road will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be
generated by the subdivision.
Based on the engineering analysis presented above, the current condition of the existing street is not adequate
to meet the standards required by the Subdivision Ordinance or by either of the applicable VDOT standards
for subdivision streets. Thus, it has not been demonstrated that the street will be adequate to carry any
additional traffic.
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the
proposed private road;
The Comprehensive Plan does not provide for a public street in the location of this private road.
3. The fee of the private road will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right -of -way thereof or
by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to any
easement for the benefit of all lots served by the road;
Section 14 -317 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that a maintenance agreement be submitted for review
by Planning Staff and the County Attorney in all situations where improvements are required to be
maintained. If this request is approved, a road maintenance agreement will be required for approval prior to
final plat recordation.
4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private road will not
serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location; and
The private road will not serve through traffic, nor intersect the state highway system in more than one
location.
5. If applicable, the private road has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood hazard
overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law.
Not applicable.
il
RECOMMENDATION:
Generally staff finds that this request is not consistent with the criteria of Section 14- 232(a) and 14- 234(c) for
granting a modification to allow private streets in the rural areas. Due to the inadequacies of the existing street, Staff
is unable to make the determination that the requirements outlined in Section 14- 234(c) regarding private streets have
been met. Thus, Staff recommends denial of the private street request as submitted.
Attachments:
A - Tax Map /Location Map
B - Site Plan Reduction
C - Applicant's Request and Justification
5