HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200600163 Staff Report 2006-08-22J ..JW t�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: Lake Ridge Preliminary
Staff: David Pennock, Allan Shuck
Subdivision
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
August 22, 2006
Not applicable
Owners: Pantops — Lakeridge, LLC
Applicant: Southern Development
Acreage: 252.72
Rezone from: Not applicable
(80.75ac. R -1, 82.97ac. RA, 89ac. PRD)
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 78, Parcel 57
By -right use: RA, R -1, and PRD — Single -
Location: proposed access from Fontana
family residential
Drive [Route #1765].
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Proffers /Conditions:
Requested # of Dwelling Lots: 104
DA — 80.75 acres RA — 171.97 acres
Proposal: Applicant proposes subdivision
Comp. Plan Designation: The
served by Public Streets. The current plan
Comprehensive Plan designates this property
requires multiple waivers.
as, in part, Neighborhood Density in
Development Areas Neighborhood 3 and, in
part, Rural Areas in Rural Area 1.
Character of Property: This property is
Use of Surrounding Properties: Adjacent to
mostly wooded and fairly steep. No existing
multiple residential subdivisions, including
structures are on the site.
Franklin, Ashcroft West, Cascadia, and
Fontana.
Factors Favorable: (multiple — see report)
Factors Unfavorable: (multiple — see report)
RECOMMENDATION:
Subdivision Ordinance Waivers:
1. Waiver of Section 14- 410(1) — installation of curb and gutter (recommendation, denial)
2. Waiver of Section 14- 422(E) — installation of sidewalks (recommendation, denial)
3. Modification of Section 14- 422(F) — installation of planting strips (recommendation, denial)
4. Waiver of Section 14- 409(A) — interconnection of streets (recommendation, denial)
Zoning Ordinance Waivers:
5. Waiver of Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes (recommendation, denial)
6. Section 4.7 — approval of Open space (recommendation, approval)
Other Actions (Subdivision Ordinance):
7. Section 14 -220 — Approval of the preliminary subdivision plat (recommendation, denial)
STAFF PERSON: David E. Pennock, AICP; Allan Schuck, EIT
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 22, 2006
AGENDA TITLE: SUB 2006 -163 Lake Ridge Preliminary Plat
APPLICANT: Southern Development
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Pantops — Lakeridge, LLC
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval to create 104 lots with internal public
streets on 163.72 acres, with open space, within a 252.72 acre parcel (Attachment A). The property is zoned R -1,
Residential (80.75 acres), RA, Rural Areas (82.97 acres), and PRD, Planned Residential District (89 acres). The
PRD zoned portion of the property is not a part of the current request. The property is described as Tax Map 78,
Parce157. It is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District at the end of the proposed Fontana Drive (Rte. #1765).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as, in part, Neighborhood Density in Development Areas
Neighborhood 3 and, in part, Rural Areas in Rural Area 1.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: This proposal is a by -right subdivision, and so would
typically be reviewed and approved administratively. However, the applicant has requested waivers of Ordinance
requirements for interconnection, provision of curb & gutter, sidewalks, and planting strips, and disturbance of
critical slopes. The subdivision also proposes open space. Therefore, the Commission must act on each of the
waivers as well as the appropriateness of the open space.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
This parcel included a very large area; thus, much of the history is now associated with other projects.
ZMA 1994 -006 — North Pantops, LLC — Portions of the property currently under review were zoned to R -1.
Property over 600 feet in elevation was not; elevations over 600 feet are now considered to be in the Rural Areas.
SUB 2004 -103, SUB 2005 -180 — Lakeridge — These are previous preliminary plat submittals for similar projects
to the current proposal. Both have since been withdrawn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZMA 1979 -027, ZMA 1988 -004, ZMA 1997 -002 — Initiated and twice amended a plan for the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) (formerly known as RPN); this area is still part of this property, but is not part of
the subject proposal.
SUB 2005 -091— Ashcroft West — This is a preliminary subdivision plat for the PRD zoned portion of the
property. This subdivision plat received preliminary approval for 28 lots.
SUB 1997 -036, SUB 1998 -062, SUB 1998 -273, SUB 1999 -082, SUB 1999 -088 — These are the approvals for the
preliminary and final plats for Fontana, Phases 1A, 113, 2A, and 213, which were formerly part of this property.
SP 1997 -034 — Special Permit approval for Frost Motessori School
SDP 1997 -078 — Preliminary Site Plan approval for Frost Montessori School
2
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission will need to act on several waiver requests, and make findings on the appropriateness
of the proposed Open Space (Attachment D). This staff report is organized to address each issue separately. The
Commission must act on all of the items. The items to be addressed are:
Subdivision Ordinance
1. Waiver of Section 14- 410(I) — installation of curb and gutter
2. Waiver of Section 14- 422(E) — installation of sidewalks
3. Modification of Section 14- 422(F) — installation of planting strips
4. Waiver of Section 14- 409(A) — inter - connection of streets
Zoning Ordinance
5. Waiver of Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes
6. Section 4.7 - approval of Open space
7. Section 14 -220 — review of the preliminary subdivision plat
1. CURB AND GUTTER
Section 14- 410(H) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that "In the development areas, streets shall be
constructed with curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips. Sidewalk and planting strips shall be
designed and constructed in compliance with section 14 -422. " The applicant is requesting a waiver from this
requirement due to several factors (see Attachment Q. In summary, the justifications are:
1. The proposed road network is through Fontana Drive. Fontana Drive is a rural cross section.
2. This design is directly compatible with all other roads in Fontana and Ashcroft Subdivision.
3. Use of a rural road section will generate less impervious surface and reduce the grading impact.
4. The design will "facilitate a certain degree of runoff water ug antity attenuation due to post developed time
of concentration not being as reduced as pipe flow and water ug alitX control as grass -lined channel may
be considered a type of BMP ".
5. The Fontana Homeowners' Association is not in favor of curb and gutter.
REVIEW OF MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 14 -410: "Standards for all streets and alleys"
Section 14- 410(H) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires streets in the development areas to be constructed with
curb or curb and gutter. Section 14- 410(I) allows the Planning Commission to waive the requirements as
provided in section 14- 225.1. The applicant has submitted the required information for the waiver request. Staff
analysis of 14- 410(I) is contained below:
Consideration and findings:
(i) the number of lots in the subdivision and the types of lots to be served;
This plat will create an additional 104 single- family detached lots. Only 7 of these lots are in the Rural Areas;
the remainder are R -1 lots with a proposed density of 1.21 dwelling units per acre.
(ii) the length of the street;
The total length of the proposed streets is approximately 8900 linear feet.
(iii) whether the proposed street(s) or street extension connects into an existing system of streets
constructed to a rural cross- section;
The connection will be made to Fontana Drive. The portion of Fontana Drive that serves this property is part
of Fontana, Section 4, which is also currently under review. The applicant for that project has requested to
use a rural cross - section. Staff has required curb and gutter — a waiver for that portion of the road is also
pending. The existing roads in Fontana Subdivision do not have curb and gutter.
No other connections are proposed. Staff has requested a second connection, in accordance with Section
32.7.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, as the development serves more than 50 units. The applicant has requested
a waiver from that requirement. However, if the waiver is not granted, the most likely second connection is
an extension of Bache Lane to Franklin Drive. Franklin Drive has a rural cross section.
(iv) the proximity of the subdivision and the streets to the boundaries of the development and rural areas;
The proposed subdivision straddles the boundary between the Development and Rural Areas. As mentioned
above, 97 of the proposed lots are within the Development Areas and access to other developments in the
Development Areas. Seven (7) other lots are in the Rural Areas, as well as the unused portion of this parcel,
which is zoned as a Planned Residential District.
(v) whether the street terminates in the neighborhood or at the edge of the development area or is
otherwise expected to provide interconnections to abutting lands;
The proposed street extension will connect to a neighborhood in the Development Areas. A second point of
access, if required, will connect to streets in the Rural Areas.
(vi) whether a rural cross - section in the development areas furthers the goals of the comprehensive plan,
with particular emphasis on the neighborhood model and the applicable neighborhood master plan;
The neighborhood model recommends "neighborhood- friendly streets and paths" that provide curb and gutter,
as well as sidewalk. Although adjacent subdivisions do not currently have these, this development is large
enough to develop its own identity.
(vii) whether the use of a rural cross- section would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model
to be more fully implemented;
Neighborhood Model design standard also encourage "site planning that respects the terrain ". An
Engineering review of this proposal analyzed whether the rural cross section would be as effective in this
respect as curb and gutter. The conclusion is that the site runoff can be handled more effectively and be less
intrusive to the steep terrains by using curbing as opposed to the ditch section proposed by the applicant. In
addition, the street and gutter street design will assist with the applicant's conceptual SWM plan. To
summarize, both of these issues are most affected by the relatively steep terrain and dense development
pattern (see Attachment F). Further, the applicant is requesting a critical slopes waiver. Should that waiver
be granted, one of the conditions of approval is to provide curb and gutter in order to limit the impact of the
projected run-off.
(viii) whether the proposed density of the subdivision is consistent with the density recommended in the
land use plan section of the comprehensive plan.
The land use plan calls for at least three (3) units per acre in the R -1 zoned portion of the property. This
development will provide approximately 1.2 dwellings per acre in the R -1 section. The remaining seven (7)
lots will be between 2.8 acres and 21 acres in size.
Elaine Echols, in her analysis of an adjacent property, provided this comment :
"When this consideration was added to the list of considerations, the recommending committee to the Board
was concerned that applicants might decline to develop in accordance with the densities of the
Comprehensive Plan and seek waivers to do conventional development. The committee thought that
providing low density inside the Development Areas was not a sufficient reason to grant a waiver for curb and
gutter. If the Commission did not grant the waiver, developers might choose to provide greater density to
help recoup their cost for the added infrastructure and provide a form of development more in keeping with
the Neighborhood Model."
In approving a waiver, the commission shall find that requiring curb & gutter would not forward the purposes of
this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices and to the land
adjacent thereto.
RECOMMENDATION: The use of curb and gutter will assist with the containment of the road drainage and
direct the flow more efficiently to the proposed SWM facility. In addition, given the large number of lots and the
steepness of the roadways, the proposed ditches are more difficult to maintain without excessive erosion. Each of
these maintenance issues is present in the Fontana Subdivision, which was developed prior to the adoption by the
4
County of the requirement of curb and gutter provision. Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the
required criteria and recommends Planning Commission denial of the waiver based on the findings provided
herein.
2. SIDEWALKS
This proposal would not provide sidewalks on either side of the street. Section 14 -422 of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that "Sidewalks and planting strips for street trees and other vegetation shall be established
on both sides of each new street within a subdivision creating lots for single family detached and single family
attached dwellings in the development areas. "
REVIEW OF MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 14 -422: "Sidewalks and planting strips"
Section 14- 422(A) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires sidewalks be established on both sides of each new
street within a subdivision in the development areas. Section 14- 422(E) allows the Planning Commission to
waive the requirements as provided in section 14- 225.1. The applicant has submitted the required information for
the waiver request. Staff analysis of 14- 422(E) is contained below:
Consideration and findings:
(i) a waiver to allow a rural cross- section has been granted;
See prior section.
(ii) a surface other than concrete is more appropriate for the subdivision because of the character of the
proposed subdivision and the surrounding neighborhood;
No alternative is proposed by the applicant.
(iii) sidewalks on one side of the street are appropriate due to environmental constraints such as stream,
stream buffer, critical slopes, floodplain, or wetlands, or because lots are provided on only one side
of the street;
There are no engineering issues that prevent the construction of sidewalks in this subdivision. No
environmental constraints have been identified.
(iv) the sidewalks reasonably can connect into an existing or future pedestrian system in the area;
The adjacent subdivisions do no currently have sidewalks to connect with this subdivision. There are paths
through open space areas in adjacent subdivisions. Paths in the proposed Lake Ridge subdivision are
intended to intersect these paths. However, this system is only intended to provide access to the open space
and not intended as a sidewalk.
(v) the length of the street is so short and the density of the development is so low that it is unlikely that
the sidewalk would be used to an extent that it would provide a public benefit;
The portion of this project that is within the Development Areas is 97 lots at a density of 1.21 units per acre.
The sidewalks and pedestrian paths together would comprise more than two (2) miles (one way). At the
proposed level of density and distance, the sidewalk could be used even if it didn't immediately tie in to
neighboring subdivisions.
(vi) an alternate pedestrian system including an alternative pavement could provide more appropriate
access throughout the subdivision and to adjoining lands, based on a proposed alternative profile
submitted by the subdivider;
No alternative is proposed by the applicant.
(vii) the sidewalks would be publicly or privately maintained;
No sidewalks are proposed.
(viii) the waiver promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan, the neighborhood model, and the
applicable neighborhood master plan;
The waiver will not promote the goals of the neighborhood model. Arguably, the lessened impact on the
environment due to construction of the sidewalk may relate to the Neighborhood Model principle of "site
planning that respects the terrain ".
(ix) waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be more
fully achieved.
Waiving the requirements would not forward the goals of the neighborhood model. "Pedestrian oriented
neighborhoods" and "neighborhood friendly streets and paths" are both design goals of the Neighborhood
Model.
In approving a waiver, the commission shall find that requiring sidewalks would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices and to the land
adjacent thereto.
RECOMMENDATION: There are no engineering issues that prevent the construction of sidewalks in this
subdivision. Although the adjoining subdivisions do not currently have sidewalks, the number of lots, density,
and length of streets in this proposed subdivision are sufficient that the sidewalk may be useful to residents. Staff
recommends Planning Commission denial of the waiver based on the findings provided herein.
3. PLANTING STRIP
This proposal would not provide planting strips on either side of the street, but would provide street trees. Section
14 -422 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that "Sidewalks and planting strips for street trees and other
vegetation shall be established on both sides of each new street within a subdivision creating lots for single family
detached and single family attached dwellings in the development areas. " Although they are not currently shown
on the plan, the applicant has indicated that they are willing to provide street trees at the required spacing.
However, they prefer to provide the plants in tree - specific easements, rather than a planting strip.
REVIEW OF MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 14 -422: "Sidewalks and planting strips"
Section 14- 422(A) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires planting strips be established on both sides of each new
street within a subdivision in the development areas. Section 14- 422(F) allows the Planning Commission to
waive the requirements as provided in section 14- 225.1. The applicant has submitted the required information for
the waiver request. Staff analysis of 14- 422(F) is contained below:
Consideration and findings:
(i) a waiver to allow a rural cross - section has been granted;
See prior section.
(ii) a sidewalk waiver has been granted;
See prior section.
(iii) reducing the size of or eliminating the planting strip promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan,
the neighborhood model, and the applicable neighborhood master plan;
The planting strip is defined as a strip six (6) feet in width that is located between the paved travelway and the
sidewalk. If the above waivers are granted, there will be no curb or sidewalk. In that circumstance, smaller
easements around each tree may be more appropriate.
(iv) waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be more
fully achieved.
None identified.
In approving a waiver, the commission shall find that requiring planting strips would not forward the purposes of
this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, and to the land adjacent thereto.
RECOMMENDATION: There are no identified issues that prevent the construction of planting strips in this
subdivision. Therefore, staff recommends the construction of planting strips for this subdivision and denial of the
modification request. However, in the event that the waivers for curb and gutter and sidewalk are granted, staff
recommends approval of a modification to allow the provision of smaller easements instead of a planting strip.
4. INTERCONNECTION
Due to the large number of lots in this development (104 total lots), staff requested the provision of a connection
to the adjacent parcel during the review of the preliminary subdivision plat for this project. A likely location, and
one that has been shown on previous versions of this project, is an extension of Bache Lane to Franklin Road.
The applicant requested a waiver from this requirement (attachment D).
The Commission is empowered to grant the waiver for 14 -409 (A) after consideration of the following:
(i) the engineering requirements for coordination and connection
The existing topography allows the extension to Franklin Drive to be made easily. There are no existing
critical slopes, stream buffers, or drainage concerns that would prohibit the connection to be made to
Franklin Drive.
(ii)whether the need for coordination and connection outweighs the impacts on environmental resources
such as streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, and floodplain
No impact on the environmental resources listed above is expected with the connection.
(iii) whether the street would and should be extended into the rural areas
The street would not extend into the rural areas, assuming that the connection to Franklin follows the
previously proposed layout.
(iv) whether there is an alternative street connection from another location in the subdivision that is
preferable because of design, traffic flow, or the promotion of the goals of the comprehensive plan,
including the Neighborhood Model, and the applicable neighborhood master plan
Other connections that have been proposed previously, including to Ashcroft West, have involved extending
streets in to the Rural Areas. This connection attempts to avoid a similar situation.
(v) whether the waiver would enable a different principle of the Neighborhood Model to be satisfied to a
greater extent so that the overall goals of the Neighborhood Model are more fully achieved
A different principle of the Neighborhood Model would not more fully be achieved by approving the waiver.
(vi) In approving a waiver, the commission shall find that requiring coordination would not forward the
purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest, and granting the waiver would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound
engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto
See "recommendation" below
RECOMMENDATION:
One of the goals of the Neighborhood Model is to provide a clear buffer between the Rural Areas and the
Development Areas. The split -zoned nature of this property makes this difficult. However, it is possible to limit
the connections from this subdivision, which is primarily in the Development Areas, to other developments in the
Development Areas. As the boundary between Rural and Development Areas is based on an elevation, the line
meanders. However, if a connection were provided as an extension of Bache Lane, the bulk of the road, if not the
entirety of the road (depending on design) would be within the Development Areas. Given the potential safety
concerns of limiting access for such a large number of dwellings, and without engineering issues that prohibit the
connection, Staff finds that this request is inconsistent with the criteria for granting a modification. Therefore,
staff recommends denial to the Commission of a modification of Section 14- 409(A).
5. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER
A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the preliminary plat can be approved by the
Planning Commission. The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning
aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing
activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The
applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment C), and staff has analyzed this
request to address the provisions of the ordinance.
Critical slopes cover approximately 34.9 acres, or 21 percent, of the 163.48 acres included in this request. This
request is to disturb 6.46 acres, or 18 percent, of these critical slopes. The critical slopes in the area of this request
do not appear to be man -made. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the concerns that are
set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Critical Slopes." These concerns have been addressed
directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the
Ordinance each pertains to.
The Open Space Plan is the primary tool used by staff to identify aesthetic resources. The maps in the Open
Space Plan include inventory maps which show all resources. The composite map indicates those resources that
are of the highest significance or are part of a system forming a significant resource, such as a stream valley or
mountain range. The Open Space Plan shows "slopes > 25 %" on this property on the "Inventory Map 1 ".
However, they are not reflected on the "Composite Map ". This property is represented as part of an important
wooded area, though. Based on the content of the Open Space Plan, staff opinion is that the critical slopes on this
site do not represent a significant resource. However, other aesthetic resources related to the wooded area are
represented
Section 4.2.5(a)
Review of the request by Current Development En$!ineerinj! staff:
The critical slope area, within TMP 78 -57, appears to be natural slopes. The critical slope disturbances are in the
form of subdivision construction; single family residences, driveways, streets, stormwater facilities, and water and
sanitary sewer lines.
Areas
Acres
Total site in Lake Ridge
143.48
Critical slopes
34.9
Approx. 24% of site area
Critical slopes disturbed
6.46
Approx. 18.5% of critical
slopes will be disturbed
Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed:
1. "movement of soil and rock ": The applicant will need to provide an erosion and sediment control plan for
controlling the movement of soil and rock involved with the proposed construction. An overall site
grading plan should be required for this project. The proposed grading for this subdivision area is intensive,
at times, in critical slopes. An overall grading plan can ensure that perimeter and interior erosion and
sediment control measures will be designed, built, and inspected effectively. The adjoining Fontana
Subdivision is located in similar topography and terrain. Fontana Subdivision was required to submit
individual lot grading plans in addition to the standard ESC plans. Due to the erosion problems in Fontana,
staff suggests that an overall grading plan will be more effective in preventing similar problems.
2. "excessive stormwater run- off ": The applicant has provided information concerning how the stormwater
runoff will be controlled by the drainage and stormwater management plan proposed for this subdivision.
The stormwater management concepts are not finalized and are expected to change. Also, based on the
County's experience with the Fontana Subdivision, which has problems with ditches, steep slopes and
driveways, and lot to lot drainage problems, the use of curb and gutter for the proposed roadways would
significantly help with the concern for excessive stormwater run -off and its impacts.
3. "siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water ": There is an existing intermittent stream located
along the western property line. This area of critical slope disturbance is recognized as being imperative to
providing access to the subdivision. The applicant will need to demonstrate proposed means or methods of
preventing siltation occurring where the road will cross the intermittent stream.
4. "loss of aesthetic resource ": This site is visible from many areas in Charlottesville, but most notably,
Route 20 North, Darden Towe Park, and portions of the Fontana and Ashcroft Subdivisions. It is noted that
the applicant has requested an increase in density for "maintenance of existing wooded areas" (see Section
7). As mentioned previously, the applicant has shown a "Tree Preservation Area" on the preliminary plat.
However, without a detailed grading plan, including stormwater management and erosion control, it is
expected that large portions of the tree preservation areas in the ravines will not be preserved.
5. "septic effluent ": No septic systems or drainfields are proposed in this project. This site is accessible to
the public sanitary sewer system.
This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. No areas of
this site are located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Map 51003CO287D & 295D dated 04
February 2005.
Based on the above review, there are engineering concerns about the disturbance of the critical slopes. An overall
grading plan, with erosion control provisions, and more detailed stormwater management grading would need to
be provided to assess the actual proposed disturbances to critical slopes, and the actual tree preservation areas.
Even with this information, the engineering recommendation will still be to provide curb - and - gutter streets to
control the runoff from this mountainside development.
It is noted that the bonus density computation and final number of lots are still to be decided based on expected
disturbances and final agreement with regard to the tree preservation areas.
Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff:
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding
comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section
4.2.5(b) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions.
The commission may modem 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 (Added 11- 15 -89)
This parcel is relatively visible from adjoining developments. In addition, there are a large number of
proposed critical slopes disturbances. Further, although these slopes are not part of a system, as identified
on the Critical Resources Map in the Open Space Plan, the area is identified as an "important wooded
area ". Staff finds that a strict application of the requirements set forth in Section 4.2 would forward the
purposes of this chapter and otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare.
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other unusual
conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of section 4.2 would
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant
degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or be
contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
Denial of this waiver would not prohibit or restrict the use of the property. However, some significant
redesign would be necessary, which may result in reduction of scale of the project.
Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose ofgreater import than would be
served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89)
This property is primarily in the Development Areas, and represents a low density residential
development in an area designated on the Comprehensive Plan for medium density residential. As such, a
change in zoning on the property would more effectively provide for the recommended development.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is not able to find that any of the provisions of Section 4.2.5(b) have been met.
Thus, staff is not able to recommend approval to the Commission of a waiver of Section 4.2.3.
If the Commission finds that the findings in the previous section have been met and therefore approves the
requested waiver, staff the following condition is suggested:
1. An overlot grading plan must be provided for the entire subdivision meeting the criteria listed in the
proposed 20 April 2005 draft of the subdivision ordinance. (It is noted that the overlot grading section was
not in the adopted version of the Subdivision Ordinance.) Lot grading is to minimize disturbance of critical
slopes.
6. OPEN SPACE
This development proposes open space. This open space is voluntary and not required by any provision of the
ordinance. Open Space is not allowed in the Rural Areas. Thus, the open space is all in the R -1 zoned portions of
this project. A total of 24.86 acres, or 30 percent of the R -1 zoned property, is proposed for open space.
All open space must be authorized by the Planning Commission. Section 4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance below
requires that appropriateness of open space be assessed as follows:
4.7.1 OPEN SPACE, INTENT
Open space provisions are intended to encourage development approaches reflective of the guidelines of
the comprehensive plan by permitting flexibility in design. More specifically, open space is intended to
serve such varied comprehensive plan objectives as:
- Provision of active /passive recreation;
- Protection of areas sensitive to development;
- Buffering between dissimilar uses; and
- Preservation of agricultural activity.
10
To this end, in any rezoning, subdivision plat, or site development plan proposing inclusion of open space
areas, the commission shall consider the appropriateness ofsuch areas for the intended usage in terms of
such factors as location, size, size, shape and topographic characteristics.
(1) Most of the proposed open space is indicated as "tree preservation" areas. As indicated in the previous
section (critical slopes), some of this property is shown as an "important wooded area" on the Critical
Resources Plan. Thus, this appears to be an appropriate use. Paths are proposed through each section of
open space and linking the sections together. This type of passive recreation is appropriate in conjunction
with the proposed tree preservation.
(2) The applicant's open space plan identifies many areas of critical slopes as part of the proposed open space
area.
(3) There are no dissimilar uses adjacent to this development to buffer. However, there are adjacent portions
of the property (and within the property) that are in the Rural Areas. Two areas of the open space will
buffer between the Development Areas and the Rural Areas. The proposed roadway will provide a buffer
between other portions of each. Despite this, three (3) Rural Areas lots will be adjacent to 14
Development Area lots with no buffer.
(4) This proposal does not preserve agricultural activity. This will be an urban open space system.
(5) The location of the open space is appropriate in that it provides protection of critical slopes, conservation
of existing trees, and drainage area.
(6) The proposal includes approximately 24.86 acres, or 30 percent of the R -1 zoned property.
(7) The shape of the open space does not appear to pose any detriment to the development. Open spaces are
connected to each other and have points of access to the proposed public streets.
(8) The bulk of the proposed Open Space is critical slopes areas.
4.7.2 USES PERMITTED IN OPEN SPACE
Unless otherwise permitted by the commission in a particular case, open space shall be maintained in a
natural state and shall not be developed with any man -made feature. Where deemed appropriate by the
commission, open space may be used for one or more of the following uses subject to the regulations of
the zoning district in which the development is located:
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries including appropriate structures;
-Game preserve, wildlife sanctuaries and the like;
- Noncommercial recreational structures and uses;
- Public utilities;
-Wells and septic systems for emergency use only (reference 4.1.7) (Amended 6- 31 -81)
- Stormwater detention and flood control devices.
There are proposed easements for public water and sewer line and fiber optic lines located in the proposed open
space as well as a proposed stormwater management facility.
4.7.3 OPENSPACE, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (Amended 11- 15 -89)
4.7.3.1 In addition to provisions of section 4.7.1 and section 4.7.2, in reviewing development proposing
incorporation of open space, the commission may require inclusion in such open space of:
11
(Amended 11- 15 -89)
- areas deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development such as but not limited to: land in the one
hundred year flood plain and significant drainage swales; land in slopes of twenty -five (25) percent or
greater; major public utility easements; storm-water detention and flood control devices; lands having
permanent or seasonally high water table; (Amended 11- 15 -89)
- areas to satisfy provisions of section 4.16 Recreation Regulations; (Added 11- 15 -89)
- areas to provide reasonable buffering between dissimilar uses within such development and between
such development and adjoining properties. (Added 11- 15 -89)
4.7.3.2 The commission may require redesign ofsuch proposed development to accommodate open space areas
as may be required under this provision; provided that, in no case, shall such redesign result in reduction
of the total number ofproposed dwellings unit otherwise realizable under this ordinance for conventional
development. (Added 11- 15 -89)
(1) There is no flood plain in the open space or on the property.
(2) Large areas of critical slopes are shown in the proposed open space.
(3) Sewer, water, and fiber optic easements are proposed through portions of the open space.
(4) A stormwater management facility is proposed in Open Space Parcel A.
(5) The soils located in the open space are shown to support seasonally high water tables as defined in Table
39D Soil and Water Features of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service,
Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985.
(6) Recreational areas are not required or proposed.
(7) Some of the open space provides a reasonable buffer with Rural Area lots. Other areas of open space
provide a significant buffer with the adjoining Fontana Subdivision.
Cl��fll.% %.11:7CY__: /C11Z.7[IZ »/��/CY__7C/►�I
Open space in private ownership shall be protected by legal arrangements sufficient to ensure its
maintenance andpreservation for purposes for which it is intended. Such arrangements shall be subject
to commission approval as apart of the site development plan and /or subdivision plat approval process.
Open space may be dedicated to public use subject to approval and acceptance by separate resolution of
the board of supervisors. Open space so dedicated shall be counted as apart of the minimum required
open space.
All of the open space shown on the plat is proposed to be in private ownership, and will be maintained by a
homeowners association.
This open space is not required. However, it will provide tree preservation, buffering with Fontana Subdivision
and with some portions of the Rural Areas, and a proposed path. Based on the analysis presented above, Staff
recommends that the Commission find the proposed open space appropriate for the proposed development.
7. REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT
This application has been requested for review by an adjacent property owner (Attachment G). Thus, the
Planning Commission must consider the merits of the plat in accordance with Section 14 -220 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
STAFF COMMENT:
12
This project has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee and can be approved subject to Planning
Commission review. However, multiple waivers have been requested, as presented in the previous six (6)
sections of this report. Currently, these items are the most critical issues outstanding.
The land shown on the preliminary plat as RA, PRD, and Residue is not included in this approval. An application
plan was approved on the portion of the property shown as PRD zoning. No connection between that site and this
site are proposed. The main reason for this is as an attempt to maintain a clear separation between the Rural
Areas and the Development Areas, in accordance with the neighborhood model design guidelines.
The layout of Lakeridge also attempted to provide separation between Development and Rural Areas lots where
appropriate. However, the boundary between the Rural Areas and Development Areas is based on the 600 -ft
elevation contour. Thus, the boundary meanders erratically. In order to maintain a consistency within the
subdivision and to provide continuity of development, not all contrasting lot types are clearly separated.
However, the location of the proposed roadway and large areas of open space provide a buffer in most places.
The remaining 14 Development Area lots back up to three (3) Rural Area lots. These three lots are between three
(3) and five (5) acres in size. In addition, the most likely building sites on these lots are closer to the proposed
street, and thus farther from the proposed R -1 lots.
The applicant is utilizing a by -right bonus density in the R -1 portion of the property due to provision of
landscaping, tree preservation, and an internal public road network. However, it is noted that the bonus density
computation and final number of lots are still to be decided based on expected disturbances and final agreement
with regard to the tree preservation areas and approval of the open space. The reason for this is that the
engineering staff recommends that the proposed "tree preservation area" be minimized by at least 20 percent to
accurately accommodate the area required for grading and erosion and sediment control measures needed for the
proposed project. As shown on the preliminary plat, it appears that the applicant cannot save the entirety of the
18.67 acres currently shown as "tree preservation area ".
Finally, it should be noted that the Land Use Plan calls for a density of 3 -5 units per acre. There is potential that
the property may be developed at a higher density if it is rezoned. As noted in the "interconnection" section of
the report, pursuing multiple waivers to develop at a lesser density is a consideration of the Board in this type of
review.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that this request is inconsistent with the criteria presented in the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance.
However, if the waivers and modifications above are granted, the current layout appears to meet the requirements
of the Ordinance. Thus, recommends denial to the Commission of the preliminary subdivision plat. However, if
the Commission grants the appropriate waivers and feels that the plat is acceptable otherwise, Staff recommends
the following conditions:
❑ 1. Current Development Engineer approval to include review of all applicable items as specified in the
Design Standards Manual, as well as:
❑ a. Stormwater management facilities shall be sited to capture, to the maximum extent practical, the
runoff from the entire land development project area. A SWM facility will likely be required
for the impervious areas located around Lots 1 -8.
❑ b. The locations of the SWM facilities need to be as far removed as possible from the buildable
area of each residential lot.
❑ c. The applicant needs to submit the removal rate computations and project drainage area maps as
described in the design standards manual to support the conceptual SWM/BMP plan.
❑ d. Applicant must provide information showing the drainage areas related to the BMP removal
requirements.
13
❑ e. Applicant must show the conceptual grading for the proposed SWM BMP facility located west
of Lot 97.
❑ f. Written VDOT approval will be required to allow the fill placement for the road to be used as
part of the SWM facility.
❑ 2. The applicant needs to provide a letter of intent for all required offsite easements required with this
preliminary plat: the access easement from Fontana Drive and the offsite grading easements.
❑ 3. Bonus density provision in the R -1 section of the plan is subject to change based on the accurate
representation of the areas of trees to be saved.
❑ 4. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of plans for all State maintained portions of the property
and entrances into the site from these accessways.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission will need to act on several waiver requests and make findings on the appropriateness
of the proposed Open Space. Staff recommendations are as follows:
Subdivision Ordinance Waivers:
1. Waiver of Section 14- 410(I) — installation of curb and gutter (recommendation, denial)
2. Waiver of Section 14- 422(E) — installation of sidewalks (recommendation, denial)
3. Modification of Section 14- 422(F) — installation of planting strips (recommendation, denial)
4. Waiver of Section 14- 409(A) — interconnection of streets (recommendation, denial)
Zoning Ordinance Waivers:
5. Waiver of Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes (recommendation, denial)
6. Section 4.7 — approval of Open space (recommendation, approval)
Other Actions (Subdivision Ordinance):
7. Section 14 -220 — Approval of the preliminary subdivision plat (recommendation, denial)
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Preliminary Plat
B. Location/Detail Maps
C. Applicant's Request and Justification
D. Open Space Map
E. Excerpt from Review by Allan Shuck, Engineer
F. Letter from Adjacent Property Owner
G. Proffers — ZMA 94 -06
14