The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB200600224 Staff Report 2006-09-19COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SUB 2006 — 224 Rolling Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Bill Fritz, and Meadows Jonathan Sharp Public Hearing: September 19, 2006 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: (not applicable) Owners: Victor F. Pascarella Applicant: Victor F. Pascarella Acreage: 18.62 acres Rezone from: NA Special Use Permit for: NA TMP: 05600 -00 -00 -11200 By -right use: Rural Area Uses Location: On the south side of Route 250 west behind the Greenwood Motel. Magisterial District: Whitehall Proffers /Conditions: Proposal: The creation of 4 lots served by a Requested # of Dwelling Units: 4 lots are private street. proposed RA (Rural Area): Rural Area 3 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Area 3 Character of Property: Mixture of open Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural area and woodland. Residential is located to the east. The Greenwood Motel and one dwelling are located to the north. All other properties are wooded. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: SUB 2006 — 224 Rolling Meadows APPLICANT: Victor F. Pascarella PROPERTY OWNER: Victor F. Pascarella William D. Fritz, AICP, Gerald Gatobu,and Jonathan Sharp September 19, 2006 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary subdivision plat approval to create 4 lots on 18.62 acres zoned RA. The property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 112 is located in the Whitehall Magisterial District 900 feet west of Normandy Drive and 200 feet off the Rockfish Gap Turnpike (US. Route 250). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. CHARACTER OF AREA: Rural Residential is located to the east. The Greenwood Motel and one dwelling are located to the north. All other properties are wooded. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: A plat modifying the boundary so that this parcel would have access to Route 250 was approved on August 17, 2005. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area 3. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: Proposal for the construction of a private street. STAFF COMMENT: REVIEW OF CHAPTER 14, SECTION 232(A) TO ALLOW USE OF PRIVATE STREETS. The applicant has submitted a request that the street to serve all the lots within the development be authorized as a private street, as permitted by Chapter 14, Section 232(A)(1). County Engineering staff has analyzed the request as required by Chapter 14, Section 234 (Procedure to authorize private streets and related matters) of the County Code. The new street would be an upgrade of an existing driveway that serves Tax Map 56, Parcel 105, which is the Rebecca F. Campbell property. The reviewing Engineer for this project, Jonathan Sharp, has provided the following analysis of this request: The request for a private street submitted according to Subdivision Ordinance section 14- 234A.1 has been reviewed. The road profiles and grading have been analyzed as follows: Description of private road: These figures are based on staff's computations. The applicant's computations appeared to be incorrect. These earthwork figures include only the earthwork for about the first 300 feet of road. This is the most significant area of change between the public and private road design. After the first 300 feet of road, the public and private road profile design are basically the same with very little earthwork needed. A picture depicting the location of the first 300 feet of road is on the following page in Figure 1. Compliance with Subdivision Ordinance section 14- 232A.1; 14- 232A.1(i) property in the Rural Areas or Village Residential zoning district: The property is zoned RA. 14- 232A.1(ii) private street would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment: The public road will require a significant amount of more earthwork than the private street (1051 cubic yards more, or around 100 dump truck loads). Public Road Private Road Length in miles 0.20 0.20 (1070 feet) Width of section (ft) pavement +shoulder +shoulder 18 +4 +4= 26' 14 +4 +4 = 22' Right -of -way or easement width 40' 40' Maximum Grade 10% 12% Side slope (horizontal: vertical) 2:1 2:1 Maximum fill height (ft) < if < if Maximum cut height (ft) 51 21 Volume of fill (cubic yards) 26 65 Volume of cut (cy) 1481 391 Volume of Earthwork (cy) 1507 456 % increase in earthwork 100[(1507- 456)/456]= 230% These figures are based on staff's computations. The applicant's computations appeared to be incorrect. These earthwork figures include only the earthwork for about the first 300 feet of road. This is the most significant area of change between the public and private road design. After the first 300 feet of road, the public and private road profile design are basically the same with very little earthwork needed. A picture depicting the location of the first 300 feet of road is on the following page in Figure 1. Compliance with Subdivision Ordinance section 14- 232A.1; 14- 232A.1(i) property in the Rural Areas or Village Residential zoning district: The property is zoned RA. 14- 232A.1(ii) private street would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment: The public road will require a significant amount of more earthwork than the private street (1051 cubic yards more, or around 100 dump truck loads). r� 9 -1Z a. DES I ipE � 11 EvE� w. F�>rEn � vacuir ss��ue szs n� rasmEmx,� - � sncxa se�v ` a 1,7., P 1 R •'j' Existing' \ _ Paicel 8 LQi R •.¢ .� •� c00' k 150,- -W< 3,m �A g` 76 MfEG = ,'I Ir 1H �gYe1 ��i .YR � — a w w, '. _______ 0�7 dap �•\.�, .�� •� \ First 300' of odd S Existing - ,= 176 Parcel - �` • "Proposed RdAd - - sust•:2Fxnar.� :J i l - -' _ LOT 1 g ,� ;153 ACI ILti 3.36 ACRES :. �. •V'`�':� \ ;" • �. uc s aa.w w.c 200' x 150' �meu axes ___ , i it Figure 1: Proposed Road 14- 232A.1(iii) no alternative public street alignment is available: There are no other possible alternative alignments for the first 300 feet of road. On both sides of the proposed 40 foot right of way there are parcels of land not owned by the applicant. An additional 10 feet of temporary grading easement has been provided by the parcel to the west of the proposed right of way (near the entrance of the proposed right of way at Rte. 250). The entire road alignment (all 1070 feet) preserves as much existing vegetation as possible. 14- 232A.1(iv) no more lots are proposed on the private street than could be created on the public street: 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 street in the same alignment: The amount of earthwork for this project is significant. The private road's slope is a 12 percent maximum which fits the original contours of land better than the public road, which is limited to a maximum 10 percent slope (assuming VDOT does not grant a waiver for allowing a 12 percent slope on a public road). Out of the 230 percent earthwork increase compared to a private road, 180 percent is due to the 2 percent increase of road slope of the private road design, and 50 percent is due to the road lane width reduction of the private road design. 14- 232A.1. (b),Environments 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 not be significantly different between a public road and private road. Both the public road design and private road design have the same alignment. The road right -of -way is not wooded. The Commission must determine if the requirements of Chapter 14, Section 234C have been met for this request. The commission may authorize private streets if it determines that: (Staff comments in italics) 1. The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be generated by the subdivision. (Staff will ensure that the street meets the design standards for private streets and will be able to carry the traffic volume anticipated.) 2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the proposed private street; (The comprehensive plan does not show a public street in the area.) 3. The fee of the private street 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 street; (Section 14 -317 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that a maintenance agreement be reviewed by the County. The agreement must include language guaranteeing that the fee will be owned by each lot owner and an easement will be provided.) 4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private street will not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location; (The proposed street will not serve thru traffic.) 5. If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law. (No floodplain is located on this property.) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Due to the findings in Section 14 -232, which indicate a much higher level of disturbance and potential environmental impacts. Staff recommends approval of the private street. The preliminary plat will be approved administratively if the private street is approved. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Preliminary Subdivision Plat C . Plat approved 8/17/05 creating existing parcel boundary.