HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200600163 Staff Report 2006-11-071 IRGil�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:
November 7, 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: see recommendation in
report
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 waivers for critical slopes disturbance
as, in part, Neighborhood Density in
and sidewalk provision.
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. Modification of Section 14 -404 — to allow sidewalks on only one side of public streets
(recommendation, denial)
Zoning Ordinance Waivers:
2. Waiver of Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes (recommendation, denial)
3. Section 4.7 — approval of Open space (recommendation, approval)
Other Actions (Subdivision Ordinance):
4. Section 14 -220 — Approval of the preliminary subdivision plat (recommendation, denial)
STAFF PERSON: David E. Pennock, AICP; Allan Schuck, EIT
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 7, 2006
AGENDA TITLE: SUB 2006 -163 Lake Ridge Preliminary Plat
APPLICANT: Southern Development
PROPERTY OWNERN: 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,
Parcel 57. 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 provision of sidewalks on both sides of public streets in the Development Areas, and for
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 IA, 1B, 2A, and 2B, which were formerly part of this property.
SP 1997 -034 — Special Permit approval for Frost Montessori School
SDP 1997 -078 — Preliminary Site Plan approval for Frost Montessori School
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. Modification of Section 14 -404 — installation of sidewalks on one side of street only
2. Section 14 -220 — review of the preliminary subdivision plat
Zoning Ordinance
3. Waiver of Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes
4. Section 4.7 - approval of Open space
1. SIDEWALKS
Section 14- 410(H) of the Subdivision Ordinance states `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. " 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. " The applicant is requesting a modification of this requirement due to several factors (see
Attachment C). In summary, the justifications are:
1. The adjacent subdivision, Fontana, does not have sidewalk on either side of the streets.
2. A path network will be provided as an alternative means of pedestrian access through the area. This
network will intersect with existing and proposed trail systems in adjacent subdivisions.
This proposal would provide sidewalks on one side of the streets.
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;
The applicant is no longer seeking this waiver. Curb and gutter will be provided.
(ii) a surface other than concrete is more appropriate for the subdivision because of the character of the
proposed subdivision and the surrounding neighborhood;
The proposed sidewalk on one side will be constructed of concrete, as required by Virginia Department of
Transportation. The proposed paths throughout the subdivision will be constructed of mulch. While mulch
may be appropriate for pathways in open space, tree preservation areas, and other locations in which a natural
appearance is important, mulch is not as durable as concrete or as stable on slopes and is not as easily
traversable by wheeled conveyances. Thus, the paths should not be considered an equal alternative to
sidewalk.
(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;
In some areas of Road B, development area lots are only on one side of the street. Larger, rural area lots are
on the other. Segments of Road D have lots on one side and open space on the other. However, there are no
3
engineering issues that prevent the construction of sidewalks in this subdivision and no environmental
constraints (Attachment E).
(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 street network through the subdivision is more than a mile and a half. 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;
Mulched pedestrian paths have been suggested by the applicant as an alternative to sidewalk. However, as
discussed in item "ii" above, they may be considered a supplement, but will not function as effectively as a
substitution.
(vii) the sidewalks would be publicly or privately maintained;
Sidewalks will be maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Paths will be maintained by a
Homeowners' Association.
(viii) the waiver promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan, the neighborhood model, and the
applicable neighborhood master plan;
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.
(ix) waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be more
fully achieved.
The waiver will not promote the 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. The
path network proposed by the applicant effectively provides access to areas of open space and will provide tie -ins
with adjacent subdivisions. However, it will not intersect every lot and parallel the roadways as a complete
sidewalk network is intended. In addition, the terrain and mulch construction will not allow pedestrians to
traverse the paths as easily as the sidewalks and are not considered to be ADA compliant. The paths should be
considered as an appropriate complement to sidewalks, but not as a substitution. Staff recommends Planning
Commission denial of the waiver based on the findings provided herein.
2. 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
4
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 24 percent, of the 142.01 acres included in this request. This
request is to disturb 6.46 acres, or 18.5 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 import ant
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 Engineering staff:
The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slope for grading incorporated with the new construction
proposed on TMP 78 -57 was received on 10 October 2006. These critical slopes are part of the Southwest
Mountains across from Darden Towe Park and next to the Fontana and Ashcroft Subdivisions. They are shown
on the preliminary plat, rev. date 09 October 2006, Sheet C -4, 4 of 10.
The preliminary plat consists of areas located in R -1 and RA zoning. The applicant states that this request
concerns only the R -1 section of the property.
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
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 ofsoil 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. A
conceptual overall grading plan has been provided by the applicant to ensure that perimeter and
interior erosion and sediment control measures will be designed, built, and inspected effectively.
However, the plan does not show the required perimeter basins and traps that will be required. These
required E &SC measures will significantly decrease the amount of proposed "tree preservation area"
currently show on the preliminary plat.
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.
The applicant has now proposed curb and gutter and pipe systems to convey the onsite drainage to the
SWM facilities.
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 ". The applicant has shown a "Tree Preservation Area" on the preliminary plat. However, as
shown on the conceptual overlot grading plan, implementing the required stormwater management
and erosion control plans, 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. These
issues will be addressed with an overall grading plan, with adequate perimeter erosion control provisions and curb
and gutter in conjunction with a pipe system to convey storm runoff.
Engineering recommends approval to the request, with the following concerns:
The provided conceptual overlot grading plan does not show the required disturbed area needed for
the required E &SC basins. The basins are listed by verbiage on the concept plan. The overlot
grading is to minimize disturbance of critical slopes. This has not occurred with this plat submittal.
The same amount of critical slopes is being disturbed with the overlot grading plan as before. The
Commission needs to decide if the bonus waiver would still apply if the proposed tree preservation
area would decrease by 20% to construct the needed E &SC and SWM facilities.
The land shown on the preliminary plat as RA and PRD and Residue is not included in this approval.
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 modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
0
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- I5 -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 of greater import than would be
served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- I5 -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 level of development
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is not able to find that the provisions of Section 4.2.5(b) have been met.
Although the design avoids many of the steepest slopes and includes areas of tree preservation, the plan shows
significant grading throughout that will result in disturbance of 18.5% of the critical slopes on site and
fragmentation of the remaining trees areas. Thus, staff is not able to recommend approval to the Commission of a
waiver of Section 4.2.3.
If the Commission concludes that the findings in the previous section have been met and therefore approves the
requested waiver, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. If installation of erosion and sediment control measures necessitates disturbance of additional areas of
critical slopes or results in reduction of tree preservation area below 20 %, the preliminary plan and waiver
must be resubmitted for review and approval by Planning Commission.
2. The land shown on the preliminary plat as PRD and Residue is not included in this approval.
3. OPEN SPACE
This development proposes open space. This open space is voluntary and not required by any provision of the
ordinance, although by including tree preservation areas within the open space, the applicant is achieving a bonus
density of 10 %. Open Space is not allowed in the Rural Areas. Thus, the open space is all in the R -I zoned
portions of this project. A total of 23.76 acres, or 29 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
7
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.
To this end, in any rezoning, subdivision plat, or site development plan proposing inclusion of open space
areas, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of such 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. However, it does
result in fragmentation of the remaining treed areas. 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. Much of the preserved area would not be
considered buildable without considerable earthwork (and additional waiver).
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 lines and fiber optic lines located in the proposed open
space as well as a proposed stormwater management facility. Several lots adjacent to open space areas include
notations as "approximate basin location ". Staff notes that it appears that there will be some difficulty in
designing functional erosion and sediment control measures in these areas without some additional disturbance in
the open space areas. Thus, while a final erosion and sediment control plan is not required at this time, care
should be taken to avoid encroachment in to tree preservation areas. The condition recommended with the critical
slopes waiver (see item #2) attempts to address this issue.
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
(Amended 11- I5 -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; stormwater detention and flood control devices; lands having
permanent or seasonally high water table; (Amended 11- I5 -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- I5 -89)
4.7.3.2 The commission may require redesign of such 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- I5 -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.
4.7.4 OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE
Open space in private ownership shall be protected by legal arrangements sufficient to ensure its
maintenance andpreservation for purposesfor which it is intended. Such arrangements shall be subject
to commission approval as a part of the site development plan and /or subdivision plat approval process.
9
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 a part 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. Neighborhood Model design recommendations would suggest open space areas
be more of an amenity, focal point, or other feature. While this design does not specifically accomplish that, it
will provide tree preservation, buffering with Fontana Subdivision and with some portions of the Rural Areas, and
a proposed path network with connections to adjacent subdivisions. Staff recommends that the Commission find
the proposed open space appropriate for the proposed development.
4. 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:
This project has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee and can be approved subject to Planning
Commission review. However, waivers have been requested, as presented in the previous 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 to accurately
accommodate the area required for erosion and sediment control measures needed for the proposed project. As
shown on the preliminary plat, it appears that the applicant may not be able to save the entirety of the 17.37 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.
UX411 a ►]�1 J I �ILI 1M. 130
10
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, staff 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.
❑ 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.
❑ g. Written VDOT approval of the proposed street design is required before Engineering can
approve the preliminary plat.
❑ 2. The applicant needs to provide all required offsite easements required with this preliminary plat,
including the access easement from Fontana Drive and the offsite grading easements.
❑ 3. The plan must be revised to include the location and dimensions of all proposed easements.
❑ 4. If installation of erosion and sediment control measures necessitates disturbance of additional areas of
critical slopes or results in reduction of tree preservation area below 20 %, the preliminary plan and
waiver must be resubmitted for review and approval by Planning Commission.
❑ 5. The land shown on the preliminary plat as PRD and Residue is not included in this approval.
116. A conservation plan checklist must be completed and incorporated into the site plan with notes
to show how any individual trees and groups of trees designated to remain will be protected
during the construction of this project. The locations of any tree protection fencing that
coincides with the limits of clearing and other methods of protection from the checklist must be
shown on the plan for clear identification during field inspections.
❑ 7. Fire and Rescue Department approval is subject to field inspection and verification.
❑ 8. All accesses and roadways shall be designed in accordance with the current Subdivision Street
Standards, The Minimum Standards for Entrances to State Highways and the Road Design Manual;
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. Modification of Section 14- 422(E) — installation of sidewalks on one side of public streets only
(recommendation, denial)
Zoning Ordinance Waivers:
2. Waiver of Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes (recommendation, denial)
3. Section 4.7 — approval of Open space (recommendation, approval)
Other Actions (Subdivision Ordinance):
4. Section 14 -220 — Approval of the preliminary subdivision plat (recommendation, denial)
11
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
H. Comments from Elaine Echols — Principal Planner, Development Areas
I. Illustrated path map provided by applicant
12