HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800012 Staff Report 2019-10-15County of Albemarle
Planning Staff Report Summary
Project Name: ZMA 2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Staff: Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner
Planning Commission Hearing: October 15,
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
2019
Owner: David and Anna Marie Witmer
Applicant: Blackbird of Charlottesville, LLC- Nicole
Scro
Kelsey Schlein- Shimp Engineering
Acreage: 13.36 acres
Rezone from: R-1 Residential to Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
TMP: 09100000000900; 09100000001500
Location:193 Galaxie Farm Lane off of Route 20 South.
Approximately 1/3 of a mile south from Mill Creek
Drive's intersection with Rt. 20.
School Districts: Cale (Elementary); Walton
By -right use: R1 residential uses at a density of 1 unit
(Middle School); Monticello (High School)
per acre
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers: No
Proposal: Rezone 13.36 acres from R1
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 72 units
Residential zoning district, which allows
residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to
Planned Residential Development (PRD) that
allows residential (3 — 34 units/acre) with
limited commercial uses. A maximum of 72
units are proposed for a gross density of
approximately 6 units per acre and a net density
of 7 units per acre.
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 4 of the
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master
Residential — residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting
Plan
uses such as places of worship, schools, public and
institutional uses and small-scale neighborhood
serving retail and commercial;
Parks and Green Systems — parks, playgrounds, play
fields, greenways, trails, paths, recreational facilities
and equipment, plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural
areas, preservation of stream buffers, floodplains and
steep slopes adjacent to rivers and streams in the
Southern Neighborhood 4 within the Southern and
Western Urban Area Master Plan.
Affordable Housing Provided:
Affordable Housing AMI (%): Application Plan:15% (10
® Yes []No
units- 7 above density in Comp Plan) 80% AMI per
current housing policy
Character of Property: Property is wooded with
Use of Surrounding Properties: Kappa Sigma, single
a stream across the front adjacent to Route 20.
family attached development- Avinity to the south; Cale
There are also some preserved slopes on the
Elementary, Assisted Living Facility- Albemarle Health
property. Two houses exist on the properties
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
and have access from Galaxie Farm Lane which
is a private street off of Rt 20.One of the
houses, garage and barn are contributing
resources to the Southern Albemarle Rural
Historic District. There are also two properties
that currently have their access from Galaxie
Farm Lane that are not a part of the rezoning.
and Rehab, Tandem Friends Private School, Monticello
Fire Station to the north and east; and single family
detached homes. Rural area is located across the
property along Rt. 20 to the west.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The rezoning request is consistent with
1. The rezoning request will add additional
the majority of the recommendations
students to Cale Elementary, which is over
within the Southern and Western
capacity with no plans for expansion for future
Neighborhoods Master Plan and
capacity.
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The density proposed is above the
2. The rezoning is consistent with the
recommendations within the Southern and
majority of the applicable Neighborhood
Western Neighborhoods Master Plan.
Model Principles.
3. The rezoning provides affordable
housing that meets the housing policy
within the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The rezoning provides a portion of the
connector road that is recommended in
the Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning Map Amendment: Overall, staff believes that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable
factors. If the Planning Commission agrees with staff's recommendations regarding the modification and
waiver requests, staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the following changes:
1. The application plan is modified based upon staff recommendations on the waiver requests to revise
the street sections and layout.
2. If Road D becomes two public streets, the right of way should be extended to the property line to the
north, and a note should be added to the application plan for future right of way dedication.
Modification Requests:
1. Private street authorization (Sections 14-233 and 14-234) for Roads D and E. (Staff recommends
approval of Road E only)
2. Modification of street standards
a. 14-422(E)- Sidewalks along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval with condition)
b. 14-422(F)- Planting strips along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
c. 14-410 (I)- Curb and gutter for Road E (Staff recommends denial)
3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks (Section 18-8.2b) for front and rear
setbacks. (Staff recommends partial approval)
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
2
STAFF PERSON: Megan Nedostup
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: October 15, 2019
PETITION:
PROJECT: ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 09100000000900; 09100000001500
LOCATION:193 Galaxie Farm Lane
PROPOSAL: Rezone property from residential to a higher density residential development with a mixture of unit
types.
PETITION: Rezone 13.36 acres from R1 Residential zoning district, which allows residential uses at a density of
1 unit per acre to Planned Residential Development (PRD) that allows residential (3 — 34 units/acre) with
limited commercial uses. A maximum of 72 units are proposed for a gross density of approximately 6 units per
acre and a net density of 7 units per acre.
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor; Steep Slopes- Managed and Preserved; Scenic Byways
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential — residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses
such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses and small-scale neighborhood serving retail
and commercial; Parks and Green Systems — parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails, paths,
recreational facilities and equipment, plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of stream
buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to rivers and streams in the Southern Neighborhood 4 within the
Southern and Western Urban Area Master Plan.
MONTICELLO VIEWSHED: No
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The subject properties consists of two parcels located along Route 20 South and is adjacent to Kappa Sigma,
Avinity, vacant County owned property, and Cale Elementary (Attachment 1). The subject properties are on the
edge of the development area, and the Rural Area is across Route 20. Route 20 is considered to be an Entrance
Corridor and a Scenic By -Way. There are a number of additional uses nearby the proposal including Tandem
Friends School, Monticello Fire Station, Albemarle Health and rehab, and a number of County owned properties
that are currently vacant. Two houses exist on the properties and have access from Galaxie Farm Lane which
is a private street off of Rt 20. One of the houses, garage and barn are contributing resources to the Southern
Albemarle Rural Historic District. There are also two properties that currently have their access from Galaxie
Farm Lane that are not a part of the rezoning. The property contains a stream at the frontage along Route 20,
and a small amount of preserved slopes near the stream buffer.
BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY MEETING
The following is a summary of meetings to date:
• The applicant submitted the rezoning proposal on September 17, 2018 and held a community meeting with
the 511 and Avon CAC on October 18, 2018. During this meeting the applicant presented the proposal and
the community provided comments and asked questions.
• A work session for the application occurred on December 18, 2018. At the time of the work session, the
applicant's proposal included County owned property. However, since that time the applicant has revised
their application to only include those parcels which they own. The staff report and minutes are provided in
Attachments 5 and 6.
• Applicant provided an update to the CAC on August 15, 2019 on the proposal and changes. Concerns
raised were capacity of Cale, density above Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and affordable
housing.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
The applicant requested deferral from the September 3, 2019 Planning Commission meeting prior to the
meeting taking place. The applicant has since revised their narrative, application plan, and modification
requests to address concerns from the staff report that was prepared for the September 3rd meeting.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to rezone two parcels from R1-Residential (1 unit/acre) to Planned Residential
Development (PRD) which allows 3-34 units/acre with limited commercial uses (Attachments 2, 3, and 4). The
application includes two parcels to be rezoned totaling 13.36 acres. The applicant is proposing a maximum of
72 units that would include single family attached, detached, and townhomes. The application does not
propose any limitations on the types of residential uses permitted within the development; therefore, the
property could be developed as single-family detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings,
townhomes, or a mixture thereof. The application plan shows proposed locations of streets, open space,
blocks, and trails.
If the property were developed to the proposed maximum of 72 units, the density of the project would be 7
units per acre, which is above the range of the Neighborhood Density Residential land use designation of 3-
6.01 units per acre. The applicant is proposing nine (9) units above the Master Plan recommendation, stating
that these units will be provided to address the affordable housing policy of 15%. Justification for this request
is provided in Attachment 2.
The property contains a residence, garage, and barn that are contributing resources in the Southern Albemarle
Rural Historic District. Historic preservation staff, Margaret Maliszewski, recommended that the residence be
retained and incorporated into the development to support the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving the
County's historic resources. The applicant responded that the structure is beyond repair and too damaged to
retain, and provided information and photographs (Attachment 7) for staff review. Staff reviewed the
information and stated that although it did appear that the residence had not been maintained in prime
condition and has suffered damage, it still retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling and association and was not beyond renovation and again recommended its incorporation into the
development. The applicant then submitted a demolition permit application for the removal of the structures.
The county has no historic preservation ordinance that would require that the structures be retained, and the
demolition permit must be evaluated on the same standards as all other demolition permits. Staff worked with
the applicant to coordinate documentation of the structures prior to its demolition. The documentation has
been complete, and all other standard approvals have been obtained, therefore the structures can be
demolished at any time. As of the writing of this report, the structures are still in place and have not been
demolished.
In addition to the rezoning request, the applicant is requesting three modifications (Attachments 2 and 3) as
indicated below:
1. Private street authorization (Sections 14-233 and 14-234) for Roads D and E. (Staff recommends
approval of Road E only)
2. Modification of street standards
a. 14-422(E)- Sidewalks along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
b. 14-422(F)- Planting strips along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
c. 14-410 (1)- Curb and gutter for Road E (Staff recommends denial)
3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks (Section 18-8.2b) for front and rear
setbacks. (Staff recommends partial approval)
The applicant also requested an exception for double frontage lots, however this is an administrative
waiver and staff has reviewed this request and found it to be acceptable, therefore it is not included as
part of this report.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
4
It should be noted that the applicant requested to go straight to the Planning Commission and not
receive comments on their latest submittal from September 9, 2019.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant has provided a detailed narrative as justification for the request in Attachment 2.
Modification justification is provided on pages 8-11 in Attachment 2, and associated exhibits are
provided in Attachment 3.
The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan calls for all 13.36 acres of the subject properties to be
developed in accordance with the Neighborhood Density Residential land use classification (see map inset
below; subject property highlighted):
Neighborhood Density Residential (yellow): this designation calls for primarily residential uses with densities
between 3-6 dwelling units/acre. Housing types found in this category include: single family detached, single
family attached, and townhouses. The classification also allows secondary uses places of worship, public and
private schools, early childhood education (preschools and daycare), public uses, and public institutional uses
provided they are compatible with the surrounding area.
The applicant is proposing a maximum of 72 residential units. This equates to 7 units above the
recommendations within the Master Plan. The Master Plan recommends a maximum of 65 units using the
calculation of net density (10.94 acres outside of the environmental features multiplied by six (6)). The
applicant is proposing that the units above the recommend density will be provided in order to meet the
housing policy recommendation of 15% affordable units. However, staff believes that the development should
meet the density recommendations within the Master Plan and provide affordable units in accordance with
the housing policy. Additional analysis is provided below in the Affordable Housing portion of this report.
The properties are within Priority Area 1 within the Master Plan, and there are some recommendations for
these properties specifically (See inserts below). It recommends that the development of the properties
provide for a connector road that contain curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, and bike lanes. It also
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
recommends that interconnections be provided within the design. The application plan for the proposal
includes a street section for the connector road that meets the recommendation of the Master Plan. In
addition, proposed Road C, includes a future right of way dedication to allow for future connections to the
west of the property.
Figure 33: Galaxy Farm Property
7. The Galaxy Farm Property (Figure 33) is the
location of a proposed connector road emphasizing
the expectation that interconnections will be a part
of future neighborhood block and street design. It is
also anticipated that all new streets should have two
lanes and be built with the features of an urban
street.
2. Galaxy Farm Lane Property
Recommendations (Figure 39):
Galaxy Farm Lane is an existing
private street which is accessed from
Rt. 20 South. This street should be
upgraded and connect Rt. 20 South
to Mill Creek Drive. Figure 39 shows
a conceptual location of this connector road.
When constructed the street should have
curb, gutter, street trees, sidewalks, and bike
lanes.
It should be noted that a center is recommended for the adjacent County properties and recommends a
collaborative community process and small area plan for the programming of that center. The Master Plan
states that pedestrian and bicycle access will be essential for the future development. The proposed rezoning
street section for Galaxie Farm drive allows for bike and pedestrian facilities, as stated above.
13. The Mill Creek Drive Center (Figure 23) includes
the Monticello Fire Rescue Station Monticello High
School, the fire rescue station, and several large
undeveloped parcels owned by the County. Civic uses
are expected on the County -owned properties in the
future; however, a collaborative community process is
needed before the County decides on the uses for the
properties. The process should result in a small area
plan for the Center. Pedestrian and bicycle access
will be essential in any future development. Attention
will be needed to size, scale, and massing of buildings
to create a pedestrian -oriented place for civic
activities. Preservation of important environmental
features such as streams, stream buffers, and preserved slopes is expected.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
6
The Parks and Green Systems Plan within the Master Plan recommends a greenway/trail along the frontage of
these properties, and along the recommended connector road (See insert below). The application plan
proposes a trail along the frontage of the property adjacent to the stream, and Road A provides trail, sidewalk,
and bike lanes.
�r
Affordable Housing:
The current housing policy states that 15% of the units provided should be affordable. Using net density for
the properties, the maximum number of units recommended in the Master Plan is 65. To meet the affordable
housing recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan for 65 units, 10 units would need to be affordable (See
chart below for breakdown). The applicant is proposing density above the recommended density within the
Comprehensive Plan to provide the affordable housing units, at a maximum density of 72 units, and not
provide them within the recommended density in the Master Plan (see justification in Attachment 2).
Number of Units
15% Affordable
15% Affordable
Recommended in
Number of
Number of Units
Units for Comp
Units for
Comp Plan
Units Proposed
above Comp Plan
Plan Density
Proposed Density
65
72
7
10
11
Staff recommends that the density be reduced to the recommendations within the Master Plan, and that the
proposal meet the housing policy recommendation for affordable housing.
It should be noted that a similar request was approved for Riverside Village rezoning. Per the Pantops Master
Plan, 59 units were recommended and nine (9) affordable units required under the housing policy for the
property. The application was approved for 69 units, with a proffer for 10 affordable units to be provided.
The Neighborhood Model:
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the Neighborhood Model (NM) Principles and has found that it is
consistent with the majority of the principles. The application does not fully meet some aspects of the NM
related to a mixture of uses and housing types within the development and relegated parking. Residential is
the only proposed use, and housing type is not specified other than allowing for a maximum of 72 dwelling
units on the property. However, it does allow for a greater variety of housing types within the general area of
the property.
In addition, the proposed plan does not fully meet the principle for relegated parking, though the language
proposed has been accepted by the County in the past for rezonings with front loaded garage design. The
detailed Neighborhood Model analysis can be found in Attachment 8.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
7
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district:
The requested zoning district is Planned Residential Development (PRD). According to the zoning ordinance,
this district is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact
on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to promote economical and
efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development and
creative design consistent with the best interest of the county and the area in which it is located.
The PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for residential purposes and uses ancillary thereto.
Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development buffering
between dissimilar uses and preservation of agricultural activity. While a PRD approach is recommended for
developments of any density, it is recommended but not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the
comprehensive plan recommends densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that
development at such densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact.
Staff reviewed the request and has found that this rezoning meets the purposes and intent of the PRD. The
proposal includes a variety of housing types, 25% open space, buffer/open space along Route 20, and
recreation.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets:
The applicant provided estimated traffic counts and turn lane analysis within the narrative. VDOT and the
County Transportation Planner reviewed the application and traffic information and does not anticipate a
significant traffic impact on the nearby street network. A traffic study was not required or provided due to the
low volume of traffic expected by the proposed number of units. The applicant is providing for a street design
and building a portion of the connector road that is recommended within the Master Plan.
Schools:
Students living in this area would attend Cale Elementary School, Walton Middle School, and Monticello High
School. Calculation for the yield rates of students are provided below that outline the rates for the proposed
number of units (72) and the Comp Plan recommended units (65) based on the type of units.
Yield Rates for Proposed 72 Units
Dwelling Type
Elementary
Middle
High
Total
Single Family
Detached
10.8
5.8
8.6
25
Single Family
(Attached)
9.4
3.6
5.8
19
Townhome
10.8
4.3
5.8
21
Yield Rates for 65
Units
Dwelling Type I Elementary I Middle I High I Total
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
Single Family
Detached
9.8
5.2
7.8
23
Single Family
(Attached)
8.5
3.3
5.2
17
Townhome
9.8
3.9
5.2
19
Cale Elementary does not have any additional capacity. The Long Range Planning Advisory Committee report
for schools requested in the FYI 21 /22 CIP funds for improvements at Cale. This project funds expansions and
site improvements to support the current student population at Cale Elementary. The project expands the
cafeteria and adds four classrooms, a music and art classroom for a total addition of 8,800 square feet. Site
improvements include additional parking, enhancing outdoor learning spaces and playgrounds, and the
removal of the mobile units. However, it further states that "due to its already large size as well limited space
to expand on the lot, it is not recommended that the school be enlarged to meet the long range needs. These
recommendations are for the current school population and should be accompanied with further study to
develop a long-term solution for anticipated growth in the area."
There is adequate capacity at Walton Middle School and Monticello High School and increased enrollment
would benefit both schools.
Since there are currently no projects in the CIP to address future school capacity impacts at these schools, no
commitments would be expected from this development to address future school capacity.
Fire &Rescue:
This project is near the Monticello Fire and Rescue Station. Fire & Rescue has not expressed any concerns
with, or objections to, this proposal.
Utilities:
This project is in the ACSA water and sewer service jurisdictional area and both services are available. Neither
ACSA nor RWSA have expressed any concerns with, or objections to, this proposal.
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources:
As stated above, the properties contain a residence, garage, and barn that are contributing resources in the
Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. However, the applicant has submitted a demolition permit
application for the removal of the structures. The county has no historic preservation ordinance that would
require that the structures be retained, and the demolition permit must be evaluated on the same standards as
all other demolition permits. Staff is working with the applicant to coordinate documentation of the structures
prior to its demolition. Once the documentation is complete and all other standard approvals have been
obtained, the structures can be demolished.
The stream and its buffer are located within proposed open space. In addition, lots and structures are not
permitted within the stream buffer or on preserved slopes, and the preserved slopes will not be disturbed.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
Use of the property as proposed is not anticipated to have significant impacts on adjacent properties. The
portion of the recommended connector road, and the trail along the frontage of the property will provide a
benefit to nearby and surrounding properties, including the future Center on County property.
Public need and justification for the change:
The County's growth management policy says that new residential development should occur in the
designated Development Areas where infrastructure and services are provided, rather than in the Rural Area.
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
However, there are a number of issues of concern which include: the proposal exceeds the Comprehensive
Plan density recommendations which create a small additional impact to Cale Elementary, which is over
capacity; the affordable housing language needs to be updated to meet the Comprehensive Plan
recommendations; and required information for the modification requests have not been provided to make the
findings in the ordinance.
The applicant is requesting three modifications as indicated below:
1. Private street authorization (Sections 14-233 and 14-234) for Roads D and E. (Staff recommends
approval of Road E only)
2. Modification of street standards
a. 14-422(E)- Sidewalks along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval with condition)
b. 14-422(F)- Planting strips along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
c. 14-410 (1)- Curb and gutter for Road E (Staff recommends denial)
3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks (Section 18-8.2b) for front and rear
setbacks. (Staff recommends partial approval)
Detailed staff analysis is provided in Attachment 9.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The rezoning request is consistent with the majority of the recommendations within the Southern and
Western Neighborhoods Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezoning is consistent with the majority of the applicable Neighborhood Model Principles.
3. The rezoning provides affordable housing that meets the housing policy within the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. The rezoning provides a portion of the connector road that is recommended in the Southern and
Western Neighborhoods Master Plan.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this rezoning request:
1. The rezoning request will add additional students to Cale Elementary, which is overcapacity with no
plans for expansion for future capacity.
2. The density proposed is above the recommendations within the Southern and Western Neighborhoods
Master Plan.
Zoning Map Amendment: Overall, staff believes that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors. If
the Planning Commission agrees with staffs recommendations regarding the modification and waiver
requests, staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the following changes:
3. The application plan is modified based upon staff recommendations on the waiver requests to revise
the street sections and layout.
4. If Road D becomes two public streets, the right of way should be extended to the property line to the
north, and a note should be added to the application plan for future right of way dedication.
Modification Requests:
1. Private street authorization (Sections 14-233 and 14-234) for Roads D and E. (Staff recommends
approval of Road E only)
2. Modification of street standards
a. 14-422(E)- Sidewalks along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval with condition)
b. 14-422(F)- Planting strips along private streets for Road E (Staff recommends approval)
c. 14-410 (1)- Curb and gutter for Road E (Staff recommends denial)
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
10
3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks (Section 18-8.2b) for front and rear
setbacks. (Staff recommends partial approval)
Motions will be provided at the meeting based on the direction from the Commission.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Maps
Attachment 2: Applicant Narrative and Modification requests
Attachment 3: Modification Request Exhibits A and B
Attachment 4: Application Plan dated September 4, 2019
Attachment 5: December 18, 2018 Work Session Staff Report
Attachment 6: December 18, 2018 Work Session Minutes
Attachment 7: Applicant Photographs of Historic Resource Structures
Attachment 8: Neighborhood Model Principles Staff Analysis
Attachment 9: Modification Requests Staff Analysis
ZMA2018-012 Galaxie Farm
Planning Commission October 15, 2019
11
Any deteminallm oftOpography or mMams, or any depiction of physlral Improvements, properly lines or Mundaries a Mr general Information only and shall per Ise used for the design, mMffice lon, or mmVuslion of improvements to real popery or for flood plain determination. August M, 2019
Map element may stale Myx Man GIG data Ineasued In Me map or as provided on the data Mentioned! page due to Me projection used. Map Projection: K SS4 Vito MCptor(Amali GpMre)(EPS 3957)
Any Jetemmnation of topography or contours, or any depiction of plrysical Impooemer s, property lines or MuMarlas Is for ge sided Fforigni only add Nall not Le used for Ne design, mMlflcallm, or mrmWNm MMphymments to real pmpa[y altar loW plain determination. August M, 2019
Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as soared on the data Miam d page due as Me pmjeNm used Map Projection: VVG580 Vast, Mercator(Modlary SpMrel(EsS 3857)
Galaxie Rezoning —Written Narrative
Supplemented
Updated
Updated
Updated
Updated
PROJECT PROPOSAL
September 17, 2018
November 30, 2018
April 1, 2019
May 20, 2019
July 15, 2019
September 6, 2019
Blackbird of Charlottesville, LLC (the "Applicant') is the contract purchaser for property located
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County'), having addresses of 192 and 193 Galaxie
Farm Lane, designated on County tax maps as parcels 091-00-00-01500 and 091-00-00-00900
(the "Blackbird Property"). The Blackbird Property is located immediately adjacent to that
certain real property of approximately 15.8 acres, more or less, having an address of 133
Galaxie Farm Lane, and designated on County tax maps as parcel 09100-00-00-01100.
The County also owns other nearby parcels: 09100-00-00-01000, 09100-00-00-008130, 09100-
00-00-002E0, and 09100-00-00-01300 (collectively, the "County Property').
Blackbird Property:
Tax Map Parcel No.
Acreage
Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan Designation
09100-00-00-01500
8 27
R1 Residential
Neighborhood
192 Galaxie Farm Lane
Density Residential
09100-00-00-00900
509
R1 Residential
Neighborhood
193 Galaxie Farm Lane
.
Density Residential
Total:
13.36
County Property:
Tax Map Parcel No.
Acreage
Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan Designation
09100-00-00-01100
15.8
R1 Residential
Institutional
133 Galaxie Farm Lane
Neighborhood
Density Residential
09100-00-00-01000
8.33
R1 Residential
Institutional
167 Galaxie Farm Lane
09100-00-00-008B0
8.34
R1 Residential
Institutional
1506 Scottsville Road
09100-00-00-002E0
13.27
R15 Residential
Institutional
1515 Founders Place
09100-00-00-002E0
15.96
R1 Residential
Institutional
1757 Avon Street Ext
Total:
61.7
In the image below, the Blackbird Property is highlighted in yellow and the County Property is
highlighted in red. The 2.77 acres that were proposed to be conveyed to the Applicant is
roughly highlighted in blue on the image below.
The Applicant had proposed to construct an approximately 1,400-foot long, 67-foot wide
connector road in exchange for 2.77 acres of County Property. On October 261h, 2018, the
County Property Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors move forward with the
proposal. However, it was discussed at several County Board of Supervisors' meetings in
closed sessions where it was ultimately decided that the County would not move forward with
the proposed exchange.
Because the County Board of Supervisors declined to move forward with the exchange, the
Applicant now proposes to develop only the 13.36 acres of the Blackbird Property as a
residential subdivision with a maximum allowable density of 75 units (reduced from 130 units).
These 75 units include of a variety of housing types, with various price points:
• Townhomes or Single Family Attached (of various sizes and price points, ranging from a
larger "villa" unit akin to two traditional single-family detached units that are attached to
much smaller and more conventional townhome units)
2
Single Family Detached (of various sizes and price points, ranging from larger, more
traditional single-family detached homes to slightly smaller, and less expensive units)
• Affordable Dwelling Units
The variety of housing types are dispersed throughout the Property, as evidenced by the variety
of shades of blue on the Application Plan. The variety of shades of blue are based on the
intensity of use within each Block.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
As stated earlier, the original application for ZMA 2018-012 included 2.77 acres of adjacent
property owned by the County (shown in blue on the previous page). This property was shown
as a "Future Phase" on the original Application Plan and was dependent upon an agreement
between the Applicant and the County in which the Applicant would build a portion of a
"Connector Road" per the specifications of the Comprehensive Plan in exchange for the
conveyance of the County Property to the Applicant.
The original application also requested a density of 130 total units, 10.65 dwelling units per acre
(inclusive of the acreage of the County Property). Because the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the Property recommends between 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre, i.e. a
maximum of 65 total units, staff recommended the application go to a work session with the
Planning Commission. The work session was held on December 18, 2018. The Planning
Commission recommended the Applicant explore the possibility of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA). However, the County Zoning Ordinance was amended on January 3, 2018,
eliminating the ability for applicants to initiate CPAs. The revised process for CPAs requires
initiation by a member of the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission.
Instead of a CPA, the Applicant proposes 65 market -rate residential units and 10 affordable
housing units. One goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage 15% affordable housing in
each new project. However, due to changes in Virginia proffer laws, the County is no longer
able to accept proffers for 15% affordable housing units. Therefore, it is especially important for
the County to maximize the number of affordable housing units when it is able. While the
Virginia proffer law is changing again effective July 1, 2019, the most recently revised proffer
law still does not allow the County to deny projects based on the fact that proffers that are not
specifically attributable to the impacts of the proposed development were not offered.
Therefore, applications after July 1, 2019 still cannot be denied based on the fact that they do
not offer affordable housing.
In order to satisfy the 15% affordable housing goal of the Comprehensive Plan within the
context of the new Virginia proffer laws, the Applicant is proposing affordable housing as a
condition of the Application Plan rather than in a proffer statement. If the Application were
revised to a rezoning to a Residential R-6 designation, an Application Plan like the one
submitted for this Planned Residential Development (PRD) would no longer be required and
therefore affordable housing could only be provided through a proffer statement, which would
not be allowed. This results in the perverse outcome of discouraging rezonings to planned
residential districts, which is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In the
Development Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan, Expectation #2 states that "High
quality development through application of the Neighborhood Model principles" is expected in
3
the Development Areas. The best way to achieve the Neighborhood Model principles is through
the requirements and regulations in the planned development districts.
In addition, under the by -right regulations of R-6, Section 16.4.3 of the County Code states, "For
providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted..."
Therefore, by not allowing the 9 affordable housing units above the recommended density in the
case of a rezoning, the County would incentivize by -right development, where bonuses are
provided, or rezonings to non -planned development districts, where requiring proffers for
affordable housing are prohibited. Given these perverse incentives, the Applicant believes it is
a reasonable request, and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, to allow for 9
affordable housing units above the property's recommended density.
In addition, a bonus for affordable housing above the recommended density has been
previously approved by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. In 2013,
the County approved ZMA-2012-00002, Riverside Village, a request to rezone property
designated as Residential R-1 to a Neighborhood Model District. The Riverside Village
Application proposed 10 units above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan, with
the justification being that such units would be designated as affordable housing. Enclosed are
the minutes from the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor public hearings on
this issue.
Similar to the Riverside Village justification for the 10 units above the Comprehensive Plan's
recommended density, the proposed project would also have no measurable impact attributable
to the small increase of 9 units above the recommended density; the proposed project is also
located in an area with very few neighbors; and the proposed project is also located nearby a
"Center." A "Center' is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "a school or a park... major
employment area or a shopping area... [or] mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which people want
to walk... [and] should be located within ''/z to % mile walk zone from residences..." There are
zero residences within '/z mile and only a portion of the Avinity subdivision within % mile.
Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the County -owned
properties adjacent to the proposed development, it would be prudent to allow for the proposed
residential development to help support the "Center" designation.
As stated earlier, since the County declined to pursue the exchange related to the County
Property, the total maximum density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan (excluding the
County Property acreage) is 65 units (see the image on the following page where it shows the
Blackbird Property as being designated Neighborhood Density Residential). The Application
allows for 10 units over the maximum recommended density to accommodate 10 affordable
housing units (15% of 65).
Allowing a small bonus above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan for
affordable housing is consistent with other key goals of the County, avoids treating planned
zoning districts differently than conventional zoning districts, is consistent with how affordable
housing is encouraged for by -right developments, and such bonuses have previously been
approved by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (e.g. the Riverside
Village Rezoning).
0
Comp Plan Land Use Into Zgc �yAN
Southern and Western Urb 91 �5 t-88
Neighborhood Density Re y 97 s _ ■ (//
Neighborhood Mixed Use
■ Urban Dens,ty Residentia
■ Commurily Muted Use
■ Regoral Mixed Use
Off 'w, R B Di Flex/ Lghl 1'16A ♦ -�► p �`
■ Industria'Instilu.
Parks and yG� '
■ Parks and Green Systems 91 17
The project is also consistent with other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. The Application
shows the greenway trail along Route 20 that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan also shows a Connector Road through the property. However, due to the
same changes in Virginia proffer law noted above, the County is no longer able to accept such
transportation proffers unless such proffers are specifically attributable to the impacts of the
proposed development. The proposed development consists of only 72 residential units and
therefore does not warrant the construction of a "Connector Road" as specified in the
Comprehensive Plan. While the Application does not show the Connector Road that is
specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant made a good faith effort to provide such
road within the framework of the new Virginia proffer laws. However, the County declined to
pursue the road and so the revised Application no longer shows construction of the road. The
Application Plan still provides bike lanes along Road A and enables the County to connect to
Road A should it desire to do so in the future.
While the Comprehensive Plan states that a small area plan is needed for the County -owned
properties, it explicitly does not include the adjacent parcels not owned by the County.
Importantly, the Comprehensive Plan also shows the County Property as being a "Center." A
"Center" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "a school or a park... major employment area
or a shopping area... [or] mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which people want to walk... [and]
should be located within'/2 to % mile walk zone from residences..." There are zero residences
within Yz mile and only a portion of the Avinity subdivision within ''/< mile. Therefore, to fulfill the
Comprehensive Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the County -owned properties adjacent to
the proposed development, it would be prudent to allow for the proposed residential
development to help support the "Center" designation.
5
IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
There will be a 100-foot buffer consisting of greenspace with a trails system located on the
portion of the Property fronting Route 20. The 100-foot buffer will protect "Cow Branch" stream,
a perennial stream located in this area. In addition, the development adjacent to the buffer will
consist of a boardwalk, with a row of houses fronting the boardwalk. Thus, the development will
orient towards greenspace, encouraging use of the boardwalk and trail network complementing
Cow Branch.
Also, there will be a pocket park. The 2.78 acres of passive recreational open space (stream
buffer) and 0.91 acres of active recreational open space (Block 8 and Block 7 outside of the
stream buffer) total 3.69 acres of common open space, which satisfies the required 3.34 acres
(or 25%).
The proposed development is required to have a second entrance to accommodate fire/rescue.
This second entrance is shown as Road F. The orientation of Road F shall be determined at
the site plan stage of development. The Applicant requested connecting to the existing
emergency accessway adjacent to the Property, utilized by the Avinity subdivision; however,
such offer/request to connect was declined by the developer of the Avinity subdivision.
PROPOSED PROFFERS TO ADDRESS IMPACTS
The Applicant is no longer providing a proffer statement. However, below is a statement related
to impacts of the proposed development.
The Applicant has discussed the Application with Rosalyn Schmitt, Chief Operating Officer of
Albemarle County Public Schools and Joe Letteri, Director of Building Services for Albemarle
County Public Schools. Both officers stated that development is welcome in this area of the
County due to low enrollment (and under capacity) of Monticello High School and Walton Middle
School. While Cale Elementary School is at or over capacity, Albemarle County Public School
officers stated that this issue would need to be addressed regardless of the proposed
development and may be solved through redrawing the district boundaries or some other
means. The officers stated Cale Elementary School will likely not expand towards the applicant -
controlled property as Cale is already larger than the ideal size for an elementary school and
there are steep slopes and stormwater management facilities located where the possible
expansion could occur, rendering such expansion impractical.
The Monticello Fire and Rescue Station is located within a'% mile of the proposed development.
The station was constructed within the past several years and has the capacity to serve the
nearby proposed development. A second emergency -only entrance was added to the proposed
development since the original Application Plan in response to Fire & Safety comments.
The proposed development is located within close proximity to several park facilities, including
the facilities of Cale Elementary School and Monticello High School. In addition, the newly
proposed Biscuit Run park is also nearby. The proposed development also includes 2.78 acres
of passive recreational space, which includes greenway trails along the perennial stream
located parallel to Route 20. These greenway trails will include a trail envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan to continue along Route 20 and possibly connect to the Monticello Trails
and/or Biscuit Run. A little less than an acre of the proposed development will be used for more
M
active recreational space, including playground facilities, dog park, and possibly a clubhouse (if
feasible).
Estimated traffic counts are provided below:
AM
PM
Use Description
ITE
Qty
in
out
Total
in
out
Total
Single Family Detached
210
42
10
27
37
30
17
47
Townhomes
220
30
5
13
18
12
9
21
Total
15
40
55
42
26
68
Right Turn
4
32
Left Turn
11
10
The above table assumes 42 single family detached units and 30 townhomes (72 units total).
According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manuel, it is estimated that 40 units will be
turning out of the proposed site in the morning and 15 will be turning in, with the stream of traffic
reversing in the afternoon (42 cars into the site, 26 cars out of the site). Based on Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) data on Scottsville Road (Route 20), it is estimated that
of those turning into the site (in the AM: 11 will be turning left into the site, 3 will be right into the
site; in the PM: 10 will be turning left into the site, 32 will be turning right into the site). The
image on the next page depicts the above data based on current traffic estimates on Route 20.
If a certain relationship between turns and the existing volume of traffic is met, a right turn lane
or right turn taper would be warranted. In this instance, a right turn taper is warranted, which
will allow more room for cars turning right into the site. This right turn taper will minimize delays
on Route 20 that might have resulted from a backlog of cars turning right into the site.
120
100
FULL W10T1
g¢
Sso
00
7AP'iH REOUIREO
{JbS:
x
40
32
NO TURN LANES
OR TAPERS REQL'IItED
TURN LANE AND TAPER
516 1
7
In addition, based on advancing volume and opposing volumes (VPH), speed and percentage
left turns of Route 20, a left turn lane is not warranted. See the below graphic.
VPN
ADVAPCJMGV SUM
OPPMNO
VOLUM
5% 10% X1% M%
:p, TUGPI� ll>'T,tPOf� WT T,/,N^ Lpt Tl/Ot
WJ1PM OES,Oy SPEEW
wo
330
240
ISO
100
coo
410
305
225
200
400
510
380
278
N5
200
e40
470
350
305
100
720
515
no
NO
504111H DESIGN SPEED'
900
2B0I
"0
105
138
ew
350
280
185
170
320
400
M
240
300
M
210
270
GOW" DES" SPEED'
800
23D
170
125
115
800
200
210
180
140
400
355
270
200
175
200
450
S30
250
215
SOS
n
TABLE 3.1
Source Adapted from 2011 AASHTO
Green Book, Chapter 9, Section 9.7.3,
Page 9-132. Table 9.23
The location and timing of the traffic signals along Route 20 result in steady openings in traffic,
which will allow residents of the proposed development to turn left out of the site at regular
intervals without extended delays.
WAIVER REQUESTS
Enclosed with this Written Narrative are two exhibits. Exhibit A shows the full preliminary layout
across the entire property. Exhibit B shows the layout of Block 1 with Road D as a private
street versus the layout of Block 1 with Road D as a public street.
(1) Double Frontage Lots
The Applicant requests a wavier to allow for double frontage lots between Road B and Road E.
Section 14.401 of the County Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the development of double
frontage lots for single family detached and attached residential uses. Section 13.203.1(B)
allows the agent or Planning Commission to vary or allow an exception from this prohibition.
We request an exception from such prohibition to allow double frontage lots between Road B
and Road E, consistent with the Application Plan, and in accordance with neighborhood model
principles. Block 2 consists of rear loaded units facing either the green space of Block 7 or
Roads B and A.2. Exhibit A shows the preliminary layout of Block 2 in further detail. As shown,
the alleyway (labeled as Road E) that will allow for the rear loaded units along the open space
of Block 7 and Roads B and A.2 will also create double frontage lots between such alleyway
and Roads B and A.2. This is unavoidable due to the size, shape and location of the property.
M
The alternative would be to elongate and curve Road C into Road A, and eliminate Road B.
This new version of Road C would then consist entirely of larger, front loaded units — eliminating
the smaller, rear loaded units of Blocks 2 and 3. This would reduce the mixture of housing units
within the development as well as the possibility for rear loaded units, two key goals of the
neighborhood model.
(2) Private Street Authorizations
We request Roads D and E be authorized as private streets
As stated above, Road E will allow for the creative design of Block 2, enabling alleyways and
the avoidance of front -loaded units where possible. Road D must be a private street because it
does not satisfy the VDOT turn -radius requirement. The alternative to Road D would be larger
units surrounding two cul-de-sacs. Please see Exhibit B for further detail. The addition of two
cul-de-sacs would reduce interconnectivity and again, encourage larger, detached units rather
than the mixture of attached and detached product types.
Section 14-233 provides the regulations for the authorization of private streets in the
development areas. According to these regulations, the commission may authorize a
subdivision to be developed with one (1) or more new private streets when, "the proposed
private street(s) would enable the principles of the neighborhood model to be more fully
implemented than could be achieved with a public street, without diminishing other principles of
the neighborhood model, in the following circumstances: (i) the subdivision would have a
streetscape more consistent with the neighborhood model; (ii) the subdivision design would
allow it to better achieve the density goals of the comprehensive plan; (iii) rear vehicular access
to buildings would be provided so that the buildings may face a common amenity; (iv) a
significant environmental resources would be protected; or (v) relegated parking would be
provided to a greater extent than could otherwise be provided."
We request private street authorizations for Roads D and E on the Application Plan to allow rear
loaded units and alleyways to accommodate such units, as well as the avoidance of an
excessive number of cul-de-sacs. This design, shown on Exhibit A, is in keeping with
neighborhood model principles, such as, encouraging active greenspace and pedestrian
connectivity. The rear loaded units encourage pedestrian access on main streets and
preserves the main roadways for greenspace. The addition of cul-de-sacs also reduces
interconnectivity.
Pursuant to Section 14-234(C), the agent and the commission may authorize one or more
private streets in a subdivision if it finds that "one or more of the circumstances described in
sections 14-232 or 14-233 exist and it determines that..."
(1) "The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be
reasonably expected to be generated by the subdivision;"
The cross sections on the Application Plan show that sufficient travelway will
still be provided for Roads D and E, accommodating travel into/from the
adjoining residential units.
(2) "The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the
approximate location of the proposed private street;"
0
The Comprehensive Pan does not contemplate public streets in the locations of
Roads D and E, rather, it does contemplate a Connector Road for Road A.
Accordingly, Road A provides for more right-of-way. The Comprehensive Plan
does have the goals to `provide for a variety of housing types of all income
levels and help provide for increased density in the Development Areas."
Roads D and E will enable the designs preferred by the County: rear loaded or
alleyway access for vehicles entering/exiting residential units, while still
efficiently utilizing space for density and a variety of housing types.
(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;"
A homeowners' association will be formed upon development of the residential
units and such association will bear the cost of fees/maintenance of the private
roads.
(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;" and
The private streets will be accessed from Road A, a road internal to the
development.
(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."
This is not applicable as the Property is not within a flood hazard overlay
district.
In keeping with the principles of neighborhood model design and upon meeting each of the
conditions of 14-234(C) noted above, we request authorization of private streets as designated
in the Application Plan.
(3) Waiver of Private Street Design Requirements
Road E is intended to act as an alleyway, providing vehicular entrances/exits for the homes in
Block 2, some of which will "face" the greenspace of Block 7. Therefore, we do not believe it is
necessary for Road E to meet all of the requirements of a typical private street.
(1) Section 14-410(H) requires curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips.
Because pedestrian traffic will be limited along the alleyway such infrastructure is
not necessary. Such infrastructure will be located along the trails at the
beginning of Block 7 and the surrounding public roads. Section 14-410(I) allows
the commission to grant variations or exceptions for such requirements.
Per 14-203.1(B)(2), "the agent or commission may approve a request for a variation to
substitute a required improvement upon finding that because of an unusual situation, the
subdivider's substitution of a technique, design or materials of comparable quality from that
10
required by the applicable regulation results in an improvement that substantially satisfies the
overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the
requirement in the applicable regulation."
The use of Road E as an alleyway for vehicles allows for the "face" of such units to be
orientated towards greenspace. The use of Road E as an alleyway also allows rear -loaded units
in Blocks 2 and 3, another goal of the County.
Per 14-203.1(13)(3), "the agent or commission may approve a request for an exception from any
requirement of the applicable regulation upon finding that: (i) because of an unusual situation,
including but not limited to, the unusual size, topography, shape of the site or the location of the
site; or (ii) when strict adherence to the requirements would result in significant degradation of
the site or to adjacent properties', causing a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or
by inhibiting the orderly development of the area or the application of sound engineering
practices."
Strict adherence to the requirement of curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips would
not allow the economical construction of the alleyways, which would disincentivize the benefit of
rear loaded units, which was a specific request of the County.
Because the above two conditions are met, we believe a waiver of the requirement for curb,
curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips on Road E should be granted.
(4) Modifications of Setbacks
(A) Note B of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan states, "Minimum front setback shall be 3
feet from the right-of-way for Private Road "E"."
(B) Noted E of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan states, "Structures adjoining Private
Road "E" shall have a minimum rear setback of 5 feet."
According to Section 4.19, a minimum front setback of 5 feet is required and a minimum rear
setback of 20 feet is required. However, Note 2 of Section 4.19 allows for a special exception
request for any minimum setback. In addition, Section 8.2b allows for the waiver or modification
of any requirement of Section 4. We request special exceptions to (1) modify the minimum front
setback from 5 feet to 3 feet along Private Road E, and (2) modify the minimum rear setback
from 20 feet to 5 feet for structures adjoining Private Road E.
According to Section 8.2b3, a waiver or modification may be granted only if:
(i) the modification or waiver is consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned
development district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable
requirements of Section 8;
(ii) the modification or waiver is consistent with planned development design principles;
(iii) the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety, or
general welfare; and
(iv) in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original
regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification.
11
According to Section 19.1, Planned Residential Districts are intended to "encourage
sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the
surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to promote
economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and
harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best interest
of the county and the area in which it is located."
Modified front and rear setbacks enable the efficient construction of alleyways for rear
loaded units. Without modification to such setbacks for Private Road E, it would be
difficult for the alleyway to serve as a means of access to the rear of the units because
the structure would be required to be located a larger distance from the alleyway.
In sum, allowing modifications to front and rear setbacks along Private Road E allows
the design of rear loaded units. As stated earlier, the alternative would be to elongate
and curve Road C into Road A, and eliminate Road B. This new version of Road C
would then consist entirely of larger, front loaded units — eliminating the smaller, rear
loaded units of Blocks 2 and 3. This would reduce the mixture of housing units within
the development as well as the possibility for rear loaded units, two key goals of the
neighborhood model. Therefore, allowing for the modifications necessary for Road E to
function as an alleyway would be consistent with the intent and design of PRD, would
not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and satisfy the public
purposes of the original regulation.
Conclusion
In sum, the project is consistent with the Property's land use designation and intended design of
the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for the County to connect Route 20 to Mill Creek Drive, while
still preserving quality design.
12
I
x
E
L
cz
Ll—
a)
X
c6
M
13
N
W
Exhibit A
Galaxie Farm
Product Summary
Attached
Marge lots) �� /
Layout with Road D as a Private Street
Exhibit B
Layout with Road D as a Public Street
i
60
1\ m1
t
U.S. Route 64
ow
' .� \Or' � '�? ��. '.`* =, ���'•'n • it
A 1 toll
HI
PAUL H. CALE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
i
Avinity
�. CI
rP
At
f
c.
NTS
1's 0
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
GALAXI E FARM
CONTEXT:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Sheet 2 of 10
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
NTS
Image: Albemarle County Virginia GIS Database -Comprehensive Plan
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
EXI§�TJwGA%(T(6N�
,iC�ShOet�'af10
TI1(IP9�12A
Clau or Virginia
//S;Ihorse
Zoned R1/
TMP9Ir-11 I I 1 i/ ,--_\ T 94
Cou�lty of,d�lbemrle I II 1 Uavyd or arieWifiner/
�15.8,4cres V I I , i �' �' Acres
Zone fi R1 / i / , - - - Zoned R1.
i
6ALAXJE-FARM/LANE
r l ,
If
TOP 91-15
Ar
Jasper or Mallie Haynes
8.27 Acres
11
ZonedR1
i l 1 i I
i
loll
III I /---lwP-91-14c-L7 _ _ -_ - - _ \ , ,/ ' /� , �fMP(s)
_�
I I — Ayinity Estates LLC— — — — — — _ \ T�I� / ' �i� — — Sbrrritteii I�Septerf�ber,2019
2A Qcres \ — — — — — — — — _ �� I i / �' Revised 01 April 2019
i Zoned PRD / — — — _ _ _ \ I 1 I �I \ J ' /// �j , — \Revised 20 May 2019
Revised t5 July 2Q19
-.Revised 21 August2019
R VISI "4SEPTEMBER 2019
100 0 100 200 ` 3 \ \ �� I / / i / > /, / 1// ,I / / , — — — — - \ project 18.025
Graphic Scale: 1 " = 100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
i i i I I APPLICATIONtPLAN
E • 1/wYi A /,�dR//
OA
� \ � I I I I I I ✓I 1 I I � � / /
- - /s'��PC/K N� ciRK
% St*et,4/of 16
If
D000,
1
' - Block '
/aritical,9Iopes
\ J / / / I I ��� / / /✓ i= , -'Block
CANS ...._..,.:..
I � 7
GALAXIE FARM , _ ROAD A.2 / '
Block' / / / / ' i ROgp
i
3
10
54 , R¢w — /
_I Extends 'to
OP
IR ROAD C SIPrpfrtrLine /Block .
/ III I
Il V
Oq ' L -
I —'?CC es 9eryc / / ' _ <
S oh/y) /� , // / _ VMP(s) 91-Q�, 9�1 15
01/ — — Sabrriitted 17 September 2a19
Revised 01 April 2619
Revised 20 May 2b19
Revised 13 duly 2b19
F�vised 21 August 2b19
Rt/FSED-04S_EPTEMI3EI_2019
100 200 300100 iy ' 3roject:'18.025
Graphic Scale: 1 " = 100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
/ APPLICATION/PLAN
iG / / / / / / I / I / / / / / / pensof) 6
/ D
/ I ?♦ ///' / ' i'ee/ /
\ / — — / 'Critical Slope; /
CLASS B - TYPE 1 '
......... / ' ' /' �.' PRIMITIVE NATURE
\ /
TRAIL
G LAXIE FAR AN ' / ROAD A.2
CD 41
54'IROrW
i / • // ♦ / I I I
,
tenpls to ROAD
IPrBpelrtyLine — — / .....- ........C..
r
mum
/ III I / ' / / / ' /— — — _ _ \ ° ! • ' / ' J/
_ _ R � \
- _ L_ r
�, I�� • ♦ /� — — \ SUbm�tted 17 September Al9
PRESERVED TREAM BU Ea �I1 / /�/ ' _ \ \ ` Revised 01 April 2d19
(2.781Acr@s) (� J / ♦' �' / \ \ \ Revised 20 May 2d19
, �♦ /./ / Revised 15 July-2619
�i�vised 21 August 2b19
�� \ \ \ �I I / �/ / / // ♦♦(/ /I / / / _ _ RE_VISEDb4:S_EPiENIBfR 2019
100 0 100 200 �300 \104> / / .♦ _ . �� project. 18.025
Graphic Scale:1"=100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
BLOCK ID
ALLOWABLE
RECREATION OR
STRUCTURE
ACREAGE
TRAILS, DOG PARK,
PLAYGROUND,
3.39
NATURESCAPE,
SPORTS FIXTURES
TRAILS, DOG PARK,
PLAYGROUND,
8
NATURESCAPE,
0.3
CLUBHOUSE,
SPORTS FIXTURES
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPL1CATIO� PICA' N
' 0A(LAXJ E FARE
/RECFOWtow/i
/6f 10
NOTES: /' / r
A) The 2.78 acres of Block 7 shown as the hashed area on
this Sheet shall be restricted to low impact trial use and pas-
sive recreation.JMI
B) If Block 8 includes a clubhouse or other similar structure, \ I V I — i / �♦ -
elated (egyireding shall be provided in Bloch 3. I AI / / / / /AMI lock
\ / - �•
' / I IE FARM LANE 7 /
ROAD A.2 �" /
I I � GALAX � ' ��.. �f
04f • /
/ — R 0• / i
, q7
KV
ca
10
... ....- , .• Q
54'ROW — O�
l I Proe nds-tto,, /
..�
� — ' � / • " ' ROAD C ��� � �
Prty Line ............. • /
/ - • •/
RO C a�tr 1 1
414
accer9e F . /
_ — — _ — — — — Submitted 17 September 2019
/i �/ /' Revis�d-01-April 2019
'Revised 20 May-2Q.19
wised 15 July 2019
\ V� / / �� / —-Revised21August-20.19
ANN/ / / / ! / / / _ _REVISED W EUEMBER-2019
0 100 200 300
100 project:18.025
Graphic Scale:1"=100' SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
BLOCK ID
UNIT TYPE
ACREAGE
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
UNITS
MAXIMUM
STRUCTURE
HEIGHT (ft)
t
SFD, SFA
2.5
16
35
2
SFD, SFA, TH
0.93
10
35
3
SFD, SFA, TH
0.62
10
1 35
4
SFD, SFA
1.9
12
35
5
SFD, SFA
0.98
7
35
6
SFD, SFA, TH
1.29
20
35
7
OPEN SPACE
3.39
N/A
35
8
OPEN SPACE
0.3
N/A
35
Total
75
Z ,NING"IVIAPAAAEiNQWJENT
/ //
Sheet/7 Of 10
/ OAD
'Acreage per block excludes areas that overlap with the stream buffer (except block 7) r JI I / B I O C k ' / i ' i / /�/ / / ✓
-BTock
7
ALAXIEFAR _7ROAD A.2
/
•
\ - 4 / ' to Bloch . CO E16ck
I / 3 0 2
QO
IROW
' I
O
I Ex�eno-\ — B OG`k
Q ..... ROAD
I Pr p rty Line /
I — — — — Block
V O / / /�
— / _
—
NOTES: —�e$s
A) For front loaded garages, the porch or building face shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as measured from the face of the garages _ \ ON
B) Minimum front setback shall be 3 feet from the right-of-way for Private Road "E':
C) All Blocks except 7 and 8 may be used for residential uses as noted by the unit types listed above. 1 \ ♦ / 7F ///,
D) All rear yards (except those adjoining Road "E") shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet.
E) Structures along Road `E" shall have a minimum rear setback of 5 feet.
F) No structures or lots shall be permitted in the stream buffer or on preserved slopes. No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed.
G) Retaining walls within the development shall meet the design standards required for the distance of managed slopes in Section 30.7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. / / , / �Ubmitted 17 September-2(119
H) Total allowable residential units shall be 75. / / _
/teuised-011 A ri12019
I) Road "C" is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-13 to be extended and dedicated upon demand of the County. � IZ
)) 25% of the required stormwater quality treatment shall be provided onsite. / / 1(1 / , / / — — — \-RevISe(t2l)-M ay 20.19
> / ./ i — — — - Rev sed,1'5 Judy 2019
of Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ROAD A.1- Public
ill ii_-ii=`�=�
1' 6" 2'
5' I
17'
77'
5'
2' 6"1'
(WK w
z
z
z
W
w KU
Z J
J z
0U'
Y
UW
WU
Y
w
(9
Fz
0
>
a
0
FZ
10 0 10 20 30
Graphic Scale: 1 "=10'
ROAD A.2- Public
1' 5' 6' 6" 2' 5' 11' 11' 5' 6" 6' 5' 1'
W J d K W z W z z K R U
Z m z m a m z m ~
z a
a a
GALAXIE FARM
URBAN STREET SECTIONS
STREETS A - C
Sheet 8 of 10
ROADS B, C- Public
1' 5'
6' 6"
IV
10' 9'
6" 6
5' 1'
W J
LL
rc
U
Z
5
W z
5
K LL
= rc
U
z
F
5a
z
z
a
zz
a
r
a
a
z
TMP()
3
91-0991-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
ROAD D- Private
1' 5' 6' 2' 10' 10' 7 6' 5' 1'
�d 3 z z a Ja z
5 5 z
r 55 z w z r
5
a a
10 0 10 20 30
Graphic Scale: 1 "=10'
ROAD E- Private
30 FT EASEMENT
10'
19
W
W
5
5
ROAD F- Emergency Access Only
30 FT EASEMENT
10 FT
EMERGENCY
ACCESS
ROAD
GALAXIE FARM
URBAN STREET SECTIONS
D - F & NATURE TRAIL
Sheet 9 of 10
CLASS B - TYPE 1
PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL -Private
30'
ACCESS EA;
� 5,
CLASS B - TYPE 1
PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONING MAPAMENDMENT
APPLICATION PLAN
A) AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
15% of the total residential dwelling units within
the project shall be Affordable Dwelling Units (the
15% Affordable Housing Requirement'). The 15%
Affordable Housing Requirement may be met
through a variety of housing types, including but
not limited to, for -sale units, or rental units.
(i) For -Sale Affordable Dwelling Units.
All purchasers of the affordable units shall be
approved by the Albemarle County Office of
Housing or its designee ("Housing Office"). A
for -sale Affordable Dwelling Unit shall mean any
unit affordable to households with income less
than eighty percent (80%) of the area median
income (as determined from time to time by the
Housing Office) such that housing costs consisting
of principal, interest, real estate taxes and
homeowners insurance (PITT) do not exceed thirty
percent (30%) of the gross household income;
provided, however, that in no event shall the
selling price for such affordable units be more than
sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable Virginia
Housing Development Authority (VHDA) maximum
sales price / loan limit for first-time homebuyer
programs (the "VHDA Limit'). The Applicant
or its successor shall provide the County or its
designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify
and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the for -
sale Affordable Dwelling Units. The ninety (90)
day period shall commence upon written notice
from the Applicant or its successor that the unit(s)
will be available for sale. This notice shall not be
given more than sixty (60) days prior to receipt
of the Certificate of Occupancy for the applicable
for -sale Affordable Dwelling Unit; the County or
its designee may then have thirty (30) days within
which to provide a qualified purchaser for such for -
sale Affordable Dwelling Unit. If the County or its
designee does not provide a qualified purchaser
during the ninety (90) day period, the Applicant or
its successor shall have the right to sell the unit(s)
without any restriction on sales price or income of
the purchaser(s). This shall apply only to the first
sale of each of the for -sale Affordable Dwelling
Units.
(ii) For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units.
(1) Rental Rates.
The initial net rent for each rental housing unit
which shall qualify as an Affordable Dwelling Unit,
("For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit') shall not
exceed the then -current and applicable maximum
net rent rate approved by the Housing Office.
In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly
net rent for each For -Rent Affordable Dwelling
Unit may be increased up to three percent (3%).
The term "net rent' means that the rent does
not include tenant -paid utilities or Homeowners
Association fees. The requirement that the rents
for such For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units may
not exceed the maximum rents established in this
Section shall apply for a period of ten (10) years
following the date the certificate of occupancy is
issued by the County for each For -Rent Affordable
Dwelling Unit, or until the units are sold as low
or moderate cost units qualifying as such under
either the VHDA, Farmers Home Administration,
or Housing and Urban Development, Section 8,
whichever comes first (the "Affordable Term").
(2) Conveyance of Interest.
All deeds conveying any interest in the For -Rent
Affordable Dwelling Units during the Affordable
Term shall contain language reciting that such unit
is subject to the terms of this Section. In addition,
all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any
For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, or any part
thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a
complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and
controls established by this Section. At least thirty
(30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest
in any For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit during
the Affordable Term, the then -current Owner shall
notify the County in writing of the conveyance
and provide the name, address and telephone
number of the potential grantee, and state that the
requirements of this Section have been satisfied.
(3) Reporting Rental Rates.
During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30)
days of each rental or lease term for each For -
Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit, the Applicant or
its successor shall provide to the Housing Office
a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each
such unit rented that shows the rental rate for such
unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement.
In addition, during the Affordable Term, the
Applicant or its successor shall provide to the
County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental
or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to
rental rates as the County may reasonably require.
(iii) Tracking.
Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within
the Property shall: i) designate the lots or units,
as applicable, that will constitute Affordable
Dwelling Units within the Project and ii) contain a
running tally of the Affordable Dwelling Units either
constructed or contributed for under this Section.
The designated lots or units shown on each site
plan shall designate 15% of the total units shown
as Affordable Dwelling Units. The 15% Affordable
Housing Requirement shall be satisfied prior to
more than sixty-five percent (65%) completion of
the Project.
GALAXI E FARM
SUPPLEMENTARY
REGULATIONS
Sheet 10 of 10
TMP(s) 91-09, 91-15
Submitted 17 September 2019
Revised 01 April 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
Revised 15 July 2019
Revised 21 August 2019
REVISED 04 SEPTEMBER 2019
project: 18.025
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
AIR*
n
I
91 an is
=am
offAm—
wnnmm�
d
IVOA�
I
a �
OM 4
OWN' t
V
Ilk
-..'. 4Y
'�i .k T IY � n s N • �7 C r'rS1 ^pd��. �� . r�.• \��4�� i �.� T� ,bl�' 7��.
4v&
.. . r ,.� a � � :��.�'• 51 ti'Cf`%' � �•-�i}} �•� �ry .. �
ko If
try
,
' ' . _ .F .r%r( , ;ran F'r.� i>•
Akilw
' 1
\v
w� _•�f2JlF . -
r �
r
� � w
�. �y�• l - •.� . fin .h. 3 ., -y�. R
Attachment 7 — ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm
Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles
Pedestrian
. Sidewalks and trails are provided throughout the development. This principle has
Orientation
been met.
Mixture of Uses
. The proposal is for residential uses only, however there are a mixture of uses
within the immediate area including schools, assisted living, fire station, shopping,
and County owned land designated for institutional.
. In addition to the above, the Neighborhood Model principles for mixture of uses
discusses how Historic Properties should be respected and that a desire to
preserve these resources should be included. As stated within the report there are
historic buildings on the property that were recommended to be incorporated into
the development, however they are proposed by the applicant to be demolished.
. This principle is partially met.
Neighborhood
The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan indicates that a Center
Centers
should be provided on a County owned property near the proposed properties. It
further discusses that a small area plan be developed to determine what type of
center would be appropriate on the County owned property. While the proposed
properties do not include a center, they are important considerations as the
County considers how to develop their property.
Mixture of
15% affordable housing is offered, however most of the units will only be
Housing Types
provided if density is above the recommendations of the Comp Plan.
and
. A mix of housing types is permitted within all blocks, but nothing in the
Affordability
application requires a mix of housing types within the development, so the
development could end up being built to one housing type.
This principle is partially met.
Interconnected
. The application plan proposes the connector road as recommended in the master
Streets and
plan, and allows for this road to be extended within County properties.
Transportation
. Road C allows for a future connection to the west of properties.
Networks
. This principle has been met.
Multi -modal
. A pedestrian primitive trail is provided along the frontage of the property and bike
Transportation
lanes and sidewalks are provided for Road A.
Opportunities
. This principle has been met.
. Open space is being provided along the stream buffers where a primitive trail will
Parks,
Recreational
be located.
Amenities, and
. Block 8 provides for an active recreation area.
Open Space
. This principle has been met.
Buildings and
• Structures are proposed to be a maximum of 35 feet in height.
Space of
. This principle has been met.
Human Scale
Relegated
. Front loaded lots are expected within the development. The application plan
Parking
states that for front loaded garages, the porch or building face shall be a minimum
of 3 feet closer to the street as measure from the garage door.
. Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. Alleys should be
explored to provide relegated parking behind main structures. The applicant has
stated in response to relegated parking that there are zero side or rear loaded
structures in the Avinity subdivision, and therefore it's not appropriate here. While
other developments have been approved in the vicinity to have front loaded
garages, that does not mean that form of development, which doesn't meet the
Attachment 7 — ZMA201800012 Galaxie Farm
Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles
Neighborhood Model, should continue. Staff believes that a design could be
explored for Blocks 4-6 to incorporate alleys behind lots to address this principle.
. While staff believes alleys could be incorporated into the development, it is
recognized that previous applications have been approved with the same
language that is proposed regarding the garages being setback from the porch.
Redevelopment This proposal is on property that is currently not developed, therefore, this
principle does not apply.
Respecting . Preserved slopes and stream buffer are located within Block 1. All lots are
Terrain and proposed to be located outside of the preserved slopes and stream buffer.
Careful . This principle has been met.
Grading and
Re -grading of
Terrain
Clear . Rural area is located across the street from this proposal. The proposed buffer
Boundaries and open space will mitigate the impact.
with the Rural . This principle is met.
Area
Modification Requests- Staff Analysis
#1: Authorization of Private Streets for Roads D and E
Private streets may be authorized by the Planning Commission as provided by any one of the
provisions of Section 14-233.
The applicant has requested approval of private streets for Roads D and E using Neighborhood
model development as justification. Ordinance language presented in bold italics followed by
staff comment.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-233(A)(1) Neighborhood model development.
May be authorized if the proposed private street(s) would enable the principles of the
neighborhood model to be more fully implemented than could be achieved with a public street,
without diminishing other principles of the neighborhood model, in the following circumstances:
(i) the subdivision would have a streetscape more consistent with the neighborhood model; (ii)
the subdivision design would allow it to better achieve the density goals of the comprehensive
plan; (iii) rear vehicular access to buildings would be provided so that the buildings may face a
common amenity; (iv) a significant environmental resource would be protected, or (v) relegated
parking would be provided to a greater extent than could otherwise be provided.
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval for private streets for Road E only.
Road E provides rear access to lots that are oriented toward a common amenity, and the traffic
generated from the streets will be for the residents and their visitors and not cut through traffic.
The layout for the amenity -oriented block will allow for a design that is consistent with the
neighborhood model principles by providing rear access and relegated parking.
However, staff does not recommend approval for the private street request for Road D. While
the road does provide interconnection internally to the development, staff does not believe this
interconnection outweighs the cost for the residents to maintain the road. In addition, the layout
for public roads would provide an opportunity to provide interconnection to adjacent property by
extending the right of way to the property line at the end of the western most cul-de-sac. Also, a
pedestrian access could be provided between the cul-de-sacs within the created open space,
and the same number of lots and types of units are achievable with the public street layout.
The analysis provided below is only for Road E, which staff is supporting.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-234:
Per Section 14-234(C), the Commission may authorize one or more private roads to be
constructed in a subdivision if it finds that one or more of the circumstances described in
Section 14-233 exists and that: (ordinance language presented in bold italics followed by staff
comment)
1. The private road will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably
expected to be generated by the subdivision.
The amount of traffic expected on the requested private streets is minimal. While Fire
Rescue and Engineering Divisions find no objections to the proposed streets being private,
the ultimate design of the streets are subject to approval by both agencies and must meet
their requirements.
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of
the proposed private road;
The Southern and Western Neighborhood Master Plan does not show a public street in this
location.
3. The fee of the private road will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way
thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in
either case to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by the road,
Section 14-317 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that a maintenance agreement be
submitted for review by Planning staff and the County Attorney in all situations where
improvements are required to be maintained. This agreement will be required during the
subdivision process. The applicant has indicated that the private streets will be entirely owned
and maintained by the HOA.
4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private road
will not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location;
While the street will intersect the state highway system in more than one location, staff believes
with the low number of lots served by the street, that there will be minimal if any cut -through
traffic. The proposed amenity oriented private streets serve a public purpose by enabling the
principles of the neighborhood model to be more fully implemented than could be achieved with
a public street by allowing a smaller pavement section and rear access to the lots.
5. If applicable, the private road has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood
hazard overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law.
The requested private streets will not require any upgrades nor impact the flood plain.
Summary:
Staff recommends approval of private street Road E which serves amenity -oriented lots.
#2: Modification of Street Standards
2a. Exception of Sidewalk Requirement for Road E
Sidewalks are required to be established on both sides of each new street within a subdivision
in the development areas. The applicant has requested a sidewalk variation for Road E. The
requirements for sidewalks may be varied by the commission as provided in section 14-
203.1(13)(1).
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-422 (E) Waivers from sidewalk requirements:
Per Section 14-422(E)(2), in reviewing a request to vary the requirement for sidewalks, the
commission shall consider whether: (ordinance language presented in bold italics followed by
staff comment)
i. A waiver to allow a rural cross section has been granted,
A waiver to allow a rural cross section has not been granted or requested.
ii. A surface other than concrete is more appropriate for the subdivision because of the
character of the proposed subdivision and the surround neighborhood,
No alternative surface is proposed.
2
iii. Sidewalks on one side of the street are appropriate due to environmental constraints such as
streams, stream buffers, critical slopes, floodplain, or wetlands, or because lots are provided on
only one side of the street;
Sidewalks are not being proposed on one side of the street.
iv. The sidewalks reasonably can connect to an existing or future pedestrian system in the area;
Sidewalks will be required along all public streets that will create a pedestrian network
throughout the development. Staff is recommending a condition that a five (5) foot sidewalk be
provided across the length of the amenity area, outside of the stream buffer, for access to and
from the lots and connect to the sidewalk network along the public streets.
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 length of the streets is short, and the density within this area is minimal and other nearby
pedestrian facilities are provided to connect to the larger development. Also, a trail will be
provided within the amenity to allow pedestrian access from the lots to the surround sidewalks
and pedestrian network.
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,
The subdivider has not proposed an alternative profile and is proposing sidewalks that meet the
County's design standards.
vii. The sidewalks would be publicly or privately maintained;
Sidewalks for private streets would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Sidewalks
adjacent to public streets will be maintained by VDOT.
viii. The waiver promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan, the neighborhood model, and the
applicable neighborhood master plan, and
This waiver promotes the goals of the neighborhood model. Alleyways without sidewalks and
planting strips are encouraged under the neighborhood model for blocks that provide rear
access to proposed lots.
ix. waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be
more fully achieved.
Waiving the requirement will allow the lots to be accessed from the rear of the property. This
allows the relegated parking principle to be fully achieved.
SUMMARY:
Staff's opinion is that sidewalk does not need to be provided along the private streets providing
rear access for Road E. Additionally, this request has been previously approved in a number of
other planned development in the County.
Staff recommends approval of the sidewalk exception for the Road E only with the following
condition:
1. A five (5) foot sidewalk across the length of the amenity area, outside of the stream
buffer, will be provided for access to and from the lots and connect to the sidewalk
network along the public streets.
2b. Exception of Planting Strip Requirement for Road E
Planting strips for street trees and other vegetation are required to be established on both sides
of each new street within the development areas. The applicant has requested an exception to
the planting strip requirement for Road E. The requirements for planting strips may be waived by
the commission as provided in Section 14-203.1(13)(3).
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-203.1 (13)(3) Findings for an exception:
Per Section 14-203.1(13)(3) the commission may approve a request for an exception from any
requirement of the applicable regulation upon finding that: (ordinance language presented in
bold italics followed by staff comment)
i. Because of an unusual situation, including but not limited to, the unusual size, topography,
shape of the site or the location of the site, or
No unusual situation exists.
ii. When strict adherence to the requirements would result in substantial injustice or hardship by,
including but not limited to, resulting in the significant degradation of the site or to adjacent
properties, causing a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or by inhibiting the orderly
development of the area or the application of sound engineering practices.
The neighborhood model principles encourage relegated parking and rear access to lots. Since
the proposal will include amenity -oriented lots in this location and Road E is functioning as an
alley, staff believes planting strip requirements are not needed in this location. The orderly
development, as recommended in the comprehensive plan, would be better served by not
providing planting strips.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-422 (F) Waivers from planting strip requirements:
Per Section 14-422(F)(2), the commission shall consider whether: (ordinance language
presented in bold italics followed by staff comment)
i. A waiver to allow a rural cross section has been granted,
A waiver to allow a rural cross section has not been granted or requested.
ii. A sidewalk waiver has been granted,
A sidewalk waiver is included with this request and is recommended for approval by staff.
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;
and
Eliminating the planting strip maximizes the area available for open space and creates an alley -
like streetscape for rear access to each lot. Sidewalks and street trees are required on both
sides of the street on all other roads within the development.
iv. Waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be
more fully achieved.
4
This waiver promotes the goals of the neighborhood model by allowing an alleyway like
condition to allow the majority of the lots to front on an amenity while relegating parking to the
rear.
SUMMARY:
Staff's opinion is that the proposed private streets would function as alleys and planting strips
are not required for alleyways. Planting strips are required to be provided along the proposed
public roads within the development and there will be the amenity open space as well.
Staff recommends approval of the planting strip exception for Road E only.
2c. Exception of Curb and Gutter Requirement for Road E
Curb or curb and gutter are required to be established on both sides of each new street within a
subdivision in the development areas. The applicant has requested an exception for Road E. The
requirements for curb or curb and gutter may be waived by the commission as provided in
section 14-203.14-203.1(13)(3).
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-203.1 (13)(3) Findings for an exception:
Per Section 14-203.1(13)(3) the commission may approve a request for an exception from any
requirement of the applicable regulation upon finding that: (ordinance language presented in
bold italics followed by staff comment)
i. Because of an unusual situation, including but not limited to, the unusual size, topography,
shape of the site or the location of the site, or
No unusual situation exists.
ii. When strict adherence to the requirements would result in substantial injustice or hardship by,
including but not limited to, resulting in the significant degradation of the site or to adjacent
properties, causing a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or by inhibiting the orderly
development of the area or the application of sound engineering practices.
Staff believes that curb and gutter should be provided to protect the health, safety and welfare
by allowing for better stormwater management and limiting parking along the shoulder.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-410 (1) Waivers from curb and curb and gutter requirements:
Per Section 14-410(I)(2), in reviewing a request to waive the requirement for curb or curb and
gutter, the commission shall consider whether: (ordinance language presented in bold italics
followed by staff comment)
i. The number of lots in the subdivision and the types of lots to be served,
There are a low number of lots to be served from Road E.
ii. The length of the street,
The length of the street is approximately 250 feet.
iii. Whether the proposed street(s) or street extension connects into an existing system of
streets constructed to a rural cross-section,
The proposed street does not connect to an existing system of streets constructed to a rural
cross-section.
iv. The proximity of the subdivision and the street to the boundaries of the development and
rural areas,
The rural area boundary is across Route 20, however the street does not connect directly to
Route 20 and is internal to the development, which is in the development areas.
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 street terminates in the neighborhood and is not expected to provide interconnections to
abutting lands.
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;
A rural cross section in this location does not further the goals of the comprehensive plan, nor
the neighborhood model or neighborhood master plan.
vii. Whether the use of a rural cross-section would enable a different principle of the
neighborhood model to be more fully implemented, and
Use of a rural cross section would not enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to
be more fully implemented.
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 proposed density of the rezoning is not consistent with the recommended density within
the comprehensive plan.
SUMMARY:
Engineering and Planning staff has reviewed this request and recommends denial. The County
Engineer recommends curb and gutter for better management of stormwater. Additionally, a
number of other developments within the County that have private streets serving amenity -
oriented lots, including Old Trail and Cascadia, have provided curb and gutter.
#3. Modification of Planned Residential Development Setbacks for front and rear setback
The applicant is requesting to modify the front and rear setbacks for structures accessed by proposed
private street Road E. Section 4.19 of Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance, requires a five (5) foot
minimum front setback and a 20-foot minimum rear setback for PRD zoning district. The applicant
proposes a minimum front setback of three (3) feet and a minimum rear setback of five (5) feet.
County Code § 18-8.2(b) permits any regulation under Section 4 to be modified or waived by the
Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under County Code §§ 18-33.43 through 18-33.51.
Staff analysis for County Code § 18-8.2(b)(3) is provided below:
3. Findings. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or
modification in sections 4, 5, 21, 26, or 32, a waiver or modification may be granted only if it is
also found:
No findings are required under Section 4.19.
69
To be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the
particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable requirements of section 8,
Staff has reviewed the intent and purposes of the Planned Residential Development District and
found the proposal to be consistent with the purposes of the district, including promoting
efficient land use, and encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site. The
proposed PRD provides several residential types, and open space/stream buffer along the
frontage of Route 20 provides a buffer to the adjacent rural area across the street.
ii. To be consistent with planned development design principles,
The application has been reviewed under the Neighborhood Model Principles and has been
found to meet those principles.
iii. That the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general
welfare,
Staff has found that the public health, safety, and general welfare will be maintained.
iv. In the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation
would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification.
The proposed amenity -oriented lots served by proposed private street Road E serve a public
purpose by enabling the principles of the neighborhood model to be more fully implemented
than could be achieved with a public street by allowing a smaller pavement section and rear
access to the lots. However, staff believes that the front setback should be maintained for those
lots fronting on the public streets, Road A and B.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends approval of the front setbacks only for the amenity -oriented lots accessed by
Road E and recommends approval of the rear setback for all lots accessed by Road E. Therefore,
lots that front on Roads A and B must meet the front setback requirements under 4.19.
7