HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700153 Legacy Document 2008-01-08COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: Oxford Properties, LLC
Staff: John Shepherd
Planning Commission Pre -Site
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Development Plan Application
N/A
Worksession:
January 15, 2008
Owner: Gaston G. Fornes Revocable
Applicant: Oxford Properties, LLC/ Plan
Trust & Mattie Lee Fornes Revocable
prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Trust
Acreage: 24.203 Acres
Zoning: Residential — R -15, Entrance Corridor,
Flood Hazard & Airport Impact Area Overlay
Districts
TMP: Tax Map 76, Parcel 45
By -right use: Theoretically 363 units.
Location: The property is located on the
west side of Old Lynchburg Road across
from Azalea Park just north of Interstate
Route 64.
Proposal: 9 buildings with 3 stories on
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 308
the high side and 4 stories on the low side
containing 308 dwelling units with
associated parking, a leasing office, a
swimming pool and recreational amenities
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Development Area: Neighborhood Five
Character of Property: Wooded with
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single family
critical slopes as well as floodplain and
dwellings and Azalea Park in the City of
wetlands associated with Moore's Creek.
Charlottesville, Interstate 64 and multifamily
developments of Eagle's Landing and Jefferson
Ridge.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission review this proposal and
provide comment on the following four items:
(1) Conceptual development plan;
(It is staff opinion that the proposal represents over - development of the site.)
(2) Critical slope waiver per 4.2;
(Staff recommends denial)
(3) Waiver to allow only one point of access per 32.7.2.4;
(Staff recommends approval subject to conditions)
(4) Issue of WPO stream buffer disturbance per 17 -320, 321 & 322;
(Planning staff does not recommend the approval of a mitigation plan to disturb thebuffer.)
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION:
(5) Potential special permit for fill in the floodplain per 30.3.05.2.2;
(6) Potential waiver to allow the entrance to be located in the floodplain per 32.7.2.3.
(7) Issue of inter - parcel connection per 32.7.2.5;
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
JOHN SHEPHERD
JANUARY 15, 2008
OXFORD PROPERTIES, LLC
PRE - APPLICATION SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WORK SESSION
REQUEST
The applicant, Oxford Properties, LLC, represented by Valerie W. Long, has asked the Planning
Commission to provide preliminary comments on a potential multifamily development. The initial
proposal showed 280 dwelling units. The plan has been revised and now shows 308 dwelling units
with associated parking, a leasing office, a swimming pool and recreational amenities. It is in the
Entrance Corridor, Flood Hazard and Airport Impact Area overlay districts and is located on the
west side of Old Lynchburg Road across from Azalea Park just north of Interstate Route 64. It is in
the Scottsville Magisterial District.
The residential use and density proposed for this property are permitted by right in the R -15 zoning
district. Since this is not a rezoning the off -site impacts of this development, including traffic
impacts, will not be mitigated by proffers. However, this particular proposal will require a number of
waivers due to critical slopes, wetlands, and stream buffer and will possibly require a special permit
due to floodplain on the site.
The tax map, location map, concept plan, Open Space Plan, map showing critical slopes and flood
plain, and a letter from Valerie Long describing the project are attached as A, B, C, D, E & F
respectively.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The property is bound by Moore's Creek to the East, by the multi - family residential developments of
Jefferson Ridge and Eagle's Landing to the North West and by Interstate 64 to the South. Azalea
Park is located across Old Lynchburg Road in the City. The property has 193 feet of frontage on
Old Lynchburg Road. Moore's Creek serves as the boundary between the Fry's Spring area of the
City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle.
The existing comprehensive plan land use /density for this parcel, Tax Map 76 -45, is Urban Density
Residential - (6 -34 units /acre) in Neighborhood 5.
The 24.203 -acre parcel 26 is wooded. A substantial portion of the parcel contains critical slopes.
The property also contains floodplain and contiguous wetlands as well as the stream buffer
associated with Moore's Creek.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
The property is zoned R -15 and is in the Entrance Corridor, Flood Hazard & Airport Impact area
Overlay Districts
SUB 2007 -157 is a boundary adjustment plat that was approved on June 4, 2007. This transaction
added the 11.213 -acre portion of T.M. 76 -46B that was located south of Interstate 64 to T.M. 76 -45.
As a result, T.M. 76 -45 contains 24.203 acres. (The plat is attachment 1)
2
ISSUES
The applicant has asked the Planning Commission to address the following issues:
1. The Commission's general reaction to the conceptual development plan;
2. The Commission's inclination to support a critical slopes waiver per 4.2; and,
3. The Commission's inclination to support a waver of the requirement of a second point of
access to the property per 32.7.2.4.
Staff has identified an additional issue to be addressed by the Planning Commission:
4. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the Program Authority to support a
request to disturb the buffer associated with floodplain and wetlands of Moore's Creek.
Staff has identified three additional issues that must be addressed prior to final site development
plan approval. These are provided here for information but do not require Planning Commission
action at this time.
5. If it is determined that either the entrance, travel way or turn lanes require fill to be placed
in the floodplain a special permit will be required per section 30.3.05.2.2;
6. If the only entrance to the development is in the floodplain a waiver is required to allow
that entrance to be located in the floodplain per 32.7.2.3. and,
7. If the project is developed as shown the agent or Planning Commission may require inter -
parcel connection or not as set forth in section 32.7.2.5.
1. Proposed conceptual development plan
The conceptual development plan dated December 10, 2007 shows 308 dwelling units in 9
buildings, a leasing office, a swimming pool and 540 parking spaces. This results in a density of
12.72 dwellings per acre. The achievement of this density relies on extensive retaining walls and on
the approval of several waivers and possibly a special permit due to the topographic and
environmental features of the property. The need for these waivers and special permit is
summarized below. More analysis of each one is provided later in this report.
The development is expected to generate 2,070 vehicle trips per day. This will result in additional
traffic on Old Lynchburg Road and in the Fry's Spring neighborhood in the City. While not relevant
to by -right development, concerns regarding the capacity of Old Lynchburg Road were discussed
during the recent rezoning of Biscuit Run.
A significant portion of the parcel that is proposed for development contains slopes that exceed
25 %. The disturbance of these slopes will require a waiver of section 4.2.
The development is served by one entrance at the southeast corner of the property. The provision
of only one point of access requires a waiver of section 32.7.2.4.
The plan shows 78 parking spaces, a retaining wall, a below -grade storm water detention facility, a
small portion of the leasing office and a travel way within the 100 -foot WPO stream buffer as
measured from the contiguous wetlands. Any disturbance of this buffer will require a mitigation plan
3
and approval of the Program Authority as provided by sections 320, 321 & 322 of the Water
Protection Ordinance.
A significant portion of the property is constrained by Moore's Creek and its associated floodplain,
stream buffer and contiguous wetlands. Any fill in the floodplain will require a special permit in
accord with section 30.3.05.2.2.
The concept plan shows one entrance on Old Lynchburg Road. If the only entrance serving the
project is in the floodplain, a waiver of section 32.7.2 will also be required. This issue is directly
relevant to the question of whether approval of a waiver to permit only one point of access should
be approved. Also, there is no provision for inter - parcel connection with adjoining developments
shown on the concept plan. This may be required by the agent or the Commission per section
32.7.2.5. Another connection will certainly be required if the only direct access to Old Lynchburg
Road is in the floodplain.
Also, since the property is located in the Entrance Corridor, the development will require the
approval of the Architectural Review Board. The Principal Planner for the ARB has commented that
the development's reliance on extensive grading and use of retaining walls does not sufficiently
respect the existing topography, as required by the EC Guidelines. She has offered a number of
recommendations that include the following: (a) The grading should blend with adjacent properties;
(b) The use and height of retaining walls should be limited; (c) Retaining walls over 6' in height
should be terraced and provided with substantial planting areas at each level; and (d) A 20 -foot on-
site planting area should be created to provide screening to reduce the visibility of the site from the
EC.
Staff recommendation: Staff opinion is that the proposal represents an over - development of the
site based primarily on the amount of disturbance of critical slopes and the disturbance of the
stream buffer. The extensive use of retaining walls contrary to ARB guidelines and the need for
several other waivers further support this conclusion. Staff could consider a positive
recommendation, including positive recommendations regarding the question of a second entrance
and the inter - parcel connection for development of the parcel that is limited to the area above the
520 -foot contour, including on critical slopes and in the area near Moore's Creek exclusive of
stream buffer and critical slopes.
Question for the Commission: Is the form of development appropriate as shown on the plan
with regards to the several waiver requests?
2. Waiver of section 4.2 to allow disturbance of critical slopes
Section 4.2 is provided here for reference:
4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES
These provisions are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving
steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in
recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic
disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the comprehensive
plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that such development of critical slopes may result
in: rapid and/or large -scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run -off, siltation of
natural and man -made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic system
failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the
public health, safety and/or welfare. These provisions are intended to direct building and septic
system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on
critical slopes, and to supplement other regulations regarding protection of public water supplies
and encroachment of development into flood plains. (Amended 11- 15 -89)
Where modification of regulations is sought pursuant to section 4.2.5, such request shall address
E
each concern specified in section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89)
Buildings #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 and associated parking are on critical slopes. These buildings are
situated so as to retain the slope as they run with the contours with 3 stories on the high side and 4
stories on the low side. The design also relies on the extensive use of retaining walls.
The analysis of this waiver will focus on protecting against excessive storm water run -off impacts to
and siltation of Moore's Creek. The County Engineer suggests that more effort could be made in the
site layout to make up grade within the site and reduce the site footprint and need for retaining
walls. For example, placing parking under the buildings would help the layout. These are essentially
technical issues that would be addressed in detail in the waiver request.
The analysis will also focus on the loss of aesthetic resources as identified on the Growth Area
Composite Map that is part of the Comprehensive Plan's Open Space Plan. Much of the
development of the property will occur on slopes that are designated on the composite map as part
of a major and locally important stream valley with adjacent critical slopes. The high point at which
this designation ends is the 520 -foot contour. According to the Comprehensive Plan, discretionary
land use proposals are to be assessed for consistency with the Composite Map. The goal is to
protect the critical resources.
The Principal Planner for the Development Areas has commented that the most important issues to
consider with requests for critical slopes waivers is whether they will impact the environmental
resources identified on the Composite Map in the Open Space Plan. In addition, this has been our
consistent practice with critical slopes waiver requests. The disturbance of critical slopes shown on
the plan will severely impact important resources the resources shown on the Open Space Plan.
Staff recommendation: It is staff opinion that a waiver to permit the disturbance of critical slopes
that are identified on the Composite Map of the Open Space Plan should be denied based on the
fact that such a disturbance would result in the loss of an aesthetic resource. The proposed slope
disturbance may also result in excessive storm water run -off and siltation of Moore's Creek.
However, impacts to Moore's Creek have not been analyzed.
Question for the Commission: Should a waiver for disturbance of critical slopes be
considered?
3. Waiver of section 32.7.2.4 to allow only one point of access
The section is provided here for reference:
32.7.2.4 For a development of fifty (50) or more dwelling units, reasonably direct vehicular access shall be
provided from all residential units to two (2) public street connections. The foregoing
notwithstanding, the commission for any scale of residential development may require two (2)
points of access to a public street where such access is deemed warranted due to the character of
the residents of such development including but not limited to the elderly, handicapped and
developmentally disabled. (Added 5 -1 -87)
While this property is adjacent to Interstate 64, the only frontage on a public street is the 193 feet
along Old Lynchburg Road. A second point of access to Old Lynchburg Road is not practical
because such an access would require another crossing of Moore's Creek resulting in fill in the
floodplain and disturbance of the stream buffer. A second entrance onto Old Lynchburg would
require an easement through another parcel and a special permit for a crossing of Moore's Creek.
Staff notes that both Jefferson Ridge and Eagle's Landing have only one point of access to a public
street.
5
There appears to be the potential to provide a connection from the area of the cul -de -sac shown on
the plan to Denali Way located in Eagle's Landing with limited or no disturbance of critical slopes. A
connection to Jefferson Ridge would be more problematic due to the retaining walls shown on the
plan. The potential connection is sketched on an aerial photo of the area included as Attachment G.
Such a connection would require the agreement of the owner(s) of the adjacent property.
Staff recommendation: It is difficult to fully assess this waiver prior to settling on the final design of
the project based on the outcome of the slope waiver and buffer disturbance issues. It is staff's
initial opinion that the proposed development should establish a connection to Eagle's Landing.
However, if the Commission approves the critical slope waiver and the Program Authority approves
a mitigation plan to disturb the stream buffer and it proved impossible to obtain an easement to
allow the connection, staff could consider a recommendation to approve the waiver of 32.7.2.4.
Question for the Commission: Should a waiver for only one point of access be approved?
4. The Planning Commission recommendation to the Program Authority to approve
a mitigation plan to support a request to disturb the buffer associated with the
stream, floodplain and wetlands of Moore's Creek per sections 17 -320, 321 & 322
This item has been added to the list of issues to be considered by the Commission because there
are significant issues regarding the stream buffer requirements of section 17 -320, 321 & 322 that
influence the feasibility of this project.
The Program Authority has indicated that the disturbance of the buffer to establish the entrance and
access to the site could be approved administratively with mitigation measures that provide
protection and stabilization to Moore's Creek. This would be in accord with section 17- 321.5.
As noted above, the plan shows 78 parking spaces, a retaining wall, a below -grade storm water
detention facility, a small portion of the leasing office and a travel way within the 100 -foot WPO
stream buffer as measured from the contiguous wetlands. The Program Authority has commented
that disturbance of the stream buffer for purposes of development should be avoided. While this
buffer may be reduced to 50 feet subject to the approval of a mitigation plan, it is not recommended.
There is no authority to reduce the buffer to less than 50 feet. The improvements in the buffer
appear to be at least 50 feet from the edge of the wetland.
The recently amended Land Use Plan language for this area says "Water quality impacts will be an
important consideration for any future development of this site. Measures should be put in place to
not only minimize stream impacts, but also to help improve the current condition of Moore's Creek."
The County stream assessment identified this reach of Moore's Creek as a high value stream, and
identified some opportunities for restoration that could be considered in the design of the project.
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer and Program Authority, notes that similar developments in this area
have had considerable difficulties with erosion control. It is likely that the development in this area
must be pulled back from this line to allow for adequate placement of erosion control. Sediment
trapping facilities should be below the walls and out of the buffers. The comments of Glenn Brooks,
the County Engineer and the Program Authority are attached (Attachment K).
Staff recommendation: Planning staff's initial opinion is to not recommend that the Program
Authority grant approval of a mitigation plan to allow disturbance of the buffer within 50 feet of the
wetlands. This is based on the Comprehensive Plan's specific directives to protect Moore's Creek.
Planning staff could support a mitigation plan to disturb the buffer should the Program Authority
determine that such a plan provided adequate protection of Moore's Creek.
no
Question for the Commission: Should a mitigation plan to allow the disturbance of the
stream buffer be considered?
Other Issues:
The following three items; possible fill in the floodplain, possible waiver for an entrance in the
floodplain and the issue of inter - parcel connection are set forth here for information and do not
require Commission action at this time. These issues can only be analyzed when the scale of the
project has been established based on outcome of the critical slope waiver request, the single
entrance waiver request, the decision to allow the buffer disturbance and the decision of the
Architectural Review Board. The applicant must be aware that these matters will be included in the
review of the site development plan when the project proceeds.
5. Possible special permit for a landfill permit per section 30.3.05.2.2
It is possible that a special permit for fill in the floodplain will be required for this project. This
determination has not yet been made because the location of the floodplain and the location of all
required improvements have not been conclusively shown on the plan. The current plan shows the
proposed entrance within the floodplain. A prior plan showed the entrance outside of the floodplain.
The plat by Steve Key revised on May 22, 2007 shows the edge of the 100 -year floodplain
approximately 75 feet from the property line. The plat appears to agree with the FEMA map dated
February 4, 2005. It is possible that the entrance and travelway could be confined to this 75 -foot
strip. Additional review and engineering are necessary to resolve this issue. However, it is clear that
any improvements to the entrance, travel way into the property or along Old Lynchburg Road that
result in fill in the floodplain will occasion the need for the special permit.
6. Waiver of section 32.7.2.3 to allow an entrance within the floodplain
The section is provided here for reference:
32.7.2.3 Where discharge waters of the one hundred year storm could reasonably be anticipated to
inundate, block, destroy or otherwise obstruct the principal means of access to a residential
development or part thereof.
a. The principal means of access shall be designed and constructed so as to provide
unobstructed access at time of flooding subject to the requirements of section 30.3 flood
hazard overlay district; and/or
b. Alternative vehicular access available to all dwellings and not subject to flooding shall be
provided. (Added 5 -1 -87)
It is assumed that the entrance will be constructed outside of the floodplain, even if it relies on fill
placed subject to a special permit. However, in the event that the entrance is in the floodplain, a
waiver of this section would be necessary. The County Engineer notes that this stretch of Old
Lynchburg Road floods for approximately 250 feet. The Old Lynchburg Road stream crossing
should be improved or alternative and secondary access should be provided from adjoining
developments. Staff will recommend that approval of such a waiver would be subject to an
alternative emergency access through an adjoining parcel.
7. Potential requirement to provide an inter - parcel connection per section 32.7.2.5
The section is provided here for reference:
32.7.2.5 The commission or the agent may require provision for and/or construction of travel lanes or driveways
to serve adjoining properties. The pavement of vehicular travel lanes or driveway designed to permit vehicular
travel on the site and from adjacent property and parking areas shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in width.
7
As stated above, there is a potential to provide an inter - parcel connection to either Eagle's Landing
or Jefferson Ridge. This would provide, at a minimum, the benefits of an emergency access for both
the proposed development as well as the project to which it would be connected. Again,
implementing this connection would require the agreement of the adjoining property owner. It is
noted that neither Jefferson Ridge, nor Eagle's Landing were required to provide an inter - parcel
connection.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The proposed development is expected to generate 2,070 vehicle trips per day. The County
Engineer suggests traffic - calming measures (such as to replace the stop sign arrangement) as well
as sight distance and widening improvements.
If the entrance is moved from its current location along Old Lynchburg or back from old Lynchburg
due to the construction of a turn lane the sight distance in the direction of the Route 64 overpass
must be re- evaluated.
Off -site easements may be required to construct the retaining walls shown on the plan. If the
retaining walls are terraced as recommended by staff, it is possible that further easements will be
necessary. As noted, the inter - parcel connection discussed in the report will require an easement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission review this proposal and provide comment on the four
items listed below. Staff also recommends that the Commission provide input for the applicant and
staff prior to a next step on this proposal.
(1) Conceptual development plan
(It is staff opinion that the proposal represents over - development of the site.)
(2) Critical slope waiver per 4.2
(Staff recommends denial)
(3) Waiver to allow only one point of access per 32.7.2.4
(Staff recommends approval subject to conditions)
(4) Issue of WPO stream buffer disturbance per 17 -320, 321 & 322;
(Planning staff does not recommend the approval of a mitigation plan to disturb the
buffer.)
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A:
Tax Map
ATTACHMENT B:
Location Map
ATTACHMENT C:
Concept Plan
ATTACHMENT D:
Open Space Map
ATTACHMENT E:
Map showing critical slopes and floodplain
ATTACHMENT F:
Letter from Valerie W. Long describing the proposal
ATTACHMENT G:
Potential connection to Eagle's Landing
ATTACHMENT H:
Section of FIRM Panel 269
ATTACHMENT I:
Plat of property
ATTACHMENT J:
Comments of Joel DeNunzio of VDOT,
ATTACHMENT K:
Comments of Elaine Echols, Principal Planner for the Development Areas
ATTACHMENT L: Comments of Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner for the ARB
ATTACHMENT M: Comments of Glenn Brook, County Engineer and Program Authority for the
Water Protection Ordinance
ATTACHMENT N: Comments of Tamara Ambler, Natural Resources Manager
ATTACHMENT O: Elevations
9