HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200700059 Staff Report 2007-04-10LjFtGllst4'
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SUB 07 -59 Meadow Estates
Staff: Summer Frederick
— Private Street authorization request
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
April 10, 2007
N/A
Owners: Two (2) property owners for eight
Applicant: Vineyard Estates, LLC
(8) lots: Vineyard Estates, LLC and GLM
Holdings, LLC
Acreage: approximately 5.267 Acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 103, Parcels 3, 3A, 3B, 3C,
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas
3D, 3E, 3F, 3G
Location: southeast side of Carters Mountain
Road (SR #627) — existing Meadow Estates
Subdivision
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers /Conditions:
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA RA - X
Proposal: Request for authorization to
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in
convert a dedicated public right -of -way
Rural Area 4.
to a private street, in accordance with
Sections 14 -232 and 14 -234.
Character of Property: Property is within the
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single -
dedicated right -of -way for Coopers Lane.
family Residential and Agricultural
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this request is not consistent with the criteria of Section 14-
232(a) and 14- 234(c) for granting a modification to allow private streets in the rural areas and
recommends denial of the requested waiver.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
Summer Frederick, Senior Planner
April 10, 2007
SUB 2007 -59: Meadow Estates — Private Street authorization request
Two (2) property owners for eight (8) lots: Vineyard Estates, LLC
GLM Holdings, LLC
Vineyard Estates, LLC
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
Request for approval to convert a dedicated public right -of -way to a private street. The property is zoned Rural
Areas, RA, described as Tax Map 103, Parcels 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, and is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District on Carters Mountain Road and Coopers Lane in Meadow Estates Subdivision (Attachment
A). Cooper Lane was approved as a public street during the review of the Meadow Estates Subdivision in
2004. The road construction plans were reviewed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
and road inspections have indicated that the construction of the street is in accordance with the
approved plans. The road has not been accepted in to the State System for public maintenance. The
applicant /current owner of the majority of Meadow Estates parcels, Vineyard Estates, LLC currently maintains
the roads. The applicant indicates that further maintenance of the road will be the responsibility of a
homeowners' association — Vineyard Estates Owners Association, Inc. (Attachment B).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 4.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
September 9, 1998: Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District was created, which includes parent parcel
TMP 103 -3. District will expire April 20, 2008.
SUB 2003 -264: Meadow Estates Preliminary Plat
SUB 2004 -286: Meadow Estates Final Plat
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
This application requires Planning Commission approval of the private street, in accordance with Section 14-
234 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Typically, a request of this type would have been heard during the review of
the preliminary plan for the subdivision, as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance. However, because the street
has not been accepted in to the State system, the vacation of the dedicated right -of -way and the recordation of
an easement establishing a private right -of -way can be approved simultaneously through approval of this
request by the Planning Commission along with an administrative review of the associated plat.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14 -232:
Compliance with Subdivision Ordinance section 14- 232A.1;
14- 232A.1(1) property in the Rural Areas or Village Residential zoning district:
The property is zoned Rural Areas.
14- 232A.1(ii) private road would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the
environment:
The road has been designed and built to a public road standard. There is no significant difference in
environmental impact based on the road's ownership.
14- 232A.1(iii) no alternative public street alignment is available:
The existing street serves the subdivision. The public street alignment would be identical to the private
street alignment.
2
14- 232A.1(iv) no more lots are proposed on the private road than could be created on the public road:
The lots have already been recorded, and no additional lots will be possible with the additional acreage formerly
in right -of -way. In addition, no additional lots are proposed with this application. Three of the existing lots do
have additional Development Rights assigned. Lot 2 retains three (3) development rights, their total acreage
shall not exceed 23.394 acres, Lot 4 retains one (1) development right, total acreage not to exceed 2.56 acres,
Lot 8 retains one (1) development right, total acreage not to exceed 5.04 acres.
14- 232A.1. (a) the total volume of grading for construction of a public street would be thirty (30) percent or
more than that of a private road in the same alignment:
The private street alignment would be identical to the public street alignment. There is no difference between
public and private standards or earthwork in this case.
14- 232A.1.(b) Environmental impacts including, but no limited to, erosion and sedimentation, stormwater
runoff, surface water pollution, loss of tree cover...:
In this case, environmental impacts, other than volume of earthwork, will be no different between a public road
and private road along the same alignment. Any stream buffer and critical slope disturbances would be the
same.
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 -232 exists and that:
1. The private road will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to
be generated by the subdivision;
As a private road, the road will be adequate to carry the expected traffic volume.
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the
proposed private road;
The Comprehensive Plan does not provide for a public street in the location of this road.
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. The applicant currently maintains the roads. If this request is approved, a road maintenance
agreement will be required for approval by the County prior to final plat recordation establishing the private
right -of -way easement.
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; and
The private road will not serve through traffic, nor intersect the state highway system in more than one
location.
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.
This is not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The street was designed and constructed to VDOT standards, which are the same standards required as those if a
private street had been proposed for the initial subdivision. By converting this street to a private maintenance
situation, there is a perceived risk that at some future point the Homeowners' Association may be unable to
maintain the streets at an acceptable standard. However, by requiring review and approval of maintenance
agreement documents providing for the continued maintenance of the street at a specified standard in the future,
the risk may be minimized.
The alignment and impact of the construction for this street are no different in either a public or private maintenance
situation. The current allowable number of lots accessing the street will not change as a result of this approval.
Conversion of this street from a public right -of -way to a private access easement will impose additional restrictions
on any further subdivision of existing lots. Additional restrictions will be due to required Planning Commission
review and approval of any proposed subdivision creating lots where primary access is from an existing private
street. This same requirement does not currently exist for new lots to access existing public streets.
Overall, there is very limited difference in public versus private ownership of this right -of -way. Thus, none of the
findings in Section 14 -232 demonstrate a need for a private street instead of a public street. Without such a finding,
staff finds that this request is not consistent with the criteria of Section 14- 232(a) and 14- 234(c) for granting a
modification to allow private streets in the rural areas.
Attachments-
A - Tax Map /Location Map
B - Applicant's Request and Justification
C - Proposed subdivision plat with access easement (reduced)
M