HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200700186 Staff Report 2008-02-05tL OF AL�
�Jnct�t�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
STAFF PERSON: Megan Yaniglos- Planner, Jonathan Sharp- Engineer, Scott Clark — Rural
Areas Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 5, 2008
AGENDA TITLE: SUB 2007 -186 Pounding Branch Phase IV- Preliminary Plat
APPLICANT: Dominion Development Resources, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER(S): H &S Properties, LLC
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
Request for preliminary subdivision plat approval to create 13 lots [ 12 development lots and one (1)
preservation lots] as a Rural Preservation Development on 207.63 acres. The property, described as Tax
Map 72 - Parcel 32A is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Pounding Creek Road
[Route 689] approximately 0.38 miles southwest of the intersection with Dick Woods Road [Route 637].
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
This subdivision was presented at the November 20, 2007 planning commission meeting and was denied
for the following reasons:
Action on SUB - 2007 - 00186:
1. The design does not meet Section 10.3.3.2 (b) and 10.3.3.3 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance. These
sections pertain to the intent and design standards of Rural Preservation Development
proposals and maximum lots achievable by- right. The by -right plan as shown is not feasible,
as it impacts the stream buffers.
2. In addition, staff recommends that the proposed building site for the preservation lot could be
relocated to avoid disturbance of areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Mountain
Overlay.
3. The design as shown is not consistent with the criteria of Section 10.3.3 for granting approval
of the Rural Preservation Development.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 6:0.
Action on Critical Slopes Waiver:
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by
the developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or
(Added 11- 15 -89)
Strict application of the requirement of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter. The applicant has not provided an alternative location or alignment of these streets or
lots. While no alternative location or alignment of these streets has been proposed, it appears that
realignment of the public streets would be possible, and would avoid significant areas of
disturbance.
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other
unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of
section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would
result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or waiver
shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the
area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added II -
15-89)
Denial of this waiver would not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. While
no alternative location or alignment of these streets has been proposed, it appears that
realignment of the public streets would be possible, and would avoid significant areas of
disturbance; however it appears that it would result in the reduction of lots.
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89)
Granting the waiver would not serve a public purpose of greater import.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 6:0. (Ms. Joseph was absent.)
The applicant has since revised the rural preservation plan to address the reasons for denial. The
applicant will still need a waiver for the disturbance of critical slopes.
In summary, the Commission must act on the critical slopes waiver and determine if the applicant has
addressed the reasons stated for denial.
DISCUSSION:
1. Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the standards that must be addressed for a Rural
Preservation Development. Staff has evaluated the Section cited by the Planning Commission in its
denial (The ordinance section and Staff's previous comments are in italics):
Section 10.3.3.2 b. Water supply protection; Staff found that the water supply for the proposed
Rural Preservation plan is being protected by locating the proposed development lots, building
sites, and roads outside of the Pounding Branch and Miller Branch stream buffers. However,
the by -right plan showed proposed roads within the stream buffers. By interpretation of Section
17- 321(5) of the Water Protection Ordinance, as advised by the County Attorney and as
interpreted by the Program Authority, the parcel had reasonable use of the lot that does not
necessitate the disturbance of these buffers. Therefore, the water protection ordinance would
prohibit the crossing of these stream buffers and the by -right plan was not approvable as shown.
The water supply protection is achieved by locating the proposed development lots, building
sites, and roads outside of the Pounding Branch and Miller Branch stream buffers.
2
Section 10.3.3.3 a. The maximum number of lots within a rural preservation development shall
be the same as maybe achievable pursuant to section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 and other
applicable law. Each rural preservation tract shall count as one (1) lot. In the case of any parcel
of land which, prior to application for rural preservation development, has been made subject to
a conservation, open space or other similar easement which restricts development on the parcel,
the total number of lots available for rural preservation development shall not exceed the
number available for conventional development as limited by any such previously imposed
easement or easements; Staff found that the by -right plan showed roads crossing the stream
buffers, as discussed in the analysis of Section 10.3.3.2(b) above. The by -right plan was not
approvable as shown, per Section 17 -321 (5) of the Water Protection Ordinance. Therefore, the
maximum number of lots for the rural preservation plan is not the same as may be achievable
with the by -right plan.
The revised by -right plan does not disturb the stream buffers and now meets this requirement.
The revised plan also contains one less lot than was previously proposed.
2. Staff recommends that the proposed building site for the preservation lot could be relocated to avoid
disturbance of areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Mountain Overlay.
The revised plan did not address this reason for denial. The proposed building site for the
preservation lot is still located in the Mountain Overlay District.
3. The plan as shown is not consistent with the criteria of Section 10. 3.3 for granting approval of the
Rural Preservation Development.
10.3.3.2 INTENT; DESIGN STANDARDS (Added 11 -8 -89)
The rural preservation development option is intended to encourage more effective land usage in
terms of the goals and objectives for the rural areas as set forth in the comprehensive plan than can
be achieved under conventional development. To this end, application for rural preservation
development shall be reviewed for:
a. Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
b. Water supply protection; and /or
c. Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources. More specifically, in accordance with
design standards of the comprehensive plan and where deemed reasonably practical by the
commission:
d. Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or unique agricultural or forestal soils
as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of
Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil
Conservation Service;
a. The preservation of forestal lands is accomplished by locating the preservation tract within the
most mountainous and wooded portion of the parcel.
b. Water supply protection is achieved by locating the proposed development lots, building sites, and
roads outside of the Pounding Branch and Miller Branch stream buffers.
c. Portions of the preservation tract for this parcel are within the mountain protection district as
defined in the Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan. The location for the building site for the
preservation lot [Lot 13] is above elevation 900 feet and is therefore within the mountain resource
area. The Comprehensive Plan states that these areas should be protected and recommends using
building sites located outside of the mountain resource area if they are available. In this case, the
preservation lot appears to contain additional building sites that would be located outside of the
mountain resource area.
The development lots might impact downstream habitat of aquatic species, including the federally
endangered James Spinymussel. Proper erosion control will be important. However, keeping the
lots in the lower elevations avoids degradation and fragmentation of the forested areas on the steeper
mountainside slopes.
d. The development lots impact areas of Locally Important soils, and small areas of Prime soils.
However, avoiding these impacts would push the lots into areas with more critical slopes and
possibly in the Mountain Protection Plan area.
e. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope or flood plain and shall be
situated as far as possible from public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking water
supply impoundments;
Although the development lots would include critical slopes, the proposed locations avoid the larger
expanses of critical slopes higher on the mountain. There are no 100 -year floodplains on this parcel.
The property is in a Water Supply Protection Area, but locating the lots farther from the streams
would only create new impacts caused by disturbance of slopes.
f. Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve historic and scenic settings
deemed to be of importance to the general public and natural resource areas whether such features
are on the parcel to be developed or adjacent to such parcel;
The historic preservation planner has stated that the applicant has adequately addressed previously
requested changes, and has no additional comments.
Please note that the proposed building site for the preservation tract is inappropriately sited for
resource conservation. This mountaintop location would require a long, steep driveway (with
associated erosion and forest - fragmentation impacts) and would lead to non - silvicultural tree
clearing in an area of ridgetop forest on a mountain listed in the Mountain Protection Plan. A site
lower on the mountain, on the edges of the forest and requiring shorter driveway, would be more
appropriate. However, as the final building location is not controlled by the location shown on the
plat, this information is included for the applicant's information only.
g. Development lots shall be confined to one area of the parcel and shall be situated so that no
portion of the rural preservation tract shall intrude between any development lots;
The lot -size reductions in this revision have improved resource protection as requested.
h. All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with Chapter
14 of the Code of Albemarle;
This criterion is met.
i. Nothing stated herein shall be deemed to obligate the commission to approve a rural preservation
development upon finding in a particular case that such proposal does not forward the purposes of
rural preservation development as set forth hereinabove and that the public purpose to be served
would be equally or better served by conventional development.
4
The proposed Rural Preservation Development would serve the public purposes as represented in the
Comprehensive Plan more effectively than conventional development because a significant amount
of critical slopes, and the stream and its associated buffers are located within the preservation parcel.
10.3.3.3 SPECIAL PROVISIONS (Added 11 -8 -89)
In addition to design standards as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 and other regulation, the following
special provisions shall apply to any rural preservation development:
a. The maximum number of lots within a rural preservation development shall be the same as may
be achievable pursuant to section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 and other applicable law. Each rural
preservation tract shall count as one (1) lot. In the case of any parcel of land which, prior to
application for rural preservation development, has been made subject to a conservation, open
space or other similar easement which restricts development on the parcel, the total number of
lots available for rural preservation development shall not exceed the number available for
conventional development as limited by any such previously imposed easement or easements;
The proposed rural preservation development meets this requirement.
b. Section 10.3.3.3a notwithstanding, no rural preservation development shall contain more than
twenty (20) development lots;
The proposed rural preservation development meets this requirement. This development
proposes 12 development lots.
c. Provisions of section 10.3.3, rural preservation development, shall be applied to the entire
parcel. Combination of conventional and rural preservation development within the parcel shall
not be permitted, provided that the total number of lots achievable under section 10.3.1 and
section 10.3.2 shall be permitted by authorization of more than one (1) rural preservation tract.
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude the director of current development and
zoning from approving a rural preservation development for multiple tracts of adjoining land, or
on land divided or otherwise altered prior to the effective date of this provision; provided that, in
either case, the provisions of section 10.3.3 shall be applicable (Amended 5 -5 -04 effective 7 -1-
04);
The proposed rural preservation development meets this requirement. A boundary line
adjustment is included so that the entire parcel will be included.
d. The area devoted to development lots together with the area of roadway necessary to provide
access to such lots shall not exceed the number of development lots multiplied by a factor of six
(6) expressed in acres;
The proposed rural preservation development meets this requirement. The average lot size for
each development lot is 3.77 acres.
e. No rural preservation development shall contain less than one (1) rural preservation tract. The
director of current development and zoning may authorize more than one (1) rural preservation
tract in a particular case pursuant to the various purposes of rural preservation development as
setforth in section 10.3.3.2 or in accord with section 10.3.3.3. c, as the case may be (Amended 5-
5-04 effective 7- 1 -04);
The proposed rural preservation development meets this requirement. One rural preservation
tract is proposed.
f. No rural preservation tract shall consist of less than forty (40) acres. Except as specifically
permitted by the director of current development and zoning at time of establishment, not more
than one (1) dwelling unit shall be located on any rural preservation tract or development lot.
No rural preservation tract shall be diminished in area. These restrictions shall be guaranteed
by perpetual easement accruable to the County of Albemarle and the public recreational facility
authority of Albemarle County in a form acceptable to the board. In accordance with Chapter 14
of the Code of Albemarle, the director of planning and community development shall serve as
agent for the board of supervisors to accept such easement. Thereafter, such easement may be
modified or abandoned only by mutual agreement of the grantees to the original agreement
(Amended 5 -5 -04 effective 7- 1 -04);
The proposed rural preservation development meets this requirement. The proposed preservation
tract is 162.35 acres.
g. Each application for a rural preservation development is subject to the review and approval of
the director of current development and zoning (Added 5 -5 -04 effective 7- 1 -04).
The proposed rural preservation development meets this requirement. This application has been
reviewed by the Current Development and Zoning staff.
Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing activity on critical slopes, while
Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction.
The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slope area, within TMP 72 -32A, appears to be natural slopes. The critical slope disturbances
are in the form of subdivision construction; single family residences, public streets, and driveways.
Many of the proposed critical slope disturbances are within close proximity to stream buffers. These
critical slopes are shown on the preliminary plat, rev. date 16 Jan 2008.
Areas
Acres
Total site
210 acres approximately
Critical slopes
95
45.2% of site
Critical slopes disturbed
9
9% of critical slopes
Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed:
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2:
"movement of soil and rock"
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any
movement of soil. These areas are very close in proximity to stream buffers draining to the drinking
water reservoirs. Providing additional erosion control measures to prevent siltation and limiting
grading to outside of stream buffers is recommended.
"excessive stormwater runoff'
0
Stormwater runoff will increase in areas of critical slope disturbance. The increase of runoff does not
appear to be excessive. The conceptual SWM facilities shown on the preliminary plat are mostly
shown in existing critical slopes. It appears that SWM can be adequately addressed with the WPO
plan submittals.
"siltation"
Areas to be graded are very close in proximity to stream buffers draining to the drinking water
reservoirs. Providing additional erosion control measures to prevent siltation and limiting grading to
outside of stream buffers is recommended.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
Critical slope disturbance from the proposed roadways will be visible from State Route 689 and
adjacent parcels.
"septic effluent"
Septic systems or drainfields are proposed in this project. This site is not accessible to the public
sanitary sewer system.
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
The proposed critical slope disturbances associated with this plan are not exempt.
The proposed alignment of the internal streets will disturb a significant amount of critical slopes. The
applicant has not provided an alternative location or alignment of these streets. The current alignment of
the streets is proposed outside the stream buffer limits. The applicant does have several alternative
design layouts for this subdivision. It appears that realignment of the public streets may lessen the
amount of lots in this subdivision.
The critical slopes disturbed by the driveway accessing Preservation Tract Lots 13 could be avoided if
the building site was in a different location.
This site does drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. The
site drains into the Mechums River which flows into the South Fork Rivanna reservoir. No portion of
this property is shown within the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February
2005.
Based on the above review, Engineering recommends approval to the critical slope waiver providing the
following conditions be addressed:
No grading shall take place within stream buffers.
The Owner shall, to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the County's Program
Authority, provide additional erosion and sediment controls to achieve a sediment removal rate
of eighty percent (80 %) for the Property
Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff:
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2. S establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The
preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a).
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by
the developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or
(Added 11- 15 -89); Strict application of the requirement of section 4.2 would not forward the
7
purposes of this chapter. The applicant has not provided an alternative location or alignment of
these streets or lots. While no alternative location or alignment of these streets has been
proposed, it appears that realignment of the public streets would be possible, and would avoid
significant areas of disturbance.
The applicant has not provided an alternative location or alignment of the proposed roads. The
current alignment of the roads is proposed outside the stream buffer limits, and will disturb a
significant amount of critical slopes. The applicant does have several alternative design layouts
for this subdivision, and it appears that realignment of the public roads may lessen the amount of
lots in this subdivision.
Also, the critical slopes disturbed by the driveway accessing Preservation Tract Lot 13 could be
avoided if the building site was in a different location.
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other
unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of
section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would
result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or waiver
shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the
area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11-
15-89); Denial of this waiver would not prohibit or restrict the use of the property. While no
alternative location or alignment of these streets has been proposed, it appears that realignment
of the public streets would be possible, and would avoid significant areas of disturbance;
however it appears that it would result in the reduction of lots.
The roads in the revised plan have not changed. The denial of the waiver would not prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the use of the property.
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89); Granting the waiver
would not serve a public purpose of greater import.
Granting the waiver would not serve a public purpose of greater import. Approval of the critical
slopes waiver allows for a Rural Preservation Development with its associated Preservation Lot.
The Preservation Lot will have a permanent easement placed upon it and this could be viewed
as a favorable impact created by the granting of the waiver. However, alternative designs may
be possible that would not require disturbance of critical slopes that would still permit a Rural
Preservation Development. It must also be noted that if the critical slopes waiver is denied any
by -right development will not be permitted to disturb critical slopes. Therefore, staff can
identify no public purpose served by granting this waiver.
Since both favorable and unfavorable factors have been identified under this section, staff is unable to
make an overall positive finding for the approval of the critical slopes waiver.
In summary, the Planning Commission must determine if the revised plan has addressed the reasons for
denial to the satisfaction of the Commission for the Rural Preservation Development. Also, the Planning
Commission must act on the critical slopes waiver.
Staff finds that the revisions address the reasons for denial of the Rural Preservation Development,
however staff does not find that the critical slopes waiver has been adequately addressed. In the event
that requested waiver is approved, staff is able to recommend approval of the Rural Preservation
Development option to the Commission. If the Planning Commission approves the Rural Preservation
Development, conditions recommended are listed below:
CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED:
1. The plat shall be subject to the requirements of Section 14 -303 [Contents of final plat], as
identified on the "Final Subdivision Checklist" which is available from the Department of
Planning and Community Development;
2. Prior to final plat submittal, address all minimum requirements from Design Manual Section
905, Final Subdivision Plat.
3. Road name approval by E -911 review for all proposed roads.
4. VDOT approval for all public roads and entrances, including road and drainage plans including
drainage calculations and improvements to the intersections / connections to Dick Woods Road
(Rte. 637). Subdivision plans need to be designed in accordance with VDOT's current
Subdivision Street Requirements and the Road Design Manual. All commercial entrances and
street connections must meet the minimum requirements as described in the Minimum Standards
of Entrances to State Highways.
5. Health Department approval for drainfields.
6. Public Recreational Facilities Authority acceptance of easement for preservation lot.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. November 20, 2007 Staff Report
B. Action Letter
C. Revised Plan
9