HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201200028 Staff Report 2013-03-04AL�
�z
�'I73GII3S�'
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2011-00028 Stoner
Staff. Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: February
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBA
26, 2012
Owners: Stoner, Frank R IV Or Elizabeth
Applicant: Stoner, Frank R IV Or
Bondurant Stoner
Elizabeth Bondurant Stoner
Acreage: 10.16
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2.28 Divisions
of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
TMP: Tax Map 76N Parcel 13A
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas
Location: 240 Chestnut Oak Lane
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: 1
DA - RA - X
Proposal: Special Use Permit for one
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas -
additional development right to create a
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
second dwelling unit on the parcel
open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
Character of Property: Large, wooded
Use of Surrounding Properties: Low - density
residential lot on sloping face of ridge
rural residential development
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The Board of Supervisors has previously
1. Additional residential development in the
approved a similar request for an additional
Rural Areas is not consistent with the
development right to permit better care for a
goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
family member.
2. The impacts of the proposed additional
dwelling can be limited through conditions of
approval to a level similar to those created by
the addition of a by -right accessory apartment.
3. The size and character of the property would
serve to limit potential impacts to adjacent
properties.
Recommendation: Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP201200028 (with conditions).
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
Scott Clark, Senior Planner
February 26, 2012
TBD
SP201200028 Stoner
Stoner, Frank R IV Or Elizabeth Bondurant Stoner
Stoner, Frank R IV Or Elizabeth Bondurant Stoner
PROPOSAL:
PROJECT: SP201200028 Stoner
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for one additional development right to create a second
dwelling unit on the parcel
ZONING CATEGORY /GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit /acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.28 Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1;
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/
acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 240 Chestnut Oak Lane
TAX MAP /PARCEL: 076N00000013AO
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit /acre in development lots).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The area is largely wooded, but consists of large -lot rural residential uses (mostly in the
Sherwood Farms subdivision) near the boundary of a Development Area (Neighborhood 5).
Sherwood Farms is accessed from US 29 via Teel Lane and Overlook Drive. The single access to
the subdivision is crossed by the Norfolk Southern railway at a signaled and gated level crossing.
Like many of the nearby lots in Sherwood Farms, this 10.16 -acre property is wooded and is
located on the face of a ridge, with road access along the top of the ridge. Residences are
somewhat isolated from each other by terrain, forest cover, and the size of the lots.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
This property was zoned RA Rural Areas during the comprehensive rezoning of the County in
1980.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION
The applicants are requesting an additional development right in order to build a
secondary dwelling to house elderly family members. The applicants feel that the steep
topography of their parcel and the design of their house make creating an addition for an
accessory apartment impractical. Also, they and their family members would prefer to
N
have separate (but nearby) dwellings.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Rural Areas, emphasizing
the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic
and scenic resources as land use options.
The Rural Areas Plan states that the County should "[r]educe the level and rate of
residential development in the Rural Areas, and minimize the impacts of permitted
development" and should "[a]chieve the Vision for Rural Albemarle County by limiting
the extent of residential development in the Rural Areas and establishing a land use
pattern based on protecting large parcels and valuable resources for farming, forestry,
natural resource conservation, and other rural activities." Therefore, no addition of
residential development rights in the Rural Areas can be considered to be in conformity
with the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the Board of Supervisors has approved special use permits for additional
development rights in certain cases. Most of those approvals were for an additional lot
for a family member on a property where all the previous development rights had been
used for family subdivisions.
The most relevant approval for this application was that for SP2010 -00034 Glenn A.
Hall. In that case, the applicant wanted to create an additional dwelling on her father's
parcel so that her disabled child could be close to the grandparents, who could provide
child care. The request in SP2012 -00028 is similar, in that the motivation for the request
is the desire to care for family members.
In many cases, the need for such a dwelling would be addressed with an accessory
apartment. The applicants do not feel that that approach is practical on this site due to
the topography and the design of their current dwelling, which would make the
construction of an addition difficult. (Staff acknowledges that topography is an issue on
this site, but has not established to what degree the topography would increase the cost
of an addition, or whether the topography would preclude construction of an addition.)
The proposed dwelling can be made substantially similar to an accessory apartment by:
1. Limiting the gross floor area of the additional dwelling to the same maximum
applied to accessory apartments (35% of the gross floor area of the main
dwelling).
2. Prohibiting the subdivision of the parcel, so that the new dwelling cannot
become a separate property. (The current zoning ordinance would not permit
further subdivision of the property, but is subject to change in the future.)
3. Prohibiting any reduction in size of the parcel, so that other properties do not
become closer to the additional dwelling.
4. Prohibiting any accessory apartment in the additional dwelling, as it would be for
a standard accessory apartment.
5. Prohibiting any accessory apartment in the main dwelling. The additional
dwelling would effectively replace the property's potential for an accessory
apartment.
6. Prohibiting the rental of the additional dwelling, which would limit its uses to
those typical for accessory apartments. (However, the current zoning ordinance
does not prohibit the rental of by -right accessory apartments.)
It should be noted that any conditions of approval to address items 5 and 6 above may be
difficult to enforce, or may be only enforceable through complaints.
Staff therefore has two central reasons for recommending approval of this special use
permit request:
1. There is precedent in a previous approval for permitting an additional
development right for the purpose of housing family members who are in need of
care.
2. The additional dwelling can be made substantially similar to a by -right accessory
apartment by conditions of the approval (see below), except for the fact that the
dwelling would be separate from the main house.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff's opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The large lots in the Sherwood Farms subdivision (10.16 acres in this case) and the
wooded landcover would significantly limit the visual impact of the additional dwelling. The
character of the site is a significant factor behind staff's recommendation of approval.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
This portion of the Rural Areas zoning district is a large -lot subdivision (56 lots, averaging 4.6
acres, with a range of 2 to 21 acres). The additional dwelling would not greatly change the
character of this residential area.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The purposes of the RA zoning district are:
• Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
• Water supply protection;
• Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
• Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
The proposal is not in harmony with these purposes. However, its surroundings have already
been converted from rural uses to low- density residential development. The proposal would
2
not further reduce this area's conformity with the purposes of the zoning district.
It should be noted that the cumulative impact of numerous similar proposals could more
significantly impact the character of the Rural Areas and conflict with the purposes of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The proposed residential use would be similar to the surrounding residential uses in this
portion of the RA zoning district.
The similarity of the proposed dwelling to an accessory apartment means that the impacts of
additional residents on the site is no more than is already possible by right.
Will the use be in accord with the additional regulations provided in section 5 of this
ordinance?
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 for this use. However, section 10.5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires the following analysis for special use permits requesting additional
development rights in the Rural Areas zoning district:
10. 5.2 WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for more
lots than the total number permitted under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no
such permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of any public
drinking water supply impoundment, and further provided that no such permit shall be issued
to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development than that
permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11 -8 -89; Amended 5 -5 -04 effective 7 -1-
04)
The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the
neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this chapter with reference to the goals and
objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division
proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following: (Amended
11 -8 -89)
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its
suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
The property is 10.16 acres, and largely consists of wooded slopes outside the residential
improvements. Before residential development, the area would have been suitable for forestal
production, but the current small parcel sizes and the proximity of residential uses reduce that
suitability significantly.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be
shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
5
Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil
Conservation Service.
Of the 10.19 acres of the property, 0.8 are listed as "Locally Important" for agricultural
production in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan. The entire property contains soils
rated highly for hardwood tree production (0.8 acres in "Hardwoods 1," the remainder in
"Hardwoods 2. ") These soil designations were developed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the
extent that is reasonably available.
The aerial photographs normally used by staff to determine past uses are not currently
available. However, the property has been in residential use since the existing dwelling was
built in 1992, and the area is not likely to be returned to agricultural use.
4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed
development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be
deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area iffifty (50) percent or more of the land within
one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal
use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this
determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract
from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
The parcels with boundaries within one mile of the Stoner property include a total of 2,909
acres. Of those, 839 acres (28.8 %) are enrolled in the land -use tax program, which is the
standard indicator of current agricultural or forestal use. Therefore this not an "agricultural or
forestal area" as defined in this section of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of
this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50)
percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in
parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making
this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract
from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
From a visual assessment of the 1979 tax maps, it does not appear that 50 percent or more of
the land within one mile of this property was in parcels of 5 acres or less, meaning that this
would not be considered a "developed rural area" as defined in this section of the Zoning
Ordinance. However, it may be more relevant to note that 35 percent of the land within one
mile of the property is in a Development Area (Neighborhood 5), and that the property is less
than a half -mile from the Neighborhood 5 boundary.
6 The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers,
services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in
proximity to the area or use described:
Co
a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan; (Amended 11 -8 -89)
The property is just under one mile (by road) from the boundary of Neighborhood 5
Measured in a straight line, it is approximately 2,200 feet from the boundary.
b. Within one -half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan; (Amended 11 -8 -89)
The property is not within one -half mile of a community boundary.
c. Within one -half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan.
(Amended 11 -8 -89)
The property is not within one -half mile of a village boundary.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in
regard to increased provision of services.
The addition of one dwelling to this area of existing residential lots is not expected to require
any significant increase in service provision.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the
Virginia Department of Transportation: (Amended 11 -8 -89)
a. Occasion the need for road improvement;
b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed this application and has no
comments. The addition of one dwelling is not expected to generate the need for
transportation improvements.
9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within
the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following
additional factors shall be considered:
This parcel is not within the watershed of a public drinking water impoundment.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The Fire/Rescue Department has reviewed this application. While they would not support the
single access to the Sherwood Farms subdivision today, they did not feel the addition of one
7
lot was a significant- enough change to the existing situation to justify a recommendation of
denial.
For the site itself, Fire /Rescue recommended that the additional dwelling have a turnaround
area in the driveway large enough for an ambulance, as well as a 12 -foot by 30 -foot level
parking area for an ambulance to load patients. This recommendation is reflected in the
proposed conditions of approval below.
Additional development on the property could impact water quality due to the replacement of
wooded land with impervious surface. However, staff feels that addressing this increase of
impervious surface by condition is not necessary in this particular case because:
1. an exterior addition for a by -right accessory apartment could also increase impervious
surface;
2. the property is largely wooded, which limits surface runoff and increases groundwater
recharge; and
3. the conditions of approval would limit the size of the new dwelling
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The Board of Supervisors has previously approved a similar request for an additional
development right to permit better care for a family member.
2. The impacts of the proposed additional dwelling can be limited through conditions of
approval to a level similar to those created by the addition of a by -right accessory
apartment.
3. The size and character of the property would serve to limit potential impacts to adjacent
properties.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. Additional residential development in the Rural Areas is not consistent with the goals
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Although it is not an unfavorable factor for this individual request, the cumulative impact of
numerous similar approvals could lead to more significant impacts to the Rural Areas or a
particular portion there
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2012 -00028 Stoner with the
conditions listed below, based on the analysis provided herein.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. One single - family dwelling unit in addition to the existing single - family dwelling unit
may be built on Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0.
2. The additional single - family dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand seven hundred
(1,700) square feet of gross floor area.
3. The additional single - family dwelling unit shall be occupied by a member or members of
the immediate family of the permittee, as that term is defined in Albemarle County Code
§ 14 -106 in effect on (date of Board action), 2013, or by transient guests of the permittee.
4. No accessory apartment shall be built within the existing single - family dwelling unit or
the additional single - family dwelling unit.
5. Construction of the additional single - family dwelling unit shall not commence without
approval from the building official, the fire official, and the Virginia Department of
Health.
6. Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013AO shall not be subdivided or reduced in acreage.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Area Map
B. Site Map
Motions
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20110028 Stoner with the conditions outlined
in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit:
I move to recommend denial of SP 20110028 Stoner. (Planning Commission needs to
give a reason for denial)
9
/
?( X
Attachment A
m X % is
4
Z
r v,�
I0
/
4
�•
RESERVOIR RD g
�\r5�
1�
0V
14,E 1-64 W
�y
ti9 m
z pR
a�
O
W
\ CPS SRA1L RO JZ�P
^�O
�nj Q� W /\ i /
Lu
BONA S
m O
Q
LU 9QA.
O�0 Wq�O
X wA Y
pR !9 Cy
5TH ST
/ STAGE C
Q Z� HICKORY,ST
� A �Z
tit
ti
O
O
9
U
m
� T
C0
c�
-City Charlottesville
of
pLIDLEY M O u�falN RQ
vt Development Areas
N 0 0.25 0.5 1
SP2012 -00028 Stoner Miles
10
0 50 100 200
SP2012 -00028 Stoner Feet