Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000017 Staff Report Zoning Map Amendment 2011-09-27COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 2010-00017, Redfields Staff: Claudette Grant PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: September 27, 2011 To Be Determined Owner(s): Redfields Development Corporation Applicant: Redfields Development Corporation. Contact: Marcia Joseph Acreage: 58.47 acres Rezone from: Planned Residential District, PRD (Open Space) to PRD (126 residential units proposed) TMP: 076R0000000100 & 076R000OOOOOE4 By -right use: Open space in a PRD district, (See Attachments A & B) which allows residential with limited commercial Location: Redfields parallels Interstate 64 and uses at a density of 3 — 34 units/acre. This is southeast of the 1-64 and Route 29 property does not currently have any interchange. development potential under the PRD. Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers: Yes Proposal: Request to rezone/amend the Requested # of Dwelling Units: 126 application plan and add proffers on property zoned PRD (Open Space) which allows residential with limited commercial uses at a density of 3 — 34 units/acre to PRD (Residential). Proposed number of units is 126 for a density of 2.15 units/acre. DA (Development Area): Not in the Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas- preserve Development Area and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots) Character of Property: 58.472 acres of open Use of Surrounding Properties: Open space. The property is undeveloped open Space/rural and residential space/rural and wooded with a stream. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. In developing this site, the applicant is 1. The proposed residential development is proposing to minimize disturbance to the inconsistent with the Growth Management critical slopes area. Policy and Rural Areas policies. 2. The proposal involves a site that includes 2. The Land Use Plan Map in the existing PRD Zoning, is adjacent to the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Development Area and to PRD zoning. Rural Area, which is not recommended for 3. The site is near major highway access and this proposed scale of development. is accessible to utilities. 3. This rezoning request does not follow the 4. The proposal could potentially add some process and direction the Planning residential uses that were lost in the Biscuit Commission provided at last year's Run property becoming a state park, and worksession. The Commission recommended replaces it within the same general future expansion areas be studied in a southern urban area location. comprehensive manner and that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010- ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 1 ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 2 001) currently underway be studied with the comprehensive plan. These initial discussions are scheduled to begin October 11, 2011 with the Planning Commission. 4. Some proffers need to be rewritten to address staff's concerns, as noted above under the description of each proffer. 5. The loss of open space/trails that the community has been using. 6. An increase in traffic to the area. 7. No commitment has been made to provide affordable housing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD because the residential use proposed is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 2 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Claudette Grant September 27, 2011 To Be Determined ZMA 2010-00017, Redfields PRD With waiver request of Section 4.2.5(a) of Zoning Ordinance for critical slopes PETITION PROJECT: ZMA201000017/Redfields PRD PROPOSAL: Rezone 58.47 acres from PRD (Open Space) - Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD (Residential) - Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. Proposed number of units is 126 for a density of 2.15 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: Located on west side of Old Lynchburg Road and accessed by Sunset Avenue and Redfields Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076R000OOOOOE4 and 076R0000000100 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller CHARACTER OF THE AREA Redfield's phases 2-A, 2-B, 1-A and 1-B are located to the east of the subject area, which is phase 5 of Redfields. Phases 2-A, 2-13, 1-A and 1-B, located in the Development Area, are developed primarily with single family residential units. Phase 5 is designated open space that is undeveloped, and wooded with some hilly terrain. Route 29 and Interstate 64 are located to the northwest of Redfields. Mosby Mountain, a residential development in the rural area is located to the south and Sherwood Farms another residential development in the rural area is located to the northwest. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting to rezone/amend the application plan and add proffers on property zoned PRD. The approved site is described as open space with no proposed development under the current PRD district. The applicant proposes to develop the site with no limitations, inclusive of 126 residential units at a density of 2.15 units/acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area allowing a density of 0.5 units/acre. (See Attachment C) APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant proposes an expansion of the existing Redfields development. As written in the application, the applicant describes a shortage of residential units in this portion of the County due in part, to the loss of the Biscuit Run development, which was approved with a potential of over 3,000 homes along with some commercial uses, and is now proposed to be a state park. The applicant believes that requesting an expansion of the Redfields development and developing on the existing open space property will provide some additional residential units in the southern end of the County. The applicant requested this site be included in the Development Area last year, and believes that this will make up for the loss of potential residential units with the Biscuit Run property /development now owned by the State for future park use. The applicant also feels that the following attributes makes this property ideal for additional development of residential use: close proximity to utilities, other supporting infrastructure, employment, shopping, downtown ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 3 Charlottesville and the consistency of the proposed development to existing surrounding development. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY •The original rezoning for the Redfields Development (ZMA 89-18) rezoned 266 acres from R-1 to PRD. It allowed for the development of 656 dwelling units on 266 acres. The original rezoning had 6 Phases and Phase 6 was located outside the Development Area and dedicated as open space. The applicant wanted to retain the option to develop the open space and indicated that the boundary may change in the future. Staff recommended the open space be permanent and acknowledged that if the applicant wishes to build in the open space, he will have to go through the comprehensive plan process and potential rezoning process. •ZMA 91-07 allowed a boundary adjustment to allow for a more efficient use of land. This rezoning also renamed Phase 6 to Phase 5 and showed Phase 5 only as open space. '0 ZMA 98-08 allowed the developer to reduce the setback lines to zero on a single side lot line and 10 -feet on the front setbacks in Phases 3 and 4. With this rezoning, the applicant mentions that he wants Phase 5 to be a place for future rezoning approval. •ZMA 01-01 allowed additional lots within Phase 4 of the development. However, the request for additional lots within the open space was not approved. •Letter of Determination from Jan Sprinkle dated October 25, 2005, specifically states that the applicant will need to apply for a ZMA if he wishes to develop Phase 5 of the Redfields PRD. '0A letter referenced as "Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for Tax Map 76R, Parcel 1" from David Benish dated June 4, 2008, confirms that the parcel is located in an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Area and that no action has been done since the initial rezoning to change the land use designation of the parcel or the boundary of the designated Development Area to include this parcel. • Letter of Determination from Amelia McCulley dated May 15, 2009, states that there is nothing that prevents this property from being sold to third parties and that tax map 76R, parcels 1 and E4 are not required open space that needs to be conveyed to the Redfields Homeowners' Association. Also included in this determination letter is the confirmation that prior to any future use of the parcels, an amendment to the Redfields Planned Residential District (PRD) zoning must be obtained. There is currently no designated use on the approved application plan. • A Work Session was held with the Planning Commission on November 30, 2010 for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2010-00001 to include tax map 76R, parcels 1 and E4 in the Development Area and amend the Land Use Plan from Rural Area to Neighborhood Density - residential (3-6 units/acre). The Commission directed that this CPA be studied with the Comprehensive Plan, which is now underway. (See Attachment D) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan currently designates the subject property as Rural Areas and the Rural Areas Plan places a strong emphasis on resource protection, through the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, biological, historic and scenic resources, and farming and forestal activities. The "vision" for the Rural Area can be found in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan (page 9 of the Rural Areas Plan). ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 4 As previously mentioned in the Planning and Zoning History section of this staff report, there is a pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010-001) requesting to expand the subject parcels into the Development Area from the Rural Area. The Planning Commission requested CPA2010-001 be reviewed with the update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2011. This review is currently underway and scheduled for initial discussions to begin with the Planning Commission on October 11, 2011. Decisions on whether to expand to the Development Area, how much expansion is needed, and where locations of areas for expansion should be, need to be considered on a comprehensive, county wide level, during the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. These decisions should not be made in a vacuum, based on review of an individual proposal. The Open Space Plan shows this area has many critical slopes, all of which are wooded. The applicant is minimizing disturbance of the critical slopes. The Neighborhood Model: Staff's analysis below indicates how well the proposed development meets the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model: Pedestrian There are sidewalks and trails shown throughout the proposed site. While Orientation this principle is met, staff would like to see a connection made between the trails on the proposed site with the existing trails in other portions of the Redfields development. Neighborhood The street sections on the plans show the provision of street trees and Friendly Streets sidewalks throughout the proposed site. This principle is met. and Paths Interconnected The proposed development will connect with the existing Refields Streets and development via an extension of Fieldstone Road. There will only be one Transportation way in and out of this portion of the development. Additional future Networks interconnections could be possible with the extension of Road B, as shown on the plan, connecting to Ambrose Commons in the Mountain Valley subdivision. This principle is met, but could be expanded to include additional road interconnections. Parks and Open The applicant is providing approximately 41 acres of open space, most of Space which is located in areas with critical slopes. This principle is met. Neighborhood This proposed development would become part of the existing Redfields Centers subdivision. Redfields includes a community pool and center for residents. However, this proposal would increase the number of residents living in Redfields. It is not clear that the existing neighborhood centers can serve and are adequate for the potential additional residents who may live in this development. No additional center or expansion to the existing club is proposed. More information is needed. Buildings and This proposal consists of single family houses and townhouses with a Spaces of Human maximum height of 35 feet. Although building elevations have not been Scale provided. Two to three story buildings are appropriate at this location and will fit in with existing buildings in the Redfields Development. This principle is met. Relegated Parking This is not applicable. Mixture of Uses Redfields is an existing residential development with the subject proposal of expanding the residential uses within the development. No mixture of uses are proposed. ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 5 Mixture of Housing The applicant is proposing single family and townhouse units. This is not a Types and strong mixture of housing types. No commitment has been made to Affordability affordable units. This principle is not met. Redevelopment This principle is not applicable. Site Planning that Approximately 1/3 of this site has critical slopes on it, some of which will be Respects Terrain disturbed. The applicant has shown most of the proposed development out of the critical slopes. The plan shows an undisturbed buffer along the western portion of the site, but the applicant has provided a proffer allowing a variety of disturbances within the buffer. This proffer is not consistent with the plan and should be revised. Trails are shown on critical slopes. Staff is concerned with the practical use of the trails, if they are located on very steep slopes. The trails should be adequate for a variety of residents to use. This information is not clearly provided. For the most part this principle is met; however, the buffer issues mentioned need revision and some clarity regarding the practical use of the trails should be provided. Clear Boundaries This proposed site is currently open space with no development on it. It is with the Rural the boundary with the Rural Areas. Adding development to this site will Areas change the character of the area. A 100 foot buffer is proposed for the area adjacent to the Sherwood Farms development and on the northeastern portion of the property. The area adjacent to the Mountain Valley subdivision does not include a buffer. The applicant used this portion of the property for development in order to stay out of many of the critical slope areas. The clear boundary in this general area has already been impacted by the existence of "old zoning" in the Rural Area, and the ultimate development of these properties (Mosby Mountain). This proposal further impacts the clarity of the boundary. Economic Vitality Action Plan The primary goal of the County's Economic Vitality Action Plan is to: Increase the County's economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and existing local businesses. The proposed expansion of the Redfields development is primarily intended for residential uses. While this proposed expansion supports the local construction industry, this area is not intended for business use. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance: PRD districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map in accordance with the provisions set forth generally for PD districts in sections 8.0 and 33.0, and with densities and in locations in accordance with the comprehensive plan. ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 6 The PRD 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. To these ends, 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. (Amended 8-14-85) This proposal is unique because this property was zoned PRD with the original Redfields rezoning. However, no development plan was associated with this property and it was designated open space. Adding to this unique situation, the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Rural Area, and it is not located in the Development Area, which is intended for higher density developments similar to what the applicant is proposing. Typically, if this proposed development were located in the Development Area, it would meet the intent of the Planned Residential Development, particularly since the applicant has taken care to develop with low impacts to the areas with critical slopes. Staff believes that the proposal does meet the intent of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) district. However, staff does not support this request at this time because the Comprehensive Plan does not designate this portion of the County as Development Area. It is designated Rural Area which supports a much lower density than what is being requested. The following engineering comments remain outstanding and need to be addressed: As previously mentioned, it is recommended that delinquent bond work, related to other sectors of Redfields, be completed before any approvals. With narrow lots on a mountainside, an overall grading plan, as is already shown conceptually, would be helpful. This plan would need to be approved before any grading permits. The current conceptual plan would be inadequate in this regard. The overall lot grading plan would need to follow general guidelines as have been formulated with other rezonings, such as a limit on lot drainage such that it does not flow through more than three lots. In addition, some parameters on the unit type, or on the extent of re -grading that builders can do, would also be helpful. For example, rear and side loading garages could be eliminated. These tend to cause the most problems with lot -to -lot grading by builders. See the proffer section later in this report for suggested proffer language relating to proffer 5. Iv. Public need and justification for the change: With the recent change of the nearby Biscuit Run property going from large residential development to a state park, the applicant sees a need for additional housing that is conveniently located in this part of the County. The applicant feels the change of use from open space to additional residential development will begin to make up for the loss of residential units when the Biscuit Run site becomes a state park. However, the Land Use Plan map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Rural Area and more intensive urban development is not consistent with current County policies and goals. While it is possible that this site might be appropriate for additional residential units, as previously stated, there is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request underway. The ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 7 ultimate need for any expansion to the Development Area, the amount of expansion and the best location for that expansion is best determined during the Comprehensive Plan update process. This is consistent with the Commission's prior direction at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Worksession last year. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources — There are several critical slopes on this site. Some of the slopes will be disturbed, but the applicant has taken care to minimize the disturbance to these slopes. A stream is located on this site; however, a 100 foot buffer is shown to help protect the stream. The plan also shows a 100 foot undisturbed buffer adjacent to several residents in the Sherwood Farms subdivision and in the northeastern portion of the site. The proffers describe some potential disturbance to this undisturbed buffer, leaving some inconsistency regarding the level of disturbance for the buffer. Staff believes impacts on the environment are minimal and can be resolved with adequate treatment of impacted critical slopes through the waiver review process and revisions to the proffers. There are no cultural or historic resources on the site. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets: VDOT has indicated that: In regards to crashes on Route 781 and Route 875, the County Board of Supervisors should consider adding Route 781 as a proposed Secondary Road Project to the Secondary Six Year Plan schedule to widen the travel way, add sidewalk, improve the intersection at Route 875 and improve drainage. An increase in traffic may occur along Route 781 from additional development and the connector road to Stribling Avenue. In order to bring the intersection of Redfields Road and Sunset Avenue Extended up to the current VDOT intersection sight distance standard, some minor grading and trimming of vegetation will be needed. Staff Comment: Sunset Avenue (Route 781) is identified as a high priority improvement project in the "County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements" adopted by the Board of Supervisors. However, due to limited state secondary road funding, the project is not scheduled for design or improvements at this time. The proposed sidewalk on the extension of Fieldstone Road should be extended along existing Fieldstone road to connect with the existing crosswalk and trail system at the intersection of Fieldstone Road and Redfields Road. A connection to the existing Ambrose Commons Road would be beneficial from this proposed development or a future development to allow residents of Mountain Valley Subdivision a second connection besides Mosby Mountain. At this time because of the lot divisions in Mountain Valley a connection appears to be unlikely. ( See Attachment E) Schools — Students living in this area would attend Cale Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and Monticello High School. Fire and Rescue — The closest station for this area is located in the City of Charlottesville. Utilities —This site is in the jurisdictional area for public water and sewer. Service would be provided based on the approved PRD. No immediate or significant service capacity issues have been identified. (See Attachment F for comments from the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)) ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 8 Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The primary impacts anticipated on surrounding properties is an increase in traffic once the residential units are constructed and occupied and the loss of open space and the natural environment many. Sunset Avenue is in need of upgrade to existing and future development in the area. PROFFERS Attachment G contains the current proffers. Wording changes are expected prior to the Board of Supervisor's hearing to address non -substantive issues. Individual proffers are described below, and followed by suggestions (in italics) from staff and the County Attorney: Proffer 1: Describes the undisturbed buffer adjacent to Sherwood Farms properties and the northeastern section of the proposed development, along with the possible disturbances. The buffer area appears to be within the area designated as open space, so if that designation remains, the buffer area needs to, at the very least, be subject to the use provisions in Zoning Ordinance section 4.7 and not go beyond them; (b) in line 9, a second parenthesis should be added at the end of "(whether now known or developed in the future))'; (c) at the end of the proffer, the proffer should identify at what height the minimum 1 %" caliper will be measured. Staff suggests that for it to serve the purpose / intent of a buffer, limitations to encroachment need to be included in the proffer. As an example, staff recommends limiting disturbance to a) the location of public utilities when an alternative location is not practical and/or b) removal of trees that are determined by an arborist to be diseased or dying. For the replanting standard, please add that the 1 % inch caliper is as measured at six inches above ground (Reference Section 4.3). Proffer 2: States that land labeled on the Application Plan as trail, Open Space, scenic overlook, or recreation area will be dedicated to the Redfields Community Association, Inc. If the area designated as "Open Space" is open space within the meaning of Zoning Ordinance 4.7, it is subject to the provisions in that section; the owner may want to clarify that designation. The last sentence of the proffer should be deleted because it pertains to private property rights and the residents' right of access to this area, which the County will not enforce. The last sentence may also conflict with the approved trail plan for Redfields. Proffer 3: Describes the construction of a new class B type 1 primitive nature trail on this portion of the site. Proffer 4: States that upon the issuance of an occupancy permit for the sixty-fourth (64th) dwelling unit the Owner shall construct a tot lot, a scenic area and a basketball half -court. Proffer 5: Commits the Owner to submit an overall lot grading plan. The second line of the proffer should state "before the first final subdivision plat is approved" 5(iv) The last clause of this proffer ("such finding not to be unreasonably withheld') should be eliminated. It is a given that any public officer or employee must act reasonably. 5(x) It is not clear if Phase V will be platted in phases or sections, but if it's possible, the first sentence should include the following underlined clause at the end to read "... a waiver request with the preliminary or final plat for the phase or section within Phase V. " 5(xiii) We suggest that this paragraph be added so that Proffer 5 expressly states that all grading in Phase V will comply with the approved Plan. Suggested language: 'All grading within Phase V shall comply with the Plan approved by the County Engineer." ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 9 Proffer 6: Attempts to limit the number of units within the Redfields PRD. Since only Phase V is being rezoned, the scope of the proffers can't amend the proffer regarding density applicable to other parts of Redfields. Suggested language for Proffer 6: "Phase V shall have not more than XX dwelling units, and these dwelling units shall count toward the aggregate number of YYY dwelling units permitted in Redfields PRD as established in ZMA ZZZZ-ZZZZZ. " Proffer 7: Commits the Owner to provide a pavement analysis for the existing Fieldstone Road. This proffer needs to include an action if the pavement analysis concludes that a pavement overlay is required. Suggested language: "The Owner shall install a pavement overlay in conjunction with the first final subdivision plat if it is recommended by the pavement analysis and required by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the County Engineer. " This may need more work. WAIVERS The applicant is requesting a critical slopes waiver, which staff recommends approval. (See Attachment I for analysis of the critical slope modification. See Attachment H for the critical slope waiver request) SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. In developing this site, the applicant is proposing to minimize disturbance to the critical slopes area. 2. The proposal involves a site that includes existing PRD Zoning, is adjacent to the Development Area and to PRD zoning. 3. The site is near major highway access and is accessible to utilities. 4. The proposal could potentially add some residential uses that were lost in the Biscuit Run property becoming a state park, and replaces it within the same general southern urban area location. Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning: 1. The proposed residential development is inconsistent with the Growth Management Policy and Rural Areas policies. 2. The Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area, which is not recommended for this proposed scale of development. 3. This rezoning request does not follow the process and direction the Planning Commission provided at last year's work session. The Commission recommended future expansion areas be studied in a comprehensive manner and that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2010- 001) currently underway be studied with the Comprehensive Plan. These initial discussions are scheduled to begin October 11, 2011 with the Planning Commission. 4. Some proffers need to be rewritten to address staff's concerns, as noted above under the description of each proffer. 5. The loss of open space/trails that the community has been using. 6. An increase in traffic to the area. 7. No commitment has been made to provide affordable housing. ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD because the residential use proposed is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. WAIVERS Staff recommends approval of the modification to Section 4.2.5(a) of Zoning Ordinance for critical slopes waiver. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Zoning Map Amendment: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00017, Redfields, PRD with the proffers and waiver provided. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00017, Redfields, PRD, based on the recommendation of staff. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENT A: Location Map ATTACHMENT B: Land Use Plan Map ATTACHMENT C: Application Plan ATTACHMENT D: Planning Commission Minutes, dated 11-30-10 ATTACHMENT E: VDOT Comment Letter from Joel DeNunzio, dated 8-17-11 ATTACHMENT F: Electronic Mail from Alex Morrison, dated 8-2-11 ATTACHMENT G: Proffers, dated July 18, 2011 ATTACHMENT H: Letter from Scott Collins, dated July 18, 2011 ATTACHMENT I: Critical Slopes Modification Analysis ZMA2010-00017, Redfields PRD Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 27, 2011 Staff Report, Page 11 my, on zm 2010 = 17,1 , 4 �► �, , : �� �� ��f Y. .Rj I it` s 4 : 0 0 4 . * .. Re rt Y 1 1W A i • .f 302 ( , . hp, : , _ , _ , , i Ne eik‘ • ,.. . ;4°4 4 .010 Als• ..... 1 1,10 ....., f# •., i&'* . so9.4* ' ,4-#. ----,_---- fij.,. as kg:km.0- mi r-----47-A i op.- .1 l IF AVM:" ---.. , 1 -N K Iraq li t.1 �. �VQ t � � q ��f i� vI ._ 7 $ , r _ . . _- ` -- ,-,..,----, „ga 1 . p _.,, ilk .„....,,_ , ...,,....„.„._„.. , ...„..._....,,,r. Alt= , p, $ o. lik u ■A l 1111,c4frc,..11i0 +..,..miliv:t....5:;;:::,* ps ,..., i APO IF �, • � . ,� _fir ;�'► �; - ` : ��.`i� � � . 7 /� J 2•.. �' 1,I�� . ��,� :: ;- .d.:.' pry 11 .41; 1 - -'' ='� , a �► ` a - . � - - =• :•. =:.� y „ ‘,..,;w:F r - - '-"Ill vi or s hi> / ` "� " • 0 . �i .,,„ :• Mlle: S / r 411 ,, i ‘ , 1 „ 0 t, . �� %mss �' � ► j N � 1 */ It e 4 N 4 tl,,‘:4 ..\,... ■41114s her ik, a 4 ro,- r ip .,t E_ ■ • krei ' ■ ♦ `��, /�/ Roads I Parcels U k, k • g 1 1 of Interest . z,o� S Water Body d Eno PiV ° ZMA 2010 -17 r Redfields ri g \ I 859 ! . ,� • 1 , ( \, ' Oo 0`` o A 4.0. , , e __,f i 76R-E4 ♦ ��� * 1 `� ,___ Q A � O_ . / - A ________ _ c -le p i �♦ 76R -1 r ailP / A. V ---V L / ■ / i � Roads Parcels S E COMI / Streams Parcels of Interest z �,R ► D R water Body ' / S. x gli _Community Service Office Service - Transdional - IndusMal Servica _ O(fice /Regional Service Urban Density - InstRUtional -Parks and Greenways -. Rural Area Feet Neighborhood Density Regional Service �j See Development Area Text 050100 200 ___ / El il -Neighborhood Service TownNllage Center Master Plan Areas P.\Profecta \102048 - Redfields V rezoning 1,dwg\6- TRAIL PROFILES dwg, Layout Name. 6 Jul 18, 2011 - 12.33pn a 44- -4 O C71 O O V -4 CT O CT O CT O N A H_INE - SEE ABOVE O 641 O CO 828 BB O O (T (A W V V 0 626 880 CA 0 W - _- i - _�- _ _ III 00 668 01 C'1 ° O • n -_ + 83 5.82 + O 6 05.60 O 635.617 O 668 006 Y r —T ti 0 605 600 7 _ - n $ I 1 r , uJ O 5 2 -_- - _ - - -� O 638.920 ' � 4 O 6 8932 -_ �__ s a W O 689.318 A l i ti : I N 59017 �� —��� j_ -_� - W 64084 N 898.87 c W ° 640 645 -__ 00 696 869 q ° $ 1 g 0 590.170 � � m [ r`__ -- 1 -_ 65Y 09 ■ �• 8 688.083 W 688.08 __ _ Z + 5 1 CO 592 34 + 0 592.339 '• L 0 t '--I - - 8 GI , 01 ■ A 672 2 � ▪ 875 83 3 N W + i p0 675827 g Z - y p 672.220 + - - - ? 592 65 _ I O 582.646 r CT m ;v • 8842a T + 65627 - C.71 600 75 684 240 V 0 656 272 p m p 606 752 X 7 O '' • 895881 - -_ - _- - __ O 8 _ 7 - -- V 645 24 co + 607 22 `i_ _ , ___ — co, .� m 645 237 if 6 217 7, Z s r V Y ■ c --Co 712 207 ■ S 0 624 58 h_ W ▪ 712.21 i + _ ✓ 618.27 ° 624 561 i O O 616271 — I. - - - -- 0 } CO 71733 ++ 601 17 . -- r -__ C 63694 _ O 717.326 -- ----- - O 601.188 O 636939 - -- -- -� __ - - O N f 1 T 642 977 �y 1 1 596 41 • O 725 1 2 -- I I' 0 596 413 Q CO 642.98 1 0 ___ - (12.:1 -__- p0 C) 1 O �C O N - O O 10 Y- 0 0 726 76 , 3 0 602 41 + O 602 411 728 -764 o ° o o 7 0) 0) -J V o ' o ' o cT 1,3 - 728.77 O O O O 0 726 767 0 W - 726.28 O 726.277 I - 720.38 IV 0 720.375 r. D I O + 7 12.00 -- 0 0 712.002 i j -- LP O .lfA N + 707 � : -- - N i r/) 1 0 707.207 �- _ ifi --, % 2 + - ▪ 97162 Ill o e-, g� _ I'T� 1 m 4 r L ) 0 D i W O 682833 T O O rn 11 X Z Z r O O 877.15 0 . m � O 677.155 -i e --I nn O o 677.167 3 , 13 N 6 + N 667.30 O O 867.301 _ _ _ ___ - 0 O ( O T 0) ` I .sa_ o O D € O N El ° + 54378 + 68 1 72 Z 0 681.718 0 543.783 '' 0 1. Z - 66273 ___ 0 5338987 I! -_ _.- O 662.732 ,• 0 N ■ ll }) 53710 CT 662 36 Ti 0 537 088 A 86 380 ■ O 8 n G f f r N i 537 49 g a to - �' m 64317 N 00 537 495 * g 0 643.170 X N O A 537.88 1 A -, V 637 08 �■ O 537 684 3 '"' Cn 0 637083 m ° � m 11 n O 171 Z o ."�! CO 837.63 _ 0 37.614 -- _- O o M ',i:- 0 637 830 ° I• $ 2 �'�. _ - nt ' `� m ti N',O O • c � ;. N + 537.80 CO' °`.. o ,1 " \, CO O 628.88 860 8 537,798 -_ - -- C o, y 0 828 a Z A W + 537.19 i m� O 805,60 • C + 0 537187 c 9,A' Cn 0 MSOSRBQJE = / OW O O � ' - C O Rm2 0 o p 0 0 'tom Zn 3;, 0 1 1 _I Z Z ; 31 + 592 55 H � O 592.552 _ I. E o A ° 3m I2 { FBI ? co 590 17 ■ ell 0 590170 - -- l co 44 + 592 34 8 592.339 Ivey Findings for Traffic Impact Analysis entitled Redfields Phase 5 Residential Development Albemarle County, VA Project ID: ZMA -2010 -00017 Prepared by Engineering and Planning Resources for Collins Engineering Below are VDOT's key findings for the TIA on the above project: Errors and Omissions: • No errors or omissions have been identified by the VDOT review of the traffic impact study. Summary of Data: • The study adequately addresses the Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Analysis regulations. • The study does not identify any major impacts to the transportation network from the development. • The safety study indicates that the crashes on Route 781 and Route 875 are mainly due to the two roads having narrow travel lanes with little to no shoulder from the travelway to the ditch. The safety study also indicates that the steep approach grades contribute to crashes at the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended and Country Green Road during adverse weather conditions. The data indicates that these crashes are minor in nature with only property damage. • The sight distance section of the safety study indicates that minor grading and trimming of vegetation will bring the intersection of Redfields Road and Sunset Avenue Extended up to the current VDOT intersection sight distance standard. VDOT conducted a safety study at this intersection in 2002 and installed intersection approach warning signs on Route 781 on each approach to the intersection of Route 1270 due to limited stopping sight distance along 781 from a crest vertical curve. Study Recommendation: • The County Board of Supervisors should consider adding Route 781 as a proposed Secondary Road Project to the Secondary Six Year Plan schedule to widen the travel way, add sidewalk, improve the intersection at Route 875 and improve drainage. An increase in traffic may occur along Route 781 from additional development and the connector road to Stribling Avenue. • The proposed sidewalk on the extension of Fieldstone Road should be extended along existing Fieldstone road to connect with the existing crosswalk and trail system at the intersection of Fieldstone Road and Redfields Road. Other Items: • A connection to the existing Ambrose Commons Road would be beneficial from this proposed development or a future development to allow residents of Mountain Valley Subdivision a second connection besides Mosby Mountain. At this time because of the lot divisions in Mountain Valley a connection appears to be unlikely. Attachment E Claudette Grant From: Alex Morrison [ amorrison ©serviceauthority.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:08 PM To: Claudette Grant Subject: ZMA2010017: Redfields Attachments: image001.jpg; ZMA2010017 - Redfields.pdf COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Dear Claudette : The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has received and reviewed the plan /document /project described above. Attached is the ACSA comment sheet with any relevant comments and concerns we may have regarding the plan /document /project. Please - Feel - Free to contact me at the number below with any comments or questions you may have about the attached ACSA comment sheet. Thank you. The ACSA has no - Further comments on the above referenced ZMA. All previous comments have been acknowledged. Alexander 7. Morrison Civil Engineer Description: Description: Description: Description: C:\ Users \lbreeden \Documents \Logo \ACSA logos \24 bit Logo.BMP 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 Office: (434) 977 - 4511 EXT: 116 1 ATTACHMENT F CRITICAL SLOPES MODIFICATION STAFF COMMENT: I. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved by the Planning Commission. The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment H), and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the Ordinance. The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be natural. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Critical Slopes." These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance each pertains to. Section 4.2.5(a) Review of the request by Current Development Engineering staff: Engineering staff has reviewed this and finds there are no measurable impacts. Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope disturbances are in the form of Areas Acres Total site area 58.46 Area of critical slopes Man -made = 0 0% of development (man -made & natural) Natural = 22.4 38% of development Total critical slopes area 22.4 38% of development Total critical slopes disturbed 0.30 1% of critical slopes The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope areas contain natural critical slope areas. Please see the applicant's waiver request for details on these areas and the percentages of disturbance. Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed: 1. "rapid and /or large scale movement of soil and rock ": 2. "excessive stormwater run - off": 3. "siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water 4. "loss of aesthetic resource ": Attachment I Based on the Open Space Plan and field observation, there are critical slopes located in this area; however, these slopes are not shown to be significant. 5. "septic effluent ": This site will be served by public sewer. No portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005. Based on the above review, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the disturbance of critical slopes. The critical slopes areas disturbed are not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff: Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2: Section 4.2.5 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). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions. The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that: A. 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; This critical slopes waiver is unusual. The critical slopes impact is generated by the construction of the trail system, road network, utilities and stormwater. The disturbance associated with road network, utilities and stormwater is exempt from the critical slopes regulations and no wavier is needed for that activity. The critical slopes disturbance associated with the construction of the trail system may or may not be exempt depending on the timing of construction. The mechanics of the ordinance would allow for the construction of the trails without a waiver if the trails are constructed with the single family lots subdivision. However, if the trails are constructed with the multi - family site plan a waiver is required. Even if this request for a waiver is denied the trails could still be constructed as long as the construction occurs with the single family subdivision development. Staff opinion is that denial of the waiver would not forward the purpose of the ordinance. Approval will allow for passive recreation to be provided with minimal impact. It would allow the residents of this development to take advantage of the large open space area being provided. It is likely that if formal trails were not provided that the residents would establish informal trails that might have more significant erosion risks than the formal trails proposed by the applicant. B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; As stated above, the establishment of formal trails may result in less impact than would be generated by the establishment of informal trails. Based on this staff opinion is that approval of this request would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree. C. Due to the property's unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or Denial of this request would not restrict the development of the property. Attachment 1 D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. Approval of this request will provide recreational opportunities in a natural setting and allow for the use of the significant open space area shown on the plan. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff review has resulted in both favorable and unfavorable findings: Favorable factors: 1. Even if this waiver is denied the critical slopes may be impacted by -right as part of the subdivision review. 2. Approval of formal trails may result in less impact than would be generated by informal trails. 3. Approval of the request allows the residents to make effective use of provided open space. Unfavorable factors: 1. None identified. After considering the favorable and unfavorable factors staff recommends approval of this waiver. Attachment I \ W Q \, / m a. = o o U ti W W r :- \ o ``�1I— / DC LiJ DC Co \ /•` n CD O - \/ 1 o m ■ i E \, o O O 1 Z O Q W N W — VI: -' : u , ,--- , - , - - 3 ra {iru.r 0 u- :9 _ " ,if,I :Levi- Z �- S- a J I - Illhir a • 7 \ y tr, „. ..., Z .... --- ., .. . . , . \ ' ,,....., \ L .. .. .- I:, 6 3W - 7": „,..„ 7„. ' i . Atis:;:i. ci....E11 . Z O W - O� \ - _ ; . . ' ' , . ; ' Z ' - ■ , , \ 0 J \ r r,. \ \ . . .._ . „> '� l'-J \> , \ n 1 3 rq N r_, \ • - z N Y\ \ \" a J \� \ /\.‘ \ Wwv q . J p \ u ',, / I T �� W N . 3 ' ) • till F/) ,.77'' : .:- ---_____ ;',,/ ,/?-)..,', , \ . , 1 - �w pi ! \ I rl , , <, , , ,,;„„ ..). , . _ .7 , (____ .7-- t, \i ., , , . . , ri • A f/1 - - - .. _ _ / \\, ,> �1_ / / / , _______________ IA to 0 CI i , 1 W,v rn 1�m a ' ' '.....-- \\\ \ tI\ ` \ Z \ \ \ - m m R J \ D \ �� " ,. (1 N fir, \ 1D \ to u 2 r i 1 . a m f° ir D , ,J.: i ., -„rim m r '� m p i ° ;' p o 111 _ -I ., , , _ .., ,. R v -I +21 TO -< o y 1 r 1: I I D 0 O T neo o ' _ 70 o zO y z r T o� !-gym ll �� r,- r - O � N CO T T �n ` L //Th O o CO T 13 tz O a ti - 0 ...1 zz \ rn aa rfl , \ Z - / N , \ CS Q