The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP199900088 Staff Report STAFF REPORT ZMA-77-24. Dr. Charles W. Hurt Shadwell Heights Tax Map 79, Parcel 23 ( part ) Tax Map 79, Parcel 1 Location: On the southeast side of Route 729 at Shadwell, as well as on the west side of Shadwell Road ( Route 709 ) . Acreage: 92+ acres Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1 Residential Planned Neighborhood Existing Zoning and General Character of the Surrounding Area The property is to a great extent bounded by A-1 zoned property which is presently residential in nature. To the west is Stone-Robinson School zoned A-1. To the northeast is Shadwell Estates subdivision part of which is zoned RS-1; the remainder is A-1. The average size of the lots in Shadwell Estates Subdivision is 1 acre. To the north, on the opposite site of the existing lake, is a 26+ acre property presently rural in character but zoned R-3 Residential. History Special Permit 308 was applied for on this property in 1973 calling for the develop- ment of Collina Planned Community. This application was concurrent with a site plan application submitted for the 27+ acre R-3 parcel which was to be developed in town- house clusters served by both central water and sewer. The total plan called for 90 single family lots, 120 townhouse condominium units, and approximately 1.5 acres of small shopes on 130+ acres. On November 19, 1973, the Planning Commission approved the special permit. On November 28, 1973, the application was denied by the Board of Supervisors. ZMA-77-17 was a request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RPN/A-1 with 46 single family dwelling units on 92+ acres_. This application was approved by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1977, but later denied by the Board of Supervisors on November 2, 1977. Applicant's Proposal This proposal calls for the development of 42 residential lots on 91.9+ acres. This proposed development has two (2) parts. Thirty (30) of the proposed units will be located on the east side of the existing lake and will have access exclusively by way of Route 709 (Shadwell Road) . The remaining twelve (12) lots will be located on the west side of the lake and will have access from Route 729. A state road is proposed to serve 24- of the 30 lots on the east side of the lake, the remainder (6) will be served by private roads (Association roads) . On the west side of the lake ten (10) of the 12 lots will be served by a private road, the other two (2) will be served directly from Route 729. The project is proposed to have a central water system.w wells. All lots served by central water will be a minimum of 40,000+ square feet in area. Nir STAFF COMMENT Tentatively, the water will come from two (2) wells. The development will have open space amounting to 10% over the required-minimum of 25%. Favorable: Considering the severe topography of the site, the lot layout does a good job of preserving the steeper wooded slopes. The use of private drives reduces the amount of land-disturbing activity. The smaller lot sizes allow that a greater amount of virgin wood remain undisturbed. The common ownership of the lake and dam will help insure that they remain amenities for the area. The plan allows for emergency fire access to the lake for pumping purposes. Unfavorable: As noted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the additional traffic from this development would more than double the existing traffic count on Route 709 (Shadwell Road) . This is an important point because the intersection of Routes 709 and 250 East has inadequate sight distance and can be considered a hazard. There was some public concern regarding the safety of the existing dam which is found within the proposed develop- ment. Staff opinion is that the dam should be reviewed and determined Gsafe prior to any final subdivision approval. There was also public concern regarding the effect the steep slopes will have on pollution from septic ct facilities. In response to this question, the County Engineer has noted that the effect due to slope should be minimal. In addition, as requested during the previous application, the Virginia Department of Health reviewed the site and noted that all but perhaps two of the originally proposed lots were adequate for individual septic facilities. In the present proposal, the lots have been rearranged to better address the concern of pollutants from septic tank failure. There was also concern from residents of Shadwell Estates that their wells would be polluted by septic runoff. This problem has been addressed by creating an open area buffer between the subdivisions. The staff's understanding is that a part of this buffer is being purchased ci by adjacent residents of Shadwell Estates. There was also concern that undesirable motor boats would be used on the lake. A portion of the lake falls outside the subject property. This has caused concern among some of the adjacent owners. However, staff opinion is that the uses permitted on the lake will largely remain the same, and in effect there could be more control on permitted uses due to enforcement by the Homeowner's Association. 14 Though the applicant has reduced the number of dwelling units requested in this application from 46 to 42, staff opinion is that a desirable number of dwelling units (based on the review of the previous application by the Board of Supervisors ) would be 39. However, the density should be determined by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Staff Recommendations I' 1. Written Health Department approval; 7 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities; r3. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of all internal roads an private drives 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of internal roads; 5. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built on slopes in excess of 25%; 6. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built within 50 feet of the lake water's edge at a mean level to be determined by the Virginia Department of Health; 7. The applicant will have a certified engineer test the existing dam and certify that it is safe to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; 8. A maintenance agreement for the maintenance of all common area, recreational facilities, private drives, and the dam is to be approved by the County Attorney's office and recorded; This plan calls for the 11+ acre laket? P_main and be used as a recreational facility with boating and fishing n The lake and dam are to be in common ownership and maintained by a homeowner's association. This proposal calls for common open space to amount to 35% of the gross acreage; this figure includes the lake (12+%) , pedestrian trails, a picnic area near the dam, a small beach and boat launch facility, and common open area which is generally steep in slope and serves as a buffer between the development and adjacent properties. Comprehensive Plan Conformance The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to remain agricultural in nacre. Comparative Impact Statistics Existing Applicant's Proposal Zoning A-1 RPN/A-1 Gross Density 0.5 du/acre 0.45 du/acre(0.52 excluding Net Density 0.5 du/acre 0.75 du/acre lake) Common Open Space 0 acres (0%) 32.3 acres (35%) Total Dwelling Units 45* (34 excluding lake & assuming 42 (61%) state roads) Population 144+ 134+ Additional Vehicle Trips/Day Route 709 N/A 219+ Route 729 N/A 88-i 329+ vpd 307+ vpd School Enrollment K-5 13.5 12.6 6-8 7.47 6.972 9-12 8.91 8.316 29.88± 27.888+ THEREFORE 30+ 28+ *Assumes all lots are pipestems and includes lake Summary of Proposed Land Uses ACRES % OF SITE Residential Lots 55.8 60.7% Streets 3.8 4.1% Common area (includes 32.3 35.2% lake) Lake 11 + 12.0% vr 9. Final subdivision approval will be subject to the County Engineer's office approval of central water systems; 10. A grading permit will be required prior to subdivision approval; 11. All lots are to have access to common open space; 12. An approved secondary drainfield location must be provided for each lot; 13. That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review the intersection of Routes 250 East and Route 709 in order to determine whether signs or warning lights are necessary; if it is determined that controls are warranted, they shall be installed at the developer's expense. E/1` ` � - ` -.�-e • fo/tom W �•�C ( ;, , r