Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500194 Staff Report 2016-03-08ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SUB2015-194 Green Loft Farm- Staff: Megan Yaniglos, AICP, Principal Planner Rural Preservation Development Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: March 8, 2016 N/A Owners: Wright 104 LLC Applicant: Brian Ray, Roger Ray & Associates Acreage: approx. 148.89 acres Rezone from: N/A TMP: 08900000000250; 10100000000200; By -right use: RA -Rural Areas 101000000002A1;101000000002B0; 101000000002C0 Location: Dudley Mountain Road (Route 706) approximately one mile north of Red Hill Road (Route 708) Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers: N/A Proposal: Request for preliminary subdivision Requested # of Dwelling Units: 17 lots (16 development plat approval to create 17 lots (16 development lots and one (1) preservation lot). lots and one (1) preservation lot) as a Rural Preservation Development on a total of 148.89 acres. Associated with this subdivision is a request for a private street. (Attachment A) RA Rural Areas Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas — (preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) in Rural Area 4. Character of Property: The properties consist of Use of Surrounding Properties: Agricultural, open area that has previously been cleared and Residential/Single Family Homes logged. The back parcel, TMP 89-25, contains a stream and is wooded. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The proposal meets the requirements of 1. None found the ordinance and the design standards set forth in Section 10.3.3. 2. The rural preservation development furthers the goals outlined in the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The preservation parcel allows a large portion of the properties that includes the stream, wooded areas, and critical slopes to be protected. 4. The private street would require less disturbance than a public street. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Ordinance: Section 10.3.3- Request to use Rural Preservation Development option (Recommendation, approval) Subdivision Ordinance: Section 14-232 and 14-234- Request for Private Street (Recommendation, approval) STAFF PERSON: Megan Yaniglos, AICP- Principal Planner, Scott Clark — Rural Areas Planner PLANNING COMMISSION: March 8, 2016 AGENDA TITLE: SUB2015-194 Green Loft Farm APPLICANT: Roger Ray & Associates PROPERTY OWNER(S): Wright 104, LLC APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary subdivision plat approval to create 17 lots (16 development lots and one (1) preservation lot) as a Rural Preservation Development on a total of 148.89 acres. Associated with this subdivision is a request for a private street. (Attachment A) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas — (preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density 0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) in Rural Area 4. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The applicant has proposed that this subdivision be considered for Rural Preservation Development, and therefore needs Planning Commission review according to Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commissions role in reviewing RPD's is to determine if the proposal 1.) meets the design criteria in Section 10.3.3.2 and 2.) Is more effective at resource protection than conventional development. The applicant has also requested a private street for the development (Attachment D). Therefore, the Commission must act on the private street request and the proposed Rural Preservation Development. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: None DISCUSSION: The proposed Rural Preservation Development (RPD) consists of five (5) parcels that total 148.89 acres (Attachment B). All the parcels except for TMP 89-25 are open fields that have been previously cleared and logged, which is a permitted use in the Rural Areas. (Attachment A). The proposed preservation tract contains open area, critical slopes, wooded area, and a perennial stream, as discussed further in the RPD analysis presented below. The development lots solely consist of the existing open areas. This staff report is organized to address each issue separately. The Commission must act on both of the items. The items to be addressed are: Zoning Ordinance: 1. Section 10.3.3- Request to use Rural Preservation Development option (recommendation, approval) Subdivision Ordinance: 2. Section 14-232(A)(3) —Request for private street in the rural areas. (recommendation, approval) There have also been a few neighbors that have been in contact with staff regarding this application. They attended the site review committee meeting where the application was discussed, and also have provided comments that outline their concerns (Attachment F). 1. REVIEW OF REQUEST FOR RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT OPTION Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance defines Rural Preservation Development and specifies the standards that must be addressed. Each of these standards is discussed below. This analysis has been broken into two sections to address the provisions of Sections 10.3.3.2 and 10.3.3.3. Ordinance language is provided in italics, followed by staff comment in regular text. 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; Out of 148.89 acres, the property has approximately 28.4 acres of prime and locally -important soils. Approximately 14.5 acres of those soils (51 %) would be included in the preservation tract. Given the distribution of important soils on the property, it would be impractical to develop the property with significantly smaller impacts on important soils. 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; There are no FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplains on the property, and the property is not located in a Water Supply Protection Area. The majority of critical slopes would be located on the preservation tract rather than on development lots. The significant areas of critical slopes on lots 12, 13, and 14 could be protected if the preservation tract wrapped around the south side of the development lots to include them. However, this would violate standard (g) below. 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 property is not within a historic district, and is not adjacent to any mapped historic resources or entrance corridor. 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 proposal meets this criterion. h. All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle; The proposal meets this criterion. 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. Staff believes that the proposed rural preservation development is more appropriate than conventional development. The proposed RPD would place the highest elevations on the property, as well as a stream valley and large forested areas of critical slopes under conservation easement. The proposed RPD forwards the purposes of rural preservation development and criteria set forth in the ordinance. 10.3.3.3 SPECIAL PROVISIONS: 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 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; The number of lots proposed within the rural preservation development is the same amount as those that would be achieved in the conventional development (Attachment C). The proposal meets this criterion. b. Section 10.3.3.3.a notwithstanding, no rural preservation development shall contain more than twenty (20) development lots; The proposed development meets this requirement, containing a total of 17 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; The proposed development meets this requirement. 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 area devoted to lots and roadways is 74.71 acres. Sixteen lots multiplied by six acres would be 96 acres, so the proposal meets this criterion. 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 set forth in section 10.3.3.2 or in accord with section 10.3.3.3. c, as the case may be; Only one preservation tract is requested, consisting of 73.31 acres. 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 the 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, The proposed preservation tract is larger than the 40 -acre minimum. The proposal meets this requirement. g. Each application for a rural preservation development is subject to the review and approval of the director of current development and zoning. The proposal has been reviewed by Community Development staff and by the Acting Director of Planning. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the request in accordance with the requirements of the ordinance and the design standards set forth in Section 10.3.3. This proposal contains a by -right development plan (Attachment C) which proposes 4 the same number of lots as the rural preservation plan, and it appears that it would be possible to construct this option. The proposed Rural Preservation Development would be more effective at protecting resources on this site than would a conventional development. This proposal meets the requirements of Section 10.3.3.2 and 10.3.3.3, the sections that pertain to the intent and design standards of Rural Preservation Development proposals. Further, the proposal meets the recommendations within the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan that states: Strategy 1 a. Continue to promote use of Rural Preservation Developments (BPDs), conservation easements, and Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) programs, if developed, to help preserve agricultural and forestal soils and to increase the acreage of productive soils for agriculture and forestry. Staff finds that the request, based on the plan as shown, is consistent with the criteria of Section 10.3.3 for granting approval of the Rural Preservation Development and furthers the goals within the Comprehensive Plan Therefore, staff is able to recommend approval of the Rural Preservation Development. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF PRIVATE STREETS The applicant is requesting a private street to serve the proposed lots within the RPD (Attachment D). In the initial submittal, the applicant had proposed this street to be public, however the Virginia Department of Transportation required that a second point of access be provided and requested that a stub -out be shown to an adjacent property (Attachment E). Since the County discourages development within the Rural Areas, the applicant has proposed a private street in order to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to discourage future development. One or more new private streets may be authorized by the Planning Commission as provided by any one of the provisions of Section 14-232, provided that the findings required by section 14-234(C) are made. The applicant has requested approval of a second private street under Section 14-232(A)(1) and (3) as justification. (Ordinance language presented in italics followed by staff comment): ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-232(A)(1) May authorize a subdivision to be developed with one (1) or more new private streets only under any of the following circumstances: 1. To alleviate significant degradation to the environment. One or more private streets may be authorized if.- (i) the property is within either the rural areas (RA) or village residential (VR) zoning districts; The property is within the RA. (ii) the private streets will alleviate a clearly demonstrable likelihood of significant degradation to the environment of the property or any land adjacent thereto resulting from the construction of a public street in the same alignment; The required VDOT stub -out would result in additional land disturbance that would not be required if the private street is authorized. (iii) no alternative public street alignment is available which would alleviate significant degradation of the environment; The VDOT requirement is not a requirement for a private street within the County's ordinance; therefore, if the street is public, additional impact to the environment will be necessary. No public street alternative is available. (iv) no more lots are proposed on the private streets than could be created on a public street due to right-of-way dedication; and The proposal meets this requirement. (v) the proposed private streets demonstrably promote sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the land and encourages the subdivision of land in a manner that is consistent and harmonious with surrounding development. If the proposed street were public, the requirements of VDOT would require additional disturbance of the land including grading, clearing and additional stormwater runoff. The proposed private street allows for no further disturbance and meets this requirement. County Engineering staff has analyzed the proposed street as required by Section 14-232 and finds no objection to the requested private street. The subdivision meets the requirement for authorization for a private street under this section. ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-232(A)(3) 1. General welfare. One or more private streets may be authorized if the general welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better served by the construction of one or more private streets than by the construction of public streets. The Comprehensive Plan states the following in regards to development: "The County encourages residential development in the Development Areas where services and utilities are available....". Requiring a stub -out to an adjacent property could be interpreted as encouraging future development within the Rural Areas. Therefore, allowing the private street in lieu of the public street, would allow the general welfare of the County to be better served. ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-234: Per Section 14-234(C), the Commission may authorize one or more private streets to be constructed in a subdivision if it finds that one or more of the circumstances described in section 14-232 exists and that: (ordinance language presented in italics followed by staff comment) 1. The private road will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be generated by the subdivision. The amount of traffic expected on the proposed private street is minimal. The design is adequate for this type of traffic and shall meet the private road standards as specified in Section 14-412 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the proposed private road; The Comprehensive Plan does not provide for a public street in the location of this private street. 3. The fee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by the street; Section 14-317 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that a maintenance agreement be submitted for review by Planning staff and the County Attorney in all situations where improvements are required to be maintained. The maintenance agreement requires the maintenance and cost to be divided between each of the owner's within the division, or by a home owners association. Prior to County Approval of the subdivision plat the applicant shall provide a private street maintenance agreement for the review and approval by the County. 4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private street will not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location; and The private streets will not serve through traffic, nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location. 5. If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law. As proposed the private streets will not require any upgrades nor impact the flood plain. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the request in accordance with the requirements of Section 14-232 and 14-234 and finds that the proposed private street meets the requirements of the ordinance. Staff recommends approval. SUMMARY: In conclusion, the Planning Commission will need to act on the private street request and the proposed Rural Preservation Development. Staff has found the following favorable and unfavorable factors: Factors Favorable: 1. The proposal meets the requirements of the ordinance and the design standards set forth in Section 10.3.3. 2. The rural preservation development furthers the goals outlined in the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The preservation parcel allows a large portion of the properties that includes the stream, wooded areas, and critical slopes to be protected. 4. The private street would require less disturbance than a public street. Factors Unfavorable: 1. None found RECOMMENDATION: 1. Zoning Ordinance: Section 10.3.3- Request to use Rural Preservation Development - Approval 2. Subdivision Ordinance: Section 14-232 and 14-234- Request for Private Street- Approval ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Maps and Site Photos B. Preliminary Rural Preservation Development Plat C. By -Right Plan D. Applicant's Request and Justification for Private Street E. Virginia Department of Transportation Comments F. Adjacent owner email