Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200400007 Belvedere Variation 9-10-11 Memo 11-3-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO: Francis MacCall FROM: Wayne Cilimbergf C- SUBJECT: ZMA 04 -007, Belvedere DATE: November 3, 2006 The applicant is requesting three (3) variations to ZMA 2004 -007, Belvedere. These variations may be approved administratively through Section 8.5.5.3. Staff's analysis is as follows: I. STREET BI ADDED The approved ZMA plan illustrates Street B providing access for the southeastern edge of the property, adjacent to Rivercrest. Street B then curves back toward Belvedere Boulevard as it runs east. The applicant would like to replace this curve with a corner intersection. Attachment A illustrates the approved plan and the applicant's proposal. Staff believes this is an improvement because the intersection the applicant proposes, with a tight turning radii and stop sign, will decrease traffic speeds better than the road curve as depicted on the ZMA plan. Also, this intersection will help to define the end of Street B, an important area in Block 2. Section 8.5.5.3 allows the director of planning to grant minor variations to street design so Long as: 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. This proposal supports the Neighborhood Model Principles of Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths and Pedestrian Orientation. This change will provide traffic calming in a denser portion of the development and thereby improve pedestrian safety in an area where significant foot traffic is anticipated. 2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. The variation would not increase the approved density or intensity of the development. 3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district. The variation does not affect any timing or phasing of any other development. 4) The variation does not require a special use permit. This variation does not require a special use permit. 5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application. This variation supports the principles of the Neighborhood Model, in conformity with the approved rezoning. With the above findings and detail provided by the applicant in Attachment A, the applicant has given sufficient justification in keeping with the variation provisions. Therefore, a variation to the application plan to allow a variation to create an intersection along Street B is approved. 11. STREET K PROPOSED AS ONE - WAY The applicant is requesting that Street K provide traffic circulation in one direction only. (See Attachment B for Street K.) The applicant feels this road plays a less critical role in the overall street network, given access constraints (median) at Belvedere Boulevard restricting traffic flow. The applicant also feels the location of the area the street serves, at the edge of the development, lends to the proposed one -way concept. Current development and the County Engineer have reviewed this request and have found that it would not work as well or better than a two -way street for a number of reasons. First. the street serves multiple Lots and provides alley access to more. Second, a one way street as proposed would limit access and circulation in this area and may not be compatible with proposed or future development and additional traffic flow. Third, per the Neighborhood Model, unless there is a compelling justification for providing a one moray street or a significant constraint, all roads should be built to provide a full level of service. In this instance, it is possible to build a two -way facility. Section 8.5.5.3 (a.5) allows the director to grant minor variations to street design so long as:. 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model include principles for Interconnections and Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths. The objective of these principles is to allow better distribution of traffic and multiple routes to any destination. The introduction of a one -way street in this area works to decrease the overall functionality of the grid and would provide less efficient access to a number of houses. Staff can identify no constraint orjustification to affirm the one -way street in this area. 2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. The variation would not increase the approved density or intensity of the development. 3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district. The variation does not affect any timing or phasing of development in any other development. 4) The variation does not require a special use permit. This variation does not require a special use permit. S) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application. The variation does not conform to purpose and intent of the rezoning application for this area in that it constrains the street network and would establish restricted functionality. Unless it is not feasible or affects only a few lots, the applicant should work to provide a complete level of service on each street within a Neighborhood Model District. With the above findings and for the reasons noted, the request to design Street K as a one -way street, the request is denied. III. STREET L CHANGED TO AN ALLEY The applicant proposes changing a Street L to be an alley. (See Attachment B for Street L.) Originally, this street was designed with a 3Q' pavement width and completed a loop alignment that has two access points off of Belvedere Boulevard. This loop is also adjacent to the land proffered for dedication for the potential Northern Free State Road and may provide access to the road one day. The application plan shows that area as a linear park that buffers the development from the railway. This area also contains a trail head to the larger trail system. An alley condition is not fitting on the edge of the linear park. Further, the Code of Development permits agricultural uses by -right in this area. It was envisioned that this area could provide a number of substantial garden plots for use by the community until the Northern Free State Road is built. In general, the use of an alley section in lieu of a full section that provides public access to the described area and potential access to a future public road, does not conform to the Neighborhood Model Principles in terms of Interconnections and Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths or the purpose and intent of the rezoning application for this area. Section 8.5.5.3 (a.5) allows the director to grant minor variations to street design so long as: 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model include principles for Interconnections and Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths. The objective of these principles is to allow better distribution of traffic and multiple routes to any destination. The introduction of an alley section in lieu of a "loop" road decreases the overall functionality of the grid and would provide less efficient access to the park, trail, and potential community garden plots as well as a potential future road. This proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. The variation would not increase the approved density or intensity of the development. 3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district. The variation would not affect the timing and phasing of any other development 4) The variation does not require a special use permit. This variation does not require a special use permit. 5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application. The variation does not conform to the purposes and intent of the rezoning application plan for this area in that it does not establish good access to the community's shared open space and future connections and amenities. Additionally, the County Engineer reviewed each of these roads carefully at the rezoning and is certain that this road should be constructed as was intended at the rezoning. Unless it is not feasible or affects only a few lots, the applicant should work to provide a complete level of service on each street within a Neighborhood Model District. In this instance, the proposed alley section is along a community park on a loop alignment. As provided with the rezoning, sidewalks will extend the pedestrian network to the park and the pedestrian facilities beyond: street trees and sidewalks should be provided along the entirety of Road L as proposed with the rezoning application plan. With the above findings and for the reasons noted, the request to design street 1. with a portion as an alley, is denied. CC: Francis MacCall, Jan Sprinkle, Sean Dougherty