HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200400287 Staff Report 2004-11-04STAFF PERSON: Yadira Amarante
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 9, 2004
SUB 04 -287 TERRA BELLA (RPD), PHASE 2, PRELIMINARY PLAT
Applicant's Proposal
To create a Rural Preservation Development of 11 lots - 9 development lots and two (2) preservation
tracts.
Project Description and Location: Request for preliminary plat approval to create an 11 lot Rural
Preservation Development (9 lots at 2 acres each and 2 preservation tracts of 54 and 65 acres). The total
acreage of the subdivision is 140.23 acres. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property,
described as Tax Map 19 Parcel 32B is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Frays
Mountain Road [Route # 664] approximately 1/8 -mile east of the intersection with Buffalo River Road
(Route 604) adjacent to the Advance Mills Farm and the Terra Bella Phase 1 Subdivision. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Rural Area uses in Rural Area I, (See Attachments A &
B).
The area is characterized as heavily forested with large areas of critical slopes mostly associated with the
North Fork Rivanna River stream valley and its drainage areas. There is a significant flood plain as well.
Outside of those river and drainage areas, the property is fairly steep. Minor disturbances of critical
slopes, due to road/driveway construction only, are proposed. These disturbances are exempt from the
Critical Slope provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in the North Fork Rivanna
River Water Supply Watershed.
History: SUB 89 -041: Buffalo Run, Phase 2, Preliminary Subdivision Plat — A proposal including this
parcel was approved but never pursued further.
Reason for Planning Commission Review
Approval of the rural preservation development aspect of this proposal is discretionary; therefore, the
preliminary plat is also subject to Planning Commission review.
Discussion
Staff presents discussion related to this proposal in 2 parts: 1.) Rural Preservation Development and
2.) Preliminary Plat.
1.) Rural Preservation Development
Section 10.3.3.2 Rural Preservation Development Intent and Design Standards
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;
The development lots impact an area of high - quality forestry and agricultural soils. However, it
would be very difficult or impossible to develop this parcel without impacting those soils. The
relatively small lots in this layout minimize these impacts and preserve the majority of these soils
within the preservation tracts.
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;
The development lots avoid most of the critical slopes located on the site and all of the stream
buffer and flood plain areas. The areas proposed for development lots are suited for
development.
This property is located within the watershed of the North Fork Rivanna above the water supply
intake on the North Fork Rivanna and is part of the public drinking water supply watershed.
There are not water supply impoundments on or near the site. The federally endangered James
River Spiny Mussel has been observed in this area, and the Notched Rainbow mussel (a species
of concern) has been found adjacent to this parcel. Therefore, water - quality protection is
important. If this proposal is approved, the applicant is encouraged to consider volunteering a
further restriction to the standard easement that would prevent forestry and tree - cutting (possibly
with minor exceptions) along the river, at least in the 100 -year floodplain if not more.
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;
No historic or scenic settings were identified on or adjacent to the parcel.
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 rural preservation tract does not protrude between any development lots. The size of the
development lots are such that they leave a fairly large area for preservation. The lots are
clustered along the new public roads proposed as access for the development. However, the
topographical constraints on this property limit the number of total building sites available
2
regardless of whether this is a conventional subdivision or an RPD. There are few areas outside
of critical slopes, stream buffers and flood plain. The main difference between the proposed
Rural Preservation Development and a conventional development (see Sheet 5 of Attachment B)
is that with the RPD, land will be put under conservation easement with the County.
f. All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with
Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle; and
This design standard has been met.
g. 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 herein above and that the public
purpose to be served would be equally or better served by conventional development.
The approval of an RPD allows land to be placed in permanent easement. However, the design of this
RPD does not significantly increase the likelihood that the property will be used for agriculture because
of fragmentation of the conservation parcel. Thus this RPD does not provide for any increased
protection of the North Fork Rivanna River or the endangered species located in the river. Staff opinion
is that this RPD, as currently designed, does not forward the purposes of rural preservation development.
Section 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 may be
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 maximum number of lots achievable under conventional development is 11, the same as proposed.
The applicant has provided a conventional lot layout to allow staff to determine that no more lots are
being proposed under the Rural Preservation Development than could be approved in conventional
development.
b. Section 10.3.3.3.a notwithstanding, no rural preservation development shall contain more than
twenty (20) development lots;
This criterion has been met.
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 rural preservation development applies to Tax Map 19, Parcel 32B, as it existed on December 10,
1980 with the addition of 3.242 acres proposed to be transferred from Tax Map 19, Parcel 32 as shown
on the Terra Bella, Phase 1. This off - conveyance does not constitute "conventional development ".
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 development lots is 20.00 acres, the area of roadway is 1.18 acres. The combined
developed area of 21.18 acres is less than the total number of development lots, nine (9), multiplied by a
factor of six (6), which is 54.
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;
The plat shows two preservation tracts. It is the County's policy (as reflected in the Zoning Ordinance)
to have a single preservation tract in order to minimize fragmentation of conservation lands and to
simplify conservation management.
The land best suited for agricultural uses, the bottomlands of and near the floodplain, are proposed to be
fragmented by ownership. A proposed boundary line would split this land almost in half. If this land is
going to be cultivated it would be better to have it under single ownership for the purpose of simplifying
the execution of an agricultural lease, (the farmer would deal with one owner of the land not two). One
preservation tract improves the chance that this land would be cultivated by offering continuous and
seamless access to the land best suited for that use.
The best option would be for the applicant to show a single preservation tract and to increase the number
of development lots by one.
f. 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 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;
Both proposed preservation tracts are over 40 acres. If this proposal is approved the land will be placed
in perpetual easement with the public recreational facility authority.
4
g. Each application for a rural preservation development is subject to the review and approval of the
director of current development and zoning.
The director of current development and zoning does not recommend approval of this rural preservation
development due to the presence of two Rural Preservation Tracts. The presence of multiple
preservation tracts is generally endorsed only when the tracts serve to protect different resources such as
a situation where one tract protects prime agricultural soils and another tract protects prime forestal
soils.
One additional problem for staff is the inclusion of the 30' access easement /private road proposed
through one of the preservation tracts. This private road is shown on the Terra Bella Phase 1 as the
access and frontage for Lot 27 in that proposal.
As stated in the Terra Bella Phase 1 staff report, staff is of the opinion that a private road within a
Preservation Tract, which will be held under easement with the Public Recreational Facilities Authority,
is not an allowed use and cannot be constructed according to the County's standard easement language.
Specifically section 2.13 states "There shall be no construction, placement or maintenance of any
structure or improvements on the Property unless the structure or improvements are either on the
Property as of the date of this Easement or are authorized as follows: ... The following may be
constructed, installed, located or placed, provided they are otherwise consistent with this Easement: (a)
driveways; and (b) other improvements and facilities customary and related to the use of a single lot."
(Attachment C)
Technically, if Terra Bella Phase 1 is put to record and the road built before Terra Bella Phase 2, the
RPD, is put to record, then the road would exist as of the date of the preservation easement but staff is
uncomfortable knowingly allowing a use that will be in conflict with an intended use in the future. Staff
opinion is that the intent of this section is to allow those improvements that existed prior to the adoption
of the Rural Preservation provision and those improvements constructed prior to any proposed
development of the property (farm roads, farm buildings and the like). Secondly, staff is of the opinion
that although the private road is technically a driveway because it will only serve one lot, this private
road is not an improvement customary and related to the use of a single lot. Usually that would be
viewed as a single driveway on a property for the use by that property not a driveway for the use of
another property.
2.) Preliminary Plat
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat for this proposal and finds it is not in
compliance with the provisions of the subdivision and zoning ordinances and recommends denial for the
following reasons:
[14-501] "The lots within a subdivision shall be configured in a manner that is consistent with
the purposes of this chapter. In addition, the lots of a subdivision within the rural areas zoning
district shall be configured so that they comply with sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 of the zoning
ordinance, for conventional development, or section 10.3.3 of the zoning ordinance, for rural
preservation development."
Since the director of current development and zoning does not authorize more than one rural
preservation tract, the subdivision is not configured in a manner consistent with rural preservation
developments.
2. [ 14- 504(A)] "Each lot shall front on an existing or proposed public street of private road."
Development Lots #47 and #48 (Sheet 3 of Attachment B) are shown without required frontage. Staff
believes the applicant intended to provide private road frontage for these two lots which would extend
from the Ruscello Way cul -de -sac, but no request for the private road has been received. Without
authorization of a private road, these lots do not meet this requirement.
Recommended Action
Staff does not find the proposal in compliance with the intent, design standards and special provisions of
Section 10.3 for rural preservation developments.
Staff also finds the Preliminary Plat not to be in compliance with the regulations set forth in the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and recommends denial of SUB 04 -287 Terra Bella (RPD), Phase 2,
Preliminary Plat.
Attachments
A. Vicinity Map
B. Rural Preservation Development Preliminary Subdivision Plat including Conventional Development
Proposal
C. Standard Preservation Easement for RPDs