HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200600031 Staff ReportCOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream
Staff: Scott Clark
Crossing
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
August 21, 2007
November 14, 2007
Owner/s: Glenmore Associates Limited
Applicant: Glenmore Associates Limited
Partnership
Partnership
Acreage: 499.12 acres
Special Use Permit: 30.3.05.2.1(2), which
permits water related uses such as boat
docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries,
culverts and river crossings of transmission
lines of all types.
TMP: Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A
Existing Zoning and By -right use: RA -- Rural
Location: Off Running Deer Drive [Route 808],
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
approximately 1.1 miles from its intersection with
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); FH Flood
Richmond Road [Route 250].
Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection
from flooding
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0 for requested
use; 24 in related subdivisions, of which 15 would
need the requested stream crossing
Proposal: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
for a road crossing over the creek to provide access
Rural Areas
for residential development.
Character of Property: The property includes
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential
deciduous and evergreen woodlands, floodplains
development, agriculture, and open -space
along the Rivanna River, the stream valley of
conservation
Limestone Creek, a large pond along the creek,
open pastures, and wetlands.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed stream crossing would not
1. The County does not typically encourage
increase the 100 -year floodplain elevation.
floodplain crossings for the purpose of creating
2. Permitting this crossing would allow the
development lots. However, in this case the
property to be developed in a manner
property would be developed with or without
(partially using the Rural Preservation
the crossing. With the crossing, environmental
Development option) that would avoid the
resources over all are better protected.
anticipated groundwater impacts on the
2. Creation of a private road crossing over a dam
adjacent Running Deer subdivision while
might lead to future requests for County
keeping a large area of the property in a
ownership or management of the crossing if
conservation easement (the preservation
the landowners cannot afford necessary
tracts of the Rural Preservation
maintenance.
Development).
3. The proposed subdivision related to the
crossing would include a donation to the
County of a greenway corridor shown in the
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions.
Petition:
PROPOSED: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek for a road crossing over the creek to provide access for
residential development.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1(2), which permits water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries,
culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Running Deer Drive [Route 808], approximately 1.1 miles from its intersection with Richmond Road
[Route 250].
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area:
The property lies in the Rural Areas adjacent to the boundary between the southwestern edge of the Rivanna
Village development area and the Rural Areas. Properties to the northwest are mostly smaller residential lots,
while the Rural Areas to the east and south are made up of large forested and open parcels transected by the wide
floodplain of the Rivanna River.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The current proposal is for a stream crossing over an existing dam to allow access to proposed development on the
east side of Limestone Creek. The applicants proposed two possible crossing locations (the dam or another
existing crossing upstream). Staff has determined that the dam crossing is preferable, as it would avoid impacts on
a neighboring property under a conservation easement, and would provide greater opportunities for impact
management and for stream restoration below the dam.
The existing dam has an open culvert crossed by a wooden bridge. A narrow dirt road crosses the dam, which is in
poor repair. Two collapsed metal pipes are located east of the open culvert.
The proposal would replace the current dam with a new dam, and the open culvert with a 12 -by -10 -foot box
culvert. The new dam would be wider, to accommodate the access road to the proposed Rural Preservation
Development. (Exact details of the dam and road designs would be reviewed by Engineering staff before site work
could begin.)
The applicants have proposed a stream -buffer mitigation plan that would provide for reforestation of an area equal
to the estimated 47,800 square feet of buffer disturbance required for dam construction. The proposed location
mitigation area is located just downstream of the site. Any variation in the location or size of the mitigation area
would require written approval by the Natural Resources Manager.
Typically, staff would not recommend approval of a stream crossing to access more development. However,
given the previous denial of SUB 06-046, the remaining options are either to permit the crossing to access
some lots on the east side of Limestone Creek, or to accept that the applicants can develop by -right without
Planning Commission approval in a form that puts 20 lots on the west side of Limestone Creek, much like the
denied RPD (see the Planning and Zoning History section of this report). The latter option would not address
the Commission's concerns regarding groundwater.
The applicants have demonstrated (see Attachment D) that they can develop a total of 24 lots on this property
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 2
without need for a special use permit. They are willing to accept conditions of approval on the special use
permit limiting them to that same total of 24 development lots.
The stream -crossing permit application included a proposed development layout that would have had the
same number of lots across the whole property, in a conventional form. Staff comments on the application
stated that it would be preferable for the lots accessed by the crossing to be included in a Rural Preservation
Development.
In response, the applicants have proposed the layout shown in Attachment E. This layout would use a series of
boundary adjustments and subdivisions to combine conventional development (Lots 1 through 9) with a Rural
Preservation Development (lots 11 through 25). The conventional development would also create Lot 10 (a
parcel of approximately 40 acres to be held by the Glenmore Homeowners' Association for unspecified future
recreational uses). The Rural Preservation Development, with the development lots located on the east side of
Limestone Creek, would contain 15 development lots. The preservation tract would contain approximately
268 acres.
Finally, and importantly for the County's recreational needs, a 100 -foot -wide parcel along the Rivanna River
would be deeded to the County for extension of the trail shown in the Greenway Plan. This lot would be
divided out of Lot 10 (described above). This greenway parcel would be created as a "non -development lot"
as defined in the Zoning Administrator's determination of February 13, 2007 (see Attachment F).
The RPD would include 15 development lots and one preservation tract. The applicants have stated that they
would place the preservation tract under an easement that would not permit dwellings (typically, RPD
preservation tracts have the right for one dwelling).
Thus 27 lots would be created, only 24 of which could have dwellings.
Planning and Zoning History:
On May 30, 2006, the Planning Commission denied approval of a preliminary plat for a Rural Preservation
Development (SUB 2006-046) on a portion of this property with 19 development lots and 1 preservation tract.
The remainder of the property was proposed for 11 conventional lots. Staff had recommended approval of the
RPD, as it met the design standards for RPDs contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The major issue in the denial
was a potential problem with groundwater availability. The proposed development lots were adjacent to the
Running Deer subdivision, which has experienced groundwater supply problems.
On July 5, 2006, the applicants appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors. At that
meeting, the Board deferred action on the appeal with the applicants' agreement, so that the applicants could
resubmit another plan that would potentially avoid the concerns identified by the Planning Commission.
On December 12, 2006, the Planning Commission held a work session on the current stream -crossing request (see
Attachment C for the staff report for the work session).
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
This proposal has a complex relationship with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, some of which conflict.
The proposal and staff's comments on it are the result of attempts to protect important resources in a situation
where the Commission's expectations regarding one goal (groundwater protection) have led the applicants
and staff to find alternative approaches to other meeting other goals (avoidance of habitat fragmentation,
protection of wetlands and floodplains, and reduction of residential -development impacts in the Rural Areas).
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
Policy
Relationship to Policy
Reactions/Mitigation
Groundwater
This proposal is intended to avoid
Places new lots farther from existing lots in
Supply Protection
depleting the supply for existing residential
Running Deer that are experiencing
development.
groundwater supply problems.
Reducing Rural
This proposal would permit residential
The proposal would permit less than the
Residential
development in the Rural Areas.
theoretical total development potential (31
Development
lots). The 24 proposed lots are arranged to
reduce resource impacts (partly in a
clustered development), and to avoid
groundwater impacts, but also to achieve
relatively large lots sizes desired by the
applicants.
Greenway
The proposal would support this goal by
Planning
including the donation of a stretch of
greenway trail identified in the Greenway
Plan.
Surface Water
The proposal would allow a floodplain
The alternative is by -right development that
Protection
crossing utilizing an existing dam to access
could be achieved without legislative review
development, with the consequent impacts.
and that would fail to meet the groundwater -
protection goal identified by the Planning
Commission. Surface -water impacts of the
crossing would be managed by conditions of
the s ecial usepermit.
Special Use Permit Review
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
County engineering and water -resources staff have reviewed the applicant's proposal, and concur with the
applicant's conclusion that the replacement of the existing dam (with open culvert, wooden bridge, and 48 -inch
metal pipes) with a new dam (including the 12 -by -10 -foot box culvert), and the placement of fill for this stream
crossing and road improvements, will not result in an increase in the 100 -year flood elevation and will not
detrimentally affect adjacent properties.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
This stream crossing would not significantly change the stream valley, as it would replace an existing dam with a
somewhat larger dam in the same location.
The residential development that would be accessed by the proposed stream crossing would change the character
of the district. However, the same level of development could occur, and could have more detrimental impacts,
without the proposed crossing. At the December 12, 2006 work session, the Planning Commission stated that it
preferred a Rural Preservation Development accessed by the proposed crossing to a by -right development that
would not require the crossing.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Residential development is not in harmony with the stated purposes of the RA zoning district as listed in section
10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
10.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by
amendment of the zoning map for the following purposes: (Amended 11-8-89)
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 4
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11-8-89)
Residential development not related to bona fide agricultural/forestal use shall be encouraged to
locate in the urban area, communities and villages as designated in the comprehensive plan where
services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the
agriculturalforestal or other rural objective. Where development does occur, rural residents
should expect to receive a lower level of service delivery than will be provided to residential
developments in designated growth areas. In relation to residential development,
agriculturalfforestal activities shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public
health and safety. (Added 11-8- 89; Amended 10-3-01)
In regard to agricultural preservation, this district is intended to preserve the county's active farms
and best agricultural and forestal lands by providing lot areas designed to insure the continued
availability of such lands for preferential land use tax assessment in order to enhance the economy,
and maintain employment and lifestyle opportunities. In addition, the continuation and
establishment of agriculture and agriculturally -related uses will be encouraged, and landowners
will be encouraged to employ Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices.
(Amended 11-8- 89)
However, residential development is a permitted use in that district, and the choices in this case are to
subdivide this land as a Rural Preservation Development or as a conventional subdivision. The RPD option
would better support the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
Compared to by -right subdivision, protection of the preservation tract under a conservation easement (as the
preservation tract of an RPD) would support the intent of the Rural Areas zoning district to conserve "natural,
scenic, and historic resource," and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance "[t]o provide for the preservation of
agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment."
Dedication of the greenway segment discussed above would support the Zoning Ordinance's intent to
facilitate the provision of parks and recreational facilities.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential development is a by -right use in the Rural Areas. Although such development conflicts with
agricultural, forestal, and conservation uses, this request would not increase the achievable level of
development on the site.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5.0 for this use.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Fifteen of the development lots in the proposed development would be accessed over the proposed dam. Section
14-410(F) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires subdivisions to have road access that is not obstructed by a 25 -
year storm. The roadway on top of the proposed dam would be above the level of the 50 -year storm, and so would
meet this standard.
The Natural Resources Manager has found that the applicant's proposed stream -buffer mitigation plan is sufficient
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
to offset the buffer disturbances created by construction of the dam.
Dam safety is regulated by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Staff recommends a
condition of approval that would require the applicants to show that they have DCR approval of the final dam
design before beginning site work.
Engineering staff has pointed out that public costs could result if landowners in the proposed subdivision could
not afford the costs of maintenance and possible liabilities for the future dam and road crossing. Such a situation
could lead to requests for public management or ownership of the facility.
PRIVATE ROADS REQUEST
As permitted by section 14-234(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant is requesting that the Planning
Commission approve the use of private roads in the subdivision whose proposed lots are shown conceptually in
Attachment E. This section of the ordinance states that applicants may apply for private roads before submitting
the preliminary subdivision plat. In this case, because the proposed stream crossing is tied to a subdivision that
would need private roads, the applicant wishes to secure the private road approval at the same time as the special
use permit for that crossing.
At the December 12, 2006, work session, the Commission agreed (during discussion of the adjacent Leake
rezoning) to the following points of the applicant's proposed plan for access:
The Leake and Glen Oaks developments should be accessed through the Glenmore private road system
A single road to access both the Leake development and the Glen Oaks lots on the west side of Limestone
Creek is preferable to separate roads for the two developments.
Developing Glen Oaks as an RPD with a floodplain crossing of Limestone Creek is preferable to by -right
development without the crossing.
Staff Comment
The applicant has requested authorization of private streets in the Glen Oaks subdivision under Section 14-232(A)
and 14-234. The justification sites 14-323(A)(1)(b) and 14-232(A)(3).
In order to approve this request, the Commission must be able to find one of the criteria provided in Section 14-
232(A). It is current development staff's opinion that this request can be found to meet the standard of 14-
233(A)(3), General Welfare, if the Board of Supervisors agrees that Glen Oaks is best served by a streets that
connects to the existing road network in Glenmore.
14-232 When private streets in rural areas may be authorized.
A private street may be authorized in the rural areas under the following circumstances, provided
that the findings required by section 14-234(C) are made:
14-232(A)(1)(b). Environmental impacts including, but not limited to, erosion and
sedimentation, stormwater runoff, surface water pollution, loss of tree cover and/or the loss of indigenous
vegetation resulting from a public street, which would be substantially greater than that of a private street in
the same alignment, based upon evidence submitted by the subdivider and reviewed by the county engineer
and other qualified staff.
14-232(A)(3). 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.
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 6
Glen Oaks as proposed would be served by an extension of the private street network that was established with the
original and subsequent approvals of Glenmore. Serving this subdivision with public streets would mean (1)
converting the road system through Glenmore to public streets, which has not been proposed, or (2) connecting
Glen Oaks to the public road system through the Running Deer subdivision, which would add to the traffic
impacts on a substandard road, and which was not the Planning Commission's preferred solution at the December
12, 2006, work session.
Section 14-234(B) states that, absent compelling circumstances, private streets should not cross over dams.
However, in this case there is a compelling circumstance that would make a private road over a dam appropriate.
The dam crossing is necessary in order to make possible a Rural Preservation Development that would conserve a
large portion of the property while avoiding anticipated groundwater impacts on the existing Running Deer
subdivision. Without the crossing, the property would be developed as a by -right subdivision that would not create
a preservation tract, and that would have greater groundwater impacts on Running Deer.
The Commission must also find that the provisions of Section 14-234(C)(1-5) are met. Those standards are
included below, with staff comment.
14-234(C). The agent and the commission may authorize one or more private streets in a subdivision if it
finds that one or more of the circumstances described in sections 14-232 or 14-233 exist and it
determines that:
1. The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be
generated by the subdivision.
The adequacy of the road design would be ensured through Engineering staff review of road plans for the
subdivision. In addition, a recommended condition of approval for the stream crossing permit states that
the applicant must secure "County approval of the final lane configuration over the stream crossing with
the final road plans."
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the
proposed private street;
The Comprehensive Plan does not recommend a public road in this area.
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;
In discussions with staff, the applicant has stated that this road would be owned by an association of the
owners of lots in the subdivision.
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;
The proposed road (running over the dam and into the RPD portion of Glen Oaks) would not serve
through traffic, as it would end within the boundaries of the RPD and not connect to another property. It
would not intersect the state highway system at all.
IifMA
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
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.
Approval of the current special use permit request for a stream crossing would constitute approval under
Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay, of the Zoning Ordinance.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed stream crossing would not increase the 100 -year floodplain elevation.
2. Permitting this crossing would allow the property to be developed in a manner (partially using the Rural
Preservation Development option) that would avoid the anticipated groundwater impacts on the adjacent
Running Deer subdivision while keeping a large area of the property in a conservation easement.
3. The proposed subdivision related to the crossing would include a donation to the County of a greenway
corridor shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The County does not typically encourage floodplain crossings for the purpose of creating development
lots. However, in this case the property would be developed with or without the crossing. With the
crossing, environmental resources over all are better protected.
2. Creation of a private road crossing over a dam might lead to future requests for County ownership or
management of the crossing if the landowners cannot afford necessary maintenance.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2006-00031
under the following conditions:
1) The stream crossing shall be built in general accord with the plan titled "SP 06-031 Application Plan," revised
"Aug. 01, 2007," and prepared by Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, Inc.
2) Any subdivision on the portion of the property designated as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan shall be
designed in general accord with the plan titled Glenoaks, dated "8/1/07", and prepared by "kg Associates." The
development lots east of Limestone Creek and Lot 26 shall be developed as a Rural Preservation Development
in accord with section 10.3.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, with Lot 26 as the preservation tract. As part of the
same subdivision, the applicant shall convey to the County a portion of Lot 10 (whose boundaries are approved
by the Parks and Recreation department) for use as a greenway.
3) There shall be no land disturbing activity or removal of vegetation within the stream buffer, exclusive of the
dam, except as required for mitigation.
4) The dam shall allow for a continuation of the base flow in the stream.
5) The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a grading permit to allow installation of the stream
crossing or submittal of the final subdivision plat, whichever comes first:
a) The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment as required from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence
between the applicant and FEMA.
b) County approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for the stream crossing.
c) County approval of the final lane configuration over the stream crossing with the final road plans.
d) Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan in general accord with the
conceptual plan shown on the plan titled "SP 06-031 Application Plan," revised "Aug. 01, 2007," and
prepared by Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, Inc.
e) County approval of final design plans and hydrologic/hydraulic computations for the stream crossing.
f) Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state and
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 8
federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
g) Approval of the final design of the dam by the Department of Conservation and Recreation, as necessary.
Staff also recommends that the Commission make the necessary findings under Section 14-234(C)(1-5) and
approve the applicant's private roads request for the Glen Oaks subdivision.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Detail Map
C. Staff Report from December 12, 2006 Planning Commission Work Session
D. By -right Subdivision Layout
E. RPD Layout Plan
F. Official Zoning Determination — creation of new non -development special lots
G. SP 06-031 Application Plan
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
Attachment A
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
10
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007
Attachment B
11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Attachment C
Project Name:
Staff: Scott Clark
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
Planning Commission Work Session:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 12, 2006
Not scheduled
Owners: Glenmore Associates Limited
Applicant: Glenmore Associates Limited
Partnership
Partnership
Acreage: 499.12 acres
Special Use Permit for: A crossing of
Limestone Creek, under section 30.3.05.2.1(2),
which permits water related uses such as boat
docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts
and river crossings of transmission lines of all
types.
TMP: Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A
Conditions: To be determined
Location: Running Deer Drive [Route 808],
approximately 1.1 miles from its intersection with
Richmond Road [Route 250].
Existing Zoning and By -right use: RA Rural
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); FH Flood
Hazard — Overlay to provide safety and protection
from
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 24
DA RA X
Proposal: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RA - Rural
Creek for a road crossing over the creek to provide
Areas: preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
access for residential development.
open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre); Parks and
Greenways: parks; greenways; playgrounds;
pedestrian and bicycle paths
Character of Property: The property includes
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential
deciduous and evergreen woodlands, floodplains
development, agriculture, and open -space
along the Rivanna River, the stream valley of
conservation
Limestone Creek, a large pond along the creek,
open pastures, and wetlands.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Commission to affirm staff's findings on using
the RPD approach on this site; design of the proposed RPD; and the range of uses to be permitted
on Lot 10, or provide alternate direction.
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 12
Petition:
PROJECT: SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PROPOSED: Fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek for a road crossing over the creek to provide access for
residential development.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1(2), which permits water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries,
culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Running Deer Drive [Route 808], approximately 1.1 miles from its intersection with Richmond Road
[Route 250].
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 94, Parcels 15, 16, 16A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area:
The property lies in the Rural Areas adjacent to the boundary between the southwestern edge of the Rivanna
Village development area and the Rural Areas. Properties to the northwest are mostly smaller residential lots,
while the Rural Areas to the east and south are made up of large forested and open parcels transected by the
wide floodplain of the Rivanna River.
Planning and Zoning History:
On May 30, 2006, the Planning Commission denied approval of a preliminary plat for a Rural Preservation
Development (SUB 2006-046; see Attachment C) on a portion of this property with 19 development lots and
1 preservation tract. The remainder of the property was proposed for 11 conventional lots. Staff had
recommended approval of the RPD, as it met the design standards for RPDs contained in the Zoning
Ordinance (see the proposed layout in Attachment D). The major issue in the denial was a potential problem
with groundwater availability. The proposed development lots were adjacent to the Running Deer subdivision,
which has experienced groundwater supply problems.
On July 5, 2006, the applicants appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors. At
that meeting, the Board deferred action on the appeal with the applicants' agreement, so that the applicants
could resubmit another plan that would potentially avoid the concerns identified by the Planning Commission.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The current proposal is for a stream crossing over an existing dam to allow access to proposed development
on the east side of Limestone Creek. The applicants proposed two possible crossing locations (the dam or
another existing crossing upstream). Staff has determined that the dam crossing is preferable, as it would
avoid impacts on a neighboring property under a conservation easement, and would provide greater
opportunities for impact management and for stream restoration below the dam. Specifics of the stream
crossing proposal will be reviewed by staff and discussed at a public hearing to be scheduled later.
The current plan shows the residential development connecting to the private roads within the Rivanna
Village development area. Under this concept, the proposed lots must be considered in the total traffic impact
of development in Glenmore, including the proposed rezonings to be discussed in the work session following
this one. However, as the current proposal for the Rural Area property could be accessed either from Running
Deer Drive or the Glenmore road system, this work session will focus on the form of development to be
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 13
accessed by the stream crossing. Overall road -access and traffic issues in Glenmore and on Running Deer
Drive will be discussed in detail in the following work session on the Leake rezoning.
The proposed stream crossing would be necessary for this proposal no matter where road access came from,
and the crossing site could be accessed either from Running Deer or from within Glenmore. The focus of this
work session will be on whether approval of the stream -crossing request is justified based on the design of the
proposed development.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
This proposal has a complex relationship with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, some of which conflict.
The proposal and staff's comments on it are the result of attempts to protect important resources in a situation
where the Commission's expectations regarding one goal (groundwater protection) have led the applicants
and staff to find alternative approaches to other meeting other goals (avoidance of habitat fragmentation,
protection of wetlands and floodplains, and reduction of residential -development impacts in the Rural Areas).
Policy
Relationship to Policy
Reactions/Mitigation
Groundwater
This proposal is intended to avoid
Places new lots farther from existing lots in
Supply Protection
depleting the supply for existing residential
Running Deer that are experiencing
development.
groundwater supply roblems.
Reducing Rural
This proposal would permit residential
The proposal would permit less than the
Residential
development in the Rural Areas.
theoretical total development potential (31
Development
lots). The 24 proposed lots are arranged to
reduce resource impacts (partly in a
clustered development), and to avoid
groundwater impacts, but also to achieve
relatively large lots sizes desired by the
applicants.
Greenway
The proposal would support this goal by
Planning
including the donation of a stretch of
greenway trail identified in the Greenway
Plan.
Surface Water
The proposal would allow a floodplain
The alternative is by -right development that
Protection
crossing utilizing an existing dam to access
could be achieved without legislative review
development, with the consequent impacts.
and that would fail to meet the groundwater -
protection goal identified by the Planning
Commission. Surface -water impacts of the
crossing would be managed by conditions of
the s ecial usepermit.
Proposed Use
Typically, staff would not recommend approval of a stream crossing to access more development. However,
given the previous denial of SUB 06-046, the remaining options are either to permit the crossing to access
some lots on the east side of Limestone Creek, or to accept that the applicants can develop by -right without
Planning Commission approval in a form that puts 20 lots on the west side of Limestone Creek (much like the
denied RPD). The latter option would not address the Commission's concerns regarding groundwater.
The applicants have demonstrated (see Attachment E) that they can develop a total of 24 lots on this property
without need for a special use permit. They are willing to accept conditions of approval on the special use
permit limiting them to that same total of 24 development lots.
The stream -crossing permit application included a proposed development layout that would have had the
same number of lots across the whole property, in a conventional form. Staff comments on the application
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 14
stated that it would be preferable for the lots accessed by the crossing to be included in a Rural Preservation
Development.
In response, the applicants have proposed the layout show in Attachment D. This layout would use a series of
boundary adjustments and subdivisions to combine conventional development (Lots 1 through 10) with a
Rural Preservation Development (remainder of property) --see Attachment F for the applicants' description of
this process. The conventional development would create 9 lots, plus the 89.6 -acre Lot 10 (an open -space
recreational parcel to be held by the Glenmore Homeowners' Association, with deed restrictions preventing
dwellings).
Finally, and importantly for the County's recreational needs, a 100 -foot -wide parcel along the Rivanna River
would be deeded to the County for extension of the trail shown in the Greenway Plan. However, as this lot
would not meet basic lot requirements (area, frontage, building site, etc.), it is not yet clear how it could
created; Zoning and Current Development staff will provide more input as the review of the special use permit
continues. If the lot can be created, then the applicants would donate the area for the trail. If it could not, they
have stated that they are not willing to create an access easement over the preservation tract; this would mean
that further development of the greenway along the Rivanna would be blocked.
The RPD would include 15 development lots and one preservation tract. The applicants have stated that they
would place the preservation tract under an easement that would not permit dwellings (typically, RPD
preservation tracts have the right for one dwelling).
Thus 27 lots would be created, only 24 of which could have dwellings.
RPD Design Standards
Staff will address the design standards in section 10.3.3.2 individually:
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 StatesDepartment of Agricultural Soil
Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service;
Significant areas of this property are in soils rated as prime or locally important, and it would be difficult to
find sufficient buildable areas for the lots that did not include those soils. The current proposal would impact
these soils in approximately the same extent as the previously proposed RPD, SUB 06-046. The impacts to
these soils could be reduced somewhat if the development lots were smaller. However, the applicants have
stated that their designs are more focused on resource conservation than on agricultural productivity.
e. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope or floodplain and shall be situated as far
as possible from public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking water supply impoundments;
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 15
The proposal places the majority of the critical slopes and floodplains on the property in the preservation tract.
However, a stream crossing in the floodplain would be necessary to access the development lots. This
property is not in a Water Supply Protection Area.
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 proposed preservation tract would include natural -resource areas identified as important in the
Comprehensive Plan, including floodplains; critical slopes; wetland; stream valleys; and connected forest
blocks. The proposed development lots would intrude into the forest block at the north end of the RPD, but at
staff's request the applicants have kept the lots at least 500 feet from the property boundary, in an attempt to
maintain a viable habitat corridor. The parcel adjacent to that boundary is under a conservation easement held
by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
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;
Development lots are confined to one area of the property.
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 standard.
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 would find that this RPD would better meet the purposes of Rural Preservation Development if the
development lots were smaller, thus allowing more area to be included in the conservation easement.
However, the lots are within the size range permitted in section 10.3.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (a six -acre
average), and the preservation tract would be approximately 218 acres as proposed, which is larger than the
preservation tracts of many approved RPDs. The applicants have stated that they are not willing to pursue the
RPD option with smaller lots.
Also, the current proposal (Attachment D) shows a preservation tract in three distinct pieces—west of
Limestone Creek and adjacent to the Running Deer subdivision; between Limestone Creek and the RPD
development lots; and east of the development lots. The feature that divides these three pieces is the
northeastern extension of Lot 10 (that portion east of Limestone Creek and adjacent to Lot 18).
Staff would support a preservation tract that wraps around the north end of the proposed development lots, as
this would help to capture some of the most important resources (forest connections and steep slopes adjacent
to floodplains).
But, while this preservation tract is large enough for significant resource protection, it complicates future
resource management by fragmenting the preservation tract. For conservation purposes, it would be simpler
and more effective to have one contiguous tract to manage. The applicant's position is that the protection
afforded by deed restrictions on Lot 10 would be equivalent to those under the preservation -tract easement.
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 16
Also, Current Development staff has stated that the preservation tract for this RPD could not be approved
under section 14-406 of the County Code, which states in part: "Remnants shall not be created by the
subdivision of land." The term "remnant" means any lot, other than one established as a non -building lot,
which does not meet the minimum lot requirements of this chapter and the zoning ordinance.
One possible solution to address this would be to have a single larger preservation tract that included the
applicants' desired trail system, rather than a preservation tract and a separate "open -space" parcel. However,
this would require confirmation by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority that trails for this purpose
would be permitted on the preservation tract; this would likely depend on the design of the proposed trails.
Otherwise a layout in which the preservation tract connected across Limestone Creek and Lot 10 would be
preferable.
Question for the Commission: Is the applicant's current proposal for an RPD on the east side of
Limestone Creek the preferred approach for residential development on the site?
The applicants have demonstrated that they can achieve 24 lots in a conventional subdivision without any
special use permits. That subdivision would place twenty lots adjacent to the Running Deer subdivision, and
would create the same groundwater concerns as the previously rejected RPD. Placing some lots on the east
side of Limestone Creek helps to avoid that groundwater conflict, but requires a special use permit for a
stream crossing. Staff feels that if that permit is to be granted, it is most appropriate to use the RPD approach
to reduce the natural -resource impacts of the permitted development.
Question for the Commission: Does the proposed RPD design meet the Commission's expectations under
the ordinance's design standards?
Given the analysis above, staff finds that the arrangement of the development lots meets the standards set out
in section 10.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the preservation tract design could be arranged to
better connect resources under easement, and is not approvable in its current proposed form. Staff would
recommend that the applicants return with a design with a single contiguous preservation tract. The
applicant's suggested approach—using deed restrictions on Lot 10—is an alternative approach intended to
accomplish the intent of section 10.3.3.2.
ses of "Lot 10"
The applicant has proposed putting Lot 10 under deed restrictions that would prohibit the construction of
dwellings, as well as other appropriate restrictions. However, the parcel would be used as an amenity for
residents largely from the adjacent Development Area. The only proposed use at the moment is for trails, but
the applicant has stated that they might consider a future application for a clubhouse on the site. In the RA
zoning district, such a clubhouse would require a special use permit under section 10.2.2.2 (Clubs, lodges,
civic, patriotic, fraternal) or section 10.2.2.4 (Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities).
Question for the Commission: What types of activities other than trails should be allowed on Lot 10?
As a forested parcel used for trails and other low -impact recreation without built infrastructure, Lot 10 would
be largely indistinguishable from many rural parcels under conservation easement, especially given that it
would not have a dwelling (which many smaller parcels under easement are permitted to have). However,
addition of buildings and other facilities begins to blur the hard edge between the Development Areas and
Rural Areas, and changes the character of the parcel. Staff feels that it would be most appropriate to limit uses
on this parcel to trail use and similar activities that do not require structures.
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 17
Recommendation
Staff requests that the Commission to affirm staff s findings on using the RPD approach on this site; design of
the proposed RPD; and the range of uses to be permitted on Lot 10, or provide alternate direction.
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 18
Attachment D
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 19
Attachment E
Glenoaks
Prepared by kg Associates �, y
5.2A c ,L f 1
• � L
11i 5,2 . �^1 Potential �� Rural +
ergency r. '';, Trails Preservation
Cess- `3 � '
- +� s.g•L;, ,' Tract
4
� 6.7A c •,.r� 5 L'i . � � i
7Ac
-j 5Ac
•- 7 i7
4l t 7 `•.• r �, i6 4 I
8 t• 7.7Ac ,�S SAc 19 4
�� 15 �. ., 5.2Ac
4 t1 _ 5.5Ac �. �� +� 4
° 0 Glenmore *% lip i f r' 74 4- 7A
s.4ac
HOA Common +i 21
20
Area Parcel .—',Z~ 4.5Ac 22'3Ac 6.3Ac '
2.6'Ac f JAc 2A .._..
' �2.8Ac Ye ?AC
✓ 24
• P5 5.7Ac f'
8.7Ac;
Future County
Greenway Trail
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 20
'AL Attachment F
� p13�,�1'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum Revised from 1-18-07
To: Interested Parties
From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: February 13, 2007
Subject: Official Zoning Determination — creation of new non -development special
lots
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an official written zoning determination regarding the
applicability of the zoning district and general regulations to the creation of new special non -
development lots. These lots shall be limited to those created for the following uses: greenways, road
or railroad rights-of-way, central wells and septic systems, stormwater management facilities, public
utilities and cemeteries. The majority of these lots are primarily used for public purposes (such as with
roads and greenways) or for utilities (such as with central well or septic). It is my determination that
these special purpose lots are not lots for the applicability of the zoning district and general regulations
provided that (and as long as) their use is restricted to the non -development use for which they were
created. This zoning determination relates to the lot requirements and does not extend to use or area
and bulk regulations relating to structures located upon these lots. Use of the property and location of
structures on these lots is still subject to applicable zoning regulations.
In our recent comprehensive amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, provision was made for these
lots. We plan to codify this determination with a zoning text amendment in the near future. These lots
are the same as "non -building lot" as defined in Section 14-106 of the Subdivision Ordinance as follows:
Non -building lot: The term "non -building lot" means a lot intended for the following uses: wells,
septic systems (including conventional drain fields), stormwater management facilities, open space,
common area, or pre-existing cemetery, but which does not contain a building site, and need not have a
development right assigned.
In the analysis to formulate this decision, I have considered the purposes and intent of both the
County's comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance (as set forth in Section 1) and find this decision
to be consistent with them. With regards to the creation of greenways, this decision encourages and
allows the dedication of land for public purposes which might not otherwise be done due to regulatory
conflicts or the loss of rights (such as in the RA with development rights). Greenways and greenway
parcels are similar to public road rights-of-way in several respects. By this decision, greenway parcels
and other non -development special lots may be created without the use of development rights and
without the lot requirements for building site, minimum lot size, frontage and the like. New greenway
parcels may be added to existing greenway parcels to extend the greenway system in much the same
way that right-of-way dedications are done for public roads.
There are also scenarios in which existing special-purpose lots may be reduced in area or eliminated
entirely through boundary line adjustments or the like. For example, an existing railroad right-of-way
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 21
which is being abandoned and is no longer in active use, may be added in whole or in part to adjoining
properties. In the case of subdivision improvements such as well lots which may be abandoned and
added to adjoining properties, research will need to be conducted to determine if amendment to the
original subdivision plat is necessary and what form of approval that must take. This approval is subject
to compliance with zoning regulations.
For any new or revised non -development special lot which is shown on a plat, the plat must clearly state
the following:
Lot X is for the express purpose of (an existing cemetery, railroad right-of-way, a new
well lot or a greenway or the like). It does not constitute a development lot under the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance; therefore, future use shall be limited to this purpose without further
County approval.
By this decision, the area and bulk regulations such as minimum size, frontage and the like are not
applicable to special non -development lots. In addition, the general regulations requiring a building site
and related utility (well and septic) approvals are also not applicable to special non -development lots. In
the Rural Areas, a development right is not required for the creation of a special non -building lot. This
memorandum is not a determination that existing special non -building lots do or do not have
development rights.
This special-purpose lot shall be limited to that area which is necessary for its express purpose and
shall not be made arbitrarily larger for future purposes. We are particularly concerned about situations
in which the express purpose may no longer be necessary and a future conversion use (for
development) is proposed. If that occurs, additional County approval is required and may include
combining this lot with adjoining property.
If questions arise in the administration of this decision, this decision will be revised to provide
clarification.
Cc: Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation
Rick Carter, Attorney at Law
SP 2006-00031 Glen Oaks Stream Crossing
PC 8/21/07 -- BOS 11/14/2007 22