Albemarle County Planning Commission

August 21, 2007


The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.


Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Pete Craddock; Jon Cannon, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman and Eric Strucko. Absent was Bill Edgerton. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent. 


Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Allan Schuck, Senior Engineer; David Pennock, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; John Shepherd, Chief of Current Development and Larry Davis, County Attorney. 


Call to Order and Establish Quorum:


Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. and established a quorum.


SP-2006-00031 Glenn Oaks

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:, 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)


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


(Scott Clark)


Mr. Clark summarized the staff report.


The applicant proposes fill in the floodplain of Limestone Creek for a road crossing over the creek to provide access for residential development.


Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:

a.       The proposed stream crossing would not increase the 100-year floodplain elevation.

b.       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.

c.       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.


Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2006-00031 with the conditions recommended in the staff report minus condition 3.  Condition 3 reads, “There shall be no land disturbing activity or removal of vegetation within the stream buffer, exclusive of the dam, except as required for mitigation.”  Staff asked that condition 3 not be imposed after discussion with engineering staff.  It could be taken differently. The control of the disturbance of the dam was covered under condition 1 and condition 3 is not 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.



There being no further questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.


Don Franco, representatives for KG Associates, said that he was present to answer any questions.


Ms. Joseph asked how many lots will this private road serve that go over the dam, and Mr. Franco replied 15 lots.


Ms. Joseph invited public comment.  There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.


Mr. Craddock noted concerns about where the wildlife around the lake would go.


Mr. Franco relied that the wildlife could still live in the small pond.


Mr. Craddock pointed out that it had been a rural lake for years.  He questioned where the development rights would go and whether they could resurface.


Mr. Davis noted that issue would be addressed at the time of the subdivision approval.  If it is assigned to conservation it may not be used.


Mr. Cannon said that unless the easement is broken it will not be used.


Mr. Davis replied that is correct.


Mr. Cannon pointed out that when this proposal first came forward it was in a different configuration. At that time he was concerned with the ground water. Their concerns forced the applicant into new mode. The applicant was using the existing crossing that was already a disturbed area.  This is a responsibility and thought out response to a set of circumstances that were identified early on.  Therefore, he was in support of the request.


The other Commissioners agreed.


Ms. Joseph pointed out that at the prior hearing many folks came in and expressed concerns about the condition of the existing dam.  She voiced concern about the maintenance agreement.  She hoped that the private road would cover the dam itself so that the people moving into that area would understand who will be responsible for the maintenance of that dam.


Mr. Davis said that it could be done through a special use permit condition or under private road waiver standards as a condition to require funding responsibility of the private street to include the dam if they chose to do that under the private street ordinance.  The issue, as discussed by staff, is how that is done, which is very important.  It will require a street maintenance agreement and should include the dam depending on the cost of replacing it and if it applies to 15 lot owners or the entire Glenmore Homeowner Association.  It will be a substantial cost.  There was a similar situation in Key West where a great deal of expense was placed on the general fund of the county to replace it.  It was not a legal obligation to the County, but a political obligation. This could present a similar situation in the future.


Ms. Joseph invited Mr. Franco to address the maintenance issue.


Mr. Franco said that he had been working with the Homeowner’s Association on whether the 15 owners or the whole Homeowner’s Association would be responsible.  If the preservation tract belongs to the association, then the dam should be the responsibility of the whole association.  When the subdivision plat come in it will have those details.


Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Davis if he suggested that it be part of the special use permit or be part of the subdivision plat approval process.


Mr. Davis said that it could be done in either place.  But, it was just as easy to deal with under the private street waiver as a condition for an adequate financial commitment to a road maintenance agreement that includes the dam.


Mr. Cilimberg agreed with Mr. Davis suggestion.


Mr. Morris requested that they definitely should let the Homeowner’s Association know that they need to get involved from the beginning and take a look at it.


Action on SP-2006-00031:


Motion:  Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded, for approval of SP-2006-00031, Glenn Oaks, with the conditions set forth in the staff report, as amended, as follows:


2)       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.

3)       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 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.

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 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.


The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.  (Mr. Edgerton was absent.)


Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2006-00031, Glenn Oaks was approved and will go before the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on November 14. 


Action on Waiver for Private Road Request:


Motion:  Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of the private roads waiver request for SP-2006-00031, Glenn Oaks, with the conditions set forth in the staff report, as amended, to include adequate financial arrangements in the road maintenance agreement to include the dam replacement costs.


Mr. Morris asked that the Homeowner’s Association be made aware of their responsibility regarding the costs of the road maintenance agreement which includes the dam.


The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.  (Mr. Edgerton was absent.)


Ms. Joseph said that the Planning Commission made the necessary findings under Section 14-234C(1-5) to approve the applicant’s private roads request for the Glen Oaks subdivision.



Go to next set of minutes

Return to PC actions letter