HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000037 Action Letter 1990-06-14 1* 1./,k
ltgg
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-45%
(804) 296-5875
June 14 , 1990
Republic Homes Investment Corporation
2788 Hydraulic Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
ATTN: Bob Hauser
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-90-37 , Tax Map 62 , Parcel 17A
Dear Mr. Hauser:
This letter is to inform you that on June 12 , 1990, during the
meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board
unanimously approved your request for VA-90-37 , subject to Zoning
Administrator's approval of landscape plan to provide a buffer.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 16. 3 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the setback on Block
B-lot 1 from 25 feet to 10 feet, Block E-lot 1 from 25 feet to 20
feet from an internal private road of a proposed townhouse
development.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Amelia M. Patterson
Zoning Administrator
AMP/srp
cc: VA-90-37
STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson
PUBLIC HEARING: June 12, 1990
STAFF REPORT - VA-90-37
OWNER: Gercke Development Co. , Inc.
APPLICANT: Republic Homes Investment Corporation
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 62/17A parts
ZONING: R-6, Residential
ACREAGE: 68 . 755 acres total parcel
LOCATION: Within Riverrun at the end of Riverrun Drive.
This phase 5B, is adjacent to the east of phase
5A.
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Section 16. 3 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, which states:
"16. 3 Area and Bulk Regulations
Yards, minimum
Front . . . 25 feet"
The applicant proposes townhouse development and requests a
variance to reduce the front setback on two units: on Block B-lot
1 from 25 feet to 10 feet and on Block E-lot 1 from 25 feet to 20
feet. The variance is requested for end units of two different
building clusters with double road, frontage for the distance to
the side road.
The applicant comments that this setback requirement created a
hardship for him to construct the type of units the market
demands. This type of development, Riverrun is extremely well
suited to the move-down market offering first floor living. This
requires increasing the width of the townhouse to allow for at
least one first floor bedroom.
To compensate for the reduced side road setback, they offer to
work with staff on a landscape plan for these areas.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Interpretations on the required setback in cases such as these
have varied over time. At one time, it was determined that an
intervening strip of common area would negate the requirement of
front setback because the lot line would not be directly adjacent
to the road. This applicant originally believed that Planning
staff could administratively reduce setbacks.
Page 2
Staff Report - VA-90-37
Based on staff comments, the applicant revised the plan from one
which would involve variances for almost all end units on side
roads, to the current plan for two variances. Furthermore,
landscaping is offered to provide a buffer from private roads even
though the landscape ordinance does not require street planting on
a private road.
Staff has less concern for building setback from an internal
private road serving a limited number of units, then from either
an external road or a public right-of-way. Staff is of the
opinion that with the landscaping proposed and the type of
development existing and proposed in this area, that this variance
will not be of substantial detriment nor will it change the
character of the district.
Therefore, staff recommends approval for cause:
1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application
of the ordinance would produce undue hardship;
2 . The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not
shared generally by other properties in the same zoning
district and the same vicinity;
3 . The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of
such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and that the character of the district will not be
changed by the granting of the variance.
r
U
��RGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
MEMORANDUM
TO: George St. John, County Attorney
FROM: Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator
David R. Hensley, Zoning Inspector
a►
DATE: August 1, 190,
RE: V-90-37 Colonial Auto Center
Tax Map 45, Parcel 94B
VIOLATOR: Colonial Auto Center (T/A)
CMA Properties, Inc. (owner)
H. Carter Myers, III, Chairman of Board
MTE Associates, Inc. Trading as Colonial Auto Center
VIOLATION: Section 36. 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
Display, parking and storage of vehicles in areas not approved on
site plan and Section 4.15.4. 1, signs erected without a permit.
HISTORY:
• On October 10, 1989, after several complaints received
concerning Colonial Auto Center and several other car dealers,
letters were mailed to Colonial Auto Center, c/o Mary Frances
Rainey and nine (9) other car dealers. These letters addressed
the following violations:
1) Section 4 . 15.4 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, signs erected
without a permit;
2) Section 21.7. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, minimum yard
requirements;
3) Section 32 . 0 of the Zoning Ordinance, Site Development Plan;
Sections 8, 16, & 17 of Virginia State Code.
August 1, 1990
V-90-37 Colonial Auto Center
Page 2
• On October 13 , 1989, Certified letter #P 874 846 634 signed for
and received.
• On November 14, 1989, Tom Eaton and David Hensley, Zoning
Inspectors, observed and photographed streamers being placed on
light poles.
• On November 15, 1989, Certified letter #P 051 082 908, V-89-65
Official Determination of Zoning Violation mailed to CMA
Properties, c/o Mary F. Rainey.
This letter addressed the following violations:
1) Section 4 . 15. 2 .7 of the Zoning Ordinance, Display of flags
from lamppost;
2) Section 32 . 3 .8 of the Zoning Ordinance - Display of 'vehicles
in grassed/buffer areas in violation of Site Development Plan.
• On November 17, 1989, Certified Letter #P 051 082 908 signed and
received.
• On November 20, 1989, Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator,
received response letter from H. Carter Myers, III stating that
flags had been removed from light poles and vehicles had been
removed from grassed/buffer areas, but that streamers would
remain up and that he disagreed with the Zoning Administrators'
determination that the streamers were considered a sign.
• On December 19 , 1989, V-89-65 Colonial Auto Center, ABATED.
• On April 16, 1990, Certified letters #P 698 937 636 and P 801 724
967, V-90-13 , Official Determination of Zoning Violation, mailed
to CMA Properties, Inc. , and Colonial Auto Center, respectively.
These letters address the following violations:
1) Section 4. 15.2 .7 of the Zoning Ordinance, Installation of
overhead streamers being a prohibited sign;
2) Section 4 . 15.4. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, erection of sign
without a permit.
• On April 18, 1990, Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, mailed
letter to H. Carter Myers, III, concerning streamer violation.
In this letter she states "I have received repeated citizen and
one other agencies' complaint about the streamers" , and warns Mr.
Myers that she will, "be forced to pursue this matter to court if
your business does not voluntarily comply. "
August 1, 1990
V-90-37 Colonial Auto Center
Page 3
• On April 20, 1990, Certified letter #P 698 937 636 and P 801 724
967 signed for and received.
• On May 21, 1990, V-90-13 , Streamers at Colonial Auto Center,
ABATED.
• On June 04 , 1990, Tom Eaton and David Hensley, Zoning Inspectors,
observed and photographed eight (8) vehicles in grassed/buffer
areas at Colonial Auto Center. (See photos dated 6/4/90)
• On June 06, 1990, John Grady, Deputy Zoning Administrator, and
Tom Eaton, Zoning Inspector, visited auto dealers on site,
including Colonial Auto Center. At Colonial Auto Center, they
spoke with Mary F. Rainey. They were told they would have to
speak with H. Carter Myers, III. These meetings were to discuss
repeated site plan and sign violations and warn that the Zoning
Departments next action would be to obtain a warrant the next
time a violation was observed.
• On June 07, 1990, Tom Eaton and David Hensley, Zoning Inspectors,
met at Colonial Auto Center with H. Carter Myers, III. They
discussed at length the repeated site plan and sign violations on
the site. Mr. Myers was warned verbally by Mr. Eaton in the
presence of Mr. Hensley, that sign and/or site plan violations
would no longer be tolerated. No further letters would be sent,
pictures would be taken of, and warrants obtained for any
violations after the cease and desist date of their last letter
(dated November 15, 1989) .
• On July 29 , 1990, (Sunday) David Hensley, Zoning Inspector,
observed several vehicles in grassed/buffer areas at Colonial
Auto Center.
• On July 30 , 1990, David Hensley, Zoning Inspector, observed and
photographed three (3) vehicles in grassed/buffer areas at
Colonial Auto Center. (See photos dated 7/30/90)
• On July 31, 1990, Tom Eaton and David Cooke, Zoning Inspectors,
observed and photographed three (3) vehicles in grassed/buffer
areas at Colonial Auto Center. (See photos dated 7/31/90)
• On January 6, 1992 , After observing vehicles parked in
grassed/buffer areas, and signs and banners erected without
permits, an Official Determination of Violation letter V-92-02/DH
was sent by certified mail. Violator was listed as H. Carter
Myers, III, who is listed as Chairman of the Board of MTE
Associates, Inc. , who trade as Colonial Auto Center. Sections
cited were 36. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, violation of conditions
of approved site plan and 4 . 15.4 . 1, signs erected without a
permit. Letter was signed for and received.
August 1, 1990
V-90-37 Colonial Auto Center
Page 4
• On June 29, 1992, David Cooke and I observed and photographed a
dozen or so cars parked in grassed/buffer areas and several
banners at Colonial Auto Center.
• On June 30, 1992, David Cooke and I observed and photographed a
dozen or so cars parked in grassed/buffer areas and several
banners at Colonial Auto Center.
• On July 07, 1992, I swore out four (4) summons for H. Carter
Myers, III. Dates used were June 29 and 30. Sections cited for
both dates were 36. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, violation of
conditions of site plan, and 4 . 15.4. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance,
signs erected without a permit. Court date was set for July 27,
1992 at 3 : 00 p.m.
DH/sp
be closer to another such sign than one thousand five
hundred ( 1 ,500) feet on the same side of a right-of-way.
Political, Public and No Trespassing, Hunting and Fishing
Signs.
Sale or Rental Signs: Provided: not more than two ( 2)
signs with an aggregate area of sixty-four ( 64) square feet
and limited to sixteen ( 16 ) feet in height.
Temporary Event Signs: Provided: (a) not more than sixteen
( 16) square feet in area; (b) not more than two ' ( 2) on any
lot or premises.
4 . 15 . 4 ADMINISTRATION OF SIGNS
4. 15 . 4. 1 SIGN PERMITS
No person shall erect or cause to be erected any sign,
except auction and temporary event signs, in excess of five
( 5 ) square feet in area unless and until a permit therefor
shall have been obtained from the zoning administrator.
(Amended 6-7-89) (Amended 12-11-91 to be_effective 4-1-92)
4 . 15 . 4. 2 SIGNS PROHIBITED
No sign which is visible from any federal interstate highway
system or designated scenic highway or byway system is
permitted in any zone, except for on-site sale or rental
signs and on-site business signs, providing the permitted
signs follow the requirements set forth in section 4 . 15 .
4 . 15 . 4 . 3 REMOVAL OF SIGNS
Whenever a sign becomes structurally unsafe or endangers the
safety of a structure or premises or the public, or is
erected or maintained in violation of this ordinance, the
zoning administrator shall order such sign to be made safe
or comply with this ordinance, as the case may be, or be
removed. Such order shall be sent by registered mail and
shall be complied with within twelve ( 12) days from the date
of mailing said order by the persons owning or responsible
for the sign. Failure to comply shall constitute grounds
for the zoning
administrator
added to have
anythe
finesign
imposedremoved,
forand
the cost thereof
violation under this ordinance.
-56- (Supp. #64 , 12-11-91)
ARTICLE V. VIOLATION AND PENALTY
— 36 . 0 VIOLATIONS
36 . 1 - VIOLATIONS - GENERALLY
Any building erected contrary to any of the provisions of
this ordinance or contrary to any condition imposed upon any
conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use permit or
approval of a site plan, and any use of any building or land
which is conducted, operated or maintained contcontraryntomanyed
of the provisions of this ordinance or any
upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use
permit or approval of a site plan, shall be a violation of
this ordinance and the same is hereby declared to be
unlawful. The zoning administrator may initiate injunction,
mandamus , abatement, criminal warrant or any other
appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such •
erection or use in violation of any provision of this
ordinance. (Amended 12-20-89 )
36 . 2 NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Upon becoming aware of any violation of any provisions of
this ordinance, the zoning administrator shallpserve etnotice
of such violation on the person committing or
same, and if such violation has not ceased within such
reasonable time as the zoning administrator has specified in
such notice, he shall institute such action as may be
necessary to terminate the violation.
36 . 3 REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE
The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and
not exclusive and shall be in addition to any other remedies
provided by law. .
36 . 4 COMPLAINTS REGARDING VIOLATIONS
• Whenever a violation of this ordinance occurs , or is alleged
to have occurred, any person may file a written complaint.
Such complaint stating fully the cause and basis thereof
shall be filed with the zoning administrator . etshall
hall and
. record properly such complaint, immediately
take action thereon as provided by this ordinance.
•
-230- (Supp. #53 , 12-20-89 )
ARTICLE V. VIOLATION AND PENALTY
— 36 .0 VIOLATIONS
36 . 1 VIOLATIONS - GENERALLY
Any building erected contrary to any of the provisions of
this ordinance or contrary to any condition imposed upon any
conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use permit or
approval of a site plan, and any use of any building or land
which is conducted, operated or maintained contracontrarynto any
mansed
of the provisions of this ordinance or any
upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use
permit or approval of a site plan, shall be a violation of
this ordinance and the same is hereby declared to be
unlawful. The zoning administrator may initiate injunction,
mandamus , abatement, criminal warrant or any other
appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such
erection or use in violation of any provision of this
ordinance. (Amended 12-20-89 )
36 . 2 NOTICE OF VIOLATION . -
Upon becoming aware of any violation of any provisions of
this ordinance, the zoning administrator shall serve notice
of such violation on the person committing or permitting the
same, and if such violation has not ceased within such
reasonable time as the
institute administrator
action ashas
mayspecified in
such notice, he shall
necessary to terminate the violation.
36 . 3 REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE
The remedies provided for in this section are cumulativedand-
not exclusive and shall be in addition to any
provided by law.
36 . 4 COMPLAINTS REGARDING VIOLATIONS
• Whenever a violation of this ordinance occurs , or is alleged
to have occurred, any person may file a written complaint. -
Such complaint stating fully the cause and basis thereof
shall be filed with the zoning administrator. He shall
- record properly such complaint, immediately investigate and
take action thereon as provided by this ordinance.
-230- (Supp. #53 , 12-20-89 )
be closer to another such sign than one thousand five
hundred ( 1, 500 ) feet on the same side of a right-of-way.
Political, Public and No Trespassing, Hunting and Fishing
Signs.
Sale or Rental Signs: Provided: not more than two ( 2)
signs with an aggregate area of sixty-four ( 64) square feet
and limited to sixteen ( 16) feet in height.
Temporary Event Signs: Provided: (a) not more than sixteen
( 16) square feet in area; (b) not more than two ' ( 2) on any
lot or premises .
4.15 . 4 ADMINISTRATION OF SIGNS
4 .15 . 4 .1 SIGN PERMITS
No person shall erect or cause to be erected any sign,
except auction and temporary event signs, in excess of five
( 5 ) square feet in area unless and until a permit therefor
shall have been obtained from the zoning administrator.
(Amended 6-7-89) (Amended 12-11-91 to be_effective 4-1-92)
4 . 15 . 4 . 2 SIGNS PROHIBITED
No sign which is visible from any federal interstate highway,
system or designated scenic highway or byway system is
permitted in any zone, except for on-site sale or rental
signs and on-site business signs, providing the permitted
signs follow the requirements set forth in section 4. 15 .
4 . 15 . 4 . 3 REMOVAL OF SIGNS
Whenever a sign becomes structurally unsafe or endangers the
safety of a structure or premises or the public, or is
erected or maintained in violation of this ordinance, the
zoning administrator shall order such sign to be made safe
or comply with this ordinance, as the case may be, or be
removed. Such order shall be sent by registered mail and
shall be complied with within twelve ( 12) days from the date
of mailing said order by the persons owning or responsible
for the sign. Failure to comply shall constitute grounds
for the zoning administrator to have the sign removed, and
the cost thereof shall be added to any fine imposed for
violation under this ordinance.
-56- (Supp. #64 , 12-11-91)
VA!p "�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
MEMORANDUM
TO: George St. John, County Attorney
FROM: Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator
David Cooke, Zoning Inspector
DATE: July 24, 1992
RE: V-90-37 Colonial Auto Center
Tax Map 45, Parcel 94B
VIOLATOR: Colonial Auto Center (T/A)
CMA Properties, Inc. (owner)
H. Carter Myers, III, Chairman of Board
MTE Associates, Inc. Trading as Colonial Auto Center
VIOLATION: 1) Section 5. 1.27 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance - Operating a temporary event sponsored by
a local nonprofit organization not in
necompance
li
with the rules set forth in the supplementary
regulations.
2) Section 24.0 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance - Operating a temporary event sponsored by
a local nonprofit organization which is not a
permitted use in a Highway Commercial zone.
HISTORY:
o On June 26, 1992, I rode by and stopped at the Colonial Auto
Dealership. i observed a maze, a tower, and a disc jockeyll of
broadcasting live from the site on the radio (92 . 1 FM) .
the activities were taking place in the display area in front of
the primary structure which runs parallel to Route 29. There
were vehicles stopped on Myers Drive blocking traffic while
waiting to enter the parking lot. Both sides on Myers Drive were
blocked due to the backup in traffic.
July 24, 1992
V-90-37: Colonial Auto Center
Page 3
2) The character of this use is not in harmony with its
surrounding uses. The traffic and noise is not of this
scale at any surrounding uses.
3) The activity needed large scale logistical planning for
parking, ingress and egress, fire and police protection
and entry and it appears that none of this was done or it
failed.
4) The hours of operation were 5:00-10:00 p.m. on June 26.
On June 27, they were from 11:00-9: 00 p.m. Then they
were from 12 : 00-6:00 p.m. on June 28. It would be
staff's recommendation that noise levels be controlled or
discontinued at a certain time at night. This would need
to be reviewed and implemented by the Board of
Supervisors during a Special Use Permit approval hearing.
o On July 07, 1992, I swore out warrants for Mr. H:`Carter -Myers,
III for the aforementioned violations.
AMP/DC/sp
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Division Staff
FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
DATE: December 18, 1989
RE: Determining Building Setbacks in Lot Platting
Process
Recently we reviewed a proposed subdivision which employed
strips of "common area" between lots and the road
right-of-way. The purpose of these strips (varying from 1-5
feet in depth) was to avoid additional setback occasioned by
frontage on road right-of-way (Section 4. 6 . 3 . 2 of the Zoning
Ordinance) . That is to say, these strips served no
,; identifiable purpose except as a subterfuge to additional
setback required by zoning regulation and to avoid
application of Section 18-34 of the subdivision ordinance
which generally prohibits single tier lotting patterns and
double frontage lots.
We failed to approve this development based on the following
reasoning. it is the intent of the ordinances that
dwellings be separated from roadways by a specified
distance. Ownership of intervening land does not overcome
this purpose. To the contrary if ownership of land were
intended as the controlling factor, then no setbacks or
yards would be applicable in the case of condominium regime
of ownership, rental units, and other such forms of
development.
4 . 6 .2 LOTS, DETERMINATION OF LOT FRONT
4. 6 .2 . 1 On interior lots, thetfront shall be construed to be the
portion nearest
l
b
4.6. 2 .2 sh corner oundaryhfrontingsonla street. Ifdthe lotthas
shortest b Y
equal frontage on two or more streets, the front shall be
construed in accordance with the prevailing
f abuiling uulddiggpat-
tern, or the prevailing lotting pattern
pattern has not been established.
4.6.2 .3 On double frontage lots, the front shall be construn ed the
in accordance with the prevailing building ap nas not
r
prevailing lotting pattern if a building patternpattern
been esttheifro t shallebehconstrueddtogbeotheoshortest
exists, t on a street.
boundary fronting
4.6.3 LOTS, YARDS ADJACENT TO STREET
4.6. 3 .1 Front yardsof
thh e full luired in the trict shall
b
be providdedd acrosshe full width of the lot adjacent to the
street. Depth of a required front yard shall be measured
from the right-of-way line of the street in such a fashion
that the building line of such yard shall be equidistant
from the street right-of-way at all points. Areas in
parking bays shall not be considered as part of the street
or access easement forpurposes of determining front yard
depth. (Amended 7-
)
4.6 . 3 . 2 e yequalatoathetminimum streets
frontshall
yardhave
depth required in the
depth, equal
district in which the lot is located. This provision shall
apply to lots in the RA or residential districts only.
(Amended 7-20-88)
s
djacent
4. 6. 3. 3 Street line for
measurement
and setbackseshalldbeameasuredtfrom
streets. Required y
a line equidistant from the street lot line( s) at all
points. (Amended 7-1-81)
4.6.3 . 4 As to any yard adjacent to a street, road or access ease-
ment, the yard requirements of this ordinance shall be
deemed
have beed complied
yardlth if the dimensionssetback shall be
required thereby.
not less than the minimum
(Added 7-1-81)
-28- (Supp. #42, 7-20-88)
3. In order to avoid confusion in the interpretation of
Co ' yard measurement, Staff recommends the following
wording which is similar to Section 4.6.4 Rear Yards:
4.6.3.1 Front yards of the depth required in the district shall be
provided across the full width of the lot adjacent to the
street. Depth of a required front ward shall be measured ��
from the right-of-way line of the street in such a fashion
that the rear line of such yard shall be parallel
street right-of-way. Areas in parking bays shall not be con-
sidered as part of the street or access easement for purposes
of determining front yard depth.
4. Notice for special use permits and rezoning petitions
is now sent by first class mail, as provided in the
State Code. Staff recommends amendment of provisions
for mobile homes and site plans for notice by first-
class mail:
5.6.1.1 a. By sending of a eert4 4ed first class letter to the
last known address of each adjacent property owner; and
First sentence
of 32.3.2 Notice of a site development plan submission shall be
sent by re149tereel-er-eert+fieel first class mail to
the last known address of all owners of property adja-
cent to the development.
5. "Hospitals; nursing homes; convalescent homes" are
listed by right and by special use permit in the HC
district. Staff recommends these uses be, repealed
as uses by right. Staff recommends deletion of #19
of 24.2.1 .
6. Section 5.7.1: Last sentence of temporary mobile
home provisions should read:
In any event, any such permit shall expire three (3)
years from the date of issuance; provided, however,
that the zoning administrator may, for good cause
shown, extend the time of such expiration for not
more than two (2) successive periods of one (1) year
each.
7. Certain public utilities should be added as uses by
right in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Section
30.3.3.1 includes special requirements for location
of utilities in the flood plain. Staff recommends
the following addition:
30.3.5.1.1 BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY
5. Electric, gas, oil, and communication facilities, excluding multi-
legged tower structures, and including poles, lines, pipes,
meters, and related facilities for distribution of local service
and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and
sewerage collection lines and appurtenances, excluding pumping stations
and holding ponds, owned and operated by the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
8. Churches and adjunct cemeteries were permitted by
right in the A-1 district and are now by special use
permit in the RA district. While Section 31.2.4.5
would permit church expansion within existing property
boundaries, a special use permit would be required
for expansion into additional land or for the location
of a new church.
Staff recommends that churches and adjunct cemeteries
be permitted by right in the RA for the following
reasons:
a) Churches are by right in all residential districts. Staff can
determine no peculiar aspect of churches in relation to other RA
uses which would warrant requirement of a special use permit;
b) It has been Staff experience that church building program budgets
are generally modest and church building committees are generally
unfamiliar with development processes. The additional cost and
time involved in the special permit process would, in staff opinion,
be an additional burden,
c) Except for questions of physical development, which are addressed
by other ordinances, Staff would be reluctant to address other aspects
as being relevent. Problems could arise in public hearings in
relation to the nature of the religion, particularly in the case of
an unfamiliar religion, thus placing the County in an awkward position
between public opinion and questions of religious freedom.
9. Additional flexibility in regulations for townhouses
and other dwellings is desirable where development
involves such common use/maintenance areas as parking
bays, sidewalks, etc. which are usually located between
the building and vehicular travelway. Staff recommends
1.1.• the following amendments:
a) Change current definition of "setback'4 to the following:
Setback: The distance by which any building or structure is
separated from any street, road or access easement. adiaeent
te-the-(rent }ne-ef-the-}et;-pareei;-er-pertien-theree€-en
which- deh-beti+44Tig-et-straeture-is-+eeated.
b) Amend 4.6.3.3 as follows:
Street line for measurement of required yards adjacent to streets.
Required yards and setbacks shall be measured from a line parallel
to the street lot line(s) .
c) Add the following:
4.6.3.4 As to any yard adjacent to a street, road or access easement,
the yard requirements of this ordinance shall be deemed to have been
with if the setback shall be not less than the minimum yard
..-....
STAFF PERSON: RONALD S. KEELER
WORK SESSION: DECEMBER 15, 1987
ZTA-87-03 AMEND 4.6 LOT REGULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO
FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS
STA-87- 01 : Amend 18-36(b) of PRIVATE ROADS of Subdivision
Ordinance to limit usage of two-lot private road to RA,
Rural Areas and VR, Village Residential zoning district.
Origin: Zoning Administrator, Planning staff .
Public Purpose To Be Served: To provide uniform zoning and
subdivision ordinance regulations.
Staff Comment:
These proposed amendments are intended to:
1 . Clarify method of measuring lot frontage;
2 . Provide for reduction of lot frontage in certain cases;
3 . Restrict residential subdivision involving two lots
served by an easement to the Rural Areas zone and VR,
Village Residential zone.
Currently the Zoning & Subdivision Ordinances are in conflict
regarding reduction of lot frontage. The Subdivision
Ordinance permits the Planning Commission to reduce frontage
for lots on a cul-de-sac, however, no similar provision
exists in the Zoning Ordinance. Also, current subdivision
regulations permit "front and back" lot subdivision of
residential property in designated growth areas which in
staff opinion could result in disorderly development if
employed extensively. (Staff does think there is a need for
this provision in the Rural Areas zone) . Staff recommends
the following amendment:
1 . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS:
3 . 0 Definitions
Frontage - The continuous uninterrupted distance
along which a parcel abuts a single adjacent road
or street.
Cul-de-sac - A vehicular turnaround area at the
end of a dead-end street provided for the purpose
of safe and convenient reverse of traffic in one
continuous forward movement.
Easement - A right in the owner of one parcel of
land by reason of ownership of such parcel to use
the land of another for a special purpose not
inconsistent with the general property in the
owner.
minimum width-or depth, as-the-ease-may-be;-of
eighty-488+-pereent-ef the minimum front yard depth
required in the district in which the l ootis
s in
located. This provision shall apply to
the RA or residential districts only.
2. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 SUBDIVISION OF LAND OF THE CODE
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
18-36 (b) The commission may approve any subdivision
served by one or more private roads under the following
circumstances:
(1) No oshallsbehlessd l
than five an to be creseined by such
roadd and area;
road
or
( 2) For property zoned RA, Rural Areas or VR, Village
Residential, where such subdivision contains only
two lots and such private road serves only the
l is
dorsirect in such means ofbaccessoto and sole
road inthe State
direct
highway system; or
( 3) Such subdivision is intended for non-.residential
or non-agricultural purposes; or
( 4) Such subdivision is not located within a rural area
of the comprehensive plan and such subdivision shall
be into lots and/or units to be occupied
exclusively by residential structures other than
single-family detached dwellings including
appurtenant recreational uses and open space; or
( 5) Such subdivisions constitute a "family division"
as defined by section 18-56 of this chapter.
DISCUSSION
DEFINITIONS: Amendments to DEFINITIONS
tof tthe
Zoning
of
Ordinance are necessary to include
"frontage" is revised to improve language and attempt to
avoid varying interpretation.
ll
4.6 LOT REGULATIONS: Section l.1 would or privateeroade aSect�on
to front on either a public street
4.6.1. 2 presents two distinct cases where frontgemayothe
be
reduced. Note that Section 4.6.1. 2(a) is applicable
RA, VR, R-1, and R-2 zones since those zones have specified
frontage requirements.
other
Sectionn18a30zofetheand
commercial and industrial zones,
Subdivision Ordinance authorizes
on driveway separation the
to
determine lot frontage b
requirements of Virginia Department of Transportation.
Section 4. 6. 1 . 2(b) should be read in conjunction with
proposed Subdivision Ordinance amendments to Section 18-36(b) .
The combined effect of these amendments is to limit "front
and back" lot subdivision to the following distinct cases:
1. Both lots are 5 acres or greater {Section
18-36(b) ( 1) } ;
2 . Both lots are zoned RA or VR {18-36(b) ( 2) } ;
3 . Non residential on non-agricultural uses
{18-36(b) ( 3) ) '
4. Multi-family development not zoned RA
{18-36(b) ( 4) ) ;
5. Family divisions {18-36(b) ( 5) } .
Amendments to Section 4.6. 3 . 2 is designed to require uniform
building setback from all streets for RA and residential
zones. Special provisions for commercial and industrial
zones are contained within the text of each such district,
requiring setback from public roads.
4