No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 03 80 PC MinutesJune 3, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 3, 1980, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. David Bowerman; and Mr. Mike Davis. Absent was Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Miss Mason Caperton, Planner. After establishing that a quorum was present, Col. Washington called the meeting to order. SP-80-17. Kendrick Dure - polo and related activities - Tax Map 90, Parcel 6, part thereof, Scottsville District. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that this item had been deferred from the April 29 meeting to further discuss roads and fire protection. He noted the recent action on Whittington RPN, and the fact that public water was not required at this time, though it was required to connect to public water when it became reasonably available. Mr. Keeler presented the latest comments from the Virginia Department of Highways regarding access from Route 20. He presented the conditions of approval recommended by the staff, noting the revised condition on Fire Official approval. Mr. Kendrick Dure, on behalf of the applicant explained that the plan will take place in three phases. He said that the preferred access to the property is Route 631, and suggested that road traffic on Route 631 is at a minimum on Sunday afternoon, the day of the scheduled events. Mr. Tom Sinclair explained the topography of the property, noting that the entire site is cleared. There are two lakes. The distance to Route 631 is approximately 1000 feet, while the distance to Route 20 is approximately one mile. An additional complication to requiring Route 20 as the access is the all-weather bridge that would have to be constructed across Biscuit Run, a requirement that would surely delete the feasibility of the project. Mr. Roger Rinehart presented the history of the polo club and listed its sources of income. He felt the club adds a nice dimension to the community. He said that traffic impact has been negliible in the other location, and for this reason asked that the Commission approve Route 631 as the access, because of the costs involved. Mr. Gilley Sullivan, on behalf of the University of Virginia, stated that the Alumni Association is prepared to accept this property as a gift, if the special use permit is forthcoming. Mr. Jim West, Assistant Director of Athletics at the University, urged that the Commission recommend the special use permit for this site. 7z- Mrs. Marion Ross said that this is indeed an ideal location for the polo club, however the road at the proposed access onto Route 20 is treacherous. However, she said that she had no problem with the permit if the access is from Route 631. Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, representing Dr. Charles Beegle, said that if the special permit is approved as recommended, the exit will be directly opposite the Beegle property. He therefore requested that the property be served by Route 631. He said that traversing Biscuit Run would probably kill the entire project. He also noted the pending PUD on other property owned by the Breedens and Liberia Development Corporation. He said that once access to the polo field is approved for Route 20, the die is cast for the access to the PUD. Mr. Malcolm Woodward favored approval of the special use permit, noting that it will be an asset to the community. He, too, felt that access should be from Route 631. Mr. Dure said that the all-weather bridge across Biscuit Run would be quite expensive. Mr. Keeler pointed out that if the polo club is successful, traffic would be comparable to that from a residential development. He also noted that improved site distances near the bridges could be very expensive. Mr. Rinehart noted the time frame problem, and urged Commission approval that evening. He said that the polo club has already stayed two years longer on the current lease than the property owner had wished. +� There was no additional public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. He established that 50 trips/day is routine traffic on a week -day for the club, exclusive of the Sunday traffic. Mr. Keeler, at the request of the Commission reviewed the comments from the Fire Official, regarding fire protection standards if public water .is available. He advised them that the dry hydrant system will be served by the lake, since no public water is available at this time. He suggested that when public water is reasonably available, it might be in order to impose the requirement of public water connection. Mrs. Diehl expressed concern about the roads, and established from Mr. Payne that it is impossible to restrict the amount of traffic that can be added to a road. She also questioned the entrance as a possible entrance to subsequent development. Mr. Keeler said that is a possibility. Mrs. Diehl questioned if the Commission could restrict the entrance so that it could not be used for subsequent development, or if the entrance could be restricted to the use of the polo club only. Mr. Payne said that would be a restrictive easement, and the owner of the property does not have to agree to that. Mrs. Diehl then asked if the proposed PUD could use that entrance:. Mr. Payne replied that the Commission can designate the entrance to a PUD, which it cannot do with a straightforward subdivision. Mr. Dure said that there are other residences using that driveway. polo facility Mr. Davis noted that the does not seem to necessitate access to Route 20. Mr. McCann moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Access to the site shall be restricted to Route 631, with commercial entrance as required by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and site distance to be corrected at the bridges to the extent possible by removal of vegetation only; 2. Fire Official approval of fire suppression system for indoor arena in accordance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code and approval of outdoor hydrant system; 3. Site plan approval; 4. Riding surfaces shall be maintained in adequate rover to minimize dust and erosion; 5. Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times; 6. This permit is issued to the University of Virginia Polo Club for conduct of polo activities only. Any additional use, other than uses permitted by right in the agricultural district, shall require amendment of this permit. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Diehl said that she could not support the motion Ow because if it is necessary to grade the property to give adequate sight distance, it is an important part of the plan. Mr. Vest agreed. Mr. McCann said that the measures that have to be taken to correct the sight distance are away from the entrance. Mr. Vest said that he did not realize that, though it is important to have 500 feet of sight distance at the entrance. The motion carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mrs. Diehl dissenting. SP-80-22. Russell F. Breeden has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 10.53 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the east side of Route 704, approximately 0.2 miles north of the intersection of Routes 22 and 740. County Tax Map 65, Parcel 102A, Rivanna District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that because of the dense vegetation, the mobile home will not be visible from the complainant's property. He said there are three other mobile homes in the area. Mr. Johnny Wood, present on behalf of the applicant, said that he could meet the recommended conditions of approval. There was no public comment and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. 1�� Mr. McCann moved approval of SP-80-22 subject to the following condition: 1. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. ZMA-80-11. R. E. Lee, Jr. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 72 acres from A-1 Agriculture and R-1 Residential to Residential Planned Neighborhood with a gross density of 1.75 dwellings per acre. Property is located on the west side of Route 656 ( Georgetown Road ), and on the south borders Hessian Hills. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 70; County Tax Map 60B, Parcel 1C, Jack Jouett District. Miss Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that the staff's comment on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is significant because the trend is for zoning to rely on the Comprehensive Plan. He asked that in consideration of the petition, the Commission bear this comment strongly in mind. Mr. Robin Lee, applicant, said that this property is owned by his family and he himself wants to develop it so that he has control over the lovely woodland. He explained the plan's compatibility with Hessian Hills and. Montvue. Mr. Lee stated that the townhouses will be for sale, and he himself will construct 140) these. However he said that he does not intend to develop the single family units. Ms. Signe Neilsen, who drew the plan, said it preserves the character of the adjoining subdivisions, it preserves the family home, and it also preserves the existing vegetation and steep slope area and stream areas. She noted that very little land can be graded under the plan. Active and passive recreation areas will be provided. She passed out a comparative impact data form and asked the Commission to review this. Ms. Neilsen noted the comments from the County Engineer stating that the project is feasible under the runoff control ordinance. She pointed out that a 2-acre subdivision would produce more runoff than the proposed RPN. She said that the owner is concerned that the townhouses make an architectural statement. Mr. Don Holden, on behalf of Montvue, said that the plan is essentially compatible with Montvue. Mr. Roger Adams said that he sees one possible problem with the plan, and that is the trail or path system. He said that the hikers would no doubt extend themselves past the path system and he did not wish to be bothered by this sort of activity. He suggested extending the lot lines to the stream and having no common area there. He said otherwise the overall development is compatible to the neighborhood. 9 175 Mr. Peyton Weary said that he has no problem with the plan as proposed, though he is somewhat concerned about the additional traffic on Georgetown Road. Mr. Daniel Robinson asked that the plan be deferred because he has not seen this plat. He said that the drainage from the Lee property is directly onto his land, as is Herefords, Montvue, and others. He also felt that he should have access into his property from this proposal. He said that at a previous meeting there had been two plats on the wall and he had never been advised which was under consideration by the Commission. Col. Washington explained to him that two parallel actions are being taken by the county on this property. The owner had shown a preliminary plat on the property two weeks prior to the June 3 meeting, and at this time the Commission is reviewing a rezoning fora planned residential neighborhood. Col. Washington established from Mr. Payne that the application is properly before the Commission. Mr. Fred Landess, attorney for the owners, noted the surrounding zonings in the area and existing development along Georgetown Road. He said that the proposal is in keeping with existing zoning. Mr. William Zierden thanked the Lee family for advising the neighborhood of the plans in advance to county reviews. He felt the plan is compatible to the area, and preferred that Mr. Lee himself develop the property because of his personal interest in it. He encouraged that the common space provide recreational areas for children and that the paths connect to the school complex for safety purposes. Mrs. Gay Johnson Blair, an adjacent owner, said that she is surrounded by development and pending development. She expressed concern about the pathway use, requesting that it be limited to foot traffic. She felt that change is inevitable and therefore supported the RPN. Mr. McCann questioned the access from the Lee property to the Blair property. Miss Caperton said that is provided as a connector if the Blair property ever develops. Mr. Davis said that in his opinion, in view of recent action by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission has been mandated not to change zoning on A-1 land in the watershed for a more intense use. Mr. McCann said that higher density development in this area is necessary, since the serN(iges are here. He said that this is well planned and protects the reservoir,^ubecause of the Board's action he will not support the proposal for 120 units. He said that he is willing to go with 99 units. Mrs. Diehl said that she has a problem with the open space that borders Montvue. D7r_ McCann said that if that portion of the property is used as open space, it should have not paths, but should be used solely as a buffer to Montvue and an area to protect the stream. Miss Caperton advised Mrs. Diehl that the existing private entrance to the Lee residence will be closed,, Col. Washington suggested that there could be two homeowners' associations to cover the two types of development, and therefore there could be two separate sets of open space. Itad Mr. Payne agreed this was possible. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. Gloeckner said that he thinks this is a good plan and if the Commission agrees on the various conditions, he will move for approval. Mrs. Diehl moved that the density for the development be that proposed by the staff - 75 dwelling units. Mr. McCann said that he supports a density that is comparable to what can be done by right - i.e., 99 units. Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels the 120 units as proposed is all right, since the runoff control ordinance can be met, the plan is well -thought out, and utilities are available. Mr. Bowerman seconded Mrs.Diehl's motion, which failed by a vote of 2-5, with Mr. Davis, Mr. Gloeckner, Col. Washington, Mr. Vest, and Mr. McCann dissenting. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the density permitted be 99 units. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. At the request of Mr. Gloeckner, Ms. Nielsen pointed out those 'units which would probably be eliminated. Mrs. Diehl said that she would like Fire Official approval prior to Planning Commission review. Mr. Davis questioned the need for Condition #10, addressing access to the Blair property. Mr. Payne said the type of easement would have to be specified. Miss Caperton replied that it would be a vehicular easement. Mr. Gloeckner said that might be all right if it were in a loop. Col. Washington questioned why access to the Blair property and not to the Robinson property. Mr. Gloeckner said that one reason could be the topography of the Robinson property and the steepness of the terrain there. Mr. Davis felt this is a personal matter, and did not feel there is a demonstrated need for access to any adjoining property. Mr. McCann said that if access is given to the Blair property, the interior road would have to be built to standards that could accommodate the traffic from any development on that property. / 7T At this point, Miss Caperton read a letter from Mr. Daniel Robinson to Mr. R. E. Lee, Jr., requesting permission to purchase lot 13 for $10,000 with an earnest money deposit in the form of a $1,000 check. Col. Washington questioned Mr. Lee about that letter. Mr. Lee said that he had been handed the letter and the check only minutes before the meeting began. He said that he does not do business in this fashion and that he had refused the amount offered and had not given permission to Mr. Robinson to purchase lot 13. Mr. Gloeckner moved that Condition #10 be removed from any conditions of approval. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 22 single family lots and 77 townhouse units for a total of 99 dwelling units. Location and acreages shall substantially comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision and/or site plan process, open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of units approved; 2. No grading shall occur until final subdivision and/or site plan approval; 3. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances; 4. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements prior to final approval, to include maintenance of runoff control facilities, open space, private roads, and parking areas; 5. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 1250 gpm for townhouse units and 750 gpm for single family units prior to final Planning Commission review; 6. Only those areas where structures, utilities, roads, or other features approved in a final plan are to be located, shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 7. All units shall be served by a public water and sewer supply system and approved by appropriate agencies prior to final approval; 8. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance into the state highway system for maintenance, including a sidewalk on one side of the road serving the townhouses; 9. County Engineer approval of private road plans; 10. Sidewalks shall be constructed along Georgetown Road to be approved by the County Engineer; 11. Pathway system shall be provided within the site and approved by the staff ( and shown on the site plan ); 12. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance to include the left and right turn lanes; 13. Staff approval of a recreation area to serve the townhouse development; 14. Open space adjacent to Montvue and Hessian Hills Subdivisions shall be incorporated into adjacent single family lots, with additional open space to be provided elsewhere on the site such that total open space provided shall consist of not less than 25% of the gross site area. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. SP-80-25. Lee Caplin has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a country store on 0.35+ acres zoned A-1. Property is located at the intersection of Routes 609 and 601 at Free Union. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 41E, White Hall District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Caplin said that he received Health Department approval for the store in 1976. He said that other than the time period specified in the staff report, the store was in use for over 90 years. When he gave permission to Shelter Associations for their use, he said that he was not aware that he was giving up his right to use the property for a country store - he said that it was purely by accident that the use was lost. He felt a site plan is not necessary because of the minimal situation. Mr. Payne said that if a use is discontinued for a period of two years, it will lose any non -conforming status it enjoyed. Mrs. Diehl felt that current Health Department aprpoval would be appropriate. Mr. Roger Rogan said that Mr. Caplin has done an excellent job restoring the building and hopes the county will give him permission for the country store use, since that is virtually what it has been for almost a century. Mr. Bill Clover said that he has been trying to find a buyer for the store, and it was by accident that it was discovered the store use was no longer permitted. He said it is not suitable to use as a residence, though it is ideal for a country store. 140) Mr. Caplin passed around pictures of the structure. Col. Washington closed the public hearing, since there was no public comment. Mrs. Diehl moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Limitation of usage as a country store including storage to ground level only, together with not more than one dwelling unit to be occupied only by operator of store and his immediate family. No other uses shall be permitted; 2. Current Health Department approval of well and septic system; 3. Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Routes 601 and 665; 4. Staff approval of parking. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. ZTA-80-03. VEPCO has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend Section 16 - DEFINITIONS - with respect to Contractor's Office and equipment storage yard. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Payne suggested deleting the last sentence from the staff's proposal because it is redundant. �7 / Mr. Lucas and Mr. Landess, representing VEPCO, said that there were no problems with the proposed wording. Mr. Lucas noted that the rebuild has been delayed somewhat, though material is still coming in. There was no public comment, and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. Vest moved that Sections 16-21.1, 16-21.2, and 16-21.3 be repealed and that Section 16-21 be amended to read as follows: Construction Facilities, Temporary: Temporary uses, including but not limited to field offices, equipment and material storage yards, and portable asphalt and concrete mixing plants, which for purposes of practicality and efficiency, require location at or in proximity to a particular construction project for which such uses are intended. Unless otherwise specifically permitted in a particular case, the storage, manufacture, or processing of explosive materials shall be expressly prohibited. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. SP-80-31. VEPCO has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for temporary storage of construction materials on 4.249 acres zoned A-1. Property is located at Lindsay, northwest of the C and O Railroad, and on the northwest side of Route 639. County Tax Map 51, Parcel 14C, Rivanna District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that VEPCO has a lease to rent the property for three years. Mr. Phil Lucas of VEPCO said that he has no problems with the recommended conditions of approval. There was no public comment and Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Mr. McCann moved approval of SP-80-31 subject to the following conditions: 1. Maintain a 75 foot setback from Routes 615 and 639 for materials storage; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; 3. This permit shall expire on May 31, 1983. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. SP-80-29. Albemarle County Service Authority has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to expand the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plan, located on 1.23 acres zoned M-1. Porperty is located on the north side of the North Fork of the Rivanna River, approximately 1000 feet east of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 5D, Rivanna District. Mr. Keeler said that the staff recommends deferral until June 17. Upon the motion of Mrs. Diehl, and second of Mr. Vest, the Commission unanimously voted to defer discussion and action on SP-80-29 until June 17, 1980. / A() 1980-1985 CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - Public Hearing: Mr. Eckel passed out a statement that the Commission could forward to the Board of Supervisors, if it so chose, regarding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of the various projects. He said that these items had been discussed at the two work sessions on the CIP. Mr. Vest moved that the Commission forward the following comments to the Board of Supervisors: 1. While Meriwether-Lewis Elementary School,viewed in the context of a "new" school, does not comply with locational recommendations of the Plan, the Commission's opinion, given existing school district boundaries, is that reconstruction in its current location would not have an appreciably greater negative impact on development objectives of the Plan than would construction in the Ivy village or other location. 2. While the Scottsville Library Addition, located in the Scottsville POD, is not located within a designated growth area and therefore does not comply with the locational recommendations of the Plan, the Commission's opinion is that this project will not have significant adverse impact on development objectives of the Plan. 3. While the Commission has recommended inclusion in the CIP for planning purposes, the following projects will require further review pursuant to 15.1-456 of the Code ( i.e. - When project alternatives and/or proposed sites have been established ): PROGRAM (Part I: County Funded) PROJECT 3. Education Greenwood -Crozet Elementary Future Site Acquisition 6. Libraries Northside Branch Library 7. Miscellaneous Scottsville Elderly Housing 8. Parks and Recreation Change Crozet Little League Field to Brownsville Little League Field PROGRAM (Part II: Non -County Funded) PROJECT 4. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Water System Storage and Interconnection Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. /Y/ Resolution of Intent to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the Scenic Areas Overlay District be incorporated in the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. Keeler stated that these amendments had been reviewed by the Commission at one of its recent work sessions, and the text now represents comments made at that meeting. Col. Washington closed the public hearing with no comments from the public. Mrs. Diehl moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Scenic Areas Overlay District be incorporated in the proposed zoning ordinance ( see attachments ). Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting. Mr. McCann said that he does not feel the district is fair in many ways, and particularly in the sense that it makes an individual construct his house 150 feet from a road, simply for aesthetic reasons. As far as the scenic rivers section, he felt the county is embarking on an area that it should have no control over. There was no new or old business, and the Commission adjourned at midnight. /V 30.5 30.5.1 30.5.2 30.5.2.1 30.5.2.2 Em OVERLAY DISTRICTS, GENERALLY (Cont'd) SCENIC AREAS OVERLAY DISTRICT Intent This Scenic Areas Overlay District (hereafter referred to as SA) is created to conserve elements of the County's scenic beauty as are contained along scenic waterways and scenic highways. Application SA overlay districts may be applied over any basic zoning district or other overlay district. SA overlay districts shall consist of SA - Streams and SA - Highways. SA -Streams SA -Stream overlay districts shall be applied to the following: The entire length of the Moorman's River from the bottom of the Charlottesville Water Supply Dam at Sugar Hollow to the confluence of the Moorman's River with the Mechum's River. SA -Highways SA -Highway overlay districts are hereby established along the following highway corridors in Albemarle County for a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet on each side of the right-of-way: (a) U.S. Route 250 from the western corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville to the western Albemarle County border; (b) Virginia Route 20 from Interstate Route 64 south to the corporate limits of the Town of Scottsville; (c) Virginia Route 6 from the corporate limits of the Town of Scottsville westward through several discontinuous portions of Albemarle County. !S3 OVERLAY DISTRICTS, GENERALLY SCENIC AREAS OVERLAY DISTRICT (Cont'd) 30.5.3 Official Zoning Map The Zoning Administrator shall cause SA overlay dis- tricts to be shown on official copies of the Zoning Map. 30.5.4 Request for Designation 30.5.4.1 State Highway Commission Designation The Board of Supervisors may, from time to time, request the Virginia State Highway Commission to designate any public road in the County as a scenic highway or a Virginia byway in accordance with Sec- tion 33.1-62 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. 30.5.4.2 Board of Supervisors Designation In addition, the Board of Supervisors may designate as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway any public road in the County which meets state scenic'designation standards except with regard to signs.. Application shall be made to, the Virginia State Highway Commission for scenic designation in accordance with 30.5.4.1 of this section at such time as any Albemarle County Scenic Highway shall meet all state scenic design standards. 30.5.4.3 Planning Commission Hearing Prior to making any such request of the State Highway Commission, or any such designation, the Board shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. The Commission and the Board shall hold public hearings on the.advisability of making any such request or designation in accordance with Section 15.1-431 of the Code. 30.5.4.4 Public Hearing by State Highway Commission The Board of Supervisors may, from time to that the Virginia State Highway Commission hearings in accordance with Section 33.1-62 Code prior to the designation of any scenic Virginia byway in the County, whether or no designation be at the request of the Board Supervisors. time, request hold public of the highway or t such of 30.5.5 Permitted Uses by Right and Special Permit Uses. 30.5.5.1 Within an adopted SA overlay district, uses shall be permitted as for and subject to the district regulations of basic and/or other overlay districts as cited at Section 30.5.2, except as hereinafter expressly provided. 30.5.5.2 Within the immediate environs of any stream designated in Section 30.5.2.1, no person shall commence any use involving the construction of any structure, the cutting of any living tree over six inches in caliper, or the grading or other like physical alterations of the immediate environs of such stream except as follows: (a) the cutting or removal of any si}ch tree as may be necessary to prevent the obstruction of such stream, to eliminate a danger to the health, safety and welfare of any citizen of the county or to conform to good forestry practice; (b) fences; (c) the following uses by special use permit only: (1) navigational and drainage aids; (2) flood warning aids and devices; (3) water monitoring devices; (4) bank erosion structures; (5) boat docks, piers, wharves; (d) uses and structures immediately appurtenant and necessary to the foregoing. 30.5.5.3 For purposes of this section, the term "immediate environs" shall include the bed of any such stream and the land on either side thereof to a distance of fifteen feet from the edge of such at mean annual flow level. 30.5.6 Area and Bulk Regulations and Options for Bonus Levels Area and bulk regulations and options for bonus levels shall be as for and subject to the district regulations of the underlying basic and/or other overlay districts as cited at Section 30.5.2, except that the following limitations shall apply: 1,i'5 0.5.6.1 Scenic Areas -Streams Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, no buildings,or structures other than necessary accessory appurtenant fences and/or walls shall be constructed within sixty-five feet of the edge of any designated stream at mean annual flow level. In addition, within sixty-five feet of the edge of any designated stream at mean annual flow level, there shall be no excessive cutting of any forested area. Any such forested area shall be deemed to have been excessively cut if, as a result of any cutting operation or series or combination of operations, the area of the cano-my-of such forested area shall be reduced by more than twenty-five percent 25% as determined by reference to aerial photographs of such area. Each such photograph shall be in existence at the time of the adoption of this section and shall be clearly marked by the Director of Planning as reference material for this section. Area within any such district may be part of a lot and countable for purposes of area, density and yard requirements unless otherwise pro- hibited within this ordinance. fir - 30.5.6.2 Scenic Areas -Highways 30.5.6.2.1 No buildings or structures other than necessary accessory appurtenant fences and/or walls, except as hereafter provided in the case of certain signs, shall be constructed within any Scenic Areas -Highways overlay district. 30.5.6.2.2 No off-street parkinq or loading shall be allowed closer than fifty (50) feet to the right-of-way line of a Scenic Area -Highway which is all or part of off- street parking facilities required or designed to accommodate more than two (2) motor vehicles. 30.5.6.2.3 Area within any such district may be part of a lot and countable for purposes of area density and yard requirements unless otherwise prohibited by this ordinance. 30.5.6.3 Exceptions: Scenic Areas - Highway overlay District 30.5.6.3.1 The Planning Commission may grant exception to setbacks required in 30.5.6.2.1 and 30.5.6.2.2; provided that in no case shall such reduction result in setbacks of lesser dimension than required in the underlying district; and provided further that no such exception r shall be granted until the Commission has determined that: a. the purpose and intent of this ordinance would be equally or better served by such exception; b. the use, structure, or activity for which such exception is sought would be less visible from the scenic highway in the proposed location by reason of intervening topography, vegetation, buildings or other natural or man-made features in existence At time of enactment of this ordinance; and c. proposals by the applicant are adequate to reasonably assure continued protection of the scenic quality. 30.5.6.3.2 For a use where off-street parking facilities are required to accommodate more than two (2) motor vehicles, the Planning Commission may reduce building setback to not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the right-of-way of a designated scenic highway; provided that: (a) all parking facilities shall be located on the rear side of the structures or buildings for which such exception is sought and that such parking facilities will otherwise be reasonably screened from view of such scenic highway; (b) the structures or buildings for which such exception are sought would be visually compatible to such scenic highway by reason of appearance and/or visual screening. In making such determination, the commission shall be mindful of the visual appearance and setback of other buildings and structures in the area;'and (c) proposals by the applicant are adequate to reasonably assure continued protection of the scenic quality. 30.5.7 Sign regulations: Scenic Areas -Highways Overlay District 30.5.7.1 General Regulations The location, configuration, design, materials and color of all signs and structures shall be encouraged to be in character with the historical and environmental setting of Albemarle. No sign shall visually dominate the structure to which it is attached and shall be architecturally harmonious with the surrounding structures. Sign materials should be predominantly wood or utilize open lettering, and indirect lighting shall be encouraged. With the exception of temporary event, auction, trespass, political, and six square feet or less sale or rental signs, signs proposed to be erected within 500-feet of and visible from any scenic highway shall be reviewed as provided in this section. T, , �4 ,.., „�, ;�,.� + � ; ow cinder this section shall (a) The applicant shall submit two copies of sign drawings.at a scale not smaller than 1 inch equals two feet to the Zoning Administrator; (b) The Zoning Administrator shall transmit one copy to the Director of Planning for review, the calendar days from the date of application for review; provided that nothing herein shall be construed to.limit referral of any application to the Planning Commission where it is deemed to be in the public interest. (c) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Director of Planning may demand a review of the signs by the Planning Commission by filing a written request with the Planning -Department within ten days of such decision. The Commission may affirm, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, the Planning Director's decision. For purposes of this section; the term "Person Aggrieved" shall include the applicant, any. adjacent land owner, and any public agency or officer thereof. (d) The governing body reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the Commission which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to a proper administration of this section. Notwithstanding provisions of Section 30.5.6.2.1, the following types of signs, as further limited in Section 30.5.6.7.2, shall be permitted within 50 feet of the right-of-way of the scenic highway but not within the required front yard as regulated for the underlying district: Locational Sign Directional Sign Temporary Event'Sign Sale or Rent Sign Auction Sign Subdivision Sign Trespass Sign Political Sign Business Wall Sign 30.5.7.2 Regulation of Number, Height, Area, Types of Signs within Scenic Overlay Districts The following regulations shall be in addition to Section 28.14 generally and Shall be further limitation on regulations contained in Sections 28.14.3 and 28.14.4 specifically: RM IM (a) The aggregate sign areas allowed for free- standing business, projecting business; wall business, locational, and directional signs shall be reduced by one-half within SA -Highway Overlay Districts. (b) Free-standing business and projecting business signs shall be limited to 10 foot height above grade, 18 square feet per single sign face, and to one sign per separate highway frontage. (c) Business wall signs shall be limited to 20 feet in height above grade, 35 square feet per single sign face, and to one sign per separate highway frontage. (d) Business roof signs shall not be permitted within SA -Highway Overlay'Districts. (e) Locational signs shall be limited to 10 feet in -height -above grade, 6 square feet per single sign face, and two signs per establishment. /V