HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 31 81 PC Minutes4
M
March 31, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and work
session on Tuesday, March 31, 1981, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the County
Office Building, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; and
Mr. Richard Cogan. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Director of Planning, Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning,
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order.
The minutes of January 22, 1981, were approved as submitted.
Spring Hill Final Plat - Proposal to divide 674.67 acres into 16 lots with an
average size of 5.8 acres leaving 581.66 acres in residue; County Tax Map 58,
Parcels 95 and 96, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, located off the east side
of Route 786, west of Route 637, and south of Ivy.
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner disqualified himself and left the room.
Ms. Kat Imhoff, Planner, exhibited the original plat and presented the staff report,
adding an additional condition under recommended conditions of approval:
j. Add note: "Further division of the residue acreage shall require
amendment of SP-81-1."
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to comment.
Mr. Will Reiley, representing the applicant, stated that he would be happy to answer
any questions.
Since there was no public comment, Mrs. Diehl said that the matter was before the
Commission.
Mr. Skove asked why the plat was before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff replied that a survey had been needed.
Mrs. Diehl added that metes and bounds had been omitted before.
There were no further questions from the Commissioners, and Mr. Skove moved for
approval of the final plat, subject to the conditions of approval given by staff,
including the additional (j.).
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed 6 - 1 with Mr. Gloeckner abstaining.
22q
Resolution of Intent to amend the RA District to permit any subdivision lot
of record at the time of the adoption of the RA District to meet those rear,
side and front yard and setback regulations in effect at the time the
subdivision was approved.
Mr. Keeler explained that when the Board of Supervisors did the new zoning map,
it included almost every subdivision outside of the growth areas, in Rural Areas.
This designation, Mr. Keeler stated, had resulted in problems when building permits
were applied for in these subdivisions. He added that there were difficulties in
meeting the setback and yard requirements and that this amendment was intended to
clear up the matter and that it applied to the Rural Areas District only.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment.
Since there was no response, the matter was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl mentioned that during the previous week she had noticed Squirrel Ridge
among certain applicants for variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals and that it
was her understanding that they were an example of those caught in this situation.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that this was the case.
Since there were no further questions or comments, Mr. Kindrick moved for adoption
of the amendment as presented by staff:
Section 6.5.01 NON -CONFORMITIES In the case of any subdivision which
was approved pursuant to Chapter 18 of the County Code prior to the
adoption of this Ordinance and which was of record at the time of the
adoption hereof, the rear, side and front yard and setback regulations
of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of such approval shall
apply to all. lots within such subdivision.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
WORK SESSION - Discussion of Private Roads
Mr. Tucker gave a staff report, recapping the September, 1980, work session on
private roads, and reading a memo from County Engineer J. Harvey Bailey, dated
March 31, 1981. He added that the Board in a couple of instances of an appeal had
approved private roads. Charles Pietsch's airport center was cited as an example.
Mr. Tucker said that the Board position was that an industrial/commercial complex
might better be served by private road (including the security factor, that traffic
might be controlled with a gate).
Mrs. Diehl inquired about another instance in which the Board allowed a private
road when the Commission had recommended a State road.
Mr. Tucker replied that it had been a case of a retirement community (near St. Anne's)
that could afford to maintain its private roads and that the issue of security had.
also been a consideration. Mr. Tucker stated that he believed the Board had
required that the private roads be built to State standards, so that they could
be taken into the State system if necessary at a future date.
225
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Highway Department, then spoke to the
Commission. Mr. Roosevelt remarked that he had mixed emotions about the issue of
private roads. He stated that on one hand the Highway Department has more roads
than it can keep up with and dwindling maintenance funds, but that on the other
hand experience has shown that private roads often become a burden to the Highway
Department eventually, since it is the only agency to turn to when maintenance
costs become prohibitive and road -related problems develop.
Mr. Roosevelt remarked that a law known as the viewer law used to be rather strict
as to which roads could qualify to be brought into the system. He added that since
1949 any subdivision roads brought into the system incurring costs to be brought up
to State standards, that these costs had to be born by the property owners of the
subdivision. Mr. Roosevelt told the Commission that this law had undergone several
changes over the years and that now, due to pressure brought to bear by property
owners living along certain subdivision roads, any roads subdivided prior to 1976
could be brought into the system without help from the subdivision property owners,
but at the expense of taxpayers.
Mr. Roosevelt further remarked that in his opinion this date on the viewer law
would continue to be moved forward, ensuring that Highway Department funds would
be used to upgrade future subdivision roads and bring them into the system, even
though at inception a subdivision were approved with private roads and the under-
standing that these roads would never be accepted into the State system.
Mr. Roosevelt then gave some examples of traffic on private roads, using the figures
given in Mr. Tucker's staff report. Mr. Roosevelt said that the Highway Department
uses seven vehicle trips per day as an average for single-family dwellings. In
addition, he stated that when a gravel road reaches a use of fifty vehicle trips per
day, it is deemed that maintenance is then cheaper on a hard surface than on a
gravel surface. Mr. Roosevelt stated that County standards allow private roads on
roads of 20 lots and only 5 inches of depth to the gravel surface. He asked that
the Commission keep in mind that statistically this would mean 140 vehicle trips per
day (based on 7 vehicle trips per day per lot). Mr. Roosevelt stated that he would
recommend that the County require paving at a much lower lot -number than 20, such as
7 or 8 lots, of private roads. He stated that the average annual maintenance cost
per lane mile is $2,483.
Mrs. Diehl asked about the figures given in the addendum to the Staff Report.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that he had no recollection of giving the cost figures
attributed to him in the addendum; he added that if he had given these estimates,
he had no idea within what context he had done so.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the $2,483 cost figure applied only to paved roads.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that this was correct, that this figure represented the cost
in the City of Charlottesville and that the only roads that the Highway Department
maintained in the City were hard surface roads.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt for a cost figure on maintaining gravel roads.
Mr. Roosevelt answered that he did not have that figure with him.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether it cost more to maintain a gravel road than a hard surface.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that the answer depended on the number of vehicle trips per
day on any given road.
z Z�9
Mr. Roosevelt stated that after giving the matter a lot of thought, he did
believe that there is a place for private roads. Mr. Roosevelt cited the
airport industrial park as an example of where the use of a private road was
feasible. He further explained that in a commercial use situation, there is
always a way to cover additional maintenance costs by increasing prices. He
pointed out that this option is not open to private property owners in a
subdivision who are faced with rising maintenance costs.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether the $2,484 figure covered a cross section, including
sidewalk, curb and gutter, drop -inlets, etc.
Mr. Roosevelt said that it was a flat fee payment to be used for any maintenance
within the right-of-way and that in actual fact the City spent more than this
amount on road maintenance.
Mr. Roosevelt also told the Commission that the Highway Department has a figure
of $3,300 per mile in cost to resurface with asphalt and chips and this resurface
treatment must be applied every five years.
Mr. Davis said that this process would cost quite a bit more through a private
contractor, an estimated $.75 a square yard.
Mr. Cogan remarked that it depended on the type of treatment. He added that it
was his understanding that maintaining a gravel road cost less in materials and
labor than a hard surface.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that with a sufficient base, a hard surfaced road is
easier to maintain than a gravel one, but that the crucial factor is the base.
Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that if the base is not sufficient, it cannot support
the surface and traffic volume, resulting in pot holes and chronic repairs. He
offered to get figures on hard surface versus gravel from the Richmond office,
as contingent on traffic volume.
Mr. Payne asked to make a statement. He said that more important than the technical
specifications Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Tucker might recommend, was a basic decision
from the Commission on its policy regarding private roads. Mr. Payne stated that
there are three questions involved: (1) Does the Commission want to continue to
have private roads to any extent; (2) Whether, assuming that the Commission wants
to keep private roads, the Commission wants to make any changes in road standards;
(3) If the Commission wants to specify conditions for allowing private roads.
Mr. Payne stated that he believed the Commission to be in a precarious position,
that it must determine and define when private roads are acceptable. He added that
recently the Commission had not taken an altogether consistent position. Mr. Payne
said that there must be some definite basis in the ordinance for private roads, or
the Commission will be in a vulnerable position.
Mr. Gloeckner remarked that the whole concept of private roads came about as a
trade-off, to get away from old County roads that did not get into the State
system. Mr. Gloeckner stated that a committee had been formed to study private
roads. He added that discussions in the committee meetings had been general and
that it had come as something of a surprise to some of the committee members
that what was adopted into the ordinance applied to 2-acre lots. Mr. Gloeckner
added that 2-acre lots were large lots, considering the cost of land in the
County. He stated that private roads had been discussed at Bill Clover's
suggestion during the committee meetings, with relation to larger lot divisions
2ZI
on heavily travelled roads that were meant to be private and somewhat restricted
from public access. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would like to hear from the
public whether people wanted private roads or not, and where and where not they
would be desirable. He added that probably the more exclusive subdivisions,
regardless of lot size, would want private roads.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that the private roads committee was one of the first groups
she had served with and that as she recalled the matter, private roads were to
cover special circumstances, instead of across the board.
Mr. Davis said that he thought it best to think of private roads in terms of
relief in cases of special circumstances, such as steep terrain.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that a private road can be less destructive. He added that he
thought most people in the County still like to have the less wide, secondary roads,
but prefer them paved to eliminate dust and to avoid maintenance problems.
Mr. Gloeckner also mentioned that a paved road aids in selling expensive lots.
Mr. Davis stated that many people complain about the destruction involved in
widening roads, but that the damage is temporary. He cited as an example the
road on which he lives.
Mr. Cogan said that he believed private roads have a use. He added that he did
not think that steep terrain should be a criteria for a private road. Mr. Cogan
said that in the case of a steep slope some form of hard surface should be used
because gravel would wash away. He said that the Commission had to really look
at the issue and decide when and where a private road is recommendable, whether
number of lots, size of lots, environmental characteristics, etc. could be used
in establishing a criteria.
Mrs. Diehl added that staff had suggested that rural areas, outside of the urban
area, might be included in the criteria.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Payne about the legal status of school bus and mail delivery
on private roads.
Mr. Payne stated that one of the principle problems with private roads is the
difficulty of traffic control. He added that law enforcement on private roads
is almost non-existent; there is no speed limit and no control over reckless
driving. Mr. Payne said that in the case of a school bus accident it was
conceivable that a property owner on a private road could be liable.
Mr. Cogan mentioned that length might be part of the criteria.
Mr. Davis said that there might be more of an inclination to allow a longer road
to be private, for economic relief.
Mr. Gloeckner remarked that he recalled from the private road committee discussions
something about a road going to State standards when its traffic level reached
250 vehicle trips per day.
Mrs. Diehl observed that F.H.A. houses had to be on State roads.
Mr. Davis stated that it appeared that all of the Commissioners concurred that
private roads were a useful tool and should not be eliminated.
zzs
Mrs. Diehl inquired what language was needed and pointed out that size was
not considered in the wording of point four.
Mr. Payne cautioned that if size were to be the criterion, it must be thought
through and could not be an arbitrary number; he added that if it were 5 acres,
there must be some basis for choosing 5 acres.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that five acres required a lot more road frontage than two
acres.
Mr. Davis stated that if private roads were to be a form relief, the Commission
should not be willing to allow this relief unless an applicant conformed with
the Comprehensive Plan, which in most rural areas recommended one dwelling per
five acres.
Mr. Payne said that this could be a rational basis for using five -acre lots as a
criterion and that he and Mr. Tucker had discussed this possibility.
Mrs. Diehl suggested that perhaps this approach could also address the rural
areas criterion, as suggested by staff.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the Commission had to determine what it was aiming for
and that some of the issues seemed to be qualitative. He suggested that the
Commission was proposing to protect the environment, to offer relief, to protect
privacy, and to make at least the initial outlay cheaper - all of which Mr. Payne
said might be proper objectives with various degrees of importance. He said
that the language as currently written in point four was strictly designed
to ignore all but the environmental/ecological aspects.
Mr. Cogan remarked that this leads to ambiguity and that there is a need to
assure no ambiguity.
Mr. Payne responded that the wording was intentionally designed to be flexible,
but as stated point four was enforceable.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he did not believe that private roads should be limited
to rural areas. He remarked that private roads served a purpose in PRD's, where
some creativity was left.
Mr. Skove stated that he did not believe that private roads were appropriate in
urban areas generally.
Mr. Tucker remarked that lot size might be a viable solution and give economic
relief without exactly so stating.
Mr. Payne said that a lot of the current Commissioners had not been present when
pipestem lots became a problem. He stated that developers in order to evade the
subdivision ordinance had put in 5-acre and 3-acre pipestem lots, thereby not
having to put in new roads.
Mrs. Diehl again called for a list of criteria, since there was general agreement
to keep private roads.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission might want to consider security as one
of the criteria and thereby make private roads under certain circumstances
permissible in the urban area, such as a retirement community. He added that
private roads have also been approved in industrial and commercial subdivisions.
zrj
Mr. Tucker mentioned severe topography as one of the criteria, to cover situations
such as that of Frank O'Neil, where a private road might be less destructive to
mountainous terrain and where larger lots might be developed.
Mrs. Diehl asked about the legal validity of this criterion.
Mr. Payne stated that it would be obvious if an applicant were crossing every
swale and as such could hardly be approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that severe topography could be one of several criteria, as
Mr. Tucker had suggested. Mr. Cogan added that lot size should be a criterion.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that number of lots should be another.
Mr. Bowerman said that after listening to the general discussion among the
Commissioners, he had made some notes which he would like to get their opinion on.
Mr. Bowerman continued, saying that the points to include would be inserted in
point four after the clause beginning particular vegetation and before or. He
listed these points as: limited public use with controlled access within the
urban area (such as for security purposes); lot size conforming to the Compre-
hensive Plan outside of the urban area; intended for commercial use only regard-
less of location.
Mr. Davis asked what the problems would be if a special use permit were required
for private roads and if all other roads were required to be built to State
standards and dedicated to public use.
' Mr. Payne said that this was essentially what was in effect at the present time
and that it was not appropriate. He stated that a standard belonged in the
subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Keeler mentioned that there were guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan,
different scales that could be used.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that number of lots had still not been addressed.
Mr. Bowerman said that according to the Comprehensive Plan a 40-lot subdivision
should not have private roads, in the RA district.
Mr. Tucker responded that if the 40 lots were 5-acre lots, you would have a
private road.
Mr. Payne said that the original intent of this table was to give relief from
the increasing scale and that if more than 36 lots were involved, the same road
would have to be built anyway, but with no cost benefit. Mr. Payne added that
Mr. Keeler had said that according to the Comprehensive Plan twenty lots were
the maximum number of lots that could be served by a private road.
Mr. Roosevelt said that in looking over TABLE I under § 18-36 (c) (1), he would
recommend that the depth of base be increased to six inches from four and five.
Mr. Payne observed that a completely different table would be needed for
iL industrial/commercial uses.
Mr. Skove said again that private roads should not in his opinion be within
urban areas.
2�
Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the Commission's notes and
suggestions should be made into correct wording by the Planning staff and
the Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Gloeckner brought up the example of Birnam Wood as a townhouse development
within an urban area with private roads that could not have been accomplished
with State roads.
Mr. Payne observed that years previously one of the really old ordinances
provided for private roads in townhouse developments only.
Mr. Cogan asked whether private roads in planned residential developments could
be required to be built to State standards on base and surface, as had been
suggested for a commercial/industrial table.
Mr. Payne cautioned that a whole class had to be identified before regulations
could be made and that it could be a mistake to use one instance, one particular
PRD, a binding guide. He pointed out that a similar instance might never arise
again and that it did not make much sense to tie the regulations to a PRD.
Mr. Payne pointed out that Birnam Wood was not a PRD but a townhouse development.
He asked what the distinction was between a townhouse development for sale and
a small -lot single-family detached development or a group of rental duplexes,
separately owned but rented, for example, Oak Forest, Birnam Wood, Orangedale,
Dr. Hurt's Commonwealth Drive duplexes - some of which have State roads and
some of which have private.
Mr. Tucker asked why each case could not be evaluated on an individual basis.
Mr. Payne replied that he believed you could not go on a case -by -case basis,
that a rule was needed.
Mr. Roosevelt remarked that when it was developed Four Seasons was somewhat
on the same order as Birnam Wood and when Four Seasons could not maintain its
private roads, they came into the State system. Mr. Roosevelt said that again
he would project similar problems will arise in the future with Birnam Wood's
roads and maintenance will become a burden to the residents.
Mr. Gloeckner responded that the roads in Birnam Wood had been built to State
standards, except for the right-of-ways and kinds of cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Tucker acknowledged that Mr. Roosevelt's concerns might be correct, but
that one of the intentions of requiring 30-feet right-of-ways on the private
roads was to prevent people from going to the Highway Department to request
the taking over of the roads.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the homeowners association in Birnam Wood assesses each
home owner in order to have money available to cover road maintenance expenses.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that to be realistic, this assessment would have to be
continually increased to cover rising repair and maintenance costs. He added
that County ordinances were written based on lot size in the areas of health,
water and sewer and that perhaps a similar regulation on roads should be
applied, to protect the public for financial reasons instead of for health
and welfare.
i
M
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was a concensus among the Commissioners to not
have private roads in the urban area for residential development, unless there
were valid exceptions which the staff and County Attorney would work out and bring
back with specific language.
There was some further discussion of TABLE 1, as shown below, and a concensus
reached on the indicated changes:
S 18-36
(b)(3) The fee of such road is to be owned by the owners of lots 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 an easement for the benefit of all
lots served by such road; and
4) The commission shall determine that, for reasons of severe topography,
lar vegetation or other specific peculiar physical condition of the site, or
the use of such road or roads will provide substantial protection to, or w
the degradation of, the environment of the site, as compared to the use of
(c) (1) TABLE I
Number of Width of
Lots Served Travelway Depth of Base
(Measured at inter- (Compacted
section nearest crushed stone)
public street)
1-5 (Subject to
(Subject to
county
county
engineer)
engineer)
6-10 14 feet
�inches
11-20 16 feet
�Xinches
j6 or more (In accordance with the
standards of the state department
of highways and transportation
for width of travelway, surface
treatment and depth of base.)
Surface Treatment
(Except as otherwise
expressly provided)
Not required
Net-reel4fea- Prime and
double seal or equivalent
Net-requ4:.retR Prime and
double seal or equivalent
i
Prime and double seal or
equivalent
is
2z
Mr. Payne said that additional determining factors could be added, such as
allowing the Commission to lessen the restrictions in cases of lots over 21
acres and in cases of restrictive covenants governing the development of the
property.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was a concensus that enough information had been
collected to enable staff to work out specific language and bring back the
alternatives.
There was agreement to this statement by the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about the separate table for commercial/industrial use.
Mr. Payne replied that what he had in mind was a statement requiring base and
surface treatment to comply with Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion standards in commercial/industrial complexes.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was a concensus on requiring 21 lots or more to
have roads, whether they be private or dedicated to public use, meet all standards
of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The Commissioners
concurred.
WORK SESSION - Discussion of Subdivision Amendments
Mr. Ron Keeler read the suggested amendments, explaining that § 18-19 was of a
housekeeping nature and that a Resolution of Intent had already been adopted
on § 18-30.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners whether there were any questions or comments
on the suggested amendments.
There were none, and Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution
of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance as suggested by staff.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further
discussion.
233
M
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
TO THE
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
§ 18-19
Bonding requirements.
(d) The provisions of this section shall be construed in accordance with
15.1-466(j) & (1) of the Code.
S 18-30
March, 1981
Every subdivision lot shall front on an existing public street, or a street
dedicated by the subdivision plat and maintained or designed and built to be
maintained by the state department of highways and transportation, except
that private roads shall_ be permitted in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter. The frontage on such street shall not be less than $9°a-e€-the-let-width
e�ee1- at-the-lle�g-setbaek-line that required by the zoning ordinance.
This regulation may be reduced for frontage on cul-de-sacs. When a new subdivision
abuts one side of an existing or platted street, the subdivider shall dedicate at least
y; half the right-of-way necessary to make such street comply with the minimum width
fixed for the same by this chapter.
S 18-53
(b) A decision on the final plat shall be rendered by the commission
within ferty-five sixty days after the filing of the final plat.
§ 18-55(k)
signature, panels shall be provided as fellows:
�l} �a�-l�c�d-lpa.nor-i�i-the-eec�ty-bu+�-•with:-anp�tle-af-die-ee�e�ate
}lets-ef-the-Eity--ef- a�lettes�ille; for the chairman of the county planning
ccxrmission and t-i designated agent of the Board of Supervisors.
WORK SESSION - Discussion of Zoning Text Amendments
Mr. Keeler read the suggested amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, along with
staff comments and the background prompting the recommended amendments.
Mr. Keeler added the following to his staff report:
11 Amend the C-1 district to include "automobile, truck repair shop"
as a use by right. "Automobile service station" is currently a use
by right in the C-1 district but no provision is made for a purely
repair -type operation. Staff recommends the following:
22.2.1 b 22 Automobile, truck repair shop
12. Correct the language of criteria 6 of 10.5.2.1 of the RA district
as follows:
c) Within one-half mile of a Type I village or
within one-half mile of the major crossroads of a Type II village as
described in the Comprehensive Plan.
r
��1D
N
O
7
Q
ro£ rt O W w Y. 11 O, w 7 (D
ro 7 rt n It a G m n
IKY rnn '�O 17- N 7 11 N rn OI O
9 f* rn C W r W a 7 7
ro w rr rw ro O Y
r7t H W N E ro� O w� A
N rt o ro 0 K 0 n b w
K O K I n C n rt 00
0 m Y n ro Y n.
OIt
£ mO ro I
K C W G
o w ro o K< 0 7 Y 7 r
M r< r rt /D M m
` m n' o moo m n ID
N� M R+ N A • O (<D Y- It o'
It Y, It r, 70
G
n• (D m 'O Y- M n O O n K
m KICI'r< Y. O(D
r C w Y❑ r (D C (D
(D 0 It 0 It 7 v m C
It O ro (D `G (D Y' Y' LO
W 7 m a• n W C C 0
7 C O'rw0 N WW ti m
I- ro 7 It
It
M It (D w N O '� m(D 0 Y n
UI Y• ro 0 N w ID Y m
n G 7 OK N
It r• E m m ro m ar a G m
O r+ W O r 0 7 r l
A
CD CD m o a It ro
ID w n CD r- < °n "0
0 n m� x n m rtW
K•rH G m m C F 0 M
III ° m o - :< I o
(rot I r
rt
k
oao�1I°•naTrnrgqo
m If �' W 0' 11 N R 3 If
hro{ If 1 U 0 If
rt CO. Y' w"
U R R
< n rr 'J r 2R O
fD'U . N £, It
'r W :1 I m IDrr rot
U R U.
0 It Y 0 * n s xy
m U
' r 'O rt rt K
R G S rJ r~• I n Hn O<
It rt G ID I n U R rr
It G U W t I'mH
U N 0 F' t O m (aIt. O
w r ^S 'o m Y rt O 6 n,
K w 'm Iro SL I7 7
0 K rt Y V o
<21<0I°wm31,a
CO ro (t o R w �r.
(i 7 r M 'O W 1
f-
N+ ff O O (D 111'S I
rmIMN 0 � 7 @+� a
w(D rt,r]"r w X PL(t
- N ro It m m ii O+ N
M n r It S• It, - U
(D O Y O w 7
% a n n t- r�'I Iao rt w
(D W a ro C r O U IF+ i
I m m rt u w
It ro r O 0 o' I h1 U
R N G rhlm ro� o (Rt w
R r w 7� N C Irt R
-i C ro w n ,0 C It
Ip
r n C (D rGDI m x It
(D Di
P.
la W Y �r
C:rO w w m "
rwt a t a
ro o
A
r
J
7
ro
a
CD
ro
W
O
r
ro
w
5%
C'U w O CY w M
[ V n r rt rt
H Y It (D
H o G 0 70 o
M O n W O'
mN wro�N
m O m Y o
v 0 a z M K
rt M rr (D (D
M N M (D
M n E O r
(D O r O rt O m
Oo A P. 'rt M w x
n Y. It It ro
N r n 7 n -' 0 tw
W �1 °a� P, fwi uC, �'
m q (D rt 7 J C1
ro rr 0
o� n m Z lot �
£ O r O ro m rt
IQ
'fJ It C h7 n
0�S -CD
r y 7 m G O r
O trJ O It re
N p rn O a M
00 � '.H1 K rt
ro 0 O
w
N
I
N
O
7
o
Q
w
Ww
W n
ro
(D
(D
ro
(D o
P• co
OJ
,p
J
U,
o
r..
ti
N
Ar
O "J
V
O A
M Y
n
rn
01
W
N
H
W
r
hl
ft
w
ro (D
lJr
W m
r
r
N
rt
CD
fnlr d
0 M
t
'S r
O
Q
(DID
N (D
CD
U
w
m O M r TJ
A Y It K t 11 n
.C•r
Y
O
0
EIL ro
W
rr o w K n
(D m rr ^< H
�' V1
o W n, r -
m Y- Y x
n fr m z ro
fJ 5' N O
r b7
W K
o M V1 Y r fn'r (hD trot rr rr trot
Y O rr m o m a
n
w •<
M O Y (D
w 0 3' :t' CD n
n K 0 U a
0 (D
5 n
rn
m m O
7 0 7 rt
m
w
d LL O
(D m
xd
G W 7 It
7- rD E rt K w
fD Yt
l
N C ft rt m
rt ft Y.
ft m
m rt i H. .17 a Y- K
m W K rt O w CL
Y- K
r rt
H
M It rt W
Y
G
'o O
ro K a Y-
t a b C
G
0 £ (D C n I r> N n N
3 n
w K
It C
O
O r w
r r Y 7
7 M
K 7
N m n rt
O n
O
C d
Or
t% O r• rr w n
wYOm nGw 1IK 7rt00
W (D (D
wK
Nor
H
rV•rq
'iJ
Yronnro
X O C
O
I u+
rtb'w
r [T `< ✓
rt
r' It M
E 7
IhC77
O
a rt
O rt
It 1' rt G
O
rt N - (D
r<+
`G m
'3' 7•' ID
',3 `G1
r (D (D �7 K rt M r I (n
•. It 1 Y O O It
? C It
Y K O
M K
a H
Y ro :1 7
r ro O '7
F(D
Y J
K ••
K W
ID 7 `4 w
C W
w 0
ft
7 m n ffE C IMI MI S
0 D
P. N
:1 H
X.
7 m 0 C r
r
G It rt
O CL Y S
O r
Y rt W 7
p, £ U m
n, M
IO
O U"O O M I N 0 I �' ro
(D
7 a
(D C
O m
CL
W
. n
7 fD
7 ••
a w S G
�C'
L> > R N
d
(n `< ro :J PPP £ I a r
ro rt n rt W d
'•- :.S
N
n Z
a 7 O. r
^ v W W
m
Ii rt n
In
< ti rt
0 a It1D
K w
rn
tT .7
m w It I. Z• I M K M ro
IID
m rt
7
a rt m O rt
'•� fD W W
H G, a
m U
It Y- w �G ID TJ
n,
rt 7
Y- n,
x
r 7 G V
P• rr
w
O N
K .1 7
ID n. W
O O. C,
'7 K 1 rD
In (t
It
w h n rlw
C L9 rt N K C Y C r :Y
�.1
Y• (/1 n
(D
C M
rt roP. r
'4 x r
m ft 3 ID
G Y C
G rr
(n n
3 ro ;D <
O It
n• n rt C n. (D 0 I'.
11 E
3 rt 0
Y w C
C
'7
O M ID N rr
n '� G O C1
r
r 0 V ""r
rD m 't 0
M It.
(D 1 n a ;?' O n
n ro C. ID Ur N Y- n
✓ M M
M O
n C
7 r n N Y.
n (D Y- M C'
n, m
w 'C G
'3 S I t+
R O
rt,
n N
m O
r O r I(D ID C1• '(1
w M C
O r
w O
O r w (D
O n m
ro m
m 0 It Y- ro
CD
K O
e 3
M f0 m ro
rt
O U
w n
It
rt r W M fr G
• 3 u 'G I I I
K m
n Y•
n C
a
rt O
I.•. O
w
n. It
N rh M, ] (D
fD rt
7 'd m
M (!
R ID
n
S
1(O
M 7' V
fu m t �7' O O, It K
ItO
W Y•
O
I7 '+
m
'V
Y w m n
w
P, C
n Ca. 0 -•
(D n n
w w O
h
'C 5 3 I'� '� T C O f
G n
Y. C
K
K 0 7
O
C m rt C 7
ro C O w
•• n
n 0
r .A rt
w I
r CL r w _n
N
r n<
w O C
n n 7 rt
(D
O
r
r
�+{�
W m w It IW n It
x J+ Y
D 7
r<
n L
M
w
'a
Y r
O J' 0
7 0
9r
r
10.
w ma
Y m n
n Y
W o
t:r r
n
Y
Y
7 n.
K w
ro 3 ro m
K (D W •• S
o
M
'C rn C G+
E d
rr
m w r
P3 w r' :t r n w .r�
N 7 to (T n ID
rr rr
G ID
✓
ro `< CY
Y X `< w
'0
_
CL ro N rD
N Fn G
C: n
r
(w
h .fJ
0 O a n, m IU' a. r :r
O m O
rt m
r
(D
O ro r
n, Y n r
rt
ID
J1 G m
n n m
rt
11 n+ m 0' (D rt O N
IP
7 Y.
(•-
O
rt
Y
!n N O
rt 7 w
m K' 1 O
3
m^
f J
rt GY
'O I m
'+ (D 'CJ (D w J f'
r
ro
w rr m Ci+
n•
w O C ID
o rt t Y X
O
0, fJ ID D
f m n C
O
n
ru
0 7 n NI(N N
I
(D It
S
Y•
7-
(n
M m rt
M n m
M r n. ti
n
" 7 rr
M 0 V
O
r rt O O 0 rt I r CL m
ft
(D
K
O
O W N Y.
w
CJ v'.
m
2 (�
:1
0 Y Y f;� r G N n
A O 'L1
0
m
ro
K O O
0 0 0 O, n
rt rt
I... O
n ur r
't n
l r-,
N �-n n+ + P, r n I•
r+�0
t••' K
f.
X
0 n rr w
7 0 f
M LL
O r
h rt O
IO * "�Ih r
ro
0
n
0 N
✓ •
ID
O J ft
i
O fU 7
:1
\ K
t-" f'' I D 'i rr
t7 a -t
CCD E 'Yrr
0
'
rC 1-7
O
�_ �r a'
_,
�•
n ,n
��, s N
r
ro a
K� t �1 � ' �
L
r
n. G
I ID
rt 0 0 O
l(1
23
L, ly
v f
m
• N o m
o
�J
N a
m
V4
i �]
Y 0
W
,
m G •�
c:4)
O
C
tP E
7
ro
JI U "
m
N 3 7 Y
.0
_
F U
N_
N 7 V C
U
a m
o - E
U: Y J
u
I-r'
N
,�'
� r Q_ v
••
3 b
0
AT O
w 3 U ro tr C
b
w Cji."i 3
•m S, 'O b O
C
O
X
U
u
m
;
is a) N -'1 r •-1 0
.Y N
41
11mZ1
11
> a 0
-.. O N
.i ••
N
'[J
C .0
a) G
N C
41 O
C ,-1
b
0
Yu, O
r�
w
�
CO
o b
U O
L
X
a
W Y
al Y
u
m
L'
4 ,a
ro
"
N
G
ro
aN, o
u .1
o
..-1 a) 7 m
O
c
>� c
Y O
N
c
O
v W Y
Cl O 1
0 Y m
.1 w v
I
m e
c .1
I N
N
ti
•O N
m N
> N -H11
m
Y O
N
'•i
'N O
G ..�
Y
c
O to O, ro
>, O sa U
H
v b+
G
u b -.FI
tom G 14
N
N" F ro
0, A N
-.{ c
E O
10,
m
•; m
0
d' )•+ •� O
m a G r
Y G
v
ro S1 •.
a) Y
'0 " m 0
7 N
N a) -•� U 'O
" -a11
C G
m a) 'a O
.i
Y
•A O
" U
N Y
Y N
U
•O -ri N v
a' U • M a) a)
E 3
a) O
.0 .'
w Jil EE
A G Y W
a) N W
•O 1, N u m
'0 O m L 3
L ••1
Y
N m
C1,
N
-1
a;
ti
Y N •-1 c" .^.
Y C4 M .a Y
U
•-+
w 0 1,
ra (D
E CP o m
m U Y
ro C Y X E
N .� 3 0
ro O m
L - 3 >
F -"
2) E
?, L
FA>.
N Y m
c N A "
O .1 O
.,) O
U w
C
Y 0 G,
M Y
a)
" u N
CP 54 .-i
O m m c
a) N S, F ro 'O
}a a) m M a)
m" 0 C v
+, Y S1
m Y a)
v -H
3
a
m
YN
W
v A .1 X 'a W
CL Y v
a v
- L
G N
• 0 7
S, c -.1
4 N 0
b
L ti W
N S, O
a) ro
a) v c
m
r1
-N
N -"
.-I
U m U S, G
N N m
N
O c 1.,
3
r-t
v O N C O O
}1 C U) •rl 3
m
"
Y i, .1
U m m
IT v Y a
C +) -.� .+
-rl •.i m- N
-a0 .-1 ti 7
F S1 r w
U -H w
"J •rl
O
E m m
C N
• .^i
L
3 m O +� +) c
G w
" O U
'O .� 'O O
U Y •"
S
G J,
N -•i
A b
Y J
N m 'H ; E rl
Q
Y" N
m C4
r1 m 3
-.1 4
Y p, .+ C
Y G Y a •H
10 a)
R7 O' 1
S; `D
Q4
c O 1
G m
•--� U
x
A•+
'n g c v --1
S, C 0 4 m
U
L al
v -•�
m
A U L N
H v
m Y .� r U a)
F; U P, >+
U O"
a1 Y O+'O
3
u al
F to ,,pp
O G 7
G
.I c
u .0
Sa
•� N
W
L Cn u
0
of a a) a)
0
Sa
N
Y N a) O
+,
m
O
•l4
c Y 0
O
> O
U U mY
.1 - CL .
v
V S4 U
> m .O,N
.+: ma)
f, W
l4
ONC
-H 0
S4 "x _-O
J, '
cU
-.
v iP C
0
Y.1
a)
vOG
NF"
LY7
11
7 m
O
Y N N -.i m
m L
-•� V E
A O E
ri U -rl
)A 'O -H c
,O Y
,,GF
> 1J •.1
c
v
'U
U •.1 •.i ,C u
C 'O R7 u a) O
L 0)
Y -ff
N v
a) W ),
m u }i,i
,F 'c O W
0
,-0 � v �a Y
Id .-, 0 L+ •-1 N
s, 'o v
O G w
)
ul
0 3
" F
O-;
Y U CL
U 7 U C4 a)
•• U A
C 1�
L4 m J)
1,
y a
m
I-i rt 7 N F •
o) L L C
N
R >
7
Y rJ'
1-� 4
a 7 ti
.1 O O 0
N 3 -C N Q
NI M W
Y c N
-; ••
m E N
.0 F
ro C)
l ro
.a •S U m u
c A
•� u v
u Y m
r :. G
ti- �] m
�,� L
Sa :�
N v G +1 o n
•Y
F 'O
G
C) N U
O, w W Y G
S+ 0
O a a)
u u G
W
3
L
N Y N U
u
Q
0 Y
-.i ro c
v
Sa O. C:. C
W Y
m
a1
EE
m
c -flm
N C: -.1 O 14 10
W .-, ••
+� )� "
0. .-1 •U
4 )+ O C
0
C:
tr Q, O
1
ril -•+ .,.1
Y •r1
W
Cw :f
v
'U N
N •.i P, m u
Q
L Y 'U x+ c
Li E N
S, G
,L- m 1,
m
x Y v W n
N N > G 7
I- 7 'i
O� c
L' Y ).,
.+ c q,
m tJ'
C
_ -.1
1- •p c a)
i, m
w v O
w m
, - 3
]; v i) A
O a) • ra .., .,
0 ') 'I
u c
m 0 C 14
.. ro
>
o m"
N
'�
W O A D'
U I Sa CL 3 W O
Y W C1
fn A"
1 v
A t1,
C .-,
D E x:., m
:) +)
Y C C N O
n mN"
a) G> .c' U
_ r• -.1 .a
r> ..9
CL m
U
u
.H O 'd
C
ro o
v..,"v
G 7
Q
O
v o 3
O
s v .�
7 rJ Y" •O
c ro . m/ tiro 'ro a41
o-a limnro
O C G
o ro
a c
c N a)
o 0
-4"k
.S U
'7
O U
v u
v 1t ro Oro
N O 1; Y .-+ 7
o•-, O,
,G
a) N u
t1 G.•1
�e O 'O
C N O
-�
al
r1
.c •.i
>
N G -.i
a) •.1 L
A a) -H > R7
G .-i F m
w u tT G
0 C 0 C
A 7 ••
w N
+J
O
'U .-,
•O "
r: 3
N O -.1 -.1
Y .,1 ." w y
Y
'7 O 3
u
0
'O
0
m u
c v
m U)
u
44 u (A
7 Y a1
m Q' F
•C al m
v w E
R, v c v
v 0 A m 7 3
u .1 Y
r+ - 0
C .i .-1
o ro Y .i
a) m
Y ro
ro ro u
W N
W •-1
ro v a
a
L v N
U 0 a
Y" C .� J
h ro 7 Y ,A
X >, N a) c v
W A m 41 0 A
L •-+ G O
N Q 7 W
G O
U) m .-I
Y L 0
V) Y U
"
m
N
19
2 -T
DISCUSSION
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether any problems were arising with churches that had
prompted this recommended amendment to allow churches by right in the RA district.
He wondered whether churches should be allowed in subdivisions such as Key West
where there are one -acre lots by right; he particularly expressed concern about
locating adjunct cemeteries.
Mr. Skove asked about the wording in point ten, how the distance was measured.
Mr. Payne replied that this wording might have to be worked on.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the advantage was to having the grading permit regulation
in the soil erosion ordinance as opposed to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler replied that it was the most logical place for it, where issuance of
permits is addressed.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the forty-five day review period would still apply.
Mr. Keeler answered that it would and conceivably, if the applicant applied for
a grading permit at the same time a site plan or subdivision plat were filed,
he could receive a grading permit first with the Zoning Administrator not being
aware of the status of the site plan or subdivision plat.
Mr. Bowerman said that the Zoning Administrator could by State Statute hold up
the grading permit for forty-five days. Mr. Bowerman inquired whether the
Zoning Administrator was seeking guidance from the Commission.
Mr. Payne said that the Zoning Administrator was not willing to hold up a grading
permit unless the ordinance so directed him.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to explain point one, 4.1.6.
Mr. Keeler answered that basically he was eliminating the unnecessary wording
at the onset and adding exemption of lots that had been put to record prior to
the adoption of this ordinance.
Mrs. Joan Graves asked that the reference numbers be given, in lieu of page
numbers because she could not find the sections as given in the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to make the requested changes before the matter
went to public hearing.
Mrs. Graves went on to discuss point eleven, saying that she would like to see
further language to regulate an automobile, truck repair shop, provisions to
cover parts and materials that might be left outside, disposal of transmission
fluid and oil and so on.
Mrs. Diehl directed Mr. Keeler to work on such wording if he thought it
appropriate or to wait for the public hearing.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission wanted to adopt a Resolution of Intent
tonight and defer discussion on several of the points that would require going
into at some length.
23�
Mr. Tucker stated that if there were areas requiring further discussion,
he would suggest that the Commission postpone adopting a Resolution of Intent,
and if desired, defer discussion to a later work session.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he wanted to examine the church amendment more closely.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had no objection to the staff recommendation that
a provision on grading permits would be more appropriate in the soil erosion
ordinance than in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was a concensus among the Commissioners on this
staff recommendation.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission might therefore want to make a recommenda-
tion to the Board to this effect.
Mr. Payne remarked that he had some problem with item 10 concerning the specific
wording of the definitions of setback and front yard. He suggested that the
Commission leave staff some flexibility in order to bring back different wording
to a public hearing on a Resolution of Intent, should the Commission adopt a
Resolution of Intent.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Payne would flag any other proposed amendments.
He did not, and Mrs. Diehl asked for further comments from the Commissioners
regarding the churches and adjunct cemeteries amendment, item 8.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he was not certain that churches should be allowed
by right in all residential districts. He pointed out that certain church
activities could be potential nuisances - noisy and offensive to neighborhoods.
He added that lot size could present a problem, if a lot were small,as opposed
to five acres.
Mr. Payne cited a precedent, saying that there had been quite a problem in
Fairfax County about five years ago.
Mr. Davis stated that he did not believe that cemeteries should necessarily be
by right, or adjunct buildings.
Mr. Bowerman said that he agreed with Mr. Gloeckner.
Mr. Davis said that he was not sure that churches should be subject to a political
process.
Mr. Bowerman replied that adjacent property owners had rights also and should have
an opportunity to the review process.
Mr. Skove observed that there can be a lot of traffic generated by church activities.
Mr. Gloeckner added that he thought that churches should be subject to taxes also.
Mr. Keeler said that perhaps supplementary regulations for churches might help
cover all the additional activities that churches have become involved in.
Mrs. Diehl said that she did not have a problem with the churches, but perhaps
with the cemeteries.
P)�
Mr. Kindrick added that he could go along with having cemeteries by special use
permit, but not churches.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the two could be separated.
Mr. Payne replied that they could be; he added that they are separate uses in
other residential districts.
Mr. Gloeckner said that public input was needed and that perhaps the matter should
stand until public hearing.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether this was a concensus of the Commissioners. When it was
ascertained that the Commissioners agreed, Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were
any further comments or discussion.
There was none, and Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether the soil erosion ordinance
provision on grading could be separated.
Mr. Payne said that it could and that he suggested that action be taken first on
any zoning amendments.
Mr. Skove made a motion to adopt a Resolution of Intent on the proposed zoning
text amendments, items 1 - 12, omitting item 9.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission wished to take action on the grading permit
provision.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether, when the Commission has seen a preliminary plat and
approved it with conditions, a grading permit can be issued prior to those condi-
tions being met.
Mrs. Diehl said that it could, unless the conditions specifically prohibited the
issuance of a grading permit, prior to meeting all of the conditions.
Mr. Bowerman then stated that this would provide for review of all plats before
any grading took place; he asked whether this was the purpose of the provision.
Mr. Payne replied that his understanding of the provision was that it was designed
to make the grading fit the development that is approved.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further discussion.
There was none, and Mr. Bowerman made a motion to recommend to the Board that no
grading permit be issued on a site plan or subdivision plat that is pending and
that this provision be included in the soil erosion ordinance.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl said that the last item on the agenda, discussion of update of the
Comprehensive Plan, would be taken up at another work session. She asked
Mr. Tucker for suggested future dates for Commission work sessions, specifically
for a work session on capital improvements. Mrs. Diehl mentioned that several of
the Commissioners had not been able to attend the earlier session and requested
2YO
that a time be chosen which would be convenient for more Commissioners to be
present.
It was determined that Monday, April 6, 1981, at 4 p.m., in the Board Room of
the County Office Building, would be the next work session on the Capital
Improvements Program.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any OLD BUSINESS or NEW BUSINESS.
Since there was none, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr., Secre ry o the
Allemarle County Planning Commission
2ql