HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 28 86 PC MinutesJanuary 28, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, January 28, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel and Mr.
Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia
Patterson, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr.
David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County
Attorney. Absent: Mr. Richard Cogan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the
January 14, 1986 meeting were approved as amended by Mr.
Bowerman.
Advance Mills Village Lot 1 Entrance Waiver Request - Proposal
to utilize an entrance on Route 743 rather than the internal
private road Fray Road, for corner Lot 1. (A waiver of Section
18-36f of the Subdivision Ordinance.) Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 20, parcel 55, is located in
the northeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 743 and Fray
Road, approximately 0.7 mile south of the Greene County line.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The staff report concluded
that "because this request does not meet the requirement of the
Subdivision Ordinance, 'alternative access would alleviate a
clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the
environment of the site or adjacent properties,' staff
recommends denial." Ms. Patterson also read a letter from
an adjacent property owner which expressed opposition to the
granting of the waiver.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Mary Smith addressed the Commission. She explained the
proposed location of the house and driveway had been based
on the topography of the lot and the proximity to the highway.
She questioned the accuracy of both the staff's and the
County Engineer's position that adequate sight distance could
be obtained onto Fray Road. She expressed the feeling that
locating an entrance onto Fray Road would create a hazardous
situation. She felt the staff's recommendation for denial
had been based on the issue of precedence rather than the
safety factor.
Mr. Smith presented photographs of the proposed driveway
location.
117
January 28, 1986 Page 2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Patterson explained that both she and Mr. Pack (County
Engineer's Office) had visited the site and tested the sight
distance. They had been able to obtain 250 feet of sight
distance in either direction from a driveway location along
the frontage of Fray Road. In response to Mr. Bowerman's
request, she pointed out the location as being approximately
250' back from the intersection of Rt. 743. She explained
that though it was "tight" 250' of sight distance could be
obtained.
It was determined the speed limit on that section of road
was 55 mph and that it was relatively a straight section.
In response to the applicant's question, Ms. Patterson
confirmed that a driveway in the location measured by
staff would require a 7-8 foot cut into the bank.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if he was aware of this
requirement when he purchased the lot. Mr. Smith replied
that he was not. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that it was
noted on the plat. Mr. Smith pointed out that the notation
to which Mr. Bowerman referred was illegible on his plat.
Ms. Diehl recalled that when the subdivision had been
approved there was concern about the traffic onto Rt. 743.
She explained that in this subdivision, and any other
subdivison, internal access has been required when feasible.
She stated she did not think the grading that would be required
in this case would be excessive. She stated she could not
support the waiver.
Mr. Stark stated he had visited the site and he felt
the proposed entrance onto Rt. 743 would be a dangerous one.
He stated he could not support an exit onto Rt. 743.
Mr. Gould stated that he was familiar with the area and,
while he was sympathetic to the applicant's desires, he
was very much in favor of internal access and therefore
could not support the waiver.
Mr. Stark moved that the Advance Mills Village Lot 1 Entrance
Waiver Request be denied.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman explained that he, too, was sympathetic to
the applicant's position, but he did not feel there was
justification for deviating from the internal access policy.
The motion for denial passed unanimously. Mr. Bowerman explained
to the applicant that this decision could be appealed to the
Board of Supervisors within 10 days.
January 28, 1986
Page 3
Town and Country Services (Gleco Mills) - Request for site plan
extension. A six-month extension to December 31, 1986 is
requested.
Ms. Patterson presented this request and read a letter from
the applicant which explained the reasons why the site plan
has not been completed, i.e. cost problems.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Doug Birckhead addressed the Commission. He explained that
he had had the fire system installed, but he was unaware that
each item had to be checked off individually. He clarified
that only the fire conditions have been taken care of and
that not much progress has been made on the other items.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Michel expressed some confusion relating to the extension
dates. Mr. Bowerman explained that the applicant had applied
for a 12-month extension and had been granted a 6-month
extension which runs through March, 1986. It was determined
the current request for a 6-month extension should run
until October, 1986 (not December 31, 1986 as stated in the
staff report).
Ms. Diehl recalled that the site had had difficulties and
stated she would be willing to extend the site plan as requested.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Town and Country Services site plan
extension request be granted, thus extending the site plan
to September 30, 1986.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which was approved (5:1) with
Mr. Michel casting the dissenting vote.
Ward Run Farm - Request for extension of preliminary plat
approval.
Mr. Benish presented the request. He explained the current
approval expires February 13, 1986. He explained that the
roads have not yet been approved by the Highway Department
and the applicant is in the process of obtaining a soil
erosion permit. He stated the request is made because
additional time is needed to receive approval of the road
plans. He stated that staff is recommending that the
extension be for a 6-month period, though the applicant has
only requested a 60-day extension. Mr. Benish explained
that the main problem has been that there is not sufficient
right-of-way at the entrance to construct the necessary
drainage measures.
January 28, 1986
Page 4
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Benish explained that
the Culpeper Office (Highway Department) has looked at the plans,
but sent them back unapproved. He explained that the local
office felt the plans were approvable. He explained the
plans had been submitted to the local office 2 months ago,
but he was unsure as to the time it had taken for the plans
to be returned from Culpeper. Mr. Benish further explained
that the 50 feet of right-of-way which had been dedicated
at the entrance was found to be insufficient and now the
applicant must try to obtain additional right-of-way from
the property owners. He stated it appears it will take a
while to work the matter out, but it is solvable.
Mr. Stark asked if it would be possible to re -locate the
road if the additional right-of-way cannot be obtained.
Mr. Benish explained that such a change would require the
submittal of a new plat.
Mr. Benish explained that originally the applicant had proposed
a private road, but the staff had convinced them to put in a
dedicated public road and that is what was approved.
Mr. Stark moved that the request for a 6-month extension of
the preliminary plat for Ward Run Farm be approved.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously
passed.
ZTA-86-02 Proposed Recreation Requirements - Amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance intended to replace current requirements
with more specific area and facilities requirements.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report.
Regarding wooded and steep areas, Ms. Scala stated she felt
it was up to the Commission to determine if such an area
was appropriate. Ms. Diehl questioned whether such areas
could be used as children's play areas. She explained that
tot lots should be in level, accessible areas, but she was
not opposed to the undeveloped areas being used as other
recreation area if there was a lack of space.
Mr. Michel indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl.
Referring to section 4.16.3.1 of the proposed amendments, Ms.
Scala explained that the Director of Planning could approve
equipment or facility substitutions.
In response to Mr. Gould's question, Ms. Scala explained that
with most of the localities which had been studied, a 100
requirement was not unusual, but staff had felt that was
excessive.
/ w ,
January 28, 1986 Page 5
Ms. Scala explained the following changes had been made in
the proposed amendments since the last work session:
--Allowing the use of existing wooded or steep areas.
--Pea gravel had been added as acceptable groundcover.
--"Equivalent" playground equipment was allowed instead
of requiring specific types of equipment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. His comments included
the following:
--He suggested that a developer who might wish to
install some "expensive" amenities (e.g., swimming
pool) might be allowed to count those as more square
feet than they actually measure.
--He felt allowing the areas in greater than 10% grades
should be considered since 10% is relatively flat and
somewhat steeper areas could very possibly be suitable
for recreation areas. If this was not possible, he
suggested that, at least, the Director of Planning
could be given some discretion on the 10%.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Stark asked Ms. Scala for comments on the suggestions that
were made by Mr. Wagner. Ms. Scala responded that she felt
substituting one facility for another would be acceptable, but
the area requirements should remain the same. Regarding
the issue of 10% grade, she stated that applied mostly to
the active facilities, i.e. the tot lots, basketball court, and
was not intended for the open area. She stated an open area
could be approved at a greater slope but the 10%
limitation should remain for the play areas to prevent the
mulch from being washed away with the drainage.
Mr. Horne suggested the following change in Section 4.16.1:
Slopes in active recreation areas shall not exceed
ten percent(10%). Slope and drainage shall be
be approved by the County Engineer;
Mr. Bowerman asked what would be required for developments
like Branchlands where tot lots would not be needed. Ms.
Scala explained that the developer would explain that the
development was to serve the elderly and would present
a plan for alternative recreation to the Director of Planning
who could approve the substitution.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he felt enough flexibility was
built into the proposed amendments to address Mr. Wagner's
concerns.
January 28, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Stark indicated he did not feel space should be given up
just because one facility might be more expensive than
another (as suggested by Mr. Wagner).
Mr. Michel indicated he felt the "covered" recreation issue
could get "sticky" and he was in favor of leaving it to staff's
discretion.
Mr. Bowerman clarified Mr. Horne's earlier suggested change to
Section 4.16.1 and Mr. Michel suggested the following additional
change to that same section:
Existing wooded or steep areas may qualify as passive
recreation area provided no other suitable area is
available on the site.
Mr. Payne confirmed that such minor changes would not
require that the proposed amendments be readvertised.
Ms. Scala asked if "area" substitutions should be allowed
by the director as well as equipment and facility substitutions
(as proposed). She stated if that was the intention of
the Commission, it should be spelled out more clearly.
Mr. Wilkerson stated that was not the Commission's intent,
rather that the area requirement should remain as proposed.
Mr. Payne stated he understood the Commission was not
interested in allowing the discretion to modify the area as
long as the Director of Planning has the discretion to sub-
stitute one form of improvement for another.
Ms. Scala indicated she understood.
Mr. Stark moved that ZTA-86-02 relating to Recreation
Requirements be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as follows including the two amendments noted earlier
in the meeting:
Amend Sections 15.7 (R-4), 16.7 (R-6), 17.7 (R-10),
18.7 (R-15), 19.6.2(PRD), and 20.8.3 (PUD) as follows:
RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS
January 28, 1986
Page 7
IIkkW
of-sueh-area-sha��-be-pra�tfded-arfthfn-buf�dngs-
Hn�ess-etherwfse-spee�ffea���*-permitted-due-te-the
peettlfar-nature-ef-a-partfeular-develepment; -stieh-area
sha��-be-dede�eped-prepert�enate�y-afth-faef�ft�es
appreprfate-te-pre-sehoe�-and-e�ementar�*-sehee�-aged
ehf�dren---the-eomrnfssfen-sha��-eensfder-the
apprepriateness-ef-stteh- area- fer-the -intended-usage -fn
s-ef-sueh-faeters-as-�eeatfen;-shape;-tepegraphfe
eharaeterfstfes;-eempatfbflfty-ta-ad�efnfng-uses;
aeeessfb���ty-te-residents-and-ease-ef-super�fsfen.
See Section 4.16 for recreation requirements.
Add new section under General Regulations:
4.16 Recreation Requirements
Developed recreational area(s) shall be provided
for every development of thirty units or more,
equal to or exceeding four dwelling units per
acre, except for single family and two family
dwellings developed on conventional lots.
4.16.1 Minimum Area
A minimum of 200 sq. ft. per unit of
recreational area shall be provided in common
area or open space on the site, this
requirement not to exceed five percent (50)
of the gross site area.
The commission shall consider the
appropriateness of such area for the intended
purpose, usina the followina auidelines:
Slopes in active recreation areas shall
not exceed ten percent (10%). Slope and
drainage shall be approved by the
County Engineer;
The size and shape of each recreation
area shall be adequate for the intended use.
Groundcover shall consist of turf grass
or contained mulch such as pine bark,
shredded tires, or pea gravel;
Existing wooded or steep areas may
qualify as passive recreation area provided
no other suitable area is available on the
site.
January 28, 1986
Page 8
Access shall be adequate for pedestrians
and service vehicles if necessary;
Location shall be compatible with
adjoining uses, convenient to users a
sion.
4.16.2 Minimum Facilities
The following facilities shall be provided
within the recreational area:
4.16.2.1. One tot lot shall be provided for the first
thirty (30) units and for each additional
fifty (50) units and shall contain equipment
which provides an amenity equivalent to:
1 swing (4 seats)
1 slide
2 climbers
1 buckabout or whirl
2 benches
Each tot lot shall consist of at least 2,000
sq. ft. and shall be fenced, where determine,
necessary by the Director of Planning and
Communitv Development, to provide a safe
vironment for vounq calldren.
4.16.2.2
One half court for basketball shall be
provided for each one. hundred (100) units,
consisting of a 30' x 30' area of 4" 21-A
base and 1-1/2" bituminous concrete surface,
and a basketball backboard and net installed
at regulation height.
4.16.3
Additional requirements:
4.16.3.1
Substitutions of equipment or facilities may
be approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, provided they offer a
recreational amenity equivalent to the
facilities listed above, and are appropriate
to the needs of the occupants.
4.16.3.2
Equipment specifications shall be approved by
the Director of Planning and Community
Development on advice of the Director of
Parks and Recreation.
4.16.3.3 Recreational equipment and facilities shall
be maintained in a safe condition and
replaced as necessary. Maintenance shall be
the re_s.-onsibility of the property ownR� ;f
rental units or a homeowners' assoc iat_ if
s — le an d t:_s
. f -' �/
January 28, 1986
Page 9
4.16.3.4 Recreational facilities shall be completed
11%ftel when fifty percent (50%) of the units
have received certificates of occupancy.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion for approval which passed
unanimously.
ZTA-86-02 Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Related
to Mobile Homes - Amendments resulting from staff's 1984
study of mobile home parks and other amendments intended to
correct errors and deficiencies in the existing mobile home
regulations.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The report stated "the most
significant change proposed by the amendments is to permit
mobile home parks by special use permit in the higher density
residential districts rather than in the RA and VR districts
where they are currently permitted by special use permit."
Ms. Scala explained that most of the recommendations endorsed
by the Commission in October, 1984 had been incorporated in
the amendments with the following exceptions:
--The recommendation that mobile home parks be permitted
in "fringe areas" was not included since it was
decided that "fringe" areas do not exist, i.e. an
area is either rural or it is urban.
--The last three recommendations dealing with small
developments in growth areas, expansion of existing parks
in growth areas, and limiting mobile home developments
in rural areas to 20 units, were not addressed.
Ms. Scala stated that just by allowing mobile home
parks in growth areas, expansion will be encouraged.
Ms. Scala explained that no changes had been made in the
proposed amendments since the Commission's last review,
but they have been put in the necessary form for amending
the Ordinance. She stated the road standards section
has also been included.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Ms. Scala confirmed
that the road standards that are inserted will be removed
later. She stated that currently they are included in the
new section, 5.3 (Regulations for Mobile Home Parks), and
they have been included under "Internal Streets;" however,
after the County Engineer has completed his design manual
and it is adopted by the Board, the three pages relating
to road standards will be included in that manual and
they can then be removed from the Ordinance.
Mr. Michel asked Ms. Scala if his understanding was correct
that this has nothing to do with mobile home subdivisions.
January 28, 1986 Page 10
Ms. Scala responded that staff had reviewed the existing
regulations for mobile home subdivisions to determine if
they should be changed. The only change recommended
is that the applicant who wishes to do such a development
be required to submit an application plan which would
include what is normally included on a preliminary plat.
Ms. Scala confirmed that these amendments would not affect
any existing mobile home parks. She stated that if an
existing park wished to expand, she was uncertain as to
whether or not they would be required to bring the
existing sections of the park up to these standards. She
stated they would have to be dealt with on an individual
basis.
Ms. Scala went over those changes to "Conditions of Approval for
Mobile Homes on Individual Lots" (Supplementary Regulations),
sections 5.6.2.c, 5.6.2.d, and 5.6.2.e, which had been
recommended by the Zoning Department to correct existing
problems with the permit procedure for mobile homes on individual
lots.
Mr. Stark suggested that the term "plant materials" in section
5.6.2.e be changed to the term "screening."
The Chairman invited public comment. The Chairman also asked
if some members of the public had attended the public hearing
because they were under the impression that the requirements
were being changed for individual mobile home permits.
Ms. Virginia Buckman (Oakwood Homes), addressed the Commission.
She stated that most of those present were interested because
they must move very soon (Oak Lawn Mobile Home Park is closing)
and they are interested in knowing what possibilities may
develop as a result of these amendments. Ms. Buckman stressed
that most of those in the park are elderly and on fixed incomes
and there is a dire need for mobile home parks in Albemarle
County. Mr. Bowerman determined that Ms. Buckman was in favor
of the proposed amendments though she stated she was not
actually representing those present.
Mr. Daniel Collier addressed the Commission. It was determined
Mr. Collier was interested in an individual mobile home permit.
Mr. Bowerman explained that that question was not specifically
before the Commission at this time. Mr. Bowerman further
explained that an application for a mobile home permit must
be made through staff and the Zoning Administrator's office.
Mr. Paul Smith, a resident of Oak Lawn, addressed the Commission.
He indicated he was in favor of the proposed amendments.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
January 28, 1986
Page 11
Ms. Diehl stated that it is the hope of everyone that
the amendments will encourage the establishment of more
mobile home facilities. She stated she was in favor
of the amendments.
Mr. Michel and Mr. Wilkerson indicated they were in agreement
with Ms. Diehl.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had only one concern, i.e. that these
parks would develop where utilities exist and not in the
rural areas. He stated he hoped the cost of land would
not prevent their development in the urban area. He
stated he did not have a solution to this concern.
Mr. Michel stated that both the public and the Commission hopes
that someone will come forward with a proposal.
Mr. Stark asked for a better understanding of the "urban" area.
Mr. Horne explained that this could'potentially"mean VR areas
such as Hollymead and Crozet though this might mean rezoning
some land. Mr. Bowerman used the term "growth areas."
Mr. Michel moved that ZTA-86-01, Amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance Related to Mobile Homes, be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval, including those changes
noted by the Commission:
1. Amend Section 3.0 Definitions as follows:
p.16 Mobile home: An industrialized building unit
constructed on a chassis for towing to the point
of use, and designed to be used with or without a
permanent foundation for continuous year round
occupancy as a dwelling; or two (2) or more such
units separately towable, but designed to be
joined together at the point of use to form a
single dwelling, and which is designed for removal
to and installation or erection on other sites.
This definition shall not include an
industrialized building unit which is labelled as
meeting the Building Officials and Code
Administrators (B.O.C.A.). code for one and two
Purpose: To distinguish a mobile home which
requires a special use permit from
a modular unit meeting the B.O.C.A. Code
which requires only a building permit.
Also, to correct the definition
.regarding permanent foundations.
January 28, 1986
Page 12
Mobile home park: One (1) or more contiguous
parcels of land in which three or more rental lots
are provided for mobile homes.
Purpose: To limit the number of mobile homes
permitted on a parcel which has not
received approval for a park.
2. Delete mobile home parks by special use permit in
RA and VR districts:
P. 90 Delete: �A-�:�:B--P�ebf�e-Herne-Parks-freferenee
5-3}
P. 99 �� : : 2 : S--Mebf�e-Herne-Parks-f referenee
5:3}
3. Provide for mobile home parks by special use
permit in R-4, R-6, R-10, R-15 districts:
Add: 15.2.2.14 Mobile Home Parks (reference 5.3)
16.2.2.14 Mobile Home Parks (reference 5.3)
17.2.2.17 Mobile Home Parks (reference 5.31
18.2.2.17 Mobile Home Parks (reference 5.31
Purpose: To encourage mobile home parks to locate
in growth areas where public utilities
and other services are available.
4. Delete Section 5.4. (Supplementary Regulations)
p. 73 5: 4--TEHP6RARY-MABf EE-HeHE-PARFtS
Speefal-use-permits-fer-temperarY-mebfle-heme
parks -rnay-be-issued-by-the-beard-ef
super�afsers,-subjeet-te-the-fe��eafng
findings -
a: ghat-the-�eeatien-ef-a-temperarlr-tnebf�e
hence-peek-is-neeessar�r-fer-the-heusfng
ef-eenstruet�en-workers-e�np�eyed-en-an
�ndustrfa�;-highwa�*-er-sim��ar
eenstruetfen-pre�eet;
b: 9?hat-the-request-is-filed-by-er
Fortified-by-the-fndustr�-er-bar-the
�irgin�a-Hepartment-ef-Hfghaays-and.
�Franspertatien-as-being-essential-te-the
eenstruetfen-
In
January 28, 1986 Page 13
5-4:1 MINIMUM -AREA -REQUIRED
A-minlmti.m-area-ef-twe-thetisand-f �; 888}
square-feed-shall-be-predlded-far-eaeh
spaee-
5:4-Z SANITATIAN-REQUIREB
Santtar�+-faef�ftfes-sha�I-eenferrn-te
regtilrements-ef-the-State-Health
Department-far-u�rnller-Eamp
Sanitatlanu-
5.4 3 LIMITEB-TIME;-RENEWAL
the-perled-fen-eperating-stteh-temperery
park-shall-eenetir-with-the-antlelpeted
perled-ef-the-eenstrt3etlen---Applleatlen
fer-renewal-may-be-submitted-if-mere
time- Is-required-te-eemplete-the
pre�eet---Hewever;-sueh-renewal
applleatlen-mast-be-fll`ed-at-least
forty-flame-f45}-days-prier-te-the
expiration-ef-the-original-temporary-use
permit:
5.4..4 BBNDING;-REMWAL
the-beard-ef-stipend#sets;-In-granting
stieh-speefal-tise-permit; -may-regtilre-the
pesttng-af-e-bend-ta-Insure-the
temporary -mobile -home -park -will -be
reme�red-and-the-site-left-In-e�eed-ender
at-the-expiration-ef-the-permlt-
5.4 5 ABBITI®NAL-REQUIREMENT'S
the-beard-ef-stiper�lsers-shall-establish
stieh-additional-regtilrements-as-are-In
the-best-Interest-ef-the -publle-
Purpose; This provision was originally intended
to be used during the construction of
I-64. It is not anticipated that this
provision will be utilized further.
January 28, 1986
Page 14
5. Amend: Conditions of Approval for Mobile Homes on
Individual Lots (Supplementary Regulations)
p. 76 - 5.6.2.c Skirting around mobile home from ground
level to base of the mobile home to be
completed within thirty, (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
5.6.2.d Provision of potable water supply and
sewerage facilities to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator
and approval by the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health, if
applicable under current regulations;
5.6.2.e Maintenance of existing vegetation
landscaping and/or screening to be
provided to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Zoning Administrator. Required
screening shall be maintained in good
condition and replaced if they should
die.
Purpose: These amendments have been recommended
by the Zoning Department to correct
existing problems with the permit
procedure for mobile homes on individual
lots.
6. Provide for temporary non-residential mobile homes
by right in C-1, CO, HC, LI and HI districts:
Add: 22.2.1.b.23 Temporary non-residential
mobile homes (reference 5.8)
23.2.1.11
Temporary non-residential
mobile homes (reference 5.8)
24.2.1.40
Temporary non-residential
mobile homes (reference 5.8)
27.2.1.16
Temporary non-residential
mobile homes (reference 5.8)
28.2.1.23
Temporary non-residential
mobile homes (reference 5.8)
/r,t
January 28, 1986
Page 15
7. Add: New section (Supplementary Regulations)
5.8 Temporary non-residential mobile homes
A temporary non-residential mobile home
may be authorized by the Zoning
Administrator provided the mobile home
is used to house a planned permanent use
and the applicant has received site plan
approval for such permanent use on the
same site. The mobile home shall be
removed within thirty (30) days of
issuance of a Certificate of occupancy
for the permanent structure. Temporary -
non -residential mobile home permits
shall be subject to the following
conditions:
a. Site plan approval if applicable;
b. Albemarle County building official
approval;
C. The applicant.and/or owner of the
property shall certify as to the
intent for locating the mobile home
at the time of application;
d. Skirting to be provided from around
level to base of mobile home within
thirty (30) days of the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy.
5.8.1 Expiration, Renewal
Any permit issued pursuant to section
5.8 shall expire eighteen (18) months
after the date of issuance unless
construction of the permanent structure
shall have commenced and is thereafter
prosecuted in good faith. The Zoning
Administrator may revoke any such permit
after ten (10) days written notice, at
any time upon a finding that
construction activities have been
suspended for an unreasonable time or in
bad faith. 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.
Purpose: To provide for temporary mobile homes
within commercial and industrial
districts. The commission has approved
requests for such uses in the past,
although there is currently no such
provision,.in the Zoning Ordinance.
January 28, 1986
Page 16
8. Amend 4.8.2 Temporary Mobile Homes (General
Regulations)
p. 31 Temporary mobile homes shall be permitted
only in accordance with the provision of
Section 5.7 and Section 5.8 of this
ordinance.
Purpose: To allow for temporary non-residential
use of mobile homes.
9. Amend Nonconformities - Expansion or Enlargement
p. 78 6.4.1 The use of any building or structure
shall conform to the provisions of this
ordinance relating to the district in
which the same is situated whenever such
building or structure is enlarged,
extended, reconstructed or structurally
altered.
Except that, nothing in this section
shall prohibit the replacement of a
non -conforming mobile home with a larger
mobile home, provided the mobile_ home is
labelled to indicate compliance with
either the Virginia Industrialized
Building and Mobile Home Safety
Regulations or with the Federal
Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Standards adopted by HUD, 1974as
amended• and further rovided that the
con itions of section 5.6.2 are met if
applicable.
Purpose: To permit the replacement of a
non -conforming mobile home with a
larger, labelled model without requiring
the applicant to apply for a special use
permit.
IN
January 28, 1986
Page 17
10. Amend the bonus provisions, in the VR through R-15
districts as follows:
X.4.3 LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING
For provision of low or moderate cost housing
units as follows, a density increase of thirty
(30) percent shall be granted:
a. At least thirty (30) percent of the number of
units achievable under gross
density -standard level shall be developed as
low or moderate cost units; and
b. -The initial sale price for sale units or the
rental rate for a period of five (5) years
for rental units shall qualify as low or
moderate cost housing under either the
Virginia Housing Development Authority,
Farmers Home Administration or Housing and
Urban Development Section 8; and
C. If rental units, the developer shall enter
into an agreement with the County of
Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the
low or moderate cost units for a period of
five (5) years or until the units are sold as
low or moderate cost units whichever comes
first; and
d. If sale units, the developer shall provide
the director of planning and community
development with confirmation of the initial
sale price for the low or moderate cost units
prior to the issuance of building permits for
the bonus units; (Amended 8-14-85)
e. Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile
home park shall be considered rental units
under this section provided they qualify as
low or moderate cost housing under the
Housing and Urban Development Section 8
program;
f. Mobile home lots for rent in an approved
mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus
provided the develo er shall enter into an
agreement with the County of Albemarle that
the lots shall be available for rent to
mobile home owners for a period of five
ears;
& '3
January 28, 1.986
Page 18
g, Mobile home lots for sale
_ -,-; I o hnmp Subdivision s
n approved
c�ua'f o
this bonus Luv-.�. %A ...... =
per shall
restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes
or other low or moderate cost housing for a
period of f ive 5( ) years.
Purpose: To clarify the ordinance regarding.the
application of bonus factors in mobile
home parks and subdivisions.
11. Add 5 5 6 APPLICATION PLAN REQUIRED (Supplementary
regulations - mobile home subdivisions)
ADreliminarr subdivision plat shall be
submitted as art of the, application for a
mobile home subdivision and shall be
reviewed b the site review committee.
Followinq approval of the special use permit,
and prior to the issuance of a buildin
lermit or an clearin of the site a final
plat sll be approved.
ha
Purpose: This minimum amount of information is
necessary in order to review a special
use permit application for a mobile home
subdivision.
M
January 28, 1986
Page 19
12. Delete entire section: (Supplementary Regulations)
p. 71 5.3 M8BI%E-HBME-PARKS
these-previsions-are-designed-te-aeeemmedate
rneb�tle-homes-tn-s�'lanned-nelghbarheed-setting
w#th-open-spnee-and-reerea�len-requirements
ln-order-te-eneeurage-e-suitable-living
envlrenment-where-rental-lets-are-prevlded
for-rneblle-home-habitation.--A-mobile-home
park-may-be-established-by-the-eemmisslen-and
beard-af-supervisors-by-speelal-ttse-permit
obtained-pursuant-te-seetlens-5.8-and-31-Q-ef
this-erdlnanee.
5.3.1 MINIMUM-SESE-MBBlTzE-HBME-PARKS
A-rneblle-herne-park-shall-eensfst-ef-five-f5}
neres-er-mere:
5-3-Z MINIMUM-Lee-SISESfWIDTHS-ANB-MAXIMUM
DENSITIES
Eaeh-meblle-heme-let-shall-eemply-with-the
fellewing-area;-width-and-density
requlrernentsr
5.3.�.1 Mablle-home-lets-shall-eensfst-of-four
thousand-f4;86A}-square-feet-er-rnere;
exeluslve-ef-open-space;-setback;-yard-end
off-street-parking-requlrernents;-and-steal}
have-a-width-ef-forty-f46}-feet-er-Mere-
5.3.2.E Meblle-home-lets-serried-by-either-a-central
water-er-sewerage-system-shall-eensfst-ef
ferty-theusand-f4A;8A8}-square-feet-er-mere
and-shall-have-e-width-ef-ene-hundred-f188}
feet-er-mere.--{Amended-3-18-81}
5737273 Mebfle-heme-lets-served-bar-neither-a-eentral
water-er-sewerage-system-shall-eensfst-ef
sixty-thousand-f6e;eee}-square-feet-er-mere
end-shall-have-s-width-ef-ene-hundred-thirty
f 138}-feet-er-mere.--fAmerlded-3-18-81}
5:3:�-4 Far-each-mebfle-home-perk,-maximum-permitted
density-shall-be-establ#shed-at-time-ef
speelal-use-permit-approval-by-the-beard-ef
supervisors---In-determining-maximum-density;
the-board-shall-eenslder-among-ether-faeters-
the-density-ef-development-ln-the-area-ln
whleh-the-mobile-home-park-ls-proposed-te-be
leeated;-the-physleal-eapabllltles-ef-the
site-te-suppert-the-requested-density;
partleularly-in-regard-te-water-and-sewer
faellltles;-and-the-beard-shall-be
partleularly-mindful-ef-reeemrnendattens-ln
the-eemprehenslve-plan-ln-regard-te-mobile
homes- : r;�-
January 28, 1986
Page 20
5:3:3 BeeATieN-eF-McBfBE-HeMEs
5-3-3;} Eaeh-mob}}e-hems-shn}}-be-}seated-en-a-mob}}e
home -}et;
5:3:3-8
sha}}�be�th}rtytf3A}�feet�e+Arnendedef�}�83}
5:3:3:3
Ne-mob}}e-hems-sha}}-be-}seated-da}th}n-f}ft�r
+5A}-feet-ef-any-sorb}ee-er-reereat}ana}
straett�re-}mended-to-be-used-bar-mere-than
ens-f}}-mab}}e-home;
5:3:3:4
Eaeh-mob}}e-hems-}et-sha}}-front-en-an
}nterna}-street;
5-3-3:5
Ne-mob}}e-h®me-er-ether-strt�ett�re-sha}}-be
}seated-e}seer-than-s}x-+6}-feet-frsm-and
mob}fie-hems-space-}et-}fne,-+Amended-�-}-83}
5:3:3-6
�'he-ferege}ng-netatthstand}Ag;-the-A}bemar}e
f }cfa}-mayjregt�fre-additfena}
eetinty-f fro-ef
space-beta+eon-mebf}e-heroes-er-between-mob}}p
heroes-and-ether-strt�ettsres-}n-and-ease-}n
�htch-he-sha}}-determ}ne-the-same-ta-be
reasenab}y-neeessary-te-present-danger-ef
f }.re-er-te-pree}de-aelegttate-pretest}en
therefrom---+Added-�-�-83}
5.3 - 4 SETBAeKS
5;3_4;} pgeb}}e-heroes-and-ether-strt�etares-sha}}-be
set-bask-sedenty-ff�e-f�5}-feet-er-mere-from
the-rfght-ef-aa�-ef-any-pt�b�}e-street;
Mob}}e-heroes-and-ether-strnett�res-sha}}-be
sek-beak-f}ft�*-f5A}-feet-er-mere-from-the
mob}�:t-hr�me-park-property-}fne;
5;3;4;3 Mebf}e-homes-end-ether-strt�ettires-sha}}-be
set-back-fffteen-f}5}-feet-er-mere-from-the
r}ght-ef-�ae�-ef-}nterfer-streets;-eemmen
Wa}k�ra�s-and-eemmen-reereat}ena}-areas:
+Amended-3-4-84+
5-3-5 UTILI9Y-eeNNEeTfeNS
5-3:5-} Eaeh-mob}}e-home-}et-sha}}-be-prod}dad-ar}th
an-fnd}}dtta}-eenneet}en-te-a-ptib}}e-sewerage
system-er-ether-appre�red-son}tart'-sewage
d}spesa}-spstem;
5-3-5-3 Eaeh-msb}}e-home-}et-sha}}-be-pree}dad-a�}th
an-}nd}�}dtta}-ecnneet}an-te-a-pt�b}}e-�+ater
sttpp}�*-ar-ether-appreded-petab}e-water
9
January 28, 1986
Page 21
5-3-5-3 Eaeh-mebf�e-he�+e-she��-be-pred�ded-arfth
e�eetrfea�-servfee-tnsta��ed-fn-aeeerdanee
a�fth-the-Natfena�-E�eetr�ca#-Eerie:
5.3 6 6FF-STREET-PARRING
Eaeh-meb}fie-hems-het-sha���be-p�+ev�ded-with
twe-f�}-eff-street-parkfng-spaces-fn
aeeerdanee-afth-seetfen-4-��-of-thfs
erdfnanee-
5-3m REEREATIeNAh-AREA-REQUIREMENTS
Far-any-eleve�opment-of-thfrty-f39}-dwe}}�ng
unfits-er-more;-exceeding-fear-f4}-dwe}}fng
unfits-per-Here-fin-gross-densfty;-a-mfn�mum-ef
fifty-f58}-square-feet-per-dwe���ng-unit-ef
reereat�ena�-area-sha��-be-prevfded-en-the
property:--Nat-mare-then-twenty-ffve-f�5}
percent-ef-such-area-sha��-be-prev�ded-wtth�n
building':--Hn}ess-etherwfse-speelffedIly
permuted-due-te-the-peeu�far-nature-ef-a
part#eu�e�x-deve�epment;-such-area-sha��-be
deva�eped-prepertfenate�y-with-faef��tfes
nppreprfate-ta-pre-sehee�-end-e�ementery
sehee�-aged-ch��dren:--the-Cemmfssfen-she}}
eensfder-the-appreprfateness-ef-such-area-for
the-intended-usage-fin-terms-of-9ueh-fasters
as-�eeatfen;-shape;-topegraphfe
eharaeterfstfes;-eempatfbf�fty-te-ad�e�nfng
uses,-aeeessfbf�fty-te-residents-end-ease-ef
supervisiem
5.3 8 MINIMUM-STANBARBS-F6R-INTERNAE-STREETS
�nterna�-streets-sha��-be-eleve�eped-fin
aeeerdanee-with-the-design-standards-for
private-reads-es-set-forth-�n-Ehapter-�8-ef
the-Eerie-ef-A�bemar�e-fSubd�vfsfen-ef-hand};
prev�ded-that-depth-ef-base-sha��-fin-no-ease
be-less-than-five-f5}-finches-ef-eempaeted
erushed-stene-
January 28, 1986
Page 22
rn
13. Add new section 5.3 Mobile Home Parks
A mobile home park may be established by the
commission and board of supervisors by
special use permit obtained pursuant to
Section 31.0 of this ordinance.
It is intended that a mobile home park be
located and designed so as to provide and
maintain a desirable residential environment
for the residents of the park and the
residents of adjacent properties.
Mobile home parks shall be located in
designated growth areas of the Comprehensive
Plan.
5.3.1 Minimum Size Mobile _Home. Parks
A mobile home park shall consist of five (5)
or more continuous acres.
5.3.2 Maximum Density
A mobile home Park shall conform to the
maximum gross density requirements_ of the
district in which it is located.
5.3.? Minimum Lot Sizes
Each mobile home lot shall comply with the
following area and width requirements:
5.3.3.1 Mobile home lots shall consist
four thousand, five hundred (4,500)
square feet or more, and shall have
a width of forty-five (45) feet or
more.
5.3.3.2 Mobile home lots served by either a
central water or central sewerage
system shall consist of forty
thousand (40,000) square feet or
more and shall have a width of one
hundred (100) feet or more.
5.3.3.3 Mobile home lots served by neither
a_central water supply nor a
central sewerage system shall
consist of sixty thousand (60) 000)
square feet or more and shaii have
a width of one hundred thirty (130)
feet or more.
✓1 u
January 28, 1986 Page 23
5.3.4 Location of Mobile Homes
5.3.4.1 Each mobile home shall be located
on a mobile home lot. The lot
shall also provide space for
outdoor living and storage areas
and may provide space for a parking
area.
5.3.4.2 Each mobile home lot shall front on
an internal street.
5.3.4.3 No mobile home shall be located
closer than fifty (50) feet from
any service or recreational
structure intended to be used by
more than one (1) mobile home.
5.3.4.4 The minimum distance between mobile
homes shall be thirty (30) feet.
The Albemarle County Fire Officer
may require additional space
between mobile homes if p
water is not available
to for fire protection.
5.3.5 Setbacks and Yards
5.3.5.1 Mobile homes and other structures
shall be setback at least
fifty ( 50 ) feet from the
right-of-way of an existing public
street.
5.3.5.2 Mobile homes and other structures
shall be setback at least fifty
(50) feet from the mobile home park
property line when it is adjacent
to a residential or rural areas
district.
5.3.5.3 Mobile homes and other structures
shall be setback at least fifteen
(15 ) feet from the right-of-way of
internal private streets, common
walkways and common recreational or
service areas. This distance may
be increased to twenty-five (25)
feet for mobile homes or structures
at roadway intersections and along
internal public streets.
5.3.5.4 Mobile homes and other structures
shall be setback at least six (6)
feet from any mobile home space lot
line.
January 28, 1986
Page 24
5.3.6 Application Plan Required
An application plan shall be submitted as
part of the application for _a mobile home
park. The an shall be reviewed by the site
review committee but shall be considered
preliminary Following approval of the
special use permit, _and prior to the issuance
of a building permit or any clearing of the
site, a final site development plan shall be
ITT--tr-A _ Tl- final site development plan
shall contain all the information reguirea on
the application plan in addition to all the
information required in Section 32.0 Site
Development Plan.
5.3.6.1 The application plan shall contain
the following information at a
scale of 1" = 40' or larger:
a. Location of tract or parcel by
a -vicinity ma and landmarks
sufficien to identify the
location of the property;
b. An accurate boundary survey of
the tract;
C. Existing roads easements and
utilities; watercourses and
their names; owners, zoning
and present use of adjoining
tracts, and location of
residential structures on
adjoinina tracts;
d. Location, type and size of
ingress and egress to the
site;
e. Existing and proposed
topography accurately shown
with a maximum contour
interval of five ( 51 feed
areas shown with slopes of 25_
percent or greater;
f. Flood plain limits;
c. Proposed general road
alignments and rights -of -ways; -
general water` sewer and storm
drainage layout; general
landscape plan; common area
with recreational facilities
and walkways; service areas;
common trash container
locations; parkin areas; a
January 28, 1986 Page 25
typical lot detail showing the
mobile home stand, outdoor
living and storage areas,
parking area, setbacks and
utility connections; and any
other information necessary to
show that these requirements
can be met.
5.3.7 Improvements Required - Mobile Home Lots
5.3.7.1 Utilities
Each mobile home lot shall be
provided with an individual
connection to an approved sanitary
sewage disposal system.
Each mobile home lot shall be
provided with an individual
connection to an approved central
water supply or other potable water
supply
Each mobile home lot shall be
provided with electrical service
installed in accordance with the
National Electrical Code.
5.3.7.2 Markers for mobile home lots
Each mobile home lot shall be
clearly defined on the ground by
permanent markers. There shall be
posted and maintained in a
conspicuous place on each lot a
number corresponding to the number
of each lot as shown on the site
lan.
5.3.7.3 Outdoor living and storage areas
An outdoor living_ area shall be
provided on each mobile home lot.
At least 100 square feet shall be
hard surfaced.
Storage buildings not to exceed 150
square feet in aggregate shall be
permitted in a designated area on
each lot. Additional storage
facilities may be provided in
common areas.
/ 7/
January 28, 1986 Page 26
5.3.7.4 Additions to mobile homes
Additions to mobile homes are
permitted, subject to the followinj
conditions:
a. Albemarle County Building
Official approval;
b. Applicable setbacks_ are met;
C. Total roof area lot coverage
shall not exceed 40% of the
mobile home lot.
5.3.7.5 Installation of mobile homes
Installation of mobile homes shall
comply with the requirements of the
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
Code.
Skirting shall be 2rovided around
the mobile home from ground level
to the base of the mobile home
within 30 d Sys of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
5.3.8 Improvements Required - Mobile Home Park
5.3.8.1 Off-street parking
Off-street parking for mobile_
homes recreational uses and
service areas shall be provided in
accordance with Section 4.12 of
this ordinance Parking for mobile
homes may be provided on individual
lots, or in convenient bays, in
accordance with Section 4.12.3.3.
_Additional parking area for
recreational vehicles shall be
provided in a common area at a rate
of 1 space/10 units.
5.3.8.2 Internal Streets
A minimum right-of-way width of
forty (40) feet shall be
established on internal private
streets for the purpose of
measuring setbacks. The
right-of-way shall be maintained
clear of all obstructions.
Internal private streets shall be
constructed to the following
minimum standards:
M
January 28, 1986 Page 27
MOBILE HOME PARK STREET STANDARDS
1. Minimum typical section for access, entrance, or other con-
necting streets that do not abut mobile home sites and for
streets that do abut mobile home sites where the lot frontage
(measured at the mobile home setback line) is an average of
85 feet or greater.
Street width = 20' (see note a)
Mill.
2' 410' 41 10' 40
21mi„ 1
*See note h).
Ease
2(min.)
711
2. Minimum typical section for all YP park streets that abut mobile
home sites where the lot frontage (measured at the mobile home
setback line) is an average of less than 85 feet.
.5'
009
Street width = 20' (see note a)
' l_11=7 I -0"
I
7�,�.
curb.
See &T Subdi-
vision Street Require-
ments".
2.5'
`.. Pavement
Base
January 28, 1986
Page 28
3. General Design Notes:
a) Increase street width to 24 feet for streets that serve
over fifty mobile home sites.
b) Pavement shall be prime and double seal bituminous sur-
face treatment. Base shall be 6 inches of 21 or 21A
aggregate base.
c) Maximum longitudinal street grade is 10%.
d) Minimum vertical stopping sight distance is 100 feet.
e) Minimum horizontal centerline curve radius is 250 feet.
f) Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum radius of 45 feet mea-
sured to the edge of pavement.
g) Minimum radius of edge of pavement at intersections is
25 feet.
h) Roadside ditches shall be designed to contain the 10-year
storm below the shoulder using Mannings "rl" of 0.06 if
lined with grass, or 0.015 if lined with concrete. Ditches
may be grassed if t)ie flow from the 2-year storm does not
exceed 3 feet per second for a Mannings "n" of 0.03. If
IWO
the 3 foot per second velocity is exceeded the ditches
shall be paved with class A-3 concrete, 4 inches thick,
to the depth of the 10-year storm. When the depth of the
required roadside ditch (measured from the shoulder to
the invert) exceeds 2.5 feet the flow shall be piped in
a storm sewer system.
i) Driveway entrance culverts and culverts crossing streets
shall be designed to contain the 10-year storm below the
road shoulder using the appropriate VDH&T nomographs.
When paved ditches are smoothly transitioned into the
culverts, the culverts may be sized using Mannings formu-
lar. All culverts shall be concrete. Erosion control
protection (VDH&T standard EC-1) shall be placed at cul-
verts when the outlet velocity exceeds 5 feet per second.
Driveway culverts shall be a minimum of 12 feet long.
j) Driveways shall be paved the same as streets to the right-
of-way line. Aggregate base may be 4 inches thick.
k) Curb drop inlets shall be placed along the tangent por-
tions of the street or at the points of curve at inter-
sections. Curb drop inlets shall be sized and located
to prevent overtopping of the curb during the 10-year
• storm. Curb drop inlets shall be VDH&T DI-3A, 3B, or
3C with a type "A" nose.
P ��
January 28, 1986
Page 29
1) Storm sewers shall be designed in accordance with VDII&T
criteria.
m) All construction and materials shall be in accordance
with current VDII&T road and bridge standards and speci-
fications.
5.3.8.3 Recreational Requirements
See section 4.16 for recreation
requirements.
5.3�.8.4, Pedestrian Access
The requirements of Section 32.5.19
shall be met.
5.3.8.5 Service Areas and Accessory Uses
Centrally located service buildings
may provide common laundry
facilities, office space for
management and accessory uses as
are customarily incidental to the
operation and maintenance of a
mobile home park. Consolidation of
the service building and indoor
recreational facilities is
permitted. Other uses may be
established in accordance with the
regulations of the zoning district
in which the park is located.
17`5
�;.�nua'"y 28, 1986
5.3.8.6 Lighting
All prop
shall be
directed
adiacent
suc
nuisance
be h,--1
Page 30
sed exteri
shown. Li
away from
Iroperties
it does n
or safety
ed when ne
r lighting
hting shall
obile homes,
and roadways
t create a
azard and sh
essary.
5.3.8.7 Landscaping and Screening
The requirements of S
shall be met. In add
screening may be requ
accordance with Secti
around_ the entire Per
park, or part thereof
adequate vegetation a
and a conservation pl
submitted in accordan
Section 32.8.2.3.
1
ection 32.8
ition,_
fired in
on 32.8.6.1
imeter of the
, except wher
lreadv exists
e w
s been
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion for approval which passed
unanimously.
(The meeting recessed until 9:10 p.m.)
WORK SESSION
Preliminary discussion of Six -Year Secondary Road Plan - Fncus
on general background information and suggested projects for
federal aid secondary roads and bridge improvement projects.
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. During the course of
Ms. Davenport's report, Mr. Roosevelt, representing Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation, interjected the
following clarification: "We are talking about funding
classifications, not design classifications. Rural secondary
means that they are funds to be used in the counties. If
they were urban secondary funds they would be used in the
cities. It is simply a classification of funds; it doesn't
mean that you can't build a 9-lane curb and gutter roadway
with rural secondary funds and it doesn't mean that you
couldn't build a 2-lane road with shoulders with urban funds.
It's the type of funding that you're eligible for and
that eligibility is dependent upon what location you're at,
whether you are inside an urban boundary or outside an
urban boundary." It was determined the urban area in
Charlottesville has been determined by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization, and part of Albemarle County falls within.
that urban boundary but Meadowcreek does not.
January 28, 1986 Page 31
There was some confusion about the figure quoted in the staff
1+'' report as being available for rural secondary improvements.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the State match would be 55% of
the available Federal funds. Mr. Roosevelt stated further that
he had "consciously tried to stay away from dollar figures
when explaining the Federal aid categories because there is
no requirement that you have projects in all five categories.
The requirement is that we meet the figure shown here for
each year ($365,000). That entire amount could be in any
one of those five categories." He stressed that $365,000
was the minimum amount that must be obligated each year to
Federal aid qualifying projects. Mr. Roosevelt continued, "My
suggestion, when I sent this plan to you, was that we have
enough projects in each category in the plan so that we
could choose projects from funds that would be available.
I tried to give you an idea of what percentage of the
Federal money that comes to us for secondary roads falls
in each of these five categories."
Ms. Diehl asked if it was realistic to place the Meadowcreek
project in first priority considering the time factor that
might be involved, or would it be better to place some other
projects ahead of it so that they could be completed while
the particulars for Meadowcreek are being worked out.
Mr. Roosevelt responded, "Don't mix the financial plan with
the priority plan. The County's job is to set priorities.
If this is your top priority, then you should say that
and then we should put money toward this project in such a manner and
amounts that we can spend whatever we allocate in any specific
year during that fiscal year. The second part of this
process is a new philosophy on the part of the department.
In years past my central office has told the field engineers
(they) had to have 60% - 70% of the money necessary for
construction of a project before we will advertise it.
This philosophy on the part of the State has led to a tre-
mendous balance in secondary improvement funds in Richmond.
The Highway Department has finally come to the realization
that carrying these huge balances is not doing the secondary
system any good, so they have told (the engineers), from this
date forward, allocate to specific projects each year only
the amount of money you can spend on that project the next
year. Following that philosophy, the amount of money I
am going to put on the project doesn't make any difference (in regard to)
what priority you've set on the project. It does make a
difference as to how hard I am going to press that project."
Mr. Roosevelt stressed that the Commission must forget about
financing and give him a list of what the Commission feels
are the most important projects.
The Commission decided to discuss staff's recommended list
of projects for rural secondary improvements before proceeding
with the staff report.
/-7�
January 28, 1986 Page 32
Mr. Michel stated he was concerned with the section of
Hydraulic from Albemarle High School to Rio Road and Rt. 29
(Nos. 4 and 5 on list). Mr. Michel indicated he did not
understand why this was listed as two separate items.
Ms. Davenport explained that two different route numbers
were involved (Rt. 743/Hydraulic Rd. and Rt. 631/Rio Road).
He said he felt this might be more important than Old
Lynchburg Road because it would finish this section of
Hydraulic Road and would provide an alternate route to
Rt. 29, for which it is already being used. It was
determined the traffic volume on this section was much
higher than it is on Old Lynchburg Road.
Ms. Davenport explained that traffic volume had not been
the only consideration when compiling the list; safety
had also been an important factor.
Ms. Diehl indicated she understood Mr. Michel's position, but
her preference was that Old Lynchburg Road be given first
priority because of the tremendous amount of development
that is taking place in that area and currently only three
roads serve the area and none of those is a safe road.
She cited lower construction costs and the fact that
Meadowcreek Parkway does not appear to be a pressing issue
as other reasons for her position.
Mr. Stark indicated he felt it was "ridiculous" to place
Meadowcreek Parkway as the top priority if the city
plans were not in agreement with the county's.
Mr. Roosevelt again advised the Commission not to mix financing
considerations with priority considerations. He added that
since Meadowcreek was included in the plan, in 1979, the
County has been adamant that the project was the No. 1 priority,
or possibly No. 1 after Hydraulic Road. He stressed that
the County has been "constant and firm" that this was the
No. 1 priority. He stated that, by contrast, in 1976 the
City of Charlottesville did not even have their part of
the project in their plan. He explained that even after the
City did include it in their plan, they have often pushed
it behind other projects they have felt more pressing. Mr.
Roosevelt stated he was concerned that if the County were
to drop the Meadowcreek project as No. 1 priority, it would
give the City the opening to delay their part of the project,
thus pushing it into the '90's and even later. He stated that
any appearance of "weakness on the part of the County to build
their section would be jumped on by the City and they will
move their priorities to something else."
Ms. Diehl indicated she felt Mr. Roosevelt's advice to the
Commission was ambiguous, i.e. on one hand he is saying
the Commission should base their priorities on what is
most reasonable and most needed, but on the other hand he
is saying that the politics of the issue must be considered.
/17S
January 28, 1986
Page 33
Mr. Roosevelt responded, "No; what I am trying to do is influence
you to make that the No. 1 priority because that is No. 1 in
my mind."
It was determined that Mr. Roosevelt's recommendations for
rural secondary priorities, though they contained the same
projects, were not ranked the same as staff's recommendations.
Mr. Roosevelt confirmed that his ranking of the Meadowcreek
project as No. 1 priority was based on the acknowledgement
of the City/County relationship on the project and on
safety considerations. He felt that that section of Rio
Road which the Meadowcreek project would replace was more
"difficult" than was the 5th Street Extended area.
He made reference to the higher traffic counts on Rio Road.
He indicated he understood Ms. Diehl's reasoning regarding
the future development in that area, but pointed out that
the development already exists in the Meadowcreek project
area and people have been waiting for the improvements for
some time.
Mr. Horne stated he supported Mr. Roosevelt's advice, i.e.
that the Commission place the projects in the priority they
feel appropriate, and the funding, in effect, will take care
of itself.
Mr.Michel stated it would have been helpful to have had
Mr. Roosevelt's list. Mr. Horne indicated that list would
be available at the next meeting.
Mr. Bowerman stated he understood Ms. Diehl's position
regarding Old Lyncyburg Road, but he felt the money must go
where there is the most traffic count and the most existing
problems.
Mr. Michel pointed out that the Meadowcreek project and the
Hydraulic Road projects would take traffic off Rt. 29 North
and therefore he was in favor of those being given top
priority.
Mr. Horne reminded the Commission that they have the opportunity
to rearrange their priorities at least every two years.
Mr. Roosevelt stressed that he was not implying that the City
was not supporting the Meadowcreek project and though there
have been problems in the past, currently their support is
equal to the County's.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt how he would deal with funding
allocations if no further progress has been made on the
Meadowcreek project after the Board has finalized the
County's priority list, i.e. will "study" funds be set
aside or will some construction funds be set aside for
a portion of the project.
January 28, 1986 Page 34
Mr. Roosevelt indicated his allocation would be based on
what was hoped would be accomplished on the project within
the next year. He confirmed that there would be monies
to start putting projects such as Old Lynchburg Road into
concrete form, provided such projects were given a high
priority. He emphasized that whether or not money would
be available would depend on where a project was placed
on the priority list. He added that the Lynchburg Road
project had been No. 26 on his overall list, though it
was No. 3 or 4 of the major road projects and he "doubted
if he would be able to fund all the costs that would come
up on 26 priorities in the next year, so there may not
be money available to start planning on the project."
Mr. Roosevelt clarified that there is only one list, and
that list is broken down into specific categories and
the Commission's role is to prioritize the projects within
the specific categories, but in the end there will only
be one list with priority No. 1 to No. 39 (or whatever).
Mr. Stark added that this might mean that Meadowcreek or
any of the other projects might end up far down the list
if the County decided to make bridges, or spot improvements,
etc., top priority. Mr. Roosevelt confirmed this understanding
of the process.
It was determined that at the time the final list is compiled,
the Commission would like to have included an explanation
of why each project is given a certain priority.
Mr. Goode Love, a citizen present at the meeting, asked Mr.
Roosevelt if the allocations effect the amount of money spent
on maintaining roads that currently exist. Mr. Roosevelt
stated they did not. He explained the process and stated
the money must be used for improvements, not for maintenance.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that the road issue was one of the most
important ones facing the County and it is important to
obtain as much information as possible. He stated he felt
the Commission would have to take as much time as was necessary
to work through the matter.
Mr. Roosevelt stated he felt the Commission was taking too
much "load" on itself.
Ms. Davenport continued with the Bridge Replacement Projects
section of the staff report. It was determined that the
second project listed under Bridge Replacement (RS) should
not have been included because it was not eligible for
bridge funds (though it was eligible for railroad funds).
It was also determined that the bridge on Rt. 678 at
Meriweather-Lewis School should have been listed as
No. 2 under Bridge Replacement (SOS).
6*
January 28, 1986
Page 35
It was determined the Commission was in agreement with
staff's listing for the Bridge Replacement category,
both Rural Secondary and Secondary Off System.
Under the Railroad -Highway Grade Crossing category, it
was determined that Rt. 601 (Old Ivy Road) should be
placed in position No. 1 and Rt. 643 (Bentivar) in position
No. 2. Thus the three listed in the staff report would
become Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
(Note: No formal motion was made to adopt staff's
recommended priorities for the Rural Secondary category,
though it seemed to be the consensus of the Commission
that staff's listing was acceptable.)
It was determined that several work sessions would probably
be involved before this matter was finalized. Mr. Bowerman
again indicated the need for priority lists from both
staff and the Highway Department which would include
reasoning behind the suggested rankings.
OLD BUSINESS
Annual Report - It was determined this would be ready by
the February 4 meeting.
Joint Meeting with the City/UVA - To be held Tuesday, Feb. 4, 4:00,
Omni Hotel.
Meeting Time for February 4 Meeting - Meeting will begin at
7:00 rather than 7:30.
Joint Meeting with the Board of Supervisors - To be held Wednesday,
February 5. To be discussed: Southern Regional Park; Annual
Report; Public Hearing Process for the Six -Year Plan.
NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Imhoff gave an overview of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA-86-1) on the Mahanes Property. Mr. Horne
stressed that the Commission was not being asked to endorse
a park design, but only the concept of whether or not such
a park is appropriate for that property.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
11:10 P.M.
?4John Horne, Secretary
DS