HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 02 89 PC MinutesNovember 2, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 2, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tim Michel;
and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Diehl and Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of October 17, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
ZTA-89-09 - Request to amend Section 25.2.1, Permitted Uses by Right in the
Planned Development Shopping Center, of the Zoning Ordinance to add
Veterinary office and hospital.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. Referring to exits and entrances,
he noted that he hoped "the fact that it is mentioned in the Ordinance
would not give it undue weight."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel expressed concern about the issue of infectious diseases. He
asked how this would be monitored. Mr. Keeler pointed out that since this is
a special permit the Commission will make the determination as to whether
it is compatible with adjacent uses. He also noted that outside runs
will be removed from public access.
Mr. Stark moved that ZTA-89-09 to amend sections 25.0 and 5.1.11 of the
Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Commercial Kennel Veterinary Animal
Hospital be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as
follows:
1. ADD TO 25.0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -SHOPPING CENTER AS A USE BY SPECIAL
USE PERMIT:
25.2.2.5 Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11)
November 2, 1989 Page 2
2. REORGANIZE AND AMEND SECTION 5.1.11:
CURRENT
5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY, ANIMAL HOSPITAL
a. Except where animals are confined in
soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no
structure or area occupied by animals shall
be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line. In no
case shall any structure or area be located
closer than two hundred (200) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line;
b. For soundproofed confinements, noise measured
at the nearest agricultural,or residential
property line shall not exceed forty (40)
decibels;
c. For non -soundproofed animal confinements, an
external solid fence not less than six (6)
feet in height shall be lacated.within fifty
(50) feet of the animal confinement and shall
be composed of concrete block, brick, or
other material approved by the zoning
administrator;
d. In all cases, animals shall,be confined in an
enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. Noise measured at the nearest
agricultural or residential property line
shall not exceed forty (40) decibels.
PROPOSED
5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL VETERINARY ANIMAL HOSPITAL
a. Except where animals are confined in
soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no
structure or area occupied by animals shall
be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line. For
non -soundproofed animal confinements, an
external solid fence not less than six (6)
feet in height shall be located within fifty
(50) feet of the animal confinement and shall
be composed of concrete block, brick, or
other material approved by the zoning
Administrator;
b. in-me-ease-shall--sueh-strueture-or-area For
soundproofed confinements, no such structu_re_
shall be located closer than two hundred
�700
November 2, 1989
Page 3
M
(200) feet to any agricultural or residential
lot line. For soundproofed confinements,
noise measured at the nearest agricultural or
residential property line shall not exceed
forty (40) decibels;
C. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an
enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. Noise measured at the nearest
agricultural or residential property -line
shall not exceed forty (40) decibels;
d. In areas where such uses may be in vroximit
other uses involvipq intensive activity su
as shopping centers or other urban densit
locations special attention is required to
protect the public health and welfare. To
these ends the Commission and Board may
reauire among other things:
Separate building entrance and exit to
avoid animal conflicts;_
- Area for outside exercise to be exclusi
from access by the public by means of
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
STA-89-02 Private Roads - An amendment to Section 18 -.36, Private Roads
of the Subdivision Ordinance to specify circumstances under which private
roads may be permitted in rural developments.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report which concluded: "Staff recommends
that a committee be formed to review private road provisions and in
particular to determine the nature and extent of problems. In the interim,
staff recommends that provisions for private roads not be expanded.
Staff agrees that lot size in the Rural Areas is no longer of particular
concern...," and in that regard staff recommended amendment to Section 18-36.
Mr. Keeler gave a brief history of the private roads provisions.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Jim Skove addressed the Commission. He stated that Mr. Keeler's
report had addressed two of his three concerns: (1) That barriers/gates
are allowed by the Code of Virginia; and (2) That lots of less than
five acres can have private roads. (He felt this would allow clustering
in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.) He stated his third concern
was the requirement that a development of 20 lots would now require roads
to be built to state standards. He felt this was a problem because there
are sometimes cases where this is not possible, e.g. when a road already
exists and the developer does not control the right-of-way. He felt this
was an important concern. He suggested that Section 18-36(b)(1) be
amended as follows:
IVO/
November 2; 1989 Page 4
"No reasonable alternative public road alignment available to the.
subdivider would alleviate significant degradation of the environment...."
He also suggested adding to the existing Subdivision Ordinance "some
phrasing in the paragraph where you now limit the number of lots that
can be developed to 20 lots on a road to something along the effect of
(the following):"
Add to the end of Section 18-36(e)(4):
However, if such road is existing on the date of this amendment, the
Commission may condition approval of additional lots to be served
by such road upon improvements less than such applicable secondary
road standards where improvement in accordance with such standards
would significantly degrade the environment of the site or adjacent
properties, applying the standards set forth in 18-36(b)(1).
Mr. Bob McKee addressed the Commission. He stated he was concerned about
tying private road standards to public road standards. He felt
VDOT's current design standards, as well as proposed standards "are
driven pore by design speed, which in term is a function of projected
vehicular traffic counts rather than design quality." He felt the
County should .be considering amendments to any Ordinance which promotes
better design quality. He pointed out that VDOT standards do not allow
security devices, speed bumps, median plantings, special lighting or
pedestrian crossways in their right-of-way.without long-term bonding.
He felt some problems were more a result of the quality of the construction
materials and construction techniques rather than the width, steepness
or size of the turning radii. He suggested that the Ad Hoc Committee
consider increasing certain .standards, e.g. increase base material if
functionality or longevity is a concern.
Mr. Steven Key addressed the Commission. He felt the safeguards in place
now with the private road issue adequately guard the public. He noted
that public roads inherently produce smaller lot sizes which is contrary
to the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that VDOT currently reviews
plans in Albemarle County according to "rolling terrain" standards; he
suggested that if private roads are going to be disallowed, then review
should be allowed under the "mountainous terrain" standards. He felt
clarification of the environmental degradation question was a good step
in the right direction.
It was determined the changes suggested by M-r. Skove could not be
reviewed at this time because they had not been presented to staff and
undergone the usual process.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt staff's suggestion for an Aa floc Committee
was a good one and that the Committee should be composed of not only
Commission members, but also Board representatives, public representatives,
and development community representatives. He asked that staff send
a memorandum to the Board explaining the idea of such a committee and
asking for their comments.
IM-0-7
November 2, 1989
Page 5
Mr. Stark moved that STA-89-2 to amend Section 18-36, Private Roaag,of
the Subdivision Ordinance, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as follows, and also that the Board be advised of the Commission's
plan to -form an Ad Hoc Committee to study the private roads issue further:
1. Amend 18-36(b)(1) as follows:
18-36(b)(1) gor proPerty zoned RA Rural Areas
the subdivider, in accordance with
Section 18-36 h of this --chapter.,
demonstrates to the reasonable
satisfaction of the commission
that:
- Approval of such. roads will
alleviate a clearly demonstrable
danger of significant degradation
to the environment of the site or
adjacent ro erties which would be
occasioned by the construction of
public roads in the same
alignments. For the purposes of
this provision in addition to such
other factors as the commission may
consider, "significant degradation"
shall _mean an increase of thirty
(30%) 2ercent in the total volume
of grading for construction of a
ublic road as compared to a
Private road; and
- No alternative public road
alignment would alleviate
significant degradation of the
environment; and
- No more lots are ro osed on such
Private road than could be realized
on a Public road due to
right-of-way dedication.
2. Repeal Section 18-36(c)(1).
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-89-05 - An amendment to Section 4.1 Area & Health Regulations related
to utilities to reflect the practical review process of the Virginid Depart-
ment of -Health.
1 AD
ZTA-89--06 An amendment to Section 4.2 Critical Slopes of the Zoning
Ordinance to more clearly reflect its original intent to control improvements '
and grading activity to steeper areas. Minimum building site areas are
more clearly defined by type of use.
AND
,I;VU 5
November 2, 1989
Page 6.'
ZTA-89-07 - An amendment to Section 4.7.2 Open Space - Character -''By
repealer of Section 4.7.3 Open Space - Character and adoption of Section
4.7.3 Open Space - Design Requirements.
Mr. Keeler initiated the discussion. He noted the following changes
in the proposed wording:
--In Section 4.2.3: Change beginning of first sentence to read --
"Except as otherwise permitted pursuant to 4.2.2 and
4.2.6, the provisions..."
--In Section 4.2.4.1: Begin the section with the following --
"Septic systerl location need not be restricted
to the approved building site; notaeyer no septic
system nor any portion...."
Mr. Keeler briefly explained the amendments.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed the
Commission and read the following statement:
LEAGL E OF
� OtiiIJN .
VOTERS
OF CH A_RLOTTESVII.LE &ALBS 1k_U= COT'_'1T=
November 2, 1989
TO; Albemarle County -lannln g Commission
FRCM: The League of ',omen•. Voters of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County
RE; Proposed %.Doing Text Amendments
Septic Disposal System, Critical Slopes and Open Space
The League commends the Planning Staff for its work _n
analyzing current zoning ordinance provisions as they relate to
recommendations in the revised Comprehensive Flan and for
developing amendments that reflect the interrelationship among
septic system regulations, critical slopes and open space.
We believe that, although all the Proposed changes and/or re-
organizations are needed, the amendments for "Critical Scopes"
especially emphasize the interrelationship of all three cf the
elements under consideration..
We support all the proposed amendments. However, we do have
some questions and comments.
1. Section 4.2.2.1 Building Sites.
In order to remove any doubt as to the location of a
septic drainfield on a building site, we believe that the location
of drainfietds should be noted not only on the plat, as required
by Section 4.C2 of the Virginia Health Department's Sewage nandlina
and Disposal Recuations, but it should also be indicated or. the
building perrait. Without a requireme..t that the location be on t e
bu4ldir_c perr,it, the Board of `Zoning A_peals will continue, as it
does now, to receive requests for variances because the buildings
have encroached 'apon the approved drainfi.eld or have been
restricted by slopes greater than 2C-25%.
,4,20
November 2, 1989
Page 7
4
2. Section 4.2.5.1 Modifications of Regulations.
The paragraph states that the County Engineer should
"evaluate the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water
pollution" in accord with the Highway Department Is drainage manual,
the state erosion and sedimentation handbook and Best Management
Practices of the State Water Control Board. Should (s)he not also
use the Runoff Control Ordinance, when appropriate?" Even though,
as far as we know, revisions recommended in 1982 by the "208" study
have. not been implemented, that ordinance is still a tool in
evaluating the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, and
pollution in our water supply reservoirs.
3. Section 4.7.3.3 Open Space - Design Requirements
We are puzzled as to why major public utility easements
are omitted in the 80% limitation. They are included in the
current ordinance's Section 4.7.3, where the minimum open space
requirement is 30%. Is there a specific reason for the omission?
As we have reviewed these recommendations, we have been struck
by the importance of having an adequate, well -trained staff to
inspect developments to ensure that these provisions are enforced.
We believe the reasons cited by the staff for the proposed changes
are valid, and we urge their adoption, but we also believe that
their adoption entails financial commitment for enforcement. We
will remind the Board of Supervisors of the need to fund an
adequate staff, but we also urge you to be "up front" in
recognizing that the County will need to pay trained, competent
people to make some of the technical judgments required.
Mr. Bowerman asked staff to respond to.the League's suggestions.
Mr. Keeler commented:
--Re: Section 4.2.2.1 - "That's up to the Director of Inspections;
We have nothing to do with building permits or what information
is shown on that." Mr. Rittenhouse felt this was already a
part of the approval process. Mr. -Keeler stated he would
meet with the Director of Inspections to check into this more
thoroughly..
--Re: Section 4.2.5.1 - He suggested that the following be added at
the end of the paragraph: "...Best Management Practices, and where
applicable Chapter 19.1, Article 2, Protection of Public Drinking
Water, Code of Albemarle."
--Re: Section 4.7.3.3 - "I can't think of a good reason why you
would want to exclude major public utility easements from the
open space --that's where you'd really want them."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark moved that ZTA-89-05, to amend Section 4.1 Area & Health Regulations,
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows:
�O�
November 2, 1989 Page 8
ARTICLE II. BASIC REGULATIONS
4.0 GENERAL REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise specifically provided, the
following general regulations shall apply.
4.1 AREA AND HEALTH REGULATIONS RELATED TO UTILITIES
(amended 6-3-81)
The following regulations shall apply to all
districts:
4.1.1' For a parcel served by both a central water
supply and a central sewer system, the minimum
area requirements of the district in which such
parcel is located shall apply.
4.1.2 For a parcel served by either a central water
supply or a central sewer system, there shall be
provided a minimum area of forty thousand (40,000)
square feet per commercial or industrial
establishment or per dwelling unit as the case may
be.
4.1.3 For a parcel served by neither a central water
supply nor a central sewer system, there shall be
provided a minimum area of sixty thousand (60,000)
square feet per commercial or industrial
establishment.or per dwelling unit as the case may
be.
4.1.4 The provisions of sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 not
withstanding, in such cases where a greater
minimum area is required by the regulations of the
district in which the parcel is located, said
district regulations shall apply.
4.1.5 In the case of unusual soil conditions
or other physical factors which my impair the
health and safety of the neighborhood, upon the
recommendation of the Virginia Department of
Health, the commission may increase the area
requirements for uses utilizing other than a
public sewer system.
0
November 2, 1989 Page 9
4.1.6 For lots not served by a central sewer system, no
building permit shall be issued for any building
or structure, the use of which involves sewage
disposal, without written approval from the local
office of the Virginia Department of Health of the
location and area for both original and future
replacement septic disposal fields adequate to
serve such use. For residential usage, at a
minimum each septic dis osal field shall consist
of suitable soils of adequate_ area to accommodate
sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling
as determined by current regulations of the
virainia nenart.ment of Health.
4.1.7 In a cluster development, open space may be used
for septic field location only after the septic
field locations on such lot are determined to be
inadequate by the local office of the Virginia
Department of Health. (Added 6-3-81)
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which gassed unanimously.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that ZTA-89-06, to amend Section 4.2 Critical
Slopes of the Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval as follows:
November 2, 1989
Page 10
4.2
CRITICAL SLOPES
These provisions are
comprehensive plan by
steep hillsides taget
created to implement the
protecting and conserving
her with public drinking
water supplies and flood lain areas ana in
recognition of increased potential for soil
erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic
disposal problems associated with the development
of those areas described in the comprehensive plan
as critical slopes. It -is hereby recognized that
such development of critical'slopes may result in:
rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and
rock; excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of
natural and man -:Wade bodies of water; loss of
aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic
system failure, a greater travel -distance of
septic effluent, all of which constitute potential
r
dangers to the public health, safety and/o
welfare. These provisions are intended to direct
building and septic system locations to terrain
more suitable to development and to discourage
development on critical slopes, and to supplement_
other re ulations regarding protection off
water supplies and encroachment of develo ment
into flood lains.
Where modification of,re ulations is sought
pursuant to 4.2.5 such reguest shall address
concern specified in 4.2.
4.2.1 BUILDING SITE REQUIRED
No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1)
building site. For purposes of this section, the
term "building site" shall mean a contiguous area
of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25)
percent as determined by reference to either
topographic quadrangle maps of the Geological
Survey - U.S. Department of Interior (contour
interval twenty {20) feet) or.a source determined
by the county engineer to be superior accuracy,
exclusive of:
such area as may be located in the flood
hazard overlay district or which is located
under water;
^' y
November 2, 1989 Page 11
- such area as may be located within two
hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one
hundred year flood plain of any public
drinking water impoundment or within one
hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of
any tributary stream to such impoundment.
(Amended 11-11-87)
4.2.2 AREA REGULATIONS
Area regulations for building sites shall conform
to the following:
4.2.2.1 For uses not served by a central sewerage system
the following shall apply:
a) For each dwelling unit served by other than a
central sewerage system, the building site
shall have an area of thirty thousand
(30,000) square feet or greater and shall be
of 'such dimension th4t no one dimension shall
exceed any other by a ratio of more than five
(5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle
inscribed within the building site. Such
building site shall have adequate area for
location of two (2) septic drain fields as
approved by the Virginia Department of Health
i:n -accordance with 4.1 of this ordinance for
each dwellipq unit.
b) For development subject to review under
Section 32.0 of this ordinance the building
site shall have an area of thirty thousand
(30,000) square feet or greater and shall be
of such dimension that no dimension shall
exceed any other by a ratio of more than five
(5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle
inscribed within the building site. Such
buildings site shall have adequate area to
accommodate all buildings and structures
septic drainf ields as -approved by the
vir inia Department of Health in accordance
with 4.1 of this ordinance arking and
loadina areas storage yards and other
improvements together with any
earth disturbing activity necessary to
accommodate such improvements.
These provisions shall not apply to accessways,
public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater
management facilities and the like necessary to
provide reasonable usage of the property where
November 2, 1989
Page 12
im
no reasonable alternative location or
alignment exists. The county engineer shall
require such 2rotective and restorative measures
as he deems necessary to insure that such
development will be consistent with the intent of
Section 4.2.
4.2.2.2 For a use served by a central sewer system, the
applicant shall demonstrate that the building.site
is of adequate area for the proposed development:
a) For residential development, the buildin
site shall be of ade uate area to accommodate
the proposed residential unit(s) together
with an area equivalent to the sum of the
applicable re fired yard areas of the zoning
district In which such property is situated.
Where parking is provided in bays, such
parking area shall also be included in the
building site;
b) For development subiect to review_undex
Section 32.0 of this ordinance the building
site shall be of adequate area to accommodate
all buildings and structuresparking and
loading areas, storage Yards and other
im rovements together with an
earthdisturbing activity necessary to
accommodate such im rovements.
These Provisions shall not apply to accesswa s
ublic _ut-j"-'jtv lines and appurtenances, stormwater
management facilities and the like necessary to
Provide reasonable usage of the property where no
reasonable alternative location or alignment
exists. The county engineer.shall require such
protective and restorative measures as he deems
necessary to insure that such develo ment will be
consistent with the intent of section 4.2.
4.2.3 LOCATION OF STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Except as otherwise Permitted pursuant to 4.2_.2 and 4.2.6
the provisions of this section shall apply to the
location of any structure for which a permit is
required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code
and to any improvement shown on a site development
4-7 55 n of i-hi-, ordinance.
a/o
November 2, 1989
Page 13
4.2.3.1 No seek structure or -improvement shall
be located on any lot or parcel in any area other
than a building site.
4.2.3.2 No such structure or improvement nor
earthdistgKpi
Lnq-activity to establish such
structure or improvement shall be located on
slopes.of twenty-five (25) percent or greater
except as otherwise permitted under section
4.3.01.
4.2.4 LOCATION -OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS (Amended 111-I1-87)
4.2.4.1 Septic system location need not be restricted to the approved
building.si.te; however no septic system nor any portion thereof'
shall be located in any of the following:
any area with slopes of twenty-five (25)
percent of greater as determined by reference
to either topographic guadrangle maps of the
Geological Survey - U.S. Department of
Interior (contour interval twenty {20) feet)
or a source determined by the county engineer
to be of superior accuracy, -or;
any area as may be located in the flood
hazard overlay fistrict or which is located
under water, or;
any area as may be located within two hundred
(200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year
flood plain of any public drinking water
• impoundment or within one hundred (100)
horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary
stream to such impoundment. (Added 11-11-87)
4.2.4.2 In the review for and issuance of a permit for the
installation of a septic system, the Virginia
Department of Health shall be mindful of the
intent of this section, and particularly mindful
of the intent to discourage.location of septic
tanks and/or drain fields on slopes of twenty (20)
percent or greater. (Amended 11-11-87)
4.2.5 MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS
.As part of the review of any plat of subdivision
or site development plan, the commission may
modify any regulations and requirements of this
section in a particular case, subject to the
following limitations, procedures _ and findings:
• November 2, 1989
Page 14
4.2.5.1 A develo er requesting such modification
shall file a written request in accordance with
Section 32.3.11.4 of this ordinance and shall in
such request address each concern.setforth in 4.2.
No such modification shall be granted until the
recommendation of the agent shall have been
considered by the commission. The agent in
formulating such recommendation may consult with
the county engineer, Virginia Department of
Health Watershed Management Official and other
appropriate officials. The county engineer shall
evaluate the 2otential for soil erosion
sedimentation and water pollution in accord with
current provisions of the VDOT Drainage Manual
the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook and Virginia State Water Control
Board Best Management Practices, and where app$icable'Chapter 19.1,
Article 2, Protection of Public Drinking Water; Code of Albemarle.,
4.2.5.2 The commission may modify, waive or vary an
requirement of Section 4.2 in a 2articular case
upon finding that:
a) strict a22lication of the.recruirements of
Section 4.2 would not forward the purDo8es of
this ordinance or otherwise serve the public
interest or that alternatives Proposed by the
developer would satisfy the purposes of
Section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
or
b) due to its unusual size,'topography, shape of
the property, location of the property or
other unusual conditions excluding the
proprietary interest of the developer, the
requirements of Section 4.2 would effectively
prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of
the property or would result in significant
degradation of the site or adjacent
properties. Such modification waiver, or
variance shall not be detrimental to the
ublic health safety or welfare to the
orderly development of the area or to
adjacent Properties, or to sound engineering
practice;- or
c) granting such modification waivers, or
variance would serve a public Purpose of
greater import than would be served by strict_
application of Section 4.2.
4.2.5.3 In granting such modification, waiver, or
variance, the commission may impose such
conditions as it deems necessary to protect the
public interest and to insure such development
will be consistent with the intent of Section 4.2.
November 2, 1989 Page 15
4
4.2.6 EXEMPTIONS
4.2.6.1 Any structure which was lawfully in existence
prior to the effective date of this ordinance and
which is nonconforming solely on the basis of the
requirements of section 4.2, may be expanded,
enlarged, extended, modified and/or reconstructed
as though such structure were a conforming
structure. For the purposes of this section, the
term "lawfully in existence" shall also apply to
any structure for which a site development plan
was approved or a building permit was issued prior
to the effective date of this ordinance, provided
such plan or permit has not expired.
4.2.6.2 Any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a
lot of record on the effective date of this
ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements of
section 4.2 for the establishment of the first
single --family detached dwelling unit or such lot
or parcel; provided that section 4.2.3.2 shall
apply to such lot or parcel if the same shall
contain adequate land are in slopes or less than
twenty-five (25)•percent for the location of such
structure. For thoe purposes of this section a
mobile home shall be deemed a single-family
detached dwelling unit.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimou6ly.
Mr. Jenkins moved that ZTA-89--07, to amend Section 4.7.2
repealer of Section 4.7.3 and adoption of Section 4.7.3
Requirements, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
follows:
Open Space, by
Open Space - Design
for approval as
I=V/3
November 2, 1989 Page 16
M
CURRENT
4.7.1 OPEN SPACE, INTENT
Open space provisions are intended to encourage
development approaches reflective of the
guidelines of the comprehensive plan by permitting
flexibility in design. More specifically, open
space is intended to serve such varied
comprehensive plan objectives as:
- provision of active/passive recreation;
- protection of areas sensitive to development;
- buffering between dissimilar uses; and
- preservation of agricultural activity.
To this end, in any rezoning, subdivision plat, or
site development plan proposing inclusion of open
space areas, the commission shall consider the
appropriateness of such areas for the intended
usage in terms of such factors -as location, size,
shape and topographic characteristics.
4.7.2 USES PERMITTED IN OPEN SPACE
Unless otherwise permitted by the commission.in a
particular case, open space shall be maintained in
a natural state and shall not be developed with
any man-made feature. Where deemed appropriate by
the commission, open space may be used for one or
more of the following uses subject to the
regulations of the zoning district in which the
development is located:
agriculture, forestry and fisheries including
appropriate structures;
Game preserves, wildflife sanctuaries and the
like;
- Noncommercial recreational structures and uses;
Public utilities..;
- Wells and septic systems for emergency uses
only (reference 4.1.7) (Amended 6-3-81).
Stormwater detention and flood control devices.
November 2, 1989 Page 17
S.
4.7.3 OPEN SPACE, CHARACTER
In such case where open space is required by
provisions of this ordinance, not mote that thirty
(30) percent of such minimum required open space
shall consist of the one hundred year flood plain,
lands in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or
greater, public Utility easements; stormwater
detention and flood control devices; and lands
classified as having permanent or seasonally high
water tables.
4.7.4 OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE
Open space in private ownership shall be protected
by legal arrangements sufficient to ensure its
maintenance and preservation for purposes for
which it is intended. Such arrangements shall be
subject to commission approval as a part of the
site development plan and/or subdivision plat
approval process.
Open space may be dedicated to public use subject
to approval and acceptance by separate resolution
of the board of supervisors. Open space so
dedicated shall be counted as a part of the
minimum required open space.
PROPOSED
4.7.3 OPEN SPACE - DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
4.7.3.1 In addition to provision of 4.7.1 and 4.7.
review of any development proposing i.ncorr.
of open space, the Commission may require
inclusion in such oven spaceof:
- Areas deemed i
to development
l Ana i n nnc-1h11
s; iana in s
of 25% or neater; major public utility
easements; stormwater detention and flood
control devices; and lands having permanent
or seasonally high water tables.
Areas to satisfy provisions of 4.16
RECREATION REGULATIONS
IVi.5
\ovember 2, 1989
Page 18
Areas to provide reasonable bufferin2 between
dissimilar uses within such development and
between such development and adjoining
nronerties.
4.7.3.2 The commission maky require redesign of such
pro osed development to accommodate open space
areas as may be required under this provisioniL
rovided that in no.case shall such redesign
result in reduction of the total number of
proposed dwelling units otherwise realizable under
this ordinance for conventional development.
4.7.3.3 In such case where open space is re uired b
provisions of this ordinance not more that eighty
80percent of such minimum required open space
shall consist of the following:
a) Land located within the one -hundred 100)
year flood plain and;
b) Land subject to occasional common or
frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil
and Water Features of the United States
De artment of Agriculture Soil conservation
Service_, Soil Survey of Albemarle County,
Virginia, Au ust 1985; and
c) Land in slo es of twenty-five 25 ercent or
greater; and
d) Land devoted to stormwater or flood control
devices except where such feature is
incor prated into a permanent pond, lake or
other water feature deemed by the Commission
to constitute a desirable open space amenity.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Canterbury Hills Sewer Collector - Mr. reeler very briefly informed the
Commission of the routing of the sewer line. No action was required of
the Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
DS
c;-,,/k