HomeMy WebLinkAboutCty of Alb 98 Devel Activi Rept
Prepared by
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
Office of Happing, Graphics and Information Resources
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
(804) 296-S823
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT
Residential Building Permits
Residential building permits issued in 1998 totaled 874 dwelling units. This number is consistent with
a level of building activity observed since 1990. The only deviation from this trend occurred in 1995
when only 596 building permits were issued.
· Of the 874 new housing starts in 1998, 588 dwelling units (67%) were located in Designated
Development Areas and 286 dwelling units (33%) were located in the Rural Areas.
· Residential building permits issued in 1998 were composed of the following types of dwelling
units:
64 % conventional single-family detached
7 % single-family attached
5 % single-family townhouse
21% multi-family units
2 % mobile homes located throughout the County
· Of the 559 single-family detached building permits issued, 53%, or 296, were in the Development
Areas and 47%, or 263 in the Rural Areas.
· Mobile homes accounted for 6% (18 total) of all building permits issued for dwelling units in the
Rural Areas - downfrom 8% in 1997.
· Accessory apartments accounted for 1% (8 total) of building permits issued for dwelling units in
1998.
Residential Subdivisions
· 126 subdivision plats were signed in 1998 creating 435 new lots.
· Of the 435 new tots created, 244 (56%) were located in the Designated Growth Areas and 191
(44%) were located in the Rural Areas.
· 103 (54%) of new Rural Area lots were development right lots of less than 21 acres.
The average lot size of the 435 new lots created in 1998 increased significantly to 6.24 acres from
3.81 acres in 1997. In 1998 the average new lot size in the Designated Development Areas (244
lots) remained relatively the same at 1.20 acres, but the average new lot size in the Rural Areas
(191 lots) increased to 12.67 acres.
Site Development Plans
· Three major residential site development plans were signed in 1998 representing 204 multi-family
and duplex units.
33 major non-residential site development plans were signed in 1998. These plans represented
201,219 square feet of commercial/retail services space, 24,000 square feet of industrial space,
237,708 square feet of office space, and 179,757 square feet of public/institutional space.
Land Use Taxation and Agricultural/Forestal Districts
Landowners have enrolled 21% of the Designated Development Areas and 69% of the Rural Areas
in the land use taxation program as of December 31, 1998. The total area in the land use taxation
program comprises approximately 66% of Albemarle County.
Currently, (including changes that occurred in 1998), the land area voluntarily enrolled by rural
landowners in agricultural and forestal districts represents approximately 12% of Albemarle
County's total land area.
Zoning
A total of 250.65 acres were rezoned in 1998. One development, in Neighborhood Two, Still
Meadow, accounted for 142 acres of the total rezoned. Another, in the Crozet Community,
Grayrock, accounted for 53.02 acres of rezoned land.
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a total of 26 variances of zoning regulations in 1998.
Setback variances comprised the largest category of variances with 20 setback variances approved
in 1998.
· A total of 37 special use permits were approved in 1998. The most prominent types of special use
permits were miscellaneous commercial and communication tower uses.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. ~TRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
II. RESIDENTIAL ACTMTY .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
C.
BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................2
OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................. 2
BUILDING PERMITS BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA ..................................................... 2
BUILDING PERMITS BY DWELLING UNIT TYPE .......................................................................................... 5
BUILDING PERMITS BY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ....................................................................................... 5
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ACTIVITY COMPARISON ..................................................................................... 5
SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY ..................................................................................................................... 10
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 10
ANALYSIS OF SIGNED PLATS .................................................................................................................... 10
HISTORIC COMPARISON OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY - SIGNED PLATS ..................................................... 13
SIGNED PLATS - PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE ROADS ......................................................................................... 13
DEDICATION OF COMMON OPEN SPACE .................................................................................................. 17
RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 17
SITE PLAN ACTIVITY ........................................................................................................................... 18
III. INVENTORY OF LAND USE ..................................................................................................................... 23
IV. ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODIFICATIONS .......................................................... 31
A. 1998 REZONING ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................. 31
B. VARIANCES OF ZONING REGULATIONS ....................................................................................... 31
C. SPECIAL USE PERMITS APPROVED IN 1998 .................................................................................. 31
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODIFICATIONS IN 1998 .......................................................................... 36
V. APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
111
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1
Table 2-2:
Table 2-3:
Table 2-4:
Table 2-5:
Table 2-6:
Table 2-7:
: Comprehensive Plan Area - Actual Dwellings Summary, 1994-1998 .................................................. 3
Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area by Building Permits Issued in 1998 ............................. 4
Number of Dwelling Units by Magisterial District by Building Permits Issued in 1998 ..................... 7
Building Permit Activity Comparison, 1992-1998 ............................................................................... 8
Total Number of New Dwelling Units from Building Permits Issued, 1979-1998 .............................. 9
Residential Subdivision Activity in 1998 - Signed Plats .................................................................... 11
Distribution by Size (Acreage) Based on Signed Plats Located in the Rural Areas, 1996-1998 ........ 12
Table 2-8: Changes in Subdivision Activity, 1987-1998 - Signed Plats .............................................................. 14
Table 2-9: Rural Area Average Lot Size, 1995-1998 (development right lots) ................................................... 15
Table 2-10:1998 Signed Plats - New Public and Private Roads .......................................................................... 16
Table 2-11: Dedication of Common Open Space - 1998 ..................................................................................... 19
Table 2-12: Rural Preservation Developments, 1990-1998 ................................................................................. 20
Table 2-13: Major Residential Site Plans Approved in 1998 ............................................................................... 21
Table 2-14: Major Non-residential Site Plans Approved in 1998 ........................................................................ 22
Table 3-1: Residential Land Use Summary, 1998 ................................................................................................ 25
Table 3-2:
Table 3-3:
Table 3-4:
Table 3-5:
Table 4-1:
Table 4-2:
Table 4-3:
Table 4-4:
Commercial and Industrial Land Use Summary, 1998 ....................................................................... 26
Acreage in Land Use Taxation by Year and Land Use Type, 1982-1998 .......................................... 27
Estimate of Distribution of County Land Under Land Use, 1998 ......................................................28
Agricultural/Forestal Districts ............................................................................................................. 29
Approved Zoning Map Amendments, 1998 ....................................................................................... 32
Variances Approved in 1998 .............................................................................................................. 33
Special Use Permits Approved in 1998 by Comprehensive Plan Area ............................................... 34
Special Use Permits Approved in 1998 by Zoning District ................................................................ 35
iv
I. INTRODUCTION
The Development Activity Report is an annual review of the residential, commercial, and industrial
development applications approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission,
Board of Zoning Appeals, Department of Planning and Community Development, and Building Codes and
Zoning Services. This review in no way represents actual development in the County, it simply reflects
serious development interests.
Throughout the year, numerous actions are taken regarding building permits, subdivision plats, site
development plans, and changes to zoning regulations. This report tracks these actions and analyzes where
trends of two or more years are occurring. The location of new residential and commercial interest is not
only important to planners, but is also useful information for those involved in rural preservation,
commercial development, or marketing activities.
In June of 1996, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the 1996-2016 Land Use Plan. This
Land Use Plan is similar in many ways to the previous Plan. However, the Villages of Earlysville and
North Garden were eliminated in the Plan as Designated Development Areas. Development information
for these eliminated areas has been incorporated in information about Rural Areas 1 and 3, respectively.
It is important to point out that an amendment to the Plan, approved in December of 1989, created the
Village of Rivanna Development Area. In this report, some of the data previously attributed to Rural Area
4 is now shown as belonging to the Village of Rivanna. Additions have also been made to the
Development Areas of Piney Mountain and Hollymead. Piney Mountain was upgraded from a Village
designation to a Community. It is also important to note that the Community of Scottsville Development
Area was eliminated with the adoption of the 1996-2016 Comprehensive Plan since a significant portion
of the Area was incorporated into the Town of Scottsville by boundary adjustment on January 1, 1994.
This report is divided into three major sections. The first section addresses residential development by
analyzing where building permit, subdivision, and site plan activity has occurred. The next section
describes inventories of residential, commercial, and industrial zoned land along with the distribution of
County land in preferential land use taxation. The third section presents zoning map amendments and
zoning variances, the tracking of special use permits, and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
As in past reports, one purpose of the Development Activity Report is to evaluate the effectiveness of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, adopted December 10, 1980. An objective of the Zoning Ordinance
is to encourage development in the Designated Development Areas (these specific Development Areas are
described in detail in the Comprehensive Plan). While the Comprehensive Plan outlines goals and
objectives for effectively managing Albemarle County's growth, the Zoning Ordinance provides the legal
structure by which the goals and objectives are accomplished. For the purposes of this report, 1998
development activity comparisons will be made to the 1996-2016 Land Use Plan.
II.
RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY
BU-rLDIItlG P~CRM_rT ACTIV_rTY
Overview
The annual number of new residential dwelling units is an important indicator of growth in a locality. For
this report, the number of building permits issued for new residential structures is a measure of new
dwelling units to be built in Albemarle County. Though the total level of activity from one year to the next
is ascertained from building permit volumes, the distribution of new housing by location and by type can
also be analyzed from information provided on a permit. The location and type of dwelling relative to
existing utilities, public facilities, and infrastructure provides direction for long-term planning efforts.
2. Building Permits by Comprehensive Plan Development Area
In 1998, the number of new dwelling units from building permits totaled 874 (see Table 2-1). This total
represents a decrease of 31 dwelling units from the 1997 total of 905. Overall, (with the exception of 1995
when only 596 permits were issued), the total number of building permits issued in 1998 is consistent with
the rate of building activity observed since 1990.
Designated Development Areas (Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages) accounted for 67% of all new
dwelling units in 1998. The Urban Area, consisting of Urban Neighborhoods 1-7, accounted for 42% (367
units) of the total 874 new dwelling units in 1998, the same as last year. Of the 367 new units located in
the Urban Area, 177 were located in Urban Neighborhood 3 and 69 new units were located in Urban
Neighborhood 2 (see Table 2-2).
The Community of Hollymead continues to show a significant amount of new dwelling unit building
activity. In 1998, Hollymead accounted for 96 (11%) of the County's total new dwelling units. This made
it the second largest concentration, after Urban Neighborhood 3, of new building activity. The proportion
of total new dwellings in the designated Communities has remained fairly constant since 1990. The
average number of new dwelling units within the Communities between 1992 and 1998 is 171 units per
year- there were 158 new units permitted in 1998.
The adoption of the revised Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan in June 1996 eliminated
two Village designations leaving only one Village in the Plan (Rivanna). The number of dwelling units
from building permits in the Village of Rivanna, with the continued expansion of the Glenmore
subdivision, accounted for 63 total new dwelling units permitted.
In the Rural Areas, the percentage of residential building permits issued accounted for 33% (286 units) of
all permits issued within the County. This represents an increase from 30% percent in 1997, but a
significant decrease from 42% in 1995. Although the total number of building permits issued throughout
the County in 1995 was low, building activity was focused in the Designated Development Areas. This
allowed the total number of dwelling units built in the Rural Areas to stay relatively constant - 272 units
in 1997, 231 units in 1996, 253 units in 1995, and 239 units in 1994.
TABLE 2-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA - ACTUAL DWELLINGS SUMMARY
1994-1998
ACTUAL DWELLINGS AND DISTRIBUTION
(from Building Reports)
COMP PLAN AREA 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Urban Areas 450 48% 158 27% 401 48% 376 42% 367 42%
Communities 173 18% 137 23% 140 17% 195 22% 158 18%
~/illages 77 8% 48 8% 63 8% 62 7% 63 7%
Rural Areas 239 25% 253 42% 231 28% 272 30% 286 33%
TOTAL 939 100% 596 100% 835 100% 905 100% 874 100%
1
TABLE 2-2
DWELLING UNITS BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
BY BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN 1998
% OF
COMP PLAN AREA SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MH AA TOTAL UNITS TOTAL
URBAN RURAL UNITS
Urban Neighborhood 1 3 0 0 0 20 0 0 23 2.6%
Urban Neighborhood 2 31 4 34 0 0 0 O: 69 7.9°/<
Urban Neighborhood 3 10 3 0 0 164 0 0 177 20.3%
Urban Neighborhood 4 40 8 0 0 0 0 0 48 5.5%I
Urban Neighborhood 5 30 6 0 0 0 0 0 36 4.1%
Urban Neighborhood 6 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 1.6%
Urban Neighborhood 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Crozet Community 34 14 01 0 0 0 0 48 5.5%
H ollymead Community 74 12 8 0 0 0 2 96 11.0%
Piney Mountain Community 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 14i 1.6%
Rivanr~a Village 62 0 0i 0 0 0 1 63 7.2%
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 298 63 42 0 184 0 3 588 67.3%
Rural Area 1 74 0 0 0 01 3 2 79 9.0%
Rural Area 2 46 0 0 0 01 5 2 53' 6.1%
Rural Area 3 80 0 0 0 0 0 I81 9,3%
Rural Area 4 63 0 0 0 0 10 0 73 8.4%
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 263 0 0 0 0 18 5 286 32.7%
TOTAL 559 63 42 0 184 18 8 874 100,0%
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING:
SF- Single-Family (includes Modular) DUP- Duplex AA-Accessory Apartment
SFA- Single-Family Attached MF- Multi-Family
SF/TH- Single-Family Townhouse MH- Mobile Home
4
3. Building Permits by Dwelling Unit Type
As in previous years, the highest percentage of 1998 residential building permit activity occurred in the
category of single-family detached homes, including modular homes (see Table 2-2). In 1998, 64% (559
units) of all building permits issued for dwelling units were for single-family homes. Single-family
detached homes as a percentage of total dwelling units increased by three percent from 1997. In the Rural
Areas, 92% of all dwelling units were single-family homes. In the Designated Development Areas, 50%
of all dwelling units were single-family detached homes.
The total number of single-family attached dwelling units increased from 56 units in 1997 to 63 units in
1998. The Crozet and Piney Mountain Communities each accounted for 22% of the 63 new single-family
attached units. Of all building permits issued for dwelling units in Albemarle County, 7% were for single-
family attached units.
The total number of single-family townhouses increased to 42 units in 1998 from 32 units in 1997. Urban
Neighborhood 2 had the largest concentration of new single-family townhouses (81%) as it did in 1997.
Of all building permits issued for dwelling units in Albemarle County, 4% were for single-family
townhouses.
A total of 184 permits were issued in 1998 for multi-family dwelling units (21% of 874 total dwelling
units). In 1997, 208 permits were issued; in 1996, 226 permits (27 percent) were issued; and in 1995 there
were no building permits issued for multi-family dwelling units, which was unusual. The vast majority
(164 units or 89% of all multi-family units) of permits issued for multi-family dwelling units in 1998 were
located in Urban Neighborhood 3.
4. Building Permits by Magisterial District
The magisterial district boundaries used in this report are those which were revised on May 15, 1991, as
a result of the release of the Census Bureau population figures for Albemarle County (see reference map
in Appendix). Of the six (6) magisterial districts, the Rivanna district recorded the highest level of
residential building activity in 1998 with 476 new dwelling units, accounting for 54% of all new dwelling
units (see Table 2-3). The White Hall district recorded the second highest level of residential building
activity in 1998 with 132 new dwelling units, accounting for 15% of all new dwelling units. The Jack
Jouett district had the lowest level of residential construction with 2% (14 units) of the total number of new
dwelling units in Albemarle County in 1998.
5. Residential Building Activity Comparison
The average number of total dwelling units for which building permits were issued between 1992 and 1997
was 831 units (see Table 2-4). The 1998 total of 874 units represents an average year for building activity
as compared to the seven-year average.
In the Urban Area (Neighborhoods 1-7), Neighborhoods 2 and 3 account for the largest amount of building
activity. Among the Communities, the Community of Hollymead continues to account for the majority of
the residential building activity. On average, over a seven-year period, the Community of Hollymead has
5
accounted for 64% of all residential building activity in the Communities. In 1998, Neighborhoods 2 and
3, the Community of Hollymead, and the Village of Rivanna accounted for 69% of all residential growth
in the Designated Development Areas.
The total number of new residential dwelling units located in the Rural Areas of the County increased from
272 in 1997 to 286 in 1998. This increase represents a trend which suggests a relative stabilization of the
number of new dwelling units in the Rural Areas. There had been a consistent downward trend in the total
number of dwelling units in the Rural Areas since 1987 when 427 new units were permitted in the Rural
Areas. Since 1992, total dwelling units in the Rural Areas have totaled between 231 and 286 dwelling units
annually.
Overall, the 874 building permits issued in 1998 for residential dwelling units represents an average year
for housing construction within the last ten years (see Table 2-5) as from 1989 to 1998, an average of 855
permits were issued annually.
6
TABLE 2-3
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS BY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BY BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN 1998
MAGISTERIAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MH AA TOTAL % OF TOTAL
DISTRICTS UNITS UNITS
Rio 13 0 0 0 20 0 0 33 4%
Jack J ouett 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 2%
Rivanna 227 33 42 0 164 5 5 476 54%
Samuel Miller 98 8 0 0 0 2 1 109 12%
Scottsville 94 8 0 0 0 8 0 110 13o/
/Vhite Hall 114 14 0 0 0 3 I 132 15%
TOTAL 559 63 42 0 184 18 8 874 100%
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING:
SF- Single-Family (includes Modular) DUP- Duplex AA- Accessory Apts
SFA- Single-Family Attached MF- Multi-Family
SF/TH- Single-Family Townhouse MH- Mobile Home
TABLE 2-4
BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY COMPARISON 1992-1998
COMP PLAN AREA 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL % OF
#UNITS #UNITS #UNITS #UNITS #UNITS #UNITS #UNITS #UNITSi TOTAL
Urban Neighborhood 1 1 60 0 0 0 48 23 132 2%
Urban Neighborhood 2 74 85 210 97 99 234 69 868 15%
Urban Neighborhood 3 144 1 4 0 20 5 177 351 6%
Urban Neighborhood 4 79 85 219 48 264 48 48 791 14%
Urban Neighborhood 5 24 20 14 11 15 36 36 156 3%
Urban Neighborhood 6 0 2 2 2 3 5 14 28 0%
Urban Neighborhood 7 66 12 1 0 0 0 0 79 1%
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL 388 265 450 158 401 376 367 2,405 41%
Crozet Community 51 72 40 35 37 59 48 342 6°,~
Hollymead Community 103 122 123 94 91 134 96 763 13%
Piney Mountain Community 46 1 10 8 12 2 14 93 2°,~
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL 200 195 173 137 140 195 158 1,198 21%
Rivanna Village 11 77 77 48 63 62 63 401 7%
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL 11 77 77 48 63 62 63 401 7%
IDEVELOPMENT AREA TOTAL 5991 5371 7001 3431 6041 6331 6881 4,0041 69°/ol
F~ural Area 1 57 63 65 68 57 77 79 466 8%
Rural Area 2 54 52 51 39 45 46 53 340 6%
Rural Area 3 85 80 68 69 75 66 81 52z 9%
Rural Area 4 71 73 55 77 54 83 73 486 8%
RURAL AREA TOTAL 2671 2681 2391 2531 2311 272J 2861 1,,8161 31°/0I
866 805 939 596 835 905 874 5,820 100%
TABLE 2-5
TOTAL NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS
FROM BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED
1979-1998
YEAR NUMBER OF # CHANGE FROM
DWELLING UNITS PREVIOUS YEAR
1979 585 ......
1980 583 -2
1981 598 15
1982 482 -116
1983 1,063 581
1984 725 -338
1985 714 -11
1986 737 23
1987 654 -83
1988' 673
1989 1,309 636
1990. 804 -505
1991 614 -190
1992 866 252
1993 805 -61
1994 939 134
1995 596 -343
1996 835 239
1997 905 .~'
1998i 874
TOTAL 15, 361
Average 1979-88 = 681 Dwelling Units/Year
Average 1989-98 = 855 Dwelling Units/Year
Average 1979-98 = 768 Dwelling Uni~/Year
SUBDIVI. qlOAI A CTIVITV
1. Methodology
For the purposes of this report, the definition of subdivision is limited to the division of a parcel of land,
including re-divisions, which results in at least one (1) new residential building lot. The creation of
condominium lots is separated from that of other residential lots in the analysis of this report.
Condominium lots do not include acreage as part of the individual lot; therefore, it would be misleading
to include them in calculations such as average lot size.
This section of the 1998 Development Activity Report examines the characteristics of new residential
building lots through subdivision activity during the year and includes data for plats signed for recordation.
Not all subdivision plats approved by the Planning Depamnent are subsequently recorded in the Courts,
therefore, adding together all current and historical new lots reported in this, and prior, Development
Activity Reports, would result in an over-estimation or "double counting" of the actual number of lots in
the County. Also, properties may be subject to repeated subdivision activity and therefore current and
historical acreage subdivided cannot be added, since this would result in over-estimation of total acreage
divided in the County.
2. Analysis of Signed Plats
In 1998, 126 residential subdivision plats were signed and 435 new lots were created (see Table 2-6). The
Designated Development Areas accounted for 22% of the signed plats, 56% of the new residential building
lots created, and 11% of the total acres subdivided in 1998. The major subdivisions in the Designated
Development Areas that contributed a significant number of new lots were Western Ridge in Crozet,
Glenmore in Rivanna Village, Forest Lakes South in Hollymead.
The Rural Areas accounted for 78% of the total number of residential subdivision plats signed, 44% of the
new lots created, and 89% percent of the total acreage subdivided in 1998 (see Table 2-6). The 98 new
subdivisions in the Rural Areas in 1998 is consistent with subdivision activity the County has experienced
since 1986. The number of new lots decreased slightly in the Rural Areas from 100 lots in 1997 to 98 lots
in 1998. However, the total acreage subdivided in the Rural Areas increased from 1,541 acres in 1997 to
2,421 in 1998.
The distribution of new Rural Area lots by size is shown in Table 2-7. Thirty-seven (37) percent of new
lots created were between 2 and 9.99 acres in size. A total of 43 new lots were created in the 2 to 4.99-acre
range, representing 23% of the total lots created in 1998. In the 5 to 9.99 acre range, 26 new lots were
created, accounting for 14% of the total. The percentage of new lots created in 1998 in excess of 21 acres
(46%) showed a significant increase from those created in 1997 (9%).
10
TABLE 2-6
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY IN 1998 -SIGNED PLATS
COMP PLAN AREA SUBDIVISIONS NEW LOTS TOTAL ACREAGE
# % # % Acres %
Urban Neighborhood 1 3 2.4% 7 1.6% 4.18 0.15%
Urban Neighborhood 2 1 0.8% I 0.2% 0.14 0.01%
Urban Neighborhood 3 8 6.3% 45 10.3% 173.45 6.39%
Urban Neighborhood 4 1 0.8% 1 0.2% 0.79 0.03%
Urban Neighborhood 5 I 0.8% 1 0.2%' 43.68 1.61%
Urban Neighborhood 6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00%
Urban Neighborhood 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00%
SUBTOTAL 14 11.1% 55 12.6% 222.24 8.19%
Crozet Community 4 3.2% 47 10.8% 17.33 0.64%
Hollymead Community 9 7.1% 91 20.9% 31.24 1.15%
Piney Mountain Community 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00%
SUBTOTAL 13 10.3% 138 31.7% 48.57 1.79%
Rivanna Village 1 0.8% 51 11.7% 22.13 0.82%
SUBTOTAL 1 0.8% 51 11.7% 22.13 0.82%
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 28 22.2% 244 56.1% 292.94 10.79%
Rural Area 1 26 20.6% 38 8.7% 399.24 14.71%
Rural Area 2 20 15.9% 27 6.2% 245.48 9.05%
Rural Area 3 29 23.0% 100 23.0% 1,499.63 55.26%
Rural Area 4 23 18.3% 26 6.0% 276.44 10.19%
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 98 77.8% 191 43.9% 2,420.79 89.21%
TOTAL 126 100.0% 435 100.0% 2,713.73 100.00%
]]
TABLE 2-7
DISTRIBUTION BY SIZE (ACREAGE)
BASED ON SIGNED PLATS
LOCATED IN THE RURAL AREAS, 1996-1998
1996 1997 1998
RANGE IN ACRES NEW LOTS % OF TOTAL NEW LOTS % OF TOTAL NEW LOTS % OF TOTAL
CREATED RURAL LOTS CREATED RURAL LOTS CREATED RURAL LOTS
Under 2.0 2 1% 0 0% 1 1%
2.0 to 4.99 33 22% 131 67% 43 23%
5.0 to 9.99 25 17% 34 17% 26 14%
10.0 to 20.99 34 23% · 13 7% 33 17%
21.0 and Over 54 36% 18 9% 88 46%
TOTAL 148 100% 196 100% 191 100%
3. Historic Comparison of Subdivision Activity - Signed Plats
The comparison of subdivision activity in 1998 to that of previous years is a useful tool for identifying
growth patterns (see Table 2-8). In 1998, there was a slight decrease in the total number of new residential
subdivision plats signed from 133 in 1997 to 126 in 1997 (see Table 2-8). There was also a decrease in the
total number of new residential building lots created through subdivision activity from 510 new lots in
1997 to 435 lots in 1998.
The Designated Development Areas accounted for 244 of the 435 new lots in 1998, which represents a
decrease of 70 lots from 1997. These account for 56% percent of total lots, a slight decrease from 62% in
1997. The total acreage subdivided in the Development Areas also decreased from 402 acres in 1997 to
293 acres in 1998. This decrease in acreage subdivided and decrease in the number of new lots created has
resulted in a lower average lot size for 1998 (1.20 acres vs. 1.28 acres in 1997). This new average,
however, is not as low as observed in previous years (0.63 in 1994, 0.78 in 1995 and 0.59 in 1996). Urban
Neighborhoods 1-7 accounted for 55 new lots, the Communities accounted for 138 new lots, and Rivanna
Village accounted for 51 new lots in 1998.
In the Rural Areas, the 191 new lots created in 1998 represent an decrease of only five (5) lots from the
1997 total of 196 new lots. The 191 new lots created by signed plat in 1998 are consistent with the trends
observed in previous years in the Rural Areas. From 1987 to 1998, many of the Rural Area subdivisions
created only one (1) or two (2) new lots each, and the average lot size tended to be larger, ranging from
7 to nearly 15 acres (see Table 2-8). In the years prior to 1987, the number of new lots created per
subdivision was relatively high (3 to 5 lots per subdivision), and the resulting average lot size tended to
be smaller. In 1995, the average lot size in the Rural Areas was 14.5 acres (the largest since tracking this
particular data set). The average lot size in the Rural Areas for 1998 was 12.67 acres.
The new average lot sizes for Rural Area lots created with development rights (excluding lots greater than
or equal to 21 acres), from 1995 to 1998 appear in Table 2-9. Average lot sizes, of those lots created with
development rights in the Rural Areas, have increased significantly. The only decrease, which is negligible,
occurred in Rural Area 4 where the average lot size decreased from 4.34 acres in 1997 to 4.29 acres in
1998.
4. Signed Plats - Public vs. Private Roads
Effective January 1, 1984, the provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance regarding private roads were
substantially amended to state that private roads would be the exception to public road construction in
subdivision developments. Prior to this amendment, the number of subdivisions on private roads was
higher than the number with public roads. After the amendment was enacted, the distribution of
subdivisions on public roads versus private roads generally began to favor public road development. In
1998, private road subdivision development exceeded public road subdivision development with only 11%
of all new subdivisions utilizing public roads while 89% involved private roads. No subdivisions utilized
both public and private roads. However, 58% of all new lots created were on public roads and 42% on
private (see Table 2-10).
13
TABLE 2-8
CHANGES IN SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY
~98~-~998 $iGNEID PLA'~s
COMP PLAN AREA 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
URBAN AREA
Subdivisions 8 22 15 17 26 26 32 28 20 21 15 14
New Lots 96 167 200 162 190 234 191 171 162 179 129 55
Acreage 48.00 183.00 144.00 348.00 48.00 160.00 130.00 100.76 218.00 91.95 297.24 222.24
* Average Lot Size 0.50 1.10 0.72 2.15 0.25 0.68 0.68 0.59 1.35 0.51 2.301 4.04
COMMUNITIES
I
Subdivisions 0 6 7 3 12 12 181 12 14 11 15 13
New Lots 0 207 42 14 125 127 272 135 208 40 143 138
Acreage 0.00 99.00 23.60 6,00 118.00 82.00 75.00 50.00 81.00 20.61 90.83 48.57
* Average Lot Size 0.00 0.48 0.56 0.43 0.94 0.65 0.28 0.37 0.39 0.5; 0.64 0.35
VILLAGES
Subdivisions 2 2 2 2 4 5 3 2 8 83'2 3 1
New Lots 29 3 2 27 16 314 20 2 73: 42 51
Acreage 56.00 40.00 4.17 14.00 11.00 169.00 9.00 43,00 46.00 64.00 13.51 22.13
* Average Lot Size 1.93 13.33 2.09 0.52 0.69 0.54 0.45 21.50 0.63 0.78 0.32 0.43
tOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Subdivisions 10 30 24 22 42 43 53 42 42 35 33 28
New Lots 125 377 244 203 331 675 483 308 443 301 314 244
Acreage 104.00 322.00 171.77 368.00 177.00 411.00 214.00 193.76 345.00 176.56 401.58 292.94
* Average Lot Size 0.83 0.85 0.70 1.81 0.53 0.61 0.44 0.63 0.78 0.59 1.28 1.20
;{URAL AREA 1
Subdivisionsl 37 36 29 31 18 20 33 30 26 18 22 26
Lots 701 135 59 82 42 27 70 87 37 28 26 38
New
Acreage 609.00 993.00 993.35 584.00 316,00 150.00 930.00 315.00 708.00 272.00 210.09 399.24
* Average Lot Size 8.70 7.36 16.84 7.12 7.52 5.56 13.29 3.62 19.14 9.71 8.08 10.51
F~URAL AREA 2
Subdivisions 16 23 26 27 25 25 21 21 13 18 17 2¢
New Lots 23 60 51 48 30 38 36 36 20 33 75 27
Acreage 136.00 649.013 785.64 672.00 510.00 280.00 428,00 428.00 294.00 416.00 502.67 245.4~
* Average Lot Size 5.91 10.82 15.40 14,00 17.00 7.37 11.89 11.89 14.70 12,61 6.70 9,0-q
F~URAL AREA 3
Subdivisions 35 33 34 37 34 44 34 33 28 27 33
New Lots 95 64 87 65 68 76 92 37 69 42 52 1
Acreage 671.00 515.00 862.12 733.00 550.00 873.00 460.00 794.00 732.00 313.00 461.89 1499.62
* Average Lot Size 7.06 8.05 9.91 11.28 8.09 11.49 5.00 21.46 10.61 7.45 8.88 15~00
RURAL AREA 4 33
Subdivisions 18 26 25 37 37 35 11 33 29 28 23
New Lots 24 28 72 50 48 50 75 19 56 45 43 26
Acreage 134,00 504.00 591.00 880.013 848.00 593.00 1387.00 254.00 910.00 546.00 366.72 276.44
* Average Lot Size 5.58 18.00 8.21 17.60 17.67 11.86 18.49 13.37 16.25 12.13 8.53 10.63
TOTAL RURAL AREAS
Subdivisions 106 118 114 128 114 126 123 95 100 92 100 98
New Lots 212 287 269 245 188 191 273 179 182 148 196 191
Acreage 1550.00 2661.00 3232.11 2869.00 2224.00 1896.00 3205.00 1791.00, 2644.00 1547.00 1541.37 2420.79
* Average Lot Size 7.31 9.27 12.02 11.71 11.83 9.93 11.74 10 01i 14.53 10.45 7.86 12.67
GRAND TOTAL
Subdivisions 116 148 138 150 156 169 176 137 142= 127 133 126
New Lots 337 664 513 448 519 866 756 487 625 449 510 435
Acreage 1654.00 2983.00 3403.88 3237.00 2401.00 2307.00 3419.00 1985.00 2989;013 1723.56 1942.95 2713.73
* Average Lot Size 4.91 4.49 6.64 7,23 4.63 2.66 4.52 4.08 4.78 3.84 3.81 6.24
* Average Lot Size is not an indication of density. For each subdivision approved by the Planning Department. "Average Lot Size" was determined by summing open
space acres and acreage in lots and dividing by the total number of new lots thereby resulting in a Iiigher density than may actually exist.
]4
TABLE 2-9
RURAL AREA AVERAGE LOT SIZE, 1995-1998'
(Development Right Lots)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1995 1996 1997 1998 CHANGE
AREA FROM 97-98
Rural Area I 6.69 ac. 7.42 ac. 3.53 ac. 5.49 ac, +1.96 ac.
Rural Area 2 4.31 ac. 9.11 ac. 4.91 ac. 5,27 ac. +0.36 ac.
Rural Area 3 4.14 ac. 5,20 ac. 5.88 ac. 8.84 ac. +2.96 ac.
Rural Area 4 5.09 ac. 4.84 ac. 4.34 ac. 4.29 ac. -0.05 ac.
* Average Lot Size is not an indication of density. For each subdivision approved by the Planning Department, "Average Lot Size" was determined by summing open
space acres and acreage in lots and dividing by the total number of new lots thereby resulting in a higher density than may actually exist.
TABLE 2-10
1998 SIGNED PLATS
NEW PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADS
CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS # %
# Subdivisions - Public Roads 4 11.43
# Subdivisions - Private Roads 31 88.57
# Subdivisions - Public / Private Roads 0 0.00
TOTAL 35 100
# New Lots - Public Roads 149 58.20
# New Lots - Private Roads 107 41.80
# New Lots - Public / Private Roads 0 0.00
TOTAL 256 100
]6
5. Dedication of Common Open Space
As part of the subdivision approval process, common open space is dedicated under provisions of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Common open space may be required for clustering; density
increases through bonus factors, and/or to satisfy conditions of a special use permit or rezoning. The
developer, as an amenity, may also provide common open space. Common open space may include both
active and passive non-commercial recreation facilities as well as a number of other uses as permitted by
Section 4.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, it does not include lands dedicated for public use or
public open space, (i.e. Parks). A total of 41.04 acres were dedicated in 1998 (see Table 2-11), which
represents a decrease of 8.44 acres from the 1997 dedication of 49.48 acres.
6. Rural Preservation Development
The Rural Preservation Development was created as an alternative to the conventional development
subdivision provisions set forth in Section 10 (Rural Areas District) of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance. The Rural Preservation Development option, added to the Zoning Ordinance in November
1989, is intended to encourage more effective land usage in terms of the goals and objectives for the Rural
Areas as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, in addition to the standard subdivision provisions,
which appear in the Zoning Ordinance, applications for Rural Preservation Developments are reviewed
for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; water supply protection; and/or
conservation of natural, scenic, or historic resources. There were no new Rural Preservation Developments
approved in 1998 (see Table 2-12).
17
C. $I 'E pi..4 N .4 CrI¥IrY
The approval of site development plans is another measure of growth in Albemarle County. This section
of the Development Activity Report examines the site development plans that were signed in 1998.
In 1998, three (3) residential site development plans totaling 204 new dwelling units were signed (see
Table 2-13). Of the total number of dwelling units approved, 189 were multi-family units (Carriage Hill
Apartments and Holtrust Apartments) and 15 were duplex units (Westminster Canterbury). The 204 units
approved by site development plan in 1998 represent a decrease of 124 units over the 1997 total of 328.
Major non-residential site development plans signed in 1998 appear in Table 2-14. A total of 33 major non-
residential site development plans were signed creating 642,684 square feet of commemial/retail, office,
or public/institutional construction. Of the total square footage approved, 201,219 square feet was for
commercial/retail services (as compared to 156,802 square feet approved in 1997); 24,000 square feet for
industrial (as compared to 0 square feet in 1997); 237,708 square feet for office services (as compared to
161,394 square feet approved in 1997); and 179,757 square feet for public/institutional services (as
compared to 84,390 square feet approved in 1997). Eight (8) of the 33 development plans approved in 1998
were located within Rural Areas, this is significant increase over the two (2) approved in the Rural Areas
in 1997.
18
TABLE 2-11
DEDICATION OF COMMON OPEN SPACE - 1998
SUBDIVISION NAME COMP PLAN AREA AREA IN
ACRES
Fontana Phase I Neighborhood 3 11.13
Western Ridge Phases 4A & 4B Crozet 3.70
Forest Lakes South Hollymead 16.42
Teakwood Phase III Hollymead 1.72
Glenmore Rivanna Village 7.10
Rivanna Subdivision Rural Area 1 0.96
TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE DEDICATED 41.04
TABLE 2-12
RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENTS, 1990-1998
COMP PLAN AREA 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL
RURAL AREA 1
Total Acreage 172.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.53
Number of Dev. Lots 37.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.11 0.00 0.00 35.89
Ave. Acreage of Dev. Lots 2.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RPTAcreage 80.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,11 0.00 0.00 81.71
Common OpenSpaceAcreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RURAL AREA 2
Total Acreage 0.00 0.00 132.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132.90
Number of Dev. Lots 0.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00
Ave. Acreage of Dev. Lots 0.00 0.00 5.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RPTAcreage 0.00 0.00 57.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i0.00 0.00 57.70
Common OpenSpaceAcreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RURAL AREA 3
Total Acreage 332.05 0.00 84.13 521.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 938.09
Number of Dev. Lots 30.00 0.00 7.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.00
Ave. Acreage of Dev. Lots 5.05 0.00 5.26 2.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RPTAcreage 166.52' 0.00 47.33 385.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 599.28
Common OpenSpaceAcreage 7.36 0.00 0.00 19.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.56
RURAL AREA 4
Total Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Number of Dev. Lots 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
Ave. Acreage of Dev. Lots 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RPTAcreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Common OpenSpaceAcreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL
Total Acreage 504.58 0.00 217.03 521.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,243.52
Number of Dev. Lots 67.00 0.00 20.00 40,00 0.00 0.00 -1.11 0.00 0.00 125.89
Ave. Acreage of Dev. Lots 7.63 0.00 11.05 2.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RPTAcreage 247.12 0.00 105.03 385.43 0,00 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 738.69
Common OpenSpaceAcreage 7.36 0.00~ 0.00 19.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.56
TABLE 2-13
MAJOR RESIDENTIAL SITE PLANS
APPROVED IN 1998
PROJECT NAME COMP PLAN AREA TYPE OF DWELLING NUMBER OF
DWELLINGS
Carriage Hill Apartments Urban Area 3 Multi-Family 164
Holtrust Apartments Urban Area 2 Multi-Family 25
Westminster Canterbury Urban Area 3 Duplexes 15
TOTAL 204
Table 2-'14
MAdOR NON*RESIDENTIAL SITE PLANS
APPROVED IN '1998
PROJECT NAME USE AREA MAGISTERIAL COMP PLAN AREA
(SQ FT) DISTRICT
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SERVICES
Western Ridge Day Care Day Care 6,272 Whitehall Crozet
Custom Express Car Wash 12,000 Rivanna Hollymead
First Citizens Bank at Forest Lakes Bank 4,650 Rivanna Hollymead
The Dogg House Pet Supplies 1,580 Rio Urban Area 1
Albemarle First Bank Bank 8,200 Rio Urban Area 2
Atlantis Food and Fuel Convenience Store/Gas 3,105 Rio Urban Area 2
Kohr Brothers Ice Cream Shop 1,560 Rio Urban Area 2
Riverbend Bakery and Deli Bakery/Deli 3,200 Rivanna Urban Area 3
Fed-Ex Distribution Center Warehouse 60,066 Scottsville Urban Area 4
Woolen Mills Warehouse Warehouse 10,000 Scottsville Urban Area 4
Pantops Self-Storage Self-Storage 25,250 Rivanna Rural Area 2
Ivy Warehouse Warehouse 12,000 Samuel Miller Rural Area 3
Jefferson East/Ryder Enterprise Vehicle Rental 1,740 Samuel Miller Rural Area 3
Southside Shopping Center Commercial 51,596
SUBTOTAL 201,219
INDUSTRIAL
G. E. Fanuc Manufacturing 24,000 Rivanna Piney Mountain
SUBTOTAL 24,000
OFFICE
Pharmaceutical Research Associate~ Office/Research 80,000 Rivanna Hollymead
Greenbrier Drive Office Park Office 43,200 Rio Urban Area 1
Charlottesville Area Assoc. of Realto ¢)ffice 10,000 Rio Urban Area 2
MJH at Westminster Medical Office 12,000 Rivanna Urban Area 3
Peter Jefferson Place II Office 80,008 Rivanna Urban Area 3
2222 Old Ivy Road Office Building Office 8,500 Jack Jouett Urban Area 7
Gilliland Office Building Office 4,000 Rivanna Rural Area 2
SUBTOTAL 237,708
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL
Henley Middle School School Addition 12,072 Whitehall Crozet
Our Lady of Peace Assisted Living 12,000 Rio Urban Area 2
Woodbrook Pump Station Pump Station 344 Rio Urban Area 2
Fontana Recreation Center Recreational 3,300 Rivanna Urban Area 3
Frost Montessori School School 7,400 Rivanna Urban Area 3
Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional J~ Jail 71,577 Scottsville Urban Area 4
Tandem Friends School School 3,824 Scottsville Urban Area 4
Piedmont Regional Education School 20,400 Jack Jouett Rural Area 1
Colonial Baptist Church Mission Church 3,040 Rivanna Rural Area 2
Farmington Indoor Tennis Recreational 22,800 Samuel Miller Rural Area 3
Stone Robinson Elementary School Addition 23,000 Rivanna Rural Area 4
SUBTOTAL 179,757
TOTAL 642,684
III. INVENTORY OF LAND USE
An inventory of residential, commercial, and industrial land was conducted to identify population and
commercial centers in Albemarle County (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2) in 1998. The development of the
County's data was facilitated the identification and grouping of developed and undeveloped properties in
residential, commercial, and industrial categories. The purpose of this inventory is to examine the
distribution of land uses in specific areas of the County. The inventory of residential, commercial, and
industrial development was assembled with the assistance of the County's Computer Information System
(CIS); a database which stores parcel related data.
The data represented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were revised for the 1998 Development Activity Report to
reflect changes due to development of parcels. As in previous years there were a number of parcels with
zero(O) acre values stored in the CIS database. These zero values necessitated "manual" research
techniques using a planimeter, aerial photographs, and tax maps to determine approximate parcel acreage.
Zero(O) acre values stored in CIS reflect older subdivision plats that, at the time, did not require acreage
calculation as part of the property survey. They also reflect a number of condominium regimes, with
common land ownership, for which individual acreages are not recorded. These manual techniques resulted
in estimations of developed versus undeveloped properties.
The parcel acreage within each zoning district was totaled to construct tables for each of the three (3)
categories of uses. For those parcels with more than one (1) zoning, the parcel acreage was researched or
estimated with a planimeter and distributed accordingly. A parcel was considered developed if the current
building assessment was greater than $15,000. It was anticipated that this assessment level would eliminate
sheds, barns, and garages being countedas developed, yetinclude those mobile homes assessed as real
property.
Lands otherwise classified as "open space" (i.e. easements and lands environmentally unsuitable for
building) were categorized as undeveloped in the tables, although, in all likelihood, these parcels may
never be developed and would otherwise be considered developed.
Also included in this section of the Development Activity Report is an inventory of land currently in the
Land Use Assessment Program (see Table 3-3 and 3-4). This program was created in 1971 when the
Virginia General Assembly enacted a law permitting localities to adopt special assessments for properties
in agriculture, forest, horticulture, and/or open space. The County land use ordinance was adopted in 1975.
Since rural area preservation has been an expressed concern in Albemarle County, the inventory of parcels
in land use is an estimate of at least part of the acreage currently being maintained in agriculture, forest,
horticulture, and open space. The percentage of acreage in land use decreased slightly in 1998 accounting
for 66% (see Table 3-3) of the total acreage within Albemarle County. A total of 21% of the total acreage
within the Designated Development Areas is in land use (see Table 3-4). This represents a two (2) percent
decrease since 1997.
In addition to enrollment in the Land Use Assessment Program, rural landowners also have the option of
joining an Agricultural and Forestal District. Agricultural and Forestal Districts are created voluntarily by
landowners. By joining an Agricultural and Forestal District, the landowner agrees not to subdivide or
develop their property to a more intensive non-agricultural use during the period in which the property
remains within a District. The Districts are approved for a period of 4 to 10 years, after which time they
are eligible for re-approval.
23
Increased activity in the creation of new Agricultural and Forestal Districts, as well as additions made to
existing districts, prompted the listing of these districts in the Development Activity Report for the first
time in 1987. The total acreage for all districts was 31,779 acres as of December 31, 1987. As of March
30, 1999, a total of 57,402.35 acres were dedicated to Agricultural and Forestal Districts (see Table 3-5).
This represents 12.34% of the total land area of Albemarle County, a 3% drop from 1997.
24
TABLE 3-1
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SUMMARY, 1998
COMP PLAN AREA RA VR R-1 R-2 R-4 R-6 R-10 R-15 PUD/PRD TOTAL
DEV UNDEV DEV UNDE¥ DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV DEV UNDE~ DEV UNDEV DEV UNDE~ DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV DEV UNDE~
Neighborhood 1 23 27 0 0 0 0 164 1 110 19 i 152 112 252 112 70 47 118 40 890 356
~leighborhood 2 3 31 0 0 172 360 675 342 330 888 213 126 0 0 40 38 31 240 1,465 2,025
~leighborhood 3 31 399 0 0 51 443 0 0 1 0 0 65 15 34 4 28 41 29 142 998
~leighborhood 4 5 246 0 0 64 583 I 0 131 108 71 0 0 0 0 8 94 254 249 439 1,375
Neighborhood 5 3 51 0 0 33 283 0 152 14 13 30 10 0 0 0 161 47 179 127 850
~eighborhood6 10 61 0 0 310 1,744 47 31 33 17 0 0 0 1 17 12 70 25 489 1,892
~leighborhood 7 6 260 0 0 0 64 146 75 198 95 0 0 136 31 29 18 52 25 567 569
SUBTOTAL 81 1,076 0 0 631 3,478 1,033 733 794 1,103 396 312 404 178 169 398 613 786 4,120 8,063
3rozet 11 407 0 0 76 610 329 204 71 244 38 270 0 0 117 37 266 113 908 1,885
-Iollymead 98 865 0 0 103 581 81 45 174 89 13 4 12 6 0 11 132 312 612 1,913
=iney Mountain 4 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 255 129 387
SUBTOTAL 113 1,378 0 0 178 1,190 409 249 366 360 52 274 12 6 117 49 402 679 1,648 4,185
Rivanna 95 421 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 167 1,026 261 1,453
SUBTOTAL 1,453
TOTAL 194 2,454 0 0 809 4,668 1,442 982 1,160 1,462 447 586 416 184 285 447 1,014 1,465 5,768 13,700
TABLE 3-2
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE SUMMARY, 1998
COMP PLAN AREA C-1 CO HC PD-SC PD-MC LI HI PD-IP TOTAL
DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV DEV UNDEV
Neighborhood 1 57.4' 26.44 12.3 5.46 119.47 71.2 46.92 4.32 6.46 1.96 69.54 39.15 0 0 0 {~ 312 149
Neighborhood 2 43.64 22.96 19.902 11.191 23.057 29.23 73.58 16.47 1.24 9.88 0 0 0 0 0 G 161 90
Neighborhood 3 12,435 39,06 40.502 163.52 73.944 30.73 52.532 12.94 37.54 175.62 0 0 0 0 0 (] 217 422
Neighborhood 4 2 5 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 173 267 0 0 0 0 180 282
Neighborhood 5 2 I 8 14 16 19 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 26 43
Neighborhood 6 36.7; 18.18 75.11 56.56 21.54 11.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 86
Neighborhood 7 5.1 7.42 4.23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 13.09 0 0 0 27 15
SUBTOTAL 159 120 160 250 259 166 173 39 45 187 248 323 13 0 0 0 1,057 1,086
Crozet 13 8 0 3 12 19 I 2 0 0 59 35 15 4 0 0 100 71
Hollymead 11 14 2 8 20 2 12 0 0 52 157 8 22 9 517 #VALUE! 751
Piney Mountain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 47 0 = 5 0 0 65 52
SUBTOTAL 24 22 2 11 12 40 3 14 0 0 ! 175 239 24 31 9 517 248 874
Rlvanna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0
SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0
Rural Area 1 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 559 0 0 0 0 70 563
Rural Area 2 4 16 0 0 25 2 0 0 0 0 32 40 0 0 0 0 61 57
Rural Area 3 33 15 3 10 10 11 0 i 0 0 0 60 48 25 11 0 0 131 95
Rural Area 4 0 0 0 0 3 14 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 14
SUBTOTAL 45 34 7 10 38 27 7 0 0 0 153 647 25 11 0 0 274 729
TOTAL 228 176 169 271 309 233 182 53 45 187 576 1,209 62 42 9 517 1,579 2,688
TABLE 3-3
ACREAGE IN LAND USE TAXATION
BY YEAR AND LAND USE TYPE, 1982-1998
LAND USE TYPE PERCENTAGE
YEAR OPEN TOTAL OF TOTAL
AGRICULTURE HORTICULTURE FORESTRY SPACE COUNTY ACREAGE
1982 121,917 1,868 227,915 0 351,700 75.6°/,
1984 108,519 1,919 207,243 9 317,690 68.3%
1985 109,051 1,931 209,312 9 320,303 68.9%
1986 107,832 1,921 208,259 8 318,020 68.4%
1987 110,036 1,952 210,653 8 322,649 69.4%
1988 109,283 1,985 211,489 8 322,765 69.4%
1989 110,236 2,195 216,036 8 328,475 .70.6%
1990 109,541 2,306 215,221 6 327,074 70.3%
1991 109,440 2,506 216,389 6 328,341 70.6%
1992 109,932 2,521 218,936 6 331,395 71.3%
1993 110,736 2,447 219,593 6 332,782 71.6%
1994 101,819 2,392 200,950 63 305,224 65.6%
1995 106,571 2,393 211,753 87 320,804 69.0%
1996 105,484 2,412 213,165 134 321,195 69.1%
1997 103,803 2,416 207,138 134 313,491 67.4%
1998 101,925 2,296 202,370 108 306,699 66.0%
Note: Totals for 1983 are not available.
Estimated total acreage of Albemarle County is 465,040. This is a new estimate calculated
digitally in March, 1998. Previous years were re-calculated to reflect this change.
27
TABLE 3-4
ESTIMATE OF DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTY LAND
UNDER LAND USE, 1998
ACREAGE ACREAGE
IN NOT IN TOTAL
LAND USE LAND USE
Development Areas 4,666 17,630 22,296
Rural Areas 302,033 140,711 442,744
TOTAL 306,699 158,341 465,040
Notes:
1. Total County land area is based on a total area of 726.625 square miles x
640 acres per square mile = 465,040 acres. Approximately 14,000 acres of
rural area, not in land use, is owned by the Federal government as a national
}ark.
2. These estimates were calculated digitally.
28
TABLE 3-$
ALBEMARLE COUNTY AGRICULTURALJFORESTAL DISTRICTS
NAME DATE ACTION/ACREAGE CURRENT ACREAGE REVIEW PERIOD REVIEW DATE
1. Totier Creek 06-29-83 District Created/6,070.77 acres
06-29-91 District Reviewed/7.,246.52 acres
09-16-92 Addition/I,392.22 acres
07-10-95 Withdrawal/764.08 7,874.66 10 years 06-29-2001
2. Hatton 06-29-83 District Created/2,913.69 acres
12-19-84 Withd rawal/40 acres
06-29-91 District Reviewed/2,824.22 acres
07-10-95 Withdrawal/2,035.68 788.54 10 years 06-29-2001
3. Eastham 10-02-85 District Created/764.75 acres
10-13-93 District Reviewed/587.30ac
12-08-93 Addition/135.19ac
05-11-94 District Reviewed(Cont.)/178.09 ac 900.58 10 years 10-13-2003
4. Blue Run 06-18-86 District Created/1,136.08 acres
01-04-89 Addition/2,998.67 acres
07-13-94 District Reviewed/3,634.89 acres
04-12-95 Addition/60.21 acres 3,695.10 8 years 06-18-2002
5. Keswick 09-03-86 District Created/5,223.11 acres
09-07-88 Addition/699.01 acres
01-16-91 Addition/263.00 acres
10-12-94 District Reviewed/6,063.81 acres
10-12-94 Addition/320.52 acres
04-12-95 Addition/17.38 acres
08-13,97 Addition/190.872 6,592.58 10 years 09-03-2004
.~. Kinloch 09-03-86 District Created/I,586.60 acres
05-02-90 Addition/63.40 acres
04-14-93 Addition/34.17 acres
11-17-93 Addition/3.81 acres
10-12-94 District Reviewed/I,683.96 acres
10-12-94 Additon/393.16 acres 2,077.12 10 years 09-03-2004
7. Moorman's River 12-17-86 District Created/8,035.98 acres
09-07-88 Addition/2,269.03 acres
01-04-89 Addition/173.69 acres
05-02-90 Addition/443.44 acres
04-14-93 Addition/170.45 acres
12-21-94 District Reviewed/9,989.36
04-12-95 Addition/330.00 acres
08-09-95 Addition/59.92 acres
08-13-97 Addition/242.38 10,621.66 10 years 12-17-2004
8. Hardware 11-04-87 Distdct Created/6,023.94 acres
05-03-89 Addition/206.88 acres
11-12-97 Review/3856.031 acres
05-13-98 Addition/Il.97 acres 3,868.00 10years 11-12-2007
9. Jacob's Run 01-06-88 District Created/727.28 acres
05-03-89 Addition/500.43 acres
03-02-94 District Reviewed/I, 124.99 acres
09-10-96 Withdrawal/107.73 acres 1,017.26 6 years 03-02-2000
29
TABLE 3-$ (cont,)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY AGRICULTURAUFORESTAL DISTRICTS
NAME DATE ACTION/ACREAGE CURRENT ACREAGE REVIEW PERIOD REVIEW DATE
10. Carter's Bridge 04-20-88 District Created/7,969.72 acres
10-31-90 Addition/3,692.36 acres
05-21-97 Addition/262.75 acres
09-09-98 District Reviewed/9,004.16 acres
02-10-99 Addition/ 42.00 acres 9,046.16 10 years 04-20-2008
11. Lanark 04-20-88 District Created/996.05 acres
09-16-92 Addition/4,625.89 acres
09-09-98 District Reviewed/5,633.52 acres
02-10-99 ~ Addition/39.71 acres 5,673.23 10 years 04-20-2008
12. Panorama 04-20-88 District Created/I,066.11 acres
06-14-95 Addition/42.40 acres
09-09-98 District Reviewed/265.40 acres 265.49 10 years 04-20-2008
13. Free Union 09-21-88 District Created/I,394.60 acres
01-04-891 Addition/30.01 acres
05-15-91 Addition/716.37 acres
09-09-98 District Reviewed/1,379.27 1,379.27 10 years 09-21-2008
14. Ivy Creek 11-02:88 Distdct Created/578.03 acres
04-14-93 Withdrawal/55.17 acres
02-14-96 Review/494.860 acres 494.86 7 years 02-14-2003
15. Buck Mountain 01-04-89 Distdct Created/633.35 acres
04-12-95 Addition/26.89 acres
1/13/99 Review/488.92 acres 488.92 10 years 01-04-2009
16. Yellow Mountain 03-08~89 District Created/975.52 acres
06-24-96 Withdrawal/275.55 acres
1/13/99 Review/681.29 acres 681.29 10 years 03-08-2009
17. Chalk Mountain 09-06-89 District Created/1,272.47 acres 1,272.47 10 years 09-06-1999
18. Sugar Hollow 09-06-89 District Created/2,581.97 acres
08-01-90 Addition/697.72 acres
04-14-93 Addition/I,524.32 acres
11-17-93 Addition/55.79 acres 4,859.80 10 years 09-06-1999
19. Batesville 05-02-90 District Created/906.51 acres 906.51 10 years 05-02-2000
20. High Mowing 01-16-91 District Created/622.44 acres 622.44 10 years 01-16-2001
21. Pasture Fence Mtn 11-17-93 District Created/870.42 acres
07-13-94 Addition/453.50 acres 1,323.92 10 years 11-17-2003
22. N.Fork Moorman's Rive~ 11-17-93 District Created/270.48 acres 270.48 10 years 11-17-2003
TOTAL: 57,402.35 acres
12.34% of 465,040 acres in Albemarle County
Updated 03-30-99
30
IV. ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MODIFICATIONS
A. ;1998 REZONING ACTIVIIT
This section of the Development Activity Report is a review of zoning changes that were approved by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in 1998. The ability to modify the Zoning Ordinance provides
flexibility in land use regulations. The purpose of these actions is to mitigate unreasonable hardships
imposed by the ordinance, to recognize compatibility with neighboring uses, and to acknowledge changes
in growth patterns that affect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
A total of 250.65 acres were rezoned in 1998 as a result of 12 Zoning Map Amendment applications which
resulted in 12 Zoning Map modifications (see Table 4-1). The most significant rezoning, in terms of
acreage, occurred in Neighborhood 2 with 142 acres rezoned from R-I to PRD. The amount of acreage
rezoned by zoning map amendment throughout the County significantly increased in 1998 from a total of
93.47 acres rezoned in 1997.
VARIANCES OF ZONING REGI. ILA TIONS
In 1998, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a total of 26 variances of zoning regulations. The
distribution of these variances by Comprehensive Plan Area, zoning district, and type of variance is shown
in Table 4-2. The 20 setback variances allowed for the modification of required front, rear, and/or side
setbacks. Setback variances comprise the largest category of variances approved in 1998.
Of the 26 variances approved in 1998, six (6) variances occurred in Designated Development Areas and
20 occurred in the Rural Areas.
C. SPECIAl USE PERMITS APPROVED IN 1998
A total of 37 Special Use Permits were approved in 1998. The distribution of Special Use Permits is
measured both by Comprehensive Plan Area (see Table 4-3) and by zoning district (see Table 4-4).
Nineteen (19 or 51%) of the Special Use Permits approved were for uses in the Rural Areas.
A review of Special Use Permits by zoning district indicates that most activity (14 permits) occurred in
areas zoned Rural Area (RA). The second largest number of Special Use Permits was approved for HC
(highway commercial) with a total of six (6) Special Use Permits.
31
TABLE 4-1
APPROVED ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, 1998
(changes to zoning classifications)
COMP PLAN AREA PREVIOUS NEW ACRES
ZONING ZONING
Neighborhood 1 PUD PUD 2.30
Neighborhood 2 R-1 PRD 142.00
Neighborhood 6 R-15 HC 0.42
Neighborhood 6 R-1 CO 0.45
Crozet PRD R-4 53.02
Crozet R-4 PRD 14.50
Crozet R-6 PRD 19.20
Hollymead C-1 HC 0.95
Hollymead C-1 HC 0.82
Rivanna RA PRD 11.00
Rural Area 1 RA C-1 2.50
Rural Area 3 RA R-1 3.49
TOTAL ACREAGE REZONED 250.65
32
TABLE 4-2
VARIANCES APPROVED IN 1998
SCENIC TEMP/PRM
COMP PLAN AREA SETBACK SIGN HVVY/STRM PARKING AREA MBL HM/ SUBDI- TOWER= ROAD OTHER TOTAL
AND ZONING SETBACK RQRMNT RQRMNT OFFICE VISION FRONTAGE
Neighborhood 2
PUD 0 I 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0: 0 1
C-1 1 0 0 0 0 0' 0 01 0 0 1i
Neighborhood 5
RA 1 0 0 0 0 0: 0 01 0 0 1
Neighborhood 6
R1 2 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 2
Neighborhood 7
R2 1 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 ' 0i 0 1
Development Area Subtotal 5 I 0 0 0 01 0 01
0i
0
6
Rural Area 1 I
VR 1 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0 1
RA 1 0 0 0 0 0i 0 0: 0 2 3:
Rural Area 2
RA 1 I 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 I 3
Rural Area 3
VR 2 o o o o o! 0 O o o 2~
HC 2 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 2!
LI 1 0 0 0 0 0i 0 0! 0 0 1
RA 2 0 0 0 0: 0' 0 01 0 I 3
Rural Area 4
5 o o o oI o o o ol o 5!
Rural Area Subtotal 15 1 0 0 01 0 0 0 0! 4 20
TOTALS 20 2 0 0 0i 0 0 0 0i 4 26
33
TABLE 4-3
SPECIAL USE PERMITS APPROVED IN 1998
BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
MISC.
COMP PLAN AREA SUBDI- HOME FLOOD PRIVATE REC. DAY- ASSISTED DRIVE IN CHURCH TOWER COMMER. TOTAL
VISION OCCUP. PLAIN SCHOOL FACILITY CARE LIVING WINDOW USES
Neighborhood 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4
~leighborhood 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 3 1 6
Neighborhood 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 3 5
Neighborhood 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neighborhood 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neighborhood 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Neighborhood 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hollymead 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Crozet 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Piney Mountain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rivanna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G
S U BTOTA L 0 I 1 2 1 0 1 I 0 4 7 18
Rural Area 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Rural Area 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4
Rural Area 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 5
Rural Area 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4
S U BTOTA L 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 7 1
TOTAL 0 1 2 2 4 0 1 1 3 9 14 37
34
TABLE 44
SPECIAL USE PERMITS APPROVED IN 1998
BY ZONING DISTRICT
MISC.
ZONING SUBDI- HOME FLOOD PRIVATE REC. DAY- ASSISTED DRIVE IN CHURCH TOWER COMMER. TOTAL
DISTRICT VISION OCCUP. PLAIN SCHOOL FACILITY CARE LIVING WINDOW USES
RA 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 3 4: 14
VR 0 0 I 0 0 0 0! 0 0 I I 3
R-2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R..4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1
R-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
C-1 0 0 0! 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3
CO 0 0 0! 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
. HC 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6
PUD 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PD-MC 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
LI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
TOTAL 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 1 3 8 14 37
35
There was one (1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted in 1998. The Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors adopted a revised Land Use Plan in June 1996. This revised plan incorporated several changes
from the previous plan.
The new Land Use Plan places an increased emphasis on promoting infill development of a more urban
scale within the Development Areas. To achieve this goal the Plan recommends:
Achieving higher gross densities of development in the Development Areas
Encouraging mixed use developments
Encouraging neighborhood style development and design
Encouraging road development and design to be of a scale more in keeping with surrounding
neighborhoods which also accommodates multiple modes of transportation such as bicycle, pedestrian
and mass transit
Encouraging interconnection of neighborhoods with provision of walkways, bikeways, open space
areas, and neighborhood scale street systems
· ~. Emphasizing the provision of necessary public facilities and services to support such scale of
development including water, sewer, and recreation facilities.
In January 1997, in an attempt to implement these recommendations, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors instituted the Development Areas Initiative Project. Through participation in Project activities,
residents and citizens will determine the physical qualities a new development should have and how that
new development should relate to existing neighborhoods and commercial centers in the urban areas.
At the end of the project, the County will have a "master plan" for the neighborhoods, communities, and
villages to guide future developments in those areas. This "master plan" will also assist the County to know
what zoning and subdivision ordinance changes will be needed in order to implement the infill goal
outlined in the new Land Use Plan.
36
V. APPENDIX
3'7
GREENWOOD
\
RA
RA
3
OF
SCOTTSVILLE
AD
RA 2
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGI
Comprehensive Plan,
Eand Use Plan
CO~N'r ~VELO~T A~
NEIGHBORHOODS 1 - 7
VILLAGES
RA RU~A~EAS
~REPARED BY:
Department of Planning and Community Development * Office of Mapping, Graphics and Information Resources (OOMGAIR)
Coun[¥
Urban Area
of Albemarlc
Neighborhoods 1-7
PRBPARBD BY:
Department of Planning
and Community Development · Office of Mapping, Graphics and Information Resources (OOMGAIR)
SAMUEL
HALL DISTRICT
Rr~ANNA
/
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS'
IAdopted May 15th, 1991 Amended June 2nd, 1993 & Nay ?, 199~)
JACK JOUETT
RIO
R1VANNA
SAMUEL
SCOTTSVILLE
WHITE HALL
~REPARED BY:
Department of Planning and Community Development * Office of Mapping, Graphics and Information Resources ¢OOMGAIR)
TYPE OF RESIDENCE
Single-family residenee
I building, 1 lot, I dwelling unit
bldg.
Exam pies:
North Pines
Earlysville Forest
Wynridge
Oak Forest
Single-family attached
1 building, 2 lots, 2 dwelling units
1 b Ldg.
1 lot Z lot
Examples:
Camelia Garden
Georgetown Court
Commonwealth D rive
Briarwood
e
Single-family townhouse
1 building, 3 or more lots, 3 or more dwelling units
au Exam pies:
1 3lag
1 loi: 2 lo: 3 lot
Townwood
Birnam Wood
Minor Hill
me
Duplex
1 building, 1 lot, 2 dwelling units
I bldg.
1 lo1:
Examples:
Whitewood
®
Multi-r esidenee
I building, 1 lot, 3 or more dwelling units
1 lot
Exam pies:
Old Oak Court
Huntington Village