1987-03-18323
March-18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A. regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CoUnty, Virginia, was held on
March 18, 1987 at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 97, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve item 4.1 and
accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's
Attorney, and Regional Jail for the Month of February, 1987, were ~pproved as presented.
Item 4.2. Superintendent's Memo No. 5 dated March 4, 1987 from the State Department of
Education entitled "1986-88 Appropriations Act Changes," was received as information.
Item 4.3. Report on Audit for the Year Ended June 30, 1985, for Shelby J. Marshall,
Clerk of the Circuit Court, from the Audit of Public Accounts, was received as information.
Item 4.4. Memorandum from County Executive dated March 13, 1987, entitled:
Urban Area Waterline Loop, was received as information.
"Southern
"The Albemarle Service Authority (ACSA) has requested the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority (RWSA) to proceed with the construction of a water transmis-
sion main linking the Observatory Mountain Water Storage Tank with a planned
storage tank on Avon Street Extended to serve the southern urban growth
area. The project would ultimately link the Avon Street tank with the
Pantops Mountain tank.
As provided in the agreement creating Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
Albemarle County Service Authority or the City can request projects of
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, provided the requesting agency finances
the costs. Since this project will serve the water transmission and storage
needs of Albemarle County Service Authority primarily, and the City secon-
darily, Albemarle County Service Authority has requested the City to partic-
ipate in the costs. An agreement has been drafted to divide the costs
several ways, which reflects varying ratios of usage and benefits in several
stages of the construction of the project. This agreement has been approved
by Albemarle County Service Authority, and is before the City Council for
their approval. The project is scheduled to commence soon to serve the Mill
Creek PUD.
If details of the project or the agreement is desired, Mr. Brent can provide
a presentation to the Board upon request."
Mr. Way and Mr. Fisher requested that further information on ~his project be provided at
the April 8 Board meeting.
Item 4.5. Planning Commission Minutes for February 24 and March 3, 1987, were received
as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP87-5. Wrenson Corporation. Allow a bowling alley to be located
in an existing warehouse facility, zoned HC. Property located on west side of Route 29
North, approximately 1,200 feet north of the intersection with Woodbrook Drive. Tax Map 45,
Parcel 112C and 112Cl. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 3 and March 10, 1987.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: An existing building on this site is currently in
warehouse usage. Properties to the east across Route 29 and to the north
and south are zoned commercially. Property to the west is undeveloped and
zoned R6 Residential. Public water is available at Route 29 North, however,
public sewer is remote from the site.
324
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Wrenson Corporation proposes to construct a 48-lane
bowling alley with subordinate uses such as food/beverage services,
equipment sales/rental, child care and associated recreational uses such as
billiards. The facility would be operated seven days per week for 15 hours
per day (i.e.- 9 AM to 12 AM on weekdays and Sundays; 10 AM to 1 AM on
Friday and Saturday). The applicant has provided written argument for
issuance of this special use permit. These opinions of the applicant will
not be addressed in this report, though staff opinion is that Item 1 is
wholly erroneous.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff opinion is that the proposed bowling alley with appropriate develop-
mental controls could satisfy the criteria for issuance of a special use
permit as specified in 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff favors
physical controls to development over conditions which require monitoring
such as limitations on hours of operation.
Compatibility: Protection should be provided to adjoining residential land
due to extensive hours of operation, lighting, noise, and other negative
aspects. Staff will recommend maintenance of a 100 foot undisturbed tree
buffer along the rear of the property.
Intensity: A 48-lane bowling alley operating 15 hours per day can accommo-
date a large number of people (No parking standard is specified in the
Zoning Ordinance; the City requires four parking spaces per lane). Staff
anticipates the proposed bowling alley to be a relatively intensive use in
terms of traffic generation and sewer demand. While no preliminary plan has
been submitted, it is not likely that the bowling alley, + 200 parking
spaces and a 100 foot tree buffer would occupy the entire seven acre site,
leaving additional development potential. Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation has stated that:
SP-87-05 Wrenson Corporation, Route 29 North. The Department has no traffic
generation figures for this request, however, it is anticipated that this
request would be in the high range of traffic volumes for uses allowed in
the HC zoning. It appears that this property is less than 400 feet from the
existing crossover to the south and there is no left turn lane for southbound
Route 29 at this crossover. The Route 29 Corridor Study shows both the
existing crossovers to the north and south of this property being closed in
the future. It also appears there may be a vertical sight distance problem
along the southbound lane on Route 29 for an entrance serving this property.
The Department recommends a site plan should this request be approved so
that specific comments about access can be addressed.
Sewer demand is also anticipated to be relatively high (Mountain Bowl in the
city uses about 32,000 gallons of water per month). A restaurant formerly
on this site experienced septic system difficulties. For these reasons, the
Health Department favors extension of public sewer to the property. Sewer
on the west side of Route 29 North is some 2800 feet to the north and south.
Public sewer in Woodbrook subdivision is closer to the site, however boring
for a line under Route 29 North would likely make this a more expensive
alternative.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Development of the property limited to a 48-lane bowling alley together
with accessory uses as described in applicant's submittal "Description
of Facility Operation" which is Attachment A of this report. Not more
than ten (10) amusement games/devices as defined by the Zoning Ordi-
nance shall be permitted.
Maintain a one-hundred (100) foot undisturbed tree buffer along resi-
dentially zoned boundaries.
Hours of operation limited to 9 AM~to 12 AM, except for Fridays and
Saturdays when the facility may be operated from 10 AM to 1 AM.
4. Provide four (4) parking spaces per bowling lane.
5. The use shall be served by public water and public sewer."
Mr. Horne said on March 3, 1987, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval
with an amendment to condition #1 as 'follows: "Development of the property limited to a
48-lane bowling alley together with accessory uses as described in applicant's submittal
"Description of Facility Operation" which is Attachment A of the staff report. Not more than
twenty-five (25) amusement games/devices as defined by the Zoning Ordinance shall be permit-
ted." During writing of the staff report, there was no direct communication with the appli-
cant as to the exact number of amusement games, therefore, the staff picked an arbitrary
number. At the Planning Commission meeting statements were made suggesting 25 amusement
games. Tonight the applicant is requesting a total of 37 amusement games/devices. The staff
has no problem with that number.
The Commission also amended condition 92 to read as follows: "Maintain a one-hundred
(100) foot undisturbed tree buffer along residentially zoned boundaries provided that the
Planning Commission may reduce this tree buffer upon demonstration by the applicant that his
proposal provides an equivalent buffer." The remaining conditions remain the same as recom-
mended by the staff.
325
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting') -
(PaNe 3)
Mr. Horne said since there is no site plan, the staff is reluctant to accept the proposal
by the applicant for a proposed equivalent buffer in lieu of the 100 foot undisturbed tree
buffer. Although the proposed improvements are along the lines of what the Commission had in
mind if physical improvements were to take place, he personally would recommend that the
Board accept the Planning Commission's conditions as written. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is
some meaningful vegetation at the site that could make up the tree buffer. Mr. Horne replied
yes, there is a good quantity of mixed trees in the area, but the site has been'graded in the
front. The relative grades of the R-6 property and this property are very important to
deciding what type of screening and/or maintenance of undisturbed buffers are most appropri-
ate. Depending on exactly how the grades are done, this site could possibly be graded to a
lower level. If there is a significant change in elevation then some other physical improve-
ment may be just as effective as the 100 foot distance. Mr. Fisher asked if more than one
entrance is proposed. Mr. Horne replied that although the site plan has not been submitted,
there has been talk about the possibility of a design that would incorporate one entrance for
the multiple parcels in the area.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Frank Stoner, representing Wrenson Corporation, addressed the Board. With the
exception of the 100 foot buffer, the applicant has no problem with the conditions as recom-
mended by the staff and Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission meeting, the owners
of the adjacent property indicated that they were not interested in residential development
and felt it was impractical to expect residential development to take place in such an
isolated sector. In addition, the County staff has indicated to these property owners that
if they so desire, the property could be rezoned to commercial. It is not practical to use
approximately one-fifth of the site for a buffer against a residential zoning which will
never be used for that purpose. The applicant proposes a screening buffer of some sort,
composed of either a berm or a fence combined with some vegetation and a tree buffer to act
as a light and noise buffer.
Mr. Fisher commented that until the staff sees a site plan, it cannot evaluate the
proposal, nor can the Board fully evaluate the proposal without knowing the location of the
building. Mr. Stoner said the preliminary site plan submitted indicates fairly accurately
the site of the building. His point is that there will be screening in response to concerns
expressed by the Planning Commission, but given the circumstances with the R-6 zone adjacent
to this property, it is unrealistic to think residential development will take place on that
property. Mr. Fisher said although that may be true, the property is zoned R-6 and.if it is
developed as such, it will need to be protected. He thinks that the recommendations 'by the
Commission allow the applicant the flexibility to create a site plan and the ability to deal
with all of the concerns. Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. Fisher.
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher read aloud from the "Bowling Center Proposal, SP-87-05, The Wrenson Corpora-
tion'' dated March 3, 1987, the following amusement games/devices to be included in the
applicant's submittal: Amusement Area--16 video games, five pinball games, four mechanical
games; Billiard Room--six tables; and Children's Area--six games or rides. Mrs. Cooke asked
if the amusement area will draw in patrons other than the ones for the bowling alley and if
the additional patronage would affect the parking. Mr. Horne said the parking requirements
are suitable to handle traffic for this amount of accessory games, and he does believe
additional patrons will show up just to use this area. Mr. Fisher asked if any eating
facilities are planned. Mr. Horne replied yes, a restaurant facility is planned.
Mrs. Cooke said this property is in her district and in the absence of any opposition,
she has no problem with the application as submitted. The recommendations of the Planning
Commission and the staff are reasonable, and then offered to approve SP-87-05 subject to the
conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Way commented that the Planning Commission
recommends 25 amusement games/devices and the applicant is requesting 37. Mr. Horne said the
Planning Commission's recommendation of 25 amusement games/devices was made in the absence of
a requested number, and again the staff has no problem with 37. In addition, this is the
first actual submittal received from the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem
with the 37 amusement games/devices. Mrs. Cooke then amended her motion to approve $P-87-05
subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission, with an amendment to condition 91 to
include 37 amusement games/devices and set out in the applicant's Bowling Center Proposal,
dated March 3, 1987, to read as follows:
Development of the property limited to a 48-lane bowling alley together
with accessory uses as described in applicant's submittal "Description
of Facility Operation" which is Attachment A of the staff report. Not
more than thirty-seven (37) amusement games/devices as defined by the
Zoning Ordinance shall be permitted. The amusement games/devices shall
consist of items as set out in the applicant's Bowling Center Proposal,
dated March 3, 1987 and received by the Board of Supervisor's on March 11,
1987;
Maintain an one hundred (100) foot undisturbed tree buffer along
residentially zoned boundaries provided that the Planning Commission
may reduce this tree buffer upon demonstration by the applicant that
his proposal provides an equivalent buffer;
Hours of operation limited to 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M., except for
Fridays and Saturdays when the facility may be operated from 10:00 A.M.
to 1:00 A.M.;
4. Provide four (4) parking spaces per bowling lane;
5. The use shall be served public water and public sewer.
328
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pag~ 4)
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried with the
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-87-10. Paul Opiela. Allow construction of warehouse on vacant
6.399 acre parcel, zoned LI. Property located on east side of Route 29 North, north of
Badger-Powatan. Tax Map 32, Parcel 5F. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on March 3 and March 10, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"CHARACTER OF AREA: The site is currently undeveloped. Properties located
south of the site and east of Route 29 North are industrial zoned. The
property located to the north of the site is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Proper-
ties to the east and west are buffered by the North Fork Rivanna River and
Route 29 North respectively. Both parcels adjacent to the site are currently
vacant.
STAFF COMMENT:
The applicant proposes the location of a warehouse building with subordinate
retail (Sections 27.2.2.5 & 5.1.24) totaling 12,000 square feet. While
specific plans for the entire parcel have not been developed at this time, a
preliminary Master Plan has been submitted. The first phase of the develop-
ment, which is the subject of this petition, includes a lot of approximately
58,500 square feet located on the northwest portion of the parcel.
Mr. Opiela proposes a 12,000 square feet building which includes 1200 square
feet of retail space and 1200 square feet of office space. The character
and nature of the business performed in the building is primarily a mail
order business which deals in the distribution of auto parts and acces-
sories. The business does no installation or repair on cars, and functions
only as a warehouse for these goods. The proposed use shall not participate
in any manufacturing or treatment of products which normally constitute an
intense use of the site and infrastructure.
Traffic will be generated from the p~oposed use by three means: employees,
shipping functions and retail sales. Employment will consist of 15 to 20
employees. The traffic generated by the employees shall occur at rush hour
times. In connection with the warehouse distribution activity, the business
will operate with pick-up/deliveries twice a day by United Parcel Service
(U.P.S) and the same by tractor trailers less than once a day. The present
and projected volumes of traffic resulting from the subordinate retail use
will be 0 (zero) to 5 (five) customers per day. (Concerning retail sales,
they will account for less than one percent of receipts.)
A 200 foot deceleration lane with a 200 foot taper is presently planned to
provide access to the site directly off of Route 29 North. This entrance is
not located across from a break in the median. Therefore, all access into
and out of the site will be via the northbound lane of Route 29 North. This
may pose a problem for tractor trailers accessing the site. Southbound
tractor trailers will be required to make U-turns at the break in the
median.
As a result of discussion between the planning staff and applicant, the
applicant is attempting to obtain an easement through the parcel located
south of his property (Tax Map 32, Parcel 5E). Vehicular access to the
three adjacent industrial zoned parcels could thus be internalized on a
service road which would allow all three parcels to utilize the cross over
on Route 29 North and provide for more fluent circulation on site.
If an easement is not acquired by the applicant, the planning staff will
strongly recommend that an easement be provided when the property to the
south develops (Section 32.5.8).
Staff opinion is that warehousing of this nature would not be objectionable
to the area and is consistent with the current zoning. The building will be
80 feet by 150 feet and oriented perpendicularly to Route 29 North. Though
this is a light industrial area, Route 29 North carries substantial through
traffic, therefore, screening of the complex from the public road will be
required. Proper screening and adequate buffering will also be required to
screen the site from the adjacent property located to the north of the site,
which is currently zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit for warehousing with
subordinate retail, subject to the following conditions:
1)
Building area limited to 16,800 square feet in northwest portion of
site as designated by the Master Plan.
2)
Planning Commission approval of site plan to include method of screen-
ing warehouse from Route 29 North and Rural Area district (Tax Map 32,
parcel 5) located to the north of the site.
3) Ail storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be permitted."
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 5)
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 3, 1987, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-87-10 subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Horne said a site plan for the proposal has been submitted, but not approved. Mr.
Lindstrom said although it is a matter of site plan review, he agrees with the comment about
screening on the road.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Keller of Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed
the Board. He is present tonight to answer any questions Board members may have. The
applicant is in agreement with the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Fisher asked
what the applicant plans to warehouse. Mr. Keller replied it will be Italian car auto parts.
The present facility employs nine persons, is only one-story and has poor road access. It is
not anticipated full utilization of the facility within the first five years. For clarifica-
tion, over-the-counter retail sales account for less than one percent.
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-87-10 subject to the following conditions:
Building area limited to 16,800 square feet in northwest portion of
site as designated by the Master Plan;
®
Planning Commission approval of site plan to include method of screen-
ing warehouse from Rt. 29N and rural areas district (Tax Map 32, Parcel
5) located to the north of the site;
3. Ail storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be permitted.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried with the
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing: To consider requesting the Department of Transpor-
tation to endorse the concept of designating Routes 601 and 614 as Virginia Scenic Byways.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 12, 1987.)
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Harry Garth said he is in favor of this designation and hopes the Board votes
favorably.
Ms. Cheri Buttrick, a resident of the White Hall area, is in favor of the designation
and handed to the Board a petition (on file) of residents of the area supporting the desig-
nation. This designation would recognize the scenic and cultural value of the roadways. She
then presented a petition (on file) requesting the Board to recognize Routes 601, 676, and
614, the Garth/White Hall Road from Ivy Creek to White Hall as a County scenic road.
Mrs. Ellen Craddock, a resident of White Hall, strongly favors this designation and
hopes that the designation may be extended further in the future.
Mr. DeForest Mellon said he travels the roadway daily and thinks it has some of the best
natural beauty of Albemarle County. He urges the board to make this designation.
Mr. Gerald Ferguson, who has a small farm in White Hall, said he also drives the roadway
frequently and would like to lend his support to the designation.
Mr. Forbes Reback said this request originated fro a letter dated October 1 from Mr.
John Birdsall. After reviewing that letter he finds that a portion of road was omitted from
the original request. The request should include Routes 671 and 665 from the corner at
Youell Farm, down across the Moormans River to Free Union.
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said this road borders his district. He travels the routes twice a day.
Even though the designation does nothing to protect the road, it directs attention to the
road in a way that would invite more traffic and congestion on a not-too-safe road, which
causes him some concern. Although County designation is not before the Board, he would like
to see such designation, because that would allow some protection of the road, other than
just recognizing its' beauty. He is willing to support the scenic designation.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to recommend to the Virginia Highway Department, state
scenic designation of this roadway. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked for
clarification of the beginning and ending of the designation. Mr. Lindstrom said for clari-
fication, to recommend to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources that
Route 601, more commonly known as 21 Curves, from the Route 29/250 Bypass to its junction
with Garth/Barracks Road at Ivy Creek, following Route 601 to Route 676, following Route 676
to Route 614 and then Route 614 to its terminus at White Hall be considered for addition to
the Virginia Byways System. Mr. Way again seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
328'
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Fisher said it was requested that the Board consider County scenic highway designa-
tion of this route and the way to begin that process is by adoption of a resolution of
intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to move adoption of a
resolution of intent, but the full intended route should be made clear. Mr. Horne said the
staff can get together with the applicants and come up with a route that compares favorably
with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and then bring that information back to the
Board and Commission.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the zoning map to include in
the Scenic Areas Overlay District of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
all or portions of Route 601, Route 614 and Route 676 between the Route
250/29 Bypass and Sugar Hollow Reservoir; and
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold a
public hearing(s) on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does
request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board
at the appropriate time.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie asked by what means the residents will be
notified since there are restrictions imposed by this section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Horne commented that someone will have to notify all of the residents, quite a large number.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks that this request may be more successful if the people requesting
it notify the residents. Mr. Lindstrom said, although formal notification will have to be
sent to every property owner, he thinks it would be less upsetting to the residents if they
were contacted personally. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing: To receive comments on an application for community
development block grant funding for the Housing Rehabilitation Strategy Project for Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3, 1987.)
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:44 P.M.) The following memorandum from Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development, to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, dated March 13, 1987, was
reviewed:
"Enclosed is a summary of the proposed County application for $700,000 in
VCDBG funding to continue its housing rehabilitation program administered by
the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). The proposed project will
provide complete rehabilitation to 57 existing substandard units over a two
year period. The project is divided into two programs. The first, a
continuation of the existing AHIP program, will undertake 39 rehabilitations
of owner-occupied units inhabited by families whose incomes are less than 80
percent of the median family income for like size families in the County
(income limits established by HUD). Most rehab work, as well as all admini-
stration and outreach, will be provided by the staff and field crews of
AHIP. Small subcontracts may be utilized for some construction activities.
The second program, new for AHIP, will attempt to undertake 18 rehabilita-
tions of renter occupied units. Rehabilitation assistance will be made
available exclusively to low-moderate income landlords. Tenants must have
family incomes less than 80 percent of the median family income for like
size families in the County. Rehab work will be competitively bid to
private contractors, but administration and outreach will be provided by
AHIP staff.
The owner-occupied rehab program will provide all direct labor, technical
assistance and administrative support to families at no cost. Construction
materials and subcontracts will be covered through grant funds, Charlottes-
ville Housing Foundation (CHF) loans to families and the available financial
resources of the family. In addition to actual rehabilitation, AHIP will
screen families requesting assistance, qualify the families for assistance,
identify structural deficiencies and cost of rehabilitation work, arrange
rehabilitation financing and counsel families in budgeting and home mainte-
nance, including follow-up visits.
The renter-occupied rehab program will be targeted to low-moderate income
landlords who apply for and agree to enter into a fifteen (15) year Housing
Assistance Payment Contract under the County's Section 8 Moderate Rehabili-
tation Program. These landlords will be identified and assisted through
outreach provided by AHIP. Qualifying landlords (those with incomes below
80 percent of County median and with limited assets) will then work directly
with the Mod Rehab Program in finalizing agreements and obtaining tenants.
VCDBG funds will be used to provide 15 year deferrable loans for rehabilita-
tion. AHIP will arrange for CHF loans to be made available to landlords who
cannot obtain private financing. AHIP and CHF will retain the ability to
call loans should any landlord sell his unit or discontinue renting to low
income tenants within the 15 year period.
Should the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program not receive its re-
quested grant extension from HUD, the County will provide a rental reha-
bilitation program utilizing AHIP and the County's existing Section 8
office. Landlords will be identified and qualified as stated above through
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
AHIP outreach. Landlords will have available VCDBG funded 15 year defer-
rable loans for rehabilitation and CHF loans if they cannot obtain private
financing. In exchange for these benefits, landlords must agree to rent to
low-moderate income individuals for a period of 15 years. Rents will be
~determined based on financial feasibility of the project, but cannot exceed
a ceiling of 80 percent of Section 8 existing fair market value for that
unit size or 35 percent of adjusted gross income of the tenant, whichever is
lower. AHIP and CHF will retain the ability to call loans should any
landlord sell his unit or discontinue renting to low income tenants within
the 15 year period. Ongoing monitoring of the program (annual tenant income
~.~ifying, annual lease and unit inspections) will be handled by the
existing Section 8 office. Should the County's rental rehabilitation
program not be successful in assisting any or all of the 18 rental units
intended to be rehabilitated, those units not assisted will be shifted into
the owner-occupied rehab program. These rehabilitations will be handled as
all other owner-occupied rehabs, except that construction work will be 100
percent contracted. No occupant will be displaced under either the owner or
rental programs.
AHIP recently conducted a County-wide housing quality analysis using assess-
ment records of the County Real Estate Department to identify concentrations
of substandard units. Five areas - Crozet, Ivy, North Garden/Covesville,
Southern Albemarle and Esmont - were targeted for assistance. Owners of
substandard units were surveyed to determine their willingness to receive
assistance in rehabilitating their units. Sixty responses were received,
creating an overall waiting list of 125 owner-occupied unit families. Also,
93 rental units have been identified in the five target areas. These lists
are considered sufficient to yield 39 owner-occupied units and 18 renter-
occupied unit rehabilitations.
The total cost of the project will be $1,369,075, including $387,615 in
Albemarle County funding over two years (see budget proposal on file).
Administrative costs will total $208,861, with VCDBG funds contributing
$28,800. The owner-occupied program will cost $741,353, $436,299 of which
will be VCDBG funded. The renter-occupied program will cost $418,861,
$234,901 of which will be VCDBG funded."
Mr. Cilimberg said for clarification, non-profit organizations could conduct rental
rehabilitation work as an owner. This proposal is considered the optimum program. A fall-
back position is built into the application whereby if AHIP cannot do all of the 18 rental
rehabilitations, then AHIP can use the funds for owner-occupied.
As of this date, the request for extension of the Moderate Rehabilitation Program has
not been granted and it is possible that this CDBG grant could be tied into the Moderate
Rehab Program. In addition, there is still uncertainty about the total amount of loan funds
which will be available from Charlottesville Housing Foundation for rental rehabilitations.
CHF has indicated that $183,960 could be made available, however the amount has not been
approved, but an amount has been approved for the owner-occupied units. Approval from CHF is
not expected until March 31. The resolution proposed for adoption by the Board tonight
states that $183,960 in private financing or additional CHF loan funds will also be expended
on this project, which is the amount under the optimum program. It is important to the
application to at least identify some landlords interested in participating in the program
because of the competitive scoring system of the block grant.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 9:51 P.M.) Mr. Fisher asked the reason this
application includes rental units. Mr. Cilimberg said that 125 units within the target areas
have been identified as potential recipients, so the staff felt that this provided an oppor-
tunity to tie the block grant funds into the Moderate Rehabilitation Program and secure
subsidies for those units that have been rehabilitated. Rent payments would be subsidized
through the existing Section 8 program. The owner of the rental units would be provided with
a deferred loan, which means that the loan is due upon sale of the unit and that stipulation
is made a part of the deed. There are a lot of aspects to the Moderate Rehab Program which
will have to be explained to the owner of the rental property such as requiring a 15 year
contract to provide housing assistance payments.
Mr. Horne said the request before the Board is for approval of an optimum program. The
staff also wishes to amend the ratio between renter-occupied and owner-occupied units for the
final proposal. The total amount would remain $700,000 for 57 units to be rehabilitated.
Mr. Cilimberg said approval should include changes to the amount of the CHF loan funds avail-
able for the project.
The public hearing was opened.
was closed.
There being no one present to speak, the public hearing
Mr. Way offered motion to adopt a resolution approving the optimum program as presented
with the understanding that staff can amend the ratio between the renter-occupied and owner-
occupied rehab units on the final proposal; the total grant request is for $700,000 with a
projection to rehabilitate 57 units; the Board also authorized the change as recommended by
Mr. Cilimberg to add the wording "and/or non-profit organizations" in the appropriate places.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(The resolution as adopted is set out below:)
330
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 8)
RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT TO APPLY FOR VIRGINIA COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED BY THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION FOR LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors wishes to apply for
$700,000 of Virginia Community Development Block Grant funds for the
Albemarle County Housing Rehabilitation project; and
WHEREAS, $387,615 in Albemarle County funds, $97,500 in Charlottesville
Housing Foundation loan funds, and $58,140 in private financing or additional
Charlottesville Housing Foundation loan funds will also be expended on this
project, and it is projected that the rehabilitation of 57 units occupied by
low to moderate income families will result from the implementation of this
project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Execu-
tive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for
submittal of this Virginia Community Development Grant application.
Agenda Item No. 9.
1987).
Adoption of Site Development Plan Ordinance (deferred from January 21,
Mr. Horne said that after a work session on January 21, 1987, the Board adopted a
resolution of intent to adopt the revised Site Development Plan section of the Zoning
Ordinance, with some further changes being recommended, but asked for Planning Commission
comments on those suggested changes. The Commission at its meeting on February 24, 1987,
unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance as returned to them. Mr. Horne said he
would recommend that the changes be made effective May 1, 1987.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to adopt the following ordinance to amend and reenact Section
32.0, Site Development Plan requirements of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, with an
effective date of May 1, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 32.0, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact Section 32.0, Site Development
Plan, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in its entirety, to
read as followS:
32.0
32.1
32.2
32.2.1
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
INTENT
There is a mutual responsibility between Albemarle County
and the developer to develop land in an orderly manner.
(32.1, 1980)
The purpose of this section is to encourage innovative and
creative design and facilitate use of the most advantageous
techniques and highest standards in the development of land
in Albemarle County; and to ensure that land is used in a
manner which is efficient, harmonious with neighboring
property and in accordance with the adopted comprehensive
plan for Albemarle County and with the provisions of this
ordinance. (32.1, 1980)
Nothing herein shall require the approval of any develop-
ment, use or plan, or any feature thereof, which shall be
found by the commission, the board of supervisors or its
agent, to constitute a danger to the public health, safety
or general welfare, or which shall be determined by such
commission, board of supervisors or agent, to be departure
from or violation of sound engineering design or standards.
(32.5.24, 1980)
Compliance with the provisions of this section shall in no
event be construed to relieve the applicant of the duty of
compliance with all other provisions of the law applicable
to the development in question. (32.2.4, 1980)
WHEN REQUIRED
A site development plan shall be required for any construc-
tion, use, change in use or other development in all zoning
districts; provided that no such plan shall be required for
the following:
331
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
32.2.2
32.3
32.3.1
32.3.2
32.3.3
32.3.4
32.3.5
32.3.6
32.3.7
ae
Ce
do
ee
The construction or change in occupancy of any
single-family detached dwelling unit which is located
upon a tract or parcel whereon are located or proposed
to be located an aggregate of two (2) or fewer such
units.
The location of a two-family dwelling on any lot or
parcel not occupied by any other dwellings.
Any accessory structure to a single-family or
two-family dwelling.
Any agricultural activity except as otherwise provided
in section 5.0.
Any change in or expansion of a use except where the
sale of gasoline is involved; provided that: (1) such
change or expansion does not occasion additional
parking under the requirements of this ordinance; (2)
no additional ingress/egress or change in
ingress/egress is recommended by Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation based on intensification of
use; (3) no additional ingress/egress or alteration of
existing ingress/egress is proposed. (32.2.1, 1980)
The foregoing notwithstanding, after notice in accordance
with section 32.4.2.5, the commission may waive the drawing
of a site development plan in a particular case upon a
finding that the requirement of such plan would not forward
the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve the public
interest; provided that no such waiver shall be made until
the commission has considered the recommendation of the
agent. The agent may recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of such waiver. In the case of
conditional approval, the agent in his recommendation shall
state the relationship of the recommended condition to the
provisions of this section. No condition shall be imposed
which could not be imposed through the application of the
regulations of section 32.0. (32.2.2, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
ADMINISTRATION (32.6, 1980)
The director of planning and community development of
Albemarle County is hereby designated the agent of the board
of supervisors of Albemarle County for purposes of the
administration of this section. (32.6.1, 1980)
The agent shall be responsible for the receipt and process-
ing of site development plan applications subject to the
procedures as hereinafter provided. (32.6.2, 1980)
The agent may from time to time establish such reasonable
administrative procedures as shall be necessary for the
proper administration of this section. (32.6.7, 1980)
Ail county and state officers and employees responsible for
the supervision and enforcement of this section shall have
the right to enter upon the property at all reasonable times
during the period of construction for the purpose of making
periodic inspections for compliance with this section. It
shall be the responsibility of the developer to notify the
zoning administrator when each stage of the development
shall be ready for inspection for compliance with the
approved site development plan in accordance with schedules
and regulations promulgated by the zoning administrator and
as approved by the board of supervisors. (32.6.4, 1980)
IMPROVEMENTS--CONSTRUCTION AND BONDING
Ail improvements required by this section shall be installed
at the cost of the developer, except where cost sharing or
reimbursement agreements between Albemarle County and the
developer are appropriate, the same to be recognized by
formal written agreement prior to site development plan
approval. (32.5.1, 1980)
The approval of a site development plan or the installation
of the improvements as required by this section shall not
obligate the county to accept improvements for maintenance,
repair or operation. Acceptance shall be subject to county and/or
state regulations, where applicable, concerning the acceptance of
each type of improvement. (32.5.23, 1980)
Prior to the final approval of any site development plan,
there shall be executed by the owner or developer an agree-
ment to construct all physical improvements required by or
332
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
32.3.8
32.3.9
32.3.10
pursuant to this section which are to be dedicated to public
use. The agent may require prior to final approval, issu-
ance of a building permit, or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy a bond with surety approved by the agent, in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated costs of such
improvements. In determining the estimated costs of the
improvements to be bonded, the owner or developer shall
submit an estimate of such costs which shall be reviewed and
approved by the county engineer. The agreement and bond
shall provide for and be conditioned upon completion of all
work within a time specified by the agent. The completion
of all other improvements required by or pursuant to this
section shall be certified and/or bonded as provided in
section 31.2.3 of this ordinance. (32.5.2, 1980; Amended
5-1-87)
REVISIONS
No change, revision or erasure shall be made on any
preliminary or final site development plan nor on any
accompanying data sheet where approval has been endorsed on
the plan or sheet unless authorization for such change is
granted in writing by the agent, except where such change
has been required by the site plan review committee or
commission. Any site development plan may be revised,
provided that request for such revision shall be filed and
processed in the same manner as the original site develop-
ment plan. (32.6.5, 1980)
The foregoing notwithstanding, the agent may approve admin-
istratively, without submission to the site plan review
committee or the commission, minor changes to an approved
site development plan in any case in which he shall deter-
mine that the site development plan, as amended, is in
compliance with the terms of all applicable law; is substan-
tially in compliance with the approved site development plan
together with all conditions imposed by the commission or
agent thereof; and will have no additional adverse impact on
adjacent properties or public facilities. (32.6.5, 1980,
Amended 5-1-87)
FEES
Se
The developer shall pay to the county a fee for the
examination and approval or disapproval of a site
development plan submitted pursuant to this section
such fees to be paid one-half at the time of filing of
the plan and the remainder prior to final approval.
Such fees shall be calculated as set forth in section
35.0. (32.6.6, 1980; 5-5-82)
be
In addition, for site development plan field inspec-
tions as the site is developed, the developer shall pay
to the county a fee as prescribed by a fee schedule of
the building inspections department. (32.6.6, 1980)
Ce
All fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of any
certificate of occupancy. (32.6.6, 1980)
APPEALS
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to
review all decisions of the commission made in the adminis-
tration of section 32.0 which, in its discretion, it shall
deem necessary to the proper administration hereof.
(32.7.7, 1980)
Any person aggrieved by any decision of the commission in
the administration of this section may demand a review of
the application by the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
sors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request there-
for in writing with the agent within ten (10) calendar days
of the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may
affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision
of the commission. In so doing, the board of supervisors
shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the
site plan review committee and the commission. In addition,
it may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary
for a proper review of the application. (32.7.6, 1980)
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the agent or site plan
review committee, may demand a review by the commission of
the specific decision concerned. Such request shall be made
in writing and filed with the agent within ten (10) calendar
days of the date of such decision. (Added 5-1-87)
For the purposes of this section the term "person aggrieved"
shall be limited to the applicant, persons required to be
notified pursuant to section 32.4.2.5, the commission or any
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
__(Page 11)__
:.-333
32.3.11
32.3.11.1
32.3.11.2
32.3.11.3
32.3.11.4
32.4
32.4.1
32.4.2
32.4.2.1
member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the county
executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof.
(32.7.6, 1980; 1-1-83; Amended 5-1-87)
WAIVER; VARIATION; SUBSTITUTION
The commission may waive, vary or accept substitution for
any requirement of section 32.7, minimum standards for
improvements, in a particular case upon a finding that
requirement of such improvement wOuld not forward the
purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve the public
interest; or in the case of substitution, that such alterna-
tive will satisfy the purpose of this ordinance to at least
an equivalent degree as the required improvement. (Added
5-1-87)
Whenever, because of unusual size, topography, shape of the
property, location of the property or other unusual condi-
tions excluding the proprietary interests of the developer,
strict application of the requirements of section 32.7 would
result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent
properties, the requirement may be varied or waived by the
commission; provided that such variance or waiver shall not
be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to
the orderly development of the area, or to sound engineering
practice, or to adjacent properties. (Added 5-1-87)
Upon finding in any case that by substitution of technique,
design or materials of comparable quality, but differing
from those required by section 32.7, a developer will
achieve results which substantially satisfy the overall
purposes of this ordinance in a manner equal to or exceeding
the desired effects of the requirement in section 32.7, the
commission may approve such substitution of technique,
design or materials. (Added 5-1-87)
A developer requesting waiver, variation or substitution
pursuant to this section shall file with the agent a written
request which shall state reasons and justifications for
such request together with such alternatives as may be
proposed by the developer. Such request shall be submitted
prior to commission consideration of the preliminary or
final plan, but no later than the site plan review committee
revision deadline. No such request shall be considered by
the commission until the commission has considered the
recommendation of the agent. The agent may recommend
approval, approval with conditions or denial. A recommen-
dation of approval or conditional approval shall be accompa-
nied by a statement from the agent as to public purpose
served by such recommendation, particularly in regard to the
purpose and intent of this ordinance, Chapter 18 of the Code
of Albemarle, and the comprehensive plan. (Added 5-1-87)
PROCEDURE
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE WITH STAFF
An informal meeting and discussion between the applicant and
the county planning staff may be held prior to the submis-
sion of a preliminary site development plan. The applicant
may present a preliminary schematic master plan showing:
a. Boundary lines of subject property;
Existing land conditions, existing topography at a
maximum of ten (10) foot contour intervals, and soils
information;
em
General lay-out design of what is proposed on a scale
of not smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred
(100) feet;
d. Building setback lines;
e. Zoning of subject property and adjacent parcels;
f. Notation if within public water supply watershed.
This is not to be considered binding by the county or the
owner of the property, but serves simply as a guide toward
future development as each section of development is submit-
ted for final approval. (32.3.1, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL
Applications for preliminary plan approval shall be submit-
ted to the Albemarle County department of planning and
community development. Plans which lack information re-
334
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
32.4.2.2
32.4.2.3
32.4.2.4
32.4.2.5
32.4.2.6
32.4.2.7
32.4.3
32.4.3.1
quired by section 32.5 shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall
be rejected by the agent within ten (10) days of submittal.
(32.7.1, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
There is hereby created a site plan review committee composed of
representatives of the Albemarle County department of planning and
community development, the Albemarle County engineer's office, the
Albemarle County Service Authority, the watershed management
official, the Albemarle County fire official, the Virginia Depart-
ment of Health, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation, and the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service. The committee shall have the power to make
rules for the regulation of its business, subject to the approval
of the commission. (32.7.2, 1980; 1-1-84; Amended 5-1-87)
The agent shall transmit all applications for preliminary
plan approval to the site plan review committee. The
committee shall review all such applications for technical
compliance with the provisions hereof. Upon completion of
its review, the committee shall make recommendations to the
agent. (32.7.3, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
The developer shall revise the plan to include all require-
ments of the site plan review committee and shall submit
such revisions by a date prescribed by the agent. Where the
revised plan does not include required revisions, the agent
shall suspend review and notify the applicant in writing
that the plan shall not proceed until required revisions are
complete as determined by the agent. (Added 5-1-87)
Nothing contained herein shall obligate the developer to
revise the plan to include recommendations of the committee.
However, in such case in which the developer does not revise
the plan to include recommendations of the committee, the
developer shall submit in writing to the agent by the
revision date a statement as to the reasons and justi-
fication for not incorporating such recommendations in the
revised plan. (Added 5-1-87)
At such time as the agent determines that the plan is in
compliance with the requirements of this section, the agent
shall transmit the plan, together with the recommendations
of the site plan review committee, and his comments and
recommendations, to the commission for action. (32.7.4,
1980; Amended 5-1-87)
Notice of preliminary plan submission shall be sent by first
class mail to the last known address of all owners of
property adjacent to the development. In any case in which
the property so adjacent is owned by the applicant, notice
shall be given to the owners of the next adjoining property
not owned by the applicant. Mailing to the address shown on
the current real estate tax assessment books of Albemarle
County shall be deemed adequate compliance with this re-
quirement. No preliminary plan shall be approved within ten
(10) calendar days of the date of the mailing of such
notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed,
specific location of development, appropriate county office
where the preliminary plan may be viewed, and date of
commission meeting. (32.3.2, 1980; 6-3-81; Amended 5-1-87)
The commission shall approve or disapprove the application
within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of the appli-
cation, except in those cases where the agent has suspended
review of the preliminary plan under section 32.4.2.4 of
this ordinance. In so doing, the commission shall give due
consideration to the recommendations of the site plan review
committee and the agent. In addition, it may consider such
other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of
the application. (32.7.5, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
In approving a preliminary plan, the commission may deter-
mine to review in whole or in part the final site develop-
ment plan. (Added 5-1-87)
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the agent, site plan
review committee, or the commission may appeal the specific
decision concerned pursuant to section 32.3.10 of this
ordinance. (Added 5-1-87)
FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL
In order to be eligible for administrative approval by the
agent, a final site development plan shall be submitted
within six (6) months of the date of commission approval of
the preliminary plan. In any case, the final site develop-
ment plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the com-
mission approval of the preliminary plan or the preliminary
plan approval shall expire. (Added 5-1-87)
335
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)' ' ·
(Page 13)
32.4.3.2
32.4.3.3
32.4.3.4
32..4.3.5
32.4.3.6
32.4.3.7
32.4.3.8
32.5
32.5.1
32.5.2
32.5.3
32.5.4
32.5.5
32.5.6
The site development plan shall be reviewed by the com-
mission if (1) there is substantial change from the approved
preliminary plan; or (2) if the commission requested review
of the plan during preliminary plan approVal. (Added
5-1-87)
During the above time period, the applicant shall work to
satisfy the conditions of preliminary plan approval and to
obtain tentative approvals for the final site development
plan from the agencies represented on the site plan review
committee. (Added 5-1-87)
The final site development plan shall be reviewed in accor-
dance with the regulations of section 32.0 in effect at time
of preliminary site development plan approval. (Added
5-1-87)
Application for final site development plan approval shall
be submitted to the Albemarle County department of planning
and community development. (32.7.1, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
Plans which lack items required in section 32.6 shall be
deemed to be incomplete and shall be rejected by the agent.
(Added 5-1-87)
The agent shall transmit application for final site develop-
ment plan approval to the site plan review committee for its
review. The committee shall review such application for
technical compliance with the provisions hereof and any
conditions of approval of the preliminary plan. (Added
5-1-87)
For a plan not eligible for administrative approval, the
site plan review committee shall make recommendations to the
agent. The plan shall proceed as for a preliminary plan,
following procedures in section 32.4.2. (Added 5-1-87)
For a plan eligible for administrative approval, the site
plan review committee shall give final approval to the plan
if required revisions are complete, or defer approval if
further required revisions are necessary. (Added 5-1-87)
At such time as the plan is approvable, all members of the
site plan review committee shall sign the master drawing
required under section 32.6.4. (Added 5-1-87)
Approval of the final site development plan pursuant to this
section shall expire twelve (12) months after the date of
approval unless actual building construction shall have
commenced and is thereafter prosecuted in good faith.
(32.6.3, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the agent or site plan
review committee or commission may appeal the specific
decision concerned pursuant to section 32.3.10 of this
ordinance. (Added 5-1-87)
PRELIMINARY PLAN CONTENT
Fourteen (14) clearly legible blue or black line copies of a
preliminary plan shall be filed with the Albemarle County
department of planning and community development. (32.3.5,
1980; Amended 5-1-87)
If revisions are necessary, seven (7) full-sized revised
copies and one (1) reduced revised copy no larger than
eleven (11) inches by seventeen (17) inches shall be submit-
ted by the revisions deadline. (Added 5-1-87)
Ail waiver requests shall be submitted with the preliminary
plan and clearly state the specific items being requested
for waiver. (Added 5-1-87)
The preliminary plan shall be dimensioned to the accuracy
standards required in section 32.5.6.r. (Added 5-1-87)
The preliminary plan shall be prepared to the scale of one
(1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or to such scale as may be
approved by the agent in a particular case; no sheet shall
exceed forty-two (42) inches by thirty-six (36) inches in
size. The preliminary plan may be prepared on one (1) or
more sheets. If prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match
lines shall clearly indicate where the several sheets join.
(Added 5-1-87)
The preliminary plan shall contain the following informa-
tion:
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Se
bm
ee
j ~
ke
ne
The name of the development; name of the owner, devel-
oper and individual who prepared the plan; tax map and
parcel number; zoning; together with description~of any
variances, zoning proffers and bonus factors applicable
to the site; magisterial district; county and state;
north point; scale; one datum reference for elevation
(where section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, is
involved, United States Geological Survey vertical
datum shall be shown and/or correlated to plan topogra-
phy); the source of the topography; the source of the
survey; sheet number and total number of sheets; date
of drawing; date and description of latest revision;
owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number and present
use of adjacent parcels; departing lot lines; minimum
setback lines, yard and building separation require-
ments; vicinity map at a scale of one (1) inch equals
two thousand (2,000) feet; and boundary dimensions.
Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate
that the site can accommodate the proposed use, includ-
ing: proposed uses and maximum acreage occupied by
each use; maximum number of dwelling units by type;
gross residential density; square footage of recreation
area, percent and acreage of open space; maximum square
footage for commercial and industrial uses; maximum
number of employees; maximum floor area ratio and lot
coverage if industrial; maximum height of all struc-
tures; schedule of parking including maximum amount
required and amount provided; and maximum amount of
impervious cover on the site; if a landscape plan is
required, maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular
circulation areas.
If phasing is planned, phase lines and proposed timing
of development.
Existing topography (up to twenty [20] percent slope,
maximum five [5] foot contours, over twenty [20]
percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours).
Proposed grading (maximum five [5] foot contours)
supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas
of the site where existing slopes are twenty-five (25)
percent or greater. Existing topography for the entire
site and a minimum of two hundred (200) feet outside of
the site unless otherwise approved by'the agent.
Existing landscape features as described in section
32.7.9.4.c.
The name and location of all watercourses and other
bodies of water adjacent to or on the site. Indicate
if the site is located within a reservoir watershed.
Location of septic setback lines from watercourses
including intermittent streams and other bodies of
water.
One hundred year flood plain limits as shown on the
official flood insurance maps for Albemarle County.
Existing and proposed streets, access easements and
travelways, together with street names, state route
numbers, right-of-way lines and widths, centerline
radii, and pavement widths. (32.4.5, 1980; Amended
5-1-87)
Location and size of: existing water and sanitary
sewer facilities and easements; storm sewer facilities,
drainage channels; and drainage easements.
Proposed conceptual lay-out for water and sanitary
sewer facilities and storm drainage facilities includ-
ing storm detention ponds or structures, indicating
direction of flow in all,pipes and watercourses with
arrows.
Location of other existing and proposed utilities and
utility easements,
Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress
from the site, showing the distance to the centerline
of the nearest existing street intersection.
Location and dimensions of all existing and ~roposed
improvements including: buildings (maximum footprint
and height) and other structures; walkways; fences;
walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting; landscaped
areas and open space; recreational areas and faci-
lities; parking lots and other paved areas; loading and
337
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
32.6
32.6.1
32.6.2
32.6.3
32.6.4
32.6.5
32.6.6
Oe
De
service areas together with the proposed paving materi-
al types for all walks, parking lots and driveways; and
signs.
All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for
public use.
Landscape plan in conformance with section 32.7.9.
Where deemed appropriate by the agent due to intensity
of development, estimated traffic generation figures
for the site based upon current Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation rates for residential land
uses, and the Federal Highway Administration Publica-
tion Development and Application of Trip Generation
Rates for all other land uses. Indicate the estimated
vehicles per day and direction of travel for all
connections to a public road.
The preliminary plan shall be dimensioned to at least
the following standards for accuracy:
Boundary, setback and zoning lines - one foot in one
thousand (1:1,000) feet;
Existing contours - one-half (1/2) of the contour
interval required in section 32.5.6.d above;
Proposed contours - within five (5) feet horizon-
tally and vertically;
Existing structures, utilities and other topo-
graphic features - within five (5) feet;
Proposed structures, roads, parking lots and other
improvements - within five (5) feet.
The agent or the commission may require additional
information to be shown on the preliminary plan as
deemed necessary in order to provide sufficient infor-
mation for the staff and/or commission to adequately
review a preliminary plan.
FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENT
Final site development plans together with amendments
thereto shall be prepared and sealed by an architect,
professional engineer, land surveyor with a 3(b) license, or
landscape architect, all of whom shall be licensed to
practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Final site development plans shall be prepared on mylar,
sepia, or other such transparency material which shall be
termed as the master drawing. Fourteen (14) clearly legible
blue or black line copies of the master drawing shall be
filed with the Albemarle County department of planning and
community development.
Six (6) copies of a landscape plan shall be filed with the
site development plan if not previously submitted.
If revisions are necessary, seven (7) full-sized revised
copies shall be submitted by the revision deadline. When
the plan is ready for final approval, the full-sized revised
master drawing shall be submitted for signatures. Once
signatures have been obtained, the applicant shall submit
four (4) copies of the signed master drawing to the agent.
The final site development plan shall be prepared to the
scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or larger; no
sheet shall exceed thirty-six (36) inches by forty-two (42)
inches in size. The site development plan may be prepared
on one (1) or more sheets. If prepared on mo~e than one (1)
sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the sheets
join.
The final site development plan shall reflect conditions of
approval of the preliminary plan. The final site develop-
ment plan shall contain the following information in addi-
tion to all the information required on the preliminary
plan:
Specific written schedules or notes as necessary to
demonstrate the requirements of this ordinance are
being satisfied. In addition to preliminary plan
information, indicate if sale or rental units; number
of bedrooms per unit, and number of units per building
if multi-family; specifications for recreational
facilities.
338
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paae 16)
Co
Proposed grading (up to twenty [20] percent slope,
maximum two [2] foot contours; over twenty [20] percent
slope, maximum five [5] foot contours).
Detailed plans for proposed water and sanitary sewer
facilities, including: all pipe sizes, types and
grades; proposed connections to existing or proposed
central systems; location and dimensions of proposed
easements and whether the same are to be publicly or
privately maintained; profiles and cross sections of
all water and sewer lines including clearance where
lines cross; all water main locations and sizes; valves
and fire hydrant locations; all sanitary sewer
appurtenances by type and number; the station on the
plan to conform to the station shown on the profile and
indicate the top and invert elevation of each struc-
ture.
Detailed construction drainage and grading plans:
Profiles of all ditches and channels whether
proposed or existing. Show: existing and pro-
posed grades, and invert of ditches, cross pipes
or utilities; typical channel cross sections for
new construction; and actual cross sections for
existing channels intended to remain;
Profiles of all storm sewer systems showing
existing and proposed grades;
Plan view of all drainage systems with all structures,
pipes and channels numbered or lettered on the plan and
profile views. Show sufficient dimensions and bench
marks to allow field stake out of all proposed work from
the boundary lines;
A drainage summary table for culverts, storm sewer
and channels as described in the following exam-
ple:
Structure Invert Invert
Number Description Length In Out Slope Remarks
1 42" RCP 50' 424.50 424.00 100.00% Provide
Class III 2, EW
2 DI3B L=8 426.00 - IS1
432.00 Top
3 PG2A 400' 420.00 400.00 5.00% D=12"
4 Grade Swale 200' 420.00 415.00 2.50% D=18"
fe
A legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on
the plan;
General notes, typical sections, and details of all
items not covered by Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation standard drawings;
Flood plain limits for the one hundred year storm for
all watercourses with an upstream drainage area of fifty
(50) acres or more provided that the county engineer may
waive this requirement for drainage areas of less than
one hundred (100) acres upon determination that such
information is unnecessary for review of the proposed
development.
Typical street sections together with specific street sec-
tions where street cut or fill is five (5) feet or greater;
centerline curve data; radius of curb returns or edge of
pavement; location, type and size of proposed ingress to and
egress from the site; together with culvert size; symmetrical
transition of pavement at intersection with existing street;
the edge of street surface or face of curb for full length of
proposed street; when proposed streets intersect with or
adjoin existing streets or travelways, both edges of existing
pavement or travelway together with curb and gutter indicated
for a minimum of one hundred (100) feet or the length of
connection, whichever is the greater distance.
Signature panels for department of planning and community
development, department of engineering, department of zoning,
fire official, Albemarle County Service Authority, Virginia
Department of Health, and Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation.
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Ra~e 17)
32.7
32.7.1
32.7.1.1
32.7.1.2
For all parking and loading areas, indicate: size;
angle of stalls; width of aisles and specific number of
spaces required and provided, and method of computa-
tion. Indicate type of surfacing for all paved or
gravel areas.
The final site development plan shall be dimensioned to
at least the following standards for accuracy:
Boundary, setback and zoning lines - one foot in
ten thousand (1:10,000) feet;
Existing contours - one half (1/2) of the contour
interval required in section 32.6.6.b above;
Proposed contours - within one (1) foot horizon-
tally and vertically;
Spot elevations - within one-tenth (0.10) of a
foot;
Existing structures, utilities and other topo-
graphic features - within two (2) feet. For
critical structures, accuracy should be within
one-tenth (0.10) of a foot;
Proposed structures, roads, parking lots and other
improvements - within one one-hundredth (0.01) of
a foot.
h. Landscape plan in conformance with section 32.7.9.
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The comprehensive plan for Albemarle County provides a
framework within which public and private decisions can
promote the most beneficial arrangement of land use and
related public services. The comprehensive plan provides
for a balanced development policy which accommodates future
growth while preserving existing amenities. (Added 5-1-87)
There is a mutual responsibility between the county and the
developer to develop land in an orderly manner in accordance
with the intent of the comprehensive plan. The comprehen-
sive plan shall serve as a guide to the developer in prepa-
ration of a site development plan. All agencies of the
county shall employ, and all other public agencies are
encouraged to employ, the standards and recommendations of
the comprehensive plan in review of site development plans.
(Added 5-1-87)
In the case of any construction, use, change of use or other
development required to be reviewed by the commission under
section 15.1-456 of the Code, the provisions of this ordi-
nance shall be deemed supplementary to the said section and
shall be construed in accordance therewith. (32.2.3, 1980)
Any public area, facility or use as set forth in paragraph
(a) of section 15.1-456 of the Code which is within, but not
the entire subject of, an application under this section,
shall be reviewed by the commission as to whether or not the
same is substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan
as well as for compliance with the design standards hereof.
Approval of such application shall be deemed approval of
such area, facility or use pursuant to section 15.1-456 (a),
(b) and (d) of the Code, subject to review by the board of
supervisors pursuant to section 32.3.10 hereof, which review
shall, as to such area, facility or use, be deemed to
constitute review pursuant to section 15.1-456 (b) of the
Code. Upon approval or disapproval of any plan showing such
facility, the commission shall promptly communicate its
findings to the governing body by forwarding the same in
writing to the clerk of the board of supervisors. (32.2.3,
1-1-83)
· Site development plans may include provision for the reser-
vation and/or dedication of suitable areas for parks,
schools, open space and other public facilities, utilities
and uses as recommended in the adopted comprehensive plan
for Albemarle County. The developer shall confer with the
board of supervisors or its agent and/or other appropriate
public officials of the county to ascertain if, and when,
and in what manner such areas should be reserved for acqui-
sition by the county. Nothing in this provision shall be
construed to preclude the dedication of any property for
public use which is not included in the comprehensive plan,
provided such property is acceptable to the county for
340
March 18, 1'987 (Regular Night Meeting)
~Paqel8~
32.7.1.3
32.7.2
32.7.2.1
32.7.2.2
32.7.2.3
32.7.2.4
32.7.2.5
dedication and maintenance. The board of supervisors may
require, as a condition precedent to approval of the devel-
opment, that the developer allocate space necessary for
public purposes, to the extent that the same shall be
reasonably necessitated by the particular development.
Where the particular development contributes in part, along
with other development or developments in the area, to the
need for such facilities, the developer may be required to
contribute lands, on a pro-rata basis, for such facilities
as are reasonably attributable to the particular develop-
ment. (32.5.17, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
Where the comprehensive plan indicates a proposed right-of-
way greater than that existing on the boundaries of a site
development plan, such additional right-of-way shall be
reserved for public use when the plan is approved by the
measurement of setback from such proposed right-of-way line.
(32.5.4, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS; CIRCULATION; PEDESTRIAN WAYS;
PARKING AND LOADING
Each development shall be provided with safe and convenient
ingress from and egress to one (1) or more public roads
designed to: reduce or prevent congestion in the public
streets; minimize conflict and friction with vehicular
traffic on the public street and on-site; minimize conflict
with pedestrian traffic; and provide continuous and unob-
structed access for emergency purposes such as police, fire
and rescue vehicles. To these ends, the commission in
review of a site development plan may specify the number,
type, location and design of access points to a public
street together with such measures as may be deemed appro-
priate to insure adequate functioning of such access points.
(Added 5-1-87)
Each entrance onto any public road for vehicular traffic to and
from each development shall be subject to the approval of the
commission upon the advice of the resident engineer of the Virgin-
ia Department of Highways and Transportation and other staff and
shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards of
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
(32.5.8.01, 7-15-81)
In the case of any multi-laned divided highway, no such
entrance which is not directly opposite any crossover in the
median of any such highway shall be permitted within five
hundred (500) feet of any such crossover except upon find-
ings by the commission that: (1) there is no other reason-
ably practicable access to such development except within
five hundred (500) feet of any such crossover; (2) that no
reasonable means of alternative access is available to such
development; and (3) that the provision of an entrance
within five hundred (500) feet of any such crossover will be
consistent with the public health, safety and general
welfare. (32.5.8.01, 7-15-81)
Where discharge waters of the one hundred year storm could
reasonably be anticipated to inundate, block, destroy or
otherwise obstruct the principal means of access to a
residential development or part thereof:
The principal means of access shall be designed and
constructed so as to provide unobstructed access at
time of flooding subject to the requirements of section
30.3 flood hazard overlay district; and/or
be
Alternative vehicular access available to all dwellings
and not subject to flooding shall be provided. (Added
5-1-87)
For a development of fifty (50) or more residential units,
reasonably direct vehicular access shall be provided from
all residential units to two (2) public street connections.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the commission for any scale
of residential development may require two (2) points of
access to a public street where such access is deemed
warranted due to the character of the residents of such
development including but not limited to the elderly,
handicapped, and developmentally disabled. (Added 5-1-87)
The commission may require provision for and/or construction
of travel lanes or driveways to serve adjoining properties.
The pavement of vehicular travel lanes or driveways designed
to permit vehicular travel on the site and from adjacent
property and parking areas shall be not less than twenty
(20) feet in width. (32.5.7, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
341
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
32.7.2.6
32.7.2.7
32.7.2.8
32.7.3
32.7.3.1
On any site bordering a primary, arterial or interstate
highway, or adjacent to an existing service road in the
state highway system, the developer, in lieu of providing
travel lanes or driveways that provide vehicular access to
and from adjacent parking areas and adjacent property, may
dedicate where necessary, and construct a service road in
accordance with existing standards for the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation for such roads. In no
such event.shall the setback requirement be greater if the
service road is dedicated than the setback required without
dedication, except that in no event shall a building be
constructed closer than twenty (20) feet from the nearest
right-of-way line. Upon satisfactory completion, inspection
and application by the developer, the county shall take the
necessary procedural steps to have such service road accept-
ed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
for maintenance. (32.5.8, 1980)
On-site parking and circulation shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with section 4.12, off-street
parking and loading requirements, subject to county engineer
approval in accordance with sound engineering practices,
including but not limited to grade, drainage, and paving
specifications; and agent approval of the safe and conve-
nient vehicular circulation patterns. (Added 5-1-87)
Provision shall be made for sidewalks and pedestrian walk-
ways which will enable pedestrians to walk safely and
conveniently between buildings on the site and from the site
to adjacent property. When feasible, pedestrian underpasses
or overpasses are to be encouraged in conjunction with major
vehicular routes. Provision shall be made where appropriate
for pedestrian walkways in relation to private and public
areas of recreation and open space such as schools, parks,
gardens and areas of similar nature. Connection shall be
made wherever possible of walkways and bicycle ways with
similar facilities in adjacent developments. All sidewalks
and curbs and gutters proposed to be accepted for mainte-
nance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
shall be built in accordance with the construction standards of
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and shall
conform to the provisions of section 15.1-381 of the Code. All
other sidewalks and walkways shall conform to section 15.1-381 of
the Code and shall be of material, specifications and design
approved by the county engineer. Sidewalks and pedestrian walk-
ways may be required on one or both sides of streets to the
reasonable satisfaction of the commission in residential subdivi-
sions of a proposed density of two (2) or more dwelling units per
acre and in commercial and industrial developments whenever the
commission shall determine that the same are reasonably necessary
to protect the public health, safety and welfare and that the need
therefor is substantially generated by the proposed development.
(32.5.19, 1980)
STREETS; ROADS
In the case of any site development plan involving multiple
uses, including multiple dwelling units, the principal means
of access thereto shall conform to the standards of the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation or in the
case of a private road to the standards of the County as set
forth in section 18-36 of Chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle, whether or not the property is proposed to be
subdivided. The commission may waive this requirement for
access ways between adjoining properties and emergency
access ways required pursuant to section 32.7.2 of this
ordinance. (Added 5-1-87)
The board of supervisors, or its agent, may modify street
geometric design standards for local, collector and minor
loop streets or private roads, provided that:
Approval for modification is obtained from the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation where appli-
cable;
be
Off-street parking spaces are provided to compensate
for the loss of on-street parking due to modification
of geometric design standards;
The developer shall be responsible for the placing of
"no parking" signs on all travel lanes, driveways or
streets to prohibit parking on such roads or driveways.
Where cul-de-sac turnarounds are utilized under this
modification, if the right-of-way radius is fifty (50)
feet and the paved radius is forty (40) feet, the
developer shall install "no parking" signs for the
complete circle where such signs are required by the
commission. If the right-of-way radius is increased to
342
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
__(Paqe 20) _
32.7.3.2
32.7.3.3
32.7.4
32.7.4.1
32.7.4.2
sixty (60) feet and the paved radius is increased to
fifty (50) feet, parking on the turnaround may be
permitted. (32.5.6, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
Ail cul-de-sacs shall have a turning radius of at least
fifty (50) feet. In the case of any such street which is
not part of the state highway system, the commission may
require at least one sign of a type approved by the county
engineer be posted giving notice that such street is not a
through street. (32.5.9, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
No road segment ending in a cul-de-sac or loop street shall
serve more than forty-nine (49) residential units except as
provided in section 32.7.2 of this ordinance. (Added
5-1-87)
In any case where existing public street right-of-way is
less than fifty (50) feet, additional right-of-way shall be
dedicated to provide for a fifty (50) foot width. Such
dedication shall be measured to be twenty-five (25) feet
from the existing street centerline except as otherwise
required by the commission. In any case where the commis-
sion determines that a right-of-way in excess of fifty (50)
feet will be necessary to serve the traffic which may
reasonably be expected to be generated by the proposed
development, such greater width of right-of-way may be
required by the commission. Public street right-of-way of
less than fifty (50) feet may be permitted upon recom-
mendation of the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation. (32.5.4, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
DRAINAGE; STORMWATER MANAGEMENT; SOIL EROSION
Provisions shall be made for the disposition of surface
water run-off from the site including such on-site and
off-site drainage facilities and drainage easements as the
commission, upon recommendation of the county engineer, may
deem adequate. (32.5.13, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
Except as the commission may otherwise require in a particu-
lar case, or as expressly provided herein, such facilities
shall be so designed and installed that the rate of surface
water run-off from the site, due to a rainfall of a ten-year
return period intensity as shown on the frequency analysis
curve for Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be no greater after the
proposed development than before; provided, that. the same may be
accomplished without unreasonable adverse impact on the
environment of the site. This subsection shall apply only within
the geographic limits as hereinafter described: the drainage
basins of Moores Creek, Meadow Creek, Powell Creek, Redbud Creek,
Town Branch and those unnamed branches, whether perennial or
intermittent, which flow directly into the Rivanna River from
either side, beginning at the crossing of U. S. Route 29 over the
South Fork of the Rivanna River, thence with the South Fork to its
confluence with the North Fork of the Rivanna and thence
downstream with the Rivanna River to its confluence with
Moores Creek; all as shown on maps published by the United
States Geological Survey entitled, "Charlottesville East,
Virginia," "Charlottesville West, Virginia," "Earlysville,
Virginia," "Simeon, Virginia," and "Alberene, Virginia."
Within the geographic area hereinabove described, this
subsection shall not apply to the following:
Se
Lands which are designated as lying within the flood
plain of any stream in accordance with section 30.3 of
this ordinance;
be
The development of any lot or parcel which results in a
total impervious surface coverage of not greater than
twenty thousand (20,000) square feet;
Any development, the final site development plan and/or
subdivision plat of which has been approved by the
commission prior to the adoption of this section, as
amended; and
de
In any case where the developer shall demonstrate to
the reasonable satisfaction of the county engineer and
the commission that off-site improvements or other
provisions for the disposition of surface water run-off
would equally or better serve the public interest and
safety, and that such method of disposition would not
adversely affect downstream properties. (32.5.13,
1980; Amended 5-1-87)
In addition to the provisions of section 4.14 and other
applicable law, provisions shall be made for the minimiza-
tion of pollution of downstream watercourses and groundwater
where such measures are deemed warranted by the commission
343
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 21)
32.7.4.3
32.7.4.4
32.7.5
32.7.5.1
32.7.5.2
32.7.5.3
32.7.6
32.7.6.1
due to the peculiar character of a particular use. In
determining what measures, if any, are warranted, the
commission shall consider the recommendation of the county
engineer and, where applicable, the watershed management
official, in light of the character of the proposed use
including but not limited to: storage of petroleum prod-
ucts, pesticides, poisons, synthetic organic compounds or
other substances which, if improperly stored or inadvertent-
ly discharged, may reasonably be anticipated to pollute
surface or groundwaters. This provision shall not apply to
residential use. (Added 5-1-87)
Ail provisions for soil erosion and sedimentation control
shall comply with the provisions of the Albemarle County
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. (32.5.14,
1980)
In review of site development plans, the site plan review
committee should refer to the U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle
County, Virginia, August, 1985 in commenting as to soil
suitability for the intended development including specific
reference to Table 10 Building Site Development, Table 12
Construction Materials, and Table 16 Soil and Water Fea-
tures. In such case where soils are rated as poor or
severely limited for an intended use, or where high seasonal
water table and/or hydrologic group D soils are encountered,
the site plan review committee shall so notify the commis-
sion together with recommendations for special design
measures. (Added 5-1-87)
WATER, SEWER, AND OTHER UTILITIES
Adequate provision shall be made by the developer for all
utilities, both on-site and off-site. Where deemed appro-
priate by the commission in accordance with section 32.7.1,
the developer shall provide easements through the develop-
ment for extension of such utilities to other properties.
(32.5.15, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
Within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service
Authority and where the commission determines public water
and/or sewer to be reasonably available, such service shall
be extended by the developer. All such facilities shall be
constructed to Albemarle County Service Authority specifi-
cations and dedicated to the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Except as otherwise provided by Albemarle County
Service Authority policy, all costs shall be borne by the
developer. (Added 5-1-87)
Ail public facilities, utility and drainage easements
outside the right-of-way of public streets are to be shown
on the final site development plan provided that new ease-
ments may be generally shown and accurately dedicated by
separate plat. Utility installation in public streets and
rights-of-way shall be coordinated with street construction plans
and profiles approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation resident engineer for Albemarle County and the
county engineer. (32.5.16, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
No site development plan shall be approved by the commission
without verification from the Albemarle County Service
Authority and Albemarle County fire official that adequate
capability exists to serve such development including
required fire flows together with all other approved devel-
opments to be served by such system. Where the development
is to be served by a central water or sewer system other
than the Albemarle County Service Authority, no approval
shall be granted until the requirements of Title 15.1,
Chapter 9, Article 7 of the Code have been satisfied. Where
service is proposed by individual well or septic system, no
approval shall be granted until written approval from the
Virginia Department of Health has been received by the
agent. (Added 5-1-87)
FIRE PROTECTION
In areas where public water is deemed reasonably available
by the commission, fire hydrants and distribution systems
shall be provided by the developer. Hydrant locations and
fire flow requirements shall be as prescribed by Insurance
Service Offices (ISO) standards and subject to approval of
the Albemarle County fire official. Access ways for emer-
gency vehicles shall be provided as specified by the fire
official. In areas where public water is not reasonably
available, the fire official may require such alternative
provisions as deemed reasonably necessary to provide ade-
quate fire protection. (32.5.18, 1980)
344
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 2~_____
32.7.7
32.7.7.1
32.7.8
32.7.8.1
32.7.8.2
32.7.9
32.7.9.1
32.7.9.2
RECREATION REQUIREMENTS
Recreational areas shall be provided in accordance with
section 4.16, recreation regulations, of this ordinance.
(Added 5-1-87)
SIGNS AND LIGHTING
Signage shall be approved by the zoning administrator in
accordance with section 4.15, signs, of this ordinance.
Approval of a site development plan shall in no fashion be
deemed as approval of any signage except such signs as may
be specifically required by the commission to regulate
traffic, prohibit parking, or to serve some other purpose of
this ordinance. (Added 5-1-87)
Outdoor lighting shall be directed away from roadways and
adjacent properties and shielded where necessary. (Added
5-1-87)
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of these requirements is to provide for the
installation, preservation and maintenance of plant materi-
als intended to:
Insure development which is consistent with the goals
of the comprehensive plan related to natural resources
and with the plan's environmental and land use stan-
dards;
b. Promote the public health, safety and welfare;
c. Conserve energy by providing shade and wind breaks;
Provide pervious area which helps to reduce run-off and
to recharge groundwater;
e. Improve air quality;
f. Minimize noise, dust and glare;
ge
Promote traffic safety by controlling views and defin-
ing circulation patterns;
To protect and preserve the appearance, character and
value of the neighboring properties. (32.8.1, 7-10-85)
WHEN REQUIRED
Whenever a site development plan is required by this ordi-
nance, a landscape plan shall be required as precedent to
final site development plan approval. The foregoing not-
withstanding, a landscape plan shall be required at time of
preliminary plan review: when the impervious coverage of
the site exceeds eighty (80) percent of the gross site area;
when the agent determines that due to unusual circumstances,
conditions of the site or by character of the proposed use,
review at the preliminary plan stage is warranted; or in any
case where required by the commission. (Added 5-1-87)
ADMINISTRATION; APPEAL
The agent in review of the landscape plan shall consid-
er comments from other agencies before approving the
plan, including the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation and the Albemarle County Service Author-
ity. Once the landscape plan is approved, no changes
may be made unless the revision has been approved by
the agent. (32.8.2.5, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
Required landscaping may be bonded in accordance with
section 32.3.5 to insure completion prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All required
landscaping shall be completed by the first planting
season following the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. A maintenance bond for the required land-
scaping shall be posted by the developer in favor of
the county. If the landscaping is completed prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, then the
maintenance bond shall be posted prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy. If the landscaping is
bonded for completion, rather than completed prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, then the
maintenance bond shall be posted when the materials are
planted and before the completion bond is released.
(32.8~.2.6, 32.8.2.7, 7-10-85)
3 4'5
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(~a~L~ 23)
32.7.9.3
32.7.9.4
The maintenance bOnd shall be in the amount of
one-third (1/3) of the value of required trees and/or
shrubs, and shall be held for a period of twelve (12)
months following the planting date. (32.8.2.7,
7-10-85)
At the end of the twelve (12) month time period, the
bond shall be released if all required plantings are in
healthy condition as determined by the zoning admini-
strator. Thereafter, required landscaping shall be
maintained in healthy condition by the current owner or
property owner's association, and replaced when neces-
sary. Replacement material shall conform to the
original intent of the landscape plan. When existing
plantings are preserved in lieu of required new plant-
ings, the bond shall be calculated according to the
replacement value of plantings which meet minimum
requirements of this ordinance. (32.8.2.7, 7-10-85)
Ce
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the agent may
demand a review of the plan by the commission pursuant
to section 32.3.10 of this ordinance. (32.8.2.8,
7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
VARIATION; WAIVER (Added 5-1-87)
The agent may vary or waive the requirement of a
landscape plan in whole or in part together with
improvements required herein upon a finding that
requirement of such plan and/or improvement would not
forward purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve
the public interest; provided that such variation or
waiver shall result in a plan substantially in compli-
ance with the approved site development plan together
with all conditions imposed by the commission or agent
thereof; and, provided further that such variation or
waiver shall have no additional adverse visual impact
on adjacent properties or public areas nor otherwise be
inconsistent with section 32.7.9 of this ordinance.
No variance or waiver of landscape plan shall be
approved except after notice required by section
32.4.2.5. (Added 5-1-87)
DJ
Whenever, because of unusual size, topography, shape of
the property, location of the property, or other
unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interests
of the developer, strict application of the require-
ments of section 32.7.9 would result in significant
degradation of the site or adjacent properties, the
requirement may be varied or waived by the agent;
provided that such variance or waiver shall not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
to the orderly development of the area, or to sound
engineering practice, or to adjacent properties.
(Added 5-1-87)
A developer requesting variation or waiver pursuant to
this section shall file with the agent a written
request which shall state reasons and justifications
for such request together with such alternatives as may
be proposed by the developer. The agent may approve,
approve with conditions, or deny such request. In the
case of conditional approval or denial, the agent shall
notify the developer in writing as to reasons for such
action within five (5) days of such decision. (Added
5-1-87)
CONTENTS
The landscape plan shall show the following:
a®
The location, size and type of all proposed plant materials,
and verification that minimum landscaping and screening
requirements have been satisfied. Plant materials may be
indicated in the following generic terms on the landscape
plan: large or medium shade tree; screening tree; screening
shrub; or street shrub. The required plant materials shall
be chosen from a recommended species list approved by the
agent. Plant material not listed may be substituted for
required plant material only if such substitution is express-
ly approved by the agent. (32.8.2.2, 7-10-85; Amended
5-1-87)
be
Existing trees or wooded areas may be preserved in lieu
of planting new materials in order to satisfy land-
scaping and screening requirements, subject to the
agent's approval. In such case, the landscape plan
shall indicate the trees to be saved; limits of clear-
ing; location and type of protective fencing; grade
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
32.7.9.5
32.7.9.6
changes requiring tree wells or walls; and trenching or
tunnelling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. In
addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation
checklist approved by the agent to insure that the
specified trees will be protected during construction.
Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in
a particular case, such checklist shall conform to
specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook, pp III284 through III-297.
(32.8.2.3, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
In addition, the landscape plan shall indicate existing
landscape features on the site. Such features shall
include, but shall not be limited to:
Wooded area indicated by general type (evergreen
or deciduous) and location of tree line;
Small groups of trees and individual trees of six
(6) inch caliper or greater, or ornamental trees
of any size, indicated by common name, approximate
caliper and location;
Natural features which distinguish the site, such
as prominent ridge lines, rock outcroppings or
water features;
Man-made features of local, historic or scenic
importance;
5. Scenic vistas across the site from a public road.
The agent may require that any or all such features be
preserved upon determination following a site inspection,
that the features contribute significantly to the character
of the Albemarle County landscape and that the preservation
of such features is necessary to satisfy the purpose and
intent of this ordinance.
The purpose of this section is to protect unique amenities
which could otherwise be irretrievably lost due to careless
site design. It is not intended that this section be
applied indiscriminately, nor to prohibit development.
(32.8.2.4, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
MINIMUM STANDARDS
The following minimum standards shall apply:
Large street trees shall be one and one-half (1 1/2)
inches to one and three-quarters (1 3/4) inches minimum
caliper (measured six [6] inches above ground level)
when planted. Medium street trees shall be one (1)
inch to one and one-quarter (1 1/4) inches minimum
caliper when planted. Evergreen trees for screening
shall be a minimum four (4) feet to five (5) feet in
height when planted. Shrubs for screening shall be a
minimum eighteen (18) inches to thirty (30) inches in
height when planted. Shrubs for street planting shall
be minimum twelve (12) inches to eighteen (18) inches
in height when planted. (32.8.3.1, 7-10-85)
Ail landscaping shall be planted according to estab-
lished planting procedures using good quality plant
materials. Planting islands shall contain a minimum of
fifty (50) square feet per tree, with a minimum dimen-
sion of five (5) feet in order to protect the landscap-
ing and allow for proper growth. Wheel stops, curbing
or other barriers shall be provided to prevent damage
to landscaping by vehicles. Where necessary, trees
shall be welled or otherwise protected against change
of grade. All pervious areas of the site shall be
permanently protected from soil erosion with grass or
other ground cover or mulch material. (32.8.3.2,
7-10-85)
STREET TREES (32.8.4, 7-10-85)
The following requirements shall apply to street trees:
ae
Street trees shall be required along existing or
proposed public streets in any development which is
subject to site development plan approval in all
commercial and industrial districts and residential
development of a density of four (4) dwelling units per
acre or greater. The agent may waive~ this requirement
in certain cases where site conditions warrant an
alternate solution. (32.8.4.1, 7-10-85; Amended
5-1-87)
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 25)
7
32.7.9.7
32.7.9.8
be
Ce
Street trees shall be selected from a current list of
recommended large shade trees, approved by the agent.
Medium shade trees may be substituted, subject to the
approval of the agent when site conditions warrant
smaller trees. The agent may approve substitutions of
species of large or medium shade trees. (32.8.4.2,
7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
Street trees shall be planted with even spacing in a
row adjacent to the public street right-of-way. One
(1) large street tree shall be required for every fifty
(50) feet of road frontage, or portion thereof, if
twenty-five~ (25) feet or more. Where permitted, one
(1) medium shade tree shall be reqUired for every forty
(40) feet of road frontage, or portion thereof, if
twenty (20) feet or more. The agent may approve minor
variations in spacing. (32.8.4.3, 7-10-85; Amended
5-1-87)
de
In the case of development with units for sale, the
trees shall be protected through an open space or
easement arrangement and shall be maintained by a
property owner's association. (32.8.4.4, 7-10-85;
Amended 5-1-87)
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING (32.8.5, 7-10-85)
Ail development subject to site development plan review
shall include the following required landscaping for parking
lots consisting of five (5) spaces or more: (32.8.5.1,
7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
Street trees: Street trees shall be planted in accor-
dance with section 32.7.9.6 along the public street
frontage which abuts a parking lot. The trees shall be
planted between the street right-of-way and the parking
area, within the parking setback. If required street
trees cannot be planted within the parking setback or
within ten (10) feet of the street right-of-way due to
sight distance, utility easement or other conflicting
requirements, then the planting strip shall be enlarged
to accommodate the trees. If this requirement creates
a hardship by causing the relocation of required
parking spaces, then the additional planting area may
be counted toward the interior landscaping requirement;
(32.8.5.1.a, 7-10-85)
be
Interior landscaping: Exclusive of the requirements of
section 32.7.9.7 (a) and (c), an area equal to five (5)
percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. This
shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per
ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5)
spaces or more. Interior landscaping shall be located
in reasonably dispersed planting islands or perimeter
areas. Shrub plantings adjacent to a building shall
not be counted as interior landscaping; (32.8.5.1.b,
7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
Ce
Additional plantings along public streets: When a
parking lot is located such that the parked cars will
be visible from a public street, then additional
landscaping of low street shrubs shall be required
between the street and the parking lot. Shrubs shall
be in a single row planted five (5) feet on center.
Alternate methods of landscaping designed to minimize
the visual impact of the parking lot may be approved by
the agent. (32.8.5.1.c, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
SCREENING (32.8.6, 7-10-85)
The following requirements shall apply to screening:
When required, screening shall consist of a planting
strip, existing vegetation, a sightly opaque wall or
fence, or combination thereof, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the agent. Where only vegetative
screening is provided, such screening strip shall not
be less than twenty (20) feet in depth. Vegetative
screening shall consist of a double staggered row of
evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or
a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten
(10) feet on center. Alternate methods of vegetative
screening may be approved by the agent. Where a fence
or wall is provided, it shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in
height and plantings may be required at intervals along such
fence or wall. (32.8.6.1, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
-348
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26~
bo
Screening of parking lots shall not be counted toward
the interior landscaping requirement. When screening
is required along the frontage of public streets, the
agent shall determine if the street tree requirement
has been met. (32.8.6.2, 7-10-85)
c. Screening shall be required in the following instances:
Commercial and industrial uses shall be screened
from adjacent residential and rural areas dis-
tricts. (32.8.6.3.a, 7-10-85)
Parking lots consisting of four (4) spaces or more
shall be screened from adjacent residential and
rural areas districts. (32.8.6.3.b, 7-10-85;
Amended 5-1-87)
Objectionable features including, but not limited
to, the following uses shall be screened from
ad.~acent residential and rural areas districts and
~ublic streets:
- loading areas
- refuse areas
- storage yards
- detention ponds
- recreational facilities determined to be of
objectionable character by the agent other than
children's play areas where visibility is neces-
sary or passive recreation areas where visi-
bility is desirable. (32.8.6.3.c.5, 7-10-85;
Amended 5-1-87)
Double frontage residential lots shall be screened
between the rear of the residences and the public
right-of-way when deemed appropriate by the agent.
(32.8.6.3.d, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87)
The commission may require screening of any use,
or portion thereof, upon determination that the
use would otherwise have a negative visual impact
on a property listed on the Virginia Historic
Landmarks Register. (32.8.6.3.f, 7-10-85; Amended
5-1-87)
32.7.10 GENERAL
32.7.10.1
Condominium and common wall projects of all types shall
indicate on the site development plan those areas reserved
for rental purposes and those areas reserved for sale
purposes. (32.5.3, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
32.7.10.2
One (1) set of approved plans, profiles and specifications
shall be at the site at all times when work is being per-
formed. (32.5.21, 1980)
32.7.10.3
Upon the completion of all required water, sewer and gas
lines shown on the approved site development plan, the
developer shall submit to the agent three (3) copies of the
completed record or as-built site development plan or
location plat for all water, sewer, gas lines and easements
certified by an engineer or surveyor. The record or
as-built utility plan shall be submitted at least one (1)
week prior to the anticipated occupancy of any building or
block of buildings for the review and approval by the agent
for conformity with the approved site development plan, this
ordinance and regulations of Albemarle County and state
agencies. (32.5.22, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
AND FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective on
and after May 1, 1987.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Ordinance Requiring Vaccination of Cats for Rabies.
Mr. St. John said the ordinance drafted requires the vaccination of cats and makes it
unlawful for any cat to be kept or harbored within the County unless .it is vaccinated,
provided that the cat is six months or older. If the ordinance is adopted as an emergency
measure, it would take affect immediately following enactment by the Board. The Board would
then be required to hold a public hearing and reenact the ordinance within 60 days to keep it
from expiring. Mr. Way said he has a problem with an ordinance taking effect immediately
because he feels that some time should be allowed to have the cats vaccinated and for the
Health Department to set up clinics. Mr. Fisher said adoption of the ordinance is important,
but whether it is adopted as an emergency ordinance is only a secondary question. Dr.
Richard Prindle, Director, Thomas Jefferson Health District, said he would be happy to
349
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
( P a__a_qD_ 27)
discuss setting up clinics with veterinarians. Mr. Fisher said a public hearing could be set
for April 8 on an ordinance and Dr. Prindle might have information at that time about the
clinics.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to advertise for public hearing on April 8, 1987, an ordinance
requiring the vaccination of cats against rabies. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No 11. Discussion: East/West Improvements, Urban Neighborhood Four.
Mr. Fisher said he requested that this item be placed on the agenda because the question
of some East/West Road improvements in Urban Neighborhood 4 has never been resolved. He then
asked for an update by the staff.
Mr. Horne summarized the following memorandum dated March 10, '1987, addressed to Mr. Guy
B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive:
"It is my understanding that the Board has requested a staff update of the
status of planning for various east-west road connections in Neighborhood 4
south of the City of Charlottesville. Attached you will find a section of
the urban area land use map which shows as dotted lines two east-west
connector roads between Avon Street and Fifth Street and Avon Street and
Route 20 South. The concept of these roadways was placed in the plan in
order to show the County desires for the construction of east-west connec-
tions that would relieve proposed traffic that would otherwise be loaded on
Avon Street, Fifth Street Extended and Route 20 South. In December of 1984,
the Engineering Department conducted a study of various optional alignments
for east-west connector roadways in this neighborhood. Attached is a map
that shows the approximate alignment of various options that were considered
in that study. That study was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and
deferred indefinitely.
The primary purpose of this report is to brief the Board on events that have
taken place since the time of that engineering study. Major events are as
follows:
1. Approval of the Mill Creek PUD.
During the last year the Board of Supervisors approved an application
plan for the Mill Creek Planned Unit Development which shows the
construction of a portion of an east-west connector roadway that is
roughly along the alignment shown as option one in the engineering
report. The engineering report had concluded that the connection shown
in the Comprehensive Plan is less feasible than option one and, there-
fore, during the discussions with the developer, the staff worked
toward the provision for an alignment for option one. During those
discussions and in subsequent discussions with VDOT, it has been
discovered that the alignment through the Oak Hill Subdivision must be
shifted to the south to move it away from the interchange. It would,
therefore, follow a slightly different alignment through Oak Hill than
shown on the engineering report. The ultimate design of this roadway
would need to be a four-lane divided highway of significant design
strength. The developer of the Mill Creek PUD will construct only that
portion of the roadway that is necessary to handle traffic from the
Mill Creek development or traffic from adjacent land zoned Light
Industrial. The County, VDOT, and the developer have executed inno-
vative agreements which insure VDOT maintenance of a roadway in this
alignment prior to the construction to the ultimate design. Those
agreements also insure the County that the developer will construct his
required portion of the roadway and dedicate right-of-way for the
ultimate construction. The County is guaranteeing VDOT that it will
enforce the requirement for successive upgrading to the construction
category as additional traffic is loaded on the roadway. If the County
deletes this roadway from the Comprehensive Plan, the developer is
relieved from his obligations as they pertain to the through status of
the roadway.
Final connection of this roadway across Biscuit Run through the Oak
Hill Subdivision will probably only be done by the County, if at all.
Cost will be significant due to the substantial bridge construction,
road construction, and property acquisition costs. This Department and
the Engineering Department will attempt to provide more accurate cost
estimates prior to the readoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
A potential benefit of the development of the agreements necessary to
provide for the construction of the roadway within Mill Creek may be
its applicability to construction of the connector roadway between Avon
Street and Route 20 through the Hillcrest property. Development of
that property was deferred in 1982 due to the inability of the developer
to finance the construction of a through road meeting VDH&T require-
ments. The development of an agreement between VDOT, the County, and
the developer similar to the Mill Creek agreement may provide a mecha-
nism for this construction to proceed.
350
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page~28k____
Approval of the Student Services Site Plan and City of Charlottesville
Public Works Department Site Plan.
Both of the above site plans contain land which would be needed for the
construction of portions of option five from the engineering report.
Option five is not currently shown in the Comprehensive Plan but was
evaluated as a possible alternative to those alignments shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Student Services site plan aligned their
entrance, dedicated right-of-way, and constructed the sub-base for
their entrance road in a matter consistent with the ultimate design of
a through road. This was done voluntarily by the developer.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission approved a site plan for a
school bus parking garage and storage area for the City of
Charlottesville Public Works Department on August 26, 1986. This plan
has now been resubmitted for major amendments and will be heard by the
Commission on March 24, 1987. During the review of the original site
plan the City was requested to dedicate the area for a potential
through road (option 5). They chose not to voluntarily dedicate this
area. They did agree to a design of the site plan which avoids any
areas needed for the construction of such a road. The amendment to
that plan proposes a minor amount of fill material to be placed in the
area needed for the road. It will, however, be compacted to VDOT
requirements and will be placed at grades consistent with construction
of a through road. The staff is, therefore, of the opinion that the
design of the amended site plan will again do nothing to preclude the
construction of a through road at some point in the future. Con-
struction of a through road from this area would face many of the very
severe topographical problems that are faced in this entire area of the
County for east-west road connections. Construction costs would, as in
other road alignments, be very significant.
Avon Street/I64 Interchange
On May 15, 1986, Commissioner Ray Pethtel of the Virginia Department of
Transportation sent a letter to the County which states clearly that
VDOT will not support the construction of an interchange at Avon Street
and I64. If such an interchange could be constructed it would allevi-
ate some~of the necessity for construction of other very expensive and
difficult east-west connections.
In summary, the development of the southern area neighborhoods is
proceeding. If the provision of utilities can keep pace with the
demand for development in this area, there will be increasing pressure
on the north-south road system, being Fifth Street Extended, Avon
Street, and Route 20 South. This pressure will be felt most severely
within the City of Charlottesville. East-west road connections between
these three roadways remain a desirable infrastructure development.
Cost of construction of any of the options shown in the engineering
report are very high and some of these costs will need to be borne by
the County if construction of these roadways is to proceed in a timely
manner. Staff will continue to work on more accurate cost estimates
with particular emphasis on the completion of the Mill Creek/Fifth
Street Extended connector."
Mr. Fisher said he sees no resolution to the problem, yet development is continuously
occurring. The more development that takes place, the more problems will be created. Mr.
Michael Armm, County Engineer, said all of the options cross very difficult terrain and the
options on both the east side and the west side of Avon Street must cross large ravines.
Although this can physically be done, the costs will be very high. The costs of bridge
structures will be enormous. The issue is how much money the County is willing to set aside
out of highway funds for a solution.
Mr. Fisher asked if this area should be shown in the Comprehensive Plan for such intense
development if no one can figure out how to build a road through it. Mr. Armm said he
believes there are certain portions of the southern neighborhood which have been over zoned.
There are severe critical slopes and severe floodplains. Mr. Agnor commented that the
southern area was designated for growth because of the Moores Creek Interceptor sewer and
the waterline planned for the area.
Mr. Horne said, as part of the Comprehensive Plan review, the Planning Commission is
doing a detailed analysis of the growth area to see how much of the area designated for
growth is really developable. The Commission thinks this is an important component. Mr.
Fisher asked if it is found that the land can be developed as shown in the plan, how that
development is going to take place. He feels uncomfortable that development is still
occurring when there are still these unresolved issues.
Mr. Way said he has strong feels concerning the commercial and industrial development
occurring on Avon Street Extended, particularly when there is no way to get onto 1-64 from
Avon Street. There has been much conversation about a connector to Avon Street both from
Fifth Street and from Route 20 South. He is not so sure that there is a need for a roadway
to go all the way from Route 20 to Fifth Street. Possibly a roadway from Route 20 to Avon
Street would be sufficient as that would take care of development on Avon Street and allow
access to the interstate via Route 20 thus eliminating the crossing of Biscuit Run and
destroying several residences off of Fifth Street. Mr. Horne said he thinks that is a good
point and it may be possible for an east-west connector, but it is best to concentrate
resources on one option.
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
IRate 29 )
Mr. Fisher said he is not sure that option would serve the commercial areas on Avon
Street, and that roadway would primarily run through residential neighborhoods. Mr. Horne
said the current Comprehensive Plan does not show this area as a large industrial/commercial
area, but largely as a residential area. The Commission will be trying to decide if the
existing zoning is still appropriate. The City of Charlottesville has recently purchased a
majority of the industrial land. In addition the most severe effects will take place in the
City. The roadways in the County can essentially handle projected traffic. The residential
areas in the City will feel the effects since the roads are not suitable for increased
amounts of traffic.
Mr. Horne said the staff will try to do as much preliminary engineering and cost esti-
mates as they can do accurately. Included in the budget are funds to hire consultants to do
some of the engineering, particularly for bridge designs. After that is done, hopefully the
staff can bring back to the Board a cost to complete some of these portions so that a policy
decision can be made as to which option(s) to pursue.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: May 1, May 8, May 15, and June 19, 1985;
December 3, 1986 (Afternoon); and February 4, 1987.
Mr. Lindstrom read the minutes of May 8, 1985, pages 1 - 8 (Item ~11) and found them to
be in order.
Mr. Bowie read the minutes of May 15, pages 1 - 14 (Item 97) and found them to be in
order with the following correction: Page 13, paragraph 7, Second Sentence reads: "Mrs.
Cooke said Mr. Fisher was part of the acceptance of the language that said ... without first
having advantage of staff review." The sentence should read: "Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Fisher
had voted to accept the language that said ... without its first having advantage of staff
review."
Mr. Way read the minutes of May 15, beginning with Item 97 on page 14 to the end, and
found them to be in order. Mr. Way had read the minutes of June 19, pages 1 - 5 (Item ~8)
and found them to be in order with some typographical errors and the following correction:
Page 4, paragraph 10, insert the word "is" in the fourth sentence at the beginning following
"there" and insert the word "foresee" in the sixth sentence near the end foliowing "he does
not".
Mr. Henley read the minutes of February 4, 1987, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes as read and
with the corrections noted. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments: Jefferson Area Board on Aging.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to reappoint Mr. Edward J. Jones as a member of the Jefferson
Area Board on Aging with said term to expire on March 31, 1989. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to
reappoint Dr. Richard Lindsay as a member of the Jefferson Area Board on Aging with said term
to expire on March 31, 1989. Mr. Way seconded both motions. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrso Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Status Report: Lickinghole Creek Project.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated March 13, 1987.
"You will recall that I reported to you earlier that the above referenced
project was being reviewed by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA).'for
redesign or alternatives, due to significant cost increases occasioned by
the project coming under Federal dam design standards. The review involved
cost effectiveness of the proposed basin, and alternatives of subregional
(smaller) basins or a wetlands basin. The results of that review are:
The regional basin is the most effective pollutant removal method
due to its size and the drainage area it would serve, but its cost
is prohibitive from a cost effectiveness analysis, which compares
costs of removal by detention versus cost of removal by treatment
plant process.
The subregional basins are less effective, primarily due to the
smaller pollutant loadings from the smaller drainage areas. Their
loadings and removal of pollutants are too small to have any
meaning in a cost effective analysis.
The wetlands basin, which is a smaller dam that slows water and
removes pollutants by filtering through vegetation, does not have
a proven record of experience in spite of demonstration projects
to prove its effectiveness. The statistics from demonstration
projects are site specific, and are not useful in a general
application of the results.
352
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority concluded the most feasible program for
water quality protection would be basins developed on site of development
projects (as is done elsewhere already) or subregional basins, built as
development occurs, and financed by developer contributions. They, there-
fore, voted to remove the Lickinghole Creek project from the active list of
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority reservoir protection projects, and
referred the matter to the County, since the project originated with the
County, is an element of our Comprehensive Plan, and has land use implica-
tions that the County has to address. The Federal funds for the project,
which are derived by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority from the Clean Lakes
program, could be shifted to existing programs of agricultural runoff,
highway runoff, and streambank erosion.
It is recommended the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for
review and recommendation's to the Board. The Commission may request some
guidance from the Board for their review."
Mr. Fisher asked if the cost escalation for the regional basin was caused by the request
for federal funds or through underestimating the cost of the project. Mr. Agnor said the use
of federal funds has no affect on the cost. Any dam or structure has to be reviewed under
state standards and when that review was accomplished it was determined that the project was
underdesigned.
Mr. Fisher asked the reason subregional basins are being considered if it has been
determined that they are not cost effective. Mr. Agnor said subregional basins are being
considered as a water quality measure to protect the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and not
from a cost effective point of view.
Mr. Bowie asked where the funds are now that were available to RWSA for the project.
Mr. Agnor said funds were made available to the Rivanna through the Clean Water Act and
because this project started out with a fairly significant local cost, the conclusion was
that the funds could be applied to the construction of this basin. The funds did not come to
the County.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the total cost of the project. Mr. Agnor replied the estimate is
$1.5 million. When this dam was redesigned, it turned out to be an earthen dam almost the
size of the South Fork Reservoir River. It will drain more than just the Crozet community,
in fact, two-thirds of its drainage area is in the rural area now.
Mr. Fisher said Lickinghole Creek was chosen for a dam site in order to allow Crozet to
develop to its limits. The implications for Crozet~s growth and development seems to be very
large. Mr. Agnor said the major factor is the size of the drainage basin. The volume of
water it will handle requires an emergency spillway design under the new Federal Design
Standards so the dam will not collapse and cause a downstream flooding situation.
Mr. Fisher commented that during review of the Comprehensive Plan, it may be necessary
to consider cut back on the size of the Crozet community. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned
about subregional basins because of problems they can create on individual properties. In
order to give the Planning Commission some direction, he would like more information on
subregional basins. He also would like more information on the topography of the area, what
would be an appropriate location for a basin, and how effective the basin can be expected to
be.
Agenda Item No. 15. Advanced Allocation - Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company.
Mr. Agnor said this is a request from the Jefferson Country Firefighter's Association to
advance $35,000 of the remaining $77,000 of the FY 86-87 Capital Improvement Program alloca-
tion to the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company for purchase of a brush fire truck. The
advance would be added to an existing indebtedness of $144,000 and result in a total debt of
$179,000 to be paid back at $16,000 a year, with extension of the agreement until July, 1998.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the pay-off is for too long of a period. Mr. Agnor said the
the loan is being tied to a building loan. The brush truck could be paid off first, but that
would defer payment on the building loan. Mr. Fisher said the company will probably need
more equipment before this loan is paid, and they will not be able to afford replacement
equipment. Approval of the request would seem to induce the company to take on even more
loans. Mr. Fisher asked the amount the company receives yearly from the County. Mr. Agnor
replied approximately $30,000, but about half of that is used for operational needs. Mr.
Fisher said he does nOt think this request should be approved.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to know if the company can expedite the repayment or come
up with part of the payment through another method. Mr. Agnor suggested a separate agreement
could be written for the brush truck rather than amending the original agreement. Mr. Fisher
asked if this agreement supplants earlier agreements, and if so, he would like for a list of
all of the capital items from previous agreements included in the last paragraph of the
present agreement. There was no further discussion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board or Public.
Mr. Bowie thanked Mrs. Ella Carey, Deputy Clerk, for her aid in preparing and main-
taining the Police Reserve Committee report and files.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wanted to prepare a statement for the Highway Department
meeting on April 2. Mr. Lindstrom said, before doing that, he has been informed that Board
members will receive an invitation from Wilbur Smith Associates to attend a presentation on
353
March 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 31)
its findings on Route 29 North on Thursday, March 26, 1987, 5:30 P.M., at the Omni Hotel. He
thinks that the report may be worthy of further study and the Board should wait to prepare a
statement after the benefit of the hearing.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:01 P.M.
354