Loading...
1978-03-29SPECIALMarch 29, 1978 (SPecial - Called Meeting) Pursuant to the following notice which was mailed on March 22, 1978, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, met in special session at 4:00 P.M. on March 29, 1978, in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, with the fOllowing members present: Messrs: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.,.Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. ~. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executi~ St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. '.'Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush ha~ Board of Supervisors to begin at Office Building on March 29, 1978 1. A progress report on edi At the completion of this item, Mi the meeting be recessed and recon~ ~e Guy B Agnor, Jr ; County Attorney, George R Tucker, Jr. ~e asked that I call a special meeting of the :00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County to discuss the following items: orial revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. ~. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush will ask that ~ened in the Albemarle County Courthouse at 7:30 P.M. for public hearings 0n zoning matters below: Resolution to repeal Ap~ the Albemarle County Cod R-3 sections of the ZonJ (Public hearing deferred SP-78-06. M. E. Gibson of SP-446 (Branchlands from March 15, 1978. SP-77-45. Dr. Charles permit a bridge within to Section 9A-4-2 of tH Public hearing on a res¢ 18-30, 18-36, and 18-37( Code and to repeal Sect~ general language and del Public hearing on a rest 2-4, 4-4, 5-4, 6-4, 7-4, 18-3-5, 18-3- 18-3-5(c) (2), 18-3-5(d) Zoning Ordinance as the Public hearing on an ord for backflow prevention At the conclusion of this meeting, the meeting be adjourned until Mar County Courthouse, at which time t placed on the Charlottesville Fask (Signed) Lettie E Neher, Clerk" Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting wa Agenda Item No. 2. Progress repor Mrs. Opal D. David, former member of th the Board's review. 1) 2) 3) as advertised and listed Sections I, V and VI (Introduction Proposals) have been brought toget the main body of the document. endix: Residential Townhouse Cluster of e and to amend Article 5, R-2 and Article 6, ng Ordinance as they pertain to townhouses. from March 1, 1978.) ~ · Amendment to certain conditions of approval 'lanned Community). Public hearing continued · Hurt. Public hearing on a request to he General Flood Plain District pursuant Zoning Ordinance. ,lution of intent to amend Sections 18-2, m) and 18-37(n) of the Albemarle County .on 18-40. These sections deal with the 'inition of "subdivision". lution of intent to amend Sections 1.1-4, 8-4, 9-4, 3-3-1, 3-4, 16-32, 10-6, 11-6, 5(a)(2), 18-3-5(b)(2), 18-3-5(b)(5), 2), !8-3-5(e)(2), 19-6-1 and 2-7-9 of the relate to frontage, setback and lot width. inance relating to water cross-connections and providing for a penalty for violation. Mr Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush will ask that ch 30, 1978, 8:00 ~P.M., in the Albemarle he Board will hear an appeal of conditions ion Square Site Plan. s called to order at 4:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. t on editorial revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. e Board of Supervisors, presented the following for ; Goals and Objectives; and Comprehensive Plan her at the front of the document and now comprise Sections II, III, IV,-and the Fiscal and Environmental Impact material in Section VII now appear at the back of the document as a series of Appendices. The summary of the "You Tell Us" meetings which was prepared by KDA as a Working Memorandum has been included as Ap)endix A. Identification of Tables, Maps and Figures has been changed from all Arabic to Roman numerals for "Maps"; capital letters for "Figures"; with "Tables" in'Arabic. 5) In the Table of Contents, key words or phrases in titles of Tables have been pulled out to facilitate location by subject: e.g~, Summary of Projected New and Total Real Estate Valuation is: Real Estate Tax Base - Summary of Projected New and~Total. 6) Tables dealing with recommended standards have been specifically identified as such, with the word included in each title. 7) Under Goals and Objectives, the language dealing with historic preservation and the new language on energy conservation has been combined with the general conservation goal and objectives so that there is now one major heading: CONSERVATION - with sub-headings: of Natural Resources; of Historic Values; of Energy. · 153 March 2~__l~ecial - Called Meeting~ Page by Page changes are as follows' a) Cover - Transmittal Letter has been omitted. b) Map 1 on Page 4, "Historic Landmarks and Areas" has been retitled "The Heritage of Albemarle County" c) Page 5. Map 2 (Woodland Areas) was not used. supplies the same information. It was a poor map and the tex~ d) Page 7. McIntire School (Alternative Education Program) was added to Table 3. e) Page 8. Map 5. McIntire School was left in. f) Page 12. Map 8 w~s combined with Map 20 on page 39 and will be in the body of the Plan and not the appendices. g) h) Page 15. Titles changed on Tables 10 and 11 and Figure 2 to make it clear that the two tables deal with the combined Albemarle-Charlottesville area while the Figure deals only with Albemarle. Page 18. Table 14, subtotals omitted as they were confusing. ±) Page 23, Table 22. Acreage for Single Family Units had been incorrectly calculat This was corrected to show a total of 9,835. Related changes were also made in Table 28 on page 24; Recapitulation on page 24; Table 36 on page 32; Table 37 on page 33; Tables 38 and 39 on page 34; Table 40 on Page 35; and Tables 41 and 42 on Page 36. j) Page 24. Tables 24, 25, 26 and 27 to be changed to read as follows: TABLE 24~ MINIMUM INDUSTRIAL LAND DEMAND 1974-1995 Projected New Manufacturing Employment 5,094 Additional P ant Area (479 Sq. Ft./employee) 2,440,000 sq. ft. Land Demand (Plant Area in acres x 8.5) 476 acres Table 25 omitted. Text explains multiplier mechanics. Tables 26 and 27 to be combined into one: M I N I MUM COMMERC I AL OFF I CE LAND DEMAND 1974-1995 Projected New Commercial Employment in New Space FIRE/Services Government 3,495 x .667 = 2,331 2,774 x .50 = 1,387 Additional Space Required (170 sq. ft./employee) FIRE/Services 3,~5-x 170 = 59~,250 sq. ft. Government 1,387 x 170 = 235~790 sq. ft. TOTAL 8~9~940 sq. ft. Land Demand (assuming most space in 2 - 5 story buildings) Buildings Parking (300 sq. ft./space) Landscaping and Miscellaneous TOTAL 5 acres 27 acres 3 acres 35 acres Mrs. David explained that "FIRE" stands for Finance, Insurance, Real Estate. This is explained in the text. Dr. Iachetta suggested that Table 24 be left as originally shown in the plan. This was the consensus of the Board. k) Table 28 was changed to reflect corrected residential land demands From Table 22 and minimum land demands for commercial and office space instead of multipler figure for location choice. z) Text in Column 3 on Page 24 was changed to clarify formula for calculating shopping center floor space. m) Page 27. New language was added in Column 1 to reflect Board discussion about industrial land to clarify that the potential 2000 acres would not be zoned for industrial use. n) Page 29. Levels". The title "Housing Element" was changed to "Housing for Varied Income o) Pages 32 through 39. The material was reorganizzd so as to work down from the most intensive development (Urban Area) through Communities (Crozet and Hollymead to Villages and Rural Areas. Titles and sub-headings were reworked to make the general pattern more obvious. p) Basic Maps 18 and 19 have been placed facing each other at the center of the document and at the end of the Plan Proposals. q) Page 40. Paragraph on the Bikeway Plan has been moved to the end of the sectzon on Transportation. r) Pages 42 through 44. The order has been changed to be consistent with the Goals March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) ~CONSERVATION EVALUATION ~ncourage land use arrangements and densi- ties that facilitate energy-efficient transp~a~o~nL~ystems and reduce the need for and utilization of the private auto- mSbile. The basic thrust of the Plan is to concentrate a high percentage (e.g. 87%) of the County's new population and development in the Urban Area, Communities and Villages. Emphasis is placed upon achieYement of reasonable urban/ suburban densities and upon use of clustering techniques. The Plan also recommends imple- mentation of pedestrian and bike trail systems to complement both density and neighborhood organization principles. Encourage the design, orientation and con- struction of buildings and building com- plexes in order to effectively utilize all existing and potential energy sources. Accomplishment of this objective will depend on future changes to the building code, sub- division ordinance, and site plan regulations. Additional planning/design standards should be developed prior to code changes in dealing with questions of the siting of buildings.~ To review and analyze the existing engi- neering and design requirements for development within the County and their relationship to consumption of raw materials and use of energy in an effort to encourage a more efficient and energy conscious solution to development srobl~ms. Plan recommendations dealing with concentra- tion and compactness of new development are directly related to encouragement of more efficient and energy conscious solutions. Recommendations concerning changes to prevailing road construction standards should be an early object of this review and analysis. s) Major revisions. (See following) New figures developed in consultation with Ray Jones and Bill Bradshaw. Under general rearrangement of material outlined in I, II and III above, this material will appear in Appendix D as part of "Trends and Projections". PLAN IMPACTS O. ne of the logical concerns expressed by County citizens and those directly involved in revising the Plan was to be made aware of the probable fiscal and environmental impacts likely to result from its adoption and use. It must be stressed that this initial evaluation should represent the start of a continuing monitoring and evaluation process to be employed by the County's leaders. The 1971 Comprehensive Plan contains no specific references to fiscal impacts as part of the planning framework (see Appendix C) and much of the basic economic data required for reliable projections is presently available only in reports which intermingle statistics for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. This evaluation must, therefore, be reviewed as a tentative benchmark against which future progress can be measured. FISCAL IMPACTS The fiscal impact consequences of implementing the revised Comprehensive Plan are evaluated by comparing projected revenues with projected expenditures. PROJECTED REVENUES Revenue projections are derived by calculating revenues from increased real property valuations, based on the land use recommendations in the new Plan, and then projecting non-real property tax revenues on a ratio basis. Real Property Value Projections Increased real estate tax base values are projected fo~ the four categories of land use outlined in the Plan: Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural. Residential. Table 46 presents projections of new residential units, specifically recognizing the need to provide housing for persons with low and moderate incomes. Table 47 translates these new housing units into real estate values, based on the following assumptions: Housing for persons with low and moderate incomes includes major portion of multi-family and all mobile home units in addition to single family units. Average Unit Value: $30,700 Housing for persons with middle and high incomes will include very few multi-family units and some townhouse units but will consist mainly of single family March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) TABLE 46 (NEW HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS BY INCOME LEVEL) INCOME CATEGORY CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF NEW UNITS 1980 1985 1990 1995 35% Low and Moderate 65% Middle and High TOTAL 690 1,946 3,406 4,862 1~280 3~614 6,324 9,028 1,970 5,560 9,730 13,890 TABLE 47 (NEW RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE TAX BASE VALUATIONS) INCOME CATEGORY CUMULATIVE NEW REAL ESTATE VALUE IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS 1980 1985 1990 1995 Low and Moderate $21,183 $ 59,742 $104,564 $149,263 Middle and High 83~200 234~910 411~060 586~820 TOTAL $104~383 $294~652 $515,624 $736~083 Commercial. Table 48 represents projections of new commercial development related to projected employment increases in retail and office space. Table 49 translates this new commercial development into real estate values, assuming the following average values. $45,000/acre for retail land $32,000/acre for office land $25/square foot for retail floor space $35/square foot for office floor space '!TABLE 48 (NEW COMMERCIAL LAND AND SPACE P~OJECTIONS) CUMULATIVE NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE AND ACREAGE USED 1980 1985 1990 1995 Retail Land (Acres) Retail Space (sq. ft.) 12 48 90 130 110,000 443,000 831,000 1,200,000 Office Land (Acres)l/ 5 14 25 35 Office Space (sq. ft.)2/ 91~290 323,680 580~960 829~940 1--/ Assumes 2/3 of Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Services employment at new locations and 1/2 of government employment at new locations on private land. 2-/ Assumes all FIRE and Services employment in new space and 1/2 of government in private leased space. TABLE 49 (NEW COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE TAX BASE VALUATION) ~ VALUE CUMULATIVE NEW COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE VALUE IN THOUSANDS CATEGORY 1980 1985 1990 1995 Retail Land 1__/ $ 324 $ 1,296 $ 2,430 $ 3,510 Retail Space 2~750 11~075 20.~7.75 30~000 TOTAL $3,074 $12,371 $23,205 $33,510 Office Land 1_/ $ 96 $ 269 $ 480 $ 672 Office Space 3~195_ .!1~32~ 20,3~_ ~- _29,048 TOTAL $3,295 $11,59~ $20,8~4 $29,720 Al Commercial 1_/ $ 420 $ 1,565 $ 2,910 All Commercial Bui dings 6~36]~ ~.~ 44,0~9 TOTAL $6~5 $25~53~ $46.~929 1_/ 60% of actual value; assumes 40% of value already in tax base. $ 4,182 $67,~ Industrial. Table 50 presents projections of new industrial development. Table 51"translates this industrial development into real estate values, assuming the following average values: $15,000/acre for land $20/square foot for plant area TABLE 50 (INDUSTRIAL LAND AND SPACE PROJECTIONS) CUMULATIVE NEW INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE AND PLANT SPACE 1980 1985 1990 1995 Industrial Land (acres) 1/ 83 183 292 405 Industrial Space (sq. ft.) 502,000 1~102~000 1~758~000 2~440~000 1-/ 85% of actual requirements; assumes 15% of growth will be at-place expansion. TABLE 51 (NEW INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE TAX BASE VALUATION) CUMULATIVE NEW INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE VALUE IN THOUSANDS VALUE CATEGORY 1980 1985 1990 1995 Industrial Land 1--/ $ 747 $ 1,647 $ 2,628 Industrial Space 10~040 22,040 35,160 TOTAL $10~787 $23~687 $37~788 1-/ 60% of actual value: assumes 40% of value already in tax base. $ 3,645 48~800 $52~445 March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) Agricultural (and Other). It is assumed that the total tax base value of agricultural and other land will remain constant. This assumption rationa- lizes that increased per acre land values will be balanced by 1) a decrease in acreage through loss to residential use, 2) increase in acreage under the land use value tax system, and 3) loss to public/institutional uses. Real Property Revenue Projections Table 52 summarizes the values projected for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural/other lands and adds these values to the FY 1976 total County real estate valuation to project total property values to 1995. TABLE 52 (SUMMARY OF PROJECTED NEW AND TOTAL REAL ESTATE VALUATION) CUMULATIVE TOTAL NEW AND EXISTING REAL ESTATE VALUE IN THOUSANDS VALUE CATEGORY 1980 1985 1990 1995 Residential - New Commercial - New Industrial - New Agricultural/Other - New TOTAL - New Existing (FY 1975-76) $104,383 $294,652 $515,624 $736,083 6,~85 25,55~- 46,929 67,~2 10,787 23,687 37,788 52,445 -0- -0- -0- -0- $122,95~ $34~,872 $600,54~ $85~,940 749,.200 749~200 749~200 749,200 TUTAL $871~2155 $1~093~2 $1~349,6~ Total Revenue Projections Table 53 combines projected real estate tax revenues with all other revenues to 1995, assuming the following conditions: Real estate tax rate continuing at current level: 725/$100 at 100% of full market value Other revenues at 313% of real estate tax revenue, based on experience of FY 1971-76 when real estate tax revenues averaged 24% of total TABLE 53 (SUMMARY OF PROJECTED NEW AND TOTAL REVENUES) CUMULATIVE NEW AND TOTAL REVENUE IN $1,000's REVENUE SOURCE 1980 1985 1990 1995 Real Estate - New $ 878 $ 2,476 $ 4,325 $ 6,16~ Other - New 2~74B 7,750 13~53~] ~ Total - New $ 3,626 $10,226 $17,85~ $25,4~ Existing ~/ 22,278 22,278 22,278 22~278 TOTAL $25,90~ $32~504 $40~ $47~7~$ 1--/ Revenue from existing real property tax base of $749.2 million at current rate of 72¢/$100 on full value. Projected Expenditures Future expenditures are calculated on the basis of the current rate of $509 per capita for both operation and debt service requirements. The per capita figure of $509 is derived from the FY 1976 expenditures of $22.5 midlion and a January 1, 1976, estimated population of 44,200. (See Table 54~.) TABLE 54 (PROJECTED PUBLIC EXPENDITURES) EXPENDITURES FOR NEW AND EXISTING POPULATION 1__/ (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) 1980 1985 1990 1995 Pop Exp Pop Exp Pop Exp Pop Exp Expenditures New Population 6,300 $ 3.2 17,600 $ 9.0 30,100 $15.3 42,600 $21.7 Expenditures FY 1976 44,200 $22.5 44,200 $22.5 44,200 $22.5 44,200 $22.5 TOTAL 50,500 $25.7 61,800 $31.5 74,300 $37.8 86,800 $44.2 1--/ Assumes $509/capital expenditures based on FY 1976 expenditures of $22.5 for estimated population of 44~200. March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) PROJECTED REVENUES VS. EXPENDITURES Table 55 compares the preceding revenue and expenditure estimates to provide a measure of the potential fiscal impact of the Plan. TABLE 55 (PROJECTED REVENUES VS. EXPENDITURES) TOTAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) 1980 1985 1990 1995 Total Revenues 25.9 32.5 40.1 47.7 Total Expenditures 25.7 31.5 37.8 44.2 Difference ,2 1.0 2.3 3.5 POTENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT (C'hange Page 42 under this category to read as follows: Based upon projected expenditures and revenues, the County would be able to generate sufficient revenues to provide for government operations at current service levels with some limited additional revenues for purposes of financing capital expenditures, increasing quality of services, and absorbing inflationary impact. The so-called "additional" revenues represent approximately 4% of total revenues projected when averaged for each of the four points in time identified in Table 55. The range is a low of approximately 1% in 1980 to a high of 7% in 1995. In dollars, the range is from $200,000 in 1980 to 3.5 million dollars in 1995. Inasmuch as expenditure increases due to quantity (i.e. population) increases have been accounted for in the projections, the use of the "additional" revenues should be examined in light of other factors which stimulate budget increases. Inflation - (wording remains same) Quality of Services - (wording remains same) Capital Improvements - As the County's population and level of government services expand so does the need for capital improvements. New classrooms, park facilities, and government office space are typical new capital needs. Total projected expenditures as presented in Tables 54 and 55 already include significant amounts for capital expenditures by virtue of the fact that the current base figure (i.e. $509 per capita) reflects recent County capital outlays and debt service requirements for substantial capital improvements undertaken in recent years. As may be seen in the results presented in Table 55, the County will be obliged to carefully budget and husband its resources in order to maintain a stable fiscal environment. It will be important for the County to recognize, on a long range basis, the relationship between the land use patterns which it effects and the physical results of such patterns. It is strongly recommended that the County develop and use a procedure for reviewing fiscal conditions in relationship to development on an annual basis. The statistics presented in the preceeding analysis (and the assumptions upon which they are based) are subject to changes which can have major affects on the outcome. In the context of the assumptions made in the fiscal analysis and the relative lack of need for major County-financed capital improvements during the near term future (e.g. to 1980-1981), the County should be able to maintain its current modes of operation with a stable tax rate. The projected impacts discussed are all based upon the premise that the County will strive mightily to achieve its goals and objectives by following this Plan. To the extent this is accomplished, the projected evaluation is sound. ~he rub is that a great deal of work, constant vigilance, and some sacrifice will be required to follow and implement the Plan. The major ingredient required by the County is the will to follow the outlines of the Plan and the ability~to both recognize and accept the consequences of not following the guidelines of the County Plan. At the end of Mrs. David's presentation, Mr. St. John advised the Board that none of the changes explained were substantative in nature, therefore the Board did not need to take any action. March 29, 1978 (Special Called Meeting) 158 ~?'~ ~No~Docketed: Mr. Fisher said he and Mr. Dorrier had interviewed Mrs. Barbara A. Booker for appointment to the Region X Mental Health and Retardation Services Board and would recomme] her appointment. Motion to appoint Mrs. Booker to a term which will expire on December 31, 1980,'Was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recoPded vote: AYES:'~ Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS~ None. ~Agenda Item No. 3. At 5:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adjoUrn into executive session to discuss property acquisition and personnel; the Board to reconvene at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher'.Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into oPen session at 7:35 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse with a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Skipped temporarily. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-78-06. M. E. Gibson. Amendment to certain conditions of approval of SP-446 (Branchlands Planned Community). (Public hearing continued from March 15, 1978.) (Crossindexed under Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond.) Mr. Fisher said. at the last meeting on this subject, it was indicated that the Highway Department is not in agreement with certain conditions imposed on the original permit. Action was deferred to see if the applicant could resolve this problem. Mr. Tucker said the conditions in controversy are "Entrances and crossovers on 29 North and streets shall conform to layout shown on Alternative "A". "Once Entrance "A" is construct the existing entrance into Branchlands shall be closed to through traffic." The problem is caused by the fact that the Highway Department has changed their standards since the date the Branchlands plan was originally approved. Mr. M. E. Gibson said he had met with representatives from the Highway Department and reviewed records of the 1975 meetings. These records reveal that the Highway Department, at that time, approved both entrances "A" and "B" now shown on Plan Io The applican% feels that the original approval stands and there is no need to change standards or receive further approval from the Highway Department at this time. The applicant has developed plans over a period of time and entered certain commercial transactions relying on these plans. To now have to redesign the entrances on 29 would be a tremendous financial expense. He requested the Board to ask the Highway Department to.reaffirm the original approval. Mr. Fisher said he felt this controversy was between the Highway Department and the applicant. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said his letter of March 13 clearly states the position of the Highway Department. However, the applicant can request a waiver. Mr. Fisher asked if this were a matter between the Highway Department and the applicant. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department would not take final action on such a request unless the county indicated support for the waiver. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Highway Department had approved the plan when it was approved by the County.. Mr. Roosevelt he has not been able to determine this from his records. However, it has been the Highway Department's policy that in establishing new crossovers or relocating existing crossovers, approval must be obtained from the Traffic Engineer in Richmond. Any discussion of this matter in County records would have no official bearing on the location of the crossovers because they were never reviewed by'the! Traffic Engineer. Mr. James Murray, Sr., Chairman of the Property Committee for Branchlands, said they have been working on the plans for this development for seven years. This change would be a severe financial blow and reduce the value of the property. Change in Highway Department regulations is beyond their control. They have been acting in good faith. Mr. Fisher said the question before the Board is how this property can be developed in stages rather ~han all at one time. The applicant's statement about proceeding in good faith on approvals that there granted more than two years ago has merit. If the Board approves SP-78-06 as recommended by the Planning Commission, the Board~will have dealt with the matter brought before them. The question of a waiver for the entrances can be. pursued and pre- sumably if the waiver is denied, the matter will be brought back to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has two types of recommendations on this request. One is to clean up and simplify the language on the original approval and the second is to change the concept of the original permit so this land can be developed in phases. He felt it.would undermine the PUD concept to permit the property to develop piecemeal. Dr. Iachetta felt since there will no major contractor responsible for developing this PUD and amenities associated with same, it is an unsound plan~and~he could not support this amendment. I Mr. Roudabush said the Zoning Ordinance states that PUD's can be developed in 10 acre increments. However an overall plan of development must be submitted when original approval is given so that as each 10-acre parcel develops it will be developed according t~ath~t master plan. Mr. St. John said the ordinance sets out in detail exactly what has to be in.the preliminary plans and the applicant's rights with respect to developing 10-acre parcels. In the preliminary plans, there must be a public utility plan. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Department had such a plan. Mr. Tucker said he did not. Mr. Max Evans said when he prepared the PUD plan, roadj plans for the general development, the general sewer layout and pre- liminary water plans were also prepared. Part of the sewer question was completely answered in that one sewer trunk line was already on the property and another was being planned for March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) Mr. Roudabush said he agreed that general plans should be on file to guide a developer, but there is no way to design a water or sewer line to fit undisturbed land. It is the intent of the ordinance that general plans showing the location and design sizes be on file and if these plans are not on file at this time, the Board should ask that they be made a part of the record. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve SP-78-06 as recommen-ded by the Planning Commission changing Condition C1 t~ read: "Plans for water and sewer as out- lined by Section 2-7-2 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be filed as specified .... " Mr. Lindstr asked if it is possible for a developer who is not ready to build on 100 acres to comply with C2. Mr. Roudabush said no. Facilities cannot be dedicated until they are installed and inspected by the County or the Service ~uthority and the Service Authority agrees to acce~t them ~s-built. Mr. Lindstrom said he would support Mr. Roudabush and gave second to the mo~io~ which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta. (Conditions of approval are set out in full below.) A. Density - Land Use - Concep.t Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential densities shall comply with Approved Plan 1. The cluster arrangement concept providing for a minimal number of entrances onto the internal road system be adhered to as indicated in Approved Plan 2. B. Site Plans - Subdivision of Land Site plans and subdivisions shall comply with Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle, respectively. No grading permit shall be issued for roads, streets, or highways until plans and profiles have been approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation~ .L C. Sewer and Water Plans for water and sewer as outlined by Section 2-7-2 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be filed as specified. Plans for water and sewer improvements for any phase to be developed shall be approved by the A~l~emarle County Service Authority prior to the issuance of any building permit for that phase of development. The developer, or developers, shall install and dedicate to the Albemarle County Service Authority ali on-site and off-site water and sewer improvements which are necessary to serve that phase to be developed, at no cost to the Service Authority. D. Transportation System Entrances and crossovers on Route 29 North and internal street layouts shall conform to Approved Plan 3. The existing Branchlands entrance and crossover shall be closed and Entrance A and crossover (Approved Plan 3) shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permit for any phase of development which would have access to and increase traffic at the existing entrance; provided that the Planning Commission, upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, may waive this requirement for a particular phase of development upon a finding that the existing entrance would be adequate to accommodate in a safe manner such traffic as may be occasioned by such development. Rights-of-way shall be reserved and dedicated as shown on Approved Plan 3 for future potential connections into the Montague-Milter tract and Westfield Section II. Ail right-of-way widths for all interior streets shall be determined as individual site development plans are submitted. Ail streets are to be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications for inclusion into the State Highway System. E. Other 1. Recreational facilities shall be provided according to the following: Tot lots: Playfields' Sport Facilities: (Tennis, handball, swimming, etc.) 55 square feet/dwelling unit 165 square feet/dwelling unit 165 square feet/dwelling unit ~m March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) Bike trails should be constructed along open space corridors (stream beds) or sewer 'easements. Such construction shall occur with each phase of development on the open space corridors and sewer easements located within or immediately adjacent to that phase of development; provided that the Planning Commission may require reasonable extension of such bike trails through other areas if such extension provides linkage to an existing or approved bike trail. Approval by the County Attorney's Office of homeowners' association agreements for the maintenance of driveways, open space, and other commonly-owned or common-use amenities. Owners of properties designated for commercial use and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, as owner of an 8.0 acre tract to be reserved for church purposes and not sold as part of the planned community property (referred to hereinafter as the Church property) shall not be required to be members of the home- owners' association; provided that these owners shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the driveways, open space, etc. located within their respective tracts, and that such maintenance shall be comparable to that level established in the homeowners' association agreements for other such uses. Should commercial development or sale of commercially-designated property occur prior to establishment of homeowners' association agreements, the Planning Commission may require in the deed restrictions for such property, provisions for the maintenance of such driveways, open spaces, etc., as the Commission shall deem appropriate for adequate buffering and protection of residential areas and for the reasonable usage of such areas by future residents of the planned community. In respect to usage, the homeowners' association members shall enjoy the same rights and privileges of use of driveways, open space~ etc. within commercially-designated areas and the church property as shall be established by homeowners' association agreements for other such uses within the planned community. Approval by the County Attorney of deed restrictions for sections to be sold. Developer of Section C (Approved Plan I) to provide fencing, in area designated "Section C", adequate to discourage access and trespass onto adjoining property (Chapel Hill Subdivision). At 8:50 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 8:58 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-77-45. Dr. Charles W. Hurt. To permit a bridge within the General Flood Plain District (GP) pursuant to Section 9A-4-2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Property is located on the South Fork of the Rivanna River between the Southern Railroad and the confluence with the North Fork of the Rivanna River. County Tax Map 62, Parcels 2 and 50E. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 15 and March 22, 1978.) Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, gave the staff's report: Request: Bridge in the floodway of the Rivanna River pursuant to Section 9A-4-2. Location: This structure is located on South Fork of the Rivanna River between the Southern Railroad and the confluence of the North and South Forks. This bridge connects properties zoned A-1 Agriculture (Tax Map 62, Parcel 50E) on the north and R-2 Residential (Tax Map 62, Parcel 2) on the south. Character of the Area: This area is rural in nature and undeveloped. The Planning Commission recently approved Bentivar Subdivision on the north. The road across the bridge connects to the cul-de-sac of the Bentivar Road which is currently under construction. History: On November 4, 1977, the Albemarle County District Court found the applicant guilty of violations of the Zoning and Soil Erosion Ordinances. In addition, as a part of the Circuit Court consent decree, the applicant was ordered to proceed with a special use permit application for the bridge. The applicant has maintained that construction of the bridge was part of a property sales agreement and that the bridge was required by another party in order to farm both sides of the river. On June 30, 1977, the agent for the applicant represented to a Zoning Inspector that Dr. Hurt wanted to use the bridge to get heavy equipment over to develop Bentivar. The applicant maintains that he upgraded an existing public road, though the plan submitted shows the road as an "old farm road" and the Daily Progress reported that "No Trespassing" signs were posted on the road. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may wish these contradictions resolved in order to properly evaluate this request. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Rivanna River should be given consideration for scenic river designation. Under the Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970~ all state and local units of government must give consideration to the scenic, historic, and water quality of scenic rivers in any planning activity which would impact the river. (The Rivanna River in Fluvanna County has been designated a Scenic River by the General Assembly.) The plan recommends the following guide- lines for protection of scenic streams: March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) --Scenic streams, either state or locally designated, should be preserved by prohibiting or discouraging activities disruptive of the visual quality. --No structure will be permitted within the 100-Year Flood Plain or 100 feet, whichever is greater. --Alterations of the natural channel will be discouraged.--Roads and bridges encroaching on or crossing the flood plain or channel will be discouraged. Staff Comment.: The Engineering Department has reviewed the design of the existing structure~and indicated that the bridge will cause no appreciable upstream flooding or trap debris when the river is in flood stage. The staff inspected the bridge in July d~ring a period of low flow and again on December 1, 1977, in a period of high flow and makes the following observations: The bridge is an impediment to canoe and boat passage. Portage is required both in periods of low and high flow. Because of the velocity of water through the culverts, staff opinion is that the bridge is hazardous to swimmers/waders, particularly children. The structure has begun to deteriorate and wash out and may become hazardous to downstream properties. The bridge does trap debris. A member of the staff removed an eight-foot fence post from the upstream side of the bridge. Though the applicant was not prosecuted for violation of Sections 62.1-194.1 and 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia, the Court directed alteration of the bridge to bring the structure into compliance with this statute. The staff requested this action not be taken until the special permit was processed and the order was changed accordingly. Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons: The request is not in compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive plan. Staff opinion is that as the bridge disintegrates, it may pose a threat to downstream properties. The bridge obstructs free passage of canoes and boats. Staff opinion is that a five-foot culvert would not be appropriate for this purpose. Staff opinion is that the structure may be a hazard to swimmers/waders. The bridge traps debris and unless periodically cleaned, may obstruct passage of aquatic life. The applicant has demonstrated no need for this structure except to fulfill a contractual agreement. Staff opinion is that denial of this petition would not foreclose the party interested in farming this area from applying for a river crossing and demonstrating his need for such. Due to the high flood plain in this area, staff would recommend that any private-use crossing should be a river bottom grade ford with secure foundation constructed so as not to deteriorate or impair the general public's right-of-way by canoe or other appropriate means. Mr. Tucker said prior to the Planning Commission meeting on this petition, but sub- sequent to the writing of this staff report, the staff was notified that the Corps of Enginee~ reviewed this structure under their nationwide permit program. They reviewed the structure in relation to its backwater effect and indicated that the structure is not in violation of that permit requirement. The applicant must also show that he owns the river bottom at this location and receive approval from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. If the river is determined to be navigable at this point, approval is required from the Coast Guard. Mr. Tucker said that on February 14, 1978, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request. Mr. J. Harry Michael, Jr. was present to represent Dr. Hurt. He said this causeway was constructed incident to a farming operation of about 300 acres; part on one side of the river and part on the other side, in order to have a shorter and easier way to get farm equipment across the river· The causeway was built on a crossing of the river which is a part of the Old Proffit Road, a public road which was never abandoned by the Board. After a hearing on this matter before the Circuit Court, Dr. Hurt agreed to alter this causeway to allow for the free passage of vessels and fish. County staff requested that no alterations be made until after hearing of this special permit request and Dr. Hurt has held up this work pending the outcome of this hearing. Mr. Michael said he feels they have met statutory requirements for construction of this causeway by first assuring that there will be no upstream flooding caused by the causeway. Second, they stand prepared to do the work necessary to carry out the Court's order of allowing free passage of vessels and fish. Mr. Michael said he did not think the Board could hold a landowner to scenic river regulations when such designation has never been requested of the General Assembly. He then introduced Mr. Lamb who is the present owner of the property. Mr. Lamb noted that his attorney, Mr. Ross Coates, was also present. is needed to get farm machinery from one side of the river to the other. land, Dr. Hurt installed the bridge, and he paid extra for it. He said the bridge When he bought the Mr. J. J. Murray, who lives at Bentivar, said it had been represented to the Board that this crossing follows an old public road which was never abandoned by the Highway Department. He said his research shows this statement to be incorrect. Mr. Ed Garr~s, President of Blue Ridge Mountain Sports, said a low water bridge is a hazard to canoeists and there is an active group of paddlers in this region. March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) Ms. Elizabeth Murray objected to issuance of this permit because the bridge was constructed illegally (without the required permit from the Board), it is not'a good structur~ and it u~stru~ts the river. She then presented two photographs to the Board. Mr. James ~-i~Zfe!t it would set a bad precedent for the Board to approve this permit since there are many places where landowners have property on both sides of a river and might also request such an approval. He felt this section of the river should be kept safe for canoeists. ~ Mr. Michael said this old county road is established in the case of Hurt against the Southern Railway. He said he feels they have complied wit~ ~all statutory requirements and asked approval of the permit. With no one else rising to speak for or against this request, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said~he felt the only question in this case is whether there is a com- pelling private need to be served by this structure which overrides the public interest in free passage on the river. Dr. Iachetta said construction of this structure has opened access across the river to trail bikers who have become a nuisance to the people who live on the north side of the river. He said the structure is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and to have the largest developer in the area blatantly ignore all of the planning functions is inexcusab He believes that access for heavy farm machinery is possible with an improved ford. Mr. Dorrier said from looking at the pictures Mrs. Murray turned in there is no way canoeists can get through this structure safety and he will not support this application. agreed with Dr. Iachetta that an improved ford would be better. He Mr. Lindstrom said he finds it incredible that this violation of county ordinances has been portrayed as a gratuitous improvement of a public highway. He felt Mr. Lamb should seek redress against the person from whom he bought the property and not before the Board. He said he cannot support this request. Because Mr. Michael mentioned the scenic aspects of this river, Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to suggest that a citizens committee be appointed to study taking the initial steps to dec~arei~he~SQ~th~R~vanna,~ha~Me~h~.~mm~a~d~the Moormans Rivers as scenic rivers. Mr. Roudabush felt approval of this structure would set~a precedent for other such requests. He saw no compelling reason to approval a special permit for this structure and felt it should be replaced with an improved river ford. Mr. Henley said he could not support the type of structure that is in place, but would support some type of structure for getting farm machinery across the river. Mr. Lindstrom asked what would happen if this permit is denied. Will the structure be removed? Mr. St. John said it would depend on what the applicant would do if he is ordered to remove it and refuses. This case is still on the docket of the court. Dr. Hurt could return to court. At this time, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to deny request for SP-77-45. motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: The AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 10:00 P.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:07 P.M. Agenda Item No. 4. Resolution to repeal Appendix: Residential Townhouse Cluster of the Albemarle County Code and to amend Article 5, R-2 and Article 6, R-3 sections of the Zoning Ordinance as they pertain to townhouses. (Public hearing deferred from March 1, 1978.) Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing on a resolution of intent to amend Sections 18-2, 18-31 18-36, 18-37(m) and 18-37(n) of the Albemarle County Code and to repeal Section 18-40. These sections deal with the general language and definition of "subdivision". (Advertised on March 15 and March 22, 1978.) Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing on a resolution of intent to amend Sections 1.1-4~ 2-4, 4-4, 5-4, 6-4, 7-4, 8-4, 9-4, 3-3-1, 3-4, 16-32, 10-6, 11-6, 11-7-6(1), 18-3-5, 18-3-5(a) 18-3-5(b)(2), 18-3-5(b)(5), 18-3-5(c)(2), 18-3-5(d)(2), 18-3-5(e)(2), 19-6-1 and 2-7-9 of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to frontage, setback and lot width. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 15 and March 22, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said the proposed amendments to these sections are being presented in a package because they are interrelated to some degree. This discussion began during the summer of 1977 and has continued at the Planning Commission or Board level since that time. Initially, the staff requested amendment to the definition of subdivision to remove loopholes in that provision. Private roads entered this discussion and this resulted in appointment of a committee by the Board on December 14, 1977, to deal with both issues. At the December 14 meeting, pipestem lots were discussed. Subsequently, the County Attorney, after review of ordinance provisions, expressed his opinion that many recorded pipestem lots were unlawful. (This opinion is in a letter dated February 3, 1978, on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.) Mr. Tucker said the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance under Agenda Item No. 8 were proposed by the County Attorney's Office to clean up and make uniform Zoning Ordinance provisions for lot width, setback and yard regulations and to provide for more readable provisions for the same. The Planning Commission had already recommended amendment to the definition of setback. Combined with the definition of setback, these amendments would legalize existing pipestem lots. If these amendments are adopted, all pipestems would be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the future. t March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) The recommended amendments are set out below: 1.1-4-~ ~R©N~AGE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK LINE REGULATIONS. For residential lot~, the minimum lot width at the setback line shall be: .... 2-4,4-4, 5-4,6-4 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK LINE REGULATIONS. 2-7-9 There shall be no minimum setback or yard &&Res requirement in a planned community ~&,$~&e~; except that all structures to be located a~ea on the outer perimeter of the planned community shall a~ep~ conform to the setback and yard regulations of the e~pes~e-e~ adjoining district; provided that setback lines ~-~ma~w-~a~-a~-~e~e~a~-~wa~ from roads, streets~ or access easements ~a~-~e-~e~e~e~-a~-~&e~e~-e~ea~a~ee a~-~ee~-~e~e~-~s-~a~-~e-ma~a~e~ shall be determined by the Planning Commission. 3-3-1 To be repealed. 3-4 SETBACK REGULATIONS Ail structures, except on-site signs for sale or rental of property, and structures, other than sign~, for which no permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code~ shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any street~ road or access easement. 7-4,8-5, 9-5 ~RQN~AGE-AND YARD REGULATIONS 10-6 NONCONFORMING LOTS Any lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance which is less in area and/or width than the minimum required by this ordinance may be used in a manner consistent with the uses permitted for a lot having a minimum area and/or width so required; provided, that the rear, side and front yard and setback requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained; and provided further that no such use shall be permitted which is determined by the zoning administrator to constitute a danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. 11-6 WIDENING OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS Whenever there shall be plans in existence, approved by either the State Department of Highways or by the governing body for the widening of any street or highway, the Commission may ~eeemme~ require additional ~,~-~a~ setbacks for any new construction or for any structures altered or remodeled adjacent to the future planned right-or-way, in order to preserve and protect the right-of-way for such proposed street or highway widening. 11-7-6(1) Each off-street parking space provided shall be not less than 400 square feet in area. The area of drives, aisles, parking area, landscaping and such other provisions related to access shall be counted as part of the 400 square feet, provided that no ~a~-a~ea-~-~&~e~-~a~ ee~ae~-e~ee~-ae-e~e~w&ee-~e~&~e~-~e~e&~a~e~e portion of any yard within which parking is not allowed shall be counted. 16-32 FRONTAGE. ~e-m&~&m~m-w&6~-e~-a-&e~-meae~eS-¢~em-e~e-e&~e-&&~e-~e ~he-e~he~-a~e~-a-e~a&§~-~&~e-e~-wh&eh-~e-~e&~-eha&&-~e-~a~he~_awa~ ~em-~he-e~ee~-~e~-wh&eh-~he-~e~-~e~e-~ha~-~he-~&&~&~-ee~ae~-&&~e &&~e-ae-~e¢&~e~-a~-~eg~&~e~-he~e&~= The distance along which a parcel abuts an adjacent road or street. 18-3-5 A.2. Business Signs (Wall): One wall sign shall be permitted in place of the signs permitted in Number One above. Area of sign shall not exceed one square foot for each one linear foot of ~ea~-~e~a~e the front of the main structure, with a maximum area of twenty square feet. No portion of the wall sign shall exceed twenty feet in height above ground level or project above the eave of the roof of the main structure. 18-3-5 B.2. Business Signs (Wall): One wall sign in place of the signs permitted in Number One above. Area of sign shall not exceed one square foot for each two linear feet of &~Ream-~eR~a~e the front of the main structure, with a maximum area of thirty-five square feet. No portion of the wall sign shall exceed twenty feet in height above ground level or project above the eave of the roof of the main structure. 18-3-5 B.5.b. One wall sign for each individual establishment within the shopping center. The area of this sign shall not exceed one square foot per two ~eR~ linear feet of the front of sa~ such establishment, with a maximum area not to exceed thirty-five square feet. No portion of this sign.shall exceed twenty feet above ground level or project above the cave of sa~ such establishment; March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) 18-3-5 k8-3-5 18-3-5 19-6-1 C.2. Business Signs (Wall): One wall sign in Place of the.signs permitted in Number One above. Area of sign shall not exceed one square foot for each two linear feet of ~&Rea~-~eR~a~e the front of the main structure, with a maximum area of thirty-five square feet in height above ground level or project ab~ove the eave of the roof of the main structure. D.2. Business Signs (Wall): One wall.sign shall be permitted for each enterprise within the industrial par~ not to exceed one square foot per two ~eR~ linear feet of the front of each main structure, with a maximum area not to exceed thirty-five square feeti and no portion of the sign ~shall exceed twenty feet in height from ground level or project above the eave line of the roof of the main building. E.2. Business Signs (Wall): A commercial enterprise with a separate entrance shall be permitted one wall sign not to exceed one square foot per two g~eR~ linear feet of the front of such sa&~ establishment with a maximum of thirty-five square feet in areai and no portion of the sign shall exceed twenty feet in height from ground level or project above the eave line of the foof of the main building. There shall be no minimum setback or yard requirement within the RPN district; except that all structures to be located on the outer perimeter of such district shall conform to the setback and yard regulations of the adjoining districtl and provided further that setbacks_ A~ReS-eR from roads, streets or highways ~-~he-~~&a-~a~e-~s~em-e~-M~hwa~ either existing or proposed, shall be determined by the Planning Commission. Mr, T~ke~i~said?the amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance under Agenda Item No. 7 would remove existing loopholes in the definition of subdivision. Under these proposals, County approval would be required for: 1) the creation of any parcel of less than five ~¢~s~ ~[)?~he~,.~r~a~ion of any parcel with less than required road frontage (pipestems); and 3) any division served by an easement. Under current regulations, County approval can be avoided by employing combinations of exemptions in the Subdivision Ordinance. This results in practical inequities and in disservice to the general health, safety and welfare (i.e. avoidance of road improvements and commercial entrance requirements). The proposed amendments for private roads would provide for easements to be developed to specific standards as private roads. Maintenance would be the responsibility of property owners. Since these roads would be developed as easements as opposed to public rights-of-way, as is the case with restricted roads, the County would be removed from the problems of upgrading such roads to state standards. Not only the number of lots served, but the number of dwellings served, could be controlled by the Planning Commission during subdivision review. These amendments refiect the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of reducing the detrimental effects of requiring state standard roads in subdivisions. The amendments as drafted by the County Attorney's Office, the staff and the Private Roads Committee are set out below: 18-2. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, terms used herein shall be interpreted and defined as follows: The word "approve" shall be considered to be followed by the words "or disapprove". The word "current" shall mean the point in time at which a matter is under consideration and shall not mean the date of adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. Any reference to this chapter includes all ordinances amending or supplementing the same and the date of their additions or deletions. Ail distances and areas refer to measurement in a horizontal plane. Except as otherwise expressly provided, any term contained herein which has an established meaning at common law shall be deemed to have its common law meaning and any definition thereof shall be deemed declarative of the common law and shall be construed in accordance therewith. Subdivision. The division, including re-division and the establishment of any condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land resulting in two or more lots, parcels or units, a~-e~e-e~-w~&eh-&s-~eee-~ha~-~&~e-ae~ee~ for the purpose o'f transfer of ownership or building development¢, e~7-&S-a-Rew-s~ee~-e~-aeeess-eaeemeR% ~e~-~e-~eeme~-a-e~&~&e&e~+ such that: (&~ ~he-ea&e-e~-e~eha~e-e$-~a~ee&e-~e~wee~-a~e&a&~¢-&a~ew~e~s-whe~e-e~eh (~ -~e-~e~eaee-e¢-a-~e~&e~-e¢-~e-see~&~-e¢-a~-me~a~e-e~-~ee~-e¢-~e~. ~8~ ~Ae-~A~Ae&e~-e¢-a~-~a~eeA-eeeae&e~e~-~-a~-e~e~e&ee-e¢-em&~e~-~ema&~-~ (a) Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five acres in are,a; or (b) Any one of such lots~ parcels or units fronts less than 120 feet on a road which is part of the State Highway System or State Secondary Highway System. March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) Notwithstanding the foregoing~ the following shall not be deemed a subdivision: (a) The sale and/or exchange of land between adjoining landowners~ provided that: (1) The land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added to and become part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced by the plat of division and/or the instrument of conveyance thereof; and (2) No parcel which was five acres or greater in area prior to such sale and/or exchange shall,, as a result of such sale and/or exchange, be less than five acres in area;, and (3) No parcel shall., as a result of such sale and/or exchange, front less than 120 feet on a road which is part of the State Highway S.ystem or State Secondary Highway System; an~ (4) and/or exchange. No additional lot or parcel shall be created by such sale OR .... (b) The division of any parcel occasioned by an exercise of eminent domain by any public agency. Road private. Any r.o~ street, highway or other way or means of vehicular access to a parcel of land not maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation or any other public agency, regardless of ownership. ~ee~-(~ee~e~e~T--A-e~ee~-wA~eA-a¢¢e~-~&~e&~a~-mea~e¢-aeeeee-~e-a~~E 18-30. Location. A~ Every subdivision lots shall front on an existing e~ ~eee~4e~ public street, or a street dedicated by the subdivision plat and maintained or designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporation, except that ~,~e~e ,~ee~, private roads shall be permitted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The frontage on ,a~4 such street shall not be less than eighty percent of the lot width required at the building setback line. This regulation may be reduced for frontage on cul-de-sacs. When a new subdivision abuts one side of an existing or platted street, the subdivision shall ~e ~e~&~e~ ~e dedicate ~at least half the right-of-way necessary to make such street comply with the ~inimum width fixed for the same by this chapter. 18-36. Private Aeeeee-~aeeme~e-a~-Ree~&e~eA-$~ee~e~ Roads. (a) Any subdivision &~e&¥&~-~e-e~ea~&e~-e¢-a-~ew-~&~a~e-aeeeee-eaee~e~ any iot of which is served by a private road shall be subject to approval by the commission in accordance with this chapter, ~-e~eh-a~e~a&-e~a~-~e-&&m&~e~-ae ~e-~a~&e~a~-e~&~&e&e~-a~-~e-~a~&e~a~-~ee-e~-aeeeee-eaee~e~-e~a~-~e~ eg-~e-&a~-&~e&~e~ Any e~e~ further subdivision of .~e~ land involving additional use of ea&~-eaee~e~ such road ~&~&-~e-ee~e&~e~e~-ae shall be deemed a subdivision ~e~a$&e~e subject to the provisions of this chapter ~e-~e~e~a&-a~ea-a~-~e-e~e~&~-~e~e~&ee~ (b) ~-~e-e~e~$-e~a&~-a~-~ee~&e~e~-e~ee~-~e-a~e~ea-wA&e~-9~e~&~ee~-e~-&e- ~e~&~ae~-~e-~e~&~e~-aeee~e-~e-me~e-~ha~-~e~-6we&&&~2-~&~--~e-ee~ee~&e~-e~-a~F-~e e~-me~e-~e~&e~e~-~ee~e-~-~e~&~&~e~-~e~-~e~-~ee~-~a~e-~ee~-a~9~e~e~-~e~ aeee~aaee-&a~e-~e-¥&~&~&a-28~e-M&~w~-2~e~e~ The commission may approve any subdivison served by one or more private roads in any case in which: (1) The commission shall determine that any suc~ private road will be adequate to carry, the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be generated by such subdivision; and (2) The Comprehensive Plan does not provide for a public road in the approximate locat£~n of such proposed private road; and ;:(',~) ;~he~fee~;'oF such road-~,&s to be owned by the owners of lots abutting the right-of-wa,y, thereof or b,y an association composed of the owners of all lots i,n the subdivision, subject in either case of an easement for the benefit of al'l lots served by such road. (c) Ma&~e~a~ee-e¢-~ee~&e~ea-s~ee~e-e~ea~e~-~s~a~-$e-~h&e-eha~e~ March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) e&e~-e¢-~e-e&~e~&~-ee~-e¢-~e-ee~y-~&e~-~e-~e-ea&e-e¢-a~-~e~-~e-~e-ee~e~- ~-,~e~-~ee$~&e~e~-e~ee~ All private roads approved pursuant to this section shall be constructed in accordance with the following: (1) The width of the travelway and the base of any such r'oad shall be determined in accordance with Table I. Number of Lots Served (measured at intersection nearest public street) Width of Travelway TABLE I Depth of base (compacted crushed stone) Surface Treatment (except as otherwise expressly provided) 1 -2 (subject to County Engineer Approval) 3 - 10 14 feet 11 - 20 16 feet 21 - 35 18 fe~f 36 or more (subject to County Engineer Approval) 4 inches 5 inches 6 inches Not Required Not Required Not Required Prime and double seal or equivalent (In accordance with the standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for width of travelway and depth of base.) (2) Any such road serving more than two but not more than 35 lots shall have a right.-of~way width of not less than 30 feet and a maximum grade of not more than 15 percent; pravided~ however~ that the maximum grade of such road may be increased t0 not m~re than 18 percent for a distance of not more than 300 feet where~ in the opinion of the county engineer, such increase will not cause an unreasona~ able ~ncrease in foreseeable maintenance costs; but provided further that any portion of any such road in excess of 15 percent shall be .provided with surface treatment to the reasonable satisfaction of the county engineer. The maximum grade and minimum right-of-way width of private roads serving fewer than three lots shall be subject to the approval of the county engineer. (3) In the case of an.y such road serving not more than 35 lots~ there shall be no minimum requirements for the design of such roads regarding surface treatment~ ~orizontal alignment, or other matters; provided that the county engineer shall review the plans for any such road and report to the commission~ whether, in his opinion, the design of such road will satisf[, the provisions of Sections 18-36(b)(2) and 18-37(n) of this Chapter. And provided further that specifications for crowning, ditching~ and other provisions for drainage shall be subject to approval of the county engineer. (4) Any road serving more than 35 lots shall be constructed in accordance with the applicable secondary road standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportati.on, including, but not limited to, horizontal alignment, minimum right-of-way wid~ and maximum grade. (5) The developer shall submit to the county engineer a map of the pro- posed subdivision having contour intervals of not greater than 20 feet showing the horizontal alignment of such road with notes showing the average and maximum grade of each portion of such road. The county engineer may require the submission of other data in such detail as may be reasonably necessary to insure compliance with this chapter (6) Upon approval of such road, the same shall be bonded in accordance with provisions of Section 18-19 of this chapter and shall be constructed in accordance with the plans as approved. Such road shall be deemed completed upon the filing with the director of planning, of a statement~ certified by a licensed professional engineer, or a certified land surveyqr, licensed under Section 54-17.1(b) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, that such road has been completed in accordance with the plans approved therefor. (d) Every such road shall be maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 18-7 of this chapter. Any lot fronting on any such road shall enter only onto such road and shall have no immediate access to any public street. 18-37(m) Access Roads. No subdivision shall be approved unless 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 ~,~,~-s~e~$ private road, to the standards of the county, as set forth in Section 18-36(c) of this chapter, throughout its length, including any distance between the boundary of the proposed subdivision and an existing public road. 18-37(n) Private roads. The commission shall review, or cause to be reviewed, the design standards of any proposed private road to insure that such road will be adequate to serve the subdivision of which it is a part. 18-40. Same--restricted streets. (To be repealed in its entirety.) March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) Mr. TUcker~i!nota~?th~h~ amendments to the Townhouse Ordinance were given at the March 1 1978 Board meeting. The only reason for deferring those ~mendments wa~'~because of the definiti of setback in that ordinance which also relates to the'amendments just explained. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 14, 1978, recommend~ that the Townhouse Ordinance (Section 14 of the Subdivison Ordinance) be repealed. Also that sections 16-89, 5-1-12, 6-1-16, 5-2-1, 5-3-1, 5-3-2,~ 6-3-1, 6-3-2, 6-5-2, 5-7-4, 6-8-4, ~ ~ 5-8-1, 5-8-2, 6-9-1 and 6-9-2 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended (as set out in the Board's minutes for March 1, 1978) and that Sections 16-79, 5-4-3, 6-4-3, 5-5-1, 5-5-2, 6-5-1 an~ 6-6-1 o~ the Zoning Ordinance be amended with wording as set out below; also that new Sections 5-8-3 and 6-9-3 be added to the Zoning Ordinance with wOrding as set out below: 16-79 Setback. The ~~ distance by which any bUilding or structure ~,~-~ is separated from any street, road or access ~-~-~a~ easement adjacent to the front~ line of the lot, parcel,, or portion thereof on which such building or structure is located. 5-4-3 6-4-3 For each dwelling unit in a townhouse development, there shall be a lot width at the setback line of twenty feet or more for interior lots and forty feet or more for end lots. 5-5-1 The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be ten feet or more. For a two-family ~-~~,~ dwelling~ or structure containing townhouses, the side yard shall be ten feet or more at each end of each structure. In any case in which there is more than one main structure, other than townhouses, on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of twenty feet between such main structure. 5-5-2 Each main structure shall have a rear yard of thirty-five feet or more. Townhouse dwellings shall have a rear yard of twenty feet or more. In any case in which there is more than one main structure other than townhouses on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of twenty feet between such ~a~ structures. 6-5-1 The minimum_ side yard for each main structure Shall be ten feet or more, except that the side yard for main structures thirty-five feet or'more in height, shall be increased one foot or more for each additional foot of building height over thirty-five feet up to a maximum required side yard which shall be not more than fifty feet. For a two-family dwelling~ or structure containing townhouses, the side yard shall be ten feet or more at each end of each structure. In any case in which there is more than one main structure other than townhouses on. any parcel, there shall be a minimum of twenty feet between such main structures. 6-6-1 There shall be no height limit for permitted buildings; provided that any such buildings over thirty-five feet in height, with their accessory buildings, may cover not more than twenty-five percent of the gross lot area, ...; and .provided further that ~townhouse dwellings may be erected up to thirty- five feet in height. The Planning Commission also recommended the adoption of the following new sections: 5-8-3 6-9-3 Townhouse building groups shall consist of not less than three dwelling units, nor m~re than ten dwelling'units Mr. Tucker said, at their meeting of March 21, 1978, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the amendments, and the repeal, of certain sections in the Subdivision Ordinance, as set out under Agenda Item No. 7 be adopted; that the amendments, repeal and addition of certain sections to the Zoning Ordinance under Agenda Item No. 8 be adopted. Mr. S~z.~igoh~ then explained to the Board the legal ramifications of these amendments. l) ~If alI °f~'these amendments are adopted, it will legitimize pipestem lots which are illegal now. This comes about through the change in the definition of setback line in the Townh0use ordinance. The definition is being changed to read as it has mistakenly been interpreted in the past (i.e. "setback" is where the front of the building is actually located and not the minimum setback line). Although this creates a loophole, it is immediately closed by enactment of provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance which require that subdivision of any lot not having 120 feet of frontage on a public state-maintained road must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. (Frontage is now being defined as the distance along which the lot actually abuts the road.) 3) Private road provisions will close loopholes that have existed concerning the use of old county roads. No longer can an old county road be considered as "existing access" and thereby eliminate Planning Commission approval. Mr. St. John said there is one additional ordinance being drafted which will complete this package. That ordinance will require that every plat'be stamped by the Planning Office showing that it has been approved as a subdivision or is exempt from the~d~nance. This provfsion will help the Clerk of the Circuit Court who, by law, is not to record a subdivision plat unless it has been approved by the Planning Office. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Mike Boggs, Chairman of the committee which drafted these recommendations, spoke first. He said there would be many advantages under the proposed private road section of the Subdivision Ordinance. 1) The County would get a 25-foot dedication along a State road for future improvements. 2) Improved entrance and location design are an important safety factor. 3) Maintenance of the road would be required through a maintenance agreement approved by the County Attorney. 4) There would be on March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) a note on the recorded plat that the maintenance of the road is a r,esponsibility of the. homeowners. Also a note on the street sign that this was a "private road". 5) It would assure that the road would be built to the standards set out in the ordinance with provisions for storm drainge. 6) Grading permits would be required when necessary and this would assure compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Boggs said these provisions would make it economical for developers to build houses further off the road and keep from stripping the highways. These provisions are not intended to increase the profit to developers, but to cut the cost to the consumer. He feels the total package is a fair compromise and asked approval of same. Mr. Preston Stallings, President of the BlUe Ridge Home Builders, recommended that in the future, the Board ask other qualified people, such as Mr. Boggs, to work on problems in their area of expertise. He then requested a show of hands of those persons present in support of these amendments. (The Clerk counted about 12 persons.) Mr · Fr~k O'Neill said he felt many of the concerns about private roads have been taken care of in these amendments. Ms. Babs Surrett said she lives on a road that serves five people. She asked if the road would have to be upgraded if one more person bought land on this road and what would happen to the road maintenance agreement which was signed by the five people. She also asked if there should not be a gradation of standards for roads serving between three and 20 people instead of just two standards. Mr. St. John said any subdivision of land not having access on a state road would have to go to the Planning Commission for approval. At that time, the standards set out in these amendments would be imposed. The question then is whether the new owners will be responsible for the entire upkeep of the road or whether the old owners (since they already have a maintenance agreement among themselves) will put in their fair share. Mr. Garris said there are quite a few existing roads in the county that have a nine-foot roadbed and these roads serve quite a few people. This ordinance will eliminate the possibili~ of subdividing any of these remote areas without going to a 14-foot wide road and this will make subdivision economically unfeasible. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said the language under 18-36(c)(1) refers to lots served and he felt it would be more appropriate to refer to dwelling units served. He asked if further subdivision along one of these roads would automatically bring this matter to the Planning Commission and who would pay for upgradir the road when the need arose. Mr. Tucker said this was discussed by the Planning Commission and they felt a note on the plat that no more than one dwelling unit could be built on a lot without Planning Commission review would eliminate having two dwellings built on a large lot. Mr. Fisher asked if there was anything in the ordinance to prevent the private road from extending to the end of a parcel, thus making it appear that it was designed to be extended into other parcels. Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, said the only way a person could travel over this road would be through the granting of an easement. Section 18-36(b)(3) requires that the fee in the road be owned by the adjacent property owners or a homeowners association so that a developer could not extend the road without consent of the adjac~ent property owners. Mr. Fisher asked if the homeowners agreements will require that maintenance of the road be enforced by liens against properties. Mr. Payne said the ordinance does not specifically require liens, but he has been requiring this provision in the homeowners' documents that he has approved. Mr. Henley said if a private road is just a plain old easement he will not support these amendments. He knows of many farms in Albemarle County where there are numerous homes owned by family members who all use the same easement for ingress-egress. In many cases, there are several hundred acres involved. Under these provisions, another family member would not be able to build a house unless the road were upgraded to 14 feet. Mr. Henley said he would support the amendments if the number of lots was raised so that the 14-foot road is not required until there are between six and ten lots. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel these amendments will make everyone happy, but if the amend- ment just mentioned by Mr..Henley will solve the problem for a substantial number of people, he would be in favor of the change. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and the Albemarle County Code as outlined in Agenda Items #4, #7 and #8, as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Section 18-36(c)(1) "The width of the travelway, surface treatment and the base of any such road shall be determined in accordance with Table I." Under Table I change first category from "1-3" to "1-5" and the second category from "3-10" to "6-10". Under the.fifth category, add the words "surface treatment". Under 18-36(c)(2), at beginning of first sentence change "two" to "five" and at end of sentence change "three" to "six". Sections 5-4-3 and 6-4-3 should be entitled "Minimum Lot Width at Setback Regulations" March 29,1978 (Special - Called Meeting) The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Fisher said he could not support these amendments because he knew of many cases where people had bought property without knowing the facts-about private roads. Mr. Dorrier said he had served on the Private Roads committee and would like to thank everyone who had worked so hard. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: A~ES: ~Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: Fisher. Following are the ordinances as adopted by Mr. Lindstrom's motion above: BE IT ORDAINED by ~e Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, ~d it h~reby is, amended by the addition, deletion and/or amendment of various sections, respectively, all as follows: March 29, 1978 (Special-Called Meeting) 1.1-4 2-4 2-7-9 3-3-1 3-4 4-4 5-1-12 5-2-1 5-3 5-3-1 5-3-2 5-4 5-4-3 5-5-1 5-5-2 5-7-4 5-8 5-8-1 5-8-2 5-8-3 6-1-16 6-3 6-3-1 6-3-2 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK LINE REGULATIONS For residential lots, the minimum lot width at the setback line shall be: ~MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK LINE REGULATIONS There shall be no minimum setback or yard requirement in a planned community; except that all structures to be located on the outer perimeter of the planned community shall conform to the setback and yard regulations of the adjoining district; provided that setbacks from roads, streets, or access easements shall be determined by the planning commission. Repealed. SETBACK REGULATIONS All structures, except on-site signs for sale or rental of property, and structures, other than signs, for which no permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code, shall be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any street, road or access easement. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK LINE REGULATIONS Townhouses. (Note: This section was included in the amendments .of 3-29-78 using the same wording as that already adopted on 3-1-78.) SETBACK REGULATIONS Ail structures, except signs advertising sale or rent of the property, shall be located thirty (30) feet or more from any street right-of,Way. In addition, townhouse dwellings shall be located 'ten (!0) feet or more from the front lot line. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK LINE REGULATIONS For each dwelling unit in a townhouse development, there shall be a lot width at the setback line of twenty (20) feet or more for interior lots and forty (40) feet or more for end lots. The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be ten (10) feet or more. For a two,family dwelling or structure containing townhouses, the side yard shall be ten (I0) feet or more at each end of each structure. In any case in which there is more than one main structure, other than townhouses, on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet between such main structure. Each main structure shall have a rear yard of thirty-five (35) feet or more. Townhouse dwellings shall have a rear yard of bwenty (20) feet or more. In any case in which there is more ;hah one main structure other than townhouses on any parcel, ;here shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet between such structures. Special provisions for corner lots shall not app!y to townhouse developments. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS No more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the gross site area shall be developed with lots, buildings, streets and off-street parking. Minimum distances between townhouse building groups shall be: Thirty (30) feet front-to-side or side-to-side; Forty (40) feet side-to-rear; Fifty (50) feet rear-to-rear. Townhouse building groups shall consist of not less than three (3) dwelling units nor more than ten (10) dwelling units. Townhouses. SETBACK REGULATIONS Ail structures, except signs advertising sale or rent of the property, shall be located thirty (30) feet or more from any street right-of-way. In addition, townhouse dwellings shall be located ten (10) feet or more from the front lot line. March 29, 1978 (Special-Called Meeting) 6-4 6-4-3 6-5-1 6-5-2 6-6-1 6-8-4 6-9 6-9-1 6-9-2 6-9-3 7-4 8-5 9-5 10-6 11-6 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK LINE REGULATIONS For each dwelling unit in a townhouse development, there shall be a lot width at the setback line of twenty (20) feet or more for interior lots and forty (40) feet or more for end lots. The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be ten (10) feet or more, except that the side yard for main structures thirty-five (35) feet or more in height, shall be increased one (1)~ foot or more for each additional foot of building height over thirty-five (35) feet up to a maximum required side yard which shall be not more than fifty (50) feet. For a two-family dwelling or structure containing townhouses, the side yard shall be ten (10) feet or more at each end of each structure. In any case in which there is more than one main structure other than townhouses on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet between such main structures. Each main structure shall have a rear yard of twenty-five (25) feet or more, except that the rear yard for main structures thirty-five (35) feet or more in height shall be increased one (1) foot or more for each additional foot of building height over thirty'five (35) feet up to the maximum required rear yard which shall not be more than fifty (50) feet. Townhouse dwellings shall have a rear yard of twenty (20) feet or more. In any case in which there is more than one main structure other than town- houses on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet between such main structures. There shall be no height limit for permitted buildings; provided that any such buildings over thirty-five (35) feet in height, with their accessory buildings, may cover not more than twenty- five percent (25%) of the gross lot area, exclusive of required off-street parking areas, and there shall be provided not more than one and three tenths (1.3) square feet of floor area for each square foot of gross lot area, exclusive of required off- street parking areas; and provided further that townhouse dwellings may be erected up to thirty-five (35) feet in height. Special provisions for corner lotS shall not apply to townhouse developments. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS No more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the gross site area shall be developed with lots, buildings, streets and off-street parking. Minimum distances between townhouse building groups shall be: Thirty (30) feet front-to-side or side-to-side; Forty (40) feet side-to-rear; Fifty (50) feet rear-to-rear. Townhouse building groups shall consist of not less than three (3) dwelling units nor more than ten (10) dwelling units. YARD REGULATIONS YARD REGULATIONS YARD REGULATIONS NONCONFORMING LOTS Any lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance which is less in area and/or width than the minimum requiredby this ordinance may be used in a manner consistent with the uses permitted for a lot having the minimUm area and/or width so required; provided, that the rear, side and front yard and setback requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained; and provided further that no such use shall be permitted which is determined by the zoning administrator to constitute a danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. WIDENING OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS Whenever there shall be plans in existence, approved by either the State Department of Highways or by the governing body for the widening of any street or highway, the commission may require additional setbacks for any new construction or for any structures altered or remodeled adjacent to the future planned right-of-way, in order to preserve and protect the right-of-way for such proposed street or highway widening. March 29, 1978 (Special-Called Meeting) 11-7-6(1) Each off-street parking space provided shall be not less than four hundred (400) square feet in area. The area of drives, aisles, parking area landscaping, and such other provisions related to access, shall be counted as part of the four hundred (400) square feet~ provided that no portion of any yard within~ which parking is not allowed shall be counted. 16-32 Frontage: The distance along which a parcel abuts an adjacent road or street. 16-79 16-89 Setback: The distance by which any building or structure is separated from any street, road or access easement adjacent to the front l!n~.of the lot, parcel, or portion thereof on which such building or structure is located. Townhouse: One of a series of attached single-family dwelling units, under single or multiple ownership, separated from one another by continuous vertical walls without openings from basement floor to roof. 18-3-5 A.2. Business Signs (Wall): One (1) wall sign shall be permitted in place of the signs permitted in Number One above. Area of sign shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each one (1) linear foot of the front of the main structure, With a maximum area.of twenty (20) square feet. No portion of the wall sign shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height above ground level or project above the eave of the .roof of the main structure. 18-3-5 B.2. Business Signs (Wall): One (1) wall sign in place of the signs permitted in Number One above. Area of sign shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each two (2) linear feet of the front of the main structure, with a maximum area of thirty-five (35) square feet. No portion of the wall sign shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height above ground level or project above the eav'e of the roof of the main structure. 18-3-5 18-3-5 B.5.b. One(l) wall sign for each. individual establishment t<~w~L~'~h?Wi~h~nL~e<~shopping cente~. The area of this sign shall not exceed one (1) square foot per two (2) linear feet of the front of such establishment, with a maximum area not to exceed thirty-five (35) square feet. No ?~f.~zpprtion of this sign shall exceed twenty (20) feet above ground level or project above the eave of such establishment; C.2. Business Signs (Wall): One (1) wall sign in place of the signs permitted in Number One above. Area of sign shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each two (2) linear feet of the front of the main structure, with a maximum area of thirty-five (35) square feet in height above ground level or project above the eave of the roof of the main structure. 18-3-5 18-3-5 D.2. Business Signs (Wall): One (1) wall sign shall be permitted for each enterprise within the industrial park not to exceed one (1) square foot per two (2) linear feet of the front of each main structure, with a maximum area not to exceed thirty-five (35) square feet; and no portion of the sign shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level or project above the eave line of the roof of the main building~ E.2. B~siness Signs (Wall): A commercial enterprise with a separate entrance shall be permitted one (1) wall sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per two (2) linear feet of the £ront of such establishment with a maximum of thirty-five (35) square feet in area; and no portion of the sign shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level or project above the eave line of the roof of the main building. 19-6-1 There shall be no minimum setback or yard requirement within the RPN district; except that all structures to be located on the outer perimeter of such district shall conform to the setback and yard regulations of the adjoining district; and provided further that setbacks from roads, streets or highways, either existing or proposed, shall be determined by the planning commission. March 29, 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, V~irginia, that the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 18 entitled "Subdivision of Land" be, and it h~reby is, amended by the addition; deletion and/or amendment of various sections, respec~ively,--all as, follows: March 29, 1978 (Special-Called Meeting) ~HAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND Article I. In General. Section 18-2. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, terms used herein shall be interpreted and defined as follows: The word "approve" shall be considered to be followed by the words "or disapprove." The word "current" shall mean the point in time at which a matter is under consideration and shall not mean the date of adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. Any reference to this.chapter includes all ordinances amending or supple- menting the same and the date of their additions or deletions. Ail distances and areas refer to measurement in a horizontal plane. Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, any term contained herein which has an established meaning at common law shall be deemed to have its common law meaning and any definition thereof shall be deemed declarative of the common law and shall be construed in accordance therewith. Road, private. Any road, street, highway or other way or means of vehicular access to a parcel of land not maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation or any other public agency, regardless of ownership. Street (restricted). (Repealed.) Subdivision. The division, including resubdivision and the establish- ment of any condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land resulting in two or more lots, parcels or units for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, such that: (a) Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five acres in area; or (b) Any °'ne of such lots, parcels or units fronts less than one hundred twenty feet on a road which is part of the State Highway System or State Secondary Highway System. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shall not be deemed a subdivision: (a) The sale and/or exchange of land between adjoining landowners, provided that: (1) The land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added to and become part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced by the plat or division and/or-the instrument of conveyance thereof; and (2) No parcel which was five acres or greater in area prior to such sale and/or exchange shall, as a result of such sale and/or exchange, be less than five acres in area; and (3) No parcel shall, as a result of such sale and/or exchange, front less than one hundred twenty feet on a road which is part of the State Highway System or State Secondary Highway System; 'and ~ (4) No additional lot or parcel shall be created by such sale and/or exchange. OR (b) The division of any parcel occasioned by an eXercise of eminent domain by any public agency. Article III. Design Standards. Division 4. Lots. Section 18-30. Location. Every subdivision lot shall front on an existing public street, or a street dedicated by the subdivision plat and maintained or designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, except that private roads shall be permitted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The frontage on such street shall not be less than eighty percent of the lot width required at the building setback line. This regulation may be reduced for frontage on cul-de-sacs. When a new subdivision abuts one side of an existing or platted street, the subdivider shall dedicate at least half the right-of-way necessary to make such street comply with the minimum width fixed for the same by this chapter. March 29, 1978 (SPecial~Cailed Meeting) Article III. Design Standards Division 6. Section 18-36. Private roads, Streets. (a) Any subdivision any lot of which is served by a private road shall be subject to approval by the commission in accordance with this chapter. Any further subdivision of land involving additional use of such road shall be deemed a subdivision subject to the provisions of this chapter.. (b) The commission may approve any subdivision .served by one or more private roads in any case in which: (1) The commission shall determine that any such private road will be adequate to carry the. traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be generated by such subdivision; and (2) The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public road in the approximate location of such proposed private road; and (3-) The fee of such road is to be owned by the owners of lots abutting the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to an easement for the benefit of all lots served by such road. (c) Ail private roads approved pUrsuant to this section shall be constructed in accordance with the following: (1) The width of the travelway, surface treatment, and the base of any such road shall be determined in accordance with Table I. TABLE I Number of Lots Served (Measured at inter- section nearest public street) Width of Travelway Depth of Base (Compacted crushed stone) Surface Treatment (Except as otherwise expressly provided) 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-35 36 or more (Subject to (Subject to County Engineer) County Engineer) 14 feet 4 inches 16 feet 5 inches 18 feet 6 inches (In accordance with the standards of the. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for width of travelway, surface treatment and depth of base.) Not required Not required Not required Prime and double seal or equivalent Prime and double seal or equivalent (2) Any such road serving more than five, :but not more than thirty-five lots shall have a right-of-Way width of not less than thirty feet and a maximum grade of not more than fifteen percent; provided, however, that the maximum grade of such road may be increased to not more than eighteen percent for a distance of not more than three hundred feet where, in the opinion of the county engineer, such increase will not cause an unreasonable increase in foreseeable maintenance costs; but provided further that any portion of any such road in excess of fifteen percent shall be provided with surface treatment to the reasonable satisfaction of the county engineer. The maximum grade and minimum right-of-way'width of private roads serving fewer than six lots shall be subject to the approval of the county engineer. (3) In the case of any such road serving not more than thirty- five lots, there shall be no minimum reqUirements for the design of such roads regarding surface treatment, horizontal alignment, or other matters; provided that the county engineer shall review the plans for any such road and report to the commission whether, in his opinion, the design of such road will satisfy the provisions of sections 18-36(b)(2) and 18-37(n) of this chapter; and provided further that specifications for crowning, ditching, and other provisions for drainage shall be subject to approval of the county engineer. (4) Any road serving more than thirty-five lots shall be constructed in accordance with the applicable secondary road standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, including, but not limited to, horizontal alignment, minimum right-of-way width and maximum grade. (5) The developer, shall submit to the county engineer a map of the proposed subdivision having contour intervals of not greater than twenty feet showing the horizontal alignment of such road with notes showing the average and maXimum grade of each portion of such road. The county engineer may require the submission of other data in such detail as may be reasonably necessary to insure compliance with this chapter. March 29, 1978 (S~cSaie~a~led Meeting) (6) Upon approval of such road, the same shall be bonded in accordance with provisions of section 18-19 ~of this chapter and shall be constructed in accordance with the plans as approved. Such road shall be deemed completed upon the filing with the director of planning of a statement, certified by a licensed professional engineer, or a certified land surveyor, licensed under section 54-17.1(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, that such road has been completed in accordance with the plans approved therefor. (d) Every such road shall be maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 18-7 of this chapter. Any lot fronting on any such road shall enter only onto such road and shall have no immediate access to any public street. Section 18-37. General standards of design. (m) Access roads. No subdivision shall be approved unless 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(c) of this chapter, throughout its length, including any distance between the boundary of the proposed subdivision and an existing public road. (n) ' Private roads. The commission shall review, or cause to be reviewed, the design standards of any proposed private road to insure that such road will be adequate to serve the subdivision of which it is a part. Section 18-40. Same--Restricted streets. (Repealed, in its entirety.) Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an ordinance relating to water cross-connection~ for backflow prevention and providing for a penalty for violation. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 15 and March 22, 1978.) Present were Mr. E. E. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director, and Mr. Royce Graham, Engineer, Albemarle County Service Authority. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Motion to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Code by the addition of the following ordinance was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta~ Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER CROSS'CONNECTIONS AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: That~the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby adopts an ordinance relating to water cross-connections and backflow prevention for the following purposes: 1. To protect the potable water supply system of the Albemarle County Service Authority from the possibility of contamination or pollution by isolating within its customers' internal distribution systems such contaminates or pollution which could backflow into the public water supply system; and 2. To eliminiate or control the existing cross-connections, actual or potential, at each water outlet from the consumer's service line; and 3. To provide for the maintenance of a continuing program of cross- connection control which will systematically and effectively prevent contamination or pollution of the Albemarle County Service Authority's potable water system. CHAPTER Rules and Regulations of the Albemarle County Service ~uthority and Virginia State Department of Health Adopted SeCtiOn 1 Rules Adopted There is h~reby adopted by reference in Albemarle County the Rules and Regulations of the Albemarle County Service Authority Relating to Water Cross-Connection and Backflow Prevention, adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority on December 8, 1977, and Section 6.00 of the Virginia Waterworks Regulations, entitled "Cross-Connection and Backflow Prevention Control in Waterworks", adopted by the Virginia State Board of Health on May 7, 1974, as currently in effect and as amended in the future. Ail the provisions of these Regulations are adopted and shall control all matters March 29' 1978 (Special - Called Meeting) concerning cross-connections and backflow prevention affecting every building, premise, or structure in Albemarle County served by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Ail functions of these Regulations which pertain to the insulation of systems vital to the prevention of pollution of the public water supply by cross-connection or backflow of liquids are adopted. Further, these~ Regulations shall apply to every existing or proposed building, premise or struc~ture in Albemarle County served by the Albemarle County Service Authority's potable water system. Section 2 Violations; Penalties Any person~.violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or by imprisonment not exceeding 30 days or by both such fine and imprisonm~m~o Each day such violation continues shall be a separate offense. Secti~m 3 Effective ~ate This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after the 29th day of March, 1978. Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint a citizens committee to study scenic river designation for certain rivers in Albemarle County and that this matter be set on the agenda of April 12 for further discussion. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Roudabush said he had received a petition, containing 150 names, about the Board's request for Industrial Access Funds for the Kloeckner-Pentaplast plant in Louisa County. He asked that this matter be set on the April 12th agenda. Mr. Agnor said on March 8th the Board authorized the Chairman to sign an agreement for lease of the Telex System in the Sheriff's Department. That corporation now seeks authorization to assign that lease to a bank and a resolution to that effect is needed from the Board. The following resolution was prepared by the County Attorney's Office: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: The Board of Supervisors, by resolution adopted on March 8, 1978, has authorized the Chairman of the Board to sign an agreement with Telex Terminal Communications for use of a communications terminal by the Albemarle County Sheriff's Department. Telex Terminal Communications is hereby granted authorization to assign this lease for financing purposes. Motion to adopt the foregoing resolution as drafted was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconde~ by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher said the dedication of Western Albemarle High School is set for Sunday, April 30th. He felt the former members of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board (those in office at the beginning of this project) should have a special invitation to this cermony. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10. At 12:08 A.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn this meeting until March 30, 1978, at 8:00 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None.