Public Hearing Items:
STA-2008-00001 Rural Areas 2-lot Street Standards
Amend Sections 14-207, Rural subdivisions, 14-404, Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway, 14-412, Standards for private streets only, and 14-434, Completion of on-site improvements required prior to plat approval, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 14-207 by making rural subdivisions subject to Sec. 14-404; Sec. 14-404 by requiring that the first subdivision plat approved for a parcel after the effective date of this ordinance (the “parent parcel”) must establish a single public or private access from an existing public or private street outside of the parent parcel to the lots within the subdivision, and would require that the proposed street provide such access for all future subdivisions within the parent parcel, and would delete the requirement that all subsequent divisions of the residue enter only onto such streets shown on the approved final plat and have no immediate access onto any public street; Sec. 14-412 by deleting the standard for residential private streets serving 2 lots and requiring such streets to meet the standard currently required for streets serving 3 to 5 lots; Sec. 14-434 by deleting the exception for certain private streets from the requirement that all on-site improvements be completed prior to approval of the final plat where surety in lieu of completion of the improvements is not authorized. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Amelia McCulley)
Mr. Fritz separated the request into two parts because there are two main areas of this proposal. The first part is a single point of access component and the other will be the road standard. This is a rehashing of an action that was taken on February 6, 2008. There are two amendments being proposed - the two lot road standard and the single point of access. He presented a power point presentation and reviewed the staff report.
Mr. Morris asked if the items would be taken separately.
Mr. Fritz replied that the Planning Commission can take a single action, but the presentation will be done separately so there can be two separate conversations.
· The proposal is to require all subdivisions of property from an effective date forward to share the same point of access, a single entrance. Why is this back before the Commission? Frankly, staff told the Commission what the ordinance would do, but forgot to actually write the ordinance to do that. Therefore, staff made a mistake and now are adding that language back in. What they are adding in specifically is a section that will require rural divisions to have to comply with Section 14-404, which is the section being amended. The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the number of entrances onto a public road and thereby reduce conflict points for accidents, reduce the number of access roads serving property, the resulting roads would meet a higher construction standard and private road maintenance will then be shared amongst more properties. These changes importantly do not impact family divisions or development area shared driveways.
· What happens first is that a large parcel is divided into Parcel A and Parcel B. This is a rural division and each lot is approved with a separate entrance onto the public street. Subsequent subdivisions will occur where Parcel A is divided into a front and back division served by a private street that will serve both parcels A1 and A2. Another subdivision would subdivide Parcel B into B1 and B2 with a private street that serves those two. To do all four lots at one time under the current ordinance there would be a single entrance. Under the proposed ordinance there would be a single entrance. Waivers are available. The Commission can waive these provisions.
· Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the revised subdivision text amendment that is Attachment B. This subdivision text amendment is set for a public hearing with the Board of Supervisors on November 12. The ordinance now does what staff described in the August presentation. Staff has gotten the ordinance language correct.
Ms. Joseph asked what section they were looking at and where does it change.
Mr. Fritz noted that it was in Section 14-207(d) in 14-404. He noted that was the only thing different from what the Commission had in August.
Ms. Joseph noted that the big concern expressed by the public after the last meeting was the Highway Department and that this would stop rural development because of Highway Department requirements. She questioned if it had something to do with sight distance. With a single point of access it has to have a certain sight distance. A driveway does not have a sight distance requirement.
Mr. Fritz noted that on the slide where Parcel A and Parcel B are divided and Parcel A is further divided the lots are served either by one or two lots. Therefore, the VDOT standard is going to be the private street access. If on the other hand, if the ordinance were amended, all four of the lots would require that a single point of access be used for the property as it exists now and all subsequent divisions of the property would have to use that access. There would be four lots accessing a single point. That would require a commercial entrance, which does have higher entrance requirements.
Ms. Joseph said that in essence it is supposed to be a safer entrance for all of the four residents that are using it.
Mr. Fritz agreed that it improved the sight distance.
Ms. Porterfield asked if family subdivisions would be the only thing that this is not going to apply to.
Mr. Fritz replied that this will not apply to family subdivisions. There is also an exemption built in that says if one is subject to a different provision of the ordinance that requires inter-parcel connection where you would have to connect, which is in the development areas, then this section also does not apply. What you would have is one section of the ordinance saying have multiple connections and another section of the ordinance saying that you will only get one. Staff removed that conflict.
Ms. Porterfield questioned why family divisions were not included.
Mr. Fritz said that if a family division occurs and it is held for the four years and they chose to further divide that property, then it would be subject to this regulation. That would not be a family division.
Mr. Strucko asked if no upgrades to different standards would have to be made.
Mr. Fritz replied that is correct.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the State Code would prohibit the Commission from applying this to family divisions.
Mr. Kamptner noted that because Albemarle County is a high growth locality, they can establish the regulations they desire.
Mr. Loach asked for clarification that this came out of the resolution of intent dated February 6, 2008 from the Board of Supervisors as Attachment A.
Mr. Fritz replied that it was the resolution of intent that was included in the packet dated February 6, 2008, which was supported by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Loach asked if there was a provision for a wavier of this.
Mr. Fritz replied yes that there was a waiver that could be requested.
Mr. Loach asked if this was done in accordance with Fire/Rescue officials.
Mr. Fritz replied that is going to be the second part of the conversation about the road standards. What they are talking about now is the single point of access, which does not have much to do with the road standards that were developed in association with Fire/Rescue and engineers.
Ms. McCulley noted that the indirect positive impact and basic planning concept behind restricting access is reducing the number of conflict points along a highway. Each conflict point, of course, could create an accident. That is in terms of public safety a better solution than allowing as many entrances as possible that the frontage allowed.
Mr. Morris asked staff if they want to take the second part for public input.
Mr. Fritz noted that the second part deals with the standard of the road once you get past the actual entrance, which is driven from the same resolution of intent.
· There is a current provision in the Zoning Ordinance that says when one applies for a building permit that certain design standards must be met for the access to that new dwelling. That is the one created in association with Fire/Rescue. The current Zoning Ordinance has road standards that apply to roads serving three or more lots. The draft ordinance would make that two or more lots. Currently if you have two lots the road standard is simply reasonable access by motor vehicle. That is the standard.
· The Zoning Ordinance lot access standards are more restrictive in some respects than the subdivision road standards. Particularly, the maximum grade is 16 percent and there is a minimal vertical clearance of 14’. Private streets in the rural area currently do not have that requirement. Ms. McCulley has provided a very good table, which is in the packet. It compares the provisions for driveways, 2-lot subdivision, 3- to 5- lots subdivision and 6 or more lots. If you look at the maximum grade for driveways there is a 16 percent grade. But, there is no maximum grade for 2 lots or 3 to 5 lots. So if they were to amend the ordinance to make it 2 to 5 lots there would be no maximum grade. When you get over 7 percent it is required to be paved. But, there is no maximum grade. In the 3 to 5 lot standard there is a minimum surface requirement with a 14’ wide gravel travel way. But, there is no similar standard for a driveway. For the driveway it is simply giving a maximum grade and the minimal vertical clearance. So that is the difference.
Consideration of Differences -
· Could a current subdivision approval result in a lot design and/or road that will not meet driveway standards for issuance of a building permit? The answer to that question is yes.
· If driveway standards are based on access by public vehicles, should the subdivision road also meet this standard? That question is one for the Commission to consider.
Options for the Commission -
· Separate the road standard issue for further discussion and allow the SPOA Subdivision Amendment to move forward; OR
· Recommend a revision of the road standard (where less restrictive than the driveway standard) to be incorporated into the pending STA-2008-001.
· Or, the Commission could make no changes to the draft Subdivision Text Amendment. The draft Subdivision text is to simply apply the 3 to 5 lot standard to 2 lots. So it would be a 2 to 5 lot standard.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the current driveway maximum grade of 16 percent does not even apply to the 3 to 5 lots,
Mr. Fritz replied that was correct.
Mr. Edgerton said the second alternative is to get these into alignment before they approve them.
Mr. Edgerton said what would change here is that they would have 16 percent listed for a new box that would say 2 to 5 lots.
Mr. Fritz replied that was correct.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph said that it sounds as if they are just cleaning up something that they missed the first time around with the rural areas insertion. It makes perfect sense if they are going to have high standards for driveways that they ought to have that same standard for the entry going into it. Therefore, she could support both.
Mr. Edgerton asked if she was recommending the second option to recommend a revision of the road standard (where less restrictive than the driveway standard) to be incorporated into the pending STA-2008-001. He asked if that was something that would send everybody back to square one and start over again.
Mr. Fritz noted that if the Commission’s intent is to give staff direction to incorporate the drive-way standards into the 2- to 5-lot standard they can get the language right before it goes to the Board.
Mr. Edgerton asked if that would include up to 16 percent grade and the 14’ high vertical grade for some type of equipment such as a fire truck.
Mr. Fritz replied yes.
Ms. McCulley noted that they would still be able to keep this on the November 12 Board of Supervisors public hearing date.
Mr. Edgerton noted that there were a lot of members of the public that were present at the work session that are not here tonight. He questioned if there was a notice requirement that they have to worry about.
Mr. Fritz noted that staff had been instructed that no additional public notice was needed.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that this was the most appropriate way to move ahead.
Ms. McCulley questioned if they need to provide additional legal notice.
Mr. Kamptner replied no, that the notice has been provided and the Commission is making its recommendation. These changes are not any of the types of things that would trigger the need for additional notice at the Planning Commission stage.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded to recommend approval of STA-2008-0001 Rural Areas 2-lot Street Standards and Lot Access Driveway Standards to the Board of Supervisors as recommended by staff, amended as follows:
· Include revised text on SPOA (single point of access), and
· Include a revision of the private road standard for revision for grade and vertical clearance to be consistent with the driveway standard.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Cannon absent)
Mr. Morris noted that STA-2008-0001 Rural Areas 2-lot Street Standards and Lot Access Driveway Standards would go before the Board of Supervisors on November 12 with a recommendation for approval with the resolution of intent as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 08-14( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II, ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, ARTICLE IV, ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIGN, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, and Article IV, On-Site Improvements and Design, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
Sec. 14-207 Rural subdivisions
Sec. 14-404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway
Sec. 14-412 Standards for private streets only
Sec. 14-434 Completion of on-site improvements required prior to plat approval
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article II. Administration and Procedure
Sec. 14-207 Rural subdivisions
The following sections of this chapter shall apply to each rural subdivision:
A. General: Sections 14-100 through 14-108.
B. Administration and procedure: Sections 14-200 through 14-204 and sections 14-209, 14-226, 14-229 and 14-236.
C. Plat requirements and documents to be submitted: Sections 14-300, 14-301, 14-302(A)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10), (11), (14) and (15), 14-302(B)(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10), 14-303(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (H), (I), (L), (O) and (P), 14-304, 14-305(B), 14-308.1, 14-309, 14-310, 14-312, 14-314 and 14-316.
D. On-site improvements and design: Sections 14-400, 14-403, 14-404, 14-406, 14-414, 14-416, 14-421, 14-426, 14-427, 14-433 and 14-438.
(9-5-96, 7-9-86, 12-21-83, 2-4-81, 5-2-79, 11-13-74, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-13(b); Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
Article IV. On-Site Improvements and Design
Sec. 14-404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway.
Each lot within a subdivision shall be located as follows:
A. The first subdivision plat approved for a parcel on and after [insert effective date] (hereinafter, the “parent parcel”) shall establish a single public or private street to provide access from an existing public or private street outside of or adjacent to the parent parcel to the lots within the subdivision. The street shall also provide such access for all future subdivisions within the boundaries of the parent parcel as it existed on [insert effective date]. The requirement of a single access street shall not apply to any subdivision whose streets and access are subject to section 14-409.
Each lot, other than a corner lot within the development areas, shall have
reasonable access to the building site from only one street, shared driveway or
alley established at the same time as the subdivision or the subdivision of
the parent parcel as provided in subsection (A); provided that a lot may be
located so that its driveway enters only onto a public street abutting the
subdivision if: (i) the commission grants a waiver under subsection (C); (ii)
the subdivider obtains an entrance permit from the Virginia Department of
Transportation for the access; (iii) the entrance complies with the design
standards set forth in sections 14-410(F) and 14-410(G); and (iv) the subdivider
demonstrates to the agent prior to approval of the final plat that the waiver
does not violate any covenants to be recorded for the subdivision. For purposes
of this section, the term “reasonable access” means a location for a driveway
or, if a driveway location is not provided, a location for a suitable foot path
from the parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance to the building site;
the term “within the subdivision” means within the exterior boundary lines of
the lands being divided.
B. If the subdivision is within the rural areas, all
subsequent divisions of the residue shall enter only onto such street(s) shown
on the approved final plat and shall have no immediate access onto to any public
C. The requirements of this section may be waived by the commission as provided in section 14-225.1. In reviewing a waiver request, the commission shall determine whether: (i) the county engineer recommends an alternative standard; or (ii) because of unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interests of the subdivider, strict application of the applicable requirements would result in significant degradation of the property or to the land adjacent thereto. In approving a waiver, the commission shall find that requiring the standard would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto. In reviewing a waiver request, the commission may allow a substitute design of comparable quality, but differing from that required, if it finds that the subdivider would achieve results which substantially satisfy the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the requirement.
(§ 18-36 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-39 (part), 9-5-96, 10-19-77, 5-10-77, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-36, 18-39; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, §§ 14-500(C), 14-505; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(5).
Sec. 14-412 Standards for private streets only.
In addition to the minimum design requirements set forth in section 14-410, the following minimum design requirements shall apply to private streets authorized by this chapter:
A. Residential private streets. Each private street serving detached residential uses authorized under sections 14-232 or 14-233 shall satisfy the following:
Streets serving two lots. Each private street serving two (2) lots shall
satisfy the following: (i) easement or right-of-way widths shall be thirty (30)
feet minimum; (ii) the required materials and minimum depth of base shall
satisfy the minimum requirements described in the design standards manual; and
(iii) the surveyor shall include the following wording on the final plat: “The
existing and/or proposed right-of-way is of adequate width and horizontal and
vertical alignment to accommodate a travelway passable by ordinary passenger
vehicles in all but temporary extreme weather conditions, together with area
adequate for maintenance of the travelway, as required by section 14-412 of the
Albemarle County Code.”
Streets serving three two to five lots. Each private street
serving three (3) two (2) to five (5) lots shall satisfy the
following: (i) vertical centerline curvature shall meet a minimum design K value
of five (5) for crest curves and fifteen (15) for sag curves; (ii) sight
distances shall not be less than one hundred (100) feet; (iii) turnarounds shall
be provided at the end of each street per American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials guidelines; (iv) street easements or right-of-way
widths shall be thirty (30) feet minimum; and (v) the radius for horizontal
curvature shall be forty (40) feet or greater, unless otherwise authorized by
this chapter . Any standard in this paragraph (2) may be reduced to the
standard for streets serving two (2) lots where a driveway departs from the
street and two lots remain to be served, and a turnaround is provided. In
addition, the following shall also apply:
(a) Private streets in the rural areas. For such private streets in the rural areas: (i) travelway widths shall be fourteen (14) feet minimum, with three (3) feet minimum shoulder widths, and a minimum of four (4) feet from the edge of the shoulder to the ditch centerline; (ii) if any portion of the street exceeds seven (7) percent in grade, the entire street shall be surfaced as required by Virginia Department of Transportation standards; streets of lesser grade may use a gravel surface.
(b) Private streets in the development areas. For such private streets in the development areas: (i) an urban cross-section street design shall be provided, with a minimum width of twenty (20) feet measured from the curb faces or such alternative design, including a street easement or right-of-way width, deemed adequate by the county engineer to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare; additional widths shall be provided for gutters to control drainage at the discretion of the county engineer; and (ii) the entire street shall be surfaced as required by Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
Streets serving six lots or more. Each private street serving six (6) or
more lots shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation standards,
(a) Private streets in the rural areas. For such private streets in the rural areas, the commission may approve Virginia Department of Transportation standards for mountainous terrain if the subdivider demonstrates, for a specific, identifiable reason, the general welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interests of the subdivider, would be better served by the application of those standards.
(b) Private streets in the development areas. For such private streets in the development areas, the agent may approve Virginia Department of Transportation standards for mountainous terrain or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the county engineer to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare.
43. Streets serving family or two-lot
subdivisions. Each private
authorized to serve a family subdivision under section 14-232(B)(1) or a
two-lot subdivision under section 14-232(B)(2) shall satisfy the following:
(i) easement or right-of-way widths shall be ten (10) feet minimum; and (ii) the
surveyor shall include the following wording on the plat: “The existing and/or
proposed right-of-way is of adequate width and horizontal and vertical alignment
to accommodate a travelway passable by ordinary passenger vehicles in all but
temporary extreme weather conditions, together with area adequate for
maintenance of the travelway, as required by section 14-412 of the Albemarle
B. Private streets serving non-residential, non-agricultural, attached residential, multi-unit residential and combined residential and non-residential uses. Each private street authorized to serve non-residential, non-agricultural, attached residential, multi-unit residential and combined residential and non-residential uses under sections 14-232 or 14-233 shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the agent, upon the recommendation of the county engineer, to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare. The agent may require minimum travelway widths to provide for on-street parking upon a determination that the provisions for off-street parking may be inadequate to reasonably preclude unauthorized on-street parking.
C. Clearing land for improvements. A private street constructed to Virginia Department of Transportation standards shall not be subject to that department’s clear zone requirements.
D. Landscaping and other improvements permitted. Subsequent to construction of a private street, a subdivider may install ornamental plantings and any other improvements provided that they do not conflict with sight distance, drainage facilities or other required improvements.
E. Waiver. The requirements of section
14-412(A)(2)(a) 14-412(A)(1)(a) relating to street easement or
right-of-way widths may be waived by the commission as provided in section
14-225.1. In reviewing a waiver request for a lesser
street easement or right-of-way width, the commission shall consider whether:
(i) the subdivision will be served by an existing easement or right-of-way of
fixed width that cannot be widened by the subdivider after documented good faith
effort to acquire additional width; and (ii) the existing easement or
right-of-way width is adequate to accommodate the required travelway and its
maintenance. If the waiver pertains to minimum street easement or right-of-way
widths over an existing bridge, dam or other structure, the commission shall
consider whether: (i) the long-term environmental impacts resulting from not
widening the bridge, dam or other structure outweigh complying with the minimum
width requirements, as determined by the county engineer; or (ii) whether the
bridge, dam or other structure is a historical structure. In approving a
waiver, the commission shall find that requiring the standard street easement or
right-of-way widths would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise
serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to
sound engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto.
(§ 18-36, 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-37, 9-5-96, 11-21-79, 3-29-78, 8-28-74(part); 1988 Code, §§ 18-36, 18-37, 18-38; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 14-514; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2242(3).
Sec. 14-434 Completion of on-site improvements required prior to plat approval.
Except as provided in section 14-435, all on-site improvements
required by this chapter
, other than a private street authorized under
section 14-232(B)(1), 14-232(B)(2), 14-233(A)(2) or 14-433(B)(2) serving less
three (3) lots,
shall be completed prior to approval of the final plat. Prior to approval of
the final plat:
A. The subdivider shall submit to the agent a certificate of completion of all of the improvements prepared by a professional engineer or a land surveyor, to the limits of his license; and
B. The subdivider shall certify to the agent that all of the construction costs for the improvements, including those for materials and labor, have been paid to the person constructing the improvements.
9-5-96, 12-15-82, 4-21-76, 2-19-76, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988 Code, § 18-18; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 14-412; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Return to exec summary