Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-01 adjMarch 1, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 299 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 1, 1989, at 1:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIhtire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from February 27, 1989. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BO~LRD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 1:34 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation by Darden Towe, Tourism. Mr. Darden Towe, a member of City Council, said before he began his presentation, he wanted to thank Mr. Way for being present at Albemarle High School with him to make a presentation to the wrestling team. He said he wanted to let the Board know the commendable job the wrestling coach at Albemarle High School, Mr. Peter Cahill, is doing to inspire the young men he is working with. Mr. Towe said Mr. Layne Witherell from Montdomaine Vineyards, Chairman of the Governor's Commission for Tourism for the Wine Industry, was with him and would be making the video presentation. Mr. Towe went on to explain what tourism means in terms of jobs and tax revenues for both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. During 1987, the total expenditures in Virginia were $6.9 million. More than 157,000 jobs were directly supported by tourism. He said as budgeting time comes up, he would encourage the Board to continue to ~ork together with the City to promote tourism as a means of funding needs in each locality. Mr. Towe distributed gift packets to each Board member containing infor- mation and advertising materials regarding tourism in Virginia. Mr. Witherell said The Department of ToUrism in Virginia conducted an exhaustive study to determine the perception!Of a Virginia vacation and what the ideal vacation would be. Virginia was perceived as an interesting, historical place, but not as a fun place to visit. Therefore, the Department of Tourism put together a marketing plan whidh stresses the fun aspects of a Virginia vacation. The video presentation is a television advertising cam- paign put together to promote the concept of ~irginia as a fun place to visit. The commercial spots will be seen by 52 percent of American households, which is approximately 46 million people. He said 'this presentation has been seen only once or twice before in Virginia. It wi?il begin airing on television at the end of March. Before the work session began, Mr. Agnor~-introduced the new Watershed Management Official, Mr. Peyton Robertson, to the Board. Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Way said that at the last session the Board had discussed the rural development lot options but arrived at no conclusion. The goal of the meeting today is to finish that discussion and also to go back and look again at the villages proposed. Mr. Horne said staff had developed a chart analyzing the proposal dis- cussed at the last meeting. It is a compromise which would give some addi- tional provisions to encourage the use of small lot options. Essentially the proposal on this chart maintains the development right lots at their current status, maintains the minimum of two acres and a proposed maximum of ten acres, and for the residue lots gives an additional incentive of a 50 percent bonus. Also included is the idea that for th~ additional small lot option 300 March 1, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) lots, the maximum lot size would be reduced to six acres. This means that if a land owner chooses to do this, he would use a smaller lot size, using up less acreage for housing lots, would have to cluster those lots on an internal road, and would have to dedicate open space. There would be a set of design criteria whereby the lots developed would be on land least likely for agricul- tural or forestal activities. Mr. Home said there is also data provided which Mr. Lindstrom requested in terms of build out time frames for the rural and growth areas. Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development, presented the number of possible dwelling units and the number of existing dwelling units compared to the number of developable acres for growth areas as shown on the chart distributed to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said under the 21 acre approach, it would take about 160 years for maximum development build out. Under the 40 acre exempt lot ap- proach, it Would take about 140 years. Mr. Cilimberg then discussed the chart showing the alternative proposal for rural residential development described by Mr. Horne in his opening remarks. Mr. Lindstrom said since the Board is supposed to come to grips with this matter today, he could support the Planning Commission's recommendation with the bonus of 50 percent for clustering. However, he could not support clustering at the current density. All that staff has said and what he has heard from developers indicates a significant impact in terms of the amount of rural acreage that would be developed and in terms of the:number of lots that would be created. If there is not a consensus for changing the density, Mr. Lindstrom said, he is for leaving the ordinance the way it is. He does not think it makes sense to increase the incentive for people!to develop in the rural areas without a corresponding decrease in the numbe~ of lots that can be created. That is contrary to solving the issue. He saidi~he could not support a move that he is confident would increase the pressure od rural areas. Mr. Perkins said it seems there is a fear that peopl~ will move to the country and start clustering under the 21 acre provision, ibut people have had that right all along under the special use permit, if he ~nderstands it correctly. He wondered how many requests had come in to dluster under the special use permit. Mr. Horne said there have not been m~any compared to requests for by-right development. He said the reason fo~ that probably is the effort it takes to get to the Board of Supervisors through the special use permit process. It is a long and expensive process whichiiiis much more than just filing an application. Mr. Lindstrom said the other problem is how to providle services in the rural areas if the incentive for development is increased.} The thrust of the ordinance when it was first conceived was to allow flexibility for farmers to make family divisions and to sell lots in cases of economiih crunch. He said there are so many lots available now that increasing the incentive can only help the development community, which has been provided foz in other areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowie said it sounds like more people would cluster if the process were not so difficult. Mr. Home said that is correct. H~ clarified that the process to get a special permit is a legislative one requi~ed statewide. Mr. Bowie then asked who says whether or not a special permit ~s needed. Mr. Horne said the County ordinance says that. Mr. Bowie said~he has been told by some who developed five lots along the main road that they~do that because clustering off the main road is too expensive and too hardi Mr. Home said the subdivision ordinance has a definite bias toward adequate road standards. People attempt to avoid building a public or private inter~al roadway because it is an expensive requirement. Mr. Bowie said the State ~ets the require- ments for public roads, of course, but who says it has to ~e a public road. Mr. Horne said the County ordinance says that. Mr. Lindst~om· asked if staff has seen a lot of road front strip development. Mr. Horneilsaid he could not say he has seen that much unified development. He said mo~t of that type is being done on some kind of internal road configuration. H~wever, when one or two lots are developed, people prefer to develop along the~road. Mr. Horne March 1, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 301 said in terms of total lots created in the last year or two, probably most have been created as unified developments. They are not cases where a farmer develops a lot or two here and there. An entire tract is being cut up as a rural subdivision. Mr. Way said his feeling is pretty much what it was last week. He is not in favor at this time of putting more governmental restrictions on property owners. The day may come when that has to be done. He said that he would not support the 40 acre proposal. Mr. Perkins said he is not willing to support the 40 acre lot size either, but he feels the Board needs to look at what the goals of rural residential development are. He said one is to limit the number of houses going into the rural areas. The question is how to do that. He said one way is to encourage people to build in the growth areas by making that attractive to them, and by discouraging growth in rural areas. People need to realize they are not going to get new roads built and they will have water and/or sewer problems if they choose to live in the rural areas. He said the second goal is to preserve agricultUral and forestal lands. Mr. Perkins felt that certainly is not being done under the current standards. That is why he would be in favor of clustering. He said maybe the special use permit process could be made easier. He said people are going to live in rural areas if that is where they want to live, as long as they can afford it. He said he does not think developers are interested in farming and do not want to be stuck with that residue of land which ghey would not be able to do anything with. They will sell it one way or the other. As long as they have a right t,o divide it into 21 or even 40 acre ;iots, Mr. Perkins felt that is what they will do. Mr. Bain said clustering is very attractive for the reasons Mr. Perkins just gave. However, clustering with 21 acres may cause people to rush to cluster, increasing the density. Mr. Perkins. said that still only involves 7,000 lots more or less. When it is built out, it is built out. There would be restrictions on the remainder of the land ~saying it could not be subdivided further. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Perkins i~ad in mind perpetual easements. Mr. Perkins said he does if that is what it t~akes to preserve land. He said that fifty years from now, any piece of property developed today Could be in a growth area. In that case, the perpetual easement would have to change. Mr. Lindstrom said the problem is that in the next ten years, with significant population pressure, a clustering incentive With no corresponding offset in terms of the number of lots that can be develgped, will cause a significant increase in the amount of rural development, i The real impact is going to be the number and the rate of development in tho~e~ areas without any way of dealing with it. The problem is the speed and the amount of development that will occur. He said he thinks there could easily be an increase of 50 percent in rural development if the density is not changed. Mr. Bain said he understands what Mr. Perkins is saying with regard to there being only so many lots. However, his ~oncern is in regard to water and efficient service delivery for rural areas. ~rom studies in Loudoun COunty, there is no question that the density in growth areas ms less expensive for public services than in the rural areas. He ~aid those two things really concern him, as well as the goals for the rural areas. He said he just does not want to encourage any more development in!!rural areas. It is a two pronged approach, and he feels that more is n~eded to lessen the pressure for development in rural areas along with what is !ibeing done to attract develop- ment in the growth areas. Mr. Lindstrom said another thing he has h~eard from real estate people is that, in the past two years, because of the C~unty's policy on rural develop- ment, there has been increasing interest in communities like Earlysville and Scottsville. He thinks that one thing to remember is the idea of the "carrot and stick". The hope is to create a "carrot" ~in the growth communities by investing public funds to make them more attractive. At the same time, it is necessary to maintain the restrictions in the ~rural area that will give a balance to growth. He is concerned that clustering under the current ordi- nance in any way, shape, or form, other than lieaving the ordinance the way it is, will create a disincentive. That would, p~erhaps, mean a waste of public investment in certain communities. Mr. Perkin~s said he cannot accept the idea that it will be more economical to cluster and~ people will run out and do that because that possibility has already been in p~ace, and people do not use that process. He said he does not know how difficu%t the process for clustering by 302 March 1, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) special use permit is, but if he had a farm, that is certainly what he would do. It is like keeping the cake and eating it too. In essence, the owner keeps the farm and sells off the development rights. If people have not been rushing in to do that under the special use permit, why is it assumed that they will if the lot size changes. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is difficult to appreciate the complexity of going through the special use permit process with no guaranteed result. Someone can spend a lot of time and money on engineers and surveyors and a presentation, with no guarantee that the Board will approve the permits. There is a whole list of criteria to meet because of the concern about the impact of development in the rural areas. He said he does not have a problem with the process, but it does discourage a lot of people from coming in to cluster or seek any other change other than by-right development which they can do without going through the special permit process. They could just come in with a plat and present it for approval. Mr. Perkins said he thought it would be a little more formal than just coming in with a plat. He said it should involve staff going out to look and see if the cluster is being put in the right place. Mr. Lindstrom said there would not be a%legislative review as there is now. Mr. Perkins said in one year, if he remembered correctly, there has been one special use permit requested for clustering. He thought that was turned down because of the large number of lots. Mr. Lindstrom said that was the number of lots by right. The point is the BOard has been reluc- tant to grant special permits, and the development community understands that as well. Mr. Bowie said it seems there is no doubt that people who want to live in the rural area are going to live there. Despite the difficult special use permit or anything else, about half the people are going ~o the rural areas. Therefore, there will be a certain number of lots sold. He said he is not sure that people are buying 21 acres because they want to~iown a large lot. That happens to be what they have to buy. If the lot cou%'d be made smaller and leave more area open, it seems the rural area would nat be used as quickly. Mr. Bowie said the basic problem with staff's p~oposal is that it absolutely reduces the development rights property owners !have by one-third. He said he knows there are arguments on both sides, but r~'gardless of why they own the land or how much they deserve it, those are the r~ghts they have now. Mr. Perkins said he thinks everyone is saying the 21 i~acre provision has not worked. Mr. Lindstrom said planning always falls shorlt of the goals. Looking at where the County would have been if changes hag not already been made, he feels there is a substantial improvement in termJ~ of the rural/urban balance. He said it is difficult to determine where the County might have been. There have been no major subdivisions created in Albemarle County since 1980. The subdivisions that have been approved in rural areas have been on pre-existing parcels. In terms of the major subdivisions ..~created under this ordinance in rural areas, there have been virtually none. ~-'. Mr. Lindstrom said that is a major shift in the pattern from what existed be{~ore this ordinance was adopted. The rural area district has worked substantf~ally better than the previous zoning, though it might not have met the goals .... Mr. Lindstrom said that although he would like to see the rural areas development more restricted, it does not look as though the Board is going to do that. By default, he would accept Mr. Way's position ~ the last meeting, which was to see what happens with the incentives for the ',growth areas and leave the ordinance as it is. That will indicate whether 'increasing the size of the "carrot" makes the difference. ~ Mr. Way asked staff what would happen if there is clustering allowed with the 21 acre lot size. Mr. Horne said there would be about a one-third increase in the column on the chart that says "Total Lots ~or Small Lot · I1 · ' ' ![ Option . He said a wzder range of parcel sizes would be opened up for some type of clustering. It does generate open space at a lowe~ rate. He said efficient service delivery would be essentially sacrificed~ given that a higher amount of development would be encouraged. There wD, uld be some preservation of the site in that there would be some conservation of natural scenic and historic resources. However, offsetting that c~uld be more requests for lots. In the opinion of staff and the Commission, it would be a March 1, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) 303 trade-off of design benefits for a larger problem in that the total number of lots developed in the rural areas would accelerate in the short run. Mr. Bowie asked if it could be mandated that clustering of lots must be on the land least suitable for agricultural use. Mr. Home said that could be done through by-right and special permit. Mr. Bowie said he is weighing in his mind whether it is better to do nothing about the ordinance and use the land 21 acres at a time or to have clustering with large amounts of perma- nently dedicated open space. As far as efficient delivery of services, people who live where he lives do not expect the County to do anything if they run out of water. They would drill another well. Mr. Lindstrom said since he has been on the Board, people out at West Woods ran out of water, and they got service from the County. He said another question is that the Board is talking about one parcel at a time. Most of'the requests that come before the Board are from people who own more than one parcel. On each one they can just multiply the lots developed if they get automatic cluster provisions. There will be subdivisions well in excess of thirty houses per request, creating a new informal rural community with no way of providing services. Mr. Lindstrom said it is not easy to have 50 people say they have no water and ask the Board to help them out. It will not be easy to tell them that's too bad, and they would have to live with it. He said politicians do not operate that way. Mr. Bowie said there are other ways of handling ~hose requests, such as bonding. Mr. Lindstrom said it is just not worth!~it to him for the additional gain in land that Mr. Perkins feels will result, to open up the doors for rural development. Mr. Perkins said people have t~at right now. Mr. Lindstrom said they are not going to use that right because~ it is too "doggoned" expensive and risky. Mr. Perkins asked why the special use permit is so hard to obtain. Mr. Lindstrom said if it costs $10,000 on a dhance of obtaining a special use permit, people will think long and hard before doing it. He feels that is as it ought to be. But it is not enough of a gdarantee for people to take that chance. It is a mistake to assume that because there have non been a lot of requests for special use permits for cluster~ng, there will not be anymore when they do not have to get a special permit. The risk is gone, and they have a guarantee of success. Mr. Perkins ast~ed how many special use permits have been requested for clustering since the~jordinance was adopted. Mr. Horne said there had been between fifteen and twenty requests. Mr. Perkins asked how many had been approved. Mr. Home said ~he majority had been approved. He said they have not been large scale developments. He said the point that Mr. Bain and Mr. Lindstrom made is that ther~ will be subdivisions that are no longer of a scale and design consistent with i~naintaining the impression to people that they are living in a rural area. i! Mr. Perkins said the Board should stop ~ooling itself by saying that land is being preserved for agricultural and fore~tal purposes because that is not happening with 21 or 40 acre lot sizes. Mr. '~Lindstrom said the impact is substantial discouragement of rural developme, nt, and it minimizes the conflict between rural and suburban lifestyles. He s~.id the character of the area will be changed when communities are developed at i30 and 40 lots. It will not be feasible to use the land for reasonable agriqultural and forestal use anyway. The style and impact of development is anoth~,r whole issue apart from service demand. ,~. Mr. Bowie asked what would happen to the. growth rate if the ordinance is set up to give the owner two choices. One isi leaving the regulations as they are now. Keep the special use permit and eveCything else as it stands now. _The second would be to allow clusterings'_ _- ~ -~ _~ ~- -¥ ~ 3a~c ~c bc ~L-~ - --~-__- - - -aee~. He wondered if the economic gain from clustering 21 acre lots would be enough to offset the requirement for the residue to be open space. He is looking for Something that will provide the protection of the owner's current rights and Will give an option that will give a "carrot" instead of a "stick". He sai~ he just will not support more regulations, and this might give an incentive to cluster and leave land open without cutting it up into 21 acre lots, and without infringing upon development rights. Mr. Lindstrom said it could possibly be coupled with administrative provisions that would make it easier to go through the process. Mr. Bowie said clustering would be cheaper, a~d the owner would make more money. Clustering would have to be on the least desirable land. The balance would be good farm land with no development rights unless in fifty years it is 304 March 1, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) needed and would then have to be reclaimed. This protects the owner's rights and at the same time gets off dead center by doing nothing with a system that has not worked. It allows for a voluntary way of developing, if it is in the owner's best advantage. It will be to the County's best advantage. Mr. Lindstrom said if the density is increased, it offsets the incentive for the commercial developers to start churning out clustered parcels at current density. Mr. Bowie wondered if it is possible to write the ordinance so that a developer could be prevented from buying 20 farms and lumping all the rights into one. He wondered if it is possible to say that the clustering applies to existing parcels. Mr. Home said that is basically how the current ordinance is administered. Mr. Bowie said there could be different'rules for different sizes of parcels. Mr. Perkins said he'would be interested in staff looking at that suggestion and coming back with a proposal. That would give the Board something to compare to the present recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to hear the staff's proposal. Mr. Way said he is too. Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Bowie was thinking of a maximum lot size of six acres. Mr. Bowie said he used the two to six acre category because he feels ten acres is too much. Mr. Horne said staff would bring a proposal back next Wednesday. The Board recessed at 3:00 P.M. and reconvened at 3:17 P.M. with a discussion of the villages. Mr. Horne said staff is proposing an adjustment to the actual boundary for North Garden, still assuming no public water and~ sewer service. He pointed out the current boundary proposal on the map. Hei~said the proposal is to have Route 692 as the southern boundary, deleting someacreage because of some constraints in development in that area. Additional=~iacreage north of the Red Hill area to the edge of the Hardware River would be recommended for inclusion. There have been some inquiries regarding the Route 760 and Route 29 quadrant in terms of development. He referred the Board to the hand out which showed the resulting changes in acreage proposed by~,istaff. Mr. Bowie said it seems to him that if there are designated growth villages, land is being wasted if one acre will do for a lot size. Maybe the Health Department should be asked. Mr. Bain said he thin~s Greene County has enlarged their lot size because of problems with septic fields in their rural areas. Mr. Bowie said he thought that there were different provisions for villages than in the rural areas. Mr. Horne said staff wq~ld be happy to confirm with the Health Department, independent of this d~scussion, their recommendation for a lot size. .~ Mr. Horne said he has met with a group of residents from this area who were very much concerned about the reference in the current Comprehensive Plan to the future need for village commercial or a village ser~Vice area near Route 760 and Route 710. They felt that area is too close to th~ Red Hill School and is not a good location for village commercial. Mr. Ho~ne said he did not see a need to reference a specific intersection as long a~iwording is retained that some additional village service may be required if development continues. If the Board concurs, he will make that minor change in th~ final draft. Mr. Bain said he had talked with some of those same people andilhas no problem with that. '~ Mr. Horne said the change in the boundary recommended!by staff would result in a total dwelling unit capacity of 834, a deletion of 69 from the previous boundary recommendation capacity in North Garden.~ The next village discussed was that of Stony Point. Staff is proposing three possible areas of expansion. In the east there woul~ be some fairly large open acres adding 198 developable acres for a 151 dwelling unit capacity. Another area looked at was the southern area do~n Route 20 including some acreage over to Route 600. That would add !43 developable acres for a 112 dwelling unit capacity. The last area was~west of the existing village along Route 20, taking in 449 developableiacres with a dwelling unit capacity of 351. These were all considered ~y the Planning Commission and ultimately not recommended because of lack Of interest in the Stony Point area and because of concern about the condition of Route 20 North. March 1, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) 305 Mr. Horne went on to say that over the last two or three months, two sub- divisions in this area have been approved. For one reason or another there has been some more interest in rural density subdivisions, but not within the boundaries described here. Mr. Bowie asked if there has been any input from VDoT regarding the effect of increased growth on Route 20. Mr. Home said staff had not received any direct comment. He feels that if asked, VDoT would say RoUte 20 has the capacity to handle growth. Mr. Lindstrom said he wonders if this is an area that should be deleted entirely, realizing that it is not an area of high interest for development and the road system is less than adequate. Mr. Bowie said that the area basically considered as Stony Point now cannot develop further because of the limestone substructure. Mr. Horne said in his opinion it is not a physical problem, it is a marketing problem because there are places where houses can be built. Mr. Bowie.said that is so, but by the time you drive on the road to get to that place, you're not going to buy it. He said without improving the roads or having public utilities, the 614 dwelling u_nit capacity is never going to happen anyway. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see the Comprehensive Plan designatelgrowth areas in places that have some realistic potential for growth and delete the ones that do not. Mr. Horne said to make this area realistic for g~owth, the western area proposed for expansion would have to be added and possibly the southern area. Mr. Bowie said the Comprehensive Plan will be amended annually, and if interest develops, this area can always be considered~again. He has no real objection to dropping Stony Point as a growth area. M~. Way said he has no problem with dropping it either. The consensus of the Board was to delete Stony Point as a growth area in the Comprehensive Plan. The next area of discussion for possibl~, expansion was the Hollymead and Piney Mountain area. Mr. Home said in terms of the areas discussed by the Planning Commission, the first is east of Proffit Road and back to Route 643. That was chosen as an area of interest even ~hough development potential is slow because it basically drains back to the i~owell Creek Interceptor. That would be 462 developable acres at low densit~ with a maximum potential of 1,848 dwelling units. Mr. Horne said most of this area is already divided into very small lots. Away from Proffit Roa~i!to the west are some larger acreages. The Commission ultimately did not recommend this because of the development potential already existing in the~Hollymead Community. Mr. Home continued that another area looked at was the~northeast quadrant in the Hollymead area from Route 785 back to Route 29 North. Most of that area drains to Flat Branch and then to the Camelo~iPlant. The force main, which would be necessary to provide sewer to this area, would go back up Route 29 into the main system. This area has 411 acres for about a 1,000 dwelling unit capacity. He said they had only looked at this area for housing development. He said staff might look at a modest amount of commercial acreage if this is added. Mr. Lindstrom asked if staff has analyzed where people who work there are going to live. Mr. Home said a certain number will look for rural area development. He thinks the majority would lo~k in the Hollymead area or the north end of the urban area. Mr. Bowie asked~'!~if there is a build out projec- tion for this community. Mr. Cilimberg said ~here was no projection by community. Mr. Home said the Commission's b~sic conclusion is that there was no particular need at this time to expand in ~his growth area. Mr. Bowie said, again, there will be an annual review o$ the Comprehensive Plan, and these areas could be considered at tha~ time. Ii The consensus of the Board was to leave Hollymead as currently proposed without expanding any further. Mr. Lindstrom said he had posed another ~uestion to staff regarding the amount of industrial acreage in Hollymead. M~. Home said the discussion of that would probably come up when public requests were considered. He said the question had come up as a result of a public ~'equest to expand beyond what is currently shown. Mr. Home said the Planning lCommission's conclusion is that independent of whether individual parcels are !~on the market, in terms of gross acreage there is plenty of industrial designation to handle the growth trend historically in that area. Mr. Lindstrom sa~d the figure he had been thinking about was the University's number of ~i6,500. That was just part of the whole area zoned for industrial. There i~ a tremendous amount of potential employment in that area beyond the ~,500 new people. He said maybe it would be more logical to look at it with t~e public requests. 306 March 1, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Way asked if the Milton area could be discussed next since there were some people present interested in that discussion. Mr. Way said the Board needed to adjourn soon to attend the service awards ceremony for County employees. Mr~ Horne said the analysis for Milton was divided into four potential areas. The first area considered was Shadwell Estates. The boundary goes to and includes the Stone Robinson School area and just east of Milton Heights. Mr. Horne said the area contains about 224 developable acres, assuming public utilities and a density of one to four dwelling units per acre for a total of approximately 561 dwelling units. The second area considered was the Glenmore Farm area. There are about 1,540 developable acres, translating to about 3,800 dwelling units. The third area is on the southwest side of the river down to Route 53. It is south of and does not include Milton Hills. It contains about 464 acres for about 1,160 dwelling units. The last area considered is the Milton Hills/Auburn Hills area. Mr. Horne said most of this area has already been subdivided and has a relatively limited'number of tracts available. The total acreage is 1,131 for an average oflabout 2,827 dwelling units. The total for all four areas would be 3,360 acres for 8,400 dwelling units. These all assume sewer and water and a density of a minimum of one dwelling unit per acre and a maximum of four dwelling units per acre. Mr. Horne said each area had been broken down separately so they could be combined in any way the Board wishes. Mr. Bowie said virtually all of this area would not develop without sewer and water. That's why it isn't doing anything right now~ He said there have to be other alternatives to rural area growth besides the size of the lot. Except for the Glenmore Farm area, the rest is generally residential develop- ment. Mr. Bowie said some legitimate concerns of the people in the area are how far water and sewer can be run and the proximity of t~e quarry and the effects of the blasting on water lines. He said his feeI~ng is that this is way too much land, because utilities would not be extended that far and second it is not the place for a village. He said he lives in a~ea one, and someone would have to spend a lot of time showing him where 396 houses could go, unless they are townhouses. Mr. Lindstrom said two villages have been eliminate~~ because they are already built out or there is not much growth potential. The villages with potential in his opinion are Scottsville, Crozet, and Earlysville. There is no village designation in the east currently. It seems t!6 him that Milton has potential. It has a decent road system, is not in the watershed, and is approximate to the urban area and to commercial areas. If the idea is to attract people away from the rural area, it is appropriat~ to designate a growth area with a lot of potential. He said to some ext~ent 1-64 and Route 250 East provide a boundary in terms of natural barriers-~o expansion of the community. Mr. Way asked the reason for the boundaries in the s~cond area. Mr. Home said~ the assumption is based on public sewer. Ther~ would have to be drainage along the creek for the whole area. Mr. Home s~id the proposed boundaries could be changed since they are presented for iscussion purposes only at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said area one seemed pr try much built out already. The second area has 1759 acres with plenty of r om for growth. Mr. Bowie said he has no objection to leaving Milton in for t e public hearing because he thinks it is logical. He does have a hard tim~ including all four areas and is concerned about what happens to existing pro]' erty in areas one and two. Mr. Home said if the Board wishes to go ahead with ~ilton, staff could do some minor adjustments in the boundaries to make a conmiunity if that is what the Board intends. Mr. Lindstrom said he wondered i~' the area should be called Milton. Maybe it should be called Shadwell, rathel~' than using the name of a specific historical spot. Mr. Bowie said he liked M~lton for a name. Mr. Way asked staff to bring back adjusted boundariesi including areas one and two to go to public hearing. The area would be desigh~ted as a village with the name as yet undecided. March 1, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) 307 Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the Board needed some education on bills passed by the General Assembly. He wondered if beyond having Mr. St. John and staff discuss the legislation, the Board could get a feel from Northern Virginia regarding how conditional zoning has been administered. He feels that staff should draft a letter to each of the three legislative represen- tatives, thanking them for their distinctive roles in obtaining legislation benefiting Albemarle. Agenda Item No. 5. Adjourn. At 4:25 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.