Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-17 adj432 July 17 1985 (Afternoon , Adjourned from July 10, 1~85) ' (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors o'f Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 17, 1985, at 2:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 5/6, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from July 10, 1985. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arrived at 2:10 P.M.), Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 2:05 P.M.), and Mr. Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and Senior Planner, Mary Joy Scala. Agenda Item No. !. The meeting was called to order at 2:11 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. ZTA-85-~. To Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Delete References to Bonus Factors, Etc. (Deferred from June 5, 1985.) Mrs. Scala said that at its meeting on June 5, 1985, the Board deferred action on both this amendment and ZTA-84-08 in order to further discuss them at a work session. The staff had presented two alternatives at that meeting regarding bonus factors. The Planning Com- mission previously recommended Alternative A which deleted all existing bonus factors but provided for a density incentive for dedication of land. Alternative B maintained the general bonus language and provided for only one bonus (dedication of land). The Board indicated that it would prefer to keep existing bonuses, but directed staff to clarify the language of bonus requirements. Several questions and concerns regarding bonuses and new minimum lot sizes were raised on June 5. There was a question as to how many total projects have been approved since December, 1980 compared to the eight bonus projects. Since December, 1980 there have been a total of 915 units approved in eight projects, a total of 132 of these units were bonus units. The bonus most often used was for landscaping, with wooded areas being second highest in use. Building permits have been issued for most, but not all of these units. Mrs. Scala said that between December, 1980 when bonuses were initiated and March, 1985, building permits were issued for a total of 1614 dwelling units in the growth areas of the County (urban areas, communities and villages). Building permits for 1382 units were issued in the Rural Areas. An exact comparison is not valid, but roughly one-half of the units approved in growth areas during this time period were part of bonus projects, with eight percent being bonus units. At the public hearing, Mr. Don Wagner of the Blue Ridge Home Builders requested that staff review several "Affordable Housing" booklets. Mrs. Scala said she did read several and found that the most common incentives utilized are: !) increased denity; 2) shortened review time or "fast-tracking"; 3)relaxation of construction codes; or 4) public improve- ments such as reduced street widths, roll curbs, etc. The current bonus provisions achieve the first two incentives by permitting increased density without requiring extra time for a rezoning procedure. If incentives are needed, in staff's opinion the first two are the more acceptable. Staff had previously discussed the other two while conducting the mobile home study, but did not find them acceptable. There was a question as to how the bonuses could be made more restrictive without making them "by-right", and if bonuses are deleted, could there be a grandfathering procedure for property bought under the old rules. Mrs. Scala said the main disadvantage of a by-right bonus system is the possibility of too much density in relation to the capability of the site or of the infrastructure (roads, drainage, etc.). The only discretion available is the determination of whether the terms of the bonus have been met. There is evidence that some past bonuses could have been reviewed more carefully. Mrs. Scala said staff discussed with the Planning Commission the alternative discretionary system under which the bonus requests would be reviewed using rezoning criteria. This was determined to be an unsatisfactory arrangement from both the staff's and developers' point of view. The key to a successful bonus system is to make each bonus as specific as possible and to review each application carefully for compliance. While staff can insure that resulting densities conform with the densities recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, there is no way to control the timing of developments. Staff does not recommend deleting bonuses with a grandfathering clause based on current ownership. This would be too difficult to administer. However, there should be a grandfathering provision for sites which have already received approval for bonus units. Mrs. Scala said another question concerned minimum lot sizes precluding a developer from realizing maximum density, and how the minimum lot size concept relates to carrying capacity of a site. She said the RA through R-2 zones currently contain minimum lot size requirements which are the inverse of density requirements, i.e., two dwelling units/one acre; minimum lot size 0.5 acre. The YR through R-2 zones have smaller lot size requirements for cluster lots "standard level", and conventional and cluster lots "bonus leveI". In calculating minimum lot size, dedicated roads are excluded. In other localities, steep slopes and flood plains, etc. are also excluded. In order to realize maximum density, a cluster approach is necessary. Then, the roads, open space and lots are all included in gross density calculations. The carrying capacity of a site is limited by steep slopes, flood plain, drainage swales, physical features, etc. The cluster approach was developed in order to utilize the buildable portions of the site in an efficient manner, while preserving the sensitive portions. Convent subdivisions do not respond as well to individual site differences. Lots are enlarged to accommodate unbuildable areas, and are reduced to allow maximum units in the buildable area. Staff is not suggesting that all lots be uniform, but rather that a limit be established so that a wide disparity in lot sizes within a district does not occur. Mrs. Scala said staff foresees a problem with the future subdivision of large lots which contain "open space". Right now, it is not clear that open space has to be common, but common open space is easier to regulate. It has been made clear in the new language that any onal July 17, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned from July 10, 1985) (Page 2) 433 open space has to be common open space. This is not a large problem; conventional develop- ment in the higher density districts is not the rule. The Board then discussed for quite a while the reasoning behind the suggestion for minimum lot sizes, and the way in which these would be calculated in the various zones. Being satisfied with the examples, the Board proceeded to the next part of the staff report. Mrs. Scala said that from the last discussion, she understood the Board wanted to keep the bonuses rather than delete them as recommended by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the general language for bonus factors will be kept in the ordinance (Section 2.4, Intent of Bonus Factor Provisions), but subsections would be amended as follows: Section 2.4.1, Application of Bonus Factors, would read: "Bonus factors shall be applied to the gross density - standard level in accordance with the regulations of the applicable district, except 'that the resulting density shall not exceedt!~-.! 't~e '~e'oomme~ded 'de'ns'i'ty shoWn'in t'he'Comp'r'e~h~ensive Plan. Unless otherwise specifically provided, bonus factors shall not be permitted for any improvement or design feature required by this ordinance, Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle, or any other appli~-- cable law or regulation. Where permitted, bonus factors shall be aPplied in toto only." Mrs. Scala said she added the sentence since if an application received the maximum fifty percent bonus, the density could exceed what the Comprehensive Plan recommends. Mrs. Scala said that Section 2.4.2, Procedures - Generally, is recommended to be amended to read as follows: "Bonus factors may be applied at the time of subdivision or site development plan approval, whichever is applicable. The applicant shall submit preliminary plats or site development plans which shall be of sufficient detail to permit preliminary determinations of probable bonus factors by staff. Followin$ the 'app'~ov'aZ O'f a site development plan or plat Which utilizes a bonus provi, s[ion, 's~c~ '~e'~s'~ty''i~Or'ease's~all b'e' d'e's'i'g'n'ate'd~ Width' an appropriate~.symbol .on the~ o'ffi'c'i'~l''zo~i'ng map. She said this amendment is recommended just to keep tract of approvals of bonuses. At this time, someone marks on the official zoning map every rezoning and special use permit which is approved, so that when you look at a particular piece of property, you can see immediately that there have been a number of different applications. At this time, bonuses are not shown on the map but Mrs. Scala feels they should be shown, so that a future owner %211w&~ld know that there is a bonus attached to the property. Mrs. Scala said that the following amendments are for housekeeping changes. She found there were inconsistencies in the ordinance, and she has tried to standardize all section numbers for bonus factors and the language in each of these sections. Mrs. Scala said that 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, Rural Areas District, is to be amended by deleting the words "conventional development," and "standard development" She said there are divisions by right in RA, and divisions by special use permit, so there is no reason to have these extra words on the chart. Cluster developments are not allowed in RA~ and she does not know what "standard development" means. Next, is an amendment to 12.1, Intent, Where Permitted VR District, as follows: "Provides incentives for residential development by allowing variations in lot size, density, 'and frontage a~¢e~-~a~ requirements; .... " Mrs. Scala said that variations are not allowed in yard requirements, so this is an error that needs to be corrected. It is recommended that the wording be kept for Bonus Factors in each zone designated as 12.4, 13.4, 14.4, 15.4, 16.5, 17.5, and 18.5, but change the numbering of existing 16.5, 17.5, 18.5 to 16.4, 17.4 and 18.4 respectively. She felt it would be best to keep the same number in all zones. Next is to amend the wording of 16.4, 17.4 and 18.4 from "Area and Bulk Regulation Options for Bonus Levels" to "Cluster Development Option Regulations", and renumber as 16.5, 27.5 and 18.5, respectively. Also, change the number of 13.4.6, "Cluster Regulations" to 13.5; change the number of 14.4.6, "Cluster Regulations" to 14.5; change the number of 15.4.6, "Cluster Regulations" to 15.5; change the number of 15.4.7, "Recreation" to 15.8; and change the number of 15.5, "Building Separation" to 15.7. Change the number of 12.4.1, "Environmental Standards" to 12.4.2; change the number of 12.4.2, "Development Standards" to 12.~.3; change the number of 12.4.3, "Cumulative Effect" to 12.4.5; change the numbers of 16.5.1, 17.5.1, 18.5.1, "Environmental Standards" to 16.4.2, 17.4.2 and 18.4.2. Change the numbers of 16.5.2, 17.5.2, 18.5.2, "Development Standards" to 16.4.3, 17.4.3 and 18.4.3. Change the numbers of 16.5.3, 17.5.3, 18.5.3, "Low and Moderate Cost Housing" to 16.4.4, 17.4.'4 and 18.4.4. Change the number of 16.5.4, 17.5.4, 18.5.4, "Cumulative Effect" to 16.4.5, 17.4.5 and 18.'4.5. In the VR District the provision for low/moderate cost housing, Section 12'.4.2 is listed as a development standard. Mrs. Scala recommends that this section be deleted, and a new section be added as 12.4.4, Low and Moderate Cost Housing. 434 July 17, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned from July 10, 1985) (Page 3) To standarize the numbering in ail districts, the following changes will apply: x.4 x.4.1 X.4.2 X.4.3 X.4.4 X.4.5 X.5 X.6 X.7 X.8 Bonus Factors (Reference 2.4) Locational Standards Environmental Standards Development Standards Low and Moderate Cost Housing Cumulative Effect Cluster Regulations Height Regulations Building Separation Recreation Requirements VR through R-15 R-l, R-2, R-4 VR through R-15 VR through R-15 VR through R-15 VR through R-15 VR through R-15 R-6, R-10, R-15 R-4, R-6, R-10, R-15 R-4, R-6, R-10, R-15 The next recommendation is to amend Article 19.1, Planned Residential Development (PRD), Intent, Where Permitted, as follows: ~e~e~a~-~e~ee-ea~e~-~a~-w~-~e~ee~-~e-~ae~-~-~-a~*e-~e~e~-~a~-~e- ~RD-~e-e~e~e~-~-a~e~e-~e~e-~e-ge~e~ea~e-~a~-~eee~a~e~-~e~e~-~-e~ee~e-e~- SweaSy-~g$-~e~a~-~a~s-pe~-ae~eT" "...Wh'i'lea 'PRD''apP'rOa'ah is recommended for develop- ments of any densi'ty, it is specifically intended t'hat 'the 'PRD be employed in areas where the Comprehensive?Pl~an r'ecommends densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recOgni't'i'O~ 't~a~t~'de~'e'Zop~eht~'at such densities generally requires careful .planning wi'th respec't''t'o''i~pac't. Mrs. Scala said Mr. Keeler said there has been a problem in that some people thought that the old wording did not allow them to apply for a PRD unless there were to be at least twenty units per acre. He thought the wording should be changed to encourage people to apply for a PRD in any density, but particularly in the higher density zones. Mr. Bowie said the words "it is specifically intended'' sounds regulatory. He asked if that is the intent. Mrs. Scala mentioned that this is the current wording, and it does make it sound as though it is required, but it is not a requirement that densities in excess of 15 dwelling units per acre use the PRD provisions. It is a good idea to have a PRD in a higher density zone, but the decision as to whether to include these words is at the discretion of the Board. Mr. Fisher said he thought it would make a stronger statement if the first and second phrases were separated into two sentences, such as: "A PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density. It is specifically intended .... " Mr. Fisher said he has no objection to this change. Mrs. Scala next discussed amending the wording of specific bonus provisions in districts where they are currently permitted. Recommended wording for "Locational Standards" (X.4.1) in R-i, R2 and R-4, would be: "For location within one-half mile walking distance of an existing public or private elementary middle or high school, a neighborhood or regional shopping area, public park, public library or similar community facility, a density increase of five (5) percent shall be granted." Mr. Lindstrom said he was not present at the last meeting on this subject, and does no~ know how other members of the Board feel about these bonuses. He suggested there be general discussion about the concept of bonuses before getting into the specific language. Mr. Bowie asked about the next recommendation for "Environmental Standards" (X.4.2) which would be for VR through R-15 and read: "For maintenance of existing wooded areas other than scrub growth, equal to: "Five to nine percent of the site, a density increase of five percent shall be granted; for ten to fourteen percent of the site, a density increase of ten percent shall be granted; fifteen to nineteen percent of the site, a density increase of fifteen percent shall be granted; twenty percent and over of the site, a density increase of twenty percent shall be granted. In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in Section 32.8.2.3 shall be required." In VR, R-I, and R-2 only, this standard would read: "For provision of significant landscaping in the form of street trees as specified in Section 32.8.4, a density increase of ten percent shall be granted." In R-4, R-6, R-10, and R-15 only, this standard would read: "For provision of significant landscaping equal to thirty-three percent greater-value than the amount of landscaping required by Section 32.8, a density increase of twenty percent shall be granted. The Director of Planning shall approve the location of the significant landscaping, generally to be planted around the perimeter of the site, or within parking areas." Mr. Bowie asked if this is required in Section 32.8.2.3, why is it in this section at all? Mrs. Scala said the ordinance does not require that people maintain existing woods. If they want to keep existing woods and use that as part of their landscaping requirement, th~n ~ conservation checklist is required. If they are not otherwise required to maintain woods ~ and they want to do it for a bonus, then they have to submit a conservation plan for that also. It is just to be sure that the woods they say they will sa~e, will in fact be sa~ed. The bonuses are only given if it is for something that is not otherwise required. If they are required, to saYe the woods under the landscaping provisions, they cannot then apply for a bonus for the same woods. Mr. Fisher said at the last meeting, most of the Board members indicated their desire to keep some of the bonus provisions. There were some distinctions where individuals had different feelings about specific clauses. There were public comments received indicating that the bonuses should be retained. The question is how to modify the language in order to make the bonuses workable, since the Planning Commission recommended outright repeal. July 17, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned from July 10, 1985) (Page 4) 435 Mr. Bowie said there are some things the County just does not want, and he had asked whether there could be a bonus system that is not by right. Mr. Fisher said that for a bonus to be granted for dedication of property, the Board has to officially accept that dedication, so that bonus can be denied. Mrs. Scala said if the developer meets the terms of the ordinance the bonus must be granted, it is not discretionary. Mr. Bowie asked if any provision could be legally included so that the Board would have to approve a specific feature, such as the planting of trees, before it is done. Mrs. Scala sa~d this thought was discussed with the Planning Commission. Mr. Keeler advised that if rezoning criteria is applied to the bonus process, it might be more appropriate to simply delete bonus provisions entirely because; 1) the applicant would not have defined expectations; 2) with proffered zoning, the same issues could be addressed; and 3) the county can exercise greater discretion in rezoning matters as opposed to site plan and subdivision reviews. Mr. Bowie said he has some specific comments about specific bonuses, but he will wait until other Board members have spoken. Mr. Fisher said he wants to keep some form of housing bonus, and has been concerned about the one for "locational standards". People have been unhappy with the way the bonuses have been used. Mr. Way said he is not in favor of completely doing away with the whole bonus structure. He has questions about specific bonuses. Mrs. Cooke feels that some bonuses need to be retained, but they need to be made meaningful, and not be used for the benefit of the developer with no offsetting community benefit. Mr. Lindstrom said the letter from the Blue Ridge Home Builders suggests that the bonuses be retained, and it also suggests adding ~ couple. One in particular has significant implications for the future, that being public road construction. If some way can be found to encourage the private sector to assist in the construction of roads, it would be worthwhile to consider. Northern Virginia, because of necessity showed on their plans certain densities, but because the roads were so inadequate, they were not approving the densities ~hown. Some developers formed a coalition to put up money to ~mprove roads in certain areas before applying for rezonings. So far they have been successful in getting land rezoned. This seemed to get around the problems of-the Hylton c~se since Fairfax County did 2~s not try to require any improvements, °nly pointed out what i~ shown in the Comprehensive Plan for a particular area. Granting such a thing through bonuses gives him some concern, because the Board might not agree with what has been done to upgrade a road. He is not sure he wishes to get into a new area of bonuses where the stakes are higher than in the past. He agrees with the low/moderate cost housing provision, and he f~lt there were some good suggestions rendered by the Albemarle County Housing Coalition. So fa~ to go against the Planning Commission's recommends cost housing provision. Mr. Lindstrom said there made at the time of adoption of the zoning ordina~ provisions, but he read through all of the minutes and there was hesitation from several Board membe~ in the first place for the same reasons that the does not see any moral obligation to keep them, ar except the low/moderate cost housing bonus. he has not seen anything that inclines him tion with the exception of the low/moderate has been a lot said about a promise being ce concerning densities and these bonus that could be found concerning this issue, s at that time about adopting these provision~ card is now considering repealing them. He .d he is willing to get rid of all of them Mr. Fisher suggested the Board proceed to finish the list of recommendations from the staff before going into new matters. Also recommended for change are "Development Standards" (X.4.3) for R-2 through R-15, which would read: "For provision and maintenance of a sidewalk which serves a public purpose and which is not otherwise required by the zoning or subdivision ordinances, a density of five percent shall be granted." For R-1 through R-15 this would read: "For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law, density may be increased by either of the following methods, whichever shall be less: Density may be increased bY fifteen percent; The acreage of land dedicated and accepted shall be multiplied by twice the gross density - standard level, and the resulting number of dwellings may be added to the site. The dedication shall be accepted by the Board of Supervisors prior to final approval." Note: No change is recommended in the wording of the dedication bonus. Using method "b" seven and one-half percent of the site must be dedicated in order to obtain the maximum fifteen percent increase in density. In ~R, R-I, R2, delete "Internal Road Bonus" from Development Standards. In VR through R-15, there is a new bonus proposed which reads: "For provision of road improvements to secondary or primary roads not otherwise required by the zoning or subdivision ordinances, a density increase of between ten and twenty percent shall be granted, to be agreed upon by the Planning Commission and the applicant, based upon the relative need for transportation improvements in the area. The need for such improvements shall be established by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation." The bonus for "Low and Moderate Cost Housing" (X.4.4) for districts VR through R-15, would be amended to read as follows: "For provision of low or moderate cost housing units as follows, a density increase of thirty percent shall be granted: 436 July 17, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned from July 10, 1~5) (Page 5) 2-) 3) At least thirty percent of the number of units achievable under gross density-standard level shall be developed as low or moderate cost units; and The initial sale price for the sale units or the rental rate for a period of five years for rental units shall qualify as low or moderate cost housing under either YHDA, FmHA or HUD Section 8; and If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the low or moderate cost units for a period of five years or until the units are sold as low or moderate cost units whichever comes first; and If sale units, the developer shall provide the Director of Planning with confirmations of the initial sale prices for the low or mdoerate ~ cost units prior to the issuance of building permits for the bonus units." Mr. Fisher suggested the Board go back to the first item concerning "Locational Standards" Mrs. Scala said the main changes are: a reference was added to "walking distance" and she tried to set out only those type of facilities that people would actually walk to, and the five percent density increase was kept. Mr. Fisher said one thing that has been mentioned is that almost every piece of property in the growth areas would meet one of these standards. Mr. Bowie said the way the bonus is written, if adeveloper built in the County, but within one-half mile of a City school, the bonus would be granted. He would add the words "Albemarle County school" and delete "private school", but he. does not intend to vote for "locational standards" anyway. Mr. Fisher said_ it would be nice to get some consensus on these bonuses as they are discussed. Mr. Lindstrom, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Way and Mr. Henley all said they were not in favor of "locational standards". Mr. Fisher said he agrees with the Planning Commission on that part. Next to be discussed were the "Environmental Standards". Mr. Fisher asked if the con- servation plan requires a person to show exactly what is being preserved. Mrs. Scala said the limits of the Property must be shown, and how the woods will be maintained. Mr. Bowie asked if a bonus would be given for hardwoods on steep slopes which cannot be developed. Mrs. Scala said that a bonus would be given for trees on steep slopes, flood plains, and other areas which normally cannot be developed. Mr. Tucker said that trees or some type of vegetative growth is needed on steep slopes to prevent erosion. Mrs. Cooke asked why a bonus is given for property which cannot be developed anyway. Why would a developer denude these areas in the first place? Mrs. Scala said that is one way to look at it, but there is a need to preserve trees on steep slopes, and also it would be a headache to go to the site and calculate how many trees are on a steep slope and how many are on the flatter slopes. Mr. Lindstrom said he knows this is not a public hearing bUt he would like to ask Mr. Blake Hurt, who is present, why a developer would cut trees on steep slopes. Mr. Fisher said he does not want to open this discussion to the public. Mr. Lindstrom said he would just like to ask the question because he is curious as to why anybody would do that. Mr. Henley said he can see where it would be beneficial to at least point out these areas and be more careful as to how they use their equipment, etc. Mr_. ~_owie said as an example, someone applies for cluster development because the land is not ~usable in a conventional manner, and then they come in and ask for a bonus for trees on land that cannot be used either. Mr. Henley said he thinks they must be given something for bringing in a conservation plan. Mr. Fisher asked the Board members if they wanted to open this discussion to the public. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not feel it is opening it to a public hearing just to ask someone a question. He said it would help him to have that question answered. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hurt to add his comments. Mr. Hurt said if the top of a minor hill were peaked, a knoll, one problem is that when grading for a subdivision, the dirt has to go somewhere, and the easiest place to put it is to push it off the edge of the hill, which requires that all the trees be removed. It is much more expensive to move the dirt around those trees. Mr. Henley said the bonus increases may not be corre~,t. They may be t~o high. He would he willing to give someone a bonus to save the trees. Mr~Fisher asked if this one should be left in and the details be discussed later. Mr. Lindstrom said there was a question about scrub growth, and he asked who defines that. Mrs. Scala said there is a definition in the zoning ordinance now as to "wooded area", but she finds that definition impracticable to use in making a determination. Mr. Bowie. asked who would make a determination as to the five percent, etc. that is left as a wooded area. Mrs. Scala said that determination would be made by the applicant's surveyor. Mr. Fisher said he has a concern about the "scrub growth" idea. Maybe this could be written in adifferent manner defining what is a valuable wooded area. Mr. Bowie said his problem with the previous language was the reference to "significant landscaping". He feels that language was absolutely meaningless. Mr. Henley said he thinks help could be obtained from Soil Conservation Service as to the value of a wooded area. Mr. Lindstrom asked about Section 32.8.2~.4. Mrs. Scala said the purpose of that section was to preserve things which would otherwise be lost, very important items to landscaping, and is meant to be used only occasionally. L~nguage was added to the ordinance to make it clear that every applicant does not have to save all the woods on a piece of property. A landscape plan is not required for low density developments, so if a bonus is granted for an R-i, single-family development the landscape ordinance does not apply to that development. Mr. Bowie_said he sees no sense in giving a bonus for something that is controlled another way, but he does not want to see the Director of Planning blocking out areas of tre~s that must be left on a site. He thinks that is too much authority on the staff level. If the ordinance in existence is not clear, maybe it should be reworded. Mr. Fisher suggested that the words "scrub ~rowth" be stuck, and refer back to the definition of a wooded area for July 17, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned from July 10, 1985) (Page 6 ) 437 the time being. Mr. Way asked Mrs. Scala if the staff feels it can administer this section of the ordinance without spending a great deal of time doing so. Mr. Henley said he felt the percentages could be less strict. Mrs. Scala said that the surveyor in preparing a site plan or plat would designate what area is to be saved. That would have to be relied on, the staff would not be making that determination. If the woods looked borderline, staff might count trees~and measure, but if it is a nice stand of trees that would not be done. Mr. Bowie said he doe's not ~how ~ho~dbes~de~uryeyo~dc~ul~ t~ld~ difference between fourteen and fifteen percent of a large tract. Mr. Fisher said he thinks it is a good idea to put some definition in the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board can come up with something to really encourage people, he would like to see that not be an exception. If this is the best that can be done, he would like to put the break at twenty percent, but he does not know what kind of incentive will make people do that. Mr. Fisher suggested the percentages be changed to state: "Ten to nineteen percent of~the site, would receive five percent, and anything twenty percent or above would receive ten Mr. Bowie said he does not believe the de~eloper will cut down woods that don't need to be cut down just to find a place for extra dirt. Mr. Fisher said some people will do a good job no matter what regulations the Board adopts~ Some people need to be encouraged a little bit. Mrs. Cooke said for those who do a good Job, this does not mean a whole lot, but for those who create a problem, the County is forced to do this sort of thing. Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. Fisher as to there being just the two percentage levels for the bonuses. Mr. Bowie said he could support that suggestion. Mrs. Cooke agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not in favor of having everything cut from a site, and al~unch of spindly ten-foot high trees planted in its place. Mr. Bowie said that provision is in the next paragraph. If the developer is going to put in street trees after he did not take the other bonus, he will be given ten percent for replacing what has been cut down. Mr. Bowie said he won't support this bonus at all. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Scala to explain this recommendation. Mrs. Scala said she had tried to relate the new wording to the ordinance just passed concerning landscaping for the lower density zonings such as YR, R-1 and R-2. She said this is for residential developments that are not required to do any landscaping under the landscaping ordinance. There is another paragraph relating to the higher density zones, R-4, R~6, R-10 and R-15. Mr. Fisher said he feels a twenty percent bonus is high. He asked if this provision is needed in order to encourage the kind of plantings that would be beneficial to the public. Mrs. Scala said she does not feel this is one of the more important bonuses. The minimum requirements under the new landscaping ordinance should be met. It is hard to make a blanket requirement which co~ers every site. It is very hard to say that one site will benefit from a thirty-three percent increase in landscaping. Mrs. Scala said she did not like the wording of the old ordinance, and does not particularly care for the wording of this new section either. Mr. Fisher asked if one of the new provisions could stand independently of the other. Mrs. Scala said the provision for street trees would be useful. Mr. Bowie said he does not support the pro¥ision for street trees, but would like to ask why other provisions would not apply in th~se~zones. Mr. Fisher said no site plan is required for single-family detached housing. Mr. Tucker said street trees can be required in R-4, but there is no requirement for a site plan. Mr. Bowie said it upset him to f~nd that in ¥itlage Square they cut down all the woods, put in some street trees, and got a bonus. Mr. Tucker said he does not know of places in this area where a road can be put into a property~without cutting down woods. The right-of-way and the cut and fill in the local topography will cut out the woods. Mr. Bowie does not want to gi~e a bigger bonus to encourage people to cut down trees~ and plant new trees in their place. That is what this provision in fact does. Mr. Bowie said he will support that one if it ~ear that if they cut down trees, there is no bonus. Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Tucker has said that in many instances they have to cut trees in order to develop the site. She doe~' not think there should be a bonus for putting the trees back. She thinks they should be required, to put the trees back as part of normal development. Mr. Henley said it is hard to put streets in and not cut trees. Mr. Tucker said that this type of development occurs in subdivisions, and there are no landscaping requirements for subdivisions, and in VR, R-1 and R-2 there is no requirement for a site plan. That is the reason the distinction between the districts was made. Mr. Bowie said his problem is this: if someone is developing a site that has fifteen percent hardwoods and those trees are left on the site, he gets a five percent bonus, but if he cuts them all down and plants some little shade trees, he can get a ten percent bonus. That is what he wants to avoid. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. Mr. Fisher said this bonus can be made smaller than that one. Mrs. Scala said she does not believe the de~eloper would mali- ciously remove trees and then plant them back. Mr. Bowie said he has watched de~elopers bulldoze oak trees and burn them because they can build houses cheaper that way. Mr. Lindstrom said the problem is that the Board wants to encourage some significant benefits and this whole discussion leads him to believe that the Board is only trying to get the de~eloper to do what he should do anyway. Mr. Fisher suggested that the bonus in this paragraph be changed to five percent, and that the bonus for the R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 be deleted in its entirety. The Board then proceeded to discuss (X.4.3) Development Standards. Mrs. Scala said the first recommendation concerns sidewalks. She tried to tie this in with the new sidewalk policy which is being de~eloped. That has not yet been adopted, so it is hard to write this provision. The Highway Department will not maintain sidewalks any longer except within 600 feet of a commercial development, or close to a school. There are a lot of site plans for development where a sidewalk would be necessary, but the Highway Department will not maintain that sidewalk. The homeowners have to maintain the sidewalks now, so. there is more reluctance tolrequire sidewalks. This would not apply to a sidewalk between an apartment building and the~parking lot. Mr. Fisher said he likes the idea, but does not know how maintenance in the f~ture~can be guaranteed once the development is completed. Mrs. Scala said that it is inc~Zuded in homeowners agreements at this time. Mr. Fisher said he does not know how this would work in R-15 where there is usually a single owner. Mrs. Scala suggested this paragraph be deleted until there is a sidewalk policy. Mr. Bowie said that after being through the :438 July 17, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned from July 10, 1985) -(.'Page 7 ) sidewalk fiasco in Briarwood, he is willing to wait for a policy. Those people did not want sidewalks, and if the sidewalks had been ~'~'~.~_. put in they would have been forced on people who not only did not want them, but did not wan~ to maintain them either. He asked why bonus points should be given for something nobody wants. Mrs. Cooke said that situation taught her a lesson. If the property owners don't want them, and don't want to maintain them, sher sees no reason to impose them on the owners. If after they move in, they decide they want sidewalks, let the property owners get together and build them. She thinks that is one more thing the Board can "get out its hair" and not have to deal with. Mr. Fisher said that will work in some areas, but where there are many apartment houses and higher densities, there will be mud tracks, because people will cut through grass, etc. and it will be a mess. There must be standards for which areas need sidewalks the most, and where these should be encouraged. Mr. Bowie said he would prefer to figure that out and then require sidewalks in such densities, but otherwise let it be at the discretion of the owners. He does not intend to support this bonus. Mr. Way said he feels sidewalks can be advantageous, but with the State Highway Department backing out of mainta~n~ the sidewalks, he is not sure. Mrs. Cooke said if the State backs out and the County starts requiring sidewalks, the County will probably have to star~ maintaining them. She sees no reason to give a bonus for putting in the sidewalks. Mr. Fisher then suggested that this bonus be deleted until the sidewalk policy is received. Mr. Fisher suggested the Board discuss the bonus for "dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law". Mrs. Scala said she made no change in the wording of this bonus other than t~ add that the "dedication shall be accepted by the Board of Supervisors prior to final approval." Mr. Way asked what happens to land dedicated to public use that is not used for any purpose. He asked if that land remains as open space, or something similar.' Mr. Fisher said the County owns the land unless the land is vacated. If it is a park or something similar, someone will be expected to use the land eventually. The Board next proceeded to discuss the bonuses for road improvements. Mrs. Scala said the internal road bonus was deleted. No person had ever used this bonus, and she feels the provision can be required. Mr. Fisher said he thought this ~as to be one of the most impor- tant bonuses. Mr. Keeler said the staff had expected this to be used in village areas, but_ there has been little subdivision activity in the ~illages. If there begins to be development activity in the villages, this bonus could have an effect, provided the lot size isn't controlled by utilities. Mr. Fisher asked if the bonus should be retained just for the VR. District. Mr. Keeler said he did not think it would cause a problem to ~o that. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the access points from a given parcel could be limited to just one. Mr. Fisher said if one lot at a time is developed, that is hard to do. Mr. Bowie said he finds this to be counterproductive to the Board's desire for affordable housing. If the road is required to be built, it raises the price of each house. If the developer is given an extra lot or two, it maintains the price of the individual home. If it is going to help access to the highway, he has no problem with leaving this one in, but if no one thinks it will fulfill its purpose, it is no use leaving it in. Mrs. Scala said it will not hurt anything to leave it in. Mr. Fisher suggested it be left in for VR at a ten percent bonus, rather than a twenty percent bonus. He thinks the bonus was too high. Mr. Bowie asked if there might not be the same potential problems in R-1 and R-2. Mr. Fisher said it is possible; he has no problem with leaving all three districts in, but reducing the density increase to ten percent. Mrs. Scala then went to the "provision of road improvements to secondary or primary roads". She said there appears to be a real need in the County concerning road improvements. This is a new bonus. This could have been used in Raintree where they spent a great deal of money improving Old Brook Road. She did not want to base the bonus on a dollar amount, but. felt the percentage of the bonus might be negotiable. Mr. Fisher said he can envision a situation where a relatively small improvement could be useful, but not worth ten percent. He said there might be a single maximum set. Mrs. Scala said she felt there might be a negotiated amount, where an amount is not imposed on the other party. Mrs. Scala said she knows that a developer cannot proffer road improvements, and she did not know if this is related to that. Mr. Fisher asked if that is only for zoning, or if that stipulation applies to the bonuses also. Mr. Keeler suggested the County Attorney be queried on this matter. Mr. Henley said he would like to see this bonus put in the ordinance. Mr. Way agreed. He also agreed, with Mr. ~isher that the bottom figure be deleted, and have only an amount up to twenty percent, or whatever percentage the Board members agreed to. Mr. Fisher suggested the words be changed to "a density increase up to twenty (20) percent shall be granted .... " Ail agreed to this change. Next was the bonus (X.4.4) for Low and Moderate Cost Housing in VR through R-15. The existing language was amended to change paragraph (1) to set thirty percent instead of fifty percent as the number of units achievable under gross density-standard leYel. Mr. Fisher said that would essentially make the land free for each unit built for low or moderate cost housing. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mrs. Scala if she had considered a suggestion from the Albemarle Housing Coalition that the County limit bonuses to developers who show a willingness to use one or more Federal, State, or local subsidies. Mrs. Scala said yes; and in Paragraph (2) she tried to tie it to one of those programs, by saying that the initial sale price for sa!e~ units or the rental rate for a period of five years for rental units shall qualify as low or moderate cost housing under either VHDA, FmHA or HUD Section 8. Mr. Lindstrom said it does. not require a. developer to show that they have entered into one of these programs. Mrs. Scala said she only indicates that the cost of the units must qualify under their requirements. Mr. Bowie asked what will happen if there are no more federal funds. It only says they charge that price, but does not say'they have to actually get the funds from the Feds. Mrs. Scala said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this should be tied to more than just that language. He does not think anybody will do this unless they can take advantage ~f some subsidi~z~] Mr. Fisher said that would restrict someone who had done that from using the free land under the bonus density from renting or selling under the same guidelines from qualifying, if you say it has to be controlled by a Federal or State agency. Mr. Bowie said the Board has been told that the present staff can handle this without the additional position ~umy ±!, ±~o~ ~aivernoon (Page 8) amjournem i-rom ~u±y of a housing coordinator. Mr. Lindstrom said it assures that the people who will buy these units, are people who are unable to buy, or in need of these units, rather than people who are just trying to take advantage of the opportunity. The Board does not have the ability'to step in and say who can purchase a unit. The people offering the subsid~ can do that. Mr. Keeler said this is low or moderate cost housing which is not the same as ~ow or moderate income housing. Low or moderate cost housing will probably sell for a higher price than low or moderate income housing. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Board was trying to encourage low or moderate income housing. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Bowie agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this bonus is worded for low/moderate cost housing because the County cannot regulate on the basis of income. Mr. Fisher said that is a clear distinction. People who would buy a unit which has been subsidized can resell it for a windfall, and even people with low/ moderate incomes can do that, they are not restricted from doing that. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is easier to do than the way the bonus was worded before, because the proof is simplier. Mr. Bowie said there must be someway for someone to find qualified applicants for these units. Mr. Agnor said there was no reason to tie this bonus to Federal funds, when those funds are diminishing more each year. Mr. Lindstrom said YHDA funds have been more viable in this area. Mr. Fisher said it seems that the consensus is to find some way to target this to low/ moderate income people. It has been written that way for the past four years and nobody has used it so far. Mr. Bowie said he feels that the reason no one has tried to put in low cost housing is because bonuses are given for planting "posies". Now, the Board has deleted a lot of the things that did not make any difference at all. Mrs. Scala said the Blue Ridge Homebuilders have suggested that this be placed on a sliding scale for bonus density units. At the present time, the ordinance requires that thirty percent of the units be set aside, and that gives a thirty percent bonus. It used to be fifty percent, and that discouraged a lot of people. Mr. Tucker said he has heard from developers that they do not use this bonus because of the market, they do not see the advan- tage of putting a lower cost house in the middle among higher cost units. Mr. Bowie said he can see this bonus applying more for rental units. Mr. Fisher said it might work on a large proJec't, where an entire area could be Set aside. It would probably be difficult on a small project where most of the units would be built at the same time. Mr. Fisher said since the County has the Section 8 Rental Program, and that is means tested, are those the same means that are used for the other requirements, or could they be defined that way. Mr. Lindstrom said VHDA has different standards. Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Jane Saunier, who was present, to speak about this matter. Ms. Saunier said the single-family mortgage income maximum is adjusted according to the family size and whether both parents work. The maximum adjusted family income to qualify for VHDA_ is $29,400, where Farmers' Home has $20,500. Farmers' Home has no maximum amount on a house, but.:purchase price is tied to the family's income, normal prices range from low 30's to the' upper 40's. She feels the bonus should be targeted to someone who would build a whole subdivision of that range of housing, and not just put two or three units in among more expensive homes. '~ Mr. ~.i~h~r said he looks at this bonus as providing the land free for these units. The only problem he has is saying that the developer must go to VHDA or FmHA. He thinks this bonus should provide enough of a subsi~? for people who qualify for those programs, without having those programs tied to the bonus. ~Mrs. Saunier asked how these could be accounted for. Mr. Fisher asked if there is someway to have the Section 8 personnel certify that certain purchasers or renters would qualify under any of these various programs. Mr. Tucker said he' thinks it could be done. Mr. ~g~or said if the bonus is granted before the project actually begins, the certification by the staff on the Section 8 program does not occur until after it has been built. He wonders how the developer actually gets the bonus. Mr. Fisher said~the' Hom'ebuilders Association has suggested two alternatives: 1) they do not get their building permits for the next section of the project; or 2) hold up certificates of occupancy. Mrs. Scala said it is better not to issue the building permit, since usually people are already in the house before a CO application is received. Mr. Fisher asked the other Board members if they wanted to work out some language on certification. Mr. Bowie said he would like to satisfy the need without tieing it to any place other than the County. Mr. Fisher said the focus is on the consumer. Mr. Bowie said that is~correct. Mr. Lindstrom said he can't support any of the bonus pv~v~sions. The experience of the Planning Commission shows that these provisions do not work~,:~h~$.~Board has already spent three hours this afternoon fine tuning something that does not Work is becoming increasingly apparent. Nobody has ever applied for a low/moderate cost housing bonus,~and-4~~~ 8&ct~have not~a~4eec~-f~or-~J~t~. He thinks the Board calls into question the integrity of the entire zoning ordinance. One thing the Board is trying to do is make it simplier, and this makes it more complicated. He would like to do without the bonus provisions for a while, and see what happens. He does not think the Board has seen development which used bonuses which really justified that use. The more he listens to the Board members struggle with the idea, the more he feels developers will do what they want to do anyway. If there are bonuses they will try to get all they can with the bonuses, and if there are none, they will do what they have. to do to satisfy the market. He does not think the benefit is large enough to justify the enormous amount of red tape and agony and additional complexity of the ordinance. If the Board gets to the point where it felt that there are some things that can be regulated in a meaningful way through bonuses, that is fine, but he does not feel at this moment that the propos'ed-bonuses are meaningful. Mr. Lindstrom said the members of the Planning Commission ha~e. struggled with the idea. He is convinced that the staff is not enthu~m~!:~mc about the idea. 'He is discouraged with the whole process. ~ Mr. St. John said the bonuses for low/moderate cost housing bother him from a legal standpoint. He feels this is a gray, foggy legal area. There was a Supreme Court case that said socio-economic zoning is illegal in Virginia, even though it has been mandated in some other states. The County is on shaky ground with low cost housing, but if you get into dealing with low income occupants, he questions if the whole thing will stand up in court, and he feels it will be challenged by somebody who is not providing any low cost housing, but wants the density that was given to somebody else who did provide that housing. He feels the court will say that b~yputting it in as a possibility, you have established that as the density. Mr. Lindstrom said he has the same concern, but to a lesser extent. Mr. Way asked the difference between the two. Mr. Lindstrom said in relation to all of the bonuses except the low/moderate cost housing bonus, if these things are for the benefit of the public and 44O July 17, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned from-July 10, 1985) (Page 9) they can be required, they should be required. If they cannot be required, and the County says the density can be fift¥;~~-more by providing these things, then that is really what the density should be in the f%rs6 Place. He has a serious problem allowing twenty units per acre, no matter what is done. He thinks if somebody is going to do something spectacular ' maybe it is worth considering under limited circumstances. He thinks fifteen is a reasonable maximum, and when you pledge twenty units under certain circumstances which are not that significant, then the entire density structure is thrown into question. Mrs. Cooke said she has felt strongly for a long time that the market place will control what the developer does. She does not think the County can get into dictating and spending a lot of time when in the final analysis the developer will develop what is going to s-ell. Mr. St. John said, that saying a developer gets a certain density for letting persons in a certain category live there, but saying another developer can get a higher density for letting persons in another category live there, is not part of the purpose of zoning and land use programming in ¥irginia, it is a housing program. .Mr. Bowie asked a question concerning the use of a bonus for an internal road. Mr. St. John said there is a difference in the two bonsues. One has to do with land and the design of the subdivision itself which is the essence of land use planning and land use controls. The other has to do with something other than the use of the land. It has to do with a class of people that you are attempting to help. You can't e&assify people and say that land is suitable~'~one density provided one ~ass of people lives there, yet the land is suitable for a~dl~rent density if another class of people live there. Mr. Way said it is discouraging because this is the one bonus in which he was interested. Mr. Tucker said he would like to remind the Board as to why there are bonuses in the ordinance. The staff had felt that by applying bonuses only in the growth areas, it would encourage people to build in the growth areas rather than the RA district. When the map came to the Board, the Planning Commission recommended a density comparable to the Comprehensive Plan, but also recommended bonuses in the text. When the Board saw that and realized that the densities were the same as those recommended in the Comprehensive Plan plus the increases allowed by the bonuses, there could be densities greater than what the Plan provided, the densities were reduced from a R-15 to R-10, so that if densities were applied the density could increase to R-15 or the density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said he looks at it as having something to encourage people ~evetop~,:~ ~he urban area, and reduce or turn around the development activity in the rural area. As long as it does not exceed the Comprehensive Plan, the County will get something even though it is a hassle. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be surprised if anybody who wanted to develop in the Rural Areas would change his mind and go into the high density area because of bonuses. The economics are completely different, and the small increases are not enough to make the difference. He does not think the County has-gotten a significant benefit from all the time and effort spent on these bonus provisions~ Mr. Lindstrom said there is much more capacity in the urban area now that has not been requested for use. Mr. Fisher said the County Attorney's comments on the housing bonus have changed his mind a little about that one,_.- He disagrees with Mr. Lindstrom about the other bonuses, and thinks the Board should try putting together something to retain the bonuses, but at a lower level. As to the bonus for housing, he does not recall Mr. St. John ever saying that it might be illegal the way it is now constituted. He asked if it is only the changed wording that has now brought forth this opinion. Mr. St. John said he thinks it is a big step going from the value, of the units themselves to limiting the occupancy to a certain class of people and making sure that these people qualify. Mr. St. John said it occurred to him several years ago when this "performance" package was included in the ordinance, that the Board was on the cutting edge of legality under the McGraw case. If the Board is of a mind that this provision is Yery important to have in the ordinance, it can try it as long as the Board knows it is a "foggy legal" area. Mr. Fisher said what has been proposed today liberalizes the provisions by no longer ~equiring that fifty percent of the units be set aside for low and moderate income,housingS;but only thirty Percent. Is that a change that would hurt anything? Mr. St. John sai~ no. Mr. Fisher asked if the remainder of the language were left alone if that would be sufficient. Mr. St. John said the Board would not have changed its legal posture, this is still "plowing new ground" because it has no~ been tested in the court of ¥irginia. He said that in other places in ¥irginia they have this provision. Also, in New Jersey, and in some other states their courts have mandated the exact type of low cost housing with qualification of the occupants. They have mandated controls over resale of these houses; a court ordered limitation on the amount of profit the first occupant can make on the resale, it is no~ a novel concept, but under the present wording of the enabling statutes, the County has not been given the authority to do this under the Dillon Rule. Mr. Fisher said he is willing to back away from individuals, but not so willing to back away from producing housing that is at least available for people who try to buy it. Mr. Bowie said his first reaction was to do away with the bonuses because none seem to do anything for the public, today the Board has hammered out some things that might be ~ne~~_an~e ~ ~upport those provisions. On this one for low cost housing, he will supPort going all the way, and if someone wants to sue, let them do it. He does not think the County has given adequate attention to the problem of low cost housing, and he is wi!ling to support a bonus system and if the Board ends up losing, it is not getting beyond the Comprehensive Plan. He will not "run scared" because someone might sue. Mr. Fisher asked if the language on this bonus is adequate. Mr. Bowie said he does not object to "government grants" being part of the language, but;.h~ does not know how the County would administer that.. He does not like #4 and would delete that paragraph. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels what' the Board is putting into the ordinance will create a lot of problems. There have been low cost housing units built in the County, and it was not because of this bonus provision. He thinks that if the Board is interested in promoting low cost housing, July 17, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned from July 10, 1985) (~age 10) 440A there are other ways to go about it. He just feels that this language adds "clutter" to the ordinance. Mr. Way said he would like to be able to maintain the housing bonus one way or another. Mr. Fisher asked if the language presented sounded reasonable. Mr. Way said it sounds reasonable to him. Mr. Henley said he does not know how much good it will do, but he is willing to go with it for awhile. Mr. Fisher said he would like to try and maintain the housing bonus. If some judge says it does not serve the public good, it might invite criticism. There have been enough other judges who have said the County has to be concerned about housing for those people who cannot afford it that leads him to believe the Board has to take some measure. Procedurally, the Board can't adopt what it now has proposed without scheduling another hearing. The Planning Commission recommended deleting all bonuses. Mr. Fisher said the Board has had hearings, and he inquired of the County Attorney his opinion on these amendments. Mr. St. John said he thinks the Board can do whatever it wants to do as a result of that public hearing. He does not think these need to be readvertised. Mr. Bowie said the Board has been talking for over three hours, and he would like to see what the Board has agreed to this afternoon in writing. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to make a motion, and if it fails, the Board has at least addressed the issue. He then moved that the Board accept the Planning Commission's recommendions on ZTA-85-03. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Lindstrom asked the Board to keep in mind that the Planning Commission has been struggling with these provisions ever since they were put into the ordinance, and they have never seen anything significant come from the provisions. He is in favor of the housing bonus, but has not seen anything come out of it yet. Mr. Bowie asked if the intent of the motion is to delete all bonuses. Mr. Lindstrom said it is for all except the one for "signi- ficant dedication not otherwise required." Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. Mr. Bowie asked if a motion were needed to ask for a list of the changes mentioned this afternoon. Mr. Fisher suggested that this whole amendment be deferred until August 14, 1985. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie to defer this matter until August 14 at which time the staff should present the Board with a final list of the proposed changes. The motion was seconded by ~r. Way. Roll was ~alled and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: ZTA-84-08. Amend Zoning Ordinance to include minimum lot size in R-4, R-6 and R-15; amend identification of cluster; amend minimum open space. Mr. Fisher asked if this amendment should be held until after completion of the bonus provisions. Mrs. Scala said they can be handled separately. After a short review, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt ZTA-84-08 as recommended in the staff report of July 17., 1985, by adopting the following ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Se'c't'ion 3.0 Definitions: Amend the definition of Cluster DeVelOpment to read: "An arrangement of structures on adjoining lots in groupings allowing closer spacing than would be generally permitted under ordinance requirements for lot widths or area with the decrease in lot width or area compensated by maintenance of equivalent common open space." Sec'tion 2.2.3 - Minimum Open Space Required: Amend language to read as follows: "Except as otherwise provided in the PRD and PUD districts, a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the total land area of the cluster development shall be in common open space, sub- ject to section 4.7, regulations governing open space." Section 15.3 - Area and Bulk Regulations chart - add "minimum lot size" of 10,890 square feet under "conventional development" and 7,260 square feet under "conventional development", both standard and bonus levels. 'Section 16.3 - Area and Bulk Regulations chart - delete gross density expressed in square feet per dwelling unit and add as a minimum lot size for conventional development, both standard and bonus level. That is: 7,260 square feet under standard level, and 4,840 square feet under bonus level. 440B July 17, i985 (Afternoon - Adjourned from July t0~, 1985) (Page 11) Sec~t~ion' 17.3 - Area and Bulk Regulations chart - delete gross density expressed in square feet per dwelling unit and add as a minimum lot size for conventional development, both_standard and bonus level. That is: 4,356 square feet under standard level, and 2,904 square feet under bonus level. 'Sec't~io'n' 1~8.~3'-'~rea and Bulk Regul~at'iO'ns chart - delete gross density expressed in square feet per dwelling unit and add as a minimum lot size for conventional development, both standard and bonus level. That is: 2,904 square feet under standard level, and 2,178 square feet under bonus level. Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:17 P.M. ' Chair~a~