Loading...
2003-03-19 NightMarch 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 19, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Walter F. Perkins. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Diantha McKeel said this afternoon Mr. Bowerman asked her a question, but because she was representing the entire School Board at the time, she did not feel she could answer him. She has come back to discuss that issue as a private citizen. The question was the possibility of a tax increase. She believes the School Board will not be able to fully fund its programs without a tax increase at some point in the future. The community is changing from a rural county to an urban county. She said the Supervisors have the big picture, and she does not. She would support the Supervisors this year if they felt this was the proper time for an increase. She would like to know if fee structures have been looked at. She would like to know if elderly people on a fixed income could get a tax break if the rate were raised. She asked Mr. Bowerman if she had answered his question of this afternoon. Mr. Bowerman said she had. Mr. Dorrier commended Ms. McKeel for having the courage to express her opinion. He said there is a need to look at new revenue sources because the real estate tax is carrying too much of the burden. He is willing to look at other options. Ms. McKeel said she will take the suggestion from today's meeting, and get groups from the community together to go to Richmond to see if they might help in getting some things changed. She, personally, would like to go to the Federal government because she believes it is time for special education to be fully funded. Mr. Rooker explained that earlier today the School Board presented its budget request to the Board. The presentation contained information on their goals and what has been done to date. He said that year after year all counties in Virginia have send representatives to the General Assembly requesting additional revenue sources such as the cigarette tax and impact fees. Those requests have been consistently turned down. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: November 6 and December 11,2002. Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of November 6, 2002, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of December 11,2002, and found them to be in order. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the minutes as presented. Item 5.2. Set public hearing for April 2, 2003, on Albemarle County's Annual Plan for Administering Housing Choice Vouchers. It was noted in the executive summary that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires each public housing agency to prepare a five-year plan for administering public housing assistance programs. Administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers makes Albemarle County subject to this requirement. In addition to completing a five-year plan, an Annual Plan must be submitted. Prior to submission, the plan must be reviewed by a Resident Advisory Board for comment and input. After receipt of this input, the final plan is presented for adoption at a public hearing. The five-year plan was submitted to HUD in January, 2001. Subsequent annual plans have been March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 2) submitted and approved. Work has begun on the proposed plan, a summary having been sent to members of a Resident Advisory Board for review and comment and a summary prepared for review by the Housing Committee. The final plan may include revisions and/or comments as a result of these processes and input at a public hearing. Staff recommends setting and advertising a public hearing on the proposed Annual Plan for the April 2, 2003, Board meeting. Mr. Tucker advised the Board to set the public hearing for May 7 instead of April 2. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set May 7, 2003, as the public hearing date on the proposed Annual Plan for administering Housing Choice Vouchers. Item 5.3. Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium Consolidated Plan, proposed use of funds. It was noted in the executive summary that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually provides funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Program to units of state and local government through formula allocations. Only the larger jurisdictions receive funding under the established formulas. HUD does, however, allow smaller localities to form a consortium in order to receive an allocation of HOME funds. Albemarle County has participated as a member of the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium (six jurisdictions of the Planning District). HOME funds may be used for housing rehabilitation, home buyer assistance, development/renovation of multi-family rental property, and tenant-based rental assistance. The bulk of the HOME funds have supported housing rehabilitation activities serving sixty-seven Iow-income homeowners. In addition, HOME funds provided mortgage assistance to four families, and supported property acquisition for the development of affordable rental housing. Over $72,000 of the current year's allocation of $104,500 has provided assistance to rehabilitate four homes. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) has been the County's designated sub-recipient for the purpose of implementing housing initiatives with the HOME funds. AHIP is also a certified Community Development Housing Organization (CHDO) and, as such, has access to a fifteen percent set-aside of HOME funds for CHDO development activity. HOME funds are the primary source of public funding for continued housing rehabilitation activities in the County. AHIP generally leverages these funds with private loans and loans through USDA Rural Development to complete necessary rehabilitations. Staff recommends that owner-occupied housing rehabilitation be designated as the primary use of HOME funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2003, and that Albemarle Housing Improvement Program be the sub-recipient of HOME funds. Staff further recommends that HOME funds be used in a manner to maximize leverage of other public and private funds. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board designated owner-occupied housing rehabilitation as the primary use of HOME funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003; designated the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as the sub-recipient of HOME funds; and, supported using HOME funds in a manner to maximize leverage of other public and private funds. Item 5.4. Request to participate in 2003-04 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program. It was noted in the executive summary that the State Revenue Sharing Program provides an opportunity for the County to receive up to an additional $500,000 for road improvements. The program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by the County. The result is a total commitment of up to $1.0 million toward improvements to the local road system. The County has participated in this program since 1988. The County's match is allocated in its Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The County must formally request participation in the 2003-04 program by March 28, 2003. VDOT recommends that the funds for FY 2003-04 be used to reconstruct Sunset Avenue (Route 781) to two lanes with curb and gutter, sidewalks and bike lanes from the City line to Fifth Street Extended. Road improvements in this area are becoming increasingly important as new development is taking place. If the Board decides to proceed, the revenue sharing funds will be in place to use on this project. This project is currently scheduled to be advertised in October, 2011. Staff is also requesting that the Board transfer previously allocated revenue sharing funds for James River Road (Route 726) to Georgetown Road (Route 656). James River Road is no longer in the Six-Year funding cycle. Although revenue sharing funds can be allocated to projects that are not in the Six-Year Construction Program, VDOT and staff support transferring the previously allocated $300,000 to Georgetown Road which did receive revenue sharing funds in FY 1997-98 and FY 2002-03. If supported by the Board, Georgetown Road would also receive revenue sharing in FY 2003-04. Staff supports this transfer because of the urgency to complete the improvements on Georgetown Road and the relative Iow cost of the proposed improvements to James River Road. This transfer does not require another resolution by the Board. Staff recommends that the County participate in the Revenue Sharing Program requesting a total of $500,000 (to be matched with available County CIP funds) for Sunset Avenue improvements and that it authorize the Chairman to sign a letter notifying VDOT of the County's intent to participate in the program. It also recommends that the Board support the transfer of previously allocated revenue sharing funds ($300,000) for James River Road (Route 726) to Georgetown Road (Route 656). March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 3) (Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked about the timing of the Sunset Avenue project if the County's revenue sharing money were put toward that project. Does that move it up significantly? Mr. Cilimberg said he would have to check as to how this would effect the status of that project.) By the recorded vote set out above the Board supported the County's participation in VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2003-04, requesting a total of $500,000 (to be matched with available County CIP funds) for Sunset Avenue improvements; authorized the Chairman to sign a letter notifying VDOT of intent to participate in the Program; and, supported the transfer of previously allocated Revenue Sharing funds ($300,000) for James River Road (Route 726) to Georgetown Road (Route 656). Item 5.5. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 4, 2003, was received for information. Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated March 3, 2003, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels: Tax Map 31, Parcels 23, 23D, 23H and 23J (Property of Mary Jane Chisholm, Trustee), Sec 10.3.1, was received for information. Item 5.7. 2002 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing to review proposed projects for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. Proposed activities include a Dry Well Replacement Program and development of a community service facility for the Whitewood Road area. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 2003.) Mr. Ron White, Housing Director, said his office is preparing to submit a grant application for Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG) for a community center at Whitewood Village Apartments. In two previous years this request was submitted in conjunction with some rehabilitation activities. At the time, the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program and Albemarle Housing Associates, the new owners, had not taken possession of the property and did not have all of the financing in place. The acquisition took place on December 30 and most of the other financing pieces are committed to and are in place. There is a better opportunity to have a successful application this year if the Board approves the submission. Also included in this public hearing is the dry well replacement program. All necessary documentation has been submitted to the State for CDBG funding. The County Executive has signed the contract for that program, so this is the second public hearing on that project tonight. The requests total just over $371,000. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Vito Cetta said he is a member of the ASIP Board and the County's Housing Committee. He thanked the Board for it continued support of the Whitewood Road project. He said what they were able to accomplish "with smoke and mirrors" to buy that 96-unit facility was amazing. The money being applied for will be used for a community center in order to have a place for education, job training, a day care center and after school activities. It is a worthwhile project. They want to take the people who will live in this facility and elevate them to a different level so they will be there for only a short time period. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt the following resolution authorizing the County Executive to sign and submit the appropriate documents for filing a Virginia Community Development Block Grant application in the amount of $375,100. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent, affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to improving the livability of all neighborhoods and access to supportive services by residents; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to preserving, to the extent possible, all existing affordable housing stock and eliminating blighted conditions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to public hearings held January 8, 2003, and March 19, March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 4) 2003, the County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $375,100 in Community Development Block Grant funds for a Community Service Facility Project for the Whitewood Village Apartments; and WHEREAS, other resources estimated in excess of $9,000,000 including, but not limited to, VHDA loans, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, Federal Home Loan Bank, Virginia Housing Partnership Fund, the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund, and funds leveraged by the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund will be invested in the project; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the population residing at Whitewood Village Apartments is very-low and extremely-low income, all receiving rental assistance through project-based vouchers; and WHEREAS, the project-based contract expires March 31,2003; and WHEREAS, the new owners have committed to improving the physical condition of the property and provide services to current and future tenants; and WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the project include Rehabilitation of 96 affordable rental units benefiting approximately 350 persons, one-third of whom are children; Construction of a community center; Provision of services to enhance the livability and improved self-sufficiency of the tenants NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for applying for this Virginia Community Development Block Grant application. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-2002-001. Fontaine Avenue Condos (Signs #77 & #81). Public hearing on a request to rezone 12.606 acs from HC to R-15 to allow 112 units. TM 76, Ps 12A & 12G. Loc on N side of Fontaine Ave (Rt 702) approx .25 mis W of intersec of Fontaine Ave & Rt 29. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6.) Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 2003.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this request originated in May, 2002. The Planning Commission held a work session and, along with staff, identified several issues which needed to be addressed, mainly: the lack of a pedestrian bridge across Morey Creek; the lack of sidewalks within the site; the need to better relegate the parking; the lack of a conceptual grading plan; the need to provide an adequate streetscape along Fontaine Avenue; and, the need for the applicant to hold a meeting with the homeowners on Buckingham Circle to address their concerns. In November, the Commission held a public hearing at which time they were presented with a plan. Concerns were then raised about building massing and visual impacts, the potential for student housing, environmental impacts and traffic. The petition was again deferred. Mr. Cilimberg said plans were resubmitted. He pointed to the plan reviewed by the Commission in January which was posted on the wall. He said the homeowners in the Buckingham Circle area were offered an opportunity on December 30, 2002, to meet with the developer and review the plans. Regarding the various issues set out above, staff, in February, provided for the Commission its analysis regarding building massing, the potential for student housing, environmental impacts and traffic. In summary, staff believes the applicant tried to meet the concerns of the adjacent neighbors, and that the proposal and proffers met concerns raised by staff during the review process. Staff, therefore, recommended approval. The Commission, at its meeting on February 11,2003, reached a tie vote of 2:2. Their concerns were with density, the scale of this development as it relates to the area, the lack of a mix of uses, and a concern that the proposal did not meet Neighborhood Model Principles. With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak at this time. Mr. Larry Burnett said he is the managing member of Jefferson Lodge, LLC. He said there was eight feet of snow in Denver today and some of the paperwork he was expecting did not arrive. He called Planning staffthis morning to ask for a deferral. This lender has asked for a deferral until they receive a title, policy and environmental impact update. He talked with Ms. Thomas who said it would be good to go ahead and start the hearing tonight because the neighbors were interested in coming and expressing their views. He agreed with her, but will ask that the decision be deferred until April 16 so that he can make sure his paperwork is in proper order. He said this is an important decision for the neighborhood. The lender asked him not to get the property rezoned until he had some other contracts in place because he does not want to lose the Highway Commercial designation. Ms. Thomas asked if there is any legal reason why the Board should not hear the request tonight. Mr. Davis said there is no legal reason why the Board cannot defer the public hearing, or the legal public hearing could be accomplished tonight. March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 5) Mr. Dorrier said the 2:2 vote by the Commission indicates that the issues were evenly divided. He asked if the Board could refer the petition back to the Commission. Mr. Davis said that can be done if the Board feels it needs additional recommendations. Mr. Martin said people speaking tonight should know if the Board intends to vote on this issue or continue it. vote. Mr. Rooker said he is not in favor of continuing the hearing, but would be in favor of deferring the Ms. Thomas said if the applicant makes any changes between now and the middle of next month, it would be wrong to close the public hearing and not allow any public comment on those changes. Mr. Burnett said he would prefer to have a deferral, but is open to whatever the Board decides to do. However, he will honor the instructions from his lender, and would have to withdraw the whole proposal and start over again. Mr. Bowerman said the applicant should have been prepared for this meeting. Mr. Burnett said he understands that. There are some significant consequences to the neighborhood if that happens. This may end up just being a commercial development with no opportunity for the housing. He thinks it is important to consider the housing he is proposing. Mr. Davis said the applicant can withdraw his request at any time before it is submitted to the Board for a decision. Once the public hearing is closed and a motion is made, the applicant does not have the ability to withdraw the petition. So, in fairness, if the Board is so inclined, the Board should let him know he has the opportunity to withdraw the request if he needs to do so. Mr. Dorrier said that 15 people have signed up to speak about this request. He thinks that in fairness to them and the applicant, they should be allowed to speak. Then the Board can decide what it wants to do. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the applicant should make his presentation now. Mr. Burnett said the four issues brought up were related to traffic. At the last hearing, Mr. Rieley said he agreed that traffic is not an issue. The Planning Department and VDOT have both said that traffic is not an issue. The issue of visual impact is a stylist issue. The issue of density is an issue and should be considered. The fourth item had to do with the size of the buildings. He said the size and mass of the buildings has been cut down by 40 percent in total, and the buildings are 60 percent smaller in the latest plan. In terms of overall density, the County says this area should be at between three and six units per acre. The R-15 zoning is an adjunct use by-right so long as the Board finds there is no significant detriment to the surrounding areas. He believes that his proposal is not a detriment, but a benefit which derives from the fact that this particular area has proximity, access and seclusion. To develop it as highway commercial would delete the seclusion. To maintain the seclusion and have a development which falls within the County guidelines is to develop it in a more residential nature. Mr. Burnett said he thinks a residential development is a better development than if a hotel were built on the property. He bought the site for a hotel. He stopped the project after 911 because of financing considerations. It has been a year, and will probably be another year and a half, but financing is again available. He has two parties who are interested in putting a hotel on this site. It would be an economy, extended-stay hotel of about 286 units. That would be more density, and the transient nature could create a higher traffic flow. He believes this piece of ground will be developed by someone as residential or highway commercial, whether he is involved or not. He said the contracts which are not quite in place will allow one of two parties to go in either direction. He has given everyone a chance to consider what needs to be done for the area. It could be residential or a hotel. The hotel is a use by right. He proposes, and has been working on a residential use for the last year. He believes it will maintain the secluded nature of the area better than a hotel. Some of the neighbors disagree. He has done everything possible to address every issue brought to him. That is the reason the staffwas in favor of the request, and the reason the Commission had a difficult time deciding. The request was before the Commission three times. There is some committed opposition by eight to ten families to this request. He understands their desires and issues and he has tried to address them. At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the public to speak. Ms. Regina Carlson said she is a 16-year resident of Buckingham Circle. Normally she would be in favor of this property being rezoning for residential use. But, she has two concerns about the development currently proposed so requests that Board deny the request. First, she thinks the density and the market demographics being used by the developer are not appropriate to the site. She suggests that the property be rezoned to R-6. Second, such a high density does not follow the principles of the Neighborhood Model. She thinks the developer should be required to redesign his plan according to those principles. She said the developer is looking at a new lucrative market, a sort of student condominium market where parents buy a unit for the student to live in while they attend UVA and they hang onto the condo as an investment. There is the possibility of having over 200 University students sandwiched between two residential neighborhoods. The residents of Buckingham Circle are usually young families who live there because it is moderate income housing, and they have young children. She thinks this would be an inappropriate use. There is the potential for noise pollution, and reckless driving and traffic congestion on Fontaine Avenue. Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to him if the speakers would indicate whether they would prefer the application as proposed or a hotel. The property is zoned Highway Commercial at this time and if the applicant proposed to put something on it that is allowed by right, there would be no decision to be made by this body. The Board does not have the power to tell the applicant to redesign the plan so it only has March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 6) one-half of the units proposed. Ms. Carlson said she would like to see it rezoned for residential use because it is sandwiched between two other residential neighborhoods. With the density he is requesting, she thinks it would be appropriate to ask him to follow the principles of the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Bill Goldeen said he is a 15-year resident of Buckingham Circle. He would prefer a hotel over the specific development proposed. He passed to the Board members a drawing of one of the designs the applicant had proposed for a hotel. He found it to be a reasonable design and it fits into the space. The applicant sent him a letter last weekend threatening him with a 300-unit hotel. He checked the numbers this morning and believes there could be a 200-unit hotel on the property because parking would be a problem. He said that hotel would have professional management and staffto keep the pond clean. At this time, nothing is being done to take care of that pond. He feels that if the full Planning Commission membership had been present on February 11, they would voted against the proposal. He said the developer has consistently claimed that this is a development for young professionals, families and retirees. He noted that he had sent the Board members a letter yesterday, and would paraphrase some of what is in that letter. Mr. Goldeen said the applicant has hired Mr. Wes Burnett who is the president of the Bradley Company, otherwise known as University Student Housing. His design and plans are similar to all other student housing in the area. There are two developments by the Bradley Company, one in Harrisonburg, and one in Blacksburg. Even the exteriors are the same. The exterior of the one on Old Lynchburg Road is the same design. He was not putting in amenities, but added a swimming pool which is five yards long; it is a water feature. A fitness room of approximately 20 feet by 38 feet has been added. The applicant said at the public hearing that he was chagrined because it was being called student housing. There is no need to pretend it is not student housing, because he has hired Mr. Wes Bradley to be his head of development and sales. He said Mr. Bradley builds condos for parents to buy for their students. On his web pages it says "parents can reap benefits for years to come by renting the property." Ms. Mary McLerran said she has lived for 16 years on Buckingham Circle. Their home faces the pond, so they will be able to see whatever development occurs. At this time, it is a nice pond, but there are some buildings which need to be cleaned up or taken down and replaced. That have looked forward to a developer coming in and doing something wonderful on that property, but she does not think this is it. She asked that the Board deny this request at this time. She does not want to see student housing on the property. She spoke with several neighbors, and had hoped they would be here tonight. Many have other obligations and could not be present. They hope the Board will do the right thing, and they are representing the people who could not be here. They have been to the Commission several times, and it is hard to come to all of these meetings. She said they are stewards and caretakers of their land. They need to tend and take care of their little part of the earth. She is concerned about the kind of development Mr. Burnett has said he wants to put on this little piece of property. The buildings proposed are specifically designed with the student population in mind. The units will have three bedrooms, each with its own bath. The buildings will be four stories in height with the windows facing the lake. He has talked about putting up trees which would block the view, but they don't want to be blocked away from their neighbors. They suggested a mixed use such as the Neighborhood Model. She is not opposed to development of this property. Mr. Tim McLerran said he is a ninth grade student at Western Albemarle High School. He wished to speak about the ecological impacts of this development. He has seen that there is already trash on the property, and that could only get worse. He has been on the property several times to see the wild life. He has seen beer cans in the woods so obviously people are drinking in the woods. He thinks students would do that. That would greatly impact the animals, and probably scare away the animals. There are ducks and geese at the pond, and he has seen one beaver. He asked that the Board vote against this rezoning request. Mr. Barry McLerran said he has lived on Buckingham Circle for 16 years. His house would be the most visually impacted on the Circle by the height of what has been proposed. At this time, the units sit up on a hill overlooking the lake. From the location of their house the land rises, and the proposed units would sit further up on this rise. It has created quite an impact. Mr. Burnett said they would try to plant some trees between the pond and the units, but pine trees do not survive in that area. He thinks others will speak about the density of the proposal. Also, it was mentioned that VDOT does not think there will be a significant traffic impact created by this facility. He said Mr. Burnett has denied that the units are being built for student housing, but it is obvious what they are designed for and they would greatly impact the neighborhood. The Neighborhood Model has been implemented, and he hopes the Board will discuss that Model and how this proposal does not follow that Model. He asked that the Board deny the rezoning. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. McLerran if he would favor having a hotel on that site. Mr. McLerran said he does not feel it is appropriate to ask if they favor a hotel. That is not what has been proposed. Ms. Ruth Goldeen said she is a 15-year resident of Buckingham Circle. She understands that during a rezoning request, may be the ideal time for the County to enforce the Neighborhood Model design. She has studied the recommendations of the County and supports the concepts laid out in those recommendations. The Neighborhood Model supports logical flow and inter-connectivity of neighborhoods. Mixed use is encouraged. The County has the opportunity to make a decision about the king of growth going into a designated growth area. This proposal is not an example of good growth, and does not comply with the spirit of the Neighborhood Model. Instead, the proposal comes from an out-of-state architect who desires to make a profit on a piece of land that, for a number of reasons, is difficult to develop. First, only half of the property is developable because of the pond and the wetlands. She has concerns about the long-term impact of a high density housing project on this environmentally-sensitive piece of land. The March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 7) fragile nature of the water supply was learned this past summer, so she wonders what measures have been taken to support the on-going care and maintenance of the wetlands and Morey Creek. Second, traffic is a major area of concern. This property is near the end of a dead end street. The bridge leading to the property is narrow and substandard, and has been known to flood. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes or shoulders on the road, making foot, or bike traffic unsafe. The neighborhood traffic then comes out on Fontaine Avenue which is a busy, major artery going into the City. The University does not plan to extend their bus route to this new neighborhood, nor will City transportation. She said every adult will need to have or travel by car. She thinks it is irresponsible to add more traffic to the already congested roads. Where will all of these cars park when they get to the University? Visitors to the complex will need to drive there, and where will they park? The number of parking spaces closely matches the number of bedrooms. She assumes that with student housing, each bedroom will have a car owner. Parking will extend onto Fontaine which has no shoulders. She thinks that before high density housing is considered, there should be bike lanes or some type of pedestrian access to the University area. Ms. Judy Rood said he has lived at 103 Buckingham Circle for 22 years. It is a unique place to live. It is a wonderful community which is why they are stressed by this issue. In consideration of time, she referred the Board members to her e-mail that addresses the critical issue which is appropriate land use. She reiterated her opposition to the rezoning. As to personal preference, she is opposed to anything that could possibly become University housing. Mr. Bowerman said that he had read all the e-mails sent to him concerning this proposal. Mr. Daniel Goldeen said he goes to Murray Elementary. He is 11 years old and has lived on Buckingham Circle all his life. He likes to catch fish in the pond. He had a fish which he caught at the pond, a frog and a toad also. They all lived in the water peacefully and safely because there was minimal litter and pollution. The neighborhood is clean, with very little litter. He likes going down there and playing and not having to worry about noise coming from big buildings. A hotel would be different because it would probably be smaller and not as many parties there as with student housing. He said the County has an ordinance concerning runoff control. In the proposal he has not seen anything about runoff. He consulted with David Hirschman, and he said the runoffwill need to be controlled, or it could affect the wildlife in the pond. He does not think students will care about the land nearby because they will be leaving in a few years. Will someone be in charge of keeping the wetlands on Morey Creek safe? Mr. Paul Rood said the people living on Buckingham Circle all know each other and take care of each other. He grew up in Charlottesville. His home is right across from the property in question. It is a wonderful piece of property. He has watched the traffic in that area, and most people drive too fast. People using a hotel would be a little more careful and he thinks that is a consideration. Mr. Tom Loach was present representing the Albemarle Neighborhood Association. He said the proposed development was discussed at their meeting on February 26. After full consideration of the proposal, it was the consensus of the neighborhoods represented, that the proposal as it stands should be rejected because it does not meet the Neighborhood Model. The Model must be more than a mere suggestion when proposed developments are reviewed by the County. Since this proposal needs rezoning approval, this is an opportunity to send a signal that the Neighborhood Model must be the starting point for any development plan. Any plan that deviations from the Model will only be permitted where the deviation is in the best interest of the people who live in the area and the County as a whole. The Association urges the Board to require compliance with the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Loach said on a personal note, if the Board wants a standard for the Neighborhood Model on a site this size, he suggests they look at the Bargamin property which was approved recently. That site was similar in size and one that incorporated a mixture of housing types, a range of affordabilities, and blended well with the neighborhood and was acceptable. He thinks that if this proposal was in any R-2 neighborhood in the County, it would not be acceptable. He said to hear a neighborhood actually ask for the Neighborhood Model is different. It should be respected. Ms. Thomas asked if the Bargamin property was R-6 or was it a PUD? Mr. Loach said it was in the growth area and was R-6. It has nine acres, and there will be 48 units developed around the old Bain property. There is attached housing in front and detached/attached housing around it. Waylands Grant was 20 acres and had a mixture of housing types. He thinks this is the kind of site that would lend itself into an R-2 neighborhood and would blend well with he community, and would probably be more acceptable. Mr. Henry Kaelber said he is a resident on Buckingham Circle. He asked that the rezoning be rejected if it goes according to the current plans. A hotel as opposed to student housing might not be such a bad thing. He is concerned with traffic. While worrying about this development, he has become familiar with the Neighborhood Model. He thinks he could tolerate the density if it looked like the nice pictures on the County's web-site. The Neighborhood Model properly considers traffic. Traffic is a major concern to him and his children who like to jog around the Circle. He knows hotel traffic would not be there year-round because they enjoy different seasons so he is not threatened in any way by 200 units. He feels it is a shame the alternatives are as they are. The property was zoned HC when the road was truly a highway, but it is no longer a two-way thoroughfare. He would have enjoyed seeing a plan more in tune with the Neighborhood Model. Given the choices, he will ask that the Board reject the request for rezoning, and he will be happy to live with a hotel. Ms. Elena Day said she has lived on Buckingham Circle since 1979. She sent the Board members e-mails expressing her opposition to this rezoning. The density is too high and it would only contribute to increased congestion on the Fontaine Avenue corridor into the City. She does not think there has been any March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 8) County/City/University cooperation for student housing on this site, which is what it will very likely be. She knows there is no law which says this high density cannot occur on the banks of Morey Creek, now a pond which may not last very long. However, she thinks it is environmentally-insensitive to build such high density on this site because of the stream. At the last meeting she attended, she was impressed that the developer of White Gables had gone back several times to the drawing board to accommodate the neighbors on either side, which were businesses. She does not think Mr. Burnett has done that in this instance. He hastily pulled together a December 30 meeting between Christmas and New Years which very few people attended. Apparently, there were many suggestions by the Buckingham Circle residents who did attend. She does not think he entertained any of those ideas. He had said that for over a year he had been attentive to their requests and suggestions, but Mr. Burnett did not show up until the November meeting. Prior to that time, their dealings where with a Mr. Boyle who insisted that he would take no input from the neighborhood, and that he would build by-right. She requested that the Board deny this rezoning request. Mr. David Downey said he has lived on Buckingham Circle for about a year. That is probably the reason he does not have the same dislike for University students that his friends on the Circle have. The neighbors really believe it will be University students living in these new structures. He does not care who lives there, but is worried about the students going back and forth to the University. There is no parking at the University. Students in this area now either walk or ride to UVA because there is no other way to get there. Across this little bridge and just north of Buckingham Circle there are about a hundred yards of pitch blackness when the sun goes down. During the fall that occurs early. He is a bicyclist and this is a treacherous stretch of road to ride along. He would rather there be a hotel on this site than UVA housing. Mr. Donal Day said he has lived on Buckingham Circle for 23 years. He had sent the Board members e-mail messages containing about everything he will say tonight. He said the proposal is an isolated apartment complex at the end of a dead-end road. It is designed for the student market. He said this complex would have no chance of creating a community. Neighborhoods cannot be built on anonymity, but on familiarity and common interests. Neighbors are not homogeneous, but vary. Neighborhoods can be knit together only when the difference between them is gradual. Everything about this project is out of scale; the size of the buildings, the number of units, the density. There are no common points of reference between the Buckingham Circle neighborhood and the proposed apartment complex. He said a rezoning offers a chance to allow the Neighborhood Model to take a foot hold and demonstrate what good planning can produce. He thinks a change in zoning should only be granted when the benefits to the local neighborhood and the community in general are so significant that they cannot be overlooked or disregarded. There are no such benefits surrounding this proposal. The only motivation for this rezoning is to do what the market has not done, and that is to make this property commercially viable. He said the objections of the Buckingham Circle neighborhood are not those of an elite community turning down their nose at a lesser one. Buckingham Circle is the epitome of affordable housing in Albemarle County. Most homes have an assessment of about $150,000. They would hardly endorse a proposal to build another neighborhood like theirs. He requested that the public hearing be left open if the Board defers this request to April. He said Mr. Rooker's comment was a little like asking if you want to be murdered or commit suicide and he refuses to answer that question. To Mr. Burnett he would like to say that he does not take lightly to being threatened, and if he feels that his opposition to this plan has been enthusiastic, his threatening will only make it more so when the next proposal is presented. Mr. Vincent Day said he has lived on Buckingham Circle since 1998. He was going to talk about traffic and the Neighborhood Model, but that has already been discussed tonight. He would like to mention only that he does not think VDOT has any idea what goes on in that area in terms of the traffic patterns in the afternoon. He said this is a nice neighborhood, and they are talking about homes, yards and children, gardens and family, and soul. The proposed buildings have no souls, or a family. This is just a case of building big and stuffing as many people as possible into the building. He said that culturally there are some questions which there is an opportunity to address. They have dogs and cats and honeybees. People staying at a hotel will be gone in the morning. Whether the building is for students or professionals, he still thinks the same thing about the cultural aspects. The plan does not elicit incorporation of the existing neighborhood and its culture. It is a continuation of a commercial culture. Ms. Bobbi Burnett said they have spent many hours and much money doing plans for this property. They have gone step-by-step with the Planning Commission to meet the Neighborhood Model and to follow all of the rules. They redid the pond and there is no problem with the water in that pond. They sat at the old restaurant watching traffic one afternoon, and not one car was unable to get out of Buckingham Circle. She gave a short history of her background and her Virginia roots. She noted that they sent out two self-addressed stamped envelopes to get feedback from the neighbors. Her husband has offered to put in a pedestrian bridge and sidewalks all the way to the Interstate. She thinks he has gone the extra mile. Mr. Dick Smith said he is a ten-year resident of Buckingham. Early in the process, the Commission asked that the design be reworked to be more in compliance with the Neighborhood Model. The results were a lower number of units but the same number of bedrooms, the same number of bathrooms and the same number of parking spaces. At the neighborhood meeting and at the Commission meetings, it was clearly said that if it was not rezoned there would be commercial development would take place. They all felt they wanted to take their chances rather than have this project go forward. He feels the decision should be made tonight. It was unfortunate that all the Commission members were not present at its meeting. If the Board decided not to make a decision tonight, it might be best to send the petition back to the Commission. He said he and his neighbors are committed to doing whatever is right for the process. He knows Mr. Burnett has spent a lot of time and money and energy, but those are not the issues. It has come down to the issue of approving the request or not. He does not feel that is appropriate. He said that throughout the process, it has been denied that it will be student housing. Clearly, from everything heard tonight, it is student housing. The neighbors are in favor of the Neighborhood Model and encourage the Board to deny the request, and they will take their chances. March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 9) With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and Mr. Dorrier invited the applicant to speak again. Mr. Burnett said they had sent out mailings to 53 people. The eight families represented here tonight were opposed, one was in favor. Every comment made tonight could be addressed if there were the time to do so. He does not know if the Board wants to hear the request again, or extend it. He said it is an important question for the neighborhood. He has to honor his banker who has requested 30 additional days. He asked for a deferral, and said he would send an e-mail to address the comments made. He said that many of the same people who are opposed to the building were opposed to building the pond. They put in a pond that is an asset as a wetlands area. He told all to come down to the corner and have a Fourth of July party. He said they do plan to put bike paths and sidewalks in the area. On the issue of density, they are at 6.8. It is not a high density project. This is a condominium project that will be sold to everybody. It will not be cheap housing. Mr. Dorrier asked the price range. Mr. Burnett said it will be below $200,000 for the three- bedroom units. It has two and three-bedroom units. He has changed the design of the units in terms of the number of bedrooms. It was all two-bedroom units. They started with 153 units and are now down to 86. He said it is his pond, but he has let everybody use it. The building is not a student design. The Waynesboro Nursery has assured him they can put trees anywhere on the property and they will live and grow. The real issue tonight is whether or not these will be houses that people own and live in, or whether it will be a highway commercial situation where there is a transient population. He started a year ago and will take this proposal to some conclusion on the residential. If that is denied, he will go back and do the highway commercial. Ms. Thomas said she has given this proposal a lot of thought. She does not think the Board should make any motion until the applicant has had a chance to withdraw the petition. She thinks this project suffers from "being neither fish nor fowl". If it were student housing, it would have certain amenities that would engage the students in the community. If it were a family community then there would need to be a lot of playgrounds and more than 15 feet in front of a basketball hoop. This seems to be neither. The property probably would be ideal for the new, about-to-be-adopted Neighborhood Model Overlay District. She said it could turn into a mixed development community in terms of housing sizes and amenities. She realizes the developer is not giving the Board that option, but is suggesting a hotel. She thinks one of the neighborhood's main concerns is who will be in charge once it is built. Condominiums are run by a homeowners association, so it is difficult to get someone to be in charge. She has not heard anybody say that granting this rezoning request is into the best interest of the County as a whole. Mr. Rooker said it is unfortunate the property was zoned HC. It is not an appropriate location for a large-scale hotel. Unfortunately the HC zoning is something the community must deal with. He does not think rezoning the property to R-15 will improve matters. A rezoning should only be granted when there are demonstrable benefits to the community. When this comes back in April, he will not support a motion to rezone the property. Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mr. Rooker. Mr. Dorrier agreed with Ms. Thomas. There may be the potential for the Neighborhood Model. He travels that road often, and he thinks there could be a traffic problem because of the number of residences in the area. The developer has scaled down the number of residences, so maybe there is the possibility of more public space, and more pedestrian area, and more of a community that fits in with Buckingham Circle. The Board needs to decide what it will do from this point forward. Mr. Davis said it appears the Board is unanimously opposed to this request so may want to inquire of the applicant if he still wishes to defer it, or have the Board vote it for denial. Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant his pleasure. Mr. Burnett said he would like to have a deferral and weigh the choices he has, then consult with the Planning staff. It is clear to him that if he asked for a vote tonight, the request would be denied. He thinks there may be some things he has not communicated. After he considers everything, if that is the way it looks, he would probably withdraw the project and completely redo it. It took him from February to November to get an agreement with the Planning staff. It was not a project which was just thrown together. There has been a lot of effort put into it. But, he does not want to go away with a denial tonight. If he decides to withdraw in the next week, he will contact the Planning staff. Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to continue the public hearing and defer consideration of the petition until April 16, 2003. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier, NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2002-023. White Gables (Sign #56 & #57). Public hearing on a request to allow development of maximum of 76 condominium dwelling units in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ord. TM 60, Ps 26 & 27A contains 7.097 acs. Loc on N sd of Ivy Rd (Rt 250 W) approx 1/4 mi W of intersec of Ivy Rd & Rt 29/250 By-pass. Znd CO & EC. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 2003.) March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 10) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He noted that a drawing of the original proposal is posted on the wall behind the Clerk. There is also posted on the wall a plan as now proposed for six condominium buildings containing a maximum of 76 units. The facility is designed for older couples and individuals and would be similar to the Ednam development. The existing house would be used as a community building and have a potential for offices for residents. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission held a work session on this project in September, 2002. They indicated general agreement with the residential use concept plan. Issues of primary concern were of traffic and access impacts to the historic character and appearance of this portion of Ivy Road, and the massive scale of structures on the site. He said this area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Office Service use. Staff did note factors favorable to the ultimate design reviewed by the Commission. They were: the residential use takes advantage of proximity to existing commercial development nearby on Route 250; the residential use helps to create a mix relative to the adjacent office and institutional uses; residential uses range from the historic front yard, which is the southern portion of the site adjacent to Ivy Road; the density is concentrated to the rear of the site where it would not affect the character of the corner as significantly; most of the structures will not easily be seen from Ivy Road; the formality of the design is in keeping with the historic character of the corridor and the neighborhood; consolidation of the National Legal Research traffic with that of White Gables and the subsequent closing of the Legal Research entrance will improve traffic flow and safety in the corridor. Mr. Cilimberg said in providing for the Legal Research property, there was also a provision made that would allow for access to other properties as well, and would allow for the consolidation of entrances with other adjacent properties. Ultimately, that might be a consolidation that would be more suitable in another location. Right now, the location is on the site for National Legal Research property. Mr. Cilimberg said unfavorable factors are: the applicant has been unable to consolidate entrances on the north side of Ivy Road at the preferred Kappa Sigma location opposite the Birdwood Golf Course, or in another location that might be suitable in that area although the consolidation of White Gables and Legal Research is positive; the mass of the proposed pavilions may be inappropriately large although they have been adjusted since the original design. He said parking has been changed from a surface field kind of parking and is primarily provided underneath the units. He said staff found the applicant's special use permit application for residential use would not create adverse impacts to the adjacent properties and/or the district. Preservation of the front lawn and concentration of structures at the rear of the site are significant. Some beneficial consolidation of traffic is achieved with this plan. There is the possibility for greater consolidation in the future. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Commission ultimately recommended approval unanimously of this special use permit with 10 conditions. He noted a suggested change in the first condition. It now says "The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan and special permit justification dated April 22, 2002." In order to allow for modifications to that plan design to accommodate public safety access, he is suggesting that a second sentence be added reading "Modifications to the design of the interior loop road may be needed in conjunction with the preliminary subdivision site plan approval to accommodate fire protection requirements." Mr. Davis said he has some different wording for that condition. What was agreed to by staffwas to add a sentence to the end of first condition saying: "Modifications to the design of the interior loop road, approved by the Director of Engineering and Public Works to accommodate fire trucks, shall be deemed to be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan." Ms. Thomas asked if whatever is required for fire trucks is generally the same as what is required for buses. Mr. Davis said the discussion he was involved in was about a 50-foot fire truck. If it fits that truck, it should fit a bus. Ms. Thomas asked if there is a way for people who live in this facility to walk to the Bellair Market. Mr. Cilimberg said not from this site. There is no pedestrian way between this site and the market. Ultimately, one might be provided. At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Vito Cetta said Weatherhill Homes will be putting a sidewalk in front of the property along Route 250. It would be nice to see if it could be extended at some point. Ms. Thomas said she was thinking of something to the rear of the property. Mr. Cetta said there is a leg that goes back, but would it not be attractive because Piedmont Tractor is located there. He said this has been in the planning stages for 13 months. They talked to staff at length. They had the neighbors come by. They had lots of open houses. As a result, when this was heard by the Planning Commission, no one objected to the project. There was a work session with the Commission which was very helpful. They had four meetings with the ARB. They got the ARB's advice early and the ARB liked the last scheme. The main thing that has changed on the plan is that they left the big open lawn. It has been left informal, and the trees will remain. The property will keep the same look. They will be dedicating that land as permanent open space. They will keep the old house as a community building, and will make offices on the second floor for people who live there. They are proud of the project. At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 11) Ms. Pollock said she agreed to have the road go through her property because she is concerned with the safety of the people. She is a little worried about the possibility of a fire truck going through. She thinks this development is about as good as the County will get on this property. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas said it is nice to have a project you can be enthusiastic about. She knows people are concerned about adding more traffic on Route 250, and she thinks that at some point a traffic light will be needed. She said VDOT has said it will not allow a light until all of the property owners get together and she thinks that will be the best possible outcome. There was a mention of having a round-about, but after Engineering looked at the idea, because of the lights on both ends of the road, that will not work. She feels preservation of the front lawn is crucial. She appreciates the Pollocks joining in the effort to make sure the setback respects what the Rinehart family started of having all the houses along there set back the same distance from the road. The Legal Research building is not historic, but is architecturally more interesting than a lot of buildings in that community. The others are Rinehart family houses from the early twentieth century. An historic preservation easement might be possible in the future. The County is gambling with this approval because the applicant can't promise what will happen with Kappa Sigma. They are involved in an internal law suit. There is no way at this point that an agreement can be reached. She thinks this proposal is as good as the County will get for the area, and meets a need in the market for older people who do not want to leave the Ivy area. Ms. Thomas then offered motion to approve SP-2002-023 with the conditions recommended by the Commission, but with the change in Condition No. 1 which was read by Mr. Davis earlier in the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan (January 10, 2003 revision) (the "Conceptual Plan") and special permit justification dated April 22, 2002. Modifications to the design of the interior loop road, approved by the Director of Engineering and Public Works to accommodate fire trucks, shall be deemed to be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan; As shown on the Conceptual Plan, no new structures shall be located in the front (southern) portion of the property. There shall be a minimum distance of two hundred fifteen (215) feet between the southern-most structure and the front (southern) property line; The entrance road shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban road standard from its junction with Route 250 West to the interior loop, and shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path, constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning and Community Development and Engineering and Public Works, along one side connecting the interior loop to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road; All roads on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section standard, with a minimum width of twenty (20) feet, final width to be determined at the time of final site plan approval by the Director of Engineering and Public Works. All roads connecting to adjacent properties shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path along one side, constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, providing a connection to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road; Upon request by the County, an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffic from the Kappa Sigma property (Tax Map 60, Parcels 27 and 27B) across the White Gables property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. This access shall be constructed by the applicant to the same standard as required in Condition 4; Should a consolidated entrance be located at a point west of the White Gables property in the future, an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffic from the National Legal Research Group property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 25) across the White Gables property, and this access shall be reserved on the final subdivision plat/site plan. This access shall be constructed by the applicant to the same standard as required in Condition 4. In the event that such consolidated entrance is provided, either the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") or the County's Director of Engineering may require the applicant to close the existing entrance shown on the Conceptual Plan, convert it to a right in/right out only entrance/exit, or require that other modifications be made to the entrance; Within each pavilion shown on the Conceptual Plan, the largest condominium March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 12) unit shall be at least thirty (30) percent larger, based on floor area, than the smallest unit within the same pavilion; The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as outlined in its letter of January 28, 2003 (Attachment H - on file). The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of a traffic signal and its installation (the "signal") at the intersection of Route 250 West and an access point serving the property approved by VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering, as provided in this condition. Unless the signal already has been installed, the applicant shall pay to the County the cost of the signal as follows: (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the fourth pavilion, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security ("security") acceptable to the County in an amount equal to the cost of the signal (currently estimated to be $140,000), which amount shall be calculated in the year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that is not in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index; (b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit for the fourth pavilion, the County may demand payment of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay the cost to the County within thirty (30) days; and (c) The County may apply the applicant's security to construction of the access road or other elements of the future transportation improvement project other than the traffic signal; The applicant shall provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with road improvements to Ivy Road as required by VDOT and the Department of Engineering and Public Works in conjunction with preliminary subdivision/site plan approval. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2002-071. Crown Orchard Company-Pinnacle Carter's Mountain. Public hearing on a request to allow collocation of 2 add'l arrays of 6 antennas at between 60 and 70 ft on existing 205-foot tall tower, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 91, P 28 contains 234.165 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Carter's Mountain Trail, approx 1 mi S of intersec w/Thomas Jefferson Parkway (St Rt 53). Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 2003.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant's proposal is for the collocation of six additional antennas in two arrays ranging between 60 and 70 feet on an existing 205-foot tall guyed tower. The proposed panel antennas are approximately six feet in length and one-foot in width, and would be flush-mounted, so that there is not more than 12 inches between the structure and the face of each antenna. Ground equipment, housing PCS, E-911 and GPS hardware would be installed in cabinets to be placed on an existing 12-foot by 20-foot concrete pad located on the east side of an existing building at the site. The tower for this facility is currently owned by Pinnacle Towers Inc., and the applicant Omnipotent Communications, operating nationally as T-Mobile Communications, is in the process of expanding its service area into Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the surrounding region. Several towers, satellite dishes and various other communications facilities are currently located within the existing "tower farm" at the top of Carter's Mountain. Mr. Cilimberg said staff identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1) the ground equipment subject to this special use permit will not restrict any of the uses that are permitted by right or impose any additional impacts on adjacent properties; 2) the new ground equipment cabinets would not be visible from areas outside of the facility; 3) no clearing or other disturbance is necessary for the placement of the facility; 4) this proposal represents a collocation opportunity for antennas that are likely to have very minimal visual impacts; and, 5)the proposed antennas would be located on the lower third of the tower. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had recommended approval, and the Planning Commission did likewise. One of the changes the Commission agreed to, at the applicant's request, was in Condition 2a ... height shall not exceed 76 feet above ground. The applicant may wish to explain this request. Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak. Ms. Ambre Blatter was present to represent Omnipoint T-Mobile Communications. She said they are requesting collocation of cellular antennas on an antenna on Carter's Mountain. She showed a diagram of the tower. She said there are several antennas on the tower now. Their proposal is for two arrays because the guidelines of the County limit the number of antenna per array. The antennas will be flush-mounted and no more than 12 inches from the tower to the base of the antenna. The reason for the March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 13) change in the height request is because of an antenna designed by their engineer. That particular antenna occupies a greater space on the tower than was originally anticipated. Now, they propose to locate one antenna array below and one antenna array above because their engineer asked said it would give more propagation of the signal and further strength. She offered to answer questions. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2002-071 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) The tower shall not be increased in height; The two (2) additional arrays of panel antennas may be attached only as follows: a. The highest portions of the panel antennas in the top array shall not exceed seventy-six (76) feet above ground; b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted; none of the antennas shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and c. The antennas subject to this approval may be replaced administratively, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the replacement antennas are in compliance with these conditions of approval and in accordance with the regulations set forth in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance; All work shall be done in general accord with that described in the applicant's request and site construction plans, entitled "Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations - Pinnacle Carter's Mountain", last revised on November 7, 2002; With the exception of the safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations, outdoor lighting shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire that is not required for safety shall be fully shielded as required by Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower; The tower and all supporting facilities shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued; and No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the tower. Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-2001-008. Neighborhood Model. Public hearing to consider amending Sec 3.1, Definitions, Sec 4.15.11, Regulations applicable in the PUD zoning district, Sec 7, Establishment of districts, Sec 8, Planned Development Districts - Generally, & its subparts, Sec 33.4, Public Notice, & Sec 33.5, Report by planning commission to board of supervisors after hearing; delete Sec 8.5.2, Planning commission procedures; add Sec 8.6, Amendments to Planned Development Districts, & Sec 20A, Neighborhood Model District, & its subparts; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the general procedures & requirements for establishing planned development zoning districts & would establish regulations for a new planned development zoning district - the neighborhood model district. The neighborhood model district would allow traditional neighborhood development as described in the County's comprehensive plan. This ordinance also would add new defined terms (Sec 3.1), subject signs in the neighborhood model district to the sign regulations currently applicable w/in the planned unit development district (Sec 4.15.11), add the neighborhood model district to the list of zoning districts existing in Albemarle County (Sec 7) & amend the public notice requirements for zoning actions within planned development districts (Secs 33.4 and 33.5). (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 2003.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Board is familiar with the process staff has gone through to bring this ordinance to a public hearing. DISC II and a number of other interests in the community were also involved. A copy of the revised ordinance language was sent to the Board with the other materials for this meeting. He said the County Attorney has passed out an errata sheet noting some housekeeping corrections in ordinance language. The ordinance is recommended to the Board for adoption by DISC II. Mr. Cilimberg said the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association raised one question regarding the whole development review process. Staff will continue to flesh out the concept with the staff of the development departments, the development community, the Planning Commission, the Board and the public. March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 14) Mr. Davis said this ordinance was somewhat written by committee. Staff wanted to be sure the ordinance was consistent in its language. None of the changes on the errata sheet are substantive. Mr. Dorrier asked if there will be a simple, easy to read, easily understandable, written-in-plain- English, version of the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Cilimberg said he cannot say that, but the County Attorney's Office has tried to do that. Mr. Davis said he has to give credit to Mr. Greg Kamptner of his office for his work in drafting this errata sheet. At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug Kingma said he was present to represent the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association. They commend both the Board for giving the time needed to revise the text of the ordinance and the DISC II Committee for all the work it put into the revisions. A lot of the suggestions they made have been incorporated enough so the BRHBA is in favor of the revised version. He would like to make a few comments. First, the BRHBA feels the DISC principles should be an alternative form of development and not a mandated form. That has been their strongest concern throughout this process. Second, the Board needs to retain the independent approval authority for all projects without bias. Landowners need to have the ability to appeal decisions to the Board. Lastly, the search for process simplification and streamlining must be continued. For each day that a project is delayed, it has financial impacts that end up being borne by the eventual owner of the property. All of those delays are a matter of affordability. In addition, they are encouraged by staff comments about the voluntary preliminary evaluation. They think that is a good idea. A Iow cost voluntary program for brief review of significant points could probably streamline the process. They would like to see some controls put on that so that undue delays do not grow out of a process that was originally designed to be streamlined. They appreciate the time involved in this process and do support passage of the amendment they received a copy of. Mr. Neil Williamson said he is Executive Director of the Free Enterprise Forum. He commended the Board for its involvement of the community in the ZTA which is before it for approval tonight. He also commends the significant work conducted by the DISC II Committee. In January, when the previous draft was before the Board, the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association provided extensive and specific criticism of the amendment. Rather than turning a deaf ear on these comments and issues, all were sent to the DISC II Committee for consideration and debate. Some said this was a constructionist delay proposed by the BRHBA. That was not true. Staff, the DISC II Committee, and members of AIbemarle's building, engineering, real estate and legal community all worked together through the details of the substantive issues raised by many people. He said Mr. Martin represented this Board admirably and provided significant energy and urgency to the project. It is important to note that a number of the Supervisors attended many of these meetings to get a better understanding of the tenor and issues being discussed. Finally, further discussion permitted a clear understanding that the Neighborhood Model is one form of development. Enacting the zoning text amendment was delayed by 71 days. The Free Enterprise Forum believes this delay was a small price to pay for an ordinance with significantly stronger buy-in from the various communities most affected by it. Mr. Eric Strucko, Chairman of the DISC Committee, was present. He came to speak as Chairman of the Committee, so must represent multiple interests. In order to make some of the earlier comments clear he read from the minutes of February 12 that discussed Section 8.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. Comments related to the Neighborhood Model being a form of development, not the form of development. He said that generally the tendency is to have the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model be applied to most development proposals. Of course, there will be circumstances where not all 12 will apply, and there will be reasons for some exceptions. At least the 12 principles should be applied and questions asked. The Neighborhood Model District as a zoning category is an option. The zoning category before the Board tonight is one option among many zoning categories. The DISC II Committee felt the 12 principles should be applicable to any and all development proposals. He said there are rationale and sound reasons why not all of them can be met. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Martin said as the Board's representative to the DISC II Committee for the five-plus meetings, he said the meetings were spirited and a lot was accomplished. He then offered motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, with the minor changes given to the Board by the County Attorney this evening. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Martin for serving as the Board's representative on DISC II. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Ms. Thomas said she would like to thank staff for their work on this ordinance. Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Strucko for his work on the DISC II Committee. March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 15) (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 03-18(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Sec. 4.15.11 Sec. 7.0 Sec. 8.1 Sec. 8.2 Sec. 8.3 Sec. 8.4 Sec. 8.5 Sec. 8.5.1 Sec. 8.5.3 Sec. 8.5.4 Sec. 8.5.5 Sec. 8.5.6 Sec. 8.5.6.1 Sec. 8.5.6.2 Sec. 8.5.6.3 Sec. 8.5.6.4 Sec. 8.5.6.5 Sec. 33.4 Sec. 33.5 Definitions Regulations applicable in the PUD zoning district Establishment of districts Intent Relation of planned development regulations to general zoning, subdivision or other regulations Planned development defined Where permitted Procedures for PD applications Applications, materials to be submitted Pre-application conferences Planning commission recommendations to the board of supervisors Action by board of supervisors Final site development plans and subdivision plats Contents of site development plans: subdivision plats Approval of site development plans: subdivision plats Variations from approved application plans Building permits, grading permits Special provisions applicable to certain PD districts Public notice Report by planning commission to board of supervisors after hearing By Deleting: Sec. 8.5.2 Planning commission procedures By Adding: Sec. 8.6 Sec. 20A.1 Sec. 20A.2 Sec. 20A.3 Sec. 20A.4 Sec. 20A.5 Sec. 20A.6 Sec. 20A.7 Sec. 20A.8 Sec. 20A.9 Sec. 20A. 10 Amendments to planned development districts Purpose and intent Status as a planned development district Application requirements; required documents and information General development plans Codes of development Permitted uses Residential density Mixture of uses Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas Streets Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions Amenity: An area of activity designed principally for, and accessible to, persons residing or working within a development. Areas of activity may be either indoors or outdoors, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis, volleyball and basketball courts. An outdoor area of activity may be a passive or an active area, including but not limited to playgrounds, pedestrian paths through natural areas, courtyards, and paved pedestrian areas for gathering. An indoor area of activity includes, but is not limited to gyms, weight rooms, indoor swimming pools, indoor basketball courts, and other indoor recreational areas. Amenities may be located in required green space and be included in both required green space and amenity calculations. Application plan: The graphic depiction of a proposed development containing the information required by section 8.5.1 (d). Block: An area shown on an application plan or a general development plan that is typically surrounded by streets and within which land use activities occur. Although blocks usually imply a grid street system, where steep topography exists blocks may exist in non-rectilinear shapes. March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 16) Code of development: The development standards for a neighborhood model district that include, but are not limited to, uses delineated at the block level, densities, maximum building heights, yards or build-to lines, and architectural and landscape treatments. Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or natural features such as non-tidal wetlands, floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include, but are not limited to, utilities, greenways, pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area. General development plan: An application plan for a proposed development within the neighborhood model district, containing the information required by sections 8.5.1 (d) and 20A.4. Green space: An area of land covered in grass or other vegetation or a water feature required by this chapter. Uses in green space may include, but are not limited to, stormwater areas, wooded slopes, graded and revegetated slopes of twenty-five percent (25%) to fifty percent (50%), required yards on both residential and non-residential lots, landscaped areas, landscaped islands in parking lots, and other land covered in vegetation. Where areas for amenities are vegetated, such as in parks and playgrounds, amenities shall be included in required green space calculations. Non-tidal wetland: A wetland, other than a tidal wetland, that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, in 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b). Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non-tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature. Specimen tree: A tree in a mature form that approaches the optimum form and density characteristics for the particular species and variety. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD and NMD zoning districts The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning districts: Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area Sign Height Sign (Maximum) (Maximum) Setback (Minimum) Directory 1 or more per establishment, 24 square feet, 6 feet 5 feet as authorized by zoning aggregated administrator Freestanding 1 per street frontage, or 2 per 24 square feet, 12 feet 5 feet entrance, per lot with 100 or more aggregated; if more feet of continuous street frontage than 1 sign, no single plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater sign shall exceed 12 than 4 acres and has more than 1 square feet approved entrance on its frontage Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet 30 feet, but not to Not exceed the top of applicable the fascia or mansard Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, 6 feet 5 feet aggregated, per entrance Temporary 1 per street frontage per 24 square feet 12 feet, if 5 feet establishment freestanding sign; 20 feet, if residential wall sign or 30 feet if nonresidential wall sign, but not to exceed the top of the fascia or mansard Wall As calculated pursuant to 1 square foot per 1 20 feet, if Same as March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 17) § 4.15.20 linear foot of establishment structure frontage, not to exceed 32 square feet if residential wall sign, or 100 square feet if nonresidential wall sign residential wall sign or 30 feet if nonresidential wall sign that applicable to structure (12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.4; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; 03-18(2), 3-19-03) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2280. Article III. District Regulations Sec. 7 Establishment of districts For the purposes of this chapter, the unincorporated areas of Albemarle County are hereby divided into the following districts: Commercial District - C-1 Commercial Office - CO Heavy Industry - HI Highway Commercial - HC Light Industry - LI Overlay Districts: Airport Impact Area - AIA Flood Hazard - FH Natural Resource Extraction - NR Scenic Streams - SS (Amended 9-9-92) Entrance Corridor- EC (Added 10-3-90) Neighborhood Model- NMD Planned Development-Industrial Park- PD-IP Planned Development-Mixed Commercial - PD-MC Planned Development-Shopping Centers - PD-SC Planned Residential Development- PRD Planned Unit Development - PUD Residential - R-1 Residential - R-2 Residential - R-4 Residential - R-6 Residential - R-10 Residential - R-15 Rural Areas - RA Village Residential - VR Sec. 8 Planned development districts - generally Sec. 8.1 Intent The planned development districts are the Planned Residential Development (PRD), Planned Unit Development (PUD), Neighborhood Model (NMD), Planned Development - Mixed Commercial (PDMC), Planned Development - Shopping Centers (PDSC), and Planned Development - Industrial Park (PD-IP) zoning districts. Each of these districts is distinct in purpose; however, all are intended to provide for variety and flexibility in design necessary to implement the various goals and objectives set forth in the comprehensive plan. Through a planned development approach, the regulations in section 8 are intended to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to a greater extent than the regulations of conventional districts. In addition, these regulations are intended to promote: economical and efficient land use through unified development; improved levels of amenities; appropriate and harmonious physical development; creative design; and a better environment than generally realized through conventional district regulations. In view of the substantial public advantages of planned development, these regulations are intended to encourage the planned development approach in areas appropriate in terms of location and character. Planned development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and convenience of residents; to facilitate the protection of the character of surrounding neighborhoods; and to lessen traffic impacts through a reasonably short travel time between origins and destinations of persons living, working, or visiting in such developments. Housing, commercial and service facilities, and places of employment shall be related either by physical proximity or by adequate street networks so as to promote these objectives. Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations The regulations in section 8 shall apply to the establishment and regulation of all planned development districts. If any regulation in section 8 or the specific planned development district conflicts with any regulation in sections 4, 5 or 32 of this chapter, an applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4, 5 and 32, or March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 18) the planned development district regulations be waived or modified if it is found to be inconsistent with planned development design principles. The applicant shall submit its request in writing as part of the application, and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, or 32 establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any waiver or modification to a regulation applicable to a planned development shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria: (1) the land is under unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the development is in general accord with one or more approved application plans; and (3) the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas, facilities and improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate. Sec. 8.4 Where permitted A planned development district may be established in any development area identified in the comprehensive plan, provided that its location is suitable for the character of the proposed uses and structures. Sec. 8.5 Procedures for planned development applications Sec. 8.5.1 Applications and documents to be submitted Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map amendments. The documents required by subsections (a) through (e) below shall be submitted with the application. After the application is submitted, the director of planning and community development may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports such as, but not limited to, traffic impact analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands which are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application: A regional context map at a scale of not less one (1) inch equal to one thousand (1000) feet showing topography at a maximum of ten (10) foot intervals, surrounding properties, improvements to those properties, surrounding public streets, private roads, and other thoroughfares; An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the location and type of boundary evidence; c. A map showing: The following existing physical conditions: streams, wooded areas, potential non-tidal wetlands, slopes in excess of twenty-five (25) percent, historic structures and sites included in the records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, floodplain, and any identified features in the open space element of the comprehensive plan; Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet; other interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning and community development where topographic considerations warrant; 3. Existing roads, easements, and utilities; 4. The existing owners and zoning district; The present use of adjoining tracts and the location of structures on adjoining parcels, if any; and 6. The existing location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site; An application plan based on a minimum of two (2) data references for elevations to be used on plans and profiles showing: The areas to be designated as preservation areas, if appropriate, and areas to be designated as conservation areas, such as streams, wooded areas, specimen trees, non-tidal wetlands, and other significant environmental features; 2. The proposed grading/topography with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals; 3. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths; 4. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape; 5. Connections to existing and proposed streets, as well as proposed thoroughfares shown March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 19) on the comprehensive plan; 6. Trip generation figures; The general lay-out for the water and sewer systems, conceptual stormwater management, and a conceptual mitigation plan; The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, such as major employment areas, parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green spaces, amenities and recreation areas; A summary of land uses including dwelling types and densities, and the gross floor areas for commercial and industrial uses; 10. The general lot lay-out; and 11. Standards for development including proposed yards, building heights, open space characteristics, and any landscape or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district. Sec. 8.5.2 Preapplication conferences Each applicant for a planned development shall attend a joint meeting with the planning, engineering, and zoning staff as well as other qualified officials from outside agencies such as the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Albemarle County Service Authority to review the application plan and the proposed development before the application is submitted. The purpose of the preapplication conference shall be to assist the applicant to assure that the application and the documents to be submitted with the application comply with all applicable regulations, and to identify as soon as possible conflicting regulations and necessary waivers or modifications. Each applicant is encouraged to use the preapplication conference process to develop an application for a planned development that, when submitted with its supporting documents, will be as complete and comprehensive as possible. Sec. 8.5.3 Review and recommendation by the planning commission Each application for a planned development shall be reviewed by the planning commission as follows: The commission shall consider and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors on each application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. Within the time provided to make a recommendation, the commission may hold work sessions on the application and proceed to a public hearing after it determines that no further work sessions are necessary, or at any time the applicant requests a public hearing. In making its recommendation on the application to the board of supervisors, the commission shall make findings about the following: The suitability of the tract for the proposed planned development in terms of: its relation to all applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to the surrounding area; The relation of the proposed planned development to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services; Each requested waiver or modification, including whether the requirements of section 8.2 are satisfied. Depending on the findings it makes, the commission shall either recommend approval of the application as proposed, approval of the application with changes to be made prior to action on the application by the board of supervisors, or disapproval. Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. If the board approves the application, the approving action shall constitute approval of the application plan and all standards for development submitted by the applicant. The board's action shall also identify which proffers it has accepted and which waivers or modifications it has granted. Once an application is approved, the application plan, all submitted standards for development, and all accepted proffers shall be included as part of the zoning regulations applicable to the planned development. Sec. 8.5.5 Final site plans and subdivision plats Sec. 8.5.5.1 Contents of site plans and subdivision plats Each site plan and subdivision plat submitted for development in a planned development shall comply with March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 20) the following: Generally. Each site plan for a planned development shall comply with section 32 of this chapter, subject to the waiver or modification of any such regulation pursuant to section 8.5.3(b)(3). Each subdivision plat for a planned development shall comply with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, subject to the waiver, variation or substitution of any such regulation pursuant to section 14-237. Within the neighborhood model zoning district. In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a), each site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development within the neighborhood model zoning district shall pertain to a minimum area of one block and shall include a phasing plan, and each site plan shall include building elevations for all new or modified structures. Sec. 8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and subdivision plats Each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations: (1) in effect at the time the lands were zoned to a planned development district; or, (2) at the option of the applicant, currently in effect. In addition, each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the following: The approved application plan, and the approved standards for development, the accepted proffers, and the authorized waivers or modifications and any conditions imposed therewith, if any; The permitted uses within the planned development zoning district, including all proffers, as determined by the zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and community development; in making this determination, the zoning administrator shall be guided by section 22.2.1 of this chapter; In addition to the foregoing, conformity with the application plan and the standards of development. Within each neighborhood model zoning district, the general development plan and the code of development, as determined by the director of planning and community development after consultation with the zoning administrator. Sec. 8.5.5.3 Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development The director of planning and community development may allow a site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development to vary from an approved application plan, standard of development and, also, in the case of a neighborhood model district, a general development plan or code of development, as provided herein: The director is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved plan, code or standard: 1. Minor variations to yard requirements, maximum structure heights and minimum lot sizes; Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided that the major elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same; 3. Changes to phasing plans; 4. Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards; and 5. Minor variations to street design. The applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director; the request shall specify the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is sought, and state the reason for the requested variation; the director may reject a request that fails to include the required information. The director is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination that the variation: (1) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application. d. Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by rezoning. Sec. 8.5.5.4 Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits may be issued as provided herein: a. A building permit, including any special footings or foundation permits, may be issued for any work within a planned development, excluding the installation of street signs, only after the approval of the final site plan or final subdivision plat in the area in which the permit would apply. b. An erosion and sediment control permit may be issued for site preparation grading associated with March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 21) an approved planned development if an erosion and sediment control plan satisfactory to the director of engineering and public works has been submitted and reviewed in conjunction with the application plan, and the director of planning and community development determines the proposed grading is consistent with the approved application plan. In cases where the director finds that there is not enough detail on the approved application plan to assure consistency, no erosion and sediment control permit shall be issued until the final site plan is approved, or the final plat is tentatively approved. Within each neighborhood model district, the department of planning and community development shall review each building permit application or modification to determine whether the proposed structure conforms with the architectural and landscape standards in the approved code of development. Sec. 8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdivision plat requirements for planned development zoning districts established without an application or application plan If a planned development zoning district was established without an approved application plan as required by section 8, then neither a site plan nor a subdivision plat shall be approved for any lands within the district unless and until an application plan and all other documents required by section 8.5 are submitted by the owner and are approved as provided therein. If such a district was previously established in conjunction with an approved site plan the approved site plan shall be deemed to be the application plan, and the district shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of section 8. In such a case, if the site plan or subdivision plat has expired, a new site plan or subdivision plat must be approved prior to any development activity. (Amended 7-16-86) Sec. 8.6 Amendments to planned development districts Each amendment to a planned development district shall be submitted and reviewed as provided in section 8. In addition, with each application to amend the area of the planned development district, or to amend the proffers, the application plan, the general development plan, or the code of development within an area that is less than the entire district, the applicant shall submit a map showing the entire existing planned development district and identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district, or identifying the area to which the amended proffers, application plan, general development plan, or code of development will apply. Section 20A Neighborhood Model -NMD Sec. 20A.1 Purpose and intent The purpose of the Neighborhood Model district (hereinafter referred to as the "NMD") is to establish a planned development district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the county's Neighborhood Model, will occur. The county's Neighborhood Model was adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Neighborhood Model." The regulations in section 20A encourage a development form and character that is different from conventional suburban development by providing the following characteristics: Pedestrian orientation; Neighborhood friendly streets and paths; Interconnected streets and transportation networks; Parks and open space as amenities; Neighborhood centers; Buildings and spaces of human scale; Relegated parking; Mixture of uses and use types; Mixture of housing types and affordability; Redevelopment; Site planning that respects terrain; and Clear boundaries with the rural areas. The NMD is intended to provide for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The particular uses permitted within a particular district, as well as the character, form and density of the development, shall be derived from the comprehensive plan, including the land use plan for the applicable development area, the master plan for the applicable development area, and the Neighborhood Model. Density shall be achieved with careful attention to design, as articulated in the Neighborhood Model. These regulations are intended to provide an applicant with maximum flexibility in creating and implementing the general development plan and the code of development. Sec. 20A.2 Status as a planned development district An NMD is a planned development district within the meaning of section 8 of this chapter, subject to the following: March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 22) As a planned development district, the standards for development shall be particular to the district and not be based on standards established for conventional zoning districts or the general standards for commercial or industrial districts in sections 21 and 26, respectively, of this chapter. The standards for development that are submitted by an applicant and approved by the board of supervisors for a particular NMD shall be the district's code of development described in section 20A.5. An application is not necessarily required to possess every characteristic of the Neighborhood Model delineated in section 20A.1 in order to be approved as an NMD. The size of the proposed district, its relationship to a larger neighborhood, or other similar factors may prevent the application from possessing every characteristic. c. An NMD shall have no minimum acreage requirement. Sec. 20A.3 Application requirements; required documents and information The following documents and information shall be submitted in addition to any other documents required to be submitted under section 8.5 of this chapter: A statement describing how the proposed NMD satisfies the intent of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the applicable goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the land use plan, the master plan for the applicable development area, and the Neighborhood Model; if one or more characteristics of the Neighborhood Model delineated in section 20A.1 are missing from an application, the applicant shall justify why all of the characteristics cannot or should not be provided; A parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements and includes strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements, including phasing plans, parking alternatives as provided in section 4.12.8 of this chapter, and transportation demand management strategies as provided in section 4.12.12 of this chapter. Strategies for establishing shared stormwater management facilities, off-site stormwater management facilities, and the proposed phasing of the establishment of stormwater management facilities. A general development plan, as provided in section 20A.4, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the plan. A code of development, as provided in section 20A.5, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the code. Sec. 20A.4 General development plans A general development plan shall serve as the application plan required by section 8.5.1 (d) of this chapter. In addition to the application plan requirements of section 8.5.1 (d), the following are required elements of the general development plan: The amount of gross square footage devoted to nonresidential uses and a residential equivalent, expressed as the product of the square feet per unit multiplied by the number of dwelling units proposed. If a residential equivalent is not provided by the applicant, it shall be the product of one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet multiplied by the number of dwelling units proposed. The general allocation of uses to each block in terms of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, amenities, parks, recreational facilities open to the public, and any other use category proposed by the applicant and which complies with the requirements of section 20A.8. The location of proposed green spaces, amenities, conservation areas or preservation areas, as provided in section 20A.9. Building footprints or graphic representations of central features or major elements that are essential to the design of the development, shown at the block level. Sec. 20A.5 Codes of development A code of development shall establish the unifying design guidelines, the specific regulations for the district, and the use characteristics of each block; provide for certainty in the location of and appearance of central features, and the permitted uses in the district; and provide a flexible range of a mix of uses and densities. To satisfy these requirements, each code of development shall establish: a. The uses permitted in the district by right and by special use permit, as provided in section 20A.6. The amount of developed square footage proposed, delineated for the entire NMD and by block by use, amenity, streets and lot coverage. The developed square footage may be expressed as a March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 23) proposed range of square footage. c. The maximum residential densities, as provided in section 20A.7, and the maximum number of residential units for individual residential land use categories and mixed-use categories, delineating at least two (2) housing types, as provided in section 20A.8. d. The amount of land area devoted to green space and amenities, as provided in section 20A.9. e. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (a). f. All uses expressly prohibited in the district, so that they may not be considered to be uses accessory to a permitted use. g. Architectural and landscape standards that will apply in the NMD, which shall address the following: 1. The form, massing, and proportions of structures; 2. Architectural styles; 3. Materials, colors, and textures; 4. Roof form and pitch; 5. Architectural ornamentation; 6. Facade treatments, including window and door openings; 7. Landscape treatments; and 8. The preservation of historic structures, sites, and archeological sites identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. h. Preliminary lot lay-out. i. For each block: 1. The range of uses permitted on the block by right and by special use permit; 2. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (i)(1); 3. Build-to lines, which are the required distance from the right-of-way to a structure; 4. Minimum and maximum lot and yard dimensions; 5. Maximum building heights; 6. Sidewalk and pedestrian path locations; 7. Green space and amenities; 8. Conservation areas and preservation areas, if applicable; 9. Parking areas; 10. Civic spaces, which are public areas for community or civic activities (e.g., libraries and their associated yards, schools and places of worship); Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the approved general development plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers: a. By right uses, The following uses are permitted by right: 1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district, except for those uses allowed only by special use permit delineated in subsection (b); provided that the use is identified in the approved code of development. 2. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformity with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 24) 3. Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings. 4. Home occupation, Class A, where the district includes residential uses. 5. Temporary construction uses. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies, public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. 7. Tourist lodgings, where the district includes residential uses. 8. Homes for developmentally disabled persons, where the district includes residential uses. b. By special use permit. The following uses are permitted by special use permit: 1. Drive-through windows serving or associated with permitted uses. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a by right permitted use, if any portion of the use would be visible from a travelway. Sec. 20A.7 Residential density Residential density within each NMD shall be as follows: The gross residential density should be within the applicable recommended gross density range established in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. In its deliberations regarding the appropriate residential density for the district, the board of supervisors shall take into account the amount of land devoted to non-residential uses. The gross residential density shall be measured in dwelling units per acre and calculated by taking the gross acreage of the district divided by the proposed number of dwelling units in the proposed district. Sec. 20A.8 Mixture of uses There shall be a mixture of uses within each NMD as follows: Each district shall have at least two housing types; provided that this requirement may be waived by the board of supervisors if the district is an infill project or at least two (2) housing types are already present within one-quarter mile of the proposed district. The following are considered to be different housing types: (1) single family detached dwellings; (2) single family attached dwellings; (3) duplexes; (4) triplexes; (5) quadplexes; (6) townhouses; (7) multifamily dwellings; (8) accessory apartments; (9) manufactured housing; and (10) special needs housing such as assisted living facilities, group homes, and nursing homes. An "infill project" is a project in which a parcel is developed or redeveloped, where abutting or nearby parcels are already developed, and the project area is relatively small compared to the developed abutting or nearby parcels. Each district shall have at least two different general use classifications (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, parks or recreational facilities open to the public); provided that this requirement may be waived by the board of supervisors if a different use is already present within one-quarter mile of the proposed district and accomplishes the mixture of uses within the neighborhood sought to be achieved by this section to an equivalent degree. The mixture of uses shall be based upon the uses recommended in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. The required mixture of uses may be obtained with different uses in different buildings or a mixture of uses within the same building. Sec. 20A.9 Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas Each NMD shall include the following: a. Green space. The minimum area devoted to green space is as follows: For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, transitional, neighborhood service, community service, or office service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office regional or industrial service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least fifteen March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 25) percent (15%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to green space. The minimum area devoted to green space may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors: the relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby properties containing public green space such as parks or natural areas; the known future uses of the of the adjoining properties; and whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan. b. Amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities is as follows: For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, neighborhood service, and community service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office service, office regional service or industrial service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent (10%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors: the relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby properties containing amenities; the proportion of residential uses to nonresidential uses proposed; the known future uses of the of the adjoining properties; and whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan. c. Additional requirements for amenities. Amenities shall also be subject to the following: At least ninety percent (90%) of the residential units in the NMD shall be within a one-quarter mile walk of an amenity. The size, location, shape, slope and condition of the land shall be suitable for the proposed amenity. 3. The amenity shall be suitable for the specific population to be served. The design of any recreational facilities shall meet the minimum design requirements from recognized sources of engineering and recreational standards. In nonresidential areas of the development, amenities shall be located so that they are easily accessible to patrons and employees of the development. Green space within parks and recreational amenities. Any portion of an amenity that is covered in grass or other vegetation may be counted as both green space and an amenity. Preservation areas within green space. shall be included as green space area. Conservation areas within green space. shall be included as green space area. Preservation areas that preserve environmental features Conservation areas that maintain environmental features Sec. 20A.10 Streets Each street within an NMD shall meet the street standards for a traditional neighborhood development established by the department of engineering and public works. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 33.4 Public hearing - notice The commission and the board of supervisors shall hold a public hearings on any such petition or resolution as provided by Virginia Code § 15.2-2285, after notice is provided as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204. If any portion of the affected property is within a planned development, then, in addition to the notice required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204, notice shall be given to the owners, or their agents or the occupants, of each parcel within the planned development. The notice shall be given in the manner provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 for notice to abutting properties. However, failure to give the additional notice March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 26) provided in this paragraph to an owner, agent or occupant of any parcel within the planned development shall not invalidate any action by the commission or the board of supervisors affecting the planned development. Sec. 33.5 Report by planning commission to board of supervisors after hearing After the conclusion of the hearing provided for in this section, unless the proceedings are terminated as provided herein, the commission shall report to the board of supervisors its recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment. Failure of the commission to report to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission following the date the proposed amendment has been referred to the commission shall be deemed approval by the commission. In acting favorably with respect to a proposed amendment initiated by the petition of a property owner or owners, the commission need not confine its recommendation to the proposed amendment as set forth in the petition, but may reduce or enlarge the extent of land that it recommends be rezoned or may recommend that land be rezoned to a different zoning classification than that petitioned for, if, the commission is of the opinion that such revision is in accord with public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice and is in furtherance of the purposes of this ordinance and section; provided that before recommending an enlargement of the extent of land or a rezoning to a less restricted classification than was set forth in the petition, the commission shall hold a further hearing on the matter, pursuant to the requirements of Virginia Code Section 15.2-2204 and section 33.4. No amendment to the zoning map shall be approved for a change in zoning classification different from that applied for and contained in the public notice of hearing nor for any land not included therein without referring said change to the commission for its review and recommendations and proceedings pursuant to this section and section 33.3; provided, however, that an amendment may be approved for only a portion of the area proposed for rezoning if the portion rezoned is accurately and sufficiently delimited in the approval action, or if a portion is reclassified pursuant to section 30.3. Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas urged the Board members to attend the meeting on March 27 concerning the intersection at Hydraulic Road and Emmet Street. She has seen a preview and it is impressive. It is something the City and County will have to work on together. (WITHOUT A MIKE) Mr. Bowerman offered motion that the board advertise the existing tax rate of $0.76/$100 for real estate and $4.28/$100 for personal property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: Ms. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Dorrier said the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance was scheduled for a hearing on March 26. Due to a conflict, it could not be held on that date. The Board needs to decide when it will be heard since the Planning staff has over 1400 notices to mail. It involves quite a bit of work and expense to do so. Mr. Martin said he thought one of the questions Mr. Dorrier was going to ask is whether the Board wants to continue or not. Mr. Dorrier said that is a real issue. He has been receiving a lot of mail in opposition to the presently configured ordinance. That is the one the Board was considering four years ago. He has often thought the Board needed to look at the matter again and see if it is doing the right thing. He thinks there should be more property owners on a committee to deal with it, a little like what was done for the Neighborhood Model. There needs to be a consensus and there is not one. Mr. Rooker said he was called to see if he minded if this item was removed from the agenda. He did not object to moving the hearing to another date. There have been two open forums where staffwas available to discuss the ordinance. He thinks the hearing on the ordinance should go forward. He has had many people either send e-mails or letters who are in support of the ordinance. It is clear that people on both sides have differing opinions. Mr. Martin said that way back he asked why the Board was asking staff to spend a lot of time on something that is opposed by three members of the Board. This is an example of something that has gone terribly bad. What has happened during the past four years to cause the Board to revisit this issue? He has received some comments in favor, but he does not see any reason to move forward when he does not think it will go anywhere. Mr. Bowerman said he has come to the conclusion that in its current form he will not support the ordinance. There is adequate room for some sort of consensus. He thinks the Board should give that a chance to take place first. He is not sure an ordinance is the best way to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 27) Mr. Dorrier said some parties feel they have been left out of the process. These are the people who own the mountains. They should have some input. Mr. Rooker said the ordinance went through a long process to get to where it is today. There are numerous people who own mountain properties who are in favor. They came to both of the open forums. He does not object to allowing some additional time so various groups can have input. Mr. Bowerman asked what pieces the Board needs to put in place. Mr. Martin said the Board could put together the folks who were on the last committee and add people who will oppose each other and let them "duke it out." Mr. Rooker said he would like to have another alternative. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Perkins' main concern was with road provisions. She thinks there are ways to change the road aspect that even the first time around would have gotten a different vote. The County has been working on the rural areas for the past four years, but nobody is looking at the mountain areas. There are a couple of things that have changed since the Board dealt with this ordinance four years ago, and she does not want to just let it drop. Mr. Martin compared this ordinance to the one just adopted. He said there was strong opposition, but there is support now. He does not see any harm in trying to see it that way. Mr. Rooker said at the Planning Commission hearing in 1998, eighty percent of the people who spoke against it actually spoke against things which are not in the ordinance. It was interesting to see the people who came in and talked about the maps and the staff. It was not as bad as they thought. He asked staffto come back with a recommendation for a committee that might do some of what DISC II did with the neighborhood model, take an existing model and bring back a consensus. He thinks an ordinance should be passed. Mr. Martin said a lot of people encouraged the Board to not vote for the plan. Mr. Dorrier said the question is whether the ordinance is overly restrictive Mr. Martin said the Board should advertise for committee members, make a few phone calls, and then make the appointments. Ms. Thomas asked what staffing is available for this work. Mr. Cilimberg said there are three staff members available to work on rural areas matters. He thinks it would take one of those staff people to do this work. Staff needs to know where this ordinance sits on the Board's plans. Mr. Martin said it is not a priority item for him. Mr. Dorrier said he does not think the Board needs to rush forward with an ordinance that is not supported. Mr. Rooker said there is already a proposed ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan has already been amended. Mr. Martin said it is hard to get people not wanting to reinvent the wheel. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board let staff bring back some further information. It can look at contracting with somebody to help staff. At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion to cancel the meeting of March 26. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn to March 27, 2003. With no further business to come before the Board, at 9:05 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this meeting until March 27, 2003, for a public workshop on the Route 29/Hydraulic/Route 250 Bypass Intersections Study. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. March 19, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting (Page 28) Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 06/04/2003 Initials: GAK