Loading...
1980-01-16January 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, on January 16, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesv~ Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr' Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County ExecutiYe; Mr. George R. St. County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M. by the Chair~ Fisher, who requested a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79-74. Noah E. Wood, Sr. To locate a mobile home on acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the south side of Route 676 approximately miles west of the intersection of Routes 676 and 678. County Tax Map 58, Parcel 3£ Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 20, 1979.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and presented the staff report: "Request: Mobile Home Acreage: 3.8 acres Zoning: A-1 Location: ROute 676, approximately three miles north of Route 250, near Ivy. Character of the Area: This area, known as the Turner's Mountain area, is cox of steeply rolling topography. The hills slope off from Turner's Mounta~ Spring Creek to the north, a fall of almost 560 feet over approximately ¢ The hillsides are primarily wooded with both deciduous and evergreen tree The ridge leading down to the subject property, along Route 676, is open. in the area consists of a number of single-family structures, located ale north of Route 676 on the ridge overlooking Spring Creek, and south of tX property on the slopes of Turner's Mountain. Many of these structures ar construction. Staff Report: Applicant proposes to locate a mobile home in a clearing south just below an existing mobile home on adjacent property. The mobile home the owner's parents who are moving from another home in the area. The p~ location is visible from the roadway, the property directly across from ~ those properties above it on the ridge (as one travels east from the site twelve parties objecting to this request, three objections have an unobst view of the parcel, while only one would have a clear view of the mobile it is located on the property. The mobile home itself would also be clea~ visible from the roadway. If the Planning Commission and Board of Super~ choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditio~ 1. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on January 15, 1980 unanimously recom~ approval with the addition of a second condition to read: "That the mobile home sp permit is personal to Mr. and/or Mrs. Noah Wood, Sr., and that the mobile home will removed when both shall cease to occupy it." Mr~. Tucker said those persons who app opposition at the Planning Commission's public hearinx withdrew their o~osition o~ January 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) ~cker. presented the following staff report: Les W. Hurt is petitioning for two amendments to uses permitted in the M-1 Light ~rial District. The amendment to uses permitted by right would expand an existing ~ion; the amendment to uses by special use permit would be a new provision. ~ent A to uses b.y right: Lined): Amend existing Section 8-1-34 as follows (new wording 4 Engineer, engineering design, light manufacturing~ assembly and fabrication ~hinery and components, including such on-site ae,e**e~ uses, accessory or ~ise, as machining, threading~ babbitting, welding, and sheet metal work Ting machinery not exceeding ~ 1-50 (sic) horsepower per unit and excluding ~ses as drop hammering and foundry. reviewed the tape of the Board meeting at which this provision was originally adopt~ ~ust, 1978, and offers the following summary. (This is staff's interpretation; the Ls available for review from the Clerk of the Board): ~oncern was expressed that the 15 hp limitation may be too high. After discussion, ~ hp limit was approved. This applicant's petition would raise the limit to 50 hp; ~he intent appeared to be to accommodate primarily engineering design with other ~ermitted in an accessory manner. (For example, it was noted that welding operation~ ?ovided by special use permit.) Under the applicant's proposal, any use permitted be a primary use. ~ition, "light manufacturing" is included in the applicant's proposal, but no defini~ ~ered. Therefore, staff opinion is that the applicant's request would significantly this use by right, exceeding the intent of the original provision. Staff agrees ~he addition of "threading" for clarification, though staff opinion is that ~ding" is included under "machining." ("Tap and die work" may be a more precise ~han "threading.") n~nt B: A new use by special use permit: ~(15) Engineering, engineering design, light manufacturing, assembly, and ~ation of machinery and components, including such on-site uses, accessory or ~ise, as machining, threading, babbitting, welding, and sheet metal work employing aery not exceeding 200 horsepower per unit and excluding such uses as drop hammering ~undry. is not as concerned-with this amendment since the use is by special use permit would provide opportunity for the County to apply conditions of approval or ay a request." ~cker said the Planning Commission discussed these amendments at their meeting auary 15, 1980. Discussion centered around Section 8-1~7(15)~, specifically the r 200 horsepower. The staff felt that as long as this came under the special use cedure, the Planning Commission and the Board could limit the number of horsepower l~t it necessary or even deny the request if it was felt not to be compatible with ading area. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended on January 15, 1980, ~nge be made to Section 8-1-3~ of the Zoning Ordinance but recommended the adoptio~~ 8~t-27(15) as a use by special p~rmit in the M-1 zone, with wording as recommended ff. January 16, 1980 (RegularYNight Meeting) . Mrs. Josephine Murray, resident of the area, pointed out that oYer twenty resi.¢ the Woolen Mills area are present in support of the statement made by Mr. Murray. With no one else present to sPeak~fOr or against the petition, the public hear~ closed. Dr. Iachetta felt the original intent of Section 8-1-34 was to allow creative design to have the ability to execute a "one-of-a-kind" design. From an engineerin~ of view, he contested the idea that this is going from the engineering design concet light manufacturing concept. He felt the definition of light manufacturing should defined first and then let the engineering be incidential to that use. Dr. Iachett~ not object to light manufacturing but felt the two items have become confused by tr~ broaden a definition which never was constructed to deal with manufacturing in the zone. He did not feel high-powered machinery is needed for light manufacturing nor feel this approach provides for light manufacturing if that is the intent of the apt Dr. Iachetta said it appears that the neighbors prefer light manufacturing, if anyt! to come into the neighborhood. Therefore, he felt the definition for light manufac~ should be reworked if that is desired. Mr. Lindstrom said the problem with amendment B is that the Zoning O~dinance az constructed, is very specific about what is permitted. There is not a general defi~ to cover a number of possible uses. The fact that this amendment would allow these special use permit minimizes the danger. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Dr. Iachetta th~ light manufacturing zone was being drawn out of what was to have been engineering. since this will be by special use permit and the new Zoning Ordinance will have peri standards to address this issue, he was willing to support the amendment. Dr. Iachetta said the danger is that once this amendment is adopted, it can be anywhere in the County. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. However, the special, use provision ~ the County sufficient discretion to protect surrounding uses, but if this requires substantial amount of staff research he was not willing to support it. Mr. Fisher under the special use permit the public can be heard from and the County can review application for ~he area to which the application pertains. He did think~it was mit to put power limits in an ordinance that generally.is not going to be approved by t~ Board. He was concerned that the 200 horsepower limit is a very high level and app~ thirteen times what is now allowed by right. Dr. Iachetta said he had in mind a nu~ that is more consiStent with what light industry requires and then offered~motion t~ the recommendation of the Planning Commission to not change Section 8-1-34 of the Z¢ Ordinance, but to amend and reenact Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance by the additi¢ Section 8-1-27(15) as a use by special permit in the M-1 Light Industrial District, the language recommended by the Planning Commission, but change the horsepower to 5( Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No 4. MA-79~. Charles W. Hurt (Deferred from December 5, 1979.) To rezone 17.33 acres from M-] Based on the pre~ious action, Mr. James Hill, representing the applicant, requ~ withdrawal of ZMA-79-34, without prejudice. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabus seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to accept the request of the applicant. Roll was called foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: M~ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. January 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeti~) cker said on January 15, 1980, the Planning Commission recommended by a vote of oval of the requested rezoning of six acres to M-1. The ~two dissenting votes on a statement by the applicant that the entire tract was not needed at this Commission members dissenting felt some lesser acreage would be adequate for the velopment rather than rezoning the entire tract. Mr. Fisher asked how much of y could be reasonably developed for M-1 uses. It appears that the terrain of ty is different from most of the other industrial land in the area. Mr. Tucker are some steeper slopes which would require a considerable amount of grading to ble, but, roughly 1,000 feet area from the right of way would be usable. Mr. the applicant needs an office immediately and can use the offices that Benoit rehouse will have to be constructed and the additional acreage is needed because requirements. blic hearing was then opened. Mr. Reggie Miles, a partner of MPM Partnership, He said the facilities on Berkmar Drive are inadequate for the company and ty was purchased with the idea of future expansion. The immediate plans would arehouse facility on the property to extend beyond the present M-1 zoning, even 1 zoning. Mr. Miles said the contracting operation is basically interior systems for accoustical, drywall and other items. Since the business will be bringing o the operation, a larger warehouse facility is needed and that was the reason e was bought than the company had at the Industrial Park. Mr. Miles said th~ requesting the entire parcel rezoned tonight is to avoid having to come back at e. sher noted his concern about the terrain of the property. Mr. Miles felt some 1 make the property usable and there is sufficient land in the front for present o one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was udabush did not feel a person should be required to establish two uses for a .e feels that he has a reasonable use for the land. He felt accessory uses could hed on the rugged part of the property, uses permitted under M-1 zoning, that equire an extensive change to the site. Mr. Roudabush felt the request was 'rom having a speculator come in with a request and the purpose for the site is !e felt this location is good for what the applicant has in mind. Mr. Lindstrom te Plan Ordinance will protect the County on any use of the rear property and the .ot that large. Dr. Iachetta agreed with Mr. Roudabush that the division of he tract was erroneous from the beginning. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabus? ZMA-79~6 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley seconded the ~sher had concerns but noted support of the motion because he felt the rear property .fficult to develop. Mr. Henley felt many parts of a tract are often not usable. ~t see cutting off a small part and retaining existing zoning of A-1 on that small Henley also agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that the Site Plan Ordinance will protect Dr. Iachetta agreed and felt the site plan process has to be relied upon to ~ompatible use of that tract in its entirety. Roll was then called on the foregoing same carried by the following recorded vote: ~rs. F. isher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. Jefferson Cable. To locate a receiving tower on 234.165 January 16, 1980 (Regular NiEht Meeting) Mr. Fisher said due to the fact that this is a receiving tower and there will with radiation, he supported the request. Dr. Iachetta then~offered motion to appz with the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr, Roudabush seconded motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. At 8:42 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 8:50 P.M. Agenda Item No. 7. To amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Camelot arc community. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 2, 1980 and January 9, 19~ Mr. Fisher said agenda item no. 8, ZMA-79~3~, triggered this hearing. The Commission felt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan should be considered to inc] Camelot area as a community due to the size of the proposed Briarwood development. due to advertisement problems the item could not be heard by the Planning Commissi¢ m 2. same time as ZMA-79~3 Therefore, the Board requested deferral of the Briarwood until this amendment could be acted on by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: ".Proposed Piney Mountain Community Borders The proposed community is bordered on the south by the flood plain of the Nort Fork of the Rivanna River, a series of lakes, a drainage swale and Route 600 ¢ east; a drainage swale, Route 606, and a second drainage swale to the north; s a drainage swale and the flood plain of the North Fork on the west. Natural Land Use Determinants Hydrology The community lies within the watershed of the North Fork of the Rivanna River which borders it on the south. Herring Branch, which runs parallel with Route 29 North, splits the community in two. This stream system comprises a portion of the flood plain at its southern end and separates a potential resid area from the existing industrial (Badger-Powhatan) and commercial (Ward's Mob Homes) area on Route 29 North. Two small lakes, offering recreational opportunities, have been constructed in of drainage swales leading off the flood plain to the east of Route 29 North. Soils and Geology The Piney Mountain area lies within the Culpeper-Albemarle-Louisburg general s association. This association has moderate limitations for construction of drainfields and only moderate potential for agricultural operations. The geology of the area includes two different formations: (1) the Lynchburg made up of fine grained silty sediments, metamorphosed in part, varved like la of graphitic and sericitic schist and thick beds of quartz, biotite gneiss~an Januarys6 1~0 ~R~egular ~Ni_ght Meetin~g) .eation of the Piney Mountain Community absorbs population displaced from other ~ areas that have been cut back in size, density or even eliminated entirely. .ng that the elimination of Keswick, Esmont and Nix, and the cutting back of Garden equals a reduction of approximately 615 units or 1845 people (50% of ,mprehensive Plan projections), and that the reduction in densities in the Urban ~atershed zone equals 3060 persons (1020 units), then the total reduction is 4905 ,. Excluding the 124 units of the North Pines Subdivision from the Piney .in population totals gives a figure of 5380 persons. This is 485 persons ;he amount taken away from the growth areas in previous actions. .n,g Land Use ,mmunity is comprised of approximately 920 acres, 90 acres of which are ~tly-developed. Existing uses include the subdivision of Camelot .ots, density of 1-2 units per acre), two industries (Badger-Powhatan and General 'ic), and some commercial uses (including a restaurant and a mobile home establishment). ~e the fact that the Comprehensive Plan does not recognize the community as a ~ center, the Piney Mountain area is extensively zoned for development. ~ntial, both high and low densities, commercial and industrial zoning exists on ~ides of Route 29 North. ~ed Plan 'oposed land use plan adheres to the recommendations for facilities le requested densities in preliminary applications for a residential planned ~orhood west of Route 29 North. East of Route 29 North is recommended for low ~u/acre) residential densities. Two commercial areas are provided totalling :imately 15 acres together, and serving the areas on each side of Route 29. No ~or industrial expansion is provided. Fifteen acres of land is set aside public land category for an elementary school. ~tal impacts, including existing development, would be as follows: TABLE Impacts of Land Development Community of Piney Mountain ~ntial-Low (1-4 du/acre) ~ntial-Low/Medium (6 du/acre) ~ntial-Total ?cial ;rial Population Dwelling Units 2475 825 2160 720 Sub-Total Public or Semi-Public Environmentally Sensitive TOTAL Acres 330 120 r5o 55 520 15 B85 920 aity.?acilities full complement of community services and facilities is needed p~r w~~ Community. Based'on a population of 5750, according to the (Regular Night Meeting) - Key Low Density Res._l~4du/ac._ Low,Med. Res. max. 6du/ac. Commercial Public,Semi-Public Industrial Environmentally Sensitive Community of Piney Mtn.~ Scale 1"- 2000' last recommendation was for the construction of a cul-de-sac on Camelot Drive, to ~revent traffic travelling south from the community from utilizing this existing ?esidential street as an exit. An alternate access, but more circuitous, would util St. Ives Road. z on which the committee disagreed, and the various positions, are as follOws: ommunity Boundaries: The committee contained a wide spectrum of perspective on this issue. The. alternatives ranged from expanding the community eastward by ~pproximately one-third its land area, to eliminating the existing, proposed eastern oortion entirely, to adding the area south of the North Fork and west of Route 29. the staff's proposal attempted to reflect existing zoning in the area, and, at ~he same time, establish a community with an identity separate from the Hollymead sommunity to the south. The boundaries as proposed reflect the total number of pers. displaced from other growth areas in previous actions by the Planning Commission · nd Board of Supervisors. ommunity Population and General Residential Densities: Perspectives on this issue ranged from expanding the boundaries along with raising the density called for east of Route 29 (an effective increase in the population called for in the staff's propo: to limiting the community to land west of Route 29 and north of the river, while lowering the density in this area to low (1-4 du/acre) density residential~ This la' ~lternative would cut the proposed population by approximately one-half. The Commit~ ~lso considered Shifting the population east of Route 29 to the land west of Route 2~ south of the North Fork, and clustering it in medium density near the industrial lanl to the south. chool Site (Public, Semi-Public Locations): The committee felt that the school site should, if possible, be located further to the south, nearer the existing Camelot Subdivision, and more centrally located in relation to the higher density residential Its present location has the benefit of a relatively mild slope compared with the majority of the land west of Route 29. More work needs to be done on this question. ndustrial Locations: A portion of the committee felt that existing zoning east of R~ 29 should be recognized in an expansion of industrial land in the northern area of the community." ucker said letter dated January 11, 1980 has been received from Dr. clarence uperintendent of Schools, noting that the School Board has reviewed the proposed e. The School Board does not feel comfortable in making a recommendation when a pending before the Planning Commission and Board for approval. However, the rd requested their architect to examine the site and'the architect felt the site Sed but pointed out certain limitations which have been indicated before, such as, to the south and one location where the'site is too narrow for a large structure. ect did conclude, however, that the site was usable for a school. Mr. Tucker said ng Commission on January 15, 1980, recommended that all property to the east side 9 be eliminated from the community. The committee recommended the inclusion of ncompassing the existing Camelot Subdivision, the proposed Briarwood area and the ectric area as part of the community. isher asked the location of the North Pines Subdivision and why it was not included munity. Mr. Tucker said the subdivision which is a low density, large lot developmel t side of Route 606 was approved by the Planning Commission six months ago. The n was not included in the community because the Commission was attempting to ly areas of more intensive uses. If the North Pines area was included, the school January 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) flood plain runs along the border of Camelot, up and along the river and devours a section of the R-3 area, which probably cannot be developed as R-3. The R-1 zoning protection to the residents because the density cannot be more than five dwelling u gross acre. Mr. Silcott did not feel the residents of Camelot will best be served Briarwood proposal. Therefore, he felt the Board may want to adopt a compromise to more on the size of a village rather than a community. Mr. Silcott said apartments built on the R-1 zoning in the area to provide housing for those who cannot afford property. He felt affordable housing is being built in the area, the majority sell $45,000 to the low $50's. Mr. Silcott said he feels t~e majority of people want to single-family, unattached housing and a plan should be developed for a village type based on a mixture of dwellings. Speaking next was Mr. Bob McKee, representing the applicant for ZMA-79-32, Bri He said the gross density in the Briarwood plan is 5.4 units per acre, approximatel allowed under the existing R-1 zoning. If the R-3 zoning were included and develop R-3 density, there would be 215 dwelling units as opposed to the present proposal. residents of Camelot have spoken previously against apartments and are now in favor Earlier comments were made that the properties in Camelot were worth more than the iow to moderate income housing and now a statement has been made that they are equa McKee said the County is attempting to channel growth to areas where utilities are and water and sewer can be made available here. Mr. McKee said there are three alt for sewer utilities: 1) Expand the existing Camelot facility; 2) pump along the r the AWT plant; or 3) build a new plant at the existing location. He did not see wa' sewer as a problem. He felt that all of the required amenities and infrastructure . available for the proposed development. Mr. McKee felt the opportunity is now avail direct growth in areas where there is a capability to handle same. Speaking next was Mr. Jim Rose, resident of Dorset Court in Camelot. He noted Dorset Court borders the flood plain area which has been proposed for a park and he opposed to the park. Mr. Rose did not favor this area being recommended in the Cow Plan as a growth area. ~Mr. Wendell Wood spoke next in support of the area being designated as a commu~ felt it was an error that the area was not included as such in the first two Comprel Plans. He then noted the industries in close proximity to the Camelot area and tha~ area has the only sewage treatment plant in the County outside of the new AWT plant Wood said the Comprehensive Plan goal is for 35% of the housing needs in the County directed at affordable housing. He did not know of anyone else proposing such a de as this due to the value of land in the County. The value of land closer to the ur! is too~prohibitive for affordable .housing. Also, a major transportation system is area. Mr. Wood concluded by saying he felt that the economics and transition of thc have brought about this proposal, and he felt this is something that should be recof Speaking next in support of the amendment was Mr. Dick Bell, local realtor. H~ that growth has been moving in this direction for years. He felt with the availabi] utilities, the transportation arteries, recreation and industry, this was a logical for the area. Mr. Larry Kane, resident of Camelot, was present in support of the plan withoul modifications. Mr. Robert Jordan, resident of Camelot, spoke next in support of the statement~ Mr. Sil¢ott. He would like for the community to be as congenial as it currently is new residents to the area. With no one else present to speak for or against the ComprehenSive~Plan amendm~ January 16,~ __!~80 (~egular Nig~ht _Meet_in~)~ Lndstrom said the initial reaction of the staff to the Briarwood application was :reated de facto a community in an area that was not shown for such in the Comprehen: ~ led to a reevaluation of what was available in the area. He then asked if the a legal risk by approving a development similar to the proposed magnitude of ~ithout designating the area as a community or Village. Mr. Tucker said PRD as ~ in the new Zoning Ordinance is envisioned to only be utilized in the urban area ~ are higher densities. Basically, he did'not feel the PRD, as written, would be ' u any other growth area. Mr. Roudabush asked if the original application for ~as for an RPN. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Henley was reluctant to downzone anything ?e is a very good reason. Utilities are in this area and the area is zoned for aerefore, he did not see any problem with designating this area as a village or ~nd having it conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said the issue of lion and some utilities existing and other utilities being possible, are a circumsta~ d occur in other locations in the county. He did not accept the idea that the 1 be designated a community because there have been some minor adjustments in the Urban Area plans. The potential growth in the urban area is expected to be twenty years and this area would have 13,000 people. The property owner has the y which is for single-family development and it is compatible with what exists. noted his relunctance to create another zone north of the River which will continue y sprawl from the city limits all the way up Route 29. He did not feel that is ounty wants to do in the area: At two different times over the last decade, s, county staff and the Planning Commission have examined the area and did not focusing growth here. Therefore, Mr. Fisher was reluctant to upgrade this area in~ ensive Plan because schools, roads and parks would have to be built and the Hollymea~ ready committted for that. enley felt there was some thrust in what Mr. Fisher said but noted the consultants ed places like Nix and North Garden where there are less than a dozen houses and at there was a credibility gap. oudabush said it is certain that the Briarwood tract will develop. Therefore, he the Board's responsibility to guide development in the area in the best way When comparing existing zoning to the proposal by the staff and the Planning in an updated Comprehensive Plan, he felt this proposal shows a better pattern to e the growth which will take place. He did not think the zoning that is existing accepted just because it is "on the books", when something better can be done. ush preferred planning the growth rather than letting it take place "helter skelter" indstrom felt the zoning, utilities, availability of industries, and the transportat: ere strong factors. Although, he has some problems with the details of the proposal feel these details eliminated the fact that the concept is valid and could work a. The strongest factor in his mind was the opportunity to create some moderate sing because he did not feel low income housing was something that could be accompli: te individual. Mr. Lindstrom then noted his willingness to support this Comprehensi~ merit. He felt this community would respond to the specific needs of the County be done in a manner that would not create a ghetto. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. ::' proval of the application on Briarwood with the projected density would create a thout designating this a growth area and amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. anytime the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are at odds with each substantial degree, there is a problem. Dr. Iachetta said if the applicant does not like what is approved, then he is not legally obligated to go forward evelopment and there will be the same inconsistency that now exists. Mr. Lindstrom .uestion is if the housing projected for low and moderate income is needed. He a determination has been made and this was the route to go. Mr. Fisher could not the emphasis being placed on the anticipated sales price of the units because he el the prices are that much different from any other area which has the same (Regular Nig~ht Meetin~g~ Mr. Lindstrom felt the law is explicit. The Board must be willing to change t zoning to conform to this Comprehensive Plan amendment, if same is adopted. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, to comment on tl roads shown on this Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Roosevelt said the County's ordina: regarding entrances to the highway along Route 29 will limit access to points 500 f more on each side of a crossover. Therefore, he felt the ordinance will lead to pr development along the front of this property~an~e~p~h~efg~f©~h~en~an~, minimum. Mr. Fisher asked if the proposed roads intersect with Route 29 at an exis' crossover. Mr. Roosevelt said that is his understanding. Mr. Lindstrom said there three areas where an existing crossover could be used. Mr. Roosevelt said the Coun' Comprehensive Plan amendment would be easier to implement if all of the land were r~ but with the ordinance limiting access to 500 feet on each side of a crossover, the could still be adequately protected even if the commercial strip is left. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment as by the Planning Commission to designate the Piney Mountain area as a village instea~ community. He noted his interest in doing everything that can be done reasonably to moderate income housing in the County. He felt the area has a number of qualities : of utilities, access points and employers. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Comprehensive PI~ is better than what presently exists and noted one of the objectives in the Compreh~ Plan is to provide low to moderate income housing. Mr. Henley.seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher could not support the motion because a statement was made by Mr. Wo~ it would not be possible to achieve this land pattern, particularly the commercial ~ ~He felt the land pattern would be good if developed as a village but with no assura~ such, he could not support the motion. Miss Nash felt the whole concept of a commu~ ivillage is artificial with only one landowner involved, except for Camelot Subdivis~ With Hollymead in close proximity, she did not feel there was a need for another sc~ .Mr. Wood has said he is not willing to give up his rights to the commercial zoning ~ 129. Miss Nash did not feel there was a need to get around one property owner's des~ the amendment. Mr. Henley supported the village plan and could not understand the ~ of other Board members in not wanting to create this as a village when there are so~ in the county with only six houses. Since this area has an existing subdivision, a treatment plant and a water system, he could not understand any reason to not desig~ as a village. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. St. John the effect of approving this amendment when it that the zoning on the ground does not conform to the plan. Mr. St. John said if t~ approved, the Board would be committed, or should at least attempt to, conform the ~ the Comprehensive Plan. If the zoning continues to exist, then the two are at odds respect to the industrial portion of the village, and he did not feel such was good, Dr. Iachetta said approving the amendment would mean taking action to change the ex~ zoning. Mr. St. John noted his disagreement with Mr. Wood's statement that the des~ on the map only means 'that amount of land will be allocated to a certain zoning des~ but not actually located in that location. Mr. St. John felt ..it should be made cles this time whether action to adopt this amendment means that the existing zoning will or whether the new plan will prevail. Mr. Henley said there is more than one way t¢ the zoning. Mr. Roudabush said he was not prepared to make any commitment on the z¢ For months, work has been done on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the urban and the villages. He did not feel the Board had made any commitment on those amend~ change the zoning to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Roudabush was not wiili make such a commitment because he would then be committed to a county-wide change. John said he was not advocating that anything be downzoned now or at anytime in the but if it is envisioned that this area will have a commercial strip down to the rive it should be drawn on the map now. Mr. Henley said he supported what is being shoW~ J an ua_~y 16~ 80 _Re~ ~r N~e~e_t~g~ ~chetta asked if it is still the intent that the 900+ units be of similar constructi~ ? said the plan calls for single-family, attached dwellings with the exception of Lly detached along Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road. He noted that condition #13 1 by the Planning Commission addresses that point. There is nothing to prohibit ~ment of single-family, detached dwellings on the property, but he did not feel happen because of the dimension of the lots. Mr. Fisher asked the width of the McKee said thirty-five feet. Mr. Tucker said that is one-half of the width of ~ts in Camelot Subdivision. ~blic hearing was then continued from the November 7, 1979 meeting.. Mr. Wendell ~pplicant said his land planner would present the revised road system and the the development. Mr. Bob McKee said in addition to the conditions stipulated by ~ Department in their September letter, ~me~d~tiOna~ b~es~~niag~~. p~li~a~E~:i~.~w~i~E©~ot~mp~ove State Route 606 from the southern entrance of ~ctric Company, south to the entrance of'Briarwood. This will be improved to andards and in accordance with the transportation study. Second, Camelot Drive ~minated in a cul-de-sac in order .to prevent any through traffic along Camelot ~rd, to provide a connection to St.~ Ives Road as an emergency route, and there additional development along that road. Finally, if the need is determined, some' parking would be provided in the recreational area. Mr. McKee then noted the the project. The estimated construction period for the total development is nine ~ever, the determination of years is difficult to calculate due to market conditions of lots to be in each phase are indicated on the plan. The area along Camelot be .developed over the first three years and the number is unknown since these agle-family detached units. He then noted that he did not think a ravine runs e school site and that the ravine was used to. determine the property line. achetta asked if utility requirements haVe been discussed with the Albemarle ~ice Authority. Mr. McKee said he was informed that a feasibility study had to be determine sewer capability. Dr. Iachetta then asked at whose expense the ~ould be expanded. Mr. McKee s~id it would be the developers expense. ood then updated the Board on meetings held with the Highway Department, members aning staff, and the residents of Camelot Subdivision. The units in Phases 1, 2 be the same lot size as those in Camelot, which is sixty-five feet. These will family, detached units and will be only sixty-five to seventy along St. Ives Road t Drive. Mr. Wood said an agreement has also been reached to extend St. Ives Road roject. This was a desire of the Highway Department. A survey on the density has cted by the Planning Department and this study shows that phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 3.7 dwelling units per acre as opposed to Camelot which has 5.0 dwelling units Nash asked if grading for one phase will have an affect on any other phase not loped. Mr. Wood said the only phase to be disturbed will be the one in progress. he advantage of this project is~that 50% of the land will remain in open space and e disturbed after development. Since there will be a cul-de-sac on Camelot Drive, be no way for the Briarwood residents to come through Camelot Drive to get to As for comments made earlier that this project destroy the community of Hollymead, feel that was relevant because houses in Hollymead are priced much higherJ The plan is sensitive to the environment. Mr. Wood said this project is adjacent to centers, a twelve-inch water line runs through the project, and a nine-inch sewer through the project. Any additional capacity needed for ~h~a~ewaEe treatment be added at the owner's expense. Mr. Wood was unaware of any other developer in attempting to do the things which he has agreed to do, such as widening Route ding utilities, and donating an eleven-acre site for the school. Mr. Wood said odification he h~ desires in the conditions is the sidewalk requirements. This January 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Speaking next was Mr. Bob Silcott, resident of Camelot. He noted the petition to the Board at the November 7 meeting which contained over 100 signatures of resid Camelot who are opposed to this plan. Although it has b.een stated that 50% of the remain in open space, he felt it is important to remember a large amount of that ar the flood plain. He did not disagree that there is a need for this type of housing did not feel it should all be centralized around the Camelot Subdivision. Mr. Silc there is affordable housing in the Camelot Subdivision and land is already zoned R- area. He also pointed out that there is some rental property at the top end of thi which will probably be for low income rental units. Therefore, he felt that could by those needing affordable housing. If this plan is approved, he would like a bu£ to be provided between Briarwood and Camelot Drive meaning that at least one-half o development should be left with single-family, unattached housing adhering to Prese in the R-1 zone which require more than the sixty-five foot road frontage. The CaM Subdivision is protected by R-1 zoning and he would like to see those restrictions Mr. Silcott also felt the park as proposed will not serve Briarwood because it is i which will have difficult access for the residents. In conclusion, Mr. Silcott sta the residents of Camelot are opposed to this plan. Speaking next was Mr. Jim Rose, resident of Dorset Court. He was opposed to t recreation area being located adjacent to his property and he said the other reside that area concur. Mr. Bill Howard spoke in support of the plan. He said there is a large demand affordable housing in the county and he urged approval of this request. Mr. Fred Grover, resident of 0rangedale, spoke next in support. He said with interest rate and the cost of land, there is a large segment of people in the area precluded from buying a house. He felt this plan provided the type of housing nece the citizens of the area. He noted the concerns of the residents of Camelot seem t this development will end up as a slum area. As a resident of 0rangedale for two y said that those property values have increased. Since most of the businesses and i are located and projected for the northern part of the County, Mr. Grover urged app this rezoning. Mrs. Julie Warren, resident of Camelot, expressed her concern about the housin being similar. She did not feel that 0rangedale could be compared to this since th smaller development. Mrs. Warren did not feel that this conforms to anything aroun Charlottesville. Mr. Robert Jordan, resident of Camelot, spoke next in opposition. He felt witl acreage in the County, there is not a need for all of the moderate priced housing i: County to be compounded in this one small area. He also was opposed to all of the being similar in design. Mr. Larry Kane spoke in support. He felt the development is needed to improve investment he has in his house in the Camelot Subdivision. He felt this was a much proposal than an apartment complex proposed in the near area. Mr. Dick Bell spoke next in support. He felt this was a logical place for thi because of its proximity to industry in the northern Part of the County. He then u: approval of the rezoning. An unidentified lady, resident of Camelot, spoke next in opposition and favore, lesser density with a mixture of housing types. January ~udy Bracken, President of the Bellair Homeowners Association, was present. She ~sociation is aware that the University has been instructed by the State Council Education to keep the County informed about plans for Birdwood. (Mr. Roudabush 0 the meeting at 12:12 A.M.) The University is also to cooperate with the locality stages of the Birdwood development. Mrs. Bracken said the Association has a ~oncerns; the basic concern being that the Birdwood plan will substantially increase a an already overburdened drainage system. She suggested any reevaluation of the ~ the system not be borne by the County nor the residents of Bellair. She suggested 0unty request the University to submit a more satisfactory solution to alleviate ial problems on an already overloaded drainage system. Mrs. Bracken said the a requests that these plans be provided before any work ~is begun on Birdwood. identified gentleman spoke next and noted that the stream behind Canterbury Road very dangerous and difficult in the t~imes of a flood. Lng next on behalf of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association was Mr.' Chuck ~ supported the recommendations of the Bellair Homeowners Association and urged ~ by the Board. He felt the University should work with the County during the t of Birdwood to assure the County that the cost of water, utilities and roads a borne by the County. isher did not feel he had any conflict of interest in requesting this information aiversity. ~chetta said a private developer is requested to assure that post development run-of ferent from pre-development run-off. Therefore, he felt the University Planning ~ld be asked if they intend to conform to this County regulation. He did not feel ency was different than a private individual. isher suggested a letter be sent to the University conveying the concerns of the ith a copy of the letter from the Bellair Homeowners Association and the staff's of concerns. He also suggested the letter include a request that the' Board be ~lans in order that a review by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervis eld for the citizens. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to that effect. Miss Nash he motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Mr. Roudabush and Miss Nash. e. a Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: July 18, 1979. no corrections to the minutes of July 18, 1979, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to me. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. e. a Item No. 11. Lottery Permit. gnor presented a lottery permit application for the Incarnation Catholic ~Church ar year 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to e lottery permit for calendar year 1980 in accordance with the Board's adopted (Adjourned Meeting of January 23, 1980) (from January 16, 198 .) (Night Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin~ held on January 23, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlc Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from January i6, 1980. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony C. Timothy Lindstrom, Miss Ellen V. Nash, and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. Joh~ E~rney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. At 7:35 P.M., the meeting was called to c Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher, who requested a moment of silence. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher reported that a letter was sent to Dr. Frank L. He~ President of the University of Virginia, requesting a set of plans regarding the ~ development of the Birdwood tract. Mr. Fisher reported that on January 17, 1980, of these plans was received in the County Executive's office. These plans will bE by the Planning Staff, and public hearings will be held by the Planning Commissior the month of February. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-Zg-32. S. V. Associates and North Rivanna Fifth Land (Briarwood). (Deferred from January 16, 1980). Mr. Fisher reviewed the happenings which took place at the Board of Supervise meeting of January 16, 1980, saying that a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive regarding the designation of the "Piney Mountain Community" was denied and the pub hearing was closed. Mr. F.iSher then read the followingletter: "January 23, 1980 In efforts to answer the concerns of the Board, we are willing to make the following modifications to the Briarwood Subdivision plan and the surroUnding land~ We are willing to construct a mix of dwelling units in Briarwood. This would consist of building20% of the homes as single family detached. This should eliminate the concern for "sameness?'. Depending on the market conditions of the future, the amount of single family detached homes may increase. We would also be willing to reduce the commercial zoning along U~.S. 29~ North by 20% and this would be reserved for residential development.~ These concessions were made in the spirit of cooperation and to ~build a development that would be advantageous for Albemarle County. Very truly yours, (signed) Wendell W. Wood" Mr. Fisher asked if any Board members wishedto have_thee public hearing reope to this change in theproposal. Mr. Lindstrom~s~id he felt a limited public ~heari seemed cal~ed for, and he suggested l~0 ~inute~ time f~or thosef~ .and against ~the posat. Mr. Yisher declared t~he public ~hearing reopened, and first to speak was Mr Wendell W. Wood, deVeloper of Briarwood. (Adjourndd Meeting of January 23, 1980) from J~nua~'~_~~80. )_~t~ Wade why he felt the zoning change was requeSted. Mr. wade said he had not he problem, but went on to say that in order to~ use Virginia Housing Development financing, homes must be under $38,.500. In order to meet this maximum price, ~f the land cannot exceed $5,500 if the building is to be of any value. Dr. ~sked what percentage of homes in Orangedale are rented as compared to owner Mr. Wade said approximately 10% are presently rented. Mr. Roudabush asked how ~r obtains differences in appearance. Mr. Wade said the basic structure is the differences are obtained in doors, windows and trims. He added that the market ~mes would dictate how fast the community would develop. Mr. Wood said in answer ~her's question about the reason for requesting this type zoning when more homes ~uilt on the land the way it is presently zoned; he said that to develop eco- feasible homes on R-1 or R-3, he would have to totally strip the land and build available inch of land. By rezoning and clustering the homes, he can retain ~ of the land in its natural state. Mr. Wade spoke again saying that to his there is no better location in the county which is presently better suited for of development. He said the largest restriction to development in the county is ability of public water and sewer facilities. ae else from the public wished to speak regarding this proposal. Mr. Fisher said several people present whom he believed the Board wished to ask questions of. tta asked Mr. Bryan Smith of the Albemarle County Service Authority, how the athority planned to service this area. Mr. Smith said as far as storage, there ~ater to meet the needs of almost any type of development planned. He said the ould be sewage. He noted he could not comment as to which would be besS, go to .W.T. plant or expand the Camelot treatment plant_. He did comment that the line om Camelot to the General Electric plant is sized to handle a subdivision the r. Wood's development. Mr. Tom Bruce, member of the Board of Directors of the County Service Authority, said to his knowledge the Briarwood project has never ented to the Board of Directors o'f the Service Authority. Iachetta noted a letter received from Dr. Clarence McClure regarding a school in the Briarwood community. Mr. John Massie said the School Board does not want the position of whether the school site would determine whether this entire s approved or disapprove~. He added that the site proposed by the developer was by an architect, who felt the site was unsuitable because it was too narrow with swale. Fisher officially rec!osed the public hearing at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said ted the concept of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to establish the Piney Village, but without that change in the Comprehensive Plan, he would feel uncom- approving this project. Mr. Henley said he was going to support the Briarwood He said this type of housing is needed in the County and finally someone is o construct moderate income housing. Mr. RoUdabush said he would prefer to the Briarwood plan after the Comprehensive Plan is amended. He said he would motion to reconsider action taken on January 16, 1980, regarding the Compre- lan amendment. Miss Nash said she did not want to set a precedent of amending 'ehensive Plan for everyone who has a proposal not recognized in that plan. Mr. . said he felt the necessity for staff review, Planning Commission and Board before any amendment is made to the Comprehensive Plan, would prevent such amend- m becoming common place and arbitrary. Lindstrom said he was most concerned about the magnitude of the proposed Briarwood , said since this is planned for developmentin phases over a period of eight or .s, and the COmPrehensive Plan must be reviewed ever~ five years, the Board might ,nly those first few phases which would be completed during that five year period i.e. eliminate the A, 1 Agricultural Land from this proposal (land west of Route .ss Nash said she would like to see the builder come back before the Board for (Adjourned Meeting of January 2~ 1980 from Januar~ 16~ 198~0. ) (Ni~ght ~M~eet~ing)~ density, the developer's proposal to eliminate lands west of Route 606 will actua~ reduce the density, and possibly gain support from the residents of Camelot Subdi~ Mr. Fisher said he did not want to change the whole Capital Improvements Program ~ would include a new school and park in this community. Mr. Roudabush said the wa~ ComD~e~en~v~Bl~has~is area laid out, it affords Camelot protection through ~ zoning density. Dr. Iachetta said changes should occur in the Comprehensive Plan changes occur in the County. He said with the growth of General Electric and the of the ~Planned Industrial Development south o£ this site, reducing the commercial Mr. Wood's development is the right direction. Mr. Fisher said what Mr. Lindstron proposed will reduce the number of units from 901 to less than 660 if the areas a~ Camelot Drive are developed in single-family, detached houses. Mr. Fisher then az Wood if reducing the size and thereby the number of units~ would allow this devel~ still be viable. Mr. Wood said he needed to be able to make a profit on the proj~ the Board may be taking away that probability~ He said the Board should leave th~ section west of Route 606 in the plan, and give him the option of coming back in ~ years to try and prove that it will be a successful project. Mr. Fisher said if ~ amends the Comprehensive Plan to include the area east of Route 606 only, will Mr. withdraw the application for Briarwood. Mr. Wood said he was being asked to give ~,000,000 in sales, and could not give Mr. Fisher an immediate answer. Mr. Fish~ he could not support such a large project on ~5 foot width lots. He said he felt unfair ~o people presently living in the area, and not fair to place all the modez income housing for the next ten years in one part of the County. He added that h~ support Briarwood if the presently zoned A-1 property is dropped from the request. Wood said the development was moved away from the Camelot Subdivision to appease t residents, and now that is the ssm~e area the Board wishes to take away from being At 9:25 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a short recess. P.M. The meeting reconvened at Mr. Fisher asked what impact deleting development west of Route 606 would ha~ roads in relation to ~he remaining potential development. Mr. Dan Roosevelt of t~ Department of Highways and Transportation said there would be 2~0 units under the Briarwood plan compared to 18 allowed under the current ~-l zoning. He said this reduce Highway Department requirements on roads in the Briarwood development and ~ have no choice but to size those roads through the reduced Briarwood development ~ the way ~he zoning is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Roosevelt added that ~ official representative of the Highway Department, he must voice support for the ¢ the Comprehensive Plan now before the Board, because with that change, the develop will take care of the road problems in this area of the County. If the Comprehens is not revised, the developer has no legal obligation to improve the roads to sta~ necessary for future development. Mr. Lindstrom noted that in his motion to reconsider amending the Comprehensd he said ~ake out the area west of Route 606, he meant forever, not possible future He said the present Board of Supervisors cannot bind future Boards Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lindstrom for a motion at this time. Mr. Lindstrom sai~ hesitant to'offer a motion at this time, as the area of commercial development has been discussed. He said if he had to make a motion at this time, it would be to 8 the density wes~ of Route 606, but this is not the answer to the entire problem. Fisher asked if that would be Mr. Lindstrom's motion. He said it is what he woul~ see, so he then offered motion ~o amend the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by t Planning Commission with the excePtion of lands west of Route 606~ those lands wo~ deleted from the plan. Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Tucker to show, under the po~ and ordinances now in effect with respect to entrances within 500 feet of an exist crossover on Route 29 North, how that will affect the commercial that is shown on (Adjourned Meeting of January 23, 1980 from January 16, 1980)(Night Meeting) ~OTE: Densities sho~ on this .map may not be realiz- able with existing facilities. KEY Low Density Res ' ( 1-4 du/ac~"e ) Medi~um Density Res. ( 5--10 du/acre ) Commercial Industrial Environmentally Sensitive Proposed Roadway Type Pin. ey  Scale -a- 1"- 2000' (Adjourned meeting of January 23, 1980 from January 16-, 1980)(Night Meet~ng~ -Mr. Lindstrom said the problem of accesSibilitY must also be addressed. He residents of Camelot were concerned about people Coming~thrOugh that subdivision access to the park. He suggested that aocess be limited to the area designated, means to limit such access shall be proVided during site plan review. Also, off parking shall be provided for the recreational area. Mr. Fisher asked about the question of the school site, which is listed by t! Planning Commission as condition #12, but this possibility was eliminated when th~ ~ised the Comprehensive Plan proposal for B&~e~ MpU~ta~m.~ It was the concensus Board that Condition #12 recommended by the Planning Commission be deleted. Mr. Fisher next asked about sewer capacity, as discussed in conditions #3 an~ Mr. Roudabush suggested adding the words: "...which are to be constructed-at the~ of the developer;"-to condition #7. Board members were satisfied-with the wordin~ condition #3. Although there was no vote on the addition to #7, it was the conce~ the Board members that the wording was acceptable. Miss Nash asked about condition #2, regarding grading being limited to that where final mite plan and aubdivision approval have been obtained. Mr. Lindstrom phases l, 2, and 3 could be developed in one phase. Mr. Roudabush~said condition not mention phasing. Mr. St. John said this is standard language, because~the bu~ would have to bond whatever he gets site plan approval for. Mr. Roudabush offere~ following, language to replace condition #12, to cover phasing: "No more than two shall be under simultaneous deVelopment "Plan B" phasing". This wording was acce~ the Board. Regarding condition #4, Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of High~ Transportation commented that the agreement made between the' Department of Highwa~ Transportation 'and the 'developer as~Sp0ken'to~±n his l~tter Of~'september ~ 1979 Book 18, meeting of November 7~ 1979)~, might be negated by the decrease ~n siz~ o~ development. He said the developer is only committed t'o build roads adequate to traffic created by his develOpmentJ since Briarwoo~~ has been made smaller by vote Board, road requirements will now be less. He added that any improvements to Roul the developer must be on a voluntary basis, they cannot be required. He suggeste~ the Board get a reconfirmation from Mr. Wood on What road improvements he Will un~ Mr. Fisher asked what Mr. WoOd's int~e~ntions were regarding improvements tOm RoUte Wood said since the land West of Route 606 willremain agricultur'al', an~ will no affect his development, he could see no reason to improve Route 606. Mr. Fisher there were anY problems with the entrances off of RoUte~29. Mr. RoO'sevelt said t'~ blem was not with the entrances, but' with the access ~in'~the area presently zoned mercial. Mr.~ Roosevelt 'said a commitment from the developer had been wor~ked'~ out those ~entrance roads would be designed so access into the commercial property wou~ enough back from Route 29 that it would not affect the intersection. Mr. Fisher this was in writing anywhere. Mr. Roosevelt said-it should be in the minutes of of Supervisors (NOTE: See January 16, 1980). Mr, Tucker said he felt the Planniz CommiSsimn had some control over l'ocatiOn or e~t~a'nc~s. Mr.'Fisher summarized th~ condition #~ should remain the' same regarding road commitments and~reqUeSted Mr. letter of January 23, 1980 be made condition #15. Mr. ~isher said condition #8 was aIllright the way it was written. He then Tucker about ordinance requirements regarding ~Sidewalks for a development of this density. Mr. Tucker said the site plan and subdivision ordinance requires sidewa] densities of two units per acre or greater. Mr. Tucker added that the~Planning C¢ took into consideration the cost of sidewalks in relation to proposed low/moderat~ housing~and Idmited sidewalks to streets that served 60 lots or more; therefore sac streets would not be required to have SidewaIks. Mr. Fisher asked if'collect¢ s~reets would have sidewalks. Mr. Tucker said oriEinalIy these Streets ~did. but (Adjourned Meeting of January 25, 1980 from JanUary 16, 1980)(Night Meeting) ~e the developer to sell a house for less than the actual cost to build. Miss rules and regulations within the Housing Coordinator's office could change in years it will take this project to be completed. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the ? all the homes being of the same economic strata, and the same type housing is Ln planning and sociology. Mr. Fisher said he understands the reasoning behind ~rom's suggestion, but feels it cannot b'e implemented. Mr. Roudabush asked if ~dition is approved, how would it be enforced. Mr. Henley said he agreed with ~rom, the only rason he is supporting approval of this .project is because it will /moderate income housing, and he also wonld like to see~a conditiQn guaranteeing type of housing will actually be built. Mr. St.. John_said if this condition is approval of this project, it should also be added that the idea of lOw/moderate ~sing was brought to the Board by Mr. Wood voluntarily as part of the proposed Mr. Fisher said the developer is attemPting to work within State and Federal ~ (Virginia Housing Development Authority), but the Board does not how those ~ will change over the next few years. M~o Henley asked Mr. Agnor for his Mr. Agnor said he understood what Mr. Lindstrom was attempting to accomplish, ~t is phased over a seven year period, what can happen is that houses that sold for $B5,~000 are reselling for $42,00.0; and the market is improving in terms of value faster than V.H.D~.A. is improving its guideline values. If the Housing ~r se~s a guideline, Mr. Agnor said he did~not know how it would be enforCed. He ~er example saying that if V.H.D.A. set a certain price, possibly the developer a greater price for the home because of outside c~rcumstances Such as the ~ location to industrial sites. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned because this ~ the proposed zoning ordinance; a section that gives specific density incentive determined by the Albemarle County Housing Coordinator to be low/moderate income He said if the Board cannot enforce it here, how will it be enforced as part of oning ordinance. Mr. Fisher said once the rezoning is approved, development may ~ as shown to the Board at the time of the rezoning request. Dr. Iachetta said is taking a good' f~ith commitment on the part of the developer that they will low/moderate income housing as proposed. Mr. Wood said he did not feel a was necessary, because it was his intent to build low/moderate income housing. ~hat seven years from now, the price range may be as high as $100,000 but if that ered low/moderate, then that is what will be built. Mr. Lindstrom said~ he was ~ to deal with the resale value, only the initial value, which is Something that ~g Coordinator should be able to deal with. If the market changes, the Housing or should be aware of it. Dr. Iachetta said if this came to court, a condition could not be enforced, and it therefore would make no sense to put the condition firs~ Place. Mr. Fisher offered the following wording "Site plan approvals for ~r and beyond shall be contingent upon evidence that dWelling units in the bases have been bUilt and sold substantially in accordance with the County's d the applicant's statement that this will serve a moderate housing market." Mr. said he would like to See this tied ~to the Housing Coordinator's Office in some Iachetta Said if this type housing becomes less desirable in the years to come, eveloper feels it is no longer feasible to develop his property in this way, what hen do With his property? He said you cannot build a market that cannot be ed. Mr. Lindstrom said the developer, at that point, could request an amendment N. Mr. Wood said this should relate to the type of home. He said moderate ould relate to the single-family attached. Mr. Lindstrom said the language would t. Mr. Fisher reread the proposed condition #16, modifying the wording slightly: n approvals~for phases four and beyond shall be contingent upon evidence that units in the earlier phases have substantially met the County's goals and the s assurances that moderate income housing has been provided". Motion was then y Mr. Lindstrom~ seconded by Miss Nash, to approve condition #16 as just read by r. Roll was then called and the motion~carried by the following recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. ssrs. Iachetta and Roudabush. (Adjourned Meeting of January 23, 1980 from January 16, 1980)(Night Meeting) 3) Special use permit approval of sewer capacity adequate to serve the ent~ development shall be obtainedprior to any final site plan or subdivisi~ approval; 4) All road plan and entrance plan approvals shall.be obtained prior to an~ site plan or subdivision approval. All roads shall be designed and con: to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications an~ for-acceptance into the State Secondary Road System. In review of road the County Engineer, guided by Virginia Department of Highways~and Tran: tion's letter of September 6, 1979, and such further consultation with ~ Department of Highways and Transportation as he deems desirable, shall ~ courage alignment and design which would result in excessive grading. Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access to Route 2! and Route 606. In review of such entrance plans, Virginia Department o~ and Transportation is requested to be mindful of its letter of Septembe~ (Minute Book 18, meeting of November 7, 1979); 5) No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as is.~nec. for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. Any lot whicl unbuildable due to slope shall be combined.with a buildable~lQt and/or ~ common open space subject to Planning Commission approval; 6) Fire Official approval of fire protection system including but not limi fire flow rates, hydrant locations, and emergency access provisions. system shall be provided prior toissuance of any certificate of occupa] the area to be served; 7) Albemarle County Service Authority~approval of~plans for water lines,.s, lines, pumping station, and manholes and appurtenances which are to be structed at the expense of the developer; 8) Staff approval of recreational facilities; 9) lO) Sidewalks shall be provided along reads serving 60 lots or more and maj collector streets to Route 29; .......... County Attorney approval of Homeowners! Association agreements prior to approvals; 11) Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian ways, recreat areas, roads, and other~imProvements are to. be located shall be disturb other land shall remain in its natural state; ..... 12) No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous development "Plan B 13) LOts along Camelot Drive and St~. Ives Roadare to be deYe!oped wish sin family detached dwellings and shall~.have a minimum lot widthof ~5 feet other lots~shall be developed with single-family attached units unless specified in condition #15; 14) No final site plan or subdivision plat shall be approved as to any lot dwelling unit served by either road X or Road Y prior to dedication to use and construc~ion~or bonding for acceptance into the Virginia State Highway System of roads X and Y; 15) Letter from United Land Corporation of America dated January 23, 1980, (Adjourned Meeting of January 23,. 19.80 from January 16, 1980)(Night Meeting.) March 3, 1980 March 6, 1980 March 10, 1980 March 13, 1980 March 17, 1980 March 20, 1980 March 24, 1980 March 27, 1980 March 31, 1980 April 7, 1980 April 10, 1980 Scottsvilte School Meriwether Lewis~School Henley School Jack Jouett School Hollymead School Red Hill School Yancey Middle School Walton School Broadus Wood School Stone RobinsonSchool Stoneyy Point School Board next decided that the public hearing for the proposed zoning ordinance held on May 12, 1980 if all the workshop meetings and revision sessions took scheduled. Fisher asked that a Board member be present at a public hearing to discuss widening rk Street Bridge (RoUte 631) which~will be held January 24, 1980 at the Vo-Tech Mr. Roudabush said he has written a letter to the Highway Department.~expressing e to see tH~e~b~idge widened and strengthened. Dr. Iachetta said he would be o voice his support for getting the work done as soon as possible. Iachetta offeredthe name of Mr. Walter Hurd of 408 Carrsbrook Drive for appoint- he Jefferson Area Board on Aging, to replace and fill out the~term of Mrs. Bernice Mrs. Mitchell's term is scheduled to expire on October 20, 1980. Dr. Iachetta's s seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and..Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Henley. Iachetta said in looking at the site plan for the Albemarle County School Bus proved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 1980, he feels it is a matter utd be~reviewed by the Board. Mr. Fisher suggested placingthis site plan review bruary 6, 1980 agenda. Lindstrom requested a discussion of the agenda for~the zoning ordinance workshops on the February 6, 1980 meeting also. Mr. Fisher agreed~ da Item No. 3: At 12:10 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by tta-, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing legal Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded votei: ssrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash, and Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Henley. Board reconvened into open.session at 12:35 A.M., and immediately adjourned.