ZMA 2004-00014 Briarwood (Sign #17)Request to rezone 123.612 acres from PRD (Planned Residential District) to PRD (Planned Residential District) to amend the proffers of ZMA 1991-00013 and ZMA 1995-0005.  The property, described as Tax Map 32G, Parcels 1, 3-A and 3-83 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Seminole Trail (Route 29) at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Austin Drive (Route 1575).  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community. (Tarpley Gillespie)


Ms. Gillespie summarized the staff report.  The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing proffers for the Briarwood development which were approved as part of ZMA-1991-13 and ZMA-1995-05 in order to allow a change in their phasing requirements and a change in the unit mix for the development.  They are also proposing several changes to the Application Plan that was approved previously related to the unit type as well as the road layout for the development.  Attachment B shows the existing approved Application Plan for Briarwood with notations showing the proposed new maximum number of units and unit types for each phase.  That is the first plan on the wall in the back.  Attachment C shows the actual Application Plan for which they are seeking approval.  That is the second plan on the wall. The proposed new application plan was received by Planning Staff after the normal review period had ended for this Commission hearing date (11/18/2004) and has not received a complete review by the time the County staff published this staff report.  Staff has not received an internal staff review or a review from VDOT at the time of the Commission’s staff report.  Staff has since received comments from the internal staff as well as VDOT.  Those comments were distributed to the Commission this evening. (Attachment – Letter dated December 7, 2004 addressed to Wendell W. Wood from Tarpley Vest Gillespie)  These comments were first available today.  Those comments were also shared with the applicant at this point. As noted in the staff report, staff cannot recommend approval until the outstanding issues have been addressed and until that review had been complete.  There were a large number of outstanding issues identified in this latest round of comments. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval at this time either. Staff’s desire would be for the applicant to respond to these comments, revise and supplement the application materials to address each one of their comments and then go forward.  The Commission is under an obligation to act on this project within 90 days of the submittal.  There was one request for deferral from the applicant previously.  However, the Commission will need to act on this application either tonight or at next Tuesday’s meeting.  Considering the short time period between tonight and next Tuesday it is not practical for the applicant to address these comments between now and then.  Therefore, staff is recommending denial or they are encouraging the applicant to seek a deferral of the application until all of the outstanding comments can be addressed. 


As mentioned, the application plan is seeking to amend proffers from ZMA-1995-05 and ZMA-1991-13.  They are specifically offering four proffers with this application plan, which accomplish the amendments to the previous proffers and also offer an additional new proffer related to affordable housing.  The first proffer in this set of proffers seeks to amend proffer 12 of ZMA-1995-05, which would allow simultaneous development of the remaining phases of Briarwood.  The applicant previously proffered that no more than two phases of development would occur at one time.  It appears that there was some concern in the past about timeliness of conclusion of infrastructure relative to development advancing and the CO’s being issued for houses, etc.  At this point in time County staff is confident in our own ordinances and our bonding practices and our ability to ensure that the infrastructure is in place for each phase of development to stand on its own.  Therefore, staff is not longer concerned about how many simultaneous phases of development are under construction at one time.  However, staff still feels that it is important that phase 1-B be built prior to some of the later phases.  That is because phase 1-B provides the Briarwood Drive connection out to the stop light at the National Ground Intelligence Center.  Staff feels that phase of Briarwood Drive to the stop light is an important before all of these other new units are put into place.  Staff asked the applicant to commit to building that phase and he did so in the form of a proffer.  Staff is comfortable with the first proffer in the packet.


Mr. Edgerton stated that staff indicated in the staff report that the new application plan was received after the review period had ended.  Therefore, he asked why the clock was ticking if the information that was required for the application was not submitted in a timely manner.  If you are suggesting that they need to address many, many issues as identified in the information that the Commission has just received why are they going ahead with this discussion at this point.  He asked why they don’t they wait until they have a complete project in front of them.


Mr. Kamptner stated that the clock was running because it was a complete application even though staff had not received all of the information.  He pointed out that Zoning had determined that the application was complete.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was not a statutory requirement that the applicant have these comments in by a certain point in time to a degree satisfactory to staff because there is always the alternative for the Commission to deny based on not having had issues addressed.  That is an action which is within the 90 days. He stated that he did not think that the Commission would be asked to address all of those things that were commented on by the review staff.  Staff suggests that those things be addressed by the applicant and then come back to the Commission, which would require the applicant to request a deferral.  But in the absence of the applicant requesting the deferral to address those things that were identified, then the Commission has the option of denial.


Mr. Edgerton stated that he would prefer deferring the request until they have all of the information.  He pointed out that the way the information was distributed had made it very difficult for him to figure out what he was looking at, specifically on the graphics. He suggested that instead of spending a lot of time discussing this that they ought to invite the applicant up and see if he wants to request a deferral.


Mr. Thomas agreed with everything that he was saying, but that they have to go through the procedure for the public hearing.


Mr. Kamptner stated that it has been advertised for a public hearing.  Therefore, they would have to receive public comment.  But, the Commission could invite the applicant to come up now.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission did not have to receive the rest of the staff report.


Mr. Edgerton stated that he would prefer to postpone the rest of the staff report particularly because of the new information.


Mr. Thomas questioned what the Commission could accomplish. At this time he opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.


Wendell Wood stated that he would like to make a statement about the deferral.  Briarwood has been a development since 1986 in this community.  It has been called one of the most successful developments in the community providing affordable housing.  If the Commission would read the comments from Ms. Gillespie and Mr. Shepherd they would find that they both like what they are doing.  They started this one year ago.  Ms. Gillespie was not the staff person at that time.  There was another staff member who worked on this project for six months, who has since left the County. That certainly has put this project behind.  In fourteen years this is the first year that they have not had production in Briarwood Subdivision. There have been 350 houses built.  They did this trying to get closer to what the County wants in mixed use development.  Briarwood was approved as 660 single-family attached lots in 1982.  Today that is probably not the best development for that area.  It has been a very successful affordable housing project.  They have had two supervisors live there. They have had three planning commission members live there.  They have had a number of police officers and teachers who live there to this day.  It has been a success.  If the Commission would read Ms. Gillespie’s and Mr. Shepherd’s comments it would be very clear that they have agreed with everything that they are doing.  They are simply here now after one year of not being able to continue this development.  They are not asking for any new houses.  They are only changing the mix of these houses. If the Commission will just give them a chance tonight he felt that they would be able to see the issues that are being resolved. They just received new information this afternoon at 4:30 p.m., but they don’t view that those issues contain anything that anybody will have any problem with.  But, time is money.  They have one year’s production lost in the best housing market in this County for affordable housing.  It was not their fault.  He pointed out that they started one year ago and here they are tonight being asked to defer again. If they miss this building season it will go into two years.  There is one issue in here if they chose to make them do then this case will not be heard for another six months.  He stated that he was prepared to explain why that request was not well thought out because it was something that they have already done.  He asked that the Commission allow them to respond to a few of these things on why they don’t want a deferral.  Then, he felt that they would agree with them that this was not a detriment to this County. He stated that this afternoon that Ms. Gillespie said that they want to do this.  It is a matter of red tape when you talk about the alignment of the road as shown on the plan.  If you read staff’s report she likes the new design.  He pointed out that the design takes that traffic to an existing traffic light.  They are not adding any new units.  There is nothing new that will happen.  There were 661 lots approved and there were only 5 additional lots, which would not change a traffic pattern.  Not only is it an improvement, but it takes all of that traffic to an existing traffic light as opposed to a road that has not light.  Therefore, it is a better situation.  He felt that the people looking at this have not thought of that and have said that a study needs to be done. He pointed out that if they had to do a traffic study that they would not be before the Commission for at least six more months.  Unfortunately, they have to continue on. If they cannot continue on, then they will just do what they can do by right.  They can continue to go in there and build these 660 units.  They have already built 330 of these units.  But, staff unanimously says that this is a better program and it meets your DISC study much better than what is there.  He stated that there was absolutely no disagreement on this.  He commended Ms. Gillespie for her assistance on this.  The traffic would now go to a traffic light.


Mr. Edgerton stated that the applicant has not answered his question about requesting a deferral.  He stated that the Commission was going to have to make a decision tonight for denial or deferral.  He pointed out that Mr. Wood was in the driver’s seat regarding the request for the deferral.  He stated that he had reviewed all of the materials except for the new information distributed tonight.


Mr. Wood apologized for getting off track.  He requested that the Commission go forward with the review of the application.


Mr. Thomas stated that Mr. Wood’s answer was no that he did not want a deferral.  He stated that they would proceed with the review.  He opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.


Wendell Wood stated that if the Commission went through the report that staff agreed with them on everything.  He stated that he would like to address the new requirements that staff would like for them to do, which was listed in the new information from Ms. Gillespie received this afternoon.  Number 1 says that the 11/17/04 plan shows the removal of connection between Briarwood Drive Phase 4 and St. Ives Road.  Staff is concerned about the loss of this interconnection. Please either revise your plan to show this interconnection, or provide a justification for its removal.  He stated that they would like to have it removed.  The approved connection was done 17 years ago.  At this time there is a traffic light on Route 29.  When that plan was approved there was no traffic light there.  This is the plan that you heard Ms. Gillespie speak to tonight stating that she requested that road to be built before they do the back section. They agreed to that.  There is a traffic light today at that intersection that was not there when this plan was approved 15 years ago.  The traffic light was installed within the last 2 years.  They have agreed to build that section of the road first.  Therefore, all of that traffic, which would go out on St. Ives Road through an existing neighborhood that opposed the request 15 years ago, would not go out at a traffic light on Route 29.  There are 5 new lots in this subdivision.  Therefore, there would not be a difference in traffic.  Number 2, staff recommends that the application plan be revised to show Camelot Drive extended to connect to Phase 1A of Briarwood.  That was part of the proffer that when this plan got approved Camelot residents did not want a connection there.  Therefore, they honored that with one of their proffers. They are honoring what their neighbors requested of them. Number 3, staff notes that the road layout of Phases 5 & 6 has been modified from the previous plan. If the Commission will look at the old plan and the new plan for phases 5 & 6 you will see that there is not much difference.  Staff requests that they show the Resource Protection Area.  It is shown on the old plan, but is not outlined in the new plan.  They are well aware that they cannot develop in the Resource Protection Area. They don’t intend to ask to develop in that area.  Therefore, they do not see that as an issue.  They know that they will not develop in the Resource Protection Area and they will comply with that ordinance.  Number 4, with the existing Briarwood development there is a sidewalk on one side of the public streets.  The plan does not indicate where sidewalks curb and gutter, or street trees are proposed on the new plan.  That is part of their site plan.  They will add that to their proffer that they will continue to put in sidewalks.  They have done that throughout the development and don’t intend to stop.  Those are the new issues that came up tonight.  If you go down through it the Commission will see that these comments are unchanged.  When this started there were several people at the County that did not think that they needed to come back before the Commission.  But, the reason that they had to change it to a rezoning was because of the proffer. The real issue here and the only thing that they are talking about is the proffer that they are changing regarding the townhouses on Section 8 as opposed to single-family houses and bringing the road and taking all of that traffic to the traffic light as opposed to taking it up on Camelot Drive.  That is something that the Camelot residents have asked them not to do.  They have now made a connection and all of that traffic comes to a controlled traffic light on Route 29, which is something on other projects that they make everyone do.  If you look at Phase 1-A on their existing plan you will see two cul-de-sacs.  On the new plan that road is connected.  If you read Ms. Gillespie’s response to that issue, she thinks that is positive.  If you read her response to everything, she states that everything is a benefit to this land by staff’s own recognition.  Therefore, they don’t think that there is an issue regarding the roads.  This is affordable housing.  They can’t wait another six months.  He stated that Mr. Brooks indicates that they might need a traffic study because of not having the road connect to St. Ives Road.  There is no new housing. There will be not be any traffic going from Camelot to Briarwood because that traffic is leaving this development and getting on to Route 29 at a controlled traffic light.  People will be leaving those two subdivisions going to Route 29 and 80 percent of the time coming to Charlottesville. Therefore, they would not ride a mile north to do that because they would be going to the traffic light.  This is affordable housing and he would like to be viewed in light of that.  He asked that they look at their record. This has been a very successful neighborhood.  He pointed out that they do not charge a homeowner’s association fee. They have built and maintained the play areas with no fees.  He stated that their request was to go forward because they have been working on this for over a year.


Mr. Morris asked what percentage of their current housing is affordable housing.


Mr. Wood stated that they built 320 units and there were only 5 that went above the affordable housing.  There were 312 units that meet the guidelines of affordable housing.


Mr. Craddock asked if phase 8 townhouses would come out through Camelot.


Mr. Wood stated that they would go back to the traffic light on Route 29.  On the old plan the traffic from phase 8 townhouses went through Camelot. 


Ms. Higgins stated that as she understood that he did not want to comply with items 1 and 2 if they were added as conditions.


Mr. Wood stated that they would like to take that off.


Ms. Higgins stated that they would like to do away with those two connections. She asked if there would be a provision to allow pedestrian connections at those locations in lieu of a vehicular connection.


Mr. Wood stated yes that she was correct.  He pointed out that they were showing a 25 acre recreation area and at the time of the site plan they will show a walking trail as to how to get there.  That was already provided for in their existing plan, but they have just not gotten down to those phases.


Ms. Higgins stated that if all of these items were clear conditions of a recommendation and would become part of a site plan that he would have no problem with that and would comply with them.


Mr. Wood stated that was correct. He felt that they could look at this and impose the conditions that they were looking at as a condition of approval.  He stated that they were willing to accept that.  They also believe that they can have all of those items on a plan for the County within a week. They are all very simple things to put on a plan.  He stated they could provide all of this on a plan before it goes to the Board of Supervisors.   


Mr. Thomas invited public comment regarding this request.  There being no one, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and a possible action.


Mr. Edgerton apologized to the Commissioners for taking this off track.  He stated that he would now like to ask Ms. Gillespie to give the staff report that she was trying to give.  He stated that he was still having a great deal of difficulty when a plan is not received until November 18 on how they could have a 90-day deadline hanging over them.  He stated that he would have to defer to the legal opinion on that.


Ms. Gillespie stated that the second proffer in their submittal package relates to an amendment to proffer 13 of ZMA-1991-13, which allowed the lots along Camelot Drive to be developed as townhouse units.  This section of Briarwood along Camelot Drive is referred to as phase 8 in the application plan. The current plan calls for 32 single-family detached units and 20 duplex units.  Staff has no problem with the change in the unit type at this particular location, but they do note that on the application plan there is the proposed change in the connection which has already been partially addressed here. Staff feels that proposed change in the access in phase 8 coming off of Briarwood Drive rather than Camelot Drive could provide a benefit to this development. However, staff really has not had a complete analysis even today of the impacts of that.  In the comments received today from the engineer, they requested a traffic analysis.  They did not request a full blown traffic study, but a traffic analysis to look at the redistribution of traffic as a result of this change in access. The other concern that they have in the planning about this phase and the changes to this phase is that the applicant indicated verbally, even though it is not indicated on the plan, that the townhouses would be oriented towards this new access road off of Briarwood Drive.  Therefore, the rear of the townhouses would face Camelot Drive.  Currently, the character of Camelot Drive has single-family houses along the south side of Camelot Drive and staff is concerned about the aesthetic impacts of the town houses being oriented towards this new road with the rear being oriented to Camelot Drive.  They really don’t have any information on how that is going to work out at this point.  The applicant has mentioned that he will provide screening and a buffer, but has not really provided any details on that. 


The third proffer seeks to amend the unit types and the maximum unit numbers in each of the remaining phases.  The proposed changes would result in a total increase in units from 657 to 661. That is for Briarwood in total.  Staff does not think that an increase of 4 units is really going to have any significant impact on the development.  Staff feels that the change in unit mix will probably have a positive impact on the development rather being so dominated by duplex units. Therefore, staff supports that change.  The fourth


The fourth proffer commits the applicant to providing 25 units of affordable housing with the construction of the remaining phases.  This proffer came out of the conversation with the Chief of Housing and the applicant.  The applicant did exactly what was asked of him by the County.  Therefore, staff does support this proffer as well and thank him for his commitment to affordable housing in Briarwood.  There are several notable changes to the application plan, which are summarized in the staff report.  They have already been touched on briefly, but they pretty much relate to the reconfiguration of the roads in Briarwood.  There is that change to Phase 8 that they have talked about. In phase 1-A on the existing plan there are two cul-de-sacs which have been interconnected into an existing road.  Staff feels that is a positive development in terms of it achieving interconnections within Briarwood.  More significantly in phases 5 and 6 the road configuration has changed and the cul-de-sacs seem to be jetting out further towards the Resource Protection Area and the river.  Staff has very little information at this time about the location of the floodplain, whether or not there are any critical slopes and whether or not there is any encroachment on the stream buffer.  Therefore, staff is concerned about that change.  In today’s comments from engineering you will note that engineering recommends that the roads in those phases extend no further out towards the Resource Protection Area than they do on the approved plan.  That is an outstanding concern that may be addressed with additional information from the applicant or there may be a need for waivers that have not been identified tonight.  That is a pretty serious concern of staff’s at this point in time.  Engineering’s recommendation to the applicant is that they revise the plan so as not to extend any farther.


Ms. Higgins stated that the applicant would have to come in with a site plan regarding all of these sections.  Their site plan approval would be predicated on those conditions of waiver being met at that time.


Ms. Gillespie stated that they could seek the waivers at a later date.  The applicant does not have to seek the waiver at this time.

Ms. Higgins stated that they would not seek a waiver now because they have not identified whether they need a waiver.  But, the Commission would still have the request back before us to address that issue along with the curb and gutters, sidewalks, etc. that would be shown on the site plan if it was a condition. She stated that those items are not always shown on a rezoning plan.


Ms. Gillespie stated that it was an outstanding concern in assessing this particular change right now.


Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this was a rezoning request and the Commission could impose conditions.  It would have to either be shown on the application plan or proffered.  He stated that was worth understanding as they made their decision.  That is one of the reasons why staff has covered this ground. If it is not established in the application plan or by proffer in the zoning action, then it cannot be conditioned.


Ms. Higgins stated that it could be a denial with conditions that if they are met.


Mr. Kamptner stated that they could recommend changes to the plan that would bring it into compliance.


Ms. Gillespie pointed out that there were features on the existing approved plan which do not appear on the proposed plan, such as the Resource Protection Area.  For future enforceability of this plan, the application plan becomes the zoning for this property and it is really important to the staff that all of the features that are intended to remain on the plan be shown on the plan prior to it being acted on by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors.  Staff analyzed this plan against the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this for Neighborhood Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community.  The proposal generally meets the designation of the Comprehensive Plan.  Staff did note that the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance on the issue of expanding existing subdivisions. It clearly states that new development within an existing subdivision shall be in keeping with the character and the density of the existing development.  New subdivisions are to be developed at higher density and in keeping with the Neighborhood Model.  Staff reviewed the proposal in the spirit of this recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan.  Therefore, staff did recommend a wholesale redesign of Briarwood to meet the Neighborhood Model. Staff was comfortable with the applicant continuing with the general form of development that you see out there today.  But, staff did recognize opportunities to improve the development and move it closer towards some of the goals in the Neighborhood Model. Therefore, staff did go ahead and analyze the proposal against the Neighborhood Model.  Staff noted that the existing phases of Briarwood have curb and gutter and sidewalks on one side of the street.  This was done voluntarily by the applicant without proffer. The new plan does not indicate one way or the other of the intention of curb and gutter or sidewalks.  Staff recommends that he commit to curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides of the street in the form of a proffer.  The applicant has indicated to staff verbally a willingness to proffer sidewalks on one side of the street, which would be consistent with what is already out there today in the existing phases.  They have talked a lot about the interconnections.  There are examples where interconnections have been strengthened by the proposal, which include the two cul-de-sacs being alleviated and the connection of phase 8 into Briarwood. They have lost the interconnection between phase 4 and St. Ives Drive, which is of concern to staff. Staff also feels that there is a missed opportunity for an interconnection between Camelot Drive and phase 1A.  Regarding the parks and open space, staff has mentioned several times that the Resource Protection Area is not shown on the proposed application plan.  It is noted on the approved plan as our passive recreational area to consist of walking and jogging trails.  Staff would like to see those clearly delineated on the plan prior to its adoption.  They also raised the question of pedestrian access to those areas and they would like to see the applicant provide some more detail on how those areas will be accessed and make a commitment to their access.  Briarwood has been developed to date as an affordable housing development.  Nearly all of the units in Briarwood have met their criteria for affordable housing.  The applicant has willingly proffered that at least 25 units of the new phases will be affordable and will be available to a preferred list of buyers from Albemarle County to make sure that the units go into the hands of those in need of affordable housing and not investors.  Staff is very pleased with that aspect of the proposal.  Regarding site planning that respects terrain, staff has mentioned some outstanding questions about those upper phases and the need for more information in order to clarify any potential impacts to Natural Resources in that area.  In regard to impacts on public facilities and services, staff talked a little about the impacts on transportation.  The addition of four units will probably be nominal over all in terms of impacts on schools or a physical impact on the County.  However, there is this reconfiguration within the development that might have transportation impacts and engineering has requested additional information in order to ensure that all of those impacts are fully addressed.  Regarding storm water management, staff would also like to get that clarification on those upper phases of development in order to ensure that there are no new impacts on the storm water development prior to moving forward. 


Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:

1.       The proposal will provide affordable housing within the designated Development Areas.

2.       The proposed change in unit types will create a better mixture of unit types within Briarwood, one of the principles of the neighborhood model.

3.       The proposed changes to Phase 1A of the Application Plan will create one additional internal interconnection.

4.       The applicant has committed, in the form of a proffer, to construct Briarwood Drive to Route 29 prior to commencing with phases 4, 5, 6, thus ensuring the appropriately sequenced construction of a second access to Route 29. 


Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:

1.       The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal review period had ended.  Comments from reviewers have just been received and the applicant has not had a chance yet to respond to those comments and revise his submittal appropriately. 

2.       An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot seems to be lost with the proposed changes to Phase 4 on the Application Plan. 

3.       It is unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8 will be.

4.       The proposed application plan does not show the existing resource protection area.

5.       The proposed application plan does not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.

6.       At this time, no commitment has been made to the streetscape of the remaining phases, including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks.


Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval at this time.  Unless the applicant requests deferral, the Planning Commission must act on this item tonight or next week.  Staff does not see any real purpose to deferring to next week.  That would not really give the applicant a chance to respond to these concerns in a reasonable amount of time.  Therefore, staff recommends denial of the application plan at this time.  However, if the Planning Commission is so inclined staff could support approval of phase 1B.  That would necessitate the applicant requesting the approval of just phase 1B.  There are really no outstanding issues related to phase 1B.  That is an important phase of the interconnectivity of the development.  Therefore, staff could support approval of that given that the applicant requested it and the application plan and the proffers were revised prior to the Board hearing.


Ms. Joseph moved to recommend denial of ZMA-2004-0014, Briarwood, based on the items outlined by staff as follows:


1.       The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal review period ended.  Therefore, staff and VDOT have not had adequate time to review changes to the plan, including the proposed access changes to Phase 8 and new internal road configuration on Phases 1A, 5, and 6.

2.       An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot seems to be lost with the proposed changes to Phase 4 on the Application Plan. 

3.       It is unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8 will be.

4.       The proposed application plan does not show the existing resource protection area.

5.       The proposed application plan does not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.

6.       At this time, no commitment has been made to the streetscape of the remaining phases, including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks.


Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.


Ms. Higgins asked if those were on a list under denial then before the Board meeting those could be addressed.


Mr. Rieley stated that he did not think that they could make a list because they simply don’t have staff analysis of the information that relates to things like the interconnectivity. 


Ms. Higgins asked if they could separate phase 1B.


Mr. Rieley stated that phase 1B might be able to be separated with the caveat that staff’s recommendation for sidewalks on both sides, which was something that they could express their opinion about.  He opposed sending the Board a signal that if the applicant does a, b, and c that they think this proposal is okay.  They don’t have any idea whether it is okay because they don’t have the information to go on.


Ms. Joseph stated that the major concern was that this has not been properly reviewed by staff.  They have set up a paid professional staff to give them recommendations for these.  She felt very uncomfortable when they don’t get these professional recommendations and then get information on the night of the meeting that they were suppose to process.  Going though these items one by one like in a site review meeting made her feel very uncomfortable because she expected to have staff’s opinion.


Mr. Rieley stated that there was a lot to commend this proposal.  He felt that the addition of townhouses is a positive thing if the configuration is a positive one. But, they don’t know whether it is or not at this point.  The role that this development has played in the past and will play in the future in meeting the affordable housing needs is really significant.  He felt that the fact that the people who live there don’t have to pay a homeowner’s association fee is terrific and really significant.  Therefore, he was very supportive of this in a general way, but wished that they had the information before them so that they could act on it positively.  But, the request is full of holes and they rely heavily on the information that they get from the staff.  It is very apparent when they don’t have it.


Mr. Thomas asked if it would be fair way to treat this application if they deny the request and use staff’s checklist to note the deficiencies, but not call them conditions. 


Mr. Edgerton asked why they were working so hard to abandon their process.  He asked if it was because of the affordable housing or the mix of uses.  Mr. Wood has made a very positive pitch about that.  He stated that he would welcome a true mixture of units and true affordable housing, but it was a big stretch to say that he was moving towards the Neighborhood Model in other areas as far as transportation.  They have a very limited application plan in front of them.  Staff has brought up a lot of real issues. He pointed out that there were very significant items missing from this proposal.  He stated that he could not see how they could just ignore the process that they require everybody else in the County to follow.


Mr. Rieley stated that the difficulty that he had in sending the proposal along with recommendations is that the checklist would simply be the analysis.  What is missing here is being able to make a determination about the pluses and minuses of the connection to St. Ives Drive.  Certainly a simple traffic study is not an unreasonable thing to request for this kind of recommendation.  He felt that this should just be a denial.


Ms. Joseph stated that she based her motion for denial on the major issues that have not been properly reviewed by staff.


Mr. Rieley agreed with Ms. Joseph.


Ms. Joseph stated that she was not implying that this goes to the Board and if everything that was listed was corrected that it would be okay.  The major concern is that this has not been reviewed properly by staff.


Mr. Rieley stated that they don’t have the information to make the decision because they have no staff review.


The motion carried by a vote of (7:0). 


Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carried to recommend denial of ZMA-2004-00014, Briarwood, which would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on January 12, 2004.  The applicant has the option of going forward to the Board of Supervisors or bringing it back to the Planning Commission.


 Return to executive summary