Agenda Item No. 19.  ZMA-2004-0014. Briarwood (Sign #17).  Request to rezone 123.612 acs from PRD to PRD to amend proffers of ZMA-1991-13 & ZMA-1995-5 & to amend the Application Plan.  TM 32G, P 1; TM 32G, Sec 3, P A; & TM 32G, Sec 3, P 83.  Loc on Seminole Trail (Rt 29) at intersec of Seminole Trail & Austin Dr (Rt 1575).  (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community.)  Rivanna Dist.  (Advertised in Daily Progress on January 17 and January 24, 2005)  (Deferred from January 12, 2005) 

 

            The executive summary states that the Planning Commission heard ZMA 2004-14 on December 7, 2004.  The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the ZMA request, citing the following reasons for their recommendation of denial:

 

            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.

 

            The Board of Supervisors heard this item on January 12, 2005.  At that meeting, the Board voted to defer the item to allow resolution of outstanding issues on the plan and in the proffers. 

 

            In order to address the outstanding issues identified by the Planning Commission and staff, the applicants provided a revised Application Plan, dated 1/19/2005 and received 1/20/2005.  That plan is attached (on file in the Clerk’s office) to this document.  Planning, Zoning and Engineering staff have reviewed the plan.  The previous comments and concerns of Planning Commission and the staff have been addressed as follows:

 

            Regarding the orientation of buildings in Phase 8 and the impact to Camelot Drive, a note has been added to the plan that "Vegetative screening shall be provided adjacent to Camelot subdivision along Camelot Drive in accord with section 32.7.9.8(a) and 32.7.9.8(c)(4)."  Staff believes that, from a design standpoint, orienting the buildings to face towards Camelot Drive is the preferable alternative to screening from Camelot Drive.  However, given the applicant's desire to orient the rear of the buildings towards Camelot Drive, staff believes that this note will ensure adequate screening of the buildings from Camelot Drive. 

 

            The resource protection area has been appropriately labeled on both sheets of the Application Plan.  Further, inconsistencies between the "old" and the "new" Application Plans have been reconciled by attaching the two plans together and clearly labeling the "new" plan as sheet 1 of 2 and the "old" plan as sheet 2 of 2. 

 

            In previous comments, concern was expressed about access to the open spaces on the plan.  Particularly, there was concern about the ability of pedestrians to access the area labeled "Passive recreation area- to consist of walking and jogging trails" on the existing Application Plan.  A note has been added to the plan stating: "Access to the recreation areas shall be provided in general accordance with the original Briarwood Application Plan, now designated as sheet 2 of 2".  This comment has been adequately addressed.

 

            With the previous submittals, no commitment was made to streetscape or install sidewalks in the remaining phases of Briarwood.  At the public hearing on January 12, 2005, the Board advised the applicant that it recommended providing streetscape improvements, including curb and gutter and sidewalks, in a manner consistent with the existing Briarwood development,.  The existing phases of Briarwood include curb and gutter and sidewalks along one side of the streets.  The existing infrastructure was provided voluntarily and was never required of the previous ZMA approvals.  A note has been added to the plan stating: "curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the undeveloped sections of Briarwood, in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and ZMA-79-32 and ZMA-91-13".  Zoning staff is concerned that this note, as written, will prove difficult to interpret in the future.  Staff recommends that this note be revised to state: "Curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and sidewalks will be provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of development."

 

            The applicant has requested a modification for section 4.11.3, which is based on section 19.8.  This modification would allow the buildings to be separated by less than 30 feet.  The requested modification would allow the setbacks in the remaining phases of development to be consistent with the setbacks in the existing phases of Briarwood.  Specifically, setbacks would be 6' in the side yard, 25' in the front yard and 10' in the rear yard.  Staff supports this modification request.

 

            The applicant’s engineer has satisfied concerns regarding the need for a traffic analysis. Remaining questions on traffic capacity will be addressed with VDOT approval of the entrance onto Route 29.   With regard to the need for interparcel connections, the applicant has provided a note on the plan indicating that a road connection will be made at either Phase 1A or Phase 4.  Staff would prefer the connection be with Phase 1A but finds this alternative acceptable.  If the connection is not shown with the Phase 1A plans, it will then be required with the Phase 4 plans.    

           

            Staff previously noted the applicant has not shown critical slopes or resource protection areas.  While that concern remains unaddressed, staff has examined the site based on provided topography and delineated areas considered sensitive and inappropriate for development.  Staff has offered to review that delineation with the applicant so the applicant has an advance understanding of the areas that staff believes should remain undisturbed.  As the applicant has not sought any critical slope waivers as part of this plan, it is presumed any development in those sections would be required to comply with the County’s critical slope requirements and understands staff’s position on the protection of sensitive resources.  

 

            Since the January 12, 2005 Board meeting, the applicant has worked with the County Attorney's office, Planning, Engineering and Zoning staff to put the proffers into an acceptable format for adoption by the Board.  No substantive changes have been made to the proffers and no new commitments have been made. Proffers that do not offer anything beyond what is required by regulations have been eliminated. The previous proffers of ZMA-91-13 and ZMA 95-05 have been combined with the currently proposed proffers of ZMA 2004-014 into one set of proffers for all of Briarwood.  The language has been refined to ensure clear interpretation in the future. 

 

            Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2004--014, with proffers, with the recommendation that note 2 on Page 1 of the Application Plan be revised to read:

 

"Curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and sidewalks will be provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of development."

 

            Staff recommends approval with the understanding that approval of this ZMA and Application Plan does not obligate the board to approve critical slopes waivers in the future. 

 

            Staff further recommends approval of the requested setback modification to allow a building separation of less than 30 feet.

__________

 

            Mr. Cilimberg summarized the executive summary as provided to the Board and set out above.  He further noted that in the report, areas of slope impact have not been analyzed, and approval of this zoning map amendment and application plan does not obligate the Board to approve critical slopes waivers in the future; those would need to be analyzed with the sections brought into the county.  Mr. Davis confirmed that no special action is needed for that review.

 

            Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there has been work to consolidate the proffers into one set, and Mr. Davis has a set of recently signed proffers.  Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the applicant wants to change “two basketball courts” to “two half basketball courts” in the sentence in Proffer #4 that starts “This recreational area shall be built prior to completion of Phase IV….”  Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant has concern about incidents that can occur when people congregate at full-court games.  He added that this corresponds with what the county has done at elementary schools for the same reasons. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg noted that Proffer #8 refers to the Briarwood Drive connection through the commercial area being built as approved by VDOT and bonded to the county.  There is already an approved/bonded plan on record for a 38-foot curb to curb section. 

 

            Mr. Cilimberg concluded that staff is recommending the plan as presented with the notes and proffers included, with the request that the note regarding streetscape be specific to sidewalks being provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of the development. He added that staff also recommends approval of the setback modification to allow building separations of less than 30 feet.

 

            Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that the interconnection would be done as part of the construction of either Phase I-A or Phase IV.  Mr. Davis stated that that connection was not proffered, but the note offered should suffice because it has to be built according to the master

 

plan.  Mr. Cilimberg said that it would have to happen in one of two subsequent phases, noting that Phase IV is the more internal connection, with Phase I-A as the Camelot Drive connection.

 

            Mr. Wyant commented that if the phases follow the sequence of their numbers, because in Phase IV the road could be built first.  Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is not a particular phasing sequence noted here, but Briarwood Drive connection is happening as part of improvements that occur in the phases.  He said that they would be addressed as they come in, but the order is not known yet.

 

            Mr. Rooker said that his only concern would be that if the phase closest to Route 29 is built first, there may not be a connection available for a while, until future phase are built.  Mr. Bowerman said that the applicant may rely on the builder to determine the order.

 

            Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Wood about the timing of the road connections.  Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, responded that he would have to show that the connection will be there when his site plan is approved.  He noted that Phase IV may not be a good location because of the grades, but they would like to have the discretion to decide where either or both connections would be built.

 

            Mr. Bowerman asked what the most likely placement would be.  Mr. Wood replied that the one on Camelot Drive, from a cost standpoint, would be most likely.

 

            Mr. Rooker said that he wants to be certain that when Phase I-A is done, the connection be made, and not held back while there is a decision on Phase IV.  Mr. Wood responded that the traffic would not be there until the houses are built, and they will have to provide for that road to come through.

 

            Mr. Bowerman said that they would like to have the road done sooner than later, so that citizens are not complaining to the Board about a lack of connection.

 

            Mr. Rooker added that from a citizens’ standpoint, it is easier to build the road before the houses are built than after.  He mentioned that Meadow Creek Parkway was shown on the Forest Lakes plans long ago.

 

            Mr. Bowerman commented that Mr. Wood is just hedging because he does not know what housing type is going to sell.  Mr. Wood responded that was correct. 

 

            Mr. Rooker said that he would like for a decision to be made about where the connection will be and build it whenever that phase is built out.  Technically, the way it is worded right now, Mr. Wood could build out Phase I-A and not make a decision on the connection.  Mr. Rooker said that it’s possible that years could pass before the connection would be made, and people would already be living in the subdivision. 

 

            Mr. Wood said that he would like to have the option to build either road, depending on how the development goes. 

 

            Mr. Wyant suggested having the road built at a timeframe based on percentage of occupancy.  Mr. Wood said that he will retain control of the development.

 

            Mr. Rooker stated that he does not understand why Mr. Wood cannot just commit to make the connection off of Camelot when he develops Phase I-A.  Regardless of how much help connections provide, the people that live on the road where the connection is will oppose it.  If it is put in before they move in, there is no problem, because they’ve moved into an area and the road network is there.

 

            Mr. Wood said he understood that the road would have to be approved before he can get the go ahead for Phase I-A.  He said that by the time the connection would need to be built, if he were to decide not to put it at Camelot, he assumed he would have to show that it would have to be reserved as a right of way.

 

            Mr. Rooker asked where on the plan does it says Mr. Wood has to build a connection.  Mr. Davis said that it is a note on the plan.  Mr. Cilimberg read the note:  “The developer shall provide one inter-parcel connection to the Camelot subdivision.  The said connection shall be provided at Point A or B as shown, and will be determined with final engineering design.”

 

            Mr. Davis added that Mr. Wood would have to elect which connection.  Mr. Cilimberg clarified that he has to provide it at one of those two locations, and it will be determined with final engineering design.  He thinks that would be interpreted as part of reviewing that particular phase.

 

            Mr. Rooker said that if he does not elect the Camelot Drive option, he must make the other connection. 

 

            Mr. Graham said that the way it was suggested by Mr. Wood, and acceptable to staff, was that when he came in with Phase I-A, he would make the determination whether to connect at Camelot or St. Ives.  Mr. Rooker responded that if he does not make the Camelot connection, he has foreclosed that option and must make it at St. Ives.

 

            Mr. Graham said that when Mr. Wood comes in to build Phase IV, he must have the connection.  There was a difference in how staff interpreted it at first and what the language actually says.  He does not think the language precludes him from having the opportunity to come back to Camelot at a later date.

 

            Mr. Wyant stated that there are a number of final engineering designs, and suggested that the note say “final engineering design of I-A,” so that it is not open to interpretation.

 

            Mr. Rooker said that the issue is not where the connection is made, but when.

 

            Mr. Graham clarified for Mr. Wood that that means he would not be able to get a subdivision plat approved until the road plans are approved, and he would have to make that decision as part of the road plans.  Mr. Wood expressed concern with this option.

 

            Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Woods needs to make it so he can make the decision up front when he is selling the houses.  Find out which one works, so he can do it in Phase IV or Phase I-A.  He asked when Mr. Wood is planning to start the development.  Mr. Wood replied that he is going to start Phase I right away.

 

            Mr. Rooker noted that the infrastructure for roads is built all the time ahead of the houses.  Mr. Tucker said that the road is going to be designed based on total number of units.  Mr. Wood is not going to lose any units.

 

            Mr. Wyant suggested once Mr. Wood build 50 units anywhere in there, he has to make a connection.  Mr. Wood said that market forces change will dictate what is built.

 

            Mr. Rooker said that the only issue is this one point of connection, and he doesn’t understand why the decision is so difficult.  He does not see the connection as dictating the type of house Mr. Wood is selling in this community.  He emphasized that the Board is not saying Mr. Wood has to build it at any particular time.  The Board is saying Mr. Wood has to make the election, and build it whenever he builds that unit section out.

 

            Mr. Graham stated that there is no intent that he has to build all the lots in Phase I-A, for example, but he has to have to make that decision when he plats Phase IV where that connection is going to go.

 

            Mr. Rooker asked if staff was confident from the language on that plat that when he builds the road back to Phase IV, he has to have made his decision.

 

            Mr. Graham said that Mr. Wyant’s suggestion to add the term “of Phase I-A” to “final engineering design” would ensure that when he comes into plat Phase I-A, the decision would be made.

 

            Mr. Wood said that he did not like that suggestion.

 

            Mr. Rooker commented that most people, when they tender a plan, they show the roads and they show the connections.  Mr. Wood is getting more leeway than anybody he has ever seen come before a board with an application plan on where his road connections are going to be.

 

            Mr. Wyant suggested that when the lots are platted for Phase I-A, at that time Mr. Wood can make the decision about the road.

 

            Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Wood wants to build Phase IV first, he has to make the decision where the connection is going to go as part of platting that phase.  If he builds Phase I-A, he would have the possibility of building the connection with I-A, or waiting and make the decision when Phase IV comes in.

 

            Mr. Wood said he has no trouble with making the decision when Phase IV is platted, because they would not go to Phase IV first, unless the market says ‘townhouses are dead and single family is hot.’”

 

            Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Wood if he is saying that the connection will be made when the roads are built back to Phase IV.  Mr. Rooker said he is interested in when the connection is going to be made.  The way it’s worded right now, Mr. Wood can build back to Phase IV and never build that connection.

 

            Mr. Tucker told Mr. Wood that the Board is concerned he will build 90 percent of it, and won’t have a connection for people to get out.  Mr. Rooker said nothing in Phase IV will be built until a connection is made.  Mr. Wood agreed to add that to the note.

 

            Ms. Thomas said that would make the language read “….will be determined with final engineering design of Phase IV.”  Mr. Wood said that it probably will already have been made, but that would be the latest.

 

            Ms. Thomas asked about the term “will be provided” over “will be created.”  Mr. Davis suggested, “built or bonded prior to any construction of housing in Phase IV.”

 

            Mr. Rooker said if it is a private road, he assumes Mr. Wood could build the road.  It may not get accepted into VDOT’s system for a year or so.

 

            Mr. Graham stated that it will be a public road.  He asked if the Board is saying approved and bonded – which means he can be under construction for it – or is the Board saying built.  To him, built means it is ready to be accepted by VDOT.

 

             Mr. Rooker commented that every road in here is built before it’s accepted by VDOT.

 

            Mr. Cilimberg explained that the “normal process” has roads approved by VDOT for their ultimate acceptance and are bonded or built before the actual final plat is signed, and many times they’re bonded.  The key is getting them approved and bonded.

 

            Mr. Graham mentioned that routinely as part of the bonds, a schedule for completion is required, which is typically one year.

 

            Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Wood if he agreed to the statement:  “Election will be made and the connection will be approved and bonded before the construction of any homes in Phase IV.”

 

            Mr. Cilimberg suggested, “approved, built, or bonded.”

 

            Mr. Davis said, “The connection shall be approved and bonded prior to the construction of any homes in Phase IV.”  He added that would mean when the Phase IV plans are approved, it will be part of his road plans which will be bonded prior to platting Phase IV.

 

            Mr. Graham stated that the language should stipulate that the connection has to be approved and bonded, or built, prior to platting of Phase IV which would treat it like any other road connection.

 

            Mr. Wyant said he sees the first platted lot in Phase IV as the key deadline.

 

            Mr. Davis repeated the suggested language again: “The connection shall be approved and bonded prior to the construction of any homes in Phase IV.”  He added that it could be approved and bonded as part of Phase I-A, or as part of Phase IV.  Before Mr. Wood builds any homes in Phase IV, he will have had to make an election that would have to be approved and bonded.  He added that this allows for it to be in either section Phase I-A or Phase IV.

 

            Mr. Graham suggested, “prior to the issuance of any building permits in Phase IV.”  He said that normally it would be “prior to approval of the Phase IV subdivision plat and the applicant obviously could not get a building permit for any houses in Phase IV until the subdivision plat is approved.

 

            Mr. Davis said that this does not change the normal requirements for platting a subdivision, but just says that if the applicant has not platted Phase I-A and made the election, he cannot build any homes until the election is made.

 

            In relation to the previous comment during the meeting about Southwood mobile home park, Mr. Wood invited Board members to visit Forest Springs, where he has built 100 units without any public assistance.  He said that the homes are as low as $29,000 and as much as $72,000, with lots rented at $22,000, and homes owner-occupied.

 

            Ms. Thomas asked if there was a community center there, and Mr. Wood indicated that they do not have one at Forest Springs.  Mr. Wood said that they do provide some financing for tenants.

 

            Mr. Boyd asked about the half-courts and the language about sidewalks related to the Briarwood subdivision.  Mr. Wood said that his plan was to run them from Route 29 all the way back to Route 29.

 

            Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff asked the note on the plan to be changed, but Mr. Wood did not want to do that at the time he met with staff.

 

            Mr. Wood commented that he wanted the sidewalks to run the same way that had in the first half, with sidewalks on Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive, down the commercial roads on both sides.

 

            Mr. Cilimberg said the note says “curb and gutter streetscapes, and sidewalks will be provided throughout the undeveloped sections of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with existing development in ZMA 79-32 and ZMA 91-13.”  He stated that staff wanted to say, “…in a manner which is consistent with existing development and sidewalks be provided on a minimum of one side of the street for the remaining phases of development.”

 

            Mr. Wood noted that the sidewalk now is on Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive, and all the way down to Route 29.

 

            Mr. Rooker asked if it was clear from the note which streets would get sidewalks or not.  Mr. Cilimberg said that it is not clear in the current language on the plan. 

 

            Mr. Davis stated that Proffer #5 which was carried over from a previous plan says “the southerly side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood and along the westerly side of the entire length of Briarwood.”

 

            Mr. Cilimberg said that between the note and the proffer would provide:  sidewalk along Austin Drive from Route 29 back to Dixon Road, and a sidewalk from Austin Drive on Briarwood Drive onto Route 29.  He added that they do not have sidewalks internal to any of the sections that are being built residentially as required by the notes, and right now there are no sidewalks in these internal sections.  Mr. Cilimberg clarified that staff has recommended sidewalks on one side of the street throughout the new sections, not just on Briarwood.

 

            Mr. Davis emphasized that this would only provide for the new sections, not the existing ones.

 

            Mr. Graham confirmed that the speed limit internally throughout the subdivision is 25 mph.

 

            Mr. Rooker said that if this were a new plan, sidewalks would be requested, but this plan represents changes to a previously approved plan. 

 

            Mr. Wyant commented that Mr. Wood has shown a commitment to affordable housing, and he likes this request.

 

            Ms. Thomas said that it is a largely established plan, but she would like to see more awareness that there would be pedestrians who will be walking throughout.

 

            The Chairman asked if there were other persons from the public who wished to speak regarding this request.  There being no other public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board.

 

            Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd to approve ZMA 2004-14 subject to the proffers presented dated 02/01/05, and with the additional note to the application plan:  “The connection shall be approved and bonded prior to the issuance of any building permits for homes in Phase IV” and the approval of setback modification to 20 feet.  Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.

 

            Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:

 

AYES:  Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.

NAYS:  None.

 

Original Proffer ZMA 91-13

Amended Proffer ZMA 95-05

(Amendment # 2) (ZMA 2004-014)

 

PROFFER FORM

 

Date: 1/27/2005

ZMA #ZMA 2004-014

Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 32G-1, 32G-3-A, 32G-3-83

 

123.612 Acres to be rezoned from PRD to PRD

 

Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly

authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned.  These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that:  (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.

 

            1.         Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings, exclusive of the Ray Beard lots identified on the Application Plan, subject to conditions contained herein.  The locations and acreages of various land uses shall be as shown on the approved Application Plan.  As part of the final site plan and/or subdivision plat processes, the aggregate area of established open space shall at all times be at least proportional to the aggregate number of dwelling units (site plans) or lots (subdivision plats) approved.  After each primary recreation area identified on the Application Plan is established, it shall be conveyed to a homeowners association whose formation documents shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney.  Off street parking and access for the recreation area shall be limited as shown on the original PRN plan for ZMA 79-32, as referenced on the Briarwood Application Plan most recently revised January 19, 2005 (hereinafter, the “Application Plan”).  The means to limit such access shall be addressed as part of the site plan or subdivision plat review.

 

            2.         No grading permit or building permit shall be issued by the County in any phase until the owner obtains final site plan and/or subdivision plat approval for that phase, with the exception that necessary permits for the construction of Briarwood Drive may be issued by the County once the owner obtains VDOT approval of the road plans for Briarwood Drive.

 

            3.         Critical slopes may be disturbed for the construction of roads only with the prior approval of the County Engineer.  Otherwise, the disturbance of critical slopes is permitted only as authorized by the applicable Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance regulations as provided by Zoning Ordinance § 8.5.5.2. 

 

            4.         The owner shall obtain County approval of recreational facilities to include: one tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase 1B; the dedication of open space with the approval of Phases 4 and 5 for the passive recreational area which shall include the construction of walking/jogging trails; and, the primary recreation area south of Camelot shall be built or bonded for its construction prior to final plat approval of Phase 4.  This recreational area shall be built prior to completion of Phase 4 and shall consist of a baseball/multi-purpose field, two half basketball courts, playgroup equipment and picnic facilities.  All recreation facilities shall be installed by the owner.  The walking/jogging trails shall be constructed and maintained by the owner as a primitive path in accordance with the applicable design and construction standards in the County’s Design Standards Manual.

 

            5.         Sidewalks shall be constructed at the time of corresponding road construction along the southerly side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and along the westerly side of the entire length of Briarwood Drive.  The sidewalks shall be constructed to VDOT standards.

 

            6.         Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads, and other improvements are to be located, as shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat, shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state.  This proffer does not apply to individual residential lots.

 

            7.         Lots along Camelot Drive may be developed with townhouse units as shown on the Application Plan. 

 

            8.         The unconstructed portion of Briarwood Drive through the commercial areas shown on the Application Plan shall be built as approved by VDOT and bonded to County.

 

            9.         The mix of units permitted in each phase is as follows:

 

Existing Lot Mix

 

Phase

Type of Dwelling Unit

Totals

 

SFD

Duplex

Townhouse

 

1A

-

98

-

98

1B

-

-

53

53

2

-

96

-

96

3 (ABC)

-

72

37

109*

4

-

66

-

66

5

-

70

-

70

6

-

30

-

30

7

-

78

-

78

8

32

20

-

52

TOTALS

32

530

90

652

 

            Lots to be added by

            Ray Beard Property TM-32-E-2                            4                      656

            ____________________________________________________

 

            Lots to be added in final engineering                    5                      661

            ____________________________________________________

 

            Totals                                                                                       661

 

*Lots 97 & 98 are included in the Phase 3 total but will be platted at a later date.

 

Proposed Lot Mix

 

Phase

Type of Dwelling Unit

Totals

 

SFD

Lots

SFA

Lots

Townhouse

Lots

 

1A

28

-

22

50

1A (Existing Subphase 1 and 2)

-

48

-

48

1B

15

-

31

46

2 (Existing)

-

96

-

96

3, 3A, 3B, 3C (Existing)

-

70

37

107

4

52

-

-

52

5

18

-

-

18

6

31

-

-

31

7 (Existing)

-

78

-

78

8

-

-

135

135

TOTALS

144

292

225

661

 

            10.        Landscaping to provide screening shall be provided as required by Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.8 along the rear of all townhouse units located on double frontage lots.

 

            11.        The owner shall provide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) with the construction of Phases 1A (subphases 3 and 4), 1B, and 8 as identified on the Application Plan.  The owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to the subsequent purchaser of the subject property.  The current owner or the subsequent owner shall create units affordable to households with incomes less than 80% of the area median income such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of the gross household income.  All purchasers of these units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee.  The owner/builder shall provide the County or its designee a period of 90 days to identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the affordable units.  The 90 day period shall commence upon written notice from the owner that the units will be available for sale.  This notice shall not be given more than 60 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy.  If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this period, the owner shall have the right to sell the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of purchaser.

 

     For the lands subject to this rezoning, these proffers supersede the proffers accepted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for ZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-05.

_______________

 

Go to next attachment
Return to July 12 executive summary