Planning Commission Meeting   2/16/2021

16th meeting 2020-2021, 6 o'clock.

This is an electronic meeting.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with ordinance number 20A16, an ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

Opportunities for the public to assess and participate in the electronic meeting will be posted on www.albemarle.org, Community County Calendar, when available.

Sorry for that, folks, but my glasses don't seem to be working this evening properly.

Mr. Secretary, would you call the order, please?

Mr. Bailey.

Present.

Mr. Keller.

Present.

Ms.

Mr. Randolph.

Present.

Mr. Bivins.

Here.

Ms.

Mr. Clayborne.

Present.

And Mr. Carrazano.

Thank you.

So we have a quorum.

Would anyone care to pull the item that's on our consent agenda?

If not, is there a motion?

So Tim moved and Rick, you're seconding?

Yes, sir.

Is there any discussion?

My space bar ain't working.

Ms.

Moore.

Aye.

Mr. Bivins.

Aye.

Mr. Randolph.

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock.

Aye.

Mr. Keller.

Aye.

And Mr. Bailey.

Thank you very much.

One of the things we've neglected to do, folks, is to do matters for the public, but we're not going to do it tonight.

because it's not on the agenda.

But going forward, we will be having matters from the public back on our agenda, so just be prepared for that.

It kind of fell off when we moved to virtual meetings.

Tim, were you going to say something?

Tim?

No, OK.

So we're here for a public hearing.

And tonight we're going to hear for ZTA 2019-6 and ZMA 2021-2, Rio 29 form-based code overlay district.

This is an exciting evening.

Ms.

Evening Planning Commissioners.

This is a public hearing for CTA 2019-06, Rio 29 Form-Based Code and ZMA 2021-02, Rio 29 Form-Based Code Overlay District.

I'm Michaela Carty, Senior Planner in the Planning Division of Albemarle County Community Development.

And I'm joined by my colleagues, Rachel Alkenstein and Leah Brumfield this evening.

I'll start by sharing an overview of the project background and four years of staff work and community engagement that has led to this point.

Leah will share recent feedback on the draft that's been shared with staff since November of 2020.

And Rachel will provide an overview of prioritized future work related to this project.

And after the public hearing, there will be time for a discussion and staff has prepared motions for the commission.

Moving to a brief overview of the project.

The RIO 29 small area plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 2018 after two years of staff and consultant technical work as well as community engagement.

The small area plan envisions the area as a connected network of complete streets designed for all users, cyclists, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles, as well as a network of sustainable and usable public spaces and an anti-diverse mixture of uses.

The plan specifically identifies updating the zoning ordinance with a form-based code as a recommendation in the character tractor to promote the desired form.

It highlights one of this project's main goals to find the appropriate balance between regulation and flexibility, regulation to achieve the form envisioned in the plan, as well as flexibility to accommodate market changes and a mixture of uses.

Following adoption of the small area plan,

The Board of Supervisors directed staff to begin work on drafting a form-based code for the Rio29 area, and throughout 2019, county staff led internal technical working groups, in-person and online community workshops, work sessions with the Planning Commission and the Board, and facilitated project steering committee meetings.

This work resulted in the creation of a draft framework for the ordinance, and this was essentially an outline of key concepts that reflected the year of research as well as rigorous community engagement.

This framework was supported by the Board of Supervisors in December of 2019.

And over the past year, county staff have continued to collaborate across departments as well as external agencies such as Fire Rescue, VDOT, and our local transit partners, John and Kat.

Additionally, we've hired the Form-Based Code Institute and Dover, Cole and Partners to facilitate a peer review of the draft ordinance, provide feedback, and develop hypothetical scenarios like the one on the left side of your screen.

We've reconvened the Rio 29 Steering Committee, held virtual sessions with property owners and community members, as well as work sessions with the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and the Board of Supervisors.

Ultimately, these four years of work have culminated in the Rio 29 form-based code before the commission for your review today.

Thank you, Michaela.

So I'll be going through some of the feedback we've received and some of the ways we've addressed each point in the document.

Or if sometimes that wasn't necessarily within the scope of time that we had, our scope of our future work and the plans for particularly the design standards that we're looking forward to working on after the CTA is adopted.

So throughout the fall of last year, we held virtual sessions with community members and with property owners.

And we also held work sessions with the commission, the ARB, and the board.

The Architectural Review Board focused on particular aspects of the architectural standards.

We worked a lot on the materials list that they had, some of the transparency standards that they had concerns with and discussed those options in the draft and made some changes to the actual lists of the materials and requirements for how ARB would handle the certificate of appropriateness, which is one of the changes in the draft before you today.

So some of the other standards that we received feedback on was something like e-bike charging, electric vehicle charging, very specific landscape standards.

We had a lot of feedback on specific architectural standards as well, creating a pattern book for the area.

And these kinds of things have been delineated as scope of future work when we have more

Hopefully more staff time to work on those things.

So I did want to make sure that everyone knew that their feedback was heard and wherever possible it was incorporated.

We also had an online feedback form that opened on January 28th.

And that went out in the county newsletter.

It was previously called A-mail, but the county newsletter

to the public and it's also on the website as well for anyone who wants to leave a comment on the draft that's posted there.

So since November 2020, some of the changes that we have incorporated from feedback from the Planning Commission and also the public increasing the amount of space that was permitted for compact or autonomous vehicles

for pick up and drop off and including that language in there.

The green buildings and sustainability has been listed as a priority for future work, especially as the county's priority for lowering our greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change is one of our top priorities as a county.

We did revise the map, which you should see a clearly delineated map in the packets and online in the agenda right now.

to clean up the edges of the parcels to make sure that we weren't including any residences in this overlay district.

And we also adjusted feedback from Fashion Square Mall property and some of the surrounding community business owners for aligning the current parcel boundaries on Fashion Square Mall to meet the different character areas for the actual map itself.

and another exception, which I do want to make sure that everyone has the right draft in front of them.

We did have a typo in the draft that went out in everybody's packets that did not make the change that's listed on the top of this slide, which is to permit drive-through windows by special exception instead of special use permit.

The current draft that you have in front of you should be dated February 16th and it should have that change in it.

That was one of the

items of feedback we received from the community members as well.

And then also the staff reviewed process for countywide certificates of appropriateness is the section 30.6.4 at the very end of the draft ordinance to allow ARB to, sorry, ARB staff to issue a countywide certificate of appropriateness

when a application comes to them that they feel meets all the criteria for meeting the entrance corridor guidelines.

So then that allows them to bring the application to the Architectural Review Board if they feel they need to, but it doesn't necessarily make that part of the standard process.

So if the application can meet these standards,

then staff reviews it, staff issues the county-wide certificate of appropriateness.

If it needs more work, if it needs the hands-on human touch that you can't necessarily get just through an ordinance, if it's maybe not quite right for the entrance corridor, then it would go to the ARB and still be reviewed by them.

Thank you, Leah.

I'm Rachel Falkenstein, planning manager, and I am going to talk about kind of what's next with form-based code.

Rather than going through section by section of the form-based code, we just wanted to highlight the revisions since last time, which Leah did, but other than those changes, the code is largely the same as when you all saw it in November at your work session.

So I want to talk about the next steps, and the first one would be the development review process next step.

What would happen if a property owner in Rio 29 would like to develop under the form-based code should the board adopt the code as proposed?

So the first would be, just a reminder, this is an optional overlay district.

So if a property owner wishes to develop, redevelop, or add a new use to their property, they could do so using the current zoning that's there today, or they could develop in accordance with the form-based code regulations.

And if they choose to develop under the form-based code regulations, all of the regulations within the code would apply to the entire parcel.

Now, if the owner would like to pursue a phased development on their property, for instance, if it was one of the larger parcels in the district, they could do so by submitting a conceptual plan for review and approval through a special exception process.

And the conceptual plan would allow staff and the board to sort of ensure that the proposed development would not preclude future development of the larger site and that features such as streets and civic spaces are planned for the entire site in advance to achieve a coherent development pattern for the larger site.

For the next slide, the application process for development under form-based code would look pretty similar to a buy-write development process that we have today with a couple of small tweaks.

The first is that we are requiring a pre-application meeting for applications under the form-based code, and this is just a meeting with staff prior to making an application under form-based code where we could discuss topics with the applicant, such as locating the streets and civic spaces

and any unique site characteristics.

We could also invite reviewers from other agencies such as VDOT or transit agencies and fire rescue in that conversation just to make sure specific considerations are considered when the applicant submits.

And so the process from there would be to submit an application and then an initial site plan and a final site plan.

There are two areas where there might be a little bit different of a process and that is if it's a phased redevelopment or phased development as I mentioned on the previous slide and then the applicant would be required to submit a conceptual plan through the special exception process which is reviewed by staff and approved by the board.

There's also the county-wide certificate of appropriateness and this would be applicable only to entrance corridor parcels within RIO 29.

and this is a staff approved process where staff is reviewing the application against the entrance corridor design guidelines and then specific criteria that are within the form-based code.

And as Leah mentioned, if there was an issue with the entrance corridor design guidelines, review by the ARB would be available in those situations if staff doesn't believe the criteria being met.

And then the next topic I'll touch on is our future work.

Leah mentioned this in her slide when she was talking about some of the revisions.

As you recall from your last meeting in November, we had identified some topics where additional work would be needed before we could incorporate the topics as requirements within the form-based code.

Several of the topics included areas where we would need significant collaboration with other agencies or other county departments such as Parks and Rec or

our transit agencies, and you can see these two of these would fall in that category, the transit planning and the civic space design guidance.

And then many of the Planning Commission's comments from your November work session touch on these topics as well, such as the electric vehicle and electric bicycle charging or parking requirements for electric vehicles.

There were comments about orienting streets to accommodate views.

That would be work we'd have to look at with our streets regulating plan.

And then green building, low impact development and sustainable design guidance.

That would be work we felt like we needed to do additional design work and study to learn best practices and identify appropriate requirements before we could incorporate them into the code.

And some of the future work items such as landscaping design guidance, urban street design guidance, and updated lighting standards are elements that should be addressed countywide.

And these could be incorporated in the upcoming comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance updates that we will begin working on soon.

So we felt that rather than delaying the adoption of the form-based code for several months or years,

to incorporate the additional detail and design requirements.

We developed the list of future work and identified prioritization for this work based on your feedback and feedback from others that we heard previously.

So community development leadership intends to bring these topics to the board during the next review of the community development work program and will be considered at that time.

So that concludes my remarks this evening.

We do have some slides that have language for your motions.

and we would be happy to pull those up when you're ready at that time.

Let me line you up.

So I see I have Rick.

Do I see other hands?

So Rick, Corey.

Why don't we do Rick and then Corey and I'll wait and then Karen.

I understand, given our last meeting discussion, why incentives may be given a low priority.

And I think that's also perhaps a result that planners and dealing with the

realm of economics do not necessarily frequently mix well.

But I would submit that without a lot more thought about the incentives, the amount of work Rachel

that you and your staff and fellow staff members have put into foreign-based code going back two and a half years ago.

I remember well the birthing of this concept.

But if there's not more concrete thinking about the incentives, the question I pose is you're presenting to us

a more environmentally sustainable, multimodal, three-character area, integrated commercial residential public space community.

But without those incentives being identified, clarified, what motivation is there for the private sector given that form-based code is optional?

What motivation is there for the private sector to be persuaded that it is in their interest to pursue form-based code versus the current zoning?

Simply because there's so many aspects about this plan where there is an implicit requirement for some degree of public infrastructure

that has to go in, public parks, transit-stylated locations where rideshare programs can operate and drop off and pick up.

All these aspects are things that publicly have to be thought about and implemented.

And we need private development to help make it happen because the county does not have a public works department to build all these things.

Thanks, Rick.

I'll plus what you said.

And then I'd also like to thank staff for elevating Green Building to a higher priority, to a high priority.

So thank you for taking that feedback.

I have a list of questions I'll go through, and we can kind of talk through them.

Maybe if they're not appropriate for foreign-based code, just let me know as well.

In terms of the facade transparency, I was looking at the diagrams.

And based off of whether they're in the core or flex or the edge, there were different percentages, if you will, that the facade must be transparent.

And what I've noticed is that there is no regard for solar orientation.

And so if you have, let's say, 60% glazing on the wrong side where the sun is shining,

then you're going to really overheat the building.

So your mechanical systems are going to be upsized and so forth.

I think it might do the complete opposite of not only the green building, but the climate action plan and all of that stuff.

I appreciate those comments and I think that that would have to fall under future work that we would have to think about.

I think that also probably relates to our streets regulating plan as well because we're requiring buildings to front on our streets and the way the streets are laid out will have a big impact on building orientation.

So I think that really pairs

with not only the green building design, but also the street regulating plan and how those streets are oriented.

Okay, I just thought that I definitely wanted to put it on the radar and maybe the second question probably falls in that same bucket, or maybe it's not even appropriate.

But when you're looking at facades, there's always kind of like that primary facade, especially when you're facing the street and so forth.

You talk about transparency requirements.

There's no mention of, let's say, mechanical penetration.

So could somebody come in and put louvers all over the primary facade as long as you had the right amount of transparency?

Do you want to kind of control that?

If you're trying to have predictable design, if you will, in terms of form and so forth, do you want to control how many penetrations you have that might not be slightly, if you will, as you think through this?

My initial thought is that that would

That would, if it were to block the transparency that the building would not meet the transparency requirements.

From the zoning perspective, the transparency requirements require visual penetration into the building.

So

If shutters block it, if louvers block it, then the transparency doesn't exist.

As far as if they are permanent semi-louvered, I know that there are some that are fixed, they're not movable, and those would still allow some transparency.

particularly on the upper stories where that's not as necessarily as large of an issue as street level transparency.

I think that in a lot of cases, that would probably be something that would go before the ARB that architectural review board staff would probably end up addressing that under their countywide certificate of appropriateness because a lot of those are going to be happening, more likely to be happening on entrance corridor streets.

We haven't really, as far as addressing your other question about predictable design, that is something that we have talked about, saying like the pattern books, the architectural styles, and that is definitely a future work issue because it's a big question.

And especially the green building issue, I mean, that is well above

my architectural expertise.

I know a lot of professional architects struggle with balancing the transparency of a building and its design and the green design that continues climate control inside the building in addition to the mechanical systems that are built into it.

So interesting points.

Yeah, I think that's fair.

And regarding the Luber comment, I think you were touching on the ARB.

That might be where it gets caught.

Just trying to prevent this building with a bunch of Swiss cheese, right?

You see these ugly louvers all over the primary facade.

And if it's not watched, you don't control what you get.

You might be sorry later.

So the third point I wanted to bring up, I saw a list of appropriate materials in the package.

I'm talking about whether stone, different veneers, and so forth.

I didn't see anything regarding building integrated PV's.

Is this something you guys would talk about?

I think you'll see that technology more and more where you have these PV panels that are integrating a two-dip side where you might not even notice it is a PV panel.

Sure, I think that the list we spent a great deal of time with the Architectural Review Board talking about each item on it and something that I recall as feedback or a way that they thought it was appropriate to frame the materials list was to not think about internal materials but how they look externally and veering away from the interior composition of them and because I'm

I'm not an architect and I'm not as familiar with specific building materials.

I wanted to bring that up in case it applies to your question as some helpful framing.

If I could, Commissioner Clayborne, I think you raised a lot of good points.

And I do think it's certainly an area of work that we intend to address.

I mean, you've hit on a few of them and there's quite a few other kind of architectural elements that we think we could expand here.

And I do think it speaks to, you know, right now we're actually advertising for a planner position with the focus on urban design, architectural design, things like that.

Absolutely.

I understand it's a work in progress and just trying to help the product.

So not to stop the show, but any stretch of the imagination.

And two more questions and then I'll pass the buck back to the chair here.

Roof pitch and roof materials, is that something that's appropriate as you're talking about form?

I just didn't see anything regarding roof pitch.

Did you want to be able to have a very, very steep slope roof?

Next is something that might be a flat roof or anything like that.

Sure.

So we did discuss excluding roofs from the materials list.

So it is very explicitly not in that list.

It is something that we could theoretically address in future.

We haven't actually talked about roof pitch at all.

That has not come up.

But that's an interesting point that I guess just no one has brought up to this date.

The materials, we were really less focused on the roof materials.

And that was partly a decision to allow a wider expanse of roof materials.

and also to not worry about getting into the details for a lot of the flat roofs that end up mechanical on top of them.

They are pretty ugly, but you can't see them until you get to the roof.

So we decided to just leave that to the architect's decision at this point.

Very good.

And my last question is probably more of a silly question.

I think I know the answer, but I just want to ask it anyway.

If I was doing a parking garage, let's say, in that core area, and I wanted to dress up that facade to make it match the buildings around me, you probably see those in a lot of suburban areas, like Short Pump and things like that.

I would not have to put glass within the openings in order to qualify as transparent, right?

Because I just have the punch outs and you still see right through, it's no glass, but I'm just trying to mimic a building facade, but using a parking garage.

Would that, I'm just making sure the word transparency doesn't necessarily mean I have to have windows.

I didn't see anything about parking garages.

It's something I was thinking of.

So I was actually going to ask if Rachel could address, Rachel or Michaela could address the commercial parking, which is how we are describing parking garages is we're just

lumping them under commercial parking while I'm looking at the transparency question.

I can speak to the parking.

We have a section specific to design requirements for structured parking.

And it's, let's see, let me give you a page number.

Page 28, section 20C9-8.

2398 and essentially we're trying to encourage structured parking to not front an entire street so there's a requirement that non-parking uses kind of line the street facade for two-thirds of the parking structure so that you don't have an entire block that's just kind of dead space that's parking.

It does not talk about the transparency in that section but it does mention that the

The parking structure that does front the street has to have facade articulation.

So the transparency definition does include glass, but the design standards for the structured parking

remove that necessarily.

So what we're envisioning here is something similar to the parking garage on Water Street where there are storefronts in the front at the ground level.

And that's where you do still have requirements for transparency on the sides that are required to have that because those sides are going to be retail or office.

And so you'll have that there.

Each of you for your hard work.

I'm finished.

Thanks.

I'm going to go through a bunch of things quickly.

We can hear you.

You were just on pause for a second, but you're good.

We can hear you.

Yes.

OK.

All right.

So I want to begin with a compliment, and then I can rattle into all my quick questions and comments.

So my compliment is that I see a lot of work in here to incorporate

comments from Path Planning Commission workshops.

So kudos for that.

And I also really like the guide that you guys created that goes with the code.

You know, I think that's really user friendly and very attractively designed.

So thank you for making a nice product to help explain this to the development community.

Just quickly, since you were talking about parking garage facades, I also want to suggest you just take a look at the

Very attractive parking garage facades in Stanton, Virginia.

I'll try to get one of my family members to take a photo of them, but they are articulated to look like a building.

They have sort of metal grids that are, you know, sort of take a vocal window, but they're open air and they're tucked in there in their historic district and they really blend well.

and so that might be another option.

And in terms of the roof lines, I would just wanna note that I wouldn't want us to get too hung up on pitched roofs versus flat roofs because certainly we don't want everything to look the same and the main point I want to make is that flat roofs allow us to have green roofs, which we haven't gotten into yet.

but those roof spaces can become usable.

Albemarle County's green roof is really not a place you hang out but there are many green roofs that are designed with benches and gardens and even places to have a picnic lunch so and if you if you ever get to Washington D.C.

the top of the American Society of Landscape Architects building is open to the public and that's a delightful garden in the middle of downtown D.C.

so I think

Keep that in mind.

The other thing I wanted to note is green walls.

We were talking about the wall materials.

One of the prominent green roof installers and designers in Virginia has for the past at least six, seven years been doing more green walls than green rooftops.

They're very popular and you can treat stormwater laterally down the building while insulating the building and they can be really interesting.

So let us not limit our imagination by getting

carried away.

Maybe that's something that can be addressed when you do the green infrastructure focus is to allow some of those materials on rooftops and building sides and facades to be also green.

I'm happy to send you, I have hundreds of examples of these.

So that's just a comment to please consider.

I wanted to ask, I have a question now, why was lighting a low priority in the list of future work?

Because everything can't be a high priority.

I think that was a low priority in the context of RIA 29, just that we haven't heard much about it from stakeholders, community members, or others throughout the process of the RIA 29 code update.

That's not to say that it's a low priority for the county as a whole, because I know we have heard about lighting in other contexts.

Okay, so that might fall in the bucket of things that need to be addressed on a county scale.

The other thing I wanted to mention is the comprehensive plan has been evoked at the beginning in the introduction as something that you know we're going to get to this year.

But I just want to suggest that the Comprehensive Plan already gives us ample fodder for why we need to bring in some of these other elements, such as green infrastructure.

So I don't think that we need more enabling authority from the Comprehensive Plan.

Perhaps we need a new map in the Comprehensive Plan, but

we have all of the authority we need to go out and address some of these things such as landscaping standards.

So that's my next point is that when I was reading this, I was happy to see things about trees in terms of species diversity, caliper size, et cetera, but nothing addressed the underground planting standards.

And I've talked to Planning Director Rapp about this.

I know that there's some interest in updating the county's landscaping standards across the county, but I just wanted to bring that up as extremely important because we plant a lot of trees in tree coffins that last six years.

They already topped all the trees at one of our large shopping malls in the urban ring and those trees will not survive.

So I just hope that we do not take years to get to landscaping standards and to also say that the comprehensive plan does not need to be updated before we can get to that.

So you guys don't need to really comment on that.

I just want to make that statement.

All right, and then I have two more things.

just briefly and I hope the sound quality is okay, I'm at home.

One thing that was mentioned that I didn't see addressed and I didn't see it in future work either was the idea of taking advantage of the view shed and the orientation of buildings and roads such that we could

to realize some of the benefits of being on that elevated site to think about the sight lines.

And I know that I recall staff saying, well, we don't necessarily have expertise to address that right now.

But I don't want it to be on no work plan or no focus.

So could you guys comment on that?

Maybe I missed it, or maybe I'm not characterizing it correctly.

Sure, I do actually recall that conversation.

And my recollection was that it was talking about where we place and how we orient the streets.

And we don't currently have a street plan for RIO 29.

We haven't identified where all the streets should be.

And we've identified that as high on our future priority work list because we understand the importance of that, not just for views, but for a lot of other reasons.

Getting the street network that we want and that works well for the area.

So we just needed a bit more work on on that to identify where street should be.

We need some

work with some of our partner agencies and thinking about where entrances should be located, making sure VDOT standards are met, things like that.

Also about where utilities are.

And so that work needs to be done before we can identify a future streets regulating plan.

Okay.

That's fair enough.

I guess that

in listening to your really good description of what needs to happen.

It feels to me like we're not ready for form-based code without that work having been done.

And I'm not talking about views per se.

I'm talking about the entire concept of the street orientations and entrances and all of that seems to need to be worked out.

I can't understand fully how multiple sites could come in under form-based code if we haven't figured out that basic network.

and you don't necessarily need to comment on that.

I just, I'm saying, I don't understand how this can go forward without that work having been completed.

Yeah, I think that

We struggle with this a lot.

We have throughout the whole small area planning process.

We've heard from property owners that they have concerns about us going forward and putting streets down haphazardly.

So we just really feel like a little bit more work is needed.

And part of that is engagement as well.

It's kind of designed to be an ad hoc process like a case by case basis.

And that's similar to how we do development now when there's a large new development done.

We don't have every street in the county identified.

And we have a process by which we review site plans and road plans and subdivision plans to make sure the street network makes sense.

Okay, one last one.

Incentives.

Commissioner Randolph started off talking about that and I understand from prior discussions with staff that part of the reason that we have dropped a lot of those incentives or we don't have them in here is because people, consultants have let us know that incentives don't tend to work.

I guess my comment on that is that I've had to develop incentives for ordinances in the past

and I have figured out how to make some of them work by actually sitting down with the builders and developers and architects and saying what would be an incentive and had them tell me.

Now I'm sure people will say an incentive would be one day permitting and no more planning commission hearings, I'm just kidding.

But honestly, I think that there are incentives we could offer.

And so without any incentives, I don't know,

how we push or cajole people into adopting the foreign-based code.

I know by its definition it's supposed to be easier and it's supposed to move faster, but there's a lot that we're asking for in this particular code.

The code that we're proposing is a much better quality code

than we've had before.

I mean, I think it has a lot of advantages but I'm still struggling with how we will get people to want to do this.

without incentives.

And again, I think the way to get good incentives is to ask the customer.

We can test those ideas before adopting them.

So I've developed incentives that have worked.

I think it is doable.

And I'm just sort of disappointed that we seem to be dropping that approach.

Could I respond to that?

Please.

In our November work session,

When we were walking through each of the sections and progress that's been made in the framework, we had a separate section for incentives.

And what we did with this current code is incorporate incentives within sections.

And then if they fell within the prioritized list of future work, we captured that with the attachment in the staff report there that we'd like to do that as future work.

and in our engagement with property owners and stakeholders in the area, we heard feedback about the faster review process, the range of mixture of uses that is incorporated into this code and additional building height being the greatest incentives.

That's the feedback we heard so far.

And so we've incorporated the building height and the affordable housing incentive to respond to that feedback.

and we believe that we're doing this through an administrative process and there's a greater range of uses available to property owners in the area.

That is an incentive for developing under this ordinance.

There's certainly more work that can be done in terms of green buildings and other improvements we'd like to see in the area.

Yes, I just like this code to become irresistible.

And I don't think it's there yet.

I see Jenny.

And then do I see hands after Jenny?

Jenny, Luis, and Tim.

I just have a really quick comment.

And I understand this isn't probably what you're looking for at this particular point in the process.

I think it's worth saying, and since Michaela said what she was saying about height, I wanted to mention this.

And I've been thinking a lot about the height that we're asking for in this area, and then what we're saying can be the maximum with six or seven being permitted with the categories, with the bonus categories.

And so I guess what I wonder is,

and you know it's hard to imagine because we are asking this area to become something that it absolutely is not right now but when if we're imagining what we want it to become and I think about you know five by right five stories and then the six or seven and I look at the Crozet downtown district you know it allows for six and that's with a special use permit and then the four is by right and I guess I'm just putting this out there

as you move through this process is, are we asking enough from this area that is so much different than downtown Crozet and the amount of people that would move in and out of these places?

And if you compare a six story building to a seven, I know that's quite different for what both of those areas have now, but I guess it makes me wonder, could there be more?

Could it be taller?

And we know that that sounds really tall, but it can be done really well with some of the things that you're building into the code so it isn't so looming to the pedestrian.

So I just wanted to put that out there because I've been thinking about that and then comparing it to what we ask for from downtown Crozet and thinking about how these two areas are similar and very different.

So that's just a comment I wanted to add.

Yeah, it's just a comment as well.

I echo the hard work.

This is a complex planning effort for sure.

And it's not unlike, and I think I mentioned this in one of the previous

iterations or planning sessions that we were having with the commission.

It's not unlike what we do in campus planning in many ways, although it's simpler for us, we have one landowner.

So I can certainly appreciate the complexity of what you're

of what you're doing.

And I also see how the previous work sessions have influenced.

I can see how you've taken heat on the comments that the commissioners have made and appreciate that.

One of the comments I believe I made probably well over a year ago in one of the earlier sessions was having to do with material selection and

and the guidelines being trying not to be too prescriptive.

I think this gets to some of Commissioner Clayborne's comments.

And for the most part, I think that you've you've stricken a good line on that.

I will still caution as you continue.

I know there's a series of work that's still outstanding.

And some of that has to do with the ARB and working through some of the materials.

Roofing was

The Roofscapes was mentioned.

And again, I would just caution to not be too prescriptive because it really leads to uninspired design.

And I don't think that that's what we're looking for.

Commissioner Clayborne hit on it exactly.

Sometimes your orientation, you shouldn't treat one side of the street the same as the other and say everything has to be glass or have visibility in.

There needs to be a little bit of flexibility there.

One side of the street should not necessarily have the same character of the other, particularly if you're being responsive to

to green building standards and passive solar design, which we want to incorporate as well.

So again, it's really just reiterating earlier comments about how prescriptive you want to get with materiality and the massing of the building.

I was glad to see that you didn't

get into too much about is this, you know, where do you have setbacks, is this a slope roof, a flat roof, and learn from the cities of

you know their iteration when they went through in West Main and there was certainly some things that had to go back and change and I was familiar with that because the battle building was one of the first buildings under the massing that was created for West Main and thankfully everybody, the BAR

was open to making changes, which they did.

But I like the balance.

I think there's still an opportunity for, particularly as you get architects into the mix, they have a tendency of wanting to design everything.

And I think it's wonderful that we have this series of expertise that you see on this body and other bodies that you work with, supervisors as well.

And I think you all have done a masterful job, you and your colleagues, but you three as the lead in taking these things that have been presented to you by the community and these citizen experts, if you will, and incorporating them to the extent that you have.

I would just like to build on what Rick and Karen

said in particular, although I certainly echo the views of our other two colleagues, and that is that there needs to still be a structure.

This is kind of beyond you, but since community development is going to be pushing, putting this forward, and so in some ways I think I'm really addressing this at Charles Moore and Jody, and that is

the sort of partner to what Rick said and building on what Karen said is that earmarking the essential of the public spaces, maybe those primary of the public spaces and maybe the primary of the transportation routes, the streets in other words, it would behoove us as a county to think about

working with economic development and the county mothers and father to think about options or purchase of several of those key elements so that we have the public wish there so that the private sector has an idea of what

that inherent amenity and structure is that they can give to us through that public-private partnership that form-based code allows us to do.

I agree with you all.

Certainly, Michaela, what you said about the whole idea of the form-based code is that it is a series of incentives, and that's what's different than the Euclidean zoning that we have now which separates by use.

I think that a lot of the incentives are there.

And as Luis said, we're going to be, and you all have implied, we're going to be tweaking this for a number of years.

And in many ways, aren't we all in agreement that if we find some degree of success here, this becomes the model for all of the development areas in future.

So this, that's why I'm so supportive of moving forward with this, because we need to start

having the track record and hopefully many successes, but most likely a few not as successful pieces as we're working through.

But I do think it would be helpful when I look at the form-based code that has been implemented successfully in other communities around the country, it seems that there was either when they're working with the ones that are working with historic fabric,

then there is some degree of street structure or open space that is there that encourages the redevelopment with the amenities around them or that there is some more real structure given to it.

And that is out of your purview.

That's in the political arena.

But we do have an economic development authority

We do have things like this as a priority, certainly 29 North.

And I do think that we need to think about what we're going to do to really encourage the structure that we are envisioning to occur.

And certainly having the staff urban designer is going to be a real compliment to the team that you all have.

But there needs to my mind to be some real commitment to what the

most important pieces of this are so that the development community is willing to make that jump that Rick was talking about and see that there are incentives.

And I will just finally say that in terms of the specifics, what Jenny Moore just said, I also agree with, I think if there's a place that we could go higher and I understand the Heights were lower because of community involvement earlier on.

but I do think that this is a place combination of its proximity to the university and the city center and its location where it is in an area that it's seeing such major incentives that would allow higher structures and maybe that's part of the answer of what Rick was saying, what might those incentives be?

That might be an incentive to be able to go higher.

We've all heard from the developers about the structural challenges and how many more to go from the four to the six that there's actually a benefit to them to be able to go higher than the six then because of the cost differentials there.

So enough of that.

Again, I think it's amazing that you all have stuck with it.

Rachel, that you've put this team together and that you've been working on it so consistently and that we can constantly see what we've asked you to think about, be incorporated in in thoughtful manners throughout this whole project.

We'll come back to you for the motion.

We're going to go to the public.

I'll keep it short.

I'll echo the sentiment of a lot of that's been raised.

I think we, I can't congratulate enough.

I know the,

amount of work that's been put in by staff and you know the complex considerations that have to be to balance this and if we do this what is that implication and this and I know there's been a lot of hard work put into that and I think it's reflective and it's reflected the care and consideration and listening to the comments you've had over this multiple steps and we see them in there and I just say thank you for all that hard work and I think this is

a great starting point.

With that, it is almost inevitable until we can get into it.

If you're thinking from, let's come back to it.

It's hard for me also thinking about it from a business perspective and being a business owner and thinking about it from a product perspective.

If I'm on the other side that I have the option to go in this, I have to understand

how I can create fundamentally a better product for the cost of that redevelopment or going into this or how I get that better.

And I appreciate the kind of flexibility and the things that the staff is addressing in this form-based code of providing greater flexibility and maybe more height, things like that.

But it does come down to having a better view of the structure and the county so that

we can understand so that our partners in the development community can understand what product and use their talents to bring a product that will transform this area into what we want it to be.

And so I would kind of throw my support around maybe thinking about the incentives section a little bit more than the low priority that it is and figuring out how

you know, where through economic development and others we can get feedback, excuse me, feedback from our partners in the development community to assist them in helping realize this vision that has been laid out so, you know, adequately for us.

And it's almost certainly we'll probably have, you know, changes that will be

questions about transparency and green and things and we'll have to evolve.

I just have just a couple of questions really.

So and this is I guess to Rachel.

So Rachel, would I envision that there would be

The form-based code certainly allows it.

We don't actually address density.

in the form-based code, the focus on form and housing is a use that's allowed.

So housing could take all sorts of forms.

Yeah, where we have shorter heights and there's some smaller parcels around there.

Yeah, sure.

Then the other thing I had a question.

It seemed, and I think I'm on that really great sort of field guide, I'm saying.

It's sort of page 19 and 21.

And it's OK.

You don't have to go there.

But it says that interim uses are prohibited in the core area on the first floor.

but they're allowed on the upper floors.

And so just my question would be, would that mean that you would not be able to have any sort of pop-up activities there?

I don't think the intent was to preclude the pop-up uses.

So there would be a way for that to be facilitated.

I don't know how you do that in the code.

But if we look at the interim, it would particularly exclude a whole host of things which we tend to see pop up places.

Go ahead.

Oh, sorry to interrupt.

I was going to call on Leah to talk about the difference between interim and temporary uses, because I think I address

Yeah, so I was just unmuting actually.

So if you look under short-term uses, temporary uses is permitted on those first floors and throughout.

And we do treat them differently in the code.

So something like a temporary event would be, we would process that just like a normal temporary events permit that we have right now.

That wouldn't be any different.

And those uses, if the use is permitted, then it would just be processed under

I was trying to reconcile what you show on page 21 there, where it describes under eight, where it describes the interim uses and its real estate, retail sales and service, restaurants, entertainment, office, artesian, manufacturing, those sort of things there.

So that's the uses, but yet when we go to the other page, it says that they're not allowed.

Sure.

So the interim uses that we're kind of looking at interim uses as a use that is in a space that would otherwise not be redeveloped.

So there are shopping centers that are currently not redeveloped and

They can be used for interim uses.

That's what that applies.

Thank you.

And then I'm going to be a little tougher than my colleagues.

I think without some infrastructure budget on this, it's not going to happen.

And you've heard me say that before.

I am struck by, and many of you, if you haven't seen it, perhaps you saw it streaming, Wonder Woman, the new Wonder Woman 84, was done in the Lammock Mall, which is sort of an old school mall

in Alexandria, inside the city of Alexandria.

And something very exciting, I mean, the mall, if you've heard me complain about how I think our mall is starting to feel like zombie land, the landmark mall had already converted.

And it was definitely a scary place to go into.

But what happened is that Alexandria bought the mall.

They purchased the mall.

and they're partnering with a NOVA medical group to relocate their primary hospital there and then build a community around that in a multi-use community and that's why that's happening.

It's because the city decided we want to jump, we want to hyper jump this location up there

And if we let developers do it, they're going to have to measure and confront all the various things that people with those kinds of assets have to confront.

And so I think if our supervisors really want that intersection to take off,

and we're gonna have to figure out a way to sort of come in there and put some things in place and perhaps even become serious partners with some of the land that's there.

Otherwise, I think there's enough distraction in the way we develop things in our community that it'll be a long time coming and your work is too good for it to get stale.

I don't want this to get stale.

I remember two and a half years ago, I struggled.

I asked Tim, I asked everybody, what is foreign-based code?

I cannot believe that two and a half years later that I am so enthusiastic.

And part of that is because of your work.

And I don't want this work to get, I don't want it to go stale.

And I don't want the intersection of Rile Road and 29 to become this abandoned place.

And I'm fearful

without the county becoming more active and making that happen, that it will drift on its own, regardless of the great work that you've done.

That's my five cents, Rachel, on that, about how I feel about this project.

I want it to be a success, and I don't want to be nervous when I go to Fashion Square Mall anymore.

I want to be happy and eat good things and see great things there.

Anything else before we open it up for public comment?

And we'll open it to the public.

Please state your name, the organization you represent.

My name is Neil Williamson.

I serve as the president of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization focused on central Virginia's local governments.

Often regarded as the greatest college basketball coach ever, University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA coach John Wooden won a total of 11 national titles as the head coach.

Tonight, you are considering the form-based code for the Rio 29 small area.

The Free Enterprise Forum has been engaged in this

and the previous place's 29 planning efforts for well over a decade.

During this significant public engagement, staff, to their credit, for the most part, has followed some of Coach Wood's sage advice, listen if you want to be heard.

Considering the economic import of this area, the significant opportunities available and the optional nature of this code which we advocated for,

The Free Enterprise Forum sincerely wants to support the form-based code, but we still have concerns.

The requirement of a special use permit for light industrial usage in all but one of the areas.

The language surrounding this issue seems intentionally vague, indicating the SUP should be measured to see if it's in harmony with the surrounding uses.

Many of the lawyers I speak with

equate building an argument in support of this ambiguity like nailing jello to the wall.

Light industrial units are targeted industries in Albemarle County because they bring high skilled, good paying jobs with very few negative externalities.

Beyond being a transit node, the concept of live, work and play is a significant part of the Rio 29 planning paradigm.

We believe light industrial uses could be allowed by right

in all areas as long as design guidelines and performance standards are met.

Two, special exceptions.

The form-based code as currently drafted only allows for five special exceptions to the code and those must be granted by the Board of Supervisors.

While we understand the intent of the code is to be rigid in design, we as you know every site is unique and presents its own special circumstances.

We ask the type of administratively accrued

Special use exceptions be expanded and include objective metrics as would be required for such a staff approval.

Three, architectural board involvement.

We've spoken at length the need for the ARB to weigh in on design guidelines on the front end and not be a part of the application process.

As written, the ARB is not engaged in the process, but it allows the staff to engage the ARB if the staff thinks it's appropriate.

This language should be changed to require the staff to review the plan and giving the applicant the opportunity to appeal the plan to the ARP.

Number three, all or nothing.

We appreciate the option of using form-based code and there are large parcels in the area that might benefit from the opportunity to develop the northern portion of a parcel as form-based code and the southern as conventional zoning.

It seems, though, under current proposals, such an approach is not only discouraged, it's actively outlawed.

Finally, something you've all touched on today, enhanced incentives.

As much as we like the form-based code, we do not believe this optional overlay offers applicants enough benefits to outweigh the use of the conventional code.

We would welcome the opportunity for increased incentives so the code not only gets on the books, but has a chance to be utilized.

The Free Enterprise Forum desperately wants to support the form-based code, and we are so close.

Coach Wooden was way ahead of his time in so many of his teachings.

Regarding the Rio 29 form-based code, I think he summed it up best.

If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Then hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back.

Wait, wait, wait.

Sorry.

Okay, thank you.

One second.

All right, I have Valerie Long.

Valerie, please state your name and if you're representing a group or organization that as well.

Great, thank you.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm Valerie Long with the law firm of Williams Mullen.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight and want to just echo all of the comments made about

the many literally years of work that I know staff has put into this and I commend the efforts.

I recognize the challenge of trying to strike the right balance between having sufficient incentives

to make it worthwhile, but also having enough prescriptive design guidelines to achieve the goals.

I know that's incredibly difficult.

I think my overall comment though is like many others have said tonight, I'm not sure that it's there yet.

I think there's a lot of really good things in here and there's a lot of flexibility, but there's a lot of areas where more flexibility and more incentives

I know from working with some of our clients with land in this area there would need to be more incentives in order to make it worth the effort to go through this but I think if those incentives could be increased and some of the issues addressed it would provide tremendous opportunity to avoid

the very expensive, time-consuming and uncertain aspects associated with discretionary land use applications, rezonings.

So I commend the fact that it's an optional overlay and that it's all by right.

That will make a difference.

But if you can increase some incentives, particularly with regard to building heights, as was mentioned,

Four stories in the flex area is actually shorter than what you could do by right in planned development mixed commercial or PRD and some other districts that allow for 65 feet.

Certainly an improvement that there is now only a special exception required for things like drive-throughs, but I would recommend that that actually be a buy-write use subject to design guidelines like is in the rest of the zoning ordinance.

I know Rachel's

commented to me that that was ideal but that they need to work out those design guidelines.

I think that's important.

This is a very large area and even though the special exception is much better than the special use permit process, it still takes up to 90 days in most cases.

It still involves a lot of additional time, resources,

expense and uncertainty for something that you, with some design guidelines I think that it could be achieved, it could match the goals for the form.

I also want to just caution about the level of detail that might be required on a conceptual plan to avoid that having becoming too much like an application plan is for rezonings.

I would encourage just as much flexibility as possible for special exceptions or for modifications and flexibility.

There's a section that is really strong about that provides flexibility for street standards.

if the street so-called meets the purpose and intent of the design guidelines.

I think that's the type of flexibility that could be added and enhanced throughout the draft to avoid situations where that I've been in far too many times where

Our client and engineers have designed something and the staff agrees that it makes sense and it's appropriate but unfortunately it's just not explicitly permitted by the ordinance so they are not able to support it.

I'd like to try to avoid those situations and likewise I would agree strongly with the comment about not requiring a special use permit for light industrial uses.

The definition is already

such that it's defined expressly as small scale uses within enclosed buildings have to be compatible with surrounding uses.

That is a bit of a vague term, but at least it conveys the intent.

So I don't understand if you designed it that way, why it then has to require a special use permit.

Okay, great.

My last comment is just the affordable housing I know is consistent with the draft housing plan, but I would ask that there be an appreciation for the challenges of meeting these standards in the draft.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Then we will close the public hearing and bring it back.

I didn't hear that there were any questions.

I mean, I think the main theme is that further design guidance is needed and that's work we fully intend to do and hope to get it to a place where

I don't, unless Lydia has anything to add, as our zoning expert, it's a use that

Yeah, I think one of the things that might address some of the comments that we've heard is some of the light industrial uses that both the bodies,

legislative bodies and also the public has requested for this area would fall under the artisan manufacturing light industrial uses, which are explicitly permitted throughout the district.

These are things that are explicitly small job operations, small job creation operations that are local, that they are

generally going to be things that would be of interest to local people, more creative endeavors perhaps, but also more technology endeavors, small scale.

One of the things that was brought up was laser printing or laser cutting, sorry, not laser printing, laser cutting or 3D printing type operations.

Those would be permitted under that type of

type of use.

Thank you.

So commissioners, where are we?

I'd like to make one comment about the recommendation that we expand through form-based code, the opportunity for drive up windows.

The first observation I'd make is in general, if we look at the core area, that if we were to go ahead and do that by right, I think we would be sealing the future of the multimodal dimension of

This community, because it will lead, if one thinks about what's transpired in Pantops with the arrival of Chick-fil-A, we would see cars exiting 29 and pulling in

for fast food and quickly then re-merging 129.

So the only way that that would work, and this comes back to Tim's point, is if the county essentially said what we're going to do is build an arterial

here in this community, which serves as somewhat like Pit Row does at NASCAR or any Daytona or any NASCAR track, where cars can exit the high volume, higher speed, major highway, come off

Be on an arterial, go ahead and get service with food, whatever they would like to need to head further north, up 29, and then quickly get back on and keep that kind of traffic away from the rest of this community.

That could work, but that would require exactly what Tim has suggested, an investment to provide that kind of a road

and then it would require under form-based code restrictions elsewhere that there would not be drive up windows so that we can be assured that we're gonna have the kind of multimodal community that we're seeking here.

So I understand Valerie's point.

I think it's well taken, but I would say it only works on the Western edge, the Western extremists

of the core area and in proximity and parallel to 29.

Thank you.

Other comments before we move forward?

Then commissioner.

Commissioner Bailey.

And Rachel, would you put your proposed language up, please?

We have a few different motions drafted that I can share with the commission.

There are two separate motions for each of these recommendations, one for the ZMA 2021-2 and ZTA 2019-6.

So these two motions are for recommending approval.

Can you, oh, I can't see you, so Daniel.

I'm here.

Okay, I just, I couldn't see you.

I have, I have, I have Michaela's screen in front of me.

I'm gonna have to help me.

There's a lot of motions there and especially to list changes.

I don't know, I don't know that I have a full copy of any changes that were suggested at this juncture, but without further ado,

I'd like to make a motion for move to recommend approval of ZMA 2021-02, BIO 29 form based code overlay zoning map as shown in attachment three of the staff report updated February 15, 2021.

10 seconds.

Is there discussion?

So I'm going to need you to speak.

Mr. Chair, just a question for clarification.

It'll be part of the transcript.

Okay, fair enough.

Additional discussion.

The motion has been moved and seconded.

Certainly.

Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

Mr. Keller?

Aye.

Ms.

Aye.

All right.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.

Thank you.

So that passed.

Yes, sir.

Is there a second?

I see seconded by Tim.

Is there further discussion or comment?

Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

Moore.

Aye.

Mr. Randolph.

Aye.

Ms.

Keller?

Aye.

Mr. Bailey?

Thank you all.

And thank you for this voyage and look forward to working with you as we come forward, as this moves forward and seeing the other work, because I assume you'll need our advice on all that as you move forward on a number of things.

And we, as you know,

are always willing to give our advice on these important matters.

So thank you and congratulations as you move this to the Board of Supervisors.

Yeah, thank you.

Well,

We have this new thing that we get, and I just love presentations, you know, because we just get to be sort of good, active listeners.

And every now and again, we get to make comments to people and see what they want from us.

So in this case, welcome.

Welcome.

And we're going to have a presentation tonight on the Royal Road Corridor Plan Overview.

I sure will.

All right, excellent.

And I'm joined by Serena Gruria from our CAPE office, who's also here to help me present specifically the community engagement aspect of this project.

And let me

Go ahead and get started then.

As you know, probably the Board of Supervisors directed staff to undertake a study of the Briar Road corridor.

A consultant, Liningrade Civil Engineering, has been hired to develop this plan in conjunction with the county staff, community development staff.

Liningrade has previously assisted the county in the development of the recent Avon

Street Corridor Study and Plan, and they've also worked with the county on a number of other projects here in the county.

We have very good experience with them.

The scope of the study is from the Rio 29 small area plan area at the west to the intersection of the John Warner Parkway.

This study will also be taken into account traffic from existing and potential development

in those approaching segments to this corridor, so Royal Road South as it approaches John Warner Parkway and the area within the small area plan.

The consultant will be looking at existing and potential traffic information from that area and also be considering existing proposed improvements and looking at potential improvements in those immediate approaching areas.

The scope of the outline in the consulting contract states that the study will conduct an evaluation of the corridor, develop comprehensive design alternatives to serve as a guide for the future development and infrastructure rehabilitation projects.

It also will provide solutions to enhance the mobility and access for all users and all common travel methods.

and traffic safety operational improvements which will best serve the future needs of the corridor.

Also unique to this process, it marks the first time that we've partnered with the county's Office of Equity Inclusion to utilize the new equity impact assessment process.

OEI's initial demographic analysis of the area reveals a corridor that has a very diverse population regarding race, age, income, homeownership status, and transportation needs.

And we want to ensure that to the greatest extent possible that the plan considers the perspective and well-being of all the residents and user groups.

and that is reflected in the plan's recommendations ultimately.

And while we've started the engagement process, the board can expect and the commission can expect us to continue to apply the equity assessment tool and process at every stage as we move forward.

Regarding the timeline for the project,

Staff and the consultant work is underway now.

The scope of services assumes that the project will take approximately six months.

And the work began in earnest in the November, really the December timeframe.

Once completed, the corridor plan either in full or certain components and recommendations of the plan would be adopted as an amendment into the comprehensive plan and places 29 master plan.

That process will take place once the corridor plan is completed, reviewed, and accepted by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

There are kind of four stages of this plan as we've been explaining it to the public.

The first discover stage being the corridor background and document review and assessment of existing conditions, which is underway.

There's a defining or a vision phase where conceptual design alternatives and concepts will be developed and considered.

Once those concepts and alternatives have been embedded, the third stage is to actually develop the final draft plan with recommendations for improvements.

And the fourth and final stage would be that approval process with you, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors.

Information developed during these stages will be made available

On the project hub site, Serena will be explaining that, we have an online site.

And that site will be available for people to review and comment on the project and information that's being developed over time, information about meetings, and also other information about the status of the project will be there.

We will also conduct virtual meetings during these stages as well.

So we'll use the hub site and also strategic meetings over the course of the project.

In developing the plan, the consultant will assess the Comprehensive Plan and Places 29 Master Plan, existing zoning characteristics, existing traffic studies, and other existing current and projected traffic data.

The consultant will evaluate the corridor against VDOT access management criteria for intersections and entrances, the relevant safety criteria, including looking at crash data,

Multimodal characteristics of the corridor for pedestrian bike transit use will be considered and similar standards and criteria will be looked at and the corridor will be evaluated against those.

The consultant will also assess and make recommendations on aspects of urban design, context and character of the road corridor.

Thanks, David.

Hi, I'm Serena Gruya.

I'm the public engagement specialist here with the county.

I'm just going to go over our engagement goals and how we seek to meet those goals.

Our public engagement goals are centered in our mission and our community values.

They are to inform participants about the project, the process, and to provide background information to prepare everyone to participate fully.

Another goal is to create space to share and understand different perspectives, knowledge, and experiences.

to reduce the barriers to participation, to learn who we are and who we are not reaching and adjust and respond accordingly, and then to create an inviting and enjoyable experience and get lots of people to participate in the process.

Next slide, I think.

It's real small.

Here are the outreach methods we're going to use to raise awareness about the project and encourage participation.

So we have our traditional channels, which include our email newsletter, the county website and social media platforms.

And then some additional efforts will include five flyer kiosks, which are those real estate boxes you might see outside of houses for sale.

They're weatherproof and we're going to have flyers in those all along the corridor.

We'll also visit businesses along the corridor to request that flyers be posted inside the windows.

We'll directly contact churches, property managers and others who may be able to share information with larger groups of people.

And then we're going to create door hang tags and distribute them in person.

There's a lot of single family houses that might not have the same access to like the channels that we traditionally use.

So we're taking that into account to go door to door.

And then, as David mentioned earlier, as far as the project communication, we understand that clarity and consistency are very important.

And so we've developed an online project hub, which is at www.publicinput.com slash Rio Corridor.

I don't know if you all

That's probably in the slide there, but we can send it to you.

And that houses information and online participation opportunities for the project.

That site has been up for, I think, two weeks, and we have 105 participants that have been sharing their insight, their ideas, and their experiences, both how they currently experience the corridor and how they want to experience the corridor.

So I'd encourage you to go check that out.

It's a dynamic site that you can see people's responses as they occur, which is great for people who want to come and check back.

This project is also going to be the debut of our new community engagement field office, which I'm really excited about.

We are getting a van that's been upfitted to go out on location to create pop-up events.

So we'll have different pop-ups throughout the season, I guess all the way through the end into the winter.

So at some point we'll be able to have a higher capacity, but we can have probably 10 people and just have, you know, on the ground survey opportunities and things like that.

And then, of course, we'll have virtual meetings, workshops, and events to review components of the consultant's work and develop shared understanding and solutions with the community.

One of the options for the survey right now is to indicate what information areas you want to learn about.

So I think the top hit right now is design options and design alternatives.

So we're looking to have a couple lunch and learns that will share maybe what other localities are doing.

and get people to be able, again, to have that information to make good informed choices going forward.

And then finally, I'd like to highlight the participation support.

Our Office of Equity and Inclusion has committed to provide resources to those who need support to participate.

So translation, printed materials, things like that.

I think that's it for me.

Thanks, Serena.

and I'm wrapping up too.

So what we have for our next steps is, as Serena has just gone over, we're gonna begin.

We've already started some, but we're gonna engage more significantly in our notification processes.

And we are scheduled to hold a virtual kickoff meeting here in March.

Serena, I've forgotten the dates.

I drew a blank, the 11th and 12th.

That's right.

We're doing an evening option on Thursday and then an afternoon option on Friday.

So for people who might not be able to attend one or the other.

Yeah.

And similar concept to general overview of the project so that people are aware of what it's all about, how they can stay informed.

We will have the consultant start to provide some background information there, so there'll be a little bit more meat to it.

But it's really more of a meeting that just, again, is part of making the public aware of the project and so that they can know to stay alert and get involved if they want.

And so that's the major next step project for us.

And I did want to kind of cover one thing I think you all are probably aware of, and it kind of relates to the project.

But recently, you probably know that the state, VDOT, has made recommendations for funding on the smart scale applications.

and the roundabout project at the John Warner Parkway and Ryer Road intersection was recommended for funding.

The CTB won't make a final decision until early summer, but they usually follow the recommendations.

So we are assuming and the consultant has been aware of the smart scale project and the process is assuming that the project will move forward as a roundabout project.

We're not asking the consultant to spend a significant amount of time reevaluating the roundabout.

However, if there are some improvements to it or if there are issues with the roundabout that become apparent and better alternative is identified and appears to have broad support, has similar operational and safety benefits and is essentially the same cost, we might consider, the study might consider some modifications to that.

plan.

If this were the case, we would work with VDOT to try to get a change approved without losing the funding or timing of the project.

But we are sort of working on the approach that a traffic circle is going to move forward in that area.

And again, that's my basic overview.

I'm here to answer any questions that you might have, otherwise invite you to

perhaps attend the kickoff meeting and go look at our hub site.

Thanks.

Questions, commissioners?

All right.

I need to come out of this view.

Thank you.

I need to come out of that view so I can see everyone.

Questions?

Comments?

Welcome to our new community involvement person.

I would encourage that the first sentence on the first slide not have acronyms that aren't explained.

Like I heard David talk about CAPE.

I've never heard CAPE before in talking about community involvement.

I actually think community involvement sounds better than an acronym, but that's just for you to think about.

I've got a question about the extent of the project.

When we initially talked about, I made recommendations for this, we talked about it going from 29 all the way to the 250 bypass to the east.

Well, the substance of the area is from the John Warner Parkway.

We are, and the consultant will be looking at the approaches on South Ryar Road, essentially across the Wetzel frontage.

We'll be looking at existing traffic and existing recommended improvements in that corridor.

So they are going to take those into consideration.

but the focus of the work is going to be from that approach to the traffic circle south of the John Warner Parkway, that immediate area and then to the north to the small area plan area and into the small area plan area.

They'll be evaluating the traffic circle proposal or looking at the area that is just inside of the small area plan area and some of those recommendations.

So it isn't a hard stop.

Well, we have a team actually.

I'm going to be probably the front person, but Rachel, Charles, Kevin McDermott and I, along with

Well, the reason I ask is because you have so much institutional memory and involvement.

And if it's going, not going to go further around, it seems to me that the ongoing joint county city of Rivanna River study, which

still teases, plays around with the Rivanna River crossing and a minimum pedestrian crossing and a maximum vehicular crossing as well could well likely happen in that related land use area.

And so I think that that, as well as some sort of build out scenario for the county and ideally the city portion of Rio Road, the adjacencies,

because we have had so much housing in there, have we pretty much, this is a hypothetical, have we pretty much maxed out other than the Wetzel property or are there a fair number of new units that can happen?

And if so, what will be those impacts?

So that this doesn't end up being another just short-term study to deal with the immediate issues that we're all quite aware of and the public has told us numerous times about.

with projects that we've been dealing with there.

And then of course, the Rivanna River project has elected to concentrate on the developed area.

So then there is this interesting ongoing work about the Rivanna Trail, the pedestrian component of that.

And I hope that that wouldn't be lost in this study as well.

Yeah, I think, well, hopefully we are going to make sure, one of the things that we've discussed, because we've heard some concern about the extent of the scope of work, is that we do want to acknowledge the work we've done to date in those areas and make sure that the study acknowledges those areas.

We do have some recommendations for improvement in these corridors and make sure that that kind of gets embedded and acknowledged.

And I think

Any adjacent or nearby studies that may have impacts to some of the modes that we're considering, we certainly want to make sure the consultants are aware of that and that the final document, and as we develop towards that final document, is taking those projects into account.

So things like the Rivanna Trail improvements that might provide for connections to this area, I think is worthy to acknowledge.

I think the consultant is really focused in on those things that we need to do to manage this.

multi-purpose corridor.

It's really important to us, this arterial section that functions as a through road and a connector, an intra-county and a city-county connection.

It also has to provide this collector function to businesses and neighborhoods.

And these roads also provide a public open space function, if you will, with the character of the

right away, the improvements, the streetscaping and the recreational components of sidewalks and all.

So we want to make sure that this area that has to carry 29,000 trips has a good plan that actually makes sidewalks user-friendly, makes transit user-friendly.

And that's why there's the focus on this area first.

I think we may find that we needed to delve into

the Ryer Road section south Moore as we look into the information that we have today.

But it's such a characteristically different road.

There's a desire to get this project done in a timely manner and really have a focus in on that area.

That's why we're kind of concentrating on the area from the John Warner Parkway.

But we don't have blinders on to the areas to the west or to the east, and we'll be taking those into consideration.

And hopefully as you go through the process, you'll stay on us to make sure that we are capturing those points too.

It does well, thank you.

I'm sure Mr. Bailey will talk about some of the things that his predecessor spoke about with the interior circulation amongst some of the developments that are along railroad and how that plays into this as well.

And in terms of the development on Briar Road South, I think we've gotten significant, most of the significant larger properties are developed.

There are smaller pieces that can be assimilated.

Other comments or questions?

So I do have a question.

Will you do any of your pop-ups off sort of on the weekends or on off hours?

Absolutely.

And we were actually, I was driving around today with Siri Russell, and we were driving into some of those, the neighborhoods that have Woods Edge and Rio Hill and Mallside.

And we were kind of dreaming about, you know, when we come back to

maybe larger crowds having like a cookout.

This van is going to have a popsicle stand.

It has a sound system.

So we can create some vibrant events that draw people to us and then create these opportunities for conversations and understanding.

So I think we're looking not only at the corridor, possibly popping up at a gas station, but also going all the way to Java, the senior center.

If you go to Putt-Putt, invite us and we'll come down and we can all play Putt-Putt.

Anything else?

Thank you so very much.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks for having us.

See you.

Bye.

And good to meet you.

Good to see you and meet you.

Committee reports.

Karen.

We can't hear you.

No, I was just saying goodbye.

I did have an earlier comment I did get to make, which was just, yeah, but I actually had my hand up earlier.

I just wanted to note that I understand these are the same consultants that did the work for

Avon Street Extended, is that right?

And they did an excellent job of listening to people, of being super creative, of thinking outside the box and also with multimodal trails and how to move people around.

So I just thought their work was stellar and very creative.

So I have every faith that they'll be as inclusive as possible.

We agree with all those points.

Back to committee reports.

I see.

So I believe you're all aware of the working group that President Ryan charged last year on affordable housing.

Unfortunately, that happened around the time that the pandemic hit and everyone's attention went elsewhere.

Obviously.

And so I did want to give just an update on that since today.

In fact, it was earlier this afternoon.

The kickoff meeting, which is chaired by Executive Vice President J.J.

Davis, they had their inaugural meeting or the kickoff meeting of that group.

There is a consultant that's been hired.

Strange acronym, speaking about acronyms, but I won't read you the acronym because I haven't quite figured out how to pronounce it yet.

Not Enron.

But

Gina Morette is the principal and the consultant, and she's also facilitating the conversations that started today.

There will be a report, the same presentation that that group is receiving today from Gina will be given to LUPAC.

So our distinguished chair will be there and hearing that presentation.

Thank you.

I don't know that I'm in the middle of it.

OK.

Any other reports, committee reports?

No?

OK.

Sure, so February 3rd, Board of Supervisors meeting, we had a handful of work sessions and presentations, one of which was what you just saw tonight on Rile Road as we kind of get that thing moving.

We had some discussion on non-arterial entrance corridors, a topic that I believe probably came back to this commission a couple of years ago.

Trying to identify what to do with some of the corridors that are not officially classified as arterial roads.

Went through some options with the board on that.

And we also started our initial scope discussions for the upcoming comp plan and kind of laid out

What was a starting point to discuss a three year approach and how we might go through the different phases of that public engagement and different

different user groups and demographics and how we're going to hit all the different points to do this upcoming comp plan update.

And that will continue with discussion on that at the board in March, I believe.

So once we kind of get that narrowed down, we'll come back to this commission and do a similar overview of that approach and that scope before we really kind of get things going on that.

Very large but exciting projects.

We also had one special use permit that evening for the Animal Wellness Center out in Crozet that came before the commission a little while ago, and that was approved by the board.

Thank you.

Is there any old business or new business?

So I just have a question for the collective intelligence here.

Did we ever get a presentation on the climate action plan?

Does anybody remember that?

You do, Rick?

No, no, but I remember as a planning commissioner, I thought we got a quick review.

I'm going to ask Charles to have a conversation with them because I just sat in a meeting last night and one of the things that they're talking about having this tremendous impact is

building and land use.

And I was like, well, that's really interesting that they're having this whole, there was this whole sort of chapter on land use and building.

And I'm thinking, I don't have any recollection of any of my colleagues weighing in on any of that.

And so I'm seeing maybe Tim reaching for his unmute button there.

Well, I can't say one of the major topics that we want to address with this comprehensive plan update is folding in the climate action plan into it because they're very similar in a lot of aspects.

Like you said, they had all types of transportation and land use and utilities, building types, things like that that really need to be folded throughout the comp plan.

Well, it would be, I think if no one can remember, and Rick can remember, it might be helpful if at some point when we start looking at that work, if they would have come and come before and perhaps do a presentation to us, because I struggled with what I, I didn't struggle in a bad way, but I struggled saying, I don't recall any of this.

Yeah, we're happy to bring that to y'all.

Yeah, I think it'd be good, maybe, as we kind of get into the content, we get to that section, give an overview of it.

Tim, did you want to say something?

Did you want to say something?

I was just going to say it's really interesting as we see the first

the sort of compressed wood structure go up next to the ACAC downtown and I think maybe Luis and Corey have brought this up before but the discussions of concrete and the emissions because of all the concrete and here we've just had a project that we've endorsed that could be calling for a great deal of new concrete being added to a major area of our development.

So I think that there's certainly areas for overlap, whether we want to get into that, whether staff wants to lead us in that.

But it is, we know that we have lots of conflicts in our society.

And this is just yet just another one of those where on the one hand, we're interested in density and affordable housing and more housing.

And on the other hand, there are environmental ramifications to these.

Thank you.

Do we have other matters that need to come before us?

No.

Then our next meeting is on March 2nd.

We are not meeting next week, but we will see each other on March 2nd.

And so on that note, thank you very much and be safe until then.

And be safe over the next 48 hours because apparently we're back at Iceland here.

And so don't rush out and get all the milk and don't get all the eggs because on Friday it's going to be warm again.

And so just get enough for 48 hours and be careful.

Get some chickens.

Are we going to get some chickens?

Oh, good.

I could use some of that.

And Corey, get some sleep.

Everybody, thank you and see you in two weeks.

See you in two weeks.

Bye-bye.

Thanks, everyone.

OK.

What am I doing here?

I don't know what I'm doing here.

OK.

Well, you know, I got I couldn't see that was my heart.

It was like, I can't see.

You know, you know, you don't wear bifocals.

And I'm going to tell you something, it's going to happen.

It happens like that.

When at one moment, you're looking at something the next moment, you cannot see it.

and you're like, I was at a meeting and I was doing the speech and I looked down at the papers, Charles, and I looked back up and I looked back down and I could not see the speech in front of me.

I could not see it.

in that quick.

So just be careful.

I get a little more variety, but I used to stare at construction drawings all day.

All right.

Oh, you heard that I got that.

I got that phone call from your colleagues up there at and let's see, where is that again?

Ashwood Boulevard?