Planning Commission Meeting   6/15/2021

Are we ready?

Good evening everyone.

On June 15th, 2021, our electronic meeting, which is beginning at six o'clock.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with ordinance number 20-A.

Opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting will be posted on the www.albemarle.org forward slash community forward slash county hyphen calendar when available.

Yes.

Mr. Bailey?

Present Mr. Keller Present Ms.

Firehock Here Mr. Randolph Present Mr. Bivins Here Ms.

We have a quorum.

There's a consent.

Anyone want to pull anything from the one item on our consent agenda?

Tim, move.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Corey.

Yes.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Ms.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.

Ms.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Moving into our first, the first public hearing or the only public hearing for this evening is ZMA 2020-07 RST residents, which is coming back to us from a deferral.

Good evening, everybody.

My name is Andy Rydelbach, and I am a senior planner with the Albemarle County Planning Commission.

And tonight, this is a continuation of a public hearing for ZMA 2020-7 RST Residences.

And this first came before the Planning Commission a few months ago on Tuesday, March the 2nd, as when Mr. Bivins, the chair, said that

So just as a reminder, the location of the site, it is two parcels located near the intersection of Ashwood Boulevard and Route 29 to the west of the Forest Lakes neighborhood.

This is a more zoomed in view of the site.

There's currently a motel on the site as well as a mobile community.

This is a street level view site of the motel from Route 29.

And then as a reminder, this current zoning of this property is R1 residential, which allows up to one unit per acre.

By right, the property owner could have 19 dwelling units plus additional units depending on potential bonus factors.

And then there are several overlay zoning districts on this site.

for the airport impact area in both managed and preserved slopes.

In the comprehensive plan for this area, the place is 29 Master Plan Community of Health.

These two parcels are largely designated for urban density residential, which recommends residential at 6.01 to 34 units per acre and a maximum height of four stories.

And then there is a small sliver of the property, mainly along Route 29 that is designated as privately owned open space.

So now for the proposal.

As I mentioned, this has been before you all, previously on March the 2nd, when the Planning Commission deferred action at the request of the applicant.

It consists of two parcels of approximately 1,900 acres.

It includes a mobile home community, a motel, and there is also a small cemetery

and the applicant is requesting to rezone this property to PRD planned residential development for a maximum of 332 residential units.

There's also an associated special exception request to modify the step back requirements so that the fourth stories of buildings do not have to meet the step back requirement that is dictated in the zoning ordinance.

So since the March 2nd meeting when the Planning Commission deferred action, the applicant has made several revisions to the proposal and I'll go through a list of those revisions.

Including on May 13th, the applicant did return to the Places 29 North CAC to present their changes.

There is a proposed reduction in the maximum number of units from 370 to 332, which is 38 units.

The applicant is proposing 254 multifamily units and 78 to over 2.

In the original plan, there were eight rows of townhouses and now that's been reduced to six rows.

And the overall net density of the project has been reduced by approximately two units per acre from about 19.8 to 17.85 units.

The heights of several buildings have also changed.

The end townhouse unit at the

has been reduced from four stories to three stories to provide a bit of a step back and transition from this development to the existing Ashland townhomes development to the southeast.

And then the other townhouse units in each row remain four stories.

The fifth story of the two central buildings is now proposed to be stepped back in line with what is required by the zoning ordinance.

And then the three other apartment buildings which are closer to Route 29 on the west side of the site have been increased from three stories to four stories in height.

And as I mentioned, there is a special exception request to modify the setback requirements so that these four story buildings do not have to have that

There are buffer areas that have been increased in size.

The buffer on the southeast side of the property along the Ashland townhomes property line has been increased from 20 feet in width to 40 feet in width.

The applicant has identified an existing berm along Ashwood Boulevard to remain and there is an expanded recreational area at the southern entrance to the site at Ashwood Boulevard.

And because of this expanded recreational area, the first row of townhouses coming from that southern entrance is now

Open space and recreational facilities have also seen some changes.

The applicant is now proposing 32% open space as opposed to the 25% minimum that is required by the Planned Residential Development Zoning District.

And included with some of these increases in open space is a courtyard area at the center of the townhouse section of the development.

And as I mentioned previously, an expanded recreational area at the southern entrance.

The applicant has also provided a substitution request better identifying and clearly describing the proposed recreational facilities and amenities that they intend to provide in this development.

In concern about the lack of accommodation for transit, the applicant has identified three potential sites for future bus stops to be provided on the application plan.

And the final decision on the location

We will be made in consultation with the transit provider, whoever that be be, whether it's Cat or Jaunt or some other provider, when service is eventually expanded to this area.

As currently there is no transit service to this part of the county.

And then finally, the amount and rate of affordable housing has been increased by the applicant.

The applicant is proposing to designate 75% of the multifamily units as affordable, and these will be designated for 30 years for those earning between 30% and 80% of the area median income with an average income of 60% of AMI.

and this proposal on affordable housing is more than what is recommended by both the existing county housing policy and the proposed county housing policy that is currently under review by the Board of Supervisors.

This is the revised plan showing the building and parking envelopes for the development.

And then this slide shows a conceptual layout for the development of the various apartment buildings, the townhouse units, stormwater management facilities, open space and recreational areas, parking, that sort of thing.

Regarding access and circulation, that's another issue that was brought up at the previous Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you.

of 375 units.

And now with the revised claim, as the applicant is now requesting a maximum of 332 units, there's still no objections expressed regarding the TIA and traffic generation.

And the applicant is proposing to extend or construct new turn lanes as recommended in the TIA.

Impacts to schools were also brought up at the previous planning commission meeting.

With the reduction in the requested maximum unit count, there will be approximately 11 fewer students generated by this development, according to the public school system's student generation calculator.

The school system has also provided updated enrollment and capacity conflict numbers for the next 10 years, and this chart reflects that.

where with the projected number of students generated by this development, both Holly Mead and Sutherland Elementary Middle Schools will remain slightly under capacity, whereas Albemarle High School is already over capacity and will remain over capacity.

And with this proposed development, it will continue to remain over capacity.

Staff's factors favorable that were identified include that this request is consistent with the uses and the density recommended by the master plan.

Affordable housing is being provided with this development at an amount that is greater than both the existing and proposed housing policies.

The request proposes to provide additional pedestrian connections in the area as well as several potential locations for future transit service.

The plan proposes to provide more open and

and the requested zoning district requires and the 12 neighborhood model principles are being either met or mostly met.

Factors unfavorable include number one that the proposed development would result in additional student enrollment in area schools including Albemarle High which I said is already over capacity.

Also, the proposed height of five stories of the two central apartment buildings is higher than the four stories that is recommended in the place's 29 master plan.

However, there is a step back now proposed for that fifth story of these buildings that was not proposed in the original plan that you saw on March the 2nd.

Overall, with these revisions that have been made to the plan,

And staff also recommends approval of the special exception request which is a request to modify the requirements for buildings in the development with the conditions that are identified in the staff report

These are the motions when the Planning Commission gets to that portion of the meeting.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much.

When Andy gives us back a full view of the screen, I will ask who would like, if anyone at this particular point in time, to ask a question.

I see Corey and then

So we'll start with Corey and then Tim, and then we'll see who comes up alongside us.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Two quick ones.

Are locations of trash removal and dumpsters considered open space?

No.

Is there, I see something about compaction of trash, is there

Given the issues and the policy that we've generated in the county, wouldn't it behoove us to have this as part of something that is part of required in the plan?

Yes, I would think so.

There currently aren't any requirements in the zoning ordinance, however, for recycling and that sort of thing.

I may have missed this next point, but affordable housing units.

And I appreciate the fact that that's now being added to the

the work that you all do where you just have a discussion of that.

In that discussion, and again, because of being on the way I am, I can't go to my digital file to look at this.

Do we discuss how many units of affordable housing are on site with the removal of the trailers?

I would argue that we need to be talking about what the net gain on a site is.

So when we have a number that you put forward for

that the applicant puts forward for how many units they're going to be, it seems to me that it's important that we note what that actual number is as an increase for the county.

I don't remember the exact number of units that were on site.

I know it's already been reduced from what was there several years ago.

An applicant may have more information on that, but I believe it was somewhere around 75 or 80 units.

and with the proposed number that the applicant is identifying on the application plan that would provide 192 units.

Thank you.

And I guess this is a discussion in a different point, Chair, but I do think that it's really important for us to have some

way to understand, I guess it would be through the application and through the staff report so that we can actually see because we all know that we are losing units every moment in the county, affordable units.

And I think that we need to be realistic about what our net gains are.

Someone after Tim, I didn't see a hand.

Okay.

Do I not see anyone else in here before we go to the applicant?

Karen.

Yeah, yes.

Along the lines of an earlier question for what counts as open space, I wondered if

There's an area by the pool and maybe the applicant can answer this later but there's the pool area I guess that's counted as open space and then there's a it looks like a paved plaza on one of the conceptual drawings.

If that's the case, I hope they consider permeable pavers for their plaza because it's quite a lot of pavement, what I thought was going to be more recreational space.

No one else?

We hear from Mr. Copeland.

Mr. Copeland, you have 13 minutes.

Give us your opening statement so that we're clear here.

We're talking about the revisions to the plans this evening.

Understood and thank you.

Good evening.

I'm going to defer my 13 minutes, if you will, to Valerie Long, who's representing us in this case.

Ms.

Long, counselor, I can barely see you.

Sorry, my setup at my office is such that I can only get my computer with my camera on it so close to me and have my other monitors close by as well.

I hope that's a little bit better.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an update on the RST project.

First, if I can briefly introduce our team members who are on so you know the

resources and expertise that we can draw upon if needed.

Obviously you've met Scott Copeland with RST.

We also have Ryan Yaugher with Bowler Engineering, Alex Mays with RST as well.

And we have Carl Holtgren

who is with Ramey Kemp Engineers.

He is the traffic engineering firm and expert that has been advising us and preparing.

And then finally we have several representatives of LAS, the architecture firm, including Neil King.

They've been instrumental in helping us with revisions to the plans to address the comments we received.

at the last meeting, so we appreciate it.

And I certainly also want to recognize and acknowledge the tremendous amount of assistance that we've received from Andy Riedelbach and others in community development since the last meeting, including Charles and Jody were very helpful to us and folks in the transportation planning.

team, their guidance and input has helped us form the revisions to the plan and we appreciate the time and guidance they have provided to us over the last few weeks.

I will go ahead and share my screen and walk through some of these.

I know that you all have or Andy shared a number of updates.

Sorry, let me get my cursor on the right monitor here.

He covered the updates to the plan very thoroughly, so I will go through just, I don't want to repeat things that he's already said, but I do want to hit the highlights, reducing the total unit count.

We've updated the layout of the townhouses, we moved to new rows, and we've made some revisions to the height of the apartments.

Most significantly, we have clarified the issue with affordable housing.

Very proud to be able to commit that 75% of the apartment units will be affordable for a 30 year term.

We have following meetings with the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association representatives increased the buffer along the rear side of the property or the eastern boundary.

We doubled the width of the buffer from 40 feet, excuse me, from 20 feet to 40 feet.

We clarified the burn along Ashwood Boulevard would be preserved.

We've moved the townhouses back further.

We've obviously added more open space where some of the other townhouses were originally located.

And we worked closely with staff to address some of the comments and feedback they had originally provided about the opportunities to improve pedestrian orientation.

And finally, of course, we've added a number of locations on the plans where transit could be located.

This was the original plan with a total of eight units, rows.

This one received a lot of comment from the public about its proximity to Ashwood Boulevard.

This is the new layout, only six rows of buildings and a new common open space area in between.

The building that is now closest to Ashwood is about 190 feet away now from

the property line and we've replaced that with some green space and other amenity areas nearby.

We've also added and highlighted the areas where the transit would be located and then reworked the pool and central amenity area to make it much more connected to the common area space both physically connected as well as visually connected and improve the pedestrian access to that central amenity area.

This shows the buffers.

This is the area where we doubled the buffer from 20 to 40 feet.

We still have 20 feet on either side, and then the 100 feet along Route 29 as recommended by the Places 29 master plan.

There was an awful lot of discussion at the last meeting from the public about the distance of the townhouse buildings from the adjacent property line.

So we want to clarify that all six of those buildings will be 88 feet away.

from the property line.

With regard to the buffers, we discussed this a little bit at the last meeting.

There is no requirement in the zoning ordinance in the PRD zoning district for a buffer.

We started with 20 feet on three sides because that's what would be required if we had a commercial use that was adjacent to the residential use.

And just by note, if

This use were light industrial.

It would only have to be set back 50 feet, and this is for building setbacks, and 100 feet if it was heavy industrial.

Our building setback is 88 feet, so it's more than what would be required if the use were light industrial, and certainly more than what is required for commercial.

And again, the undisturbed buffer areas are only 20 and 30 feet, depending on the use.

We're proposing, again, the 40 feet from the residential neighborhoods, entirely voluntary.

We can come back to this if you would like, but we did want to highlight the distance of the buildings to the adjacent property lines.

Again, all of the townhouse buildings are 88 feet.

The five-story buildings are no more.

This one is 324 feet.

This one's 321.

From here, it is 392 feet from Ashwood, for example.

was discussed, we really took to heart your comments and input with regard to the amenity areas.

It's now 32% of the area is open space.

And in response to Ms.

Firehock's question, we are calculating that based on the definition of amenity areas and open space in the ordinance.

So we've highlighted those areas here, particularly the central green, the new open space and plazas and courtyards, which are allowed to be counted as amenity areas under the ordinance.

One of the most significant changes we made in response to the feedback was to provide that the unit of townhouses that is closest to the adjacent Forest Lakes community will only be a three-story unit on that end.

That will allow for transition from their two-story units to the four stories on the rest of those units.

We have updated our sight lines to reflect that.

Again, depending on the angle of this here, the buffer, because it's at an angle is 45 feet, an additional 57 feet in between shows that actually the sight line

It goes up right over that.

They would see part of that fourth floor, but it would be at a great distance.

And then likewise, this is from the townhouses on Ashland Drive.

It's perpendicular, 40 feet of buffer plus a 48 foot difference is where you get the 88 foot distance of that closest three story townhouse building to the property line.

With regard to the special exception request, again, we have modified our request.

We are still asking for a waiver for the fourth floors of the buildings, but we have provided it for the fifth floor.

We think that is a real improvement and we appreciate the feedback on that.

Just to highlight the impact that the step back requirement, if not modified as requested, would have on the top floor of the two over two townhouse buildings.

It would completely wipe out two of the bedrooms, one of the bathrooms and the stairwell and

the laundry area.

So it has a significant impact on those units and would frankly make them unmarketable.

We tried to include some comments from the staff report with regard to why they've recommended approval of the special exception requests, which we thought were all very spot on.

We had some additional positions as well that were included in our application.

But, you know, most importantly, that the five story buildings have been stepped back.

They're centrally located.

They're not visible from off site with the existing vegetation.

And they're more than 300 feet away from the adjacent residential property lines.

We don't think there's any risk of a canyon effect.

There's screenings and buffers in place.

We contend that there would be no impact to the public in granting the waiver of the step back request.

Certainly it will help further the goals of affordable housing because if the step back is enforced that will result in further reductions in the unit count and certainly with reductions in affordable units as well and we really don't want to do that.

Here's an architectural rendering of how the step back would look.

This is looking directly at the two five-story buildings.

You can see here, this is a fourth floor with the building's step back here.

They're connected by open walkways.

It doesn't show up quite as well here, but that's a rendering of how that would look.

We also took updated photographs from Route 29 and Ashwood Boulevard to demonstrate the level of tree coverage that exists off site.

It's not on our property, but this rendering shows the buildings behind it.

These trees are obviously leafed out.

Go to the next slide where if you look closely, you can see the buildings are shown behind and they are

behind the vegetation.

This reflects the vegetation on site that would be removed to accommodate the construction project.

From this vantage point from Boulevard, as you can tell, it's taken looking into the new site.

Those are the existing trees both on the adjacent VDOT parcel, including the trees in the Ashwood Boulevard median.

And again,

The buildings are behind those trees.

We showed you similar images from when the trees were not leafed out during the winter at our previous meeting.

This is an exhibit showing the trees that would remain and those that would need to be removed.

To orient you, of course, this is Ashwood Boulevard, 29 North.

These are the off-site trees on the VDOT Purcell.

You would need to remove these trees to create the interconnection and this tree to facilitate a connection to the off-site sewer line.

But otherwise, these trees would remain and that includes the berm.

that you can see here.

So we think that will very effectively screen both the new open space that's provided as well as the townhouse units that are about 190 feet away.

This is the application plan which again these are binding.

This is what would be binding shows the building and parking envelopes and I know you can't see it but this is where the 88 foot distance is measured from each of those building envelopes to the adjacent property line.

reflects the 40-foot buffer and all of the other amenities and provisions we've mentioned.

Conceptual plan, I know that's extremely hard to see.

So that's why we showed you the colored rendering as well.

I think that covers everything.

We do have some comments.

All right, Ms.

We would ask for the opportunity to respond to any comments or questions that any of you may have with regard to the traffic study, certainly the school capacity issues, really anything.

We have worked very, very hard to incorporate the feedback and comments that we've received from the public, from all of you, and from

the county staff and we're very proud of the changes.

We think it's a much better plan than it was when we were before you in March and we acknowledge that that is largely to the feedback that you all provided to us.

So we appreciate that.

I'm not going to get into the traffic issues but please know we have our traffic expert here and our study's been vetted.

Thank you very much.

So for that update and for those clarifications and for the ability to if we need to

to reach to some of your experts.

Right now I'm going to see which one of my colleagues has questions and then you can point them, you can connect them with even yourself, counselor, with someone else.

So who would, who before we open it to public comment, has questions for the applicant?

I see Tim.

And then Corey.

So Tim and Corey, you will see alongside of that.

And Ray.

So Tim,

Were you asking me to do that, just for clarification?

Okay.

Bear with me.

And what I guess I'd like the one, it's maybe number six, the one that shows the close up of the townhouses in plan view.

Yes, am I reading it correctly that there's not a sidewalk?

There was another one that was not showing a sidewalk.

No, north is roughly to the left.

That is south?

Which direction is up?

Up is east.

Okay.

On the east, the townhouses to my left did not seem to have sidewalks that connected

from them across the east facades to that central green space.

But the ones on the, to my right appeared to.

And if so- I don't think they were entirely reflected there.

Let me go to the next slide.

But we do have a slide that highlights our- This is the one I was referring to, yes.

You see that it doesn't appear to be showing sidewalks

Like, you see it here, but you don't see it here?

Correct.

Okay.

That's probably just an error.

Let me, if you'll bear with me for a moment.

We have a package of the renderings, and one of them is specific to sidewalks.

Here it is.

and we do not show it there.

So maybe I don't think that was intentional.

Let the experts tell us the answer to that.

And if not, I think we need to know why, because it was a collection point.

Okay.

And just, I guess this is going to be an editorial for me and I'll be interested to see how my colleagues feel.

I think the visualization that's showing tree cover that's going to go away with the buildings just barely showing behind is really, it's almost disingenuous to do that to us.

I think that you need to, if you're going to do it as a visualization, the way it's going to be when built,

we need to see the shorter tree cover that's going to be there that is not going to be lessening the impact of that visualization.

So that's just my, I've never seen you be involved in a project where there wasn't a candid assessment of what the visualization was.

Well, if I may, I want to understand better what your criticism is in terms of, I mean, we try to be accurate.

Let's see the ones where we can see the buildings behind.

Was that from Ashcroft?

No, that's tree cover.

Sorry, I probably was confusing.

What the trees that you see, let me go back to this one just for now for the moment.

Those trees are trees that will remain because those are on the off site of the project.

Those are not trees on the RST.

However, this rendering, and I'll ask the architects who helped me with these renderings to jump in if I'm misspeaking, but my understanding is this reflects the trees that would be removed to construct the project.

You know, there's daylight behind them.

Let me clarify something.

This image was to show not the trees that would be removed.

This slide is simply to show what is behind the trees.

So we made the trees opaque so that you could see the relationship of the actual buildings, which is the renders of the actual buildings and the heights.

So basically, if you go back a slide without the trees in the opaque form that they're in, it shows that you,

can't see the buildings.

We wanted to provide you that the buildings were indeed behind these trees.

So these trees are not going to be removed for, these are off-site trees.

We have no control if they're there or if they're not.

But if you were to go out there today and the buildings were behind it, this is what you would see.

And I think that that's fair, but I do think that it also needs to be, when it's presented that way, it needs to have the clarification

but this site isn't controlled by you and they could be removed tomorrow.

Understood.

I think if I may though, if you continue up Ashwood and you go along the other images that show that the trees are some of those trees

I mean, you're 100% correct.

They are, and it should have been stated, they are in the VDOT right away.

We don't anticipate that those trees will be removed, but you're 100% correct in that.

Could they?

I assume that is the case.

There are some trees though in Valley, if you'll go to the one that shows the trees that are on our property line, you will not be removed.

and along Ashwood, so that, exactly, that area there.

So it was an attempt for us to show the amount of buffer, and it was not intended to be disingenuous, and I'm sorry if that's the way it came off.

Fair answer, fair response, I accept it and just in future we would have those kinds of clarifications.

Understood, yep.

One, I apologize if I was, obviously I was not clear in my explanation, so I apologize for that.

The other reason we wanted to show those was because there was concern by a number of representatives from the public that all of those trees that you see from that intersection would go away as part of this project.

And so our effort was to show that we obviously have no control over trees that are off-site.

We certainly did not intend to say that we guarantee those trees are going to stay because we know that's not the case.

Good?

You good, Tim?

Yes.

Corey?

Thanks, Valerie, for the presentation, and I do want to acknowledge the design team's effort to come this far.

I can tell a lot of improvements have been made, and so thank you, and that doesn't go unnoticed.

I have a couple of questions.

The first is regarding

Sustainability and the design piece of it.

I think at this point, those conversations certainly are happening with the architectural team and engineering and site teams.

I'd like to hear a little bit about what the team is thinking with the project of this magnitude.

What are some of the features that you guys are looking at since we've taken up a pretty large footprint of the site.

Thank you.

First, we appreciate your comments about acknowledging the changes.

Thank you.

I may want Scott Coakley or others to join in in terms of the sustainability, but certainly with regard to the preservation of as much of the open space as possible.

Obviously, away from all the preserved slopes, doing everything we can to minimize.

We actually hope that there will be less parking on site at the end of the day at the site plan stage that we'll be able to

Once it's even crammed, have less parking than is actually required under county ordinance if a neighbor is granted.

But Scott, I'll let you jump in and share some of the issues.

Yeah, I'm afraid, Mr. Clayborne, that I'm not prepared to discuss anything in great detail.

We've been focused, obviously, on this rezoning effort and have not focused on specific site plan or items that may be addressed more specifically in the site plan.

And obviously, at the architectural review, continue on with the project.

We are very sensitive to the issue of sustainability.

We're a family-owned business.

We take a lot of pride in what we build and develop, manage, and look for them to be a part of our portfolio for a very long time.

As our strategies evolve, obviously, in the next round of these approvals, we will address that much more specifically.

Thanks for the response.

I have one more, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the response.

The second question I have is regarding pedestrian and vehicular circulation, how they, that site, and I'm not sure if you want to pull up that site plan, but

I think it's necessary, I can get right to the point.

My concern is that on the eastern property line, you know, you have those townhomes that are back there.

I envision there's going to be a number of children that are going to access that pool area that's in the center of the site.

And there's a vehicular pathway that bisects those entities there, those townhomes and that central, what sort of I'm looking for, the hub.

We all know how people drive in parking lots.

We like to think they drive five mile an hour.

That's the case.

And so I was wondering, could you talk a little bit about traffic calming or the thoughts the design team had as you guys were making that?

I think that's a very fair question.

We worked hard to, as Valerie pointed out, to make a little bit more connection, to create a little more connection from a grading standpoint between the pool

and the hub, as you pointed out, it's a good word, and this new green space in and around the townhouses.

And I believe the opportunity, so the park is designed, the area between the townhouses is elevated, sort of like a tabletop, if you will, to help bring that side of the elevation up.

at all.

At the same time, we were able to bring the elevation of the pool down a little bit.

As you may recall, there was a pretty large grade differential, maybe eight feet previously.

I think it's down to under three.

I'm not sure.

But I think, to your point, a great opportunity for us is to continue with that tabletop feature as a

large crosswalk or speed bump if you will that you know is elevated in the obviously that it's still safe to drive on but it's elevated in the drive aisle so that it does it is a calming from a speed standpoint and provides you know the safest

Thank you, that's all I have for now.

Mr. Chair, I've got several commendations and a series of questions, so please bear with me.

I want to follow up on the positive end to commend the developers on some improvements here.

Number one, I commend you for adding

1537 square feet to the top lot along the property line with the Commonwealth of Virginia's property, which is located at the northwest of the property.

I want to also commend you for eliminating two rows of homes and dedicating 1700 new square feet as a recreational area.

Thirdly, I want to commend you for lowering the height

from four to three stories for the southeast most townhome units in each of the six rows and proposing five story setbacks on the two five story apartment buildings.

I think those are forward steps.

I want to commend you for the 40-foot buffer now along the northwest property line with Ashland.

I want to commend you for the reconfigured plaza area on the southwest sides of the roundabout, and that now presents more of a central feel and character to this high density development.

So those are the commendations.

Now I want to get into some questions.

And the first question is, along the southeast side with Ashland, why is the stormwater management acreage shown on the March 2nd, 2021, bowler concept plan, sheet number four, not shown on the new bowler

before us tonight.

There's no mention of that stormwater management facility, which runs along that southeast side with Ashland.

Number two.

Sheet number four also of the 6-15-21 Bowler Concept Plan

chose an 11,100 square foot recreation area along the same southeast border with Ashland.

Now, given that the 321 Bowler Concept Plan sheet number four indicates that stormwater management capabilities are to be located in the same area, is the 11,100 square foot recreation area

through Square Foot Recreation Area now identified in any way as part of the stormwater management area.

It would be best to get through the questions and then let you deal with them one by one.

I want to make note about garages.

It's cited here that you're going to be using garage space as one place for a car to be parked, and the other place would be out on the asphalt or concrete pad in front of the townhomes.

But

In my experience and having traveled through many different developments, garages are rarely used anymore to house cars.

They're often used to house stuff and cars are parked, therefore, on the outside, not on the inside of the garage.

So

I'm determining that probably 50% of the garage spaces here will not be holding cars.

They're going to have stuff in them.

With no garage for units, where do the residents park their cars?

You confidently are suggesting that you're going to have more than enough parking spaces available, but you're making some serious assumptions

about human behavior that there will be cars in all these garages.

I would question them.

Now, I just have a question about the right turn lane off of 29 North into RST.

I think that's positive development, but it's not identified who's going to pay for this.

Are you all paying for this?

I don't see a proffer here indicating that money's being set aside to cover the cost of the development of that right turn lane.

Now, I want to focus in on one major issue that I brought up before that I still feel is a serious vulnerability on this project.

you're looking here to establish a range of affordability which is between 30% and 60% by law of that objective.

However, 30% AMI in Albemarle County currently with the median household income in 2021 being stated as $93,700.

30% of 93,700 is $28,110.

I'd like to know how you expect at 30% AMI to be able to afford an annual HOA fee

which is going to pay for a swimming pool and is also going to set money aside in a reserve account for maintenance of the roads and the parking spaces, the extensive amount of asphalt that's going in here.

How are these people at that level of income going to be able to afford those HOA fees?

Now, I know with interest

that a project you worked on in Gaithersburg, Maryland, the Y site on North Summit Avenue that way, that it's very clear, Mr. Copeland, that you stated publicly that you saw this project as high-end affordable housing.

but you are indicating for this site that you're going to be providing 30% AMI, which I don't look at realistically as high-end affordable housing.

I look at that being at the lower end of the range and I appreciate that.

I think that that's laudable to provide 30% AMI housing.

However, how can those people at 30% afford the HOA fees for the amenities on this site, especially when you're proposing that we not provide basketball courts, tot lots, which really

a very low annual maintenance fee and instead substitute for them what I look at as being high-end amenities like swimming pools, which I don't see how these people are going to be able to afford at 30% and 50% AMI.

Thank you very much.

If I may respond to the last question, Valerie, before you get to the others.

Mr. Randolph, I hope you understand one thing, and I want to make it very clear.

The affordable units are in the rental portion of this project.

We are not proposing that those units are for sale.

There will be no HOA fees, zero.

We will, as a management company, be responsible to maintain those amenities.

and we have done this successfully in several projects and when I reference a high-end or first-class project in terms of a less affordable project or market rate project for that matter, it has nothing to do with the tenancy, Mr. Randolph.

It has everything to do with the asset and the quality of amenities that is deserving of every segment of the community.

and I trust that when they qualify, an individual qualifies to live or a household qualifies to live in that house, in that community because they qualify under the HUD guidelines regarding AMI, there'll be a productive in our project and we'll be able to enjoy that amenity space.

Not really, because if in fact a housing wage for our community is at $24.35 an hour, which comes to $50,640 annually, and therefore at 30% an AMI, somebody's looking at an annual income of $28,110, I still am raising the question of affordability.

But Mr. Randolph, you're missing the point on the rental.

The affordable housing units, the 30 to 80% range, by the way, not to 60, it averages at 60.

The rent is adjusted for 30% households.

If you qualify for a 30% unit,

because that's what your income levels are.

You're paying the equivalency of a 30% rent.

You're not paying the same rent that somebody in a 60% household or an 80% household or a market rate rent would be paying.

And I trust that there are plenty of households, there are plenty of families in Albemarle County that would qualify to live in that unit that currently do not have that opportunity to live in such a property.

to have a pool as an amenity, to have all this open space as an amenity.

So I think that this project should be applauded for serving every segment of this community, regardless of their income level.

So we're providing an atmosphere, a place to serve people that are in the lower scale of wages, all the way up to market rate units.

And we're proud of that.

What is your anticipated annual HOA fee for this facility then?

There are no HOA fees, Mr. Randolph.

So then how does money get set aside on an annual basis?

Who pays for repaving the parking lots and for the road?

Who pays for that?

So can I ask you a question?

In any other community, rental community, who pays for that?

If the pool needs to be repaired, the property pays to have the pool repaired.

but there's no additional fees for those money maintenance or anything like that.

It's like any other rental project in any community throughout the country.

It's no different.

I'd be happy to go ahead and answer your other questions, Mr. Randolph.

With regard to your first question about the stormwater management, the size and location of that facility, when we had to rearrange the plans a little bit in between the two planning commission meetings, the removal of the two rows of townhouse units and the addition of the open space in the middle and the widening of the buffer and other things like that did require our engineer to take a fresh look at

you know conceptual locations for stormwater management so if you look on the most current set of the plans with the June date there's an area and it is hard to see I recognize there's a lot going on but if you look in the very first rectangular block shown is a gray rectangle with an orange outline that is the proposed stormwater management area and the

New conceptual locations are shown in essentially the top left corner of the townhouses.

That is, you can see the orange and gray, I believe, shown in a rectangle underneath

And then there is a smaller narrower strip right up next to the buffer.

And then there's also some stormwater area shown to the far right of the page near the newer dog park and tot lot that are shown adjacent to Ashwood.

That area also again underneath some parking.

It's just a conceptual location.

The stormwater management plan has not been fully designed at this point.

It's not required to, but the zoning ordinance does require for a PRD zoning district to show

on the application plan, a conceptual stormwater management plan so that staff can be reasonably assured that once the official design is underway as part of the site plan application, that it is in fact possible to achieve the ordinance regulations or comply with them with a plan of this sort in this many units.

So it has been relocated a little bit, but it's still there.

And then your next question was with regard to garages.

And I certainly don't dispute that there's a lot of individuals and families who live in homes with garages that they park their cars either in the driveway or on the street.

Not certainly not everyone does, but certainly some do.

That's not something we can control.

but we are very confident based on the years of experience that RST and its team has with developing apartment complexes and multifamily and townhouse communities that there is sufficient parking to accommodate those needs.

Not, you know, every one of them will have more than one car, certainly some of them will, and there is extensive

areas of parking.

In addition to the garages there are parking lots and parallel parking spaces and most importantly it complies with the county's zoning ordinance regulations for parking for these types of units.

With regard to the question you had about who pays for the right turn lane, I just want to be clear, I think you said the turn lane from Route 29 that goes into the project at the main entrance on 29.

There is a note on the application plan, which is Sheet 3, and it is shown on that plan.

proposed right turn lane extension at the very bottom of the page pointing to that turn lane that's on the application plan and that plan is a proffered plan under the PRD zoning ordinance.

So if the Board of Supervisors approves the rezoning application, they would be approving this application plan and it effectively serves as, not even effectively, it is a proffered plan and that's a proffered obligation.

We already talked about the affordable housing.

Sure.

Thank you.

I only have one question and that is about the buffer.

So first of all, I'm glad that you expanded the width.

And my question is just what will be allowed to go on in the buffer?

Specifically, for example, would there be a trail within the buffer?

I know that when I say trail, I'm referring to maybe something that's more of an AT standard rustic type trail.

to make that buffer not just a buffer but also part of usable open space.

So I'm also concerned with whether any stormwater management facilities would be located in the buffer.

Thank you, Mrs. Firehock.

There is a detailed note that addresses your question on the cover sheet of the plans.

I won't go into detail, but it does expressly state that there are certain uses that are allowed in the buffer.

The main purpose of the buffer, of course, is to serve as a buffer.

particularly along that area where the adjacent community has made it very clear that they want that to be as robust of a buffer as possible.

That was the one of the main reasons for expanding it.

There is

Notes in again on the cover sheet that says that certain things are permitted including pedestrian multi-use paths and stormwater management facilities.

We know there will need to be some some limited disturbance of those areas to extend some of the utilities.

Certainly we'll be looking to minimize that as much as possible.

There is also a note in the plan that, in that same section, that along that southeastern border that the developer will supplement that buffer with additional planting in areas where it doesn't provide screening right now.

Some of the existing vegetation there is not as robust or is more sparse in some areas than in others.

And so in response to a request from the adjacent owners, we added that note and commitment to the plan that says that the developer would supplement the buffer with additional plans or put up a fence.

But screening was the main thing that we heard about from that adjacent community.

So we want to honor that commitment.

It wasn't intended that that would be for active open space.

If I may follow up, I had read that and I was concerned about stormwater management facilities because

By definition, that could be a very large stormwater pond that could basically obliterate the buffer.

Well, I will say that's partly why we, not only partly, that's why we showed the stormwater management facilities in the conceptual plan to demonstrate that there are other areas where the stormwater management facilities can be located.

I will call on Ryan Yaugher from Bowler Engineering to weigh in on this, but I think it was more of a

knowing that there may be some utilities or pipes or any elements of a stormwater facility that might need to disturb limited areas of the buffer.

And so I see Ryan is unmuted.

Thank you, Valerie.

Now that actually hits the nail on the head there.

The intention behind that note was not to allow for large ponds, like you mentioned there, but also the outfall for associated with those stormwater management facilities.

When you're looking at a site this large,

And with this type of development, a lot of times you do go underground with a stormwater management intention to utilize the space in multiple different ways.

If I may add one thing I just realized too is the buffer is shown on the application plan.

which again is binding on the project and so certainly to the extent that we were to submit a site plan application that showed a massive or that showed what you're concerned about a large stormwater facility in the buffer that really is not in accord

The application plan, I feel fairly confident that the planning department would not approve that change, that they would likely find it to be not in general accord with the application plan.

And they would challenge Ryan and his colleagues to figure out a way to fit the stormwater in in locations that don't so severely impact the buffer.

Okay, I'll take that for now.

I just know that even if it was extensive underground storage, that would disturb tree roots.

Is there anyone else who has a question for them?

So Jenny?

I actually, I don't have any questions, but I appreciate all the clarifications that the applicants given.

I did just want to make a quick comment, as others have, even though this is the time where we ask questions.

And I wanted to just point out for those that are listening as we head into public comment that

And I'm saying this because of some of the emails that we've gotten.

And I wanted to just point this out.

And Andy went through this in a staff report that when they're saying the affordable housing is more than what's recommended, I don't know how it is that someone would feel that's a bad thing or that we shouldn't the county shouldn't accept more.

So I hope that's just a misunderstanding, maybe a

That's worded because that's a good thing.

And I guess I just wanted to make that point that, you know, that I don't know.

I have a theory about why that could not actually be a misunderstanding, but I hope that it is.

And and I think that that is just that the county would hope for.

And when we see this opportunity for more of that, that's really amazing and a good thing.

So I just wanted to say that.

Thank you.

Are there any other commissioners before we go back to Tim?

Are there other commissioners who had questions for the applicant?

So I guess I was a bit harsh with my first set.

I am actually very positively inclined towards this, but I think that it's our role to ask tough questions to make these projects better if we can.

I would like to hear a dialogue between Mr. Copeland and our council about how we, based on Mr. Copeland's experience and some issues that we've had where things seem to fall through the wayside through time, how we memorialize this idea of the average 60% AMI over 30 years.

How have you done it in other communities?

Because what we often see, their commitments,

I just like to hear Mr. Copeland's take and then Andy's response to that.

I'm happy to address that.

Thank you for the question.

And I could go on for much longer than you want me to about affordable housing.

The bottom line is that this project, the way that it will be financed, will be subject to a use agreement.

that will be between myself as a developer and the authority that provides the bonds, the low-income housing tax credits to finance the project.

That will be a recorded document beyond the county.

Quite frankly, it's a recorded instrument.

We are subject to an audit on an annualized basis to make sure that we are indeed in compliance.

with the affordable requirements that the financing requires.

And there's a typically the tax credits are, you know, exchanged for equity in the project with large institutions.

And so there's a huge financial recourse to me if I don't

rent these units to people that are qualified through these ranges, this 30% to 80% income levels.

So there is a lot of checks and balances, Mr. Keller, along the way that candidly takes the county quite out of it.

It's sort of beyond the county.

So if a new housing director or someone comes along in 10 years, it's kind of immaterial because this document is recorded and it runs with the land as far as those restrictions are concerned.

I hope that gives you enough.

Mr. Keller, from my county enforceability perspective, as Ms.

Long indicated, the plat notes on this, the application notes on this,

are binding in that this is a ERD zoning.

And in fact, there is a note on this application plan that commits this owner to providing the affordable housing that they've been paid.

So that would be the mechanism by which the county would enforce that is via the platinum that becomes approved as part of the plan.

Anyone else?

Daniel?

Start with a couple of comments, but then I have one slight clarification for the applicant based on the discussion and the renderings that I see here.

But first of all, I'm very positive.

I appreciate the listening and the change in the plans and the townhomes in the back and the connection of the hub.

I think the hub is a really nice thing for the community and you create that sense of place.

and community.

I know I live in Belvedere and we have something similar like that and I know it's a good place where we gather and people play and so that's a very positive improvement over the original thing.

A lot of colleagues brought up you don't own the land as providing a majority of the screening that is VDOT land if I'm not mistaken on the south west side of the property.

I can't tell but could you speak a little bit it looks like there might be some

Let me share my screen again.

I have one that I think will be helpful.

Okay, so you see our buffers and setbacks screen?

Okay, so one way we hope to, you know, we're working to address this, Mr. Bailey, is with the buffers that are provided.

Most significantly, the hundred foot buffer that's along the property frontage of Route 29.

This is the area that's owned by VDOT.

It's possible that VDOT has advertised this land for sale.

So a new owner could come along and pursue development of that.

And certainly if they pursue a rezoning,

or frankly probably a special use permit, I suspect that there will be an expectation for the 100 foot buffer to be maintained on that parcel as well as recommended by the Places 29 Master Plan.

Certainly they could come in and do a buy-write plan and that wouldn't be required.

I don't know, but what we have tried to do is certainly at a minimum show buffers on all sides.

The large one here, 20 feet on either side.

We have a fair amount of open space here.

There are some trees here that you know this is not

We obviously will have landscaping along the perimeter of the parking lot as required by the zoning ordinance.

The preservation of the cemetery area will also have some benefits there.

That area will be fenced off to protect it, so there may be a little bit of disturbance needed to erect a fence.

the property line with the VDOT heading north.

So it is intended that the trees that are on your side of the property, because that parking lot comes right up to the property line very closely.

And I see some light green trees that I assume to be new plantings and then some existing trees.

Is that the intent is to maintain as much vegetative screening as possible that is existing?

Exactly right.

Yes.

Thank you.

Anything else, David?

Is there anyone else?

Corey.

I just have a quick question while you have this slide up, Valerie.

I can't make you guys do anything, but I was just curious, would you all consider as you look at the circulation path that runs behind the building and it's not continuous, it's interrupted by that part?

Would you ever consider making that continuous and then stretching the park so that it's green space that runs into the pool opposed to the asphalt that's going through there?

It's a very interesting comment.

I know that some of that area that would be that connection is stormwater.

I'm nervous about the relationship to the buffer.

I can't.

Can we go?

I need to see other people bowing.

Thank you.

Are there other members of the commission who have a question for the applicant?

So I have two, and one of them is about the special exception.

We've spent a lot of time talking about the ZMA, and I'd like to spend some time about the special exception.

But before we do that, these are clean and easy questions.

Who will maintain the cemetery after this is all done?

We will maintain access to the cemetery and the landscaping in and around the perimeter.

And then there was a question by Mr. Keller about perhaps being able to pull the northeast sidewalk across around the backs and there will be some connectivity there.

If you're looking at sidewalks, I would ask you to give some consideration to perhaps taking a few parking spaces.

putting some green space there and then create a walkway to get from the top lot to the to the cemetery so that people can actually have some they can communicate there and then also as you're thinking about that just look at that yeah don't put dumpsters there either this is the kind of thing don't put a dumpster on a cemetery plan it gives you some consideration heard and understood so now if we can go back to the special exception if somebody would pull up the um the two five-story

I want to say it was a rocket poll in London that you can swim between two buildings, but I'm sure we're not going to be swimming between these buildings over here.

If someone could pull that up, please, and talk to us a little bit about why this is something that we should support.

So what's the functionality of the four different levels of crossover?

What are you achieving there?

Because while we've talked a good deal about the ZMA, I don't think necessarily that we wrestle a good bit with the expression exception.

So if someone could go to that page, that would be very helpful.

You need to spend five hours on it.

Sure, I'd be happy to do that.

You start here and then at some point just... Sure, the one that the architectural rendering that showed the these open connections between the two?

Okay, sure.

Let me

I can't remember where that was in our slides.

There we go.

There it is, yes.

Sure, a lot of it has to do with, frankly, recapturing some of the living space with the removal of two entire rows of the townhouse buildings.

That alone was a 40 unit reduction, and then we removed it further by

making a few other adjustments.

And so there was a need to recapture some living space.

So the three apartment buildings that were originally three stories and would not have required any setback relief are now four stories.

and so we would like relief from that requirement so that we can actually take advantage of that living space and not lose it on those buildings.

But with the five stories, it was frankly good suggestions from senior county community development staff to help us look for ways to transition and that the step back at the fifth floor would help address the need and the purpose of that.

step back waiver without creating an adverse impact that plus the change with regard to the end unit of all the townhouses making that a three-story unit that you essentially create the step back where it actually can provide some benefit.

in this case to the adjacent neighbors, whereas the thought was it wasn't really needed as much, certainly from our perspective, from the other vantage points, because you just don't have a canyon effect.

Thank you.

Be happy to go in more detail as much as anyone would like.

Thank you.

So one other piece of just to give the clarification, and this may be for you, Mr. Copeland.

So if we understand that the four buildings, which are the multifamily buildings, will be rental.

meaning would they be for sale or for rent?

Is that your question, the townhouses?

It hasn't been decided.

It's to be determined.

Is the property sort of X amount of rental and this amount of ownership and that would go.

But to Mr. Randolph's question and comment, though, even if they were for sale, the affordable nature, it does not does not approve to those townhouses.

That's why we were specific to the multifamily.

I will ask our kind, our gentle colleagues from the community to remind them that we're talking about the new pieces which we've been presented and reviewed in the resubmission and you've given us plenty of information and plenty of comment on the

Jennifer, please unmute yourself, state your name, your address, if you're affiliated with a group or organization.

and then you can get started.

Okay, my name is Jennifer Brannick.

My address is 1824 Amberfield Drive, and I'm not affiliated with any group.

My HOA will be here today to speak, but I am not a part of their group, and I want to make it clear that they will not be speaking for me.

I'm here today to ask you to approve the RST residences because I strongly believe that the people who work in our county should have homes in our county.

According to the county's housing website, 59% of people who work here in Albemarle County cannot afford to even rent an apartment here.

These are the people who work in our retail stores, our restaurants, they deliver our packages, they teach our children, and they keep our homes safe.

The foundation of our community lies in their labor, and these families deserve the same access to the things that my neighbors and I already have, like our parks, our shorter commutes, our proximity to good hospitals, and their children should be able to attend our excellent schools.

I am here to advocate for the 332 families that will one day live in these high density homes.

It is time to put the needs of these workers and their families ahead of the comforts of those of us who already live here.

Members of the planning committee, I know it may be difficult to approve these plans.

I'm sure you're going to hear much opposition today.

But as you are aware, the county is really committed to addressing the housing crisis here in our county.

And I ask you to approve this housing over the complaints of my neighbors because it is the right thing to do.

Because it will give these historically economically disenfranchised people a voice in our community.

To my neighbors, I'm asking you to accept a few inconveniences in our lives and maybe, maybe not a change in our commute and a big building adjacent to our neighborhood because we have an opportunity here to lift up those who have less than us to make progress on tackling the affordable housing issue plaguing our community

and to welcome these new neighbors with open arms into our community.

I challenge you to petition the school board to build new schools and address overcrowding with the same vigor as you are going to use today.

Let's use our power for good and create a community where all are truly welcome.

Let's create a community where everyone who works in Albemarle County can have a home in Albemarle County.

Thank you.

Bill, go ahead and... Yeah, my name is Bill McLaughlin and I live at 1800 Easy Lane in Hollymede.

I am also the chair of the place's 29 North Citizens Advisory Committee.

And the committee did

I propose a list of comments and questions about this development that we forwarded on to Corey and just wish that he would forward that on to the rest of the members of the Planning Commission.

I think a lot of things have already been covered.

One of the things that kind of disturbs me a little bit about the way we're talking about this is referring to 78 townhouses.

Well, actually there are six townhouses in this community and 72 four-story apartment building.

Any definition of a townhouse would be something that shares its walls with its neighbors.

These two over two, quote unquote, townhouses also share a floor or a ceiling.

So I don't know why the planning staff and the county seems to be accepting a definition

of a townhouse of something that's not actually a townhouse.

And the other thing that has just come up tonight that is a little disturbing is that they're not making a commitment to actually sell these four-story apartment buildings as condominiums.

They could also be rental units.

So in that case, this entire development would be fundamentally a rental complex.

and even if they did attempt to sell them as condos, the condominiums in our area that we have, it's Hollymeade Square townhouse, townhomes are almost 80% rental units.

Most of the owners there are not residents in those townhouses.

So probably residents in Hollymeade Square.

So I'm afraid that all of these

Condominium Apartments, or most of them would actually be investment units as opposed to being occupied by homeowners.

That's all I have.

I don't want to stretch this out.

I know it's a pretty long meeting already.

Thank you.

And next we have Rick DiMaglio.

Rick, please state your name and address if you're representing a group or organization.

All right.

Well, good evening.

I'm Rich D'Amiglio.

I live with my family at 2674 English Oak Circle in Forest Lake South.

And we've lived in Forest Lakes for about a dozen years now.

And thank you for allowing us to speak.

I, along with a few others, are going to follow me, represent the majority, I think, of the Forest Lakes and Hollymere communities.

which as you know comprise about 2,000 housing units and about 6,000 residents which are adjacent to the RC development.

And while the majority of the discussion nights really focus on the proposed development, we're going to discuss some of the impact on us.

Now I'll begin with our bottom line up front recommendation with regard to the amended proposal.

We request the Albemarle County Planning Commission deny outright or at a minimum continue to accept a deferral by the developer to address the many continuing issues involved with this proposal.

I'm going to provide a bit of an overview and I'll be followed by some other residents that are going to assess some issues in greater detail.

Just as a quick overview, the revised proposal is, as we've seen, is still too dense with too many tall buildings and too small a space, and it grows the outer scale with the surrounding community.

And it's a density issue overall.

The density issue is what we fear will create significant traffic and safety problems, not just for the residents of Forest Lakes, but also for this new development, as well as a slew of other concerns.

And I'll note that despite the recommendation by this commission for the developer to engage the community, we received no emails or phone calls from RST or its agents following the March meeting.

And therefore, we established this committee of residents and reached out to RST in May to start a conversation we hoped could lead toward a development design that would be supportable by the majority of residents of Forest Lake and Hollomied.

Unfortunately, that's not occurred.

Now it's important to note we are not opposed to general development in the area and we applaud RST as many have done for its commitment to meeting and even surpassing affordable housing goals.

But we feel strongly, and I think this is important, that this development, this process need not be an either or situation.

We've taken this issue very seriously and we examined the proposal and we believe with some more refinement that development can be a profitable venture for RST, can increase in needed and truly livable housing in Albemarle County, comply with the Places 29 master plan, and blend into the existing local community with minimal impact.

Indeed, we feel if done correctly, this can be a model for future development adjoining existing communities on the Route 29 corridor.

And overall, we'll note that we find in part that the revised proposal is better than what was first presented, and we thank them.

The aesthetic improvements along Asheville Boulevard and the larger buffer are a welcome change, although we recommend some tightening of the language and more binding commitments.

We find in part, however, that the revised proposal is worse than what was presented, specifically with regards to the heights of the building, and another speaker will talk about that in more detail.

but we also find in majority the revised proposal is relatively unchanged and it still fails to address many other areas that have been extensively pointed out in prior presentations and discussions.

So I'll now be followed by other residents who will be impacted by this development to discuss some of these areas in more detail.

Thank you and next we have Jane Keatley.

Thank you.

I'm Jane Keithley.

I live at 2657 Coralberry Place in Forest Lakes.

I've been a resident here for about 25 years, and I'm a current member of the Forest Lakes Board of Directors.

I would like to begin by acknowledging and thanking RST for the several positive changes in this revised proposal.

They've stated a commitment to improving the sight lines along Ashwood Boulevard, removed some of the townhomes and increased the tree buffer between the townhomes and the adjacent Ashland community,

and expanded the green space amenities.

These are all steps in the right direction and we very much appreciate them.

Some areas were made worse than the revised proposal.

The planned buildings will tower over the Ashland community, even with the step backs, with the townhomes at 55 feet, well over the 45 foot maximum level and apartment buildings at four and five stories and up to 65 feet.

Waivers will be required for these heights as well as other aspects of the proposal, such as the step backs.

We asked the Planning Commission to not provide these waivers and special exceptions.

The revised proposal lacks binding commitments.

Many items are mentioned with caveats and language that could be reinterpreted in the actual development.

Terms such as envisioned and not to scale are frequently used, raising concerns about the actual intention to realize these plans.

Density, as has been stated, is another concern.

The proposal continues to be at a density exceeding other local developments.

It would result in about 1,400 total housing units between RST, Forest Lakes, and parts of Hollymede and Brookhill, plus school-related traffic from outside these neighborhoods, all using the Ashwood Boulevard entrance.

It is unrealistic to think that these will have no effect on traffic.

The proposed density could be further reduced and still meet the county guidelines on density while alleviating many of the concerns about traffic, schools, stormwater management, amenities, et cetera.

Indeed, this development provides an opportunity for the county to create a precedent for future developments.

Alternate neighborhood models that utilize smaller scale buildings are available and that would effectively address the county's objectives on density, affordable housing aesthetics, and community livability.

both for future and existing residents.

These models deserve further exploration before a decision is made on this proposal.

In summary, we respectfully request the Planning Commission to deny this revised proposal and continue to work with RST to reduce the density and to build a neighborhood on a scale and design that is harmonious with the surrounding communities.

Thank you.

Next, we have George Pearsall.

My name is George Pearsall.

I live at 1486 Ashland Drive.

I represent the Ashland neighborhood, which is mostly directed affected by an RST proposal.

The homeowners of Ashland are concerned not only with the height and density of the proposed buildings, but also with the negative impacts other aspects of the project will have on our neighborhood.

We believe the heights of the buildings are way out of scale compared to the Ashland neighborhood and forest lakes in general.

The distance from existing homes, although somewhat improved from a prior proposal, is going to create an ominous effect on our community.

Many trees that provide a barrier between the properties will be removed

contributing to unsightly views.

The developer's proposal that the townhounds closest to the property line will only be three rather than four stories will generate little if any improvement in aesthetics.

Residents are still going to be presented with this monolith each and every day.

Our residents are very concerned about the degree of light pollution that will be caused by the project of this magnitude.

We currently have a very pleasing community and would be extremely saddened to have a light source akin to a shopping mall less than 100 feet away.

Noise is another issue our residents are concerned about.

Adding 332 residences in such close proximity is certainly going to contribute to noise levels experienced by our residents.

During the months that trees are in full leaf, noise will be somewhat abated.

However, for six months each year, there will be virtually no barrier to noise or to the light levels the project will generate.

We also have concerns about the effects that clear cutting close to the property line will have on trees in our neighborhood.

Tree roots do not honor property lines, therefore excavation by the developer will probably harm mature trees belonging to our association.

Granted, they have said that they will provide plantings, but certainly a small tree is no replacement for a large mature tree.

The Places 29 Master Plan designates this and other properties as urban density residential.

However, those zoning changes have not yet been approved, and the plan is not a signal for a developer to saturate a property.

A comprehensive plan needs to consider established communities and not approve development at a scale with its surroundings.

Others have and will address other aspects of this proposal as there are many negatives to this project.

The Ashland Town Homes Board of Directors urges the Planning Commission to deny this proposal and require a redesign of the project.

Thank you.

Next, we have Paula Grazini.

My name is Paula Grazini and my address is 1872 Kernwood Place and Forest Lakes South.

Besides the details brought up tonight, there are several higher level issues here calling for actions and recommendations from you as a commission.

Specifically, the first one is that the Places 29 Master Plan density criteria of 6 to 34 units an acre merits a fresh review in light of how massive that upper range is and consideration of the size of all the developments already approved for this growth area.

The density issue is relevant all over the county, Crozet being just another current example, especially for affordable housing concerns.

Therefore, it is premature to approve the RST proposal now.

Second, the proposed concentration of affordable housing for this particular parcel, 75% of all units is unprecedented and is contrary to the Places 29 master plan, which envisioned affordable housing

being spread among the developments in the growth area.

The jump from 15 to 75% affordable units was just offered by RST at the March Planning Commission meeting and has not had adequate time to be fully considered alongside the input of other community groups interested in a regional collaborative

approached, such as the city of Charlottesville, this county, UVA's newly formed task force, and other groups.

More discussion and exchange of ideas needs to happen before making any decision on this particular application.

Third, there is a definite need for VDOT to review and resolve the differing

Traffic Studies, RSTs and Forest Lakes, so we can all get on the same page.

This is a legitimate concern and one that we feel will have long-term impact in a designated growth area, so we really need to get it right.

This should be resolved before the RST proposal moves forward.

To provide the Planning Commission enough time to fully explore these key issues and develop their recommendations, we recommend, respectfully, that the current proposal be denied at this time.

Thank you.

And next we have Nancy Trudell.

Nancy, please state your name and address in any organization or association that you're affiliated with.

Yes, good evening.

My name is Nancy Trudell and I live at 2666 English Oak Circle in the Forest Lakes neighborhood.

I'd like to start by referencing and sincerely, I'm a proponent and supporter of affordable housing and all the good that it represents.

However, because of the scope of the pending application and the

the gross density proposed.

I'd like to ask the commission to please revisit their requirements when considering an application such as that that's pending as set forth in Virginia code at section 15.2-2283.

There's requirements that

in that code section that are clearly violated in noncompliance by the proposed development.

Those include convenience of access, reduction or prevention of congestion in the public streets, protection against the overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing

or available, and danger and congestion in travel and transportation.

At the last hearing, the applicant deferred its application and then slightly revised it by a reduction in overall units of approximately 10% to the 332 presented.

But then it actually increased the proposed heights of the facility so that the development will still be grossly dense, overbuilt, and fail to provide

A reasonable place to live, not only for the surrounding area, but the residents who will reside within the property.

The RST traffic study, even as amended in October 2020, fails to reference numerous assumptions.

The first being the true number of RST residents who will use the roads, the second being

the residents' daily use, the type of use, and the timing.

It also fails to consider the existing roads as a possible means for ingress and egress, including Ridgewood Drive, Ridgewood Circle, McCauley Court, and as possible access through South Hollymeade Drive.

Finally, the study fails to consider the northbound rush hour and congested traffic, which crossed the hill prior to the turning lane onto Ashwood

and in doing so would overburden that stretch of road so that it became a backup and dangerous stretch amongst Route 29, which is already, as everyone well knows, that- I'm sorry, your time is up.

I appreciate the opportunity to present and I respectfully request that this commission deny the revised application.

Thank you.

Okay, Scott was supposed to be here, but he's not.

So I'm going to go on to Jimmy Baranick.

All right, Jimmy is also not here.

How about Paul?

Okay.

Okay, the other one that had signed up is not here also.

At this time, is there anybody that would like to speak?

Please raise your hand and that will put you in the queue.

And we will go next to Beth Wilson.

Beth, please state your name, address, and if you're affiliated with any organization or group, and your time starts when you start speaking.

Oh, I'm sorry.

This is Scott Ellis.

I think my admin has me signed up under a different name.

So I'm Scott Ellis.

Thank you for the opportunity here.

I live at 1885 Kernwood Place in Forest Lake South.

Being one of the organizers of our response to this development,

It's been very challenging to get everybody engaged, but you can tell there's certainly a ground well of issues on this.

It's overwhelming, frankly.

You had a petition initially with over 500 signatures and lots of pointed comments, extensive testimony before and levels of analysis and documentation that I'm sure that planning commission you seldom see.

And now you have a detailed point by point analysis that is focused, Julian, as you had requested on the revised and amended proposal, and you're still getting comments as well.

The bottom line is the latest revisions are a start as everybody said, but they just don't go far enough.

There are so many open questions that need resolution.

Uh, I would say that it's your responsibility actually to deny this as it's currently written in this previous speaker.

In fact, even gave a legal basis for what you need to consider.

Um, that still has, uh, has issues.

Um, this would affect a lot of people in a lot of ways.

So serious business here to be commended for wrestling with it all.

I know it's a very big challenge.

But look, once the trees are cut down, you can't put them back up.

Once the buildings are built and the cars are in the parking lots and on the roads, you can't undo whatever traffic backups emerge.

Once there's a tall cluster of buildings that dominates the view, what can you do afterwards?

If the development does end up being what was previously called a warehousing of people just staging to go to and from work down 29, how would we ever remedy that later?

It's not about affordable housing, but in fact,

People that are general everyday working people, they're going to be using their cars and driving up and down all the time.

It's just shocking to imagine that there couldn't be a significant impact on the traffic flows with 600 or 700 cars from RST and hundreds of cars coming up from the northern section of Brookhill, all to use the Ashwood traffic light.

We showed before it was a 400-foot backup according to using just some different assumptions and the same

underlying VDOT model.

So this needs to get resolved.

Um, it's, uh, it would be a permanent, uh, long-term, uh, uh, problem for our whole, uh, uh, area otherwise.

So, uh, planning commission, you have an important role as a gatekeeper to ensure that proposals are well thought through and appropriate for the County and communities before they go onto the next steps.

And you've been doing that in lots of other situations, and we need you to, and ask you to do the same thing here.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak at this time?

Please raise your hand to get in the queue.

All right, Mr. Chairman, I do not have any other hands raised at this time.

Thank you very much.

And so at that point, we will close the public hearing.

Thank you, everyone, for your very thoughtful comments.

Great.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity.

Oh, well good, thank you.

I appreciate, we appreciate the opportunity and if there are any issues that remain unresolved that I, that some of the things I didn't adequately address, I would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions about anything that you think is still, you or any of the members of the commission think is still outstanding.

I think I'll start with perhaps a controversial statement, but I think the comments that were made that are critical of this being a for-rent community, perhaps an entirely for-rent community, are incredibly unfortunate.

As the first speaker, Mrs. Brannock, stated so eloquently, I know that Albemarle County supports housing for all people at all income levels, whether they're

home owners or renters or anything else.

And this community is intended to provide a high level quality living community and neighborhood for anyone who wants to live here.

And we're very proud of that for all the reasons that Mr. Copeland stated earlier.

The lighting concerns will be more than adequately addressed with the county's lighting ordinance.

In addition, the Architectural Review Board covers that issue as well.

Noise complaints, the buildings are going to be 88 feet away from the adjacent property line.

I don't believe that there is any basis for noise complaints.

Regardless, there is a noise ordinance in effect in the county.

There was a comment that expressed that there would be tree clear-cutting adjacent to the property line.

As you all know well, the application plan, which is a proffered plan, shows a 40-foot buffer.

There will be no clear cutting of the buffer.

Regarding VDOT's need to

One, I would welcome any questions to our expert qualified and credentialed traffic engineer who joins us on this call.

He can handle any question or concern that may be there, but I will reiterate again, VDOT has already resolved this issue.

They have thoroughly inspected and reviewed our traffic study.

They raised a number of questions and comments which our team addressed and they've signed off on it as has the county's transportation planner.

There is no issue with regard to traffic.

In addition, the traffic study was already a conservative study to begin with, which was very intentional.

We've now reduced the number of units from 370 to 332, so it's even less of an issue now.

The homeowners association's so-called study

They stated on the record at the Planning Commission meeting in March that it was based on made up numbers.

It is not a valid study.

It was bad facts in and bad facts out.

Our traffic engineer even looked behind their numbers.

and confirmed that even if you assumed the basis of their study as accurate, which we dispute, there is no traffic impact.

The concerns about traffic are all about their concerns that they will spend a few extra moments waiting.

at Ashwood to turn south on 29.

Our traffic study demonstrates that is a nominal delay.

It's about one second using a very conservative number of assumptions.

We think actually it's going to be less than that

Also, the queue length was stated by Mr. Elif as being 400 feet additional backup.

In fact, our vetted traffic study demonstrates the additional increase in the queue length would be 25 feet.

That's the link of one car.

And again, that is an extraordinarily conservative traffic study.

And I ask that if anyone has any concerns after I'm finished, to please pose them to Carl Holtgren of Ramey Camp, traffic engineers.

All he does is traffic engineering.

We think a lot of these concerns, and the neighbors have shared this with us, are really about they oppose the Ashwood connection.

You heard a lot about that at the first Planning Commission meeting.

This connection not only furthers all of the goals of the comprehensive plan, VDOT supports the connection, it will

It is a critical connection for all the reasons I know you all know.

And again, there is no traffic impact associated with that.

I would ask that you remember that there were a large number of public comments at the first meeting in March strongly in support of this application.

I'll tell you how eloquent I thought Mrs. Brannock's comments were, and I appreciate her comments.

I don't know her, but I think she summed it up very well, the comments that were made in March.

With regard to the legal comments that were raised, I pulled up that section of the zoning ordinance.

That's section 15.2.22.82.83.

It is about the purpose of zoning ordinances.

It is not a list of requirements.

It's the state code stating this is why we have zoning ordinances to protect against these adverse impacts.

I would contend and would ask Mr. Herrick if there's any disagreement that the county zoning ordinance fully and clearly complies with this Virginia Code section.

So there is no legal dispute about any violation of any state code provision.

I believe, oh and then finally there were comments again about questions, concerns about the height of the buildings, their proximity to the adjacent property lines, and that you know the buildings are just too tall.

I will remind everyone again we have with the revisions to the plan since the March meeting

Directly in response to comments from the neighbors, we very intentionally shifted the density of these units away from the neighbors.

We shifted it towards Route 29, and we shifted it away from Ashwood, shifted it towards the north, or the left side when you're looking at the plans.

We reduced that end townhouse unit on every single row of units to transition it.

Our units don't have the same height as the adjacent project.

They don't have to be the same density level as the adjacent project.

There's not an actual viable

viable claim that there's going to be an impact to a three-story building that's 88 feet away from the property line with a 40-foot buffer in that, I might add.

So we think that the building, the concerns about the building heights, again, the five-story buildings that are being stepped back, those are over 300 feet away from the adjacent property line.

hundreds of feet away from Route 29 and also from Ashwood Boulevard.

So we dispute that there will be any looming of buildings over anyone's neighborhood.

We think that those concerns are unfounded.

And again, I will conclude with the request that to the extent anyone has any remaining concerns about any element of the project, please feel free to ask any of our team any questions.

We are all here and ready to address those concerns.

Thank you very much.

So if we can come back to... It's good to see you, but I need to come... There we go.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And commissioners, it's now back in line.

So Mr. Chair, just to confirm, Ms.

Long does correctly summarize Virginia Code section 15.2-2283.

It states what the purposes of zoning ordinances are.

And in fact, the county's zoning ordinance does comply with 15.2-2283.

You've heard Mr. Reidelbach, the planner, recommend in favor of this proposal.

And it's his opinion that this is consistent and compliant with the county's zoning ordinance.

You've heard a number of comments from the public that

with a contrary opinion and obviously it's up to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors to judge between the two.

Commissions?

I'm looking for Haynes or not.

Remember we have two items before us.

I do want to again commend the team for their improvement in this application.

I think they did listen very carefully to many of the concerns of residents, but there still remains some issues for me.

Now, while I appreciate the developer identifying now three potential locations along 29 North for a bus stop, I still feel given the impact on Albemarle High School of the added student population guaranteed to be generated by this high density residential development,

that compensatory commitments are appropriate for the actual continuation and construction of a bus stop on 29 North.

Secondly, I think there's a need for a pedestrian crossing over 29

As you saw the pictures, we don't even have hash marks that signify on this major state highway that there is a pedestrian crosswalk there.

And there's not an island in the midst of 29 where people attempting to cross 29 actually have a safe place if they can't make it across all the way in time.

and be mindful that into a community with high level affordable housing, we are going to have people that are handicapped and elderly, some of whom may need to move with wheelchairs and may be mobility challenged.

So an island in 29 would be totally appropriate.

and as I indicated earlier, the last time, there still is no bus stop proposed along 29 South directly across here.

So for the advocates of this project to say, well, look, there are going to be sidewalks and people can go ahead and walk the three miles to Wall Street, excuse me, to Walmart

the elderly and the handicapped, that's not a viable suggestion.

So I really have concerns here about the fact that we want high density affordable housing.

That's a good thing, but there's nothing in this application that addresses public transit except to say there could be three different locations and help guide us here.

but no commitment to providing that kind of infrastructure and guaranteed access for residents in this community.

That's my first concern.

My second concern is it's not sufficient that a proposed development have no negative impact on public facilities and public infrastructure.

That's in the staff report.

It states that.

I think especially a development with the intensity of the density and the request for the county to permit this, there should be a discernible positive impact, especially on public transit when there is a high degree of affordable housing units proposed.

And I still don't see that commitment here.

I reiterate that point.

Now, I also see here much more clearly than I did before a slippery slope for the county.

If the public is granted access to private roads within this RST development, then RST residents will quite validly argue in the future that Albemarle County shares a primary responsibility

to maintain those same roads.

And again, my point when I was asking about HOA fees, there is here no guarantee that this development will be putting reserve funds aside for the maintenance of roads and the reconstruction

of any damage in those roads in the future.

I've been down this path before in my district as planning commissioner with Arden Drive where there were insufficient funds available and the county had to help seek funds through the insurance company to cover the stormwater utility

that were inadequate in being constructed.

So I don't want to see the county in the future having to step in and pick up responsibility.

And my last point I raised earlier, and that is the substitution request.

We're being asked tonight to approve higher cost

units for amenities and recreation, pools, dog parks, who's going to clean up, grill areas, who's going to clean up, indoor fitness center, and a reduction of tot lots and basketball courts, which have less maintenance costs associated with them.

So I ask you to be mindful of that.

I think it's wonderful that they're going to be people with 30% AMI if they were, they're going to be renting.

But be mindful what the average rental is in this community driven by the 800 pound gorilla UVA.

that increases all of those rental costs.

And the county website does specify that the cost of living in Albemarle County groceries is 100.7 percent, health care costs 100.5 or 105.4, but housing costs 143.5 when 100 is the

average for Virginia.

So housing costs are greater, rental costs are greater.

I don't see how people are going to be able to afford a 30% and even 50% AMI if they owned, but on the rentals, be able to afford these higher cost amenities.

I guess, speaking for myself, I don't I'm not sure that I think it's appropriate for me to make an assumption about this development that I wouldn't just assume about any other development that

the county is going to have to come in and pay for roads or that there's going to be a problem with upkeep of shared, you know, amenities and facilities.

I have no reason to believe that that would not be taken care of by the property management.

So I feel I think to me, some of those it seems like a presumption that it's not going to work out well, and I'm not sure

why that is, if it's just from an experience in the past or I have every reason to believe that things would be taken care of just like they would with any other development.

And I really do appreciate all the changes that have been made.

I think their substance, I think it's better than what we saw the last time it was before us.

And I think that just with

I'm not sure what to say about the transit because I feel like there's a lot happening in this area.

I understand that is probably part of the reaction from neighbors is there's a lot of development going on right here.

Being from Crozet, I understand how that feels and how people react to that.

But it seems to me that other developments there should be a part towards transit or

Maybe just as the county, it's our responsibility to provide it.

I think in my mind, the applicants done what we asked, at least what I thought we asked of them was to plan for that in the future, but that we aren't saddling them with any particular responsibility to create something that isn't quite there yet.

And so I do feel like with other developments, I don't know that we asked that of the other happening around there and then

I feel like I'm hearing things tonight that we didn't hear before with other applications that are right there in that area as well.

So and I wanted to say, so I don't really know what to say about Rick's thing with the crossing.

With schools, the way I see it is that Albemarle's already going to be overcompassioned and we have a situation that we need to figure something out.

Regardless of this development, that to me seems like one of the places that we would be putting a lot of energy.

And I know the county has some land.

I know there's some ideas.

I know there's the center as a place to redirect some enrollment.

That doesn't give me pause here.

It's just in general is a concern.

I think we all share and we need to get to an answer with that.

So I really am positively inclined for this development and to get at the piece that Julian was talking about with the special exception and the height.

We did hear from the applicant about that, but we didn't ask a lot about that.

I feel I'm OK with those exceptions because in my mind, it's a trade off.

and part of that was taking feedback.

We asked, we pointed things out to them.

We said we wanted to see more open space.

We said we wanted to learn a little bit more about the amenities.

And so, and even though there's a reduction in numbers, I feel like that's kind of what we're seeing there.

And I think Valerie tried to explain that also that there's the desire to create more, take back that space.

So it's a little bit taller, but it is centrally located.

The buffers are generous.

And so I feel like we, I see what I expected to see with this coming back.

I see all those improvements.

So I feel really about it moving forward.

Thank you.

Next.

Karen?

Yes, I want to thank, yes, sorry, slow internet.

Can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Okay, thanks.

I wanted to just follow on with Commissioner Moore.

I

I wholeheartedly agree with her comments and I did receive a number of comments by email from the public.

Some of them were stating that we were just giving the developer a pass because they had affordable housing.

I don't think that's the case at all.

I think that we gave them

a very thorough review the first time around and they did a lot of work to bring this development into what I feel and I believe they feel, as Ms.

Long said, a much higher quality development.

I don't share the concerns of some of the public that there's too much affordable housing in one location.

I just see that as an apartment building where people who don't have as much means as some of the other people in the close proximity could find a place to live.

And I'll just end by saying that I can remember being a person in my 20s and not being able to find an apartment to live in because

I had to pay more than 50% of my rent for housing and people would not approve my applications and I only finally got an apartment by committing our staff accountant to lie about my wages when they called.

And I never missed a rent payment in my life.

So I just want to say that I do feel that these buildings are backed up far enough away

from the residences.

There are other situations in downtown Charlottesville and Arlington, Virginia, where you have really tall buildings towering over backyards.

I don't think this is the case.

And I don't think that there is a problem with this level of density in this location.

It meets the county's policies and the comprehensive plan for more dense infill development.

Daniel?

I'd like to kind of tag on to that.

I think there's a lot of concerns when this application first came about the lacking soul and not having a place that was home.

And I would say that the applicant

I think really took that to heart.

I think reducing the density and adding a hub and a central area to create a sense of community.

There was a lot of also concerns about it being largely affordable housing amount.

Where are they gonna work?

How are they gonna get to places?

And there wasn't public transit.

I think that remains a concern.

However, there was movement to identify opportunities for John and other services like CAT to have a stop.

I would note that, you know,

I just wanted to kind of say that it's not that everybody could be going in town and then when you

I guess there are employment and increasingly more employment opportunities coming in this area.

It is a development area that could be applicable for residents of this development.

I guess the last thing I said, I think, I'm a small business owner.

I have employees that commute.

They can't afford to live in this area.

I have friends that can't afford to live in this area.

They have kids that have to time their departure from Charlottesville to travel their 45 minutes or an hour so they can pick their kids up at school.

outside in a neighboring county.

And I know that is, you know, we have a struggle with Albemarle High School that we need to address.

But given the opportunity to allow 330 some families to come in and have less of a commute time and opportunity to spend more time with their kids while they're trying to increase their means and have a way of living and where their employment is, I think is a trade off worth taking.

and something that we need to figure out to provide the opportunity for the citizens of Albemarle County.

I think that Karen and Daniel summed up my position very well, so I won't expound for a lot longer.

We have a long evening to go.

I would just like to make one additional point, and that is that we have been, as a commission, working for many, many years to try to increase the number of affordable housing units.

And we thought that the properties were going to provide us with an opportunity for that.

for a long time, we now have seen the results of that work, having a housing manager in place, and we're seeing that we really didn't generate that many units through that process.

What is different about this particular developer is that they are specializing in affordable housing units.

They have shown us what the security is that we are going to have these affordable units

into the future and for my mind as a designer asking a lot of tough questions along with staff and other commissioners asked a lot of tough questions.

I think as my two fellow commissioners and Rick before them,

We have seen significant improvements to the amenities, to the aspects that we can feel good about what the amenities will be that the people who live there have.

I do think that Rick brings up an interesting point about the crossing and I support this project and I'm comfortable either as is or with a condition as Rick outlined for at a minimum an island crossing.

I'm also not going to belabor.

I echo them.

I just wanted to thank the team for their work.

I think that they took the comments to heart, as has been stated.

I do believe that the density has been mitigated in many ways, both with the additional

Buffers, the landscape that's there now, the existing tree cover, also topography.

So there's a number of things that are working to the advantage of this project to mitigate the density and they've taken advantage of that now, maybe not so much the first time around.

I wanted to suggest that, and Commissioner Clayborne touched on this,

There is an opportunity here to go a little bit further as you consider the site plan and go further into your design.

I know it's not architecture, what we're seeing, we're seeing massing and actually I commend you for the massing as well.

I think it's much improved.

But I do believe that you're now creating not just a new development, but you are creating a place, a place for people to live and in this world now we need to realize that

Everybody is not going to just leave and go to work.

There are a number of people, a higher percentage of people that are going to be working from home.

And so thinking about the integration of pedestrians, could be bicycles as well, so bike, and the car.

Can the car be de-emphasized?

And I do believe that that's what Commissioner Clayborne was getting at with his comment.

So I would also urge you to think about that.

Think about if there's a way that you can make this even more pedestrian friendly than you have.

You've made some really positive moves.

But I think it can be enhanced.

There are some amenities that I find them disconnected.

the cemetery might be one of those amenities potentially.

And so I just encourage you to think further, although I certainly applaud what you've done.

I also understand that you are not at that level of development yet, but you will be as you move forward to site plan and the architectural review and it shows a lot of promise.

So thank you for listening to the comments.

Like I'm the last commissioner standing, so I can make it brief and I'll be prepared to make a motion thereafter if it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman.

I might have a moment after.

Okay, there you go.

Again, just to follow up on Luis' comments, I do want to thank the design team and

It's come a long, long way.

And as I said, that hard work doesn't go unnoticed.

And I also want to thank the public for making their comments.

I think one of the hardest things for us to do as a commission when we make these decisions is that we're not making these decisions necessarily off a subset of people, but for the whole community.

And I think it's so unfortunate that the folks who will be benefiting the most from this project weren't here tonight to speak, right?

So I think you'd hear a little bit of a different story.

And also just want to say that the recommendation I'm going to make is based off the data that's been provided to me.

So for example, with the density, when you look at the master plan, this fits within the parameters.

And so that master plan is done for a reason, right?

And so when the data is provided to me, I'm using that to make my decisions.

And so I do just encourage the design team to really think through the sustainability portion as the design progresses.

And it shouldn't be an afterthought.

You have that responsibility when you build something here, it's going to be around for 50 to 75 years.

And so you have that responsibility to make sure that the footprint that you leave, right, you leave the world a little bit better than you found it.

And so I'm gonna have faith in you that you guys are gonna

be looking at that and I see the architects here and planners and civil engineers that you guys take that to heart.

It's a big enough project to where it doesn't really need to be a run of the mill project.

You know, you have an opportunity to do something pretty special and be something that, you know, you said it's a first class facility.

Show us, you know, show us that.

So with that, I am prepared to offer my support for it to move forward.

Thank you.

So I will make it sure to keep us moving along.

So one thing that people should know, just keep it in your ear, that there is a study right now looking at enhanced transportation of 29.

So all the way up 29 to the research part.

And so there may be an opportunity as you move through this working with the people within the county to talk about what does that mean for you?

And whether or not that's through CAT or it's through John, it's on demand, there will be opportunities to bring

not to bring mass transportation to a project we're operating on and perhaps touching on your project.

I would also hope we're talking about sustainability here, that we look at some of the new technology that's around to do that, whether or not that's, I'll let your folks talk about whether or not that's panels on top of things, but hopefully there'll be EV charges and everyone knows what I am on and not Tesla charges, so that if in fact this is going to be a place that's going to be available for a haul host,

opposed to people that if people want EVs that they can get EVs without having to move in that particular direction.

I will say that this, and I'm not trying to be snarky in what I'm about to say, but those two pieces of property were 100% affordable between trailer community and the single room occupancy thing.

and the fact that you've come up and will be coming up to a project that's going to be 75% of that, when this is all built down, I'm very pleased with that.

I'm extremely pleased with that.

Because that has been a place where a number of, what I say, trades people and people who have been in transition over the several decades I've been here, have found themselves living comfortably and safely, and that you're looking to create a space for them, for people like that to do so again.

And so I'm thankful for that.

I support and I will be supporting both the ZMA and the special exemption as special exception because I also think that one of the things that you're trying to do is you in the setback on the fourth floor to fifth floor for your two apartment buildings there is a visual change that happens there that I'm pleased with and that I would support and I encourage you to listen to my colleagues

as when they talk about if you have the opportunity to tuck in there a very interesting project that not only can we herald as commissioners at some point, but you'll be able to use in your portfolio when you go to other places, hopefully in the Albemarle ring as you build these things out.

So with that, I will ask Andrew if he will pass back to his two, where is Andrew?

Certainly.

And Mr. Chair, I'll make one more comment before I say this.

I just want to encourage the team to continue to work with the community as this goes forward.

I will say pictures, pictures, pictures, renderings, renderings, renderings, and continue to be transparent as you walk through this process.

So with that, I move to recommend the approval of ZMA 2020-00007.

We'll call those zeros.

They run together.

Is there a second?

You're going to have to speak.

Is that Daniel?

Yes.

Seconded by Mr. Bailey.

Yes.

Ms.

Firehock?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.

Thank you.

This motion is passed, and I think I'll see if I can find... There was a lot.

Karen, there was a lot.

Mr. Chairman, would you like me to read that?

Is there a second?

Second.

Yes.

Yes, Mr. Bailey, seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Yes.

Ms.

Long, and I can't see, let's see.

Thank you so much.

Ms.

Long and Mr. Copeland, as you've heard from us and you've heard, hopefully you'll receive as wise advice and counsel from the commission as you take this to the next level to meet with our supervisors.

And so I think that one piece that Mr. Clayborne said is about having a really, really interesting set of visuals to share with them would probably be something that you might want to consider.

And also if you have an opportunity to talk to other people in this community that you do that, that you have included them in your movement to the next step.

But thank you very much and we're excited.

And I hopefully will be around long enough to see this project come out of the ground.

you know things set a slow up around here and that's something that my colleagues are helping me with as we move in this past so thank you very much and have a good evening.

Thank you.

Good night.

Colleagues do we need five or do you need five?

Okay so okay it's 2035 I'll see you back here and not 2035 it's 835

Sorry about that.

My head's wired.

I'll see you back here at 8.40.

It's been eight years in the Army.

It's 2035.

Thank you.

I always have to do this like quick.

Oh, no, no, no.

Oh, my.

Oh.

No.

What is it called?

No, they're here.

No, they're still here.

So thank you, Spectrum, and hello, Spectrum.

Thank you.

Ah, there's Tory.

Okay.

Good evening, Jeff, and thank you very much for all you do for us.

Okay, folks.

We see there's Rick, there's Luis, there's Daniel, there's Karen, there's Tory.

I'm looking for, there's Tim and there's, come on Corey.

Where's Gary O'Connell?

Hey, Gary.

Corey.

Well, you know what?

Yes, thank you.

So I am going to share my screen.

And hopefully you all can see that OK.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Tori Kanellopoulos.

I'm a senior planner in the Community Development Department.

And we are here this evening for a work session on a consistency with the comprehensive plan application for a proposed Albemarle County Service Authority

or ACSA maintenance and training facility on Avon Street extended.

So I will start with the purpose of the consistency with the comp plan review, then cover the proposal and its background, and then discuss staff's analysis of the proposal.

So the purpose of a consistency with the comp application or a CCP is detailed in section 15.2-2232 of Virginia state code.

And in this case, it is for a proposed public facility that is not shown in the county's comprehensive plan.

The Planning Commission reviews the proposal for whether the general location, character, and extent of the proposed public facility are in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan.

The Planning Commission then forwards its findings to the Board of Supervisors for informational purposes only and if the Planning Commission finds the application consistent with the comp plan, the next step for the applicant is to submit a site plan for review.

And this aerial view shows the site and some of the surrounding uses.

So the proposed facility would be located on tax map parcel 91-1, which is highlighted in yellow on the map and is approximately 9.5 acres.

is located off of Avon Street extended.

There are several schools in the nearby area, including Mountain View to the south, Monticello High to the northeast, and Tandem Friends School to the east, and there are primarily residential neighborhoods across Avon Street to the west, including Mill Creek and Lake Renovia.

and this more zoomed in aerial shows the existing site in more detail.

There's a water tower and cell tower already on the site and these will both remain with the proposed development.

And the parcel does have frontage on both Avon Street extended and Founders Place.

And adjacent uses include the shopping center at Mill Creek to the north, an undeveloped county-owned property to the north, which is currently wooded, the fire rescue station, a healthcare facility and equipment rentals to the south.

And these are a few photographs of the area around the property.

And the top left photograph shows the current end of Founders Place, which is slightly past the fire rescue station.

And in the future, this road will likely extend to Galaxy Farm Lane, which is a deployment off of Route 20.

The new High School Center 2 is planned along Founders Place, and that will be in the area to the left of that photograph.

And the top right photo shows a view of the ACSA property

Looking across the street on Founders Place.

And this is an image of the proposed concept plan for the application.

It's not a site plan at this stage.

The proposed use of the property is a maintenance and training facility to provide a training area and minor repair facility for ACSA vehicles and redundancy for critical infrastructure and operations at the Scott Knapp Road headquarters.

The proposal includes a 15,600 square foot two-story maintenance building,

a 7,500 square foot training area which includes confined space training, associated parking and storage areas for large equipment such as pipes and vehicles, a fuel station and a vehicle rent station.

There is some security fencing existing and there would be more installed around the site for these new uses.

There is an existing site access road which comes in off of Avon Street extended to get to the existing water tank and cell tower.

And that would be extended to connect all the way to Founders Place.

And Founders Place would be the primary access point for this development.

And Avon Street extended would be used as an entrance and exit when needed, such as for large trucks that have a harder time turning around.

And VDOT and transportation planning staff did review this proposal and did not find any significant transportation related concerns.

VDOT does not anticipate traffic conflicts with the adjacent future high school site due to the low number of trips with ACSA's proposed use and ACSA estimates approximately 10 to 15 employees on site per day with potentially up to 30 people on site when there are training days.

and there are also five additional parcels along Avon Street extended in front of this property.

Four are owned by ACSA and a fifth is a privately owned property with a single family residence.

There was a community meeting held for this application, which was during the regularly scheduled virtual 5th and Avon CAC meeting on April 15th of this year.

The main topics of discussion at the meeting were potential impacts due to traffic, noise, and lighting, as well as questions about landscaping and fencing.

The applicant provided information related to these topics at the meeting, including that they would retain as much landscaping as possible.

That fencing that would be visible from Avon Street extended would be more decorative and that use of the property outside of normal business hours would be for emergencies.

And as previously noted, the traffic generation with this proposed use is expected to be minimal and VDOT and transportation planning staff do not anticipate any substantial traffic impacts.

So there are no stream buffers, floodplain, or preserved steep slopes on the property.

There are some managed steep slopes, but those may be disturbed by right if engineering design standards are met.

This property was previously in the entrance corridor overlay.

However, that designation is not currently being applied to Avon Street extended as this road is no longer designated arterial.

And the property is zoned R1 residential, which allows public facilities and utilities by right.

Those are allowed in all of the county's districts by right.

and so I just wanna know that the zoning district of this property does not change with this request.

So staff reviewed this application reports consistency with the comp plan and found it to be in substantial accord with the relevant recommendations.

Some of those include consistency with the growth management policy by establishing a public facility in the development areas, consistency with the development areas chapter, including preserving areas of natural and green systems as there are none affected by this proposal

and consistency with the relevant neighborhood model principles, which are also outlined in more detail in attachment three in the staff report and consistency with the community facilities chapter, including having sufficient space for potential future expansion, locating complimentary services together, which in this case includes opportunities for joint fire rescue training and incident command operations and the relevant neighborhood model considerations for community facilities.

And those are outlined in more detail in attachment four.

The Southern and Western Master Plan's future land use designation for this site is institutional, which recommends uses such as schools, libraries, major utilities, and hospitals.

And the recommended height and acreage vary depending on the needs of the use.

And this site is located adjacent to the Mill Creek Drive Center, which includes the fire rescue station, Monticello High School, and several large undeveloped properties owned by the county.

And civic uses are likely expected on those county-owned properties in the future.

There is a recommended small area plan for the Mill Creek Center, and that has not been completed yet.

They would use community engagement to determine future uses in this area.

And the intent of that special use permit is to look

or of that small area plan is to look at county owned properties and would likely not include this property.

So staff finds that the proposed development of the site is consistent with the master plan.

So based on the factors favorable and the review with the comprehensive plan, staff recommends that the commission find the location character and extent of the ACSA Avon Street facility, public facility and public use thereof as proposed

to be in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan for the reasons identified as favorable in the staff report.

These are the two motions for your consideration to make a finding for the application.

I'm happy to answer questions or defer to the applicant or return to any previous slides.

Are there questions for Tori?

Did I say a hand call?

No, okay.

Sir or applicants, you have 13 minutes if you need them.

Thank you.

Let me share my screen.

My name is Alex Morrison.

I am a senior civil engineer with the Albemarle County Service Authority, part of the owners group for this application, and I will be the project manager for this project and development.

Well, good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission.

I'd like to start by thanking the Planning Commission for allowing me to present our project today, the county community development staff for facilitating our inclusion in the meeting, and members of the public who are in attendance.

Today, I will be talking about the Albemarle County Service Authority Avon maintenance facility.

For the remainder of the presentation, I will refer to the Albemarle County Service Authority as Service Authority for short.

And I will move fairly quickly as I know I am only allotted 13 minutes for this presentation.

So I'd like to go over a few quick agenda items that I'll cover tonight.

I'll go over a couple introductions for members of the team that are with us.

The role of the service authority and project needs, the project location within our jurisdictional area, the existing site versus the proposed site development,

cover some of the development components that we propose, highlight a couple proposed community partnerships that we're looking at through this development, and then take questions.

So I'd like to introduce the owner and design engineer staff that are with us tonight.

Like I said, I'm Alex Morrison, Senior Civil Engineer with the Service Authority and I'll act as the project manager.

Mr. Gary O'Connell is also with us, who is the Service Authority Executive Director.

Mr. Pete Gorham is also with us.

He is the Service Authority Director of Engineering.

and Dewberry is our design consultant on this project.

So Kevin Pinnock with Dewberry, who is acting as the site civil designer and Dodie Hudson, who is the architectural designer.

So the Avon Street Maintenance Facility project will allow the service authority to carry out its essential public health and welfare functions, which include providing water and treated sewer mandated by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County at a reasonable cost to the Albemarle County citizens within the growth area.

I'd like to provide some background on the growth of the service authority since we acquired this property in 1987.

So since 1987, we've increased from roughly 7,220 water connections to just over 21,000 water connections, which is an increase of 290%.

We've increased from 157 miles of water mains to 358 miles, an increase of 228%.

and we have increased from 77 miles of sewer mains to 302 miles, an increase of 392%.

As of July 1, 2020, we own, operate and maintain over 660 miles of public utility mains with new infrastructure being installed daily.

The proposed Avon facility location is centralized in the service authority service area to provide access to the service area via major transportation corridors such as Route 20 South to Scottsville, I-64 West to Crozet,

I-64 West and Route 29 North for our western areas between the City of Charlottesville and Crozet, as well as the northern service area from Ryer Road up to the Briarwood area north of Hollymead and Forest Lake.

This project achieves the long-term purpose of the 1987 project acquisition, property acquisition by the Service Authority, which is a satellite maintenance unit.

The current service authority Spot Nap Road maintenance facility has no additional storage site capacity.

Our current location is bounded by highway commercial developments on three sides.

To handle our workforce growth, we have conducted internal renovations, expanded into an adjacent rental house that we own, and expanded the employee parking lot.

We have a small footprint for a future building expansion.

What we do not have is a footprint to expand our maintenance yard for material and equipment storage and associated activities.

Redundancy for the service authority operations and the following areas have been identified as critical need based on our recently completed facilities master plan as well as continuity planning.

This includes a second maintenance base of operations, a second fuel station and vehicle wash area, additional material and equipment storage, a second server room to support on-site and remote operations, a dedicated confined space and operator training area, and conference room and workspaces to facilitate classroom training in support of incident command system operations.

This overview shows our service area within the county, which is highlighted in orange.

Our service area goes as far south as Scottsville, as far west as Crozet, as far east as Glenmore, and as far north as North Pines, GE, near the National Ground Intelligence Center.

Our main site in Pantops is shown on the map.

A small satellite facility with a short-term lease in Crozet is also shown.

The proposed Avon facility is shown south of the Interstate 64 corridor.

This slide shows existing site conditions with field surveyed contours within the proposed development area.

You can also see the location of the existing Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority water storage tank and a cell phone tower.

This proposed slide shows components of the development, which will be described on the next slide.

A public meeting was held during the April 15th 5th and Avon CAC meeting.

Community concerns were discussed during the meeting to ensure that design mitigates and addresses community concerns.

We have discussed the proposed development with the adjacent resident along Avon Street, bounded by the areas of our property to remain undeveloped, and no concerns arose.

We will be scheduling a meeting and work sessions with the Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center, a parcel adjacent to our southern property line, to ensure appropriate buffering is included in our site plan design prior to submittal, as well as present renderings of the development for the property owner based on the proposed development and buffering.

The proposed development and use is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation as well as the future land use designation in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan.

I will also note that although this shows a future water storage tank, the water storage tank is not part of this proposed development and is only shown to provide a undeveloped area for a future tank.

If Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority determines a second water storage tank is required based on system demand and fire flow storage requirements from growth, they will make the appropriate county applications for review and approval at that time.

The proposed site components are as followed.

A site access road, which will go from the current Avon Street entrance down to Founders Place, a dual level maintenance building with vehicle bays, vehicle maintenance workshop, facilities maintenance workshop, break rooms and restrooms, a server room, and flex office space and conference room for trainings and the instant command.

A vehicle storage yard, confined space entry and training area, a fenced operator training area, a fueling station, associated stormwater management infrastructure, sanitary sewer infrastructure and potable water infrastructure to serve the building, security fencing with two entrance gates, and associated retaining walls.

I would also like to mention a few proposed community partnerships we are or will be exploring as part of this development.

The Albemarle County Fire Rescue Confined Space Rescue Team is located at the Monticello Fire Station adjacent to this site.

We plan to conduct joint trainings with the Fire Rescue to allow them to be familiar with confined spaces that we enter while also allowing our confined space teams to obtain institutional and safety knowledge.

We also plan to conduct joint training with fire rescue within our operator training area for trench safety and rescue.

Most of our maintenance activities occur within trenches of varying depth and configuration and it's important to conduct continued safety training for these activities.

We would also like to explore a partnership with the Albemarle County Public School System to provide operator training for technical education programs.

And we are also in the process of creating a partnership with the Centers for Urban Habitats to provide biodiversity education and conservation on the undeveloped portion of our property.

So I now open the floor for questions.

I will cover project scope questions.

Yes, sir.

Yep, I am just looking for that option.

There we go.

Other questions for the applicant?

Can you just leave your hand going?

Oh, I see Karen.

Karen?

No, I'm having some.

Oh, I'm sorry.

OK.

I had two.

We can hear you.

OK.

I'll just switch my sound.

One question was about the square that says training in the middle.

So that area is our operator training area.

There will be a fenced area with permanent ENS measures, but that's varying topography there where we will train our operators on the use of equipment, specifically outriggers and trenching.

so that they can refine their skills and conduct trench safety exercises in a controlled environment.

Okay, and then the second question, I realized our objective tonight is to look for a finding as to whether you're in accord with a comprehensive plan and not a site review.

However,

I'm actually curious if you're planning to do any washing of vehicles on the site because I'm concerned about a lot of times these facilities do that and there's potential for runoff into the storm drain which as you know we have separate and not combined sewers in this county.

Yes, ma'am.

So we are proposing a vehicle wash area similar to what we have on our site here in Spot Nap, which is a collection pad using handheld wash equipment, not a automatic car wash.

And we are proposing to put in place oil water separators and grit separators to ensure that the stormwater discharge is treated and is not taking sediment into that system.

And that will be, when it's not in use, it'll discharge to stormwater.

When it is in use, we will actually discharge to the sanitary sewer system.

So any green chemicals that are used during that washing will actually go through the sanitary sewer system and be treated at the wastewater plant.

And then once that activity is finished, we will switch a diverter, which will allow just the stormwater runoff from rain events off of the pad.

Okay, that was the right answer, Mr. Morrison.

Anyone else, please.

I have one person with their hand raised.

Pat Kessler, please.

Thank you.

My name is Pat Kessler and I live at 1301 Creekside Drive.

And I also attended the Avon advisory virtual meeting.

And I believe the gentleman just said that there were no objections at their time.

And yes, there were objections at that time.

I just wanted to make a note of that before I ask my question.

My first question is, what do you propose the approximate number of large trucks that will need to access

Well, thank you for the question.

And I will address your first point.

When I had stated that no objection arose, I was specifically speaking to the residents, which is bounded by our properties on the Avon frontage on our development side of the road.

So I apologize for any confusion.

As to your question for the number of large trucks, these will mainly be pipe deliveries, which are infrequent.

We have a pipe delivery.

Maybe every couple weeks, if even that often.

We have other smaller delivery trucks that will bring meter boxes and valves, but that's also every couple weeks we may have one of those deliveries come through.

Do you foresee that your primary entrance will be not from Avon, but from the other side, from the side where the... Ma'am, did you ask where the primary entrance be on Founders Road?

Yes, that is correct.

So although we'll have the two entrants for operational flexibility on the site, we will primarily use the Founders Place entrance.

We are looking to make the Avon Street entrance a write in, write out.

But we will have the flexibility to utilize the Avon Street during high traffic periods on founders, such as once the school center develops, if school is letting out, we'll have the ability to use Avon and not impact that traffic.

But for a majority of the time, founders will be our primary egress to the site.

Okay.

And you have talked about the frontage there on Avon, the trees that are a screen that makes it unable for us to see the project that's going to be going up.

And how long do you foresee those trees will be in existence?

At this time, we have no plans to develop a frontage.

Our facilities master plan did not foresee any need to develop that area for 25 plus years, if ever.

This facility will give us the redundancy in our maintenance.

And we have a location here on our spot nap site for an expansion of this building for administrative and engineering staff.

So at this time, we don't foresee those trees being removed

any time in the near or long term future.

And also note that undeveloped area is also the area that we're working with the Centers for Urban Habitats for the Biodiversity Education and Conservation.

They've done some recent surveys in there and we're working on that agreement so that they can study and conserve some of that existing flora that they have located.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

No, sir.

Thank you.

Then we'll close this and bring it back.

No, sir.

I think I covered the development well in our presentation.

If staff or the commission has any other questions, I would be more than welcome to answer those.

My contact information is amoresonatserviceauthority.org, so please do not hesitate to reach out.

Commissioners, what are your thoughts?

Rick.

I'm ready to do a motion if there are no other questions.

If there are no other questions.

All right.

Yeah, and if I might just add that Miss Kanellopoulos cited Virginia Code Section 15.2-2232.

That code section actually requires that the commission states the reason for its approval if it does approve.

So I would suggest that in addition to Miss Kanellopoulos' motion, that the motion state the reasons for recommendation if recommendation is approved.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Randolph?

I move to find the location, character, and extent of the ACSA Avon Street facility, public facility, and public use thereof as proposed to be in substantial accord with a comprehensive plan.

as stated in the staff report and for the factors that were favorable in the staff report because it's consistent with the applicable neighborhood model principles.

for public facilities as described in the comprehensive plan.

The proposed use is consistent with the growth management policy in the comprehensive plan.

And the proposed use is consistent with the future land use designation of institutional as described in the Southern and Western neighborhoods master plan.

Second.

Second.

Seconded by Ms.

Firehock.

Is there further discussion?

Counselor, are we square?

Is there further discussion?

Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.