Planning Commission Meeting   10/5/2021

And start.

There we go.

All right.

Hey, Corey.

Oh, Corey, before we get started, could you just go do a sound check, please?

Sure.

Testing, one, two, one, two.

Gotcha.

Welcome to the Planning Commission Completion Meeting on Office.

at six o'clock.

This is an electronic meeting.

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

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

Madam Shaffer, would you call

Yes.

Mr. Bailey?

He's not here or not?

All right.

Here.

Here.

Mr. Keller?

Sorry, Ms.

Firehock.

Oh, he was there, but he's popped out.

Ms.

Moore?

Present.

I should let you know that Mr. Bailey has just arrived too, so you can call his name.

and also Commissioner Randolph.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

The problem was I had to type a note in French today.

I turned the language over to French on the computer.

And for some reason, and I left it that way to try to come in through Zoom, it wouldn't allow me to access the language.

Use the microphone.

Bienvenue.

Are there matters not listed on our agenda from the public this evening?

There are none.

We have nothing on our consent agenda.

So then we will move to our public hearing on ZTA 2021-03, which is a public hearing on a zoning text amendment to condense and clarify bonus density provisions.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bivins.

Let me go ahead and share my screen.

Alright.

So, good evening members of the commission.

I'm Leah Brumfield, senior planner two in zoning.

Uh this is a one ring circus this evening.

The presentation is the primary attraction.

The clown car will not be

This zoning text amendment, 2021-03 bonus densities cleanup serves as one of the first steps for the zoning modernization work we have planned on the work program.

So this particular kind of ZTA is the cleanup type.

We've been doing for the past couple of years.

We brought a couple of these to the commission before, so it's pretty familiar at this point.

We're trying to make the ordinance easier to read and understand as we prepare for our planned recodification and a larger public engagement process.

So this CTA was outlined in the 2020 work program under the Zoning Modernization Initiative.

We've been gaining steam in this work

and I believe on September 28th, Rebecca Ragsdale brought to you the special exceptions and waivers cleanup, which was initiative A under the zoning modernization.

So this particular ZTA is part one of the bonus densities cleanup initiative D. And as we work further with our housing planner, Stacy Peffia, we will bring back part two of initiative D,

So this is part A, just the cleanup.

Part two is going to be implementing the housing policy bonus, where we'll be incorporating strategies and new initiatives from the housing policy, including ideas that maybe we haven't thought up yet.

So before we tackle the big changes, we're looking at fixes that are addressing inconsistencies and making the ordinance clearer and simpler to read.

So while we, as we just mentioned, the ZTA does not actually update the housing density bonus regulations, except for in the case of inconsistencies, the ZTA is part of a larger push within the zoning modernization initiative, which reaches the county's public, not public, the county's housing goals, including priorities, there we go, for affordable and workforce housing.

As we're teeing up regulations for future work, we anticipate future public engagement on both densities to be much smoother than it would otherwise be.

People will have easier time understanding the existing regulations and therefore the discussions of changes to the regulations will be more productive.

Therefore, we are saying this is towards our housing goals in the comprehensive plan and in Albemarle, the Albemarle housing policy.

So the history of this real quick, August 18, the board adopted a resolution of intent to amend bonus density regulations to eliminate repetitive text, eliminate bonuses that are already required, and consolidate and reduce inconsistencies.

We're tentatively scheduled for December 15th board public hearing on this item, where we'll be bringing the commission's recommendation forward.

Following anticipated adoption of the ZTA, STAC will begin working on part two of initiative D, which is the actual amendment of the bonus density regulations, bringing in the affordable housing policy.

And as outlined specifically in strategy 1A of housing Albemarle.

So a quick summary of the changes.

Hopefully the staff report explained most of it,

The biggest change I think that's most visible is reformatting the regulations into tables.

We're removing repetitive texts from each district and moving that into section four so we can only actually spell out the regulations once instead of every single time.

We're also creating consistency between the districts and the change there are requiring affordable housing used to qualify for the bonus density

maintained for 10 years in all districts, as opposed to five in Village Residential, and allowing a maximum 50% bonus in all districts total, where it was 33% increase in R-15.

And we're also using the same standard language for each district.

There were previously minor differences in terminologies that didn't impact the regulations themselves.

And then finally, also removing inconsistent or already required regulations.

These two big changes were to remove the potential bonus for non-interconnected streets.

So essentially a focus on subdivisions with a lot of cul-de-sac ending streets, which is not permitted per subdivision regulations.

We require interconnectivity both within and to external streets.

So we cannot apply that bonus.

And additionally, we require street trees in the county.

And so we cannot provide a bonus for providing street trees if we're already requiring it.

So, as we mentioned briefly, the next step will be bonus densities update part two with housing Albemarle policy initiatives.

And then just kind of looking to the future, we're also looking at

the ZTA's with setbacks simplification and the zoning district land uses clarification, which will also be larger, more public engagement intensive ZTA's that we're looking forward to with 2022 coming right out of the corner.

Thank you.

So do we have questions for Ms.

Jenny?

Oh, that's lovely.

Yeah, me too.

So I see Jenny and then I think I saw Rick.

Okay.

So we'll go to Jenny and then Rick for a second.

Thank you.

And then Tim.

So in attachment B on number five, and it may say this elsewhere, but it says,

adjusts the maximum bonus to 150% for our 15 consistency.

And then it goes on to say how the other districts are 50%.

So that's had me a little confused today.

Yeah, sorry, that was confusing the staff report.

The the total bonus, sorry, the total density is 150%.

The bonus is 50%.

Sorry if that was confusing in the staff report.

The actual ordinance is just the 50%.

That's what it says.

I was explaining that if you can have 10, 150% of 10 is 15.

So that's the total amount you could have.

Okay, because I misunderstood that.

And so I was at going to ask, how is that being consistent?

Because it seems like a bigger I thought you were saying it can be 150% more than the total of No, no, I think, okay, so I'm trying to figure out why we would say that about that particular zoning type.

So I have other questions, but I'm willing to wait.

I just wanted to make sure I understood that piece because it's in our attachment as

Well, I mean, I guess my other question, I just had comments, mainly I wanted to ask for like gross versus net density and how you're calculating those.

Does the achievable increase still apply?

So the actual, the zoning ordinance

doesn't deal with net versus gross.

That's only in the comp plan for this particular, for bonus densities.

So we're not worried about that.

Okay, so is there a cap for, I guess I thought for like, for example, there are some properties in Crozet that are

are six by right and so my understanding is when they do the calculation for that they can take constrained land and add those units available that can't be built on the constrained land onto the buildable land so thereby they could have like you know 135 units on less than four and a half acres but it because it's not a rezoning so what I'm wondering is when if you're making a calculation like that

And for a project that is going by right, even though we think of by right as less dense, but in this case, it's R6.

And then you're calculating the density that way.

Is there a cap on?

Can they then come and say, we should get more because of these different things?

And I understand some of this is saying we would remove, like street trees or things that are already required.

So there's no cap based on the net density.

It is the 50% increase.

So in the R6, they could get an additional three units per acre maximum, regardless of anything else.

And the comp plan calculations for the recommended density don't play into the bonus densities that are awarded by

meeting these regulations in the zoning ordinance.

They're separate regulations, so the comp plan recommendations really only come into play when we're looking at rezonings or another legislative action.

Anything administrative isn't going to necessarily look at the comp plan, although staff will make recommendations if there is something that they can comment on.

Yeah, I mean, I think what I wanted to lift up, even though I guess what you're saying is the VTA wouldn't address a scenario like that.

But I think, generally speaking, that's really confusing for people who live around properties to try to understand what could possibly happen there, you know, even if they're somewhat paying attention to those types of things.

And then when you have a situation where you imagine six units an acre, but you don't imagine

that you know that could be multiple acres in the floodplain and then a smaller amount that they actually can build on that it turns into something as dense and so and then on top of that there's the possibility that Moore's added and this is all without a legislative review so that leaves people watching and wondering even more confused about you know how they can learn about what could happen around them.

So I guess I just wanted to put that out there.

And then the other thing I'd add really quick, and I figured Karen might add something about this too, and I do appreciate the cleanup part.

But sometimes when I think about, and maybe this is more of a comment for moving forward into the next phases, but when we talk about street trees, and I think this is what it's saying here is you wouldn't get a bonus for that because we're already asking for that elsewhere.

but then it makes me think deeper into that that could there be bonuses or maybe there already are for leaving mature trees or when we say street trees that we're more clear with the appropriate type of trees or you know what that's going to look like in the end after a ton of mature trees have been removed and sometimes could have been avoided.

Absolutely.

I'm going to keep a running list of all of the things that we're looking at for the bonuses more moving forward.

That's definitely something we'll be revisiting and hopefully in the next CTA that talks about bonus densities, we can look at more in depth things to incentivize like

keeping mature trees, maybe like stormwater management, retention ponds, the kinds of things that you wouldn't necessarily automatically put in, but that we do want to incentivize.

So that's just for the whole commission.

Anything that you want to talk about that we're talking about moving forward in the next stage, we'll just keep a running list of that and take that right now.

But yeah, that is something we would look at.

in the next stage.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Lee, I think the staff comment section I thought was terrific.

Very well done.

Having each one of those

Roman numerals there.

I want to focus in on Roman numeral five, which is page three of the staff report summary.

And not so much the point, but you elucidate below the point regarding demand for future land development may impose pressures on sloped land that will be incompatible with the stream health performance design standards

of the ZTA.

So I'm concerned that the generalist can read this and basically say, what's proposed here, it will weaken the water protection ordinance of the county.

I don't think that's what you're saying.

But you're leaving

It opened to interpretation that at least in terms of managed slopes that what you're proposing here is going to trump the water protection ordinance and it could lead to negative implications for stream health, which is not something any of us want to see moving forward.

So could you just comment about that?

Because I was really concerned

Sure.

I think that what we're looking at here is just in general, anytime we are incentivizing additional development, it can cause implications for sensitive land.

And that's something that we need to admit that anytime we're looking at development, that is a fact, that is something that can happen.

But that doesn't

overwhelm the positives of incentivizing any other development that is focused in the development areas.

It's focused in opportunity areas.

We're trying to avoid, we're trying to minimize the amount of impacts we'll have on sensitive lands by keeping them in the development area instead of having it spread throughout the county.

So that's something where it could theoretically

put 1,000 cuts into it, very quickly the sloped land dies.

You may not be putting major earth moving equipment and wholesale changing, but a cut here, a cut there can really affect the way the stream watershed operates.

But anyhow, thank you for explaining that.

And that answers my question.

Appreciate it.

Well, as with the others, it's just always great when you come and you give us these cleaned up versions.

We very much appreciate the thought that goes into them in the organizational framework.

I want to just ask a question that this is most likely not you, this is most likely consensus.

And I rather wish that Charles was here this evening, but in the paragraph under background, the second paragraph that talks about the changes since 1985, and it says,

even in the development areas to goals related to walkability, more urban development forms than development area and an emphasis on affordable housing and moving away from an emphasis on the preservation of open space.

But I guess I'm concerned with the wording of that, not actually the product that you've produced, but it seems to me that both in Pan Tops, where there has been a real

moved by the public through the public engagement portion and in Crozet as well with discussions that we're having about the importance of parks and open space.

And if we're not going to get parks and open space through bonuses, through proffers or something through the bonus process, then it seems to me that the county is going to have to ante up and purchase properties.

and we saw an example of this on 29 North as well in thinking about setting up those blocks and how it would have been really helpful to have the county own something that the kind of super lock blocks could be built around.

So again, I think that this is not to upset this process.

I'm not offering it for that, but I'm offering it for your internal staff discussion to think a bit more about what you're saying here.

because I think that these are two things that need to be working together in tandem.

We need to figure out how we're going to have open spaces so that the walkability actually benefits from being able to walk from an open space to another open space.

Even if some of those are public and we get to that through form-based code.

Anyway, that's really my bigger one.

And then maybe after other folks have spoken, I wonder if you could

go into that portion about the trailer parks and how the bonuses would be given and give us a little background.

Is that coming from the Southwood experience or also from the trailer park up to the North as well?

What has led you all to believe that that is a good way to approach that?

But overall, I am quite positive and supportive of what you've done.

Julian, do you mind if I address that right now?

Actually, that's okay.

Go for it.

Yeah, so Mr. Keller, there's no change there.

That regulation is the same as it was before.

We haven't analyzed that.

That's something that we would be looking at under the future

Is that okay, Tim?

Yes, I was just going to briefly tag on to what Commissioner Moore said a moment ago about the trees.

Yeah, I have brought up the need to have more robust or any standards for tree planting, both sizing of the wells, species diversity, size of treed islands, types of trees that are appropriate for

sidewalks and parking lots versus parks.

So I've been told by Mr. Rapp that that is all to be considered as part of this work to update the zoning ordinance.

So I didn't make any comments about bonus densities for things that I think we should require.

as other cities do.

So we're a rural county turning into an urbanizing county.

We're urbanizing around Charlottesville.

Crozet is a smaller town becoming a little bit more like a city.

We don't have the same powers as a city but nevertheless as we develop these urban areas we do have to start adopting some of the standards that you would find in a well-run city for our green spaces and then a bonus that though that you might consider and but let me also say I like the idea of you know concerning some bonuses for bonus densities for leaving mature trees on site because they provide a lot more value but low impact development

or Constructed Green Infrastructure.

As we've talked about in the past on this dais, the virtual dais, the stormwater regulations were changed several years ago to allow developers to buy offsite credits for water quality treatment.

And as a result, we saw a decline in the amount of water quality treatment being provided on site.

And we're only getting volume controls, leaving water quality to be provided somewhere else

So it's sort of become a transaction rather than an actual prevention of water pollution.

And so at least on the sites that we care about.

So I really detest that change.

That was not what the Storm Mark Committee originally was trying to put in place that was convened to craft that regulation at the state level.

So we may need to incentivize back something that we've lost the ability to require.

And then there are other things in terms of parks and green space but I don't think I want to have a long conversation on that tonight.

But I also kind of raised my eyebrow when I read that section about, you know, less open space because you can have density and open space.

at the same time.

It's absolutely possible.

There's a lot of great design examples of that, and I don't want to bore everyone tonight.

So I'll just leave it at that for another time.

But again, I've been assured by Mr. Rapp that there would be a time for actually strengthening our tree ordinance, I assume as you strengthen and creating a robust tree ordinance, improving our landscaping standards so that when we have a developer who is putting tree trees in that they actually don't die within several years.

So we'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

I'll be brief.

I think since you're saying this is really great, the cleanup, since you're saying you're taking a running note, kind of piggybacking on what was said, one thing as I mentioned here is potential bonus densities for those green building standards, renewables on the site,

When we talk about having mature trees as we think about it and the goal of trying to offset greenhouse gases globally in our park and that, you know, leaving mature trees has much more economic value from a carbon sink perspective than, you know, a freshly planted tree.

And so I'm totally behind that.

But the other part that I think would be interesting is while green building materials are coming down in price, they're still often considered a little bit higher in price.

And so

If there was a way to think about adding that as a bonus density factor for certified, that could be an interesting way to create a housing that is also doing its part not to contribute to air pollution, both in this area and others as we're modernizing our electrical consumption as a state, as a country, really.

I think

The other thing that I just wanted to hit on that is not really related, it's just more bringing up a previous conversation that was kind of put on the backlog, but I appreciate adjusting the VR minimum for handling the affordable housing density from five years to ten years consistency, but I think that also brings up another thing as we move into the next phases.

What do our villages look like?

Is that the place of employment?

Because the thing that we hit into with the last time we were thinking about these bonus density factors was public transit.

And can we get people to places of employment and affordable housing?

And does that make sense?

I'm not taking a stance on it or trying to say, but I think that's a thing for us to be thinking about and understanding what that means as a bonus factor for the villages and what the view of it is there.

So something to think about as we move into the next phase of

Assessing what is bonus density and what does it mean?

Commissioner Bailey has stole all my thunder.

So I'll get right to it.

You know, for future exploration, I want better buildings.

Is there a way that we can use this as a tool to get net zero buildings or net zero ready buildings, right?

To push the envelope a little bit.

Since once we inherit these designs that are constructed, they're here for 50 years or more.

I'll leave it there.

I want better buildings.

And is there a way that we can use this as a tool, if appropriate, to encourage that?

Well, for the sake of being repetitive, because I was headed in the same line of thought, if we're giving more density, we're having a larger footprint on that site, is there ways that we can incentivize more sustainable design?

I think both my colleagues have spoke about that very well, so I'll just give an example.

You know, at times we've asked for impervious pavers and just simple things that can help a site, whether it's just water quality or

building materials, as we mentioned.

Just really briefly, I also wanted to remind the commission and staff that when we were doing the RIO form-based code, there was supposed to be work done on green infrastructure incentives.

And then as form-based code moved forward, a lot of the incentives went away for various reasons.

One was that the consultants who were advising the county didn't think that incentives worked very well.

But nevertheless, wherever you come down on that issue, the staff has not, and this is not a criticism of the staff, just that I have been waiting and expecting these sort of green infrastructure incentives, whether they're buildings or constructed things such as bioswales and permeable pavement to be enumerated.

And that work has not occurred.

So I don't know if that work is still to be done or if it just got dropped.

So, you know, that was supposed to be something that was happening.

I'll just put that out there.

Maybe when Charles comes back, he can elaborate on what went on with that.

One, I was just sort of as an editorial piece on page three of the revised documents of the ordinance.

Section 2.4.5, you have an asterisk down at the bottom, but I don't see the complementary asterisk in the table.

And I didn't know if it was just a carryover from above, or there really isn't supposed to be an asterisk there.

Yeah, the the asterisk would have been on both of those standards.

Okay.

So I do want to I

of where we seem to be moving.

That's a big deal for me.

I mean, I grew up under a training where it was sort of drilled into you to move away from all of these precious terminology to move to something that a person could pick up and they could read it and understand and move and sort of make decisions about.

So I'm very pleased about that.

I also need to say as the person who represents the place with the most density,

that one of the things that I was concerned about was the same paragraph that Tim did about this whole idea of the emphasis on the preservation of open space.

In the Jewett District, we have one

I can't call it a pocket park, but we have one sort of green space that probably has a future of being this sort of semi-wild space.

And that's the Charlotte Humphreys Park, that there's going to be very little of any kind of change to that park, maybe try to manage the water a little bit like that.

And so basically for the people who live

in the area of the community, of our community with sort of the oldest infrastructure, some of the older or the first wave of density, we have very little green space.

And in some of those neighborhoods, we have very little infrastructure, no sidewalks, no gutters, none of that that one might expect to see, not expect to

villages, but you shouldn't expect to see it in something that's the highest density instead of in the midst of the development.

So what I'm going to do is two things.

So while we talk about what might get developed on land,

I hope at some time we're also talking about what are the things that we can incentivize on developed land.

What's the partnership that we can do between existing homes so that in fact we're building out this sort of walkable transit bicycle lane infrastructure across entities as opposed to having it sort of in a hopscotch applied kind of way.

That's something that I'd like us to, I don't know,

I'm putting that out to you for your list but that's concerning me because when I look at what's happening at Stonefield and I'm a fan of Stonefield so no one take it away but we're looking at the kind of work the infrastructure that they're doing there you're seeing a whole sort of set of what I'd say particularly if they don't do that in the other hotel you're going to have green space and you're going to have people people walking living and walking all in a space that makes perfect sense you go one block away from it and the world changes completely

And so not having these islands of amenities is something I guess I'm hoping to not do.

The other thing that I think, and I want to be real clear with this, I am not throwing a stone.

but I am asking how do we have the things that my colleagues here have talked about, green buildings, smart buildings, different kinds of styles and have that line up with what has traditionally, what is felt to me as a traditional look at ARB standards coming in on our, what do we call those roads?

Karen, give me the name of that road, one of those roads.

Not artillery.

Entrance corridors.

Thank you.

Entrance corridors.

Because most of this work is going to be done around entrance corridors.

And so if we're going to do some of the work that you're speaking and have kind of bills that you're speaking about, that means it's going to be a different kind of exploration of what is the ARB going to say is the appropriate standard.

visual standard for coming down those roads and having that kind of development.

You don't want to say anything to me on that one.

And so the one piece was about the green space in the existing areas.

Yeah, I'll just add that I would not assume.

The city commission is going off and remaster planning the urban ring.

To you, our chair, you know, there is a lot of work that can be done to retrofit already developed neighborhoods, as you know, to add sidewalks, to add bioswales, to deal with stormwater from untreated sites, to create pocket parks and amenities and walkabilities and, dare I say, even trails.

I've done a lot of that work in different cities, and I'm sure Commissioner Keller and others on this call have done that work.

You know, we have a lot of expertise in that and it might take more of a concerted effort to do, you know, a master plan slash retrofit plan.

And there's funding to do that.

I mean, we may have- Yeah, we understood that.

Anyone else before we go to public?

All right.

Well, Ms.

Yeah, we got a lot of really great thought for future work and

I do have a recommended motion with the addition of the asterisk that you pointed out that managed to get through multiple layers of proofreading.

It just goes down to the way I'm trying.

That doesn't have anything to do with your, really.

Don't do that.

It's okay.

So you want to put that up for us?

There you go.

One sec.

That's the next slide.

OK.

I see it.

We see it.

All right.

Commissioners, is there anyone up?

Tim, would you like to move that?

Yes, I move to recommend approval of ZTA 2021-03 bonus densities cleanup.

It's shown in attachment C of the staff report with the change of adding the aforementioned asterisk on page three of the draft ordinance.

Second by Karen.

Is there any further discussion?

Ms.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Randolph Aye Ms.

Firehock Aye Mr. Keller Aye Mr. Bailey Aye

Ms.

Broomfield, I think you also heard the eye from Rick's dog.

So that's truly a vote of confidence.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this to us.

And thank you for sort of sitting through, you know,

My colleagues and I, we're often so focused on very detailed and very specific things that when you give us an opportunity to sort of like run a little while, we will take full use of that opportunity.

And so thank you for your patience and thank you for your good work.

Thank you.

So we'll be moving on.

And I think you have what you need from us too.

OK.

Are you still managing our meeting?

I believe so, yes.

OK.

Are there committee reports?

No committee reports.

OK.

Is it any old or new business?

I'm seeing heads moving, no old or new business.

Do we have items for follow-up?

Well, I think one of the things we might be helpful to sort of take back to Charles that it might be good to give us an opportunity to just do what we did with you with him.

Where we can say these are things that we've talked about these are things that we'd like to figure out a way to have some time to chew into.

but chew on.

You don't chew them into things.

Or you get chewed into.

But you chew them on.

Don't pay attention to them.

If you would take that message too, I'd appreciate it.

Oh, so?

Oh, look at that.

Everybody look at your clock real quick.

It's going to be the last time it's like that forever.

Our October 12th meeting, so next week, we were scheduled for a work session.

We don't have anything that's coming before us.

So our next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October the 19th this year, 2021.

OK.

Folks, it is 645.

It is still light out.

Oh, and we got a note here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Go forth and do good things and see you in a couple of weeks.

Bye bye now.

Bye bye.

Bye bye.

Bye bye.