Planning Commission Meeting   1/11/2022

All right, good evening.

I'll get us going.

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 the www.albemarle.org website calendar when available.

I am Charles Rapp, the Deputy Director of Community Development filling in this evening as we handle organizational business.

I'll call the meeting to order and establish a quorum.

Yes.

Mr. Bailey?

Present Mr. Carrazana Present Ms.

All right, so we do have a quorum.

All right, well, my time is almost up here.

Our first item for this evening is our election of officers.

I would like to bring forth the nomination, if I might.

All right, so Commissioner Bivins has nominated Commissioner Firehock for the chair.

Do we have a second?

He's second.

Well, that's probably a good thing to know up front.

You can nominate at the end and say, I don't know, you were talking about somebody else, right?

Would the clerk please call for a vote?

Mr. Rand, before the roll is called, there needs to be a motion to elect Ms.

Yes, I nominate.

So Mr. Bivins, are you then moving that Ms.

Firehock?

I moved.

It was seconded by Corey.

Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Mr. Bivins.

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

And Ms.

Firehock.

All right.

Congratulations, Chair Firehock.

Yes, do we have it?

No, I'm just waiting for a second if there is a second.

Okay.

Right.

Honored to do it.

We have a lot of great mentors I'm looking at on the screen, so I know they'll keep me straight.

Thank you for being willing to do that.

All right.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, everyone.

Our next item on the agenda for this evening is the discussion of the Planning Commission rules of procedure, which we all received in advance.

I don't know, Secretary Rapp, if we need to actually go through those.

I don't believe that there's been any changes since last year, but that is the matter before us if anyone has any comments, and I see Andy is raising his hand.

Yes, ma'am.

Madam Chair, is the commission going to appoint a secretary to see that that was an item of business?

Sorry, sorry to move past that.

All right, so we'll call the questions.

Any discussion?

Hi, Mr. Carrazana.

Hi, Ms.

Firehock.

Thank you.

Charles Rapp is once again Secretary of the Commission, and I apologize for not seeing that.

I think I was thwarted by the if needed after the appointment of Secretary, so I wasn't clear that we need to actually reappoint him.

So with that, we'll go back to the item I was trying to bring up, which was discussion of Planning Commission rules of procedure.

We adopt these every year at the beginning of the year.

Madam Chair, not as far as I'm concerned, these are the, as you indicated, these are the same rules that we previously drafted and reused from year to year.

I've not received any requests for any amendments since last year.

Is there a motion to adopt these rules as presented?

So moved.

So moved by Commissioner Clayborne.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Bailey.

Is there any discussion on the rules?

Hearing no comments, would you please call the question, Carolyn?

Thank you.

Okay, so moved.

The next item on our agenda is the discussion of committee boards and bodies to which committee members serve as liaisons and we have been sent the list of everyone who all the different positions and for our newer member

This certainly is up for negotiation.

Sometimes there's a little trading, you know, sometimes people want all the good juicy ones, but you have to give one up for your friend.

Just to remind everyone what all these different committees are, and which ones

of openings.

And if there's any questions about any of them, such as when they meet or how much time is involved, that's also certainly fair.

Is that up?

Yes.

All right, let me make it a little bigger for us.

So we have a vacancy with the Fifth Street and Avon Street Community Advisory Committee, with the Agricultural and Forestry District Advisory Committee, the MPO Technical Committee, and the Rivanna River Corridor Steering Committee.

I will say that plan is in its final stages.

I believe it's going before the

City Planning Commission and City Council over the next, I believe, one to two months.

And it will be going for the Board of Supervisors, as you all saw maybe a month or so ago, for endorsement as well here.

So I'm not expecting many more meetings on that in the near future.

So to simplify this a little bit for the CACs, the community advisory committees, those are filled by the commissioners who serve those districts.

So there's not really any horse trading to be done there.

It's simply whoever is the person.

I think that's me.

Yes.

So that takes care of those two.

And by the way, we can trade different positions on different other ones as well.

but we might as well talk about the MPO tech because that is also listed as vacant.

I think that Tim Keller had served in that position and so his absence makes that an opening.

I served on that for a number of years and it would be interesting to see how that changes given that they've got a new change of leadership and given the number of sort of

specific and local transportation matters that are coming up.

And it tends to be, just as this is not saying, but it tends to be in a different kind of path than the C-TAC.

And so this is the one that sort of sees proposals before it actually comes to the Board of Supervisors or to the MPO, which is the Metropolitan Planning Committee MPO

for our region.

So it's actually, there's really good work there.

Somebody is not afraid of details, because there are some.

That's actually an interesting thing to see what's happening with transportation in our community.

I think it tended to meet at 10 o'clock in the morning.

And I believe it may have met once a month, once every other month.

But it met at 10 and it was usually from 10 to 12.

And the wonderful thing about the unfortunate thing, but the wonderful thing about where we're meeting now, it's via zoom, so you don't have to place to displace down to Water Street.

I don't, but give me a second and I can perhaps look on a calendar and find that out for you.

But I don't.

I want to say, I shouldn't do that.

I shouldn't say that.

Yeah, no problem.

I will, while I'm looking at that, I will say, I don't know what the long range score planning liaison role is, because I don't think I've ever had that before.

I don't know what that is.

So somebody has to help me out on that one.

I don't believe that anyone who's on this meeting this evening has served in that role.

I know that in past, Bruce Dodson had been a commissioner who served in that role.

And it was, you know, they look at demands for schools in terms of how many students there will be and different age cohorts, what structures they'll need, what kinds of facilities they'll need, you know, sort of just what it sounds like, long range planning, but it also is a very helpful position

for the Planning Commission because obviously we are engaged in long-range planning especially with the comprehensive plan coming up and so understanding where school demands are has a direct impact on where and how we are able to grow and sustainably

house and teach our children.

So it is for people who also like to dig into the details because I know they do get into a lot of projections and stats and figures, but that person then comes back and reports to the Planning Commission on what they're learning and what some of those items are that affect what we're doing with our development plans or comprehensive plan stuff.

So that's a very,

That's helpful.

I'll share, then I'll share something that I've been put on after that.

So I mean, I could take that one if it's available and I'll have to look at schedules obviously, but probably free up.

So there's one

It looks like they meet on the third Tuesday of alternating months at 10 a.m.

Six meetings a year, starting in January.

and our counselors just put the calendar in our chat for those of you who need to see it.

Luis, if you need to see it.

Okay.

And so let me give, if I might, Chair, give you a little, so I've been asked to join the Lambs Lane Campus Master Plan, Master Planning, which I think is a short-term thing.

It's just to look at what's happening and it's not connected to the, it's not connected to the planning commission necessarily.

But it's asking for some community members to look at some alternate ways of the Albemarle, what's basically known as the Lamb's Lake campus, which is Albemarle, Jack Drew, and Greer.

And then there's another school.

Eventually, the Boys and Girls Club is in the process of building a facility on this campus.

And perhaps looking at what's the best optimal use of this land, whether or not there should be some consideration of land that's

North of us, so that's been proffered on the, what is it, Berkmar Bypass or Berkmar, whatever road that is up there.

And so I've been asked to do that.

Okay, and you were speaking in that in relation to the Long-Range Planning Committee.

for the schools.

Okay, so Luis has offered to serve as the MPO tech, so let's just close that out first.

Does anyone want to request to have that position?

Is everyone fine with him taking on that role?

Thumbs up.

I don't think we have to vote.

Okay, that's great.

Congratulations, Luis, you have the transportation planning.

a really, really important role for the planning commission.

We'll coordinate with you, Luis.

Charles will help with letting the committees know who has been appointed and then with you with the scheduling and that.

Yes, outside six feet apart.

Okay, so now back to the long range planning and the schools.

So Julian, you were mentioning that you were already involved in some efforts to think strategically about different schools.

Unless somebody else wants to do the round out the portfolio, I would do it.

I know some of our colleagues have wanted to chew on school issues for a while, and if they want to do that, I appreciate that.

Yes, I mean, we're all interested.

Let's put that we're all interested in schools, but you are willing to serve and no one is asking to take that away.

So all right with that.

So now, that takes care of the vacancies, I believe that we're on our list, but there are other positions.

Okay, I mean, I'm not I'm not closing out the discussion of committees, because there are there's other committees that people might be interested in serving on.

And Mr. Missel, for just for your information, usually, each one of us has one or two committees that we do in addition to our chair role.

So there's the CAC, that's one, and then usually one other.

So if there is something that on this list that strikes you as of particular interest to you, you know, because some of us aren't serving on more than one, I would love to hear that.

As our past chair, Mr. Bivins just mentioned, the Ag Forsell District Committee also has an opening.

And that I guess, does that meet in the evenings?

And if so, same question, do we know when they meet or how often?

Yeah, we probably ought to put that on there.

When they have new nominations for the district.

Correct.

Okay.

And just as a side note, I'm also on the Land Use and Environmental Planning Committee as a UVA Foundation employee.

So I know, Julian, you have that as well.

I'm there automatically as a member through the foundation.

So I don't know if it's helpful for me to also serve as a planning commissioner.

I'm not sure if I could.

You look at the three jurisdictions, some of that's about the, what I will say is the urban, what they like to refer to as the urban core.

I'm trying to figure out a new language for that, because it's not the urban core, but that's, you know, I'll fight the battle slowly over the next few years.

And so and most of that sits in our district, it's in the ejectorate district, and the overlaps with UVA particularly sits in the ejectorate district.

So that's, that's why I've been sitting on that, but if somebody else wishes to, I'm okay.

Yeah, I wasn't offering to take that position.

I just wanted everyone to realize that I'm also involved in that process.

Understood.

All right, so we will have Mr. Missel on the Ag Parcel District since no one is contesting that or begging to take that on.

Are there any other positions that are currently filled by one of us that somebody else would, one of you other commissioners would like to take a stab at?

And I know that Commissioner Moore's not here this evening because she's out.

So she, I know, is on the historic committee.

but I just wanted to put that out there.

I know Jenny and I have traded back and forth in the past between the ACE committee and the Historic Resources Committee, but any other committees that strikes anyone's fancy that they would like to take on?

during that role.

There's no hue and cry for taking another committee on.

We can leave it as it is.

All right, so I'm not seeing any sad faces, so we will move on

to the next item on our agenda.

Just navigating one tiny laptop screen here this evening.

Okay, so the next item is to review and adopt the meeting schedule proposed for 2022.

That also has been sent out in advance.

I'm sure that there will be one or two meetings here and there that a commissioner cannot attend.

We don't really need to know that right now unless

Later on, we find out that there are all of us cannot attend a certain night.

We don't have quorum.

But in general, is everyone okay with the meeting schedule as proposed?

And the time?

Yep.

All right.

Wonderful.

Was that you, Fred?

Yes.

Okay.

Sorry.

I'm moving my screens around.

I am.

Okay.

All right.

So we have a motion and a second.

Is there a discussion?

Yes.

Mr. Bivins?

Ms.

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

He had to step away for a moment.

Aye.

I'm back.

Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

Thank you.

All right.

The motion carries to adopt our schedule.

And the next item was the consent agenda, which is on the next page that only items on there are the approval of the minutes for December 7th and December 14th.

I did actually have a question I had sent comments back on my job was to review the minutes of the seventh.

and I sent that back last week as soon as I had power back.

And my comment was that I believe that the motion on page 10 was also to include street trees as part of the planting strip.

And so I thought I would use this.

I sent this comment back to staff, but I thought I would check in with Mr. Rapp if that is his recollection as well.

If so, it needs to be added to the minutes.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that is the only change that I had.

So unless that is not in comporting with what Mr. Rapp remembers, I think we're okay with that.

That is correct.

Okay, great.

I motion to.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Corey Clayborne a second.

Any discussion?

All right, Carolyn, would you call the question?

Yes.

Mr. Clayborne?

Mr. Bivins?

Okay, so the motion carries.

We can now move on to our two items that we have for public hearing this evening.

The first item is, I have to increase my screen resolution, ZMA-20200000-13, Overlook Hotel, Pantops PDMC Amendment.

Can you all hear me and see my screen?

Yes, sir.

Great, thank you.

My name is Andy Redelbach, and I'm a senior planner here with the Albemarle County Planning Division.

And tonight I'm presenting to you a staff report on two separate applications that are interrelated, however.

And these two applications are ZMA-2020-13, the Overlook Hotel Pantops PDMC amendment, and SP-2021-10, the Auto Superstore SP amendment.

So to provide some context on where these applications are, it is in the Pantops area.

I've circled the location where the hotel, the first application is proposed.

And I should say this aerial view is looking from the north, so the top of the screen is the south.

You can see the edge of the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center up in the top left.

The Carriage Hill Condos and Apartments are in the top right.

And then Route 250 goes across the screen in the bottom left.

And so the green area in the center is the site of the proposed CMA and the SP, which also involves the auto dealership there to the right.

So to provide some more information on these two applications, there are two separate applications.

However, they are interrelated.

The zoning map amendment is a request on tax map Parcel 78-7387, which I've labeled.

And you can see in the photo on the right,

And then there is a related special use permit request, which is for text map parcel 78-13, which I've also labeled.

So you can see how they

to the parcels are adjacent to one another.

So the zoning map amendment application is a request to amend the application plan approved with ZMA 2002-8 to allow a hotel as a permitted use on this parcel and to remove a tree conservation area that was designated on the application plan approved back in 2002.

And then the special use permit is a request to amend the previously approved

to remove conditions and language in it that requires an offsite landscaping easement.

And so even though the special use permit applies to tax map Parcel 78-13, that offsite landscaping easement is in fact on tax map Parcel

78-73A7, which is of course the parcel proposed to be rezoned to allow the hotel.

So that's kind of a summary of how these two applications are connected and why they are coming before you together in both one presentation and as one staff report.

So the zoning of these parcels, they are different of different zoning districts.

73A7, which is the subject of the ZMA where the hotel is proposed, is currently zoned PDMC Plan Development Mixed Commercial, which is a plan development zoning district that allows flexible uses, mainly commercial uses.

and PDMC that includes several different parcels to the east and southeast, including the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center.

And the subject parcel is really the outermost parcel of this PDMC and is the last undeveloped parcel that's located in it.

And then the

Special use permit application that relates to 7813, that parcel is zoned HC or highway commercial.

The overlay districts, these parcels are both within the entrance corridor and there are managed steep slopes on both parcels as well.

And there is a small area of preserved steep slopes on 78-13.

However, it is on the

kind of west and southwest side of that parcel and it's not relevant to their request to remove the landscape easement requirement condition.

Looking at the Pantops Master Plan, both of these parcels are largely designated as community mixed use in that plan.

That is the brown color that you can see.

of course, recommends a wide variety of uses, commercial, retail, residential, office, hotels is a specifically designated primary use, institutional uses, and then several secondary uses as well, like light industrial, existing auto commercial sales and service, office R&D, that sort of thing.

The building height that is recommended for this land use designation is two to four stories.

and then the rear of both of those parcels to the opposite side of the parcels from Route 250 where those parcels are adjacent to the Carriage Hill residential community.

There are areas designated as parks and green systems of those two parcels.

So the specifics of the proposals.

The first slide is related to the ZMA.

And so, as I mentioned earlier, it is a parcel that is part of a larger PDMC district that includes the Wrecking Ridge Shopping Center and ELP Parcels.

The applicant is requesting to amend the application plan to allow a hotel on this parcel, which is not currently a permitted use under the current application plan.

And then, as I mentioned in the slide previously, hotel is a primary recommended use in the community mixed-use land designation of the Pantops Master Plan.

The applicant is also requesting to remove a tree conservation area located on this parcel.

This was approved with the previous rezoning on the application plan for screening purposes, but it is currently largely devoid of trees.

This development would be subject to ARB approval.

The applicant is requesting that an entrance be allowed directly onto Route 250 as there are no available street stub outs to connect to including from the other PDMC zone parcels that it is adjacent to.

And the entrance would be subject to VDOT approval at the site planning stage.

As I mentioned, there are a lot of managed steep slopes on this property.

And so managed steep slopes are permitted to be disturbed by the zoning ordinance.

However, any disturbance, grading, retaining walls, that sort of thing would be subject to the regulations found in the zoning ordinance for that overlay district that would be reviewed at the site planning stage and must be approved by the county engineering division.

And then there is no development in the rear of the parcel, that portion that is designated as Parks and Green Systems.

And it is important to note that this part of the parcel is actually the location of a proposed future roadway that is identified in the Pantops Master Plan where Rolkin Road would continue from its intersection at Hanson Road, continuing on to the northwest.

And so this is just a sheet from the applicant's application plan that they provided showing the layout of the proposal.

The proposed hotel building is there in the center.

The yellow shading in the middle is the tree conservation area that is proposed to be removed.

There is a landscaping easement up in the top right that is a green rectangle that is proposed to remain in any, the site plan if this CMA is approved would be required to ensure that the conditions with that easement continue to be maintained.

And then the portion of the landscape easement that is proposed to be removed and that is subject to the special use permit can be seen in kind of the light orange color on the left side of the screen, the like west, southwest portion of this parcel adjacent to TMP 7813.

So to provide just some more information on the special use permit request, it is the location of an existing auto dealership that is proposed to remain.

The original SP from 2002, which permitted the outdoor storage and display use for that dealership, had conditions and language in it requiring an offsite landscaping easement to screen that use of the outdoor storage and display.

And so this easement is on the rear of the adjacent parcel 7873A7, which the applicant is now proposing to put the hotel on in the center and front portions of that parcel.

And so this is just a sheet from the conceptual plan that was provided by the applicant showing the easement that is proposed to be removed there in the rear of 78-73A7 to allow for the hotel to be

So in staff's review of these two applications, there were several factors favorable.

They are consistent with the uses recommended by the Pantops Master Plan in the community mixed use land use designation.

The requests are consistent or mostly consistent with the applicable neighborhood model principles.

and no development is proposed for the rear of the parcels, especially 7873A7, which is where that future extension of Rolkin Road is identified in the Pantops Master Plan.

So that extension could still occur in the future whenever the county decides to move forward with that project.

There were no unfavorable factors identified with these applications.

So looking at staff's recommendation, staff does recommend approval of the zoning map amendment CMA 2020-13.

And staff also recommends approval of the special use permit request to amend the special use permit for the AutoSuperStore SP 2021-10 with the following conditions.

So these are the six conditions.

They are the same conditions that were approved with the original SP from 2002.

The only change being that the conditions that discussed or talked about required the landscaping easement on the adjacent parcel had been removed, but all of the other conditions remain the same.

These are the suggested motions for the special abuse permit.

And these are the suggested motions for the Zoning Map Amendment when we get to that portion of the meeting this evening.

And so I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Reitelbach.

Does anyone have any questions for staff on this application?

It's kind of confusing.

You're muted.

Happy New Year, Andy.

Nice to see you.

Could you go back to the slide that actually shows the physical buildings on the adjacent lot?

I think it was like one or two.

Your first or second slide, but you get this area.

Not that one.

This one.

Yes, this one.

So talk to me a little bit about why we say there aren't

any stub outs here because what I'm struggling with is, everyone knows that I have this piece about, I sort of struggle with cul-de-sacs and I struggle with properties that aren't connected to other pieces of property.

That's just something that drives me crazy.

And it seems that there's an opportunity to connect from either Abbey Road into this site or from, what's the other road from,

are hands up the road into the site instead of having them come in, having to create another entrance on the 250.

Yes, staff had recommended that early in the review that the applicant look at trying to connect with these travelways near, this is a bank down at the corner of Hanson Road and 250 and then some office buildings.

However, those are all parking lots and private travelways with

owned by those property owners.

They are not public roads, so it would require the approval of those property owners to allow the property owner of the proposed hotel to use those.

And my understanding is that the applicant did try to reach out to them and nothing

was able to come of that, so they may be able to provide some more information on that.

Thank you.

It just seems that when we look at these types of projects, particularly as we drive up 29, most of the hotels which are there actually are part of something larger.

So if I, you know, if nothing else, if there was a way to create a pathway for people to walk to the various restaurants that are in there, as opposed to having to get in their vehicles, drive 100 yards back into the shopping center, that's just something that I'd like to figure out a way for us to encourage as opposed to having

you're right next to a place why you couldn't be able to communicate with that big commercial activity there.

That just seems, that troubled me when I read the project.

Other questions or comments for staff before we hear from the applicant?

Thank you.

Andy, nice to meet you.

Great staffing board.

Thanks.

It was very thorough.

Just one quick question.

The easement next to the SunTrust Bank that you showed on the concept plan is being required to be maintained.

I'm just curious.

I didn't see any grading on that site.

Do you know whether that

What it says to remain, does that mean it will be undisturbed?

And maybe this is a question for the applicant.

Yes, so they are proposing to keep the easement there and that any landscaping required by that, if it is disturbed during the construction of this hotel, that it would be replanted in the manner to ensure that the conditions of the easement are maintained.

Okay, that's great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So a couple of questions, Andy, right off the top of your head.

Do you know?

I do not.

Okay, no worries.

And the second question, I've read in the report, I believe it's part of smart skills, I'm not sure, but there are some anticipated improvements to get rid of that center turn lane, one of 250 to put in some median system, more control when you make that left turn.

If you had to give a range, I know we're crystal balling, but do you know when those improvements would be done to coincide with the construction of this or

This might show it best, but the center lane in 250 that's a turn lane for both sides would be removed and a median would be placed in there to prevent turning left into all the various driveways along 250, and there would only be median breaks at certain intersections.

And so, yes, my understanding is that that is well on its way moving forward, and I don't know if

Mr. Radford, Ms.

Yeah, as Mr. Rattlebug mentioned, it is a funded project.

It was awarded.

I don't believe they have allocated a specific year yet as to when they will move forward with it.

They're kind of in the process of doing that at the state level with VDOT.

I can look into it, see if I can find it over the next few minutes.

but it's not multiple years, it's within the next few years.

Typically those projects are around a four year plus or minus timeframe.

And it just kind of depends on the availability of funding each year.

And so if you can find that out, that would be great.

But I would imagine too, it would take a few years for this site to be developed also.

Does anyone else have any questions or comments for staff?

Just one quick question, Andy.

Yes, so there was an application submitted, a special exception application to reduce the step back on the hotel for any structures over three stories or 40 feet, we do require a step back.

and so that application had been submitted so that they could do a four-story hotel.

However, they have come back and they've just a couple of weeks ago resubmitted to the ARB some revised plans where they have redone the grading and put the bottom floor kind of underground so that it would be only three stories visible above grade and from 250.

And so

So they would no longer need the step back application or the step back to be waived for that if they've dropped it down to just the three stories above grade.

So that is something that staff is still looking at to make sure and would be verified for sure before it goes to the Board of Supervisors.

Okay yeah that was my read on it.

It still seemed to be an open question if they were going to redesign so there would only be three stories instead of four.

We can revisit that again but certainly that is a condition that could be placed upon this if

necessary, if that's unclear.

So perhaps when we get to that point in the evening, our county attorney could tell us a little bit about whether we need to get to that level of detail with this application.

So with that, anyone else have any questions for staff before we move to hearing from the applicant?

Okay, it is a somewhat confusing application with the strange geography of the parcels, so I wouldn't be surprised if you have more questions.

But nevertheless, I think we're now ready to hear the presentation from the applicant.

Yes, that will be me.

Okay, welcome.

Thank you.

Happy New Year everyone.

I'm Justin Schimp.

I'm the engineer for the project.

I have Kelsey Schline with me who worked on a lot of the application materials for this.

And you're right, it's a little complicated because of all the history.

So I don't have a lot to add to staff presentation from a standpoint of technical items.

I can give a little maybe a little context to how some of the things came to be.

Let me do a brief presentation that I will share with everyone here.

Everyone see that all right.

Okay, so let me first, I guess, answer a couple of questions that came up that I do have some answers to.

One, Kelsey was able to check while we were talking.

There is a transit stop at the Applebee's actually, so very close by that's here, the hill.

We did approach the neighbors at the Truist Bank about a connection through

Really more for pedestrians because there's a significant grade issue, and I'll have some illustrations of that, that make that connection physically near impossible.

But we did approach it from a pedestrian standpoint, but we're not able to make any progress.

There is a sidewalk along 250 that comes and connects to our project, so you could fairly easily walk from the site up into the, say, Applebee's, Bojangles, Viviana Ridge Shopping Center.

The location, I think everyone's familiar with it.

A simple place mark, though, if you're not, is it's right across the street from Tiptop Restaurant, which I'm sure many of you have been around a long time, have stopped by a time or two.

I know I have.

Let's see if I can click through the next slide.

This just gives you a little context of color image of the limits of the original zoning.

So the red boundary is the PDMC district, which we seek to amend.

Back at the same time, there was this little strip in yellow on the far left corner there was zoned to Highway Commercial, which is part of the, was always a Dennis Enterprises

This is the original zoning application plan.

You'll see we've gotten a little bit

We used our technology to our advantage a little more since this was done in 2002 roughly.

I don't mean to interrupt you, but do you have a way to enlarge your presentation?

A couple of commissioners are saying it's hard to see.

because a lot of us are on laptops instead of in the county auditorium.

Something you can do.

Oh, thank you for interrupting me.

Let me see.

I have got it's chair, as I was working this earlier, as large as I can get it on my screen.

Technology.

Okay.

Images are clear, but just, I guess just carry on.

We'll muddle through.

Okay.

Okay, so this is the, as was mentioned earlier, the master plan.

We highlight this mainly because the hotel is actually a primary use in this district.

The zoning, often we try to be a little more generic in these zoning application plans where we'll say, well, this could be any of these particular uses.

This particular plan is really saying it's going to be this hotel.

And that somewhat follows along with the history of this particular parcel where there was kind of a block by block designation.

I know you have a hard time reading this, but if you go back to this old map, this was high volume retail.

This was the grocery shopping center.

It was actually an office here once upon a time at a church.

Our site actually was a hotel once upon a time.

It was changed to office.

And now we're back trying to get a portion of it as a hotel.

The benefits of these zoning districts are you can create a bit of a master plan for them, but then you have to go back sometimes and amend that through this process.

You saw this map earlier, just to refresh everyone's memory on these easements to be vacated here.

So there are two being removed, which is the light pink here, which is tied to the special use permit for the

Strangely, the special use permit conditions for the auto storage display of vehicles contained a condition of property, the adjacent property.

It's actually not even clear to us that the owner of the Parcel A7, our parcel, couldn't violate the easement for the special use permit.

It was sort of done seemingly a little last minute when it was processed.

And looking back now through the file, we couldn't find any particular evidence from the staff of the county, you know, landscape planners, why it was even included.

So that was sort of added on at the board meeting back when this was all approved.

Similar to the conservation easement area was a discussion of some trees that would remain.

But I think if you saw from the picture that staff had, there really are very few trees in that zone.

Again, we couldn't find any particular evidence as to why that was there or why it was important.

So those are proposed to be removed and to be replaced with the hotel and associated parking.

And that's why I say this is a bit more specific of an application than we would normally submit.

But this parcel, I think the county staff and others wanted to really see more specific design, given it's a challenging parcel, and to flush through these issues, like how would pedestrians get around?

How are vehicle points?

What could be done here?

And so we've shown a pretty specific plan to address that.

A question came up about the future VDOT improvements, and you've heard this from a few folks in the neighborhood meeting and all, I'm just curious.

So this is funded, I'm actually meeting with the VDOT engineers on this tomorrow, Thursday morning, on one of the other commercial sites, looking at the impact of that particular site.

But what you'll have is immediate, essentially, all the way from, what is the Wawa,

all the way up to the entrance to Hanson Road.

So this will be a right in, right out only situation, and VDOT has determined that's gonna make entrances and traveling safer up and down the corridor.

I can bring this back through and have any specific questions about it.

This will probably be helpful to folks.

This will be helpful to folks, I think.

This is a rendering from design development.

that shows the view from the entrance at Route 250.

It gives you a little context of the graves.

You can see on the left there is the bank drive through and through the trees is the office building.

So I think we are 25 or 30 feet below the office building.

location with our first floor.

Then I've got one more picture I'll show you all.

This gives you a little better view, come up a little bit, that shows you how we've stepped.

You'll notice the end of the building is three stories now.

One of the ARB comments was to try to integrate this site in the slope a little better than we had, and so we've essentially picked up the grade on one side and created a little bit of a walkout type condition just to, from the street side, hold a three-story appearance.

Also gives us a nice little

a side patio that folks can use.

So I think that is the the main items I wanted to go over.

I know there's a lot of technical things in this, but this is the simple way to think about it is that there are basically in the 2003 or 2002 special use permit and rezoning a variety of these easements that were placed on.

Again, we don't know why, but sort of last minute.

And then as the master plan as a fall, we thought through

this corridor could look like more and we've essentially created a plan that follows those guidelines and then works with the ARB guidelines for design on a site like this.

So at the end of the day maybe we're wiping the slate clean a little bit on something that was cobbled together over a few different approvals over a long time ago and that probably like you know now

We wouldn't go to the board and add an easement sort of last minute these days because something like this would happen 20 years later.

So I think this is just an example of cleaning up some of those things and getting a project that does match the master plan.

Happy to answer any questions.

Say we have Doug, the representative, the owner on the call, and Kevin, who's the architect who prepared these.

Okay, are there questions from the Commission for the applicant?

Sorry, I'm trying to find the unmute button.

Thank you, Mr. Shaff.

One question is, I wonder if you guys talk a little bit about the property, the quality of the hotel.

What do you think is the target audiences so the folks in the public can get a better feel for that?

Is this long-term stay?

Sure, I can share what I know.

I do want to caveat that with the way that the zoning works.

You know, effectively, we could start with one kind of hotel and we could be changed to a different one.

The county doesn't actually classify between like, let's say, an extended stay in a more traditional hotel.

So there has been a thought here for more of an extended stay type hotel is what the owner has been looking at.

And so that's what has been submitted to the ARB and they're looking at

Then last question, I think in your package, I think I saw a circulation plan and for experience, I think you were suggesting that they would walk along the sidewalk of 250 to go into, you know, Applebee's, whatever it may be.

I'm just curious, are there any conversations about softening that travel path?

I'm not sure if you ever walked along 250.

Sometimes I run along that route when it's not sub-zero out.

It's not pleasant with cars zipping by at about 50 to 55 mile an hour.

That's a good question.

Certainly we were cognizant of that early on and made an effort to try to connect.

As you can see here, it is possible to put some stairs in and connect up to the SunTrust, which would be the preferred route.

But those property owners just were not amenable to that sort of request.

It does help that you are at the turn lane, this particular location, there's a turn lane coming in.

So it's a very beginning of that turn lane.

So traffic is, you know,

merging over to turn right into the, I don't know if my map will show that if I go back a couple.

So yeah, so traffic is just merging here to turn over into the right turn lane.

So you do have a little bit of a reduced speed condition there.

I have taken that walk, I have occasion to drop a vehicle off at Pan Top to the car dealer and walk to my office on downtown.

It's certainly, it's a walk of busy traffic in places, but

We didn't really have another option here.

We didn't think about it.

I do think for the short distance and the fact that the turn lane there is a little better than the normal condition.

But you're right.

We think it is workable.

Thank you, sir.

Perhaps good to see you, Justin.

Happy New Year to you and your team.

I'm going to push on this piece here.

I think many of us saw what happened at Stonefield, where there was a connection between Stonefield and then the properties above it.

And they put stairs in.

I think people may be aware of that.

And there's a small community of commercial stuff behind that that sort of linked the two.

What I've heard from everyone involved is that that's created a nexus and created a flow between those two pieces of property that everyone's pleased about.

and so I'm disturbed that the supposed, the caring bank, which is what Truist is sort of using as its new marketing language, as it goes from being SunTrust and BB&T, that Truist is not willing to at least put it, but not even willing to consider a stairway or a slope or something so people don't have to go on Route 250 as Corey was sharing with us.

And I would suggest, if that's not a possibility, perhaps territory economic development people and perhaps is aware to have said, this is helpful to you.

You want, through us, the bank that cares.

You want people to be able to walk by you.

They can go to your ATM.

It sort of creates a nexus of caring because I just, I am

I'm sorry, that's probably the softest word that I can say.

I'm sorry that they're not willing to at least provide some means for people, if this should go forward with the supervisor's approval, some means for people to come from that piece to join the commercial sector there.

I'm baffled by a stairway or an entrance walkway would get it now, or no response.

Okay, certainly.

I mean, we're happy to try to do that.

It just, we could get no traction.

I think the unfortunate thing is when you have these

pathways across privately owned properties.

The attorneys always get involved and talk about liability.

And then everybody kind of shuts down about it.

And that seems to do these things.

And but we'll certainly not opposed to reaching out and trying to push that forward.

There's no more liability than the other buildings which are over there.

There's probably the people who work there still use it.

I mean, I used to go there a lot to eat at just a couple of restaurants.

And there were always people at that at noon walking from those businesses.

Hopefully, they'll see this as extending their community and not necessarily be so focused on the liability there.

Sure, okay.

Hi Justin, nice to see you again.

Just a couple quick questions.

One, just to confirm what staff said, the landscape easement.

It is, it looked like from your grading plan that it won't be impacted by grading.

For the most part, there's a little bit of grading.

If you see where our retaining wall clips are here, we have a little bit of grading in that zone, but that's the only, I guess the other end.

but the, yeah, certainly it's already a steep slope.

So disturbing that doesn't really help us any, you know, it would be, it makes even more grading work than already exist.

So we are disturbing it slightly, but we would, any trees that are disturbed will be replaced for the original site plan for that project.

Sure.

Okay.

That's helpful, thanks.

I guess for what it's worth if the plantings that are planned to go back could be supplemented to a point where it would help with some screening and some adjoining property softening, if there's some additional planting that could be added in there, even beyond the original landscape easement that didn't foresee the development that you're proposing, I think that might be helpful.

So it may be worth taking a look at that.

Since the conditions are different.

Yes, that's correct.

I believe it will be classified as a four-story.

It's, you know, code at the front entrance, which in this picture is sort of in the middle, it would be a four-story building.

Up on the street side, it's a three-story.

It's partially- Yep, got it.

Okay, so I was trying to understand exactly this image.

It seems like the side that's facing 250 is actually just in the ground.

One story, right?

In fact, it is still a four story building.

Yes.

Great.

And this picture doesn't quite show that, right?

That there's a retaining wall along the corner.

Okay.

Okay.

The question is relative obviously to the special exception, and I know that's still being discussed, but I'm not sure if it's entirely true to say that only three stories are visible from the entrance corridor, especially if it's in keeping with your model, it seems like you would see the four stories at kind of an oblique angle.

Oh yeah, we agree.

Just to clarify, the step-back issue really comes as a technicality of the facing, the side of the building which faces 250 is how it would be measured.

So yes, I do believe it's a four-story building.

We're not trying to say it's anything other than that over at this one end.

It's, again,

Understood.

OK, great.

Thanks.

The last question, I guess.

Do you have any idea?

This is probably an unfair question for you, but the adjoining sort of remainder, the triangular parcel, that's the Happy Boxes handtops LLC parcel.

Any idea what the future development plans are for that parcel?

Have you heard anything?

I have not heard anything about that parcel.

And the only reason I, part of the reason I ask that is because it is somewhat wooded now, I think, so it provides a little bit of a buffer, but also to Commissioner Bivins' point, there is,

You have retaining walls, I think, along the edge of your property entirely on that side.

So it would be challenging.

And I guess the question is, would you ever consider or want to consider some sort of pedestrian interconnection between those two parcels?

Right, that's a good question.

Certainly, nothing is impossible for a pedestrian connection because, you know, boats can use stairs.

I think from a vehicular standpoint, that's pretty much a non-starter against.

We are on the side of Pantops Mountain, so we're dealing with that grade.

But yeah, I don't think there's any particular problem with that.

I don't know when that would come up.

Maybe, I don't know if it's probably a site plan connectivity question, but

Yeah, we don't have an objection to that, certainly.

We don't know if it would be necessary or make sense, depending on what use went there.

Great.

Thank you.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to ask a question to the applicant before I move to the public hearing and hear from the questions or comments from the public?

Okay, seeing none at this time, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing portion.

Yes, I do.

Dick Ruff, please state your name, address.

Who are you addressing?

All right, you can start.

My question has to do with the access onto 250.

Do you move from Overlook Hotel onto the through lanes?

That's a question for the applicant.

They will be coming back to answer any questions that came up during the public hearing process.

OK.

All right, thank you very much.

We'll have the applicant address it when they come back up.

OK, thank you very much.

Then we will

Then I guess just to ask the council, do we close the public hearing now to go back to the applicant or is it still part of the public hearing?

Okay, great.

So we have a chance for the applicant to offer any additional comments, as well as to answer the question that was brought up by a member of the public.

Thank you.

Yes, I think as to the pulling out on the turn lane, I think that once the median is built, which I think is supposed to start like 2026, so it would be fairly shortly aligned with the construction or very shortly thereafter.

You know, people would basically pull out and head east only, which I think makes for a much safer maneuver out of here, a little less convenient.

But I think you would naturally make that move into the turn lane.

You would have no room to kind of go with pulley across.

People will do strange things in the roads sometimes.

I think VDOT puts these concrete medians and things up.

to limit that to the extent they can.

Thanks for answering that question.

No, nothing else to add.

Okay, thanks very much.

I've been having this, instead of the New Year thing, I wonder if this is a, it's time for a new computer, maybe.

So if I'm understanding what, and this is for Mr. Rapp and Fapp,

So if I'm understanding what's being planned there, coming from east to west, the only way to access easily this project, if it moves forward, is to turn left onto Rock and Road, and then how do you get there?

How would you get there?

Yeah, I can answer that.

And all because we can't get an entrance off of that

Okay.

I think we need to deal with the special exception.

I could comment on that as well, but as any other comments on that anyone wants to make.

Not on that topic, I just wanted to give an update on the VDOT project.

So that, what they call starting development, which is design engaging the public right of way is meant to take place towards the end of 2023.

That will commence for about three years with construction starting in March of 2027 as of now, so.

That was helpful.

Yes, I mean, that's that's the reason I also brought up that step back.

I wasn't clear, certainly from the from the report exactly how that was being dealt with.

And I guess after seeing the rendering, I still have some concerns.

The renderings and the site plan, I'm not quite sure that the renderings and the site plan are in sync.

Maybe they were just at different stages.

The site plan shows some curved retaining walls that wrap on the street side.

So that would be the west side of the building, I believe.

So the 250 side where in the renderings, obviously you're not seeing that.

I do think that

The walkways are trying to use topography is a good use.

However, I think some of the lack of landscape around there hinder that approach.

And then also the issue, I mean, it clearly is still a poor story building, although it does help to have the ramp go up.

Well, we have had some discussion already about the, as Mr. Missel said, the sort of oblique angle by which you might still consider it a forestry building.

And there will be some vegetation removed by the construction of the building.

So certainly, as part of my opinion,

Council can contradict me if needed, but you would be able to add a condition for additional landscaping or screening if you felt like that would help to soften that.

You certainly don't have to exempt them from the proposed step back.

That is another

a tool in our toolbox for this evening.

So if you feel that there are some solutions that the commission might recommend in a motion, we certainly can add those to the suggested staff motion.

I know sometimes it's hard to construct those on the fly, but we do it all the time.

Thank you.

To me, I think it's sort of basically two issues running in parallel.

One is the aesthetic issue, which actually, when I was on the ARB, I remember seeing this, and so I don't want to speak for the ARB.

But part of the reason for actually lowering it and nestling it into the site, as I think Mr. Shrimp said, was because it would mitigate the aesthetic impact of that height from the entrance corner.

That's sort of one parallel track.

The other track is what is the height regulation say?

And so I guess my point was those feel to me like they're more independent things.

And I don't know enough about the code specific to height regulations, although I was trying a quick Google search and couldn't find it.

But I would be interested to know more.

And maybe this is what staff was getting at when they said that this was still in discussion or something like that.

But I'd be interested to know what the actual requirement is relative to building height in this district.

Andy or Charles would like to comment on the actual regulation regarding a step back from a forest structure, how far it has to be stepped back.

I think one of the challenges for a hotel type structure could be that stepping it back could basically get rid of a row of rooms, whether they could be a beautiful rooftop terrace garden is another

conversation.

But could you comment on just the regulation itself?

And just before you do that quickly for Mr. Missel's benefit, this is all part of why the Planning Commission exists, because many things are not quite so straightforward.

And so we have the opportunity to wrestle with these unique situations and come up with our own recommended solutions.

So I think Ms.

Ragsdale is going to provide some information on this issue.

Hello, good evening.

The requirement is for every, for over the third story or 40 feet or above that there be a step back at 15 feet and

parallel to the rezoning and the special use permit review has been the ARB review on the building.

So in this case, we're relying on the ordinance.

And if they do need the step back, that can be waived or modified by the board of supervisors.

And we had been relying on the ARB feedback to this point as far as what would be appropriate at that location.

So I think there's sort of the technical aspect of it is how you get there to the design that's appropriate.

It is a newer design that we've seen as we were wrapping up the staff report, so that's where we are in the process.

So if you have specific concerns about the appropriateness of a step back there, or if you like what you see, it's not an issue, it's just

You know, maybe they need a waiver, maybe they don't.

But if you're OK with the way it's constructed with the proposed concept so far is three stories and working with the grade.

And then as you go back from 250, it is a four story building.

But if there are specific comments that that you'd like to make, we can certainly consider that as we go forward.

But primarily to date, it's been

The ARB weighing in on that and then staff deciding technically whether you need the step back waiver or not.

This is a relatively new design and we don't have a, I think a site section might help with that.

But that's what I'd suggest as far as moving between the commission and the board.

Okay, did that answer?

clearly is mud in the planning commission.

It was a good response.

It's just, our job is always difficult.

That's all we get are the difficult projects.

We're not looking at anything that's straightforward usually.

Sorry, just to follow up on that.

I think, Rebecca, thank you.

You used the word technical and that's, I was thinking sort of technical and aesthetic, right?

Those two pieces.

I would, I mean, personally, when I read the,

the code, and it talks about every story that begins about 40 feet, minimum step back of 15 feet or more.

To me, that's the technical requirement.

I think that still applies.

I don't know why it wouldn't, to be honest.

But maybe there is, you know, if there's precedent that says, aesthetically, an aesthetic of it being only visible as three stories is sufficient to no longer require a waiver,

then I can see supporting that, but my sense is it's really more about the technical piece that you're mentioning.

I'll defer to our planners on the technical requirements.

I think procedurally, though, the applicant has requested a special exception as an application or request pending.

And unless and until it withdraws that request, I think it's entitled to a commission recommendation one way or the other on that special exception request.

So my suggestion from a procedural perspective would be that the commission make recommendations on the ZMA, the SPA application and the special exception request

And if I may, I think part of the rationale that was provided in the application that was made in writing by the applicant's own request is that the building was far enough back from 250

that that somewhat mitigated the effect of the three stories that the step back requirement is trying to avoid that sort of dark cavern approach.

And yet 250 is a wide road.

and the building is not right up against the road as some structures might be.

So that's where I think it's in our purview to say, yes, we

do technically support this standard of the county.

It makes sense it has its place, but in this particular instance, it is not necessary to impose that in order to fulfill a harmonious design that is not overshadowing the pedestrians and the joggers who are running down the road even further.

I like to be by the book as much as possible myself, but I think that this is one where we can use some of our discretion.

And these things don't necessarily have to be linked.

You could decide that the STEP Act is not necessary, but that you also do feel that in order to soften the feel of a forestry building on one side that you still would like to request additional landscaping.

So that's just some of the things to consider.

I'll also say one really quick comment is that it's not a rule, it's not the law, but it's my opinion that it's always helpful for motions to come from the commissioner whose district it is.

Like I said, not required, but I feel preferred because they're the representative for that area.

So are there other comments or questions or thoughts on the way forward?

Corey.

I want to go back to Commissioner Bivins.

He had made a comment about how do you access the site.

And you brought up a really good point.

If we're going down 250 to make a U-turn, where is that next available spot?

Is it Stony Point Road?

Or I'd like to kind of get a better understanding of that.

and how that plays out against a smart skill project.

I'd like to have some dialogue about that.

How do we feel about that?

Is it safe?

So Commissioner Clayborne, I believe that smart scale project has not been fully designed.

You know what you saw Mr. Shimp shared is a conceptual concept.

And so that's where over the next couple of years, they'll be working through all that, figuring out what that is based on.

Trip generation and requirements for turning and identifying those best locations for those crossing movements there.

But we're a few years out from knowing the specifics of exactly what turning movements will be allowed and where they break.

Right now, you just have an open lane.

So the idea is to restrict that and really bring some of those vehicular movements to specified areas where it's not safe.

So it's awkward at present and perhaps will be better, but not perfect by any stretch to have to go up and do these U-turns.

And then you have people from out of town assuming because they're going to a hotel that they're trying to get up to the next turn and figure out how to turn around and come back and get across.

So I guess one question to consider is whether

Any business that was being put in that location would have to have the same situation.

Is this simply a problem for this hotel or is this a problem regardless of before it was to be an office building, people would also be arriving every day and coming and going for lunch and running errands.

So it's, we have a lot of traffic problems and traffic design issues plaguing Route 250 and the sheer volume of traffic is also a problem.

But I think considering whether, this will be a problem regardless of who occupies that site.

Seems to me, I don't know, I wish I could redesign all of Pantops from the scratch if I had my way, but.

We're just kind of trying to claw our way back to some sort of reasonable traffic pattern.

And I assume that if this project were to be approved or any other future project, that the VDOT worked, designed, the crossovers would take this into account.

Not further discussion, I'd say I think this has been a great conversation.

Yeah, $2.50 from transportation is challenging, but as you, I think, rightfully pointed out, in some sense, if the use is a hotel,

It generates trips, but it would likely generate less than an office building or some other type of doctor's facility or something that has trips going in and out.

They would likely come in the morning, afternoon.

And so I think that's what we have to wrestle with.

But based on that, I think, you know, hotel, this use in the plan laid out or the conceptual plan presented to us is well thought out.

I think the use of the topography and incorporating the building into it lessens my concerns about the setback requirement.

It does create a kind of, you know, I have what's considered a two-story house, but I have a walkout basement.

So is it a three-story, is it a two-story?

Other commissioners want to make a comment.

I would support this project also.

Go ahead.

It's definitely time for a new computer.

So I support this project, too.

And in keeping with Fred's suggestion and Luis' suggestion about the treatment in the front, I know that's not our issue, but to at least get in the notes that there's some consideration about how do you buffer this?

Because effectively, now that we are fully aware that the entrance is going to be from 250 East.

OK, it's effectively going to be a four story building.

And so

how do we, while it may sit on the side in a way that makes that more appropriate in the way that Fred was discussing it, I think how we sort of create that so that it in fact has some aesthetic and also works for people walking up and down that area or running up and down that area.

Corey, we really need to talk about your extracurricular activities, that how we create that space, that sense there is something that I would like to see a condition about

about the landscaping or the treatment of the entrance there.

Well, to your point, somebody could on the commission recommend additional landscaping in that area without getting into the integrity details of how many shrubs or trees or flowers could leave that to the discretion of staff to work with the applicant on perhaps improving some of the screening around the lower corner.

Any other comments on this application from the Commission?

Yeah, so I agree with Commissioner Bivins and also Chair Firehock in terms of your point of the distance of this

I do think that what we're seeing is still fairly conceptual and I'm not quite sure that the complexity of the topography and the retaining walls that we would wind up with are fully vetted yet perhaps and I do think there's opportunity to bring back some

However, it's also white wooded towards the back and we're losing some of those trees as well.

So I think there is an opportunity to think about how we mitigate the four stories a little bit more with landscape and then really introduce that three story elevation with the ramp up that they're doing, which I think is effective or can be effective.

So I would encourage that and look at how we buffer with landscape and provide more

Okay, and any type of condition such as that is definitely in keeping with, you know, the offsetting the impact of this particular structure.

So it is very much within our purview to add such condition.

So let me ask if, and I'm not trying to squelch discussion, anyone's free to make another point, but is someone prepared to make a motion at this point?

I think I'm prepared to make a motion if that's all right with you, Madam Chair.

Yes, please.

If I could get that.

Am I right that there's three separate motions, right?

There's the zoning text and there's the, we got to get those pulled up as I make sure I'm correct.

So taking a context for a conversation that applies predominantly to the special exception.

Is that correct, counselor?

I'm sorry, could you clarify what applies to the special exception?

So when I make these additional conditions, right, so when on the landscaping, I think we talked quite a bit about the pedestrian connection and exploring some kind of connection between the existing site and the bank and the rest of commerce, whether it's through stayers, whatever it may be.

Those are the two conditions that I've jotted down, that and the landscaping piece.

Would that go for the exception?

You would need to specify which of the matters you wanted to add that condition to.

The current motions that Mr. Reidelbach has prepared talks about the conditions recommended in the staff report.

At this point, the only conditions in the staff report that are recommended are for the special use permit.

Thank you.

I think I get it figured out.

It's a little complex here.

It's complex with all these emotions.

So we'll take it one at a time.

It looks like

I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP 2021 San Otto Superstore SP amendment recommended by staff and the staff report.

I think for that one, we leave it as is.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr. Bailey.

Discussion?

Not seeing any hands from the Commission, so there's no discussion.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Thank you.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Staff, could you please help us by calling up the next, I don't know what to call it, element?

Motion element?

I'll give this one a shot.

I believe this is where I will add the contents of our conversation as to additional conditions.

I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZMA-2020-13 Overlook Hotel, Pan-Topps PDMC amendment for the reasons stated in the staff report and with the following two conditions.

takes on the exploration of how to have a pedestrian connection between this property and the adjacent bank property so that folks can walk to other areas of commerce.

And then the second condition was that additional landscaping be provided towards the front of the property at 250 that recognizes that the building is approaching 250 East.

And Mr. Clayborne, if I could just clarify what you're recommending are actually recommendations because this is a rezoning.

So what you've just recommended would be recommendations rather than conditions.

I know you would keep me out of trouble.

Very good, is there a second?

I'm sorry, I think, was it Daniel seconded?

All right, we'll pick you Daniel for this time.

Okay, so we've had a second discussion.

One discussion point, I think,

Andy, you mentioned that the applicant was requesting a special exception.

Is there any further discussion, questions, comments, request to amend?

Carolyn, would you call the question?

Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

Thank you.

All right, the motion carries unanimously to recommend this to the Board of Supervisors.

And finally, I think I messed up on the last one a little bit, but I think I can correct it here.

So I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of special exception

with a recommendation that landscaping be explored at the front of the property to acknowledge that there's a four-story building when approaching 250 East.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Okay, discussion.

Mr. Clayborne, I had a question for you.

When you say landscaping, did you want to be any more specific as to what, you know, are you talking about a meadow?

Are you talking about shrubs, trees?

I prefer not, since it goes before the ARB.

I'm sure you are.

Landscaping that acknowledges the fact that we are trying to

Okay, so some sort of substantial landscaping that would provide effective screening and softening approach.

So I don't know that we need to amend the motion for that.

I think simply just to perhaps the minutes can acknowledge the conversation that goes with that unless staff disagrees.

Okay.

Right, so we have a motion and a second.

If not, Carolyn, would you call the question?

Mr. Clayburn?

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Aye.

And Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

All right, so the motion carries unanimously to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors.

And with that, we thank the applicants for their good work and the staff as well, and wish you luck with the board as we move on.

And I need to find my agenda that's minimized to a tiny, tiny size.

Just a second here.

Thanks.

Okay, sorry, I have so many things open.

I'm trying to close them.

We can move on.

Apologize.

Perhaps someone else can tell me what's next on the agenda.

We have the STA-2021-00002 Maintenance of Private Improvements.

Thank you very much for that assist.

Can we have the staff report while I try to find my agenda?

I have multiple monitors, so I'm cheating.

I'm on a road trip, so I'm sorry I don't have that fancy schmancy stuff.

The multiple monitors is a lifesaver.

He's also probably got a satellite that's looking at all of us.

Well, thank you very much.

My name is Bill Fritz and I'm in the Development Process Manager in the Community Development Department for those of you who don't know me who may be listening.

I want to give you some background on this particular project.

The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the zoning subdivision ordinance regulations addressing the maintenance of private improvements back in December.

Staff had identified a number of issues in the ordinance surrounding the issues of maintenance at that time.

And at that time, the resolution that we presented to the Planning Commission, staff was of the opinion that a number of sections would require revision.

However, after further review of our ordinance, the ordinance of other localities and the state code, we determined

that the issue of maintenance of private improvements can be addressed by making one significant amendment to one provision.

There are some other provisions that need to be changed because they refer to there's a trickle down effect, but really only needed one change.

Before I get into what that change is, let me let me just summarize the issue for you.

If a private improvements are proposed in a subdivision, the ordinance requires the submission of a maintenance agreement.

This agreement is reviewed by CDD staff and it's subject to approval by the county attorney.

The review of this document is a time and resource consuming exercise.

Ultimately, the document does get approved.

However, the county is not a party to the agreement.

The county cannot interpret or enforce the agreement.

And the ordinance doesn't actually require that the document that we've spent so much time preparing be recorded.

It needs to be in a form that can be recorded, but it doesn't actually say it needs to be recorded.

So to put it bluntly, the county requires an expensive document that has no enforceable value.

What we need is something that is enforceable to make sure that these private improvements are in fact, maintained.

So

The ordinance does require a note on the plat that if there are private streets in the subdivision, the note requires, the note acknowledges that there are private streets in the subdivision.

It states that they may not meet VDOT standards and that they will not be maintained by VDOT or Albemarle County.

The note does not require maintenance and it doesn't state that failure to maintain may be a violation of the ordinance.

Also, the note only applies to private streets.

To address the problem, we've come up with some language.

The problem is switching between Zoom and Teams.

Can you see my presentation?

So what I've got here is for you is, there we go.

On the left side is the existing language.

And that's what I talked about.

If there is a private street, it doesn't meet the standards, won't be maintained.

What we're proposing is much more clear.

Unless something is noted as public, it is private nature and will not be maintained by the public.

The maintenance is an obligation of the affected lot owners.

That's new language.

Also new language is that failure to maintain at substantially the same condition as originally approved, so we've established the standard that it has to be maintained, may constitute a violation of county ordinance.

So we go from a simple statement that, hey, there are private streets here, we're not going to maintain them.

and that's it.

There are private features here that are not going to be maintained by the public.

You are obligated, lot owners, you are obligated to maintain them.

And this is the standard you need to maintain them.

It's a much more informative piece of information for anyone who's buying a piece of property and going into that subdivision.

And this would apply both to commercial and residential subdivisions.

and it puts them on notice that failure to maintain may constitute a violation of the ordinance.

So we think that is a much more extensive language.

It eliminates the need for the county to review a maintenance agreement.

Like I said, it establishes the improvements must be maintained by the lot owners and it establishes the standards.

One other thing I'd like to point out in case you're worried that, hey, wait, there's no maintenance agreement out there.

The state code actually includes a Property Owners Association Act.

This provision spells out what is required for subdivisions that include privately maintained features.

And this provision of the state code is self-acting and doesn't require incorporation into the county code.

There we go.

There are some other sections that require revision.

So the section dealing with the maintenance agreement, which is section 317 is repealed in its entirety.

We also noted that section 235 needs to be amended, and that's actually in your packet.

But after the preparation of the report, we noticed that there's another section, section 234,

and I can put that up if you if you want to see it but it essentially contains language that's the same as in 235 it says if you have a private improvement then you also need to submit the document required by 317 and it just needs to be stricken just in the same way 235 which is in your packet is stricken.

That's my presentation.

This actually boils down to a fairly simple subdivision text amendment that we think will have a significant impact on workload for the applicant and the county and actually results in a better situation for enforcement and awareness for a lot of owners in any particular subdivision.

Great, thank you.

Just sort of a hypothesis, I want to hear you play out on this.

So I'm recalling, it was a tragic situation, but when we had the large amount of rain a number of years ago, maybe five years ago now, and a bridge going into the back of Wesley failed.

There was a tragedy associated with that, but the bridge failed.

Those are private roads.

So how would

How would the bridge be reconstructed?

Well, that's a difficult question to answer because what you're saying there is what's the county's role in helping to restore that?

And that would be dependent upon what the Board of Supervisors may want to do.

But the main piece there is that there is nothing that would spring from VDOT or spring from the county

because of the bridge being washed away.

It's a private improvement.

So it's part of the private improvement.

OK, that's what I was trying to figure out.

We just put it all inclusive.

Got it.

Thank you.

That was my own question.

Right.

One thing I didn't include in my presentation, but it's actually in the staff report, and I'll go ahead and say it now because

Drainage is an issue.

Drainage is actually dealt with through a different provision and different enabling authority from the state code.

And that's dealt with in chapter 17 of the county code.

And we're not touching that.

That all stays the same.

We have different ways of dealing with that.

And that seems to be working.

We can't take the authority we have for chapter 17 and move it into chapter 14.

Thank you and I have a question for our deputy director.

So when we start looking at our comp plan are we going to actually wrestle with the private roads?

wrestled with this particular ordinance.

There was a question on that deputy director.

For Charles?

Yes, for Charles.

I didn't want to put you in the spot.

I can kind of address it because I was here back when I got here just as the county was dealing with private streets and sort of creating them with standards because there had been problems with standards previously.

And even at that time, there was a lot of discussion about whether or not private streets should be because of the obligation placed on the property owners within the subdivision.

So that has been a debate that has gone on for a very long time.

There was also a period in the early 2000s when the Planning Commission actually denied a number of private street requests that then went to the Board of Supervisors.

So that's a policy decision, not a

We have the authority to approve private streets, but that's a policy decision if you want to do that.

And that gives Charles the opportunity to now jump into what's going to happen in the future.

Yeah, I mean, I've been involved in localities that handle it both ways.

And there are drawbacks of both, I will say.

There are, it's a debate that we will have as we work through some of our development standards with our upcoming comprehensive plan, with our multimodal transportation plan, and as we kind of adopt some of these more urban street standards and update our ordinance that relates to that.

It's one thing we need to expand on is our standards manual for these type of physical public improvements.

We do have some now, but I do believe they need to be revisited and flushed out

so that we have something more concrete as far as maintenance of those and some of those requirements so that in the instance that they aren't maintained, we can ensure that we have the means to do so.

Comments?

Questions?

Hey, Bill.

Good to see you, as always.

Just a couple of quick questions.

I don't mean to wordsmith, but

I guess wondering what the word substantially means.

So when you say failure to maintain the improvements, it's substantially the same.

Seems like it could open up some room for interpretation.

Sure.

So obviously, whenever a road is built, as soon as you finish constructing it, it starts to deteriorate.

So we didn't want to say exactly the same, because that's not practical.

So the best word we can come up with is substantially.

We use that language

throughout planning activities when we do special use, you do rezonings and you accept a proffer that it'll be substantially in accord with.

So it's language of the

Art of Planning, so we have that there.

Is it open to debate and to interpretation?

Absolutely.

And that would be something that the zoning, excuse me, this is done by the agent, not the zoning administrator, that the agent would have to analyze to say,

It's deteriorated to the point where it is no longer substantially in accord with the previous approval and then invoke the enforcement provisions of the subdivision ordinance and there are a variety of things that the agent can do to cause compliance.

Yes, it does.

Perfectly.

Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any.

It's a relatively straightforward need that the county has.

And I sort of feel sorry for people who end up with private roads that they didn't realize were private now having to take care of them, but that's up to the buyer to figure that out.

So with that,

is someone prepared to make a motion?

And if I can get some clarity too from either Mr. Fritz or our attorney, are we making a motion of intent to consider this or what are we actually doing?

Sure, sure.

But then, Ms.

Okay, thank you very much.

That's what I was looking for.

Okay, so with that, there being no other questions for staff, we'll open the public hearing.

Carolyn, do we have anyone signed up to comment?

No, I do not.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, we'll close the public hearing and return to the commission.

If I may, in the for what it's worth category, I did reach out to a number of

regular applicants in developing this and received no negative feedback from them.

That's very helpful to know that you vetted it with some real folks who might be affected by such a change.

Great.

Okay.

So any other discussion by the Commission?

If not, I'd be happy to entertain a motion.

Second?

Available?

I'll second.

Seconded by Luis.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, Carolyn, would you call the question?

Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye Ms.

Thank you.

The motion carries unanimously.

So we'll recommend this change to the Board of Supervisors.

And the next item on our agenda that have successfully untrunk my agenda is if we have any committee reports from the commissioners.

I don't see any.

I've concluded my work so far on the capital improvement plan for the county.

As I mentioned at our last meeting, there was not a lot of money in the kitty for us to be expansive with our decisions.

And we did put a lot of emphasis on trying to modernize the schools and support construction of another school in the future.

but you all did receive the report from the CI committee which was sent to the entire planning commission and everyone else on that list so I'm sure that is available for other members of the public who'd like to peruse the details but I think that's the only thing I have and see anyone else the committee reports it's obviously been over the holidays and then

Sonoma Geddon happened.

And so a lot has gone on since we last saw you guys.

So with that, the next item on our agenda is to review the Board of Supervisors meeting from December 15, 2021.

There were two public hearings that evening for

land use applications.

We had the board approved a special use permit for the Education Transformation Center over in Earleyville that came for this commission.

Unanimous approval there.

And then the board also approved ZMA for Rio Point, which when it came for this commission, it was Parkway Place.

New name, new owner, same project for the most part.

And the board approved that.

We'll be seeing some new apartments coming up in the Rio district.

Those are, if I'm remembering, those are the ones that are up on Rio Road that are not part of the Rio corridor traffic study.

I'm sorry.

Yep.

So it's included in the study.

So our consultant worked with them with their plans and they'll continue to work with VDOT as that project moves forward.

Thanks.

There is another one that's currently under review right now.

Okay, thank you.

Just, Chair, in that area, this is for, you know, we did that

We approved the project, I think we approved the project that's on the street that Daniel lives on.

Belvedere, is it Belvedere and the corner of Belvedere and Ryan?

Is that moving forward?

It's not moving forward as of now.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any new business?

Okay, and I think we have come to the sweet end of our meeting.

And so I would move that we adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission until Tuesday, January 18, 2022.

Is there a second?

I don't know if we have to vote for this, I'm sorry.

Yes, Mr. Ex-Chair.

Yes.

That's a second.

Okay, thank you.

The evening is getting late for me.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

I don't think we have to vote.

We're just going to adjourn to that time.

So with that,

I wish you all a good evening and look forward to seeing you again soon and thank you for your vote of confidence in myself and Mr. Clayborne.

I'm hoping we shall not disappoint, but if we do, our door is always open and feel free to contact us at any time, anything that you want to bring up relating to the commission or other planning activities.

So with that, thank you guys and have a great evening.