Planning Commission Meeting   2/15/2022

This meeting of the planning commission is being held with ordinance number 20-A paren 16 semicolon and ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

Opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting are posted on the county's website at www.abbemarle.org forward slash community forward slash county dash calendar.

All right, so I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Yes, ma'am.

Ms.

Firehock?

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Present.

Thank you.

Thanks very much.

All right, next item on our agenda is other matters not listed that the public would like to comment on.

So again, this is for items that are not currently listed for public hearing this evening.

Okay, so there's no one for that.

And we'll move on then to the consent agenda, which is the approval of the minutes from January 18, 2022, and February 1, 2022.

Second.

All right, there's a move and a second.

Any discussion?

Yes, Mr. Bailey.

Aye Mr. Missel Aye Ms.

Firehock Aye Mr. Carrazana Aye Mr. Bivins Aye Ms.

Okay, you've accepted the consent agenda.

We'll now move on to the public hearings.

The first item for public hearing is ZMA-20200000 lots of zeroes 5 Old Dominion Village for the Magisterial District of Whitehall.

Yes, thank you, Chair Firehock.

I'm Kevin McDermott, a planning manager here in community development and the lead planner for this application.

Sorry, did that not switch yet to presentation mode?

I can see it.

Okay, let me try that again.

This is the one I want.

Okay, wonderful.

So this is a application for rezoning ZMA 2020-00005 Old Dominion Village, as you said, in Whitehall District.

And I'm going to start with the location map.

So this is a proposal to rezone 23.68 acres within the Crozet development area from rural areas to neighborhood model district.

A community meeting was held for this project on July 29

2020.

It was held separate from the regular Crozet community advisory committee meeting because at the time they were in the midst of their Crozet master plan update and they weren't able to get it on the schedule.

So there was a separate meeting held off of that regularly scheduled meeting, but obviously the CCAC was invited as were

and the surrounding members of the public.

They did discuss this at their CCA meeting on August 12th following that presentation when the lead planner at the time did show up to the CCAC to discuss the project.

So this is the location map you can see here.

The two yellow parcels are the parcels recommended to be rezoned.

And you can see this gray line forms the boundary of the Crozet development area and that runs contingent with the boundary along part of the north side and actually cuts across one section of the of the tax map parcel there.

So one small piece of that one parcel is located outside of the development area.

This is Route 243 Notched Road that runs across the south of the property and that is going towards US 250 to the east and to downtown Crozet to the west.

You can also see this conglomeration of structures down here where Music Today and Star Hill are located.

The rail line runs south of the property and then Stone Gate Village is a residential development sort of to the southeast of this location.

These are some pictures of the site.

You can see that currently one of the parcels is a residential single residential development on it.

And the other parcel is the location of a veterinary office Old Dominion veterinary office that's located right here.

And you can see the driveway road that goes along that connects it to

Parkview Drive, which runs also along the west boundary of the site.

The first picture here is looking from that corner of

Parkview Drive and Route 240 into the site.

You can see it's mostly open fields and various trees.

This site, this picture up in the top right of your screen shows a view from the south

east corner of the two parcels looking up towards that residential area or the one residential home.

It's pretty screened right now by the vegetation.

And then the picture in the bottom is sort of right along the boundary of those two parcels.

Those trees on the right side of the picture form that boundary.

And you can see the existing Old Dominion Veterinary Care offices sitting in the center of that picture.

The current zoning for the area, as you can see, this is the outline area in yellow.

And there is a 100-year floodplain across the northern portion of the parcels.

That's where Parrott Branch is located.

And there is a WPO buffer that's associated with that creek.

The light green color here that you see, kind of teal, that is Emerson Commons, a planned residential district.

and south of the parcels is a white industrial area.

That's where the ACME Visible Records site is located, right across 240.

There are steep slopes identified on the property.

You can see the orange are critical slopes in the rural area and the green are the preserved slopes within the development area.

And both parcels are white because they are currently

zoned rural area, and they are also both in the entrance corridor overlay.

The recently adopted comprehensive plan recommendations for this area, you can see I've outlined the parcels in white.

There are three recommended land uses on those parcels.

Neighborhood density residential is the yellow.

That recommends residential densities three to six units per acre.

and small-scale neighborhood commercial.

The orange, which is located in the southeast quadrant of the two parcels, is the new land use designation middle density residential, which recommends densities in the range of 6 to 12 units per acre.

and also additional neighborhood scale commercial is in there.

That area did used to be urban density residential in the previous master plan, and that was the exact same residential density, so six to 12.

So there was no change in that between the previous no change in the density levels, just the the title or the name for that land use category.

Also across the top you can see that that is designated for green systems, which would be areas providing ecosystem services, including recreational.

And that is all across the northern portion of the area of the parcels there.

So now moving into the Code of Development.

The Code of Development does include all the permitted uses and development standards for this this proposal.

Block one is this red area you can see in the center.

That is designated for commercial uses, 3,000 to 5,000 square feet.

The existing veterinary office is proposed to remain on the site and that is within that range.

It's just over 3,000 square feet.

And so they are going to keep that in the center of the area.

They have moved the parking over to the side for that structure, but it is still in the same spot.

Blocks two through four include the areas to the northwest of that commercial area.

Block one

or block, I'm sorry, block two, block three and block four across the bottom.

Those are the areas that are in the comprehensive plan identified as middle density residential.

They are recommending a single family attached in those three blocks in the form of townhomes.

And that does fall within the six to 12 units per acre range as recommended by the comprehensive plan.

Blocks five through ten are the ones on the other side of the development over here.

I've got them outlined in orange for the areas that are proposed for single family attached.

And then the area in yellow out here is proposed for single family detached residential.

And those are fall within the range of three to six units per acre as recommended in the comprehensive plan.

That's a total of 110 residential units proposed, the maximum, and the gross density of that to the entire two parcels is about 4.65 units per acre.

There is also in the code of development, they commit to 20 affordable units within this area.

That is a little over the 15% range, anywhere from 18 to 21%, depending on if they go to their minimum or maximum of residential units.

But they've got 20 affordable units, and that is proffered.

They've also proffered 57%

of their space in green space and amenity areas.

And I'm going to show a little bit more about that on this next slide as we get into the application plan.

So this application plan, you can see I've colored the areas in the dark green is green space, and that entire area falls within the WPO buffer.

And the applicant is proposing to dedicate that entirely to the county.

Adjacent to that, just to the south, is an area identified as an amenity area, which could include recreation space, tree buffers, top lots, and pedestrian paths.

This area in green in the center

is designated as green space and that is proposed as a bioretention pond.

You can also see the two top lots, the areas that are recommended for top lots, located in this amenity space and in the central amenity space.

And then there's also additional amenity area on the southern boundary of the parcels that would include a tree buffer and a dog park in that southwest corner.

And this area over here is also a dedicated open space, or I'm sorry, not dedicated, but designated open space with tree buffer.

Once again, you can see the areas of the development in here with the orange all being the single family attached units and the yellow being the area where they would have the single family detached units.

Regarding our analysis of the project, looking at transportation, we did not require a TIA for this transportation impact analysis.

That's because the trip generation shows it's about

795 trips per day would be generated by this development, which falls well under our 1,000 vehicles per day that we typically require a TIA for.

They do have internal public roads that they're recommending.

with sidewalks and buffer strip.

And you can see that's what's shown in this top typical section here.

So two travel lanes, a six foot buffer and five foot sidewalk on both sides.

And that's all the internal roads.

And externally, they also have agreed to construct sidewalk and bike lane

across their frontage along 240.

So that's what's shown here with a six-foot bike lane, six-foot planning strip, and a five-foot sidewalk across the frontage of Route 240.

Turn lanes if necessary would be required by VDOT at the site plan stage and they also have offered cash proffers to offset impacts and I'll get into those proffers here in a minute in a little more detail.

I'd also like to point out that there are nearby transportation improvements that are already programmed, one of those being the Route 240 US 250 intersection just to the east of this location and that is in design and proposed to be reconstructed as a roundabout and I believe that construction is supposed to happen on that in the 2023-2024 time frame so

probably right about the time when, if approved, this development would be coming online.

There's also a new road connection that would provide access from Park Ridge Drive to Crozet Drive in the downtown Crozet area.

So that will also relieve some of the pressure off of Route 240 in the area of this development.

Regarding schools, we have used the student calculator provided by Albemarle County Public Schools to identify how many students would be generated by this development.

They would attend Crozet Elementary School, Henley Middle School, and Western Albemarle High School.

It would be approximately 22 students

to the elementary school, 11 students to the middle school, and 17 students to the high school.

Crozet Elementary, as you all may know, is just completing a new expansion

and they are doing some redistricting according to schools that even with the redistricting that Crozet Elementary is expected to be under capacity for the foreseeable future.

They look out about 10 years for that so it'll remain well under capacity for that 10-year period.

Henley Middle School also will remain

under capacity for the foreseeable future, that 10-year timeframe.

Western Albemarle is projected to reach a capacity, its capacity in about the five-year timeframe according to their current projections.

The proposal, once again, does include cash proffers to offset impacts.

There's also a special exception associated with this.

A special exception for Chapter 18, Section 5.1.11b, which requires that any commercial kennel, veterinary service, or animal hospital or the like, with soundproof confinements, shall have no structure located

closer than 200 feet from an agricultural or residential property line.

The applicant is proposing to revise that to a 50 foot buffer.

They have performed a noise study on the existing veterinary center and it shows that it will not reach that 55 decibel average that is required.

that is required to remain under is part of that same regulation.

So at 50 feet, it would not exceed that 55 dBA.

It also shows that they do say that you can hear barking at 40 feet, but it is not the primary generator of noise in the area.

There are other noises that are

even louder than that at 40 feet.

And the primary use is that existing veterinary clinic.

It is not a typical boarding center for animals.

They only do occasional boarding according to the narrative.

And I'll also point out that this veterinary use is in existence already.

And so the housing would be built around it.

So any residential

Purchasers would be aware of that existing candle when they moved in.

So it sort of ameliorates that issue.

The applicant has proposed some proffers associated with this.

The first proffer, as I mentioned, is for affordable housing and they would provide 20 affordable dwelling units as for sale or rental.

And our housing specialist here at the county has reviewed this and has no objections to the issue, to the proposal.

Proffer two is the amenity area dedication, which dedicates the amenity areas to the future HOA in the area.

Proffer three is that greenway dedication, which is a total of 7.8 acres across the northern portion of those parcels.

And they, as I mentioned, or I'm not sure if I mentioned that they also are agreeing to construct a public recreation trail

in that area while working with our Parks and Recreation Department to make sure the siting of that in the design of that meets their standards.

PROF3 are the financial contributions that I mentioned.

They have agreed to a cash contribution of $3,000 for every single family detached dwelling unit and $2,500 for every single family attached unit.

And that could total up to $283,000 if they build to their maximum that they've proposed.

Staff did identify some recommended revisions to the plan that we have not been able to address this time.

The applicant had decided wanted to move straight to the Planning Commission with their most recent submittal.

So we've sent these comments on to them and hope they are willing to address them.

Those comments include that the Code of Development, we recommend that they allow for a wooded buffer along Route 240 that would include a mix of trees and shrubs, evergreen and deciduous as determined by the ARB.

In the application plan, we have requested that they add sound attenuation measures surrounding the existing veterinary office to further tamper down that potential sound impact to the residential areas around it.

and also that currently in their application plan they have a grading plan and separately the plan that shows the steep slopes and we would like them to put those together so we can verify for sure that there will be no grading on the steep slopes area.

it appears to be the case because those steep slopes were dominantly located in those amenity areas and conservation areas they have dedicated but we would just like to make sure that that is shown on the plan for confirmation.

And then also in the proffer statement there was a typo that we would like them to address with proffer 1c need to be changed to say for rent affordable dwelling units.

The applicant will also be required to get approval from the Board of Supervisors for a proposed private pump station for their sewage line and also to amend the ACSA jurisdictional area.

The ACSA jurisdictional area by the county comprehensive plan is supposed to be aligned with the development areas and so we would expect that as is

Typically the case, the board would have no problem adjusting that ACSA jurisdictional area out to cover these two parcels.

And then regarding the private pump station,

The applicant had previously proposed to connect to an existing private pump station and line associated with Emerson Commons.

Since that the application, we have identified that the agreement that would have allowed them to do that is no longer valid.

and ACSA has said that they do not want one private user to connect to another private line.

So when it gets to site development stage, they are going to have to identify a connection directly to the public sewer line, which is located to the west of this development across one more parcel.

So they will have to get any easements associated with that and identify that connection in order to get site plan approval.

I will also point out that there has been identified in the application plan an easement

and a gas line that's located underneath the parcel.

The applicant has been working with Columbia Gas, the owner of that line and easement.

And Columbia Gas has no objection to the proposal to do the development around that.

And they will have to continue to coordinate with that as they move into the site plan stage.

But at this time, Columbia Gas has identified no issues with that.

Staff findings.

Staff has identified favorable factors to this request, including that it's consistent with the Crozet master plan.

It is consistent with the applicable neighborhood model principles.

The proposal dedicates that 7.8 acres surrounding Parrott Creek to the county

and reserves the adjacent areas as amenity areas.

It also provides pedestrian and bike facilities along three notch road and an internal network of pedestrian facilities.

It proffers up to $283,000 in cash to the county to help mitigate impacts to schools or transportation.

and it proffers 20 affordable dwelling units within the development which exceeds the required 15%.

Staff did not identify any factors unfavorable to this request.

So staff recommends approval of CMA 2020-0005 and the associated special exception 2022-00010.

provided that the recommended revisions are made that are identified in the staff report prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting.

Thanks for that excellent report, Mr. McDermott.

Commissioners do have questions for staff.

OK, I see Luis, Julian and Corey.

and Jenny.

And thank you for a very thorough report.

And I appreciate your background and updates on the transportation.

And that's really where my questions are gonna reside around the transportation improvements.

So you mentioned that the roundabout of 240-250 is scheduled for 23-24.

It's in design.

That is a project that is actually 100% funded by FDOT, so under the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Okay, so that is in the plan and funded.

Yes, sir.

There are currently no projects that have funding associated with them on 240.

We have recommended improvements in the Crozet master plan, including some additional bike ped connections and recommendations for future evaluations for the Crozet Avenue three notch intersection.

as well as some improvements to connect better across the railroad.

There is, as I mentioned in my presentation, we also have funded projects to connect Parkside Village on the south side of the railroad tracks, I'm sorry, it's Park Ridge Drive,

to connect that all the way to the downtown development area of Crozet where Barnes Lumber is constructing their new downtown grid.

So that project is funded through a joint agreement by the county, the developer and the state to make that road connection.

There's also improvements to the downtown area

including Crozet Square that will connect to that.

Okay, thank you.

I have other questions.

Thanks.

Okay, Julian.

Thank you, Madam.

Good to see you, Kevin.

A few just sort of clarifying pieces here.

Well, it could possibly be.

So they'll have to evaluate for right, left turn lanes.

And the applicant has another entrance identified on 240.

Okay.

And block number one where it has the commercial where the commercial activity is envisioned, if this is approved?

Does the 5,000 square feet include the 2,000 or the 3,000 that's already for the vet that's already there?

No, it's a maximum of 5,000 total.

Yes.

OK, so there really is not that much of an opportunity for additional, because those are, I think it's one story, they're one story, a height on limitations, there's one story, so there's not that much of an increase there.

The height limitation is actually two stories.

Two stories there?

Okay.

Their code of development.

Okay.

Thank you.

On the green space, it's dedicated to the county.

Just to be clear on that, the dedication, if the county accepts this, which I assume it would, would it then become responsible for maintaining that in the future?

Yes, it would.

And we've been working with Parks and Rec, or the applicant has worked with the Parks and Rec department on that area and that dedication, including the trail.

Initially, the trail was not included in the application plan.

Okay, I just have two other questions.

So is there an elevation issue with the internal streets that we don't see any sort of continuation between the Sarah Road and the Anatera Road that they don't connect somewhere?

I couldn't speak specifically to why that connection was not made.

We did work with the developer on the applicant on the street network.

And when it went from the initially proposed private streets to public streets, that connection was removed.

We wanted the public streets.

That has been something that the board has been

and leaning on heavily is to get public streets.

So my guess is that the design standards probably prevented that connection.

That would be something that perhaps ask the applicant about.

Thank you for that.

And hopefully the applicant has heard that.

My last question is that it says the applicant has indicated that they're going to draw or not draw that they're going to place sidewalks across the front of their project.

There is an old sidewalk that is probably 10 feet on the other side of Parkview that comes from downtown.

I'm aware of that gap.

There's one parcel on the west side of Parkview that does not have that sidewalk.

I mean, I think that it wouldn't be a terribly difficult proposal, but of course, easements or right of way would likely be required from that parcel owner.

And so that can always be a hang up, but

Good afternoon, Kevin.

It's good to see you.

And my question is in regards to the cash proffer.

And my question is, how does the county assess whether or not the cash proffer is fair and reasonable?

What do you go by when you say, hey, this is a factor that's favorable?

I'm just curious.

Well, a cash proffer has to be proposed by the applicant and it has to be considered a fair and reasonable proffer for their development.

Typically, we look at the impact that the development's going to have and then try and see if the funding could address any

proposed improvements that would address those impacts.

as we go because different roads are constrained in different ways and need different improvements to them in this location, immediately surrounding this development.

There's not significant issues.

We did do a transportation study related to the Crozet Master Plan, and there were no issues really identified right in that area.

Of course, as I mentioned, there are the intersection issues.

and over there at 240 and 250, the 240-251 is being addressed already.

But the applicant has come up with that number for that funding or for that proffer themselves because they believe it's fair and reasonable and that it offsets their impacts to the road.

So that's what we go by.

I would say that

You know, for much larger developments like, say, the Albemarle Business Campus ABC, they put in around half a million dollars, but theirs was a much larger development on a much busier road.

And these proffers can be used for schools as well, if I've read correctly.

That's correct.

Okay, I think that's very helpful.

And the reason I'm asking these questions is because we're advisors, right, to the Board of Supervisors.

And so to the applicant, please, there's no disrespect to the number that you've offered.

I'm trying to wrestle to the ground.

Is this reasonable?

So for example, I'm sure the school system says we spend annually X amount of dollars per pupil.

So if this project's going to add 40 pupils, is there a way I can back it to that number and say, yes, sounds good, right?

Thanks, Kevin, for your presentation.

Okay, I wish that I could see and maybe in the applicant's presentation, they have something like it, but it seems to me

It would be helpful for me to see where the 200 foot mark is on an image.

And what I suspect is that not having that special exception would have large impact on this.

And I would actually like to see

You know where the 200 mark is going out from that clinic and then where the 50 foot is and and then I guess my hope is I don't know if there's something someone can show me if that isn't part of the presentation we'll get from the applicant.

It's not something that I don't have a two foot measured.

I will say that they did in the noise report that's in attachment 7A, they have the 40 the locations where they took the sound measurements.

at 40 feet from the structure.

So you can see that on those.

Also, if you wanted to give me a minute, I'd be happy to pull up GIS and show you what a 200 foot buffer around that structure would be.

Yeah, I'd like to see that.

I mean, we can come back to it later, too, but I'm struggling with that piece.

So that would be helpful for me and maybe for others.

And then I think it would also be helpful and maybe the applicant plans to do this, but I'd like to

Just hear a little more than what I've been able to read about, like a, you know, a robust justification for this exception rather than just because we'd rather not have it be the 200 foot.

I'd like to hear more.

I've read the report and the attachment, but I want more, please.

from the applicant when it's their turn.

And then should I ask my next question or give you time to?

OK.

So my other question was about Kevin, you said in the report and then in your presentation, that's like 50 some percent is green, the Greenway area.

And that's also the amenity area.

Yes, so the 7.8 acres that they are dedicating to the county is the entire WPO buffer.

So that is that entire constrained area of the WPO buffer.

The steep slopes areas are separate from that.

And they are those areas located in the northeast quadrant of the development.

Because I think one of the parts I was looking at is that it looks like amenity area two.

Yeah, so I so maybe I'll learn more too from the applicant's presentation, but I worried about

disturbance of those and how that functions with that being an amenity area.

So maybe I will feel better about that as we move forward.

Yeah, I can pull that up and I'd also, I can go ahead and show you the 200 foot buffer, approximately the 200 foot buffer.

The applicant has expressed that that would be, that if that is not approved, then it would be pretty detrimental to the overall development is a lot of that residential area does fall within the 200 feet.

So let me share my screen real quick with you.

And this is in Google Earth and this circle shows you the area surrounding the development by 200 feet.

So you can see it goes all the way out to Three Notched Road and crosses over into the adjacent parcel that's also part of that development.

And then I will pull up also for you the application plan so you can see exactly what that looks like on there.

Once again, so this is the application plan that I've got on the screen right here.

Oh, sorry, let me share this.

There we are.

Here's the application plan.

Here's that structure.

that is currently in the area.

And so if you can see, this is 240 where the buffer would go to.

You can imagine that that would probably go out to this Antares Road.

So it would do anything in block two from that and probably over to the

Alter Road as well.

So basically you're losing everything in block two, maybe a little bit in block four, right through here, and probably portions of block nine as well.

So most of that development, essentially it would include all the area within this circle of roads, including three notch, if you can see that area.

Just a quick kind of building on and understanding the existing special use permit that brought to the clinic.

It lists in the staff report that that was a grant on October 5th, 1988, and that was approved with conditions.

My question is related to more of, there was a sound study and part of the narrative has been that

There's only limited overnight boarding at this point.

I guess my question is related to, are there conditions that limit that?

You know, what keeps the veterinarian that has the special use permit from deciding to expand their kennel operations?

Yeah, the current conditions don't really speak towards that kind of limit, the current conditions in the special use permit.

As I remember, they were more administrative conditions, but if this were approved,

That answer?

Okay.

And certainly that's something you could consider crafting if you wanted to add an additional condition.

Daniel, did you have any other questions?

You're saying audio?

Yeah, I was having audio problems.

My Bluetooth randomly decides to pick up at times even though there's nothing connected to it.

Yeah, that's helpful.

So just to kind of

break that down and maybe simpler speak.

So what you're saying is if this was approved, the veterinary could continue to exist and they can operate business and they could decide to add a kindle operations.

In my understanding, they could expand their operations within the footprint of the part they have and it would be by rights.

So if they decided that it made sense to create a doggy daycare part of it, that would be something that could change

based on the residential uses post-approval of this without any conditions or provisions for it.

Yes, that's correct.

So the table of uses in the Code of Development calls allows for veterinary offices and hospital.

I appreciate Kevin putting the question over here.

I generally don't make determinations kind of on the fly.

Let me start with this, which is

A veterinarian hospital would generally have some kind of overnight stay for recovery and things like that, as we look at those uses in general.

Also, the other thing to remember is that our current ordinance addresses the noise attenuation from things like this.

So, the noise study

which is primarily, if I was to think back on the kennels, I was a part of reviewing 20 years ago, it had to do with the distances and noises that, that distance was to mitigate the noise.

We didn't have some of the technology or the lack of a better way to put it, the insulation that helped mitigate or contain that noise within the building.

Part of what we're looking at is if you meet the sound ordinance, then you don't need some of these other things.

We had a vet not too long ago, I think up near the Forest Lakes area, where we had similar questions about barking dogs and different things.

And part of that is this particular use and the noise ordinance that we currently have wasn't in effect back in the 80s or the 90s, right?

So we have now things that

I just want to kind of put that out there as part of when you start thinking about noise, think about our current regulation and how what we have

regulate some of this stuff.

Stormwater is a similar issue as an example.

We used to put lots of conditions about runoff and things like that before we had adopted stormwater regulations.

So think about that in kind of similar fashion.

Okay, Daniel, your sound went out.

I'm just trying to part of the narrative and the justification was the hospital already exists and the noise study is to it and people know what they're getting into.

So I'm trying to understand what the propensity or probability might be that that use could grow or change.

And so someone that bought a land may get into something that they don't know they're getting into later, if the sound were to increase within the by right use transition.

Yes.

Daniel, I would like to add that I did pull up the old conditions from the original and they are things that the building area was limited to 3,000 square feet.

I think it may have gotten that might have gotten changed and they have the site plan.

It does have a condition currently that says the kennel use

is approved in conjunction with the veterinary use and shall not be operated independently.

So currently, they can't just have a kennel.

It has to only be associated with the veterinary use.

But that is not what's in the proposed code of development for the new plan.

So that would have to be something that they agreed to if they wanted to.

Appreciate it.

If that's currently a part of the Code of Development, that could be part of the Planning Commission's recommendation, yes, ma'am.

We would need to add that to the Code of Development then.

Right.

Right.

We've already got a list of those started by staff.

Thank you.

Thanks very much.

Good evening, Kevin.

Good to see you.

Thanks to the patients and the applicant while we get to these questions.

Mine will be quick, I think.

One, as you mentioned in the dedicated green space, the intent now to add a trail system.

At this time, the trail is shown and once again this is conceptual only according to the application plan.

The trail would go from the corner of the entrance to the development on Parkview

go along that greenway area and extend all the way out to the edge of their property and then there'd be a second trail that would connect back down to the street network in the amenity area.

and the applicant has said that the trail will be, an easement will be dedicated for the trail for public use.

Got it.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

The wooden buffer that you have in is your recommended revisions to the application along Route 240.

You mentioned there as determined by the ARB.

The width is already defined in the application plan.

Great.

I saw the buffer.

I wasn't sure what the dimension of that was.

Another quick question.

The road section shows a mountable curve in the 24 foot section, but I believe that all the parking is considered to be off street parking, correct?

That's correct.

No on street parking.

Got it.

And then last question.

You mentioned the CAC had a conflict during their July meeting, I guess, so they weren't able to hear this.

Yes.

So it was the separate meeting that was held on July 29th was announced.

and many members did attend.

Okay, gotcha.

So under the community member input in your staff report,

Perfect.

Thank you.

I had a quick follow on question to something that Fred said and then we'll go back to Luis because he may still have some questions from his beginning.

So I just quick question on the trail that actually was proposed for the buffer it referenced in the application the trail type it wasn't a

A trail typo understood what that was.

So could you say a little bit more about that?

Are we talking like an eight foot wide paved trail and Appalachian style trail?

What are we talking about?

Yeah, that would be like an Appalachian Trail kind of cross section there.

So the Class B trail is in

trail standards, and it would be natural surface.

Okay, great.

All right, and then back to you, Luis.

Okay, so any other questions for staff at this time, or shall we go to the applicant?

I don't see anyone raising their hand.

Okay, so with that, we'll open the public hearing and ask to hear the presentation from the applicant.

Which I don't, Mr. Rolle, you're not, your audio is not on.

No, Martin Schulman was going to speak, but I'd be happy to address some of these issues and answer any questions.

Trying to keep my light out of your screen there.

So to address a couple of things, like you talked about the path, we did look at that to make sure that

It was at the edge of the streamway buffer trying to avoid most critical slopes and would not be anywhere in the flood, hundred year floodplain because we didn't want to have it decimated by the activity, you know, of a floodway.

So then we agreed to work with Parks and Recs to decide on that along with engineering.

The other statement that someone brought up was about critical slope grading and we actually

I'm real particular about it, avoiding any of those critical slope areas not to affect them.

So back to why that road does not connect in that one section is because there is a nice valley there, a nice stand of mature trees, and oh, I don't know, 50, 60-year-old rhododendrons that fill that valley.

And so it struck me that it was more important to keep that preserve and not build a road, put a pipe and decimate that whole area.

And so that avoided critical slopes and preserve the natural growth and old planted growth from that.

And the other reason that green space is in that central area too, that is the front yard of the old house.

And Sellers pointed out to me that many of those trees in particular were select trees planted there by their mother years ago.

Just to be clear, is there an applicant?

Is there a formal presentation that you all have prepared?

There he is.

I have a slide that you sent me that I can present.

That sounds good.

You can go ahead.

Yeah, this is Martin Schulman, the applicant, and I very much appreciate the thoughtful questions on behalf of the planning commissioner and presentation by the planning director.

And

I have provided, as the Planning Commission knows, some contextual and historical information about these parcels, particularly the unique location it is in reference to supporting the employment hub that has been identified as an important and future employment center right across the street.

but the crux of the development is one that supports many objectives of the master plan.

This has been about the fourth five-year plan that I have been a part of and reviewed as I've served in our county over 40 years both in medicine as a veterinarian and on

development groups, including the task force group on 250 and master plan groups as previously stated.

The questions that have presented this evening seem in a large part to

identify potential noise issues surrounding veterinary hospitals.

So with Mr. Rowell available for more technical issues for the site, let me address, if I may, how we went about the construction of the veterinary hospital itself.

Back around 1988, I attended a conference in Washington DC, a national conference, and had six presentations for specific veterinary hospital architects and chose one that had already built 250 veterinary hospitals around the entire world, including Europe and Japan and the United States.

And what stood out about this particular architect was

His insulation and soundproofing measures in the structure of the building was to Wisconsin standards where his firm in Madison, Wisconsin routinely operated with our values of 35 back again in 1990.

This therefore allowed us to, I thought, put the noise issue to rest

as even at 40 feet, we meet the requirements for noise with the building, which was done by an independent engineer and provided that report to the planning department.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that have been raised or more background as well.

My personal

Interests and commitment has had in strong part been surrounding a initiative that was identified during our numerous master plan revisions and community meetings regarding a continuous greenway trail

and my approach to veterinary practice and to working on development boards has been collaborative and I would very much like to see this dedication of Greenway Space to be a continual trail that should go east out toward the Beaver Creek Dam region as well as west to the downtown area

and on from there.

So it has been a big feature and priority for me in looking at this development.

And of course, to minimize the impact on the closest community which is to our north, the Emerson Commons co-housing community where the entire border has a significant buffer

both visual and for sound to that community.

Hey, do we have any questions?

Yes, thank you for that additional information.

And so I don't know if this is for you or someone else in your planning team, but I guess my question has to do with the kennel.

And it's just, it's an odd function to have as your centerpiece of a new village.

So it's just not something that I would think of right away.

If I'm making a new village, I'm going to put a kennel and veterinary hospital in the middle of it.

when the space could be used for obviously other amenities that are central to that community.

So I'm just wondering if you ever thought about an option where the kennel is relocated and then you use that for amenity for other developments that would potentially free up because right now you're constrained by that existing facility.

Thank you so much.

Very, again, thoughtful question.

So in speaking with builders and developers, one thing that is clear is immediately to our west at the Jeff Sprouse property, there was approval for tens of thousands of square footage for retail.

I don't have it before me.

I know it was a minimum of 20,000 square feet.

It could have been 30 or 35,000.

And that's probably within...

I don't know, 150, 200 yards of this parcel.

So there's plenty of opportunity there.

And having had that rezoning, the Sprouses, I guess due to the market, have determined that there is not a significant need as they have not increased that retail square footage.

I think they put in a car wash and continue to have existing square footage.

Actually, in our evolving culture, the role that veterinary medicine and veterinary hospitals have played in our communities has only expanded in a big way.

The interest at this site for an expanded kennel, in my opinion, is zero.

Ironically, back around 2006, my initial interest in going to a pre-planning meeting, as I had discussed in my document, was to explore the possibility of a large boarding kennel

And it was clear to me that this location should support the Crozet community in a much more useful and profound way as a residential community to support the employment hub.

So the idea of going toward kenneling was already put to bed almost 20 years ago.

The current veterinary hospital which took over when I retired almost two years ago has expanded their veterinary staff from my employment as a solo veterinarian now to three to four veterinarians and with the pandemic in particular

all veterinarians throughout the country are seeing an average of a 30% increase in visits and demand for a very important service that gets to the heart of the extended family that is probably a bit different than it was when I opened practice in the 80s as

You know, our community wants to take care of those four legged critters as family members.

So having a veterinary hospital available in a community, frankly, has just been so popular that this practice has expanded two to three fold just for veterinary medicine.

Yeah, Mr. Schulman, just not to cut you short of it, and I appreciate that.

I would take that to mean that there was no other scenario where the veterinary hospital in Kennel would be relocated and then opening up opportunities in the center of the development, right?

All this growth that you're mentioning, which I agree with, will be funneling all that traffic, mainly from the outside, because obviously it's going to cater to much more than just the community, into the center of your new village.

And so, again, to me, it seems like an odd function to have as a centerpiece of a new village where it could be outboarded.

more visible and you know right by 240 access right off of 240 or near you know you have some street cuts right there and not take the traffic into

the new village and then it opens up opportunities within the new village to have amenities.

I'm not talking about other commercial, it could still be more residential, it could be open space amenities, top lots and all that within the center of the village.

If we could let's, yeah, so that's an interesting suggestion.

And I think the applicant has heard that they certainly could theoretically do some changes before it goes to the board.

I don't imagine them doing that right this moment.

So is there anyone else on the planning committee wants to ask questions of the applicant?

Okay.

I have a lot of questions, but I'll wait.

I'm having trouble hearing it, following along.

But one question that I think would be good to ask before we have public comment is, I see that there's guest parking.

And I think there's just two.

And so I understand that there's no parking on the street.

And I've heard through all the emails that there's concern about parking.

And I see those guest spots and I, you know, I wonder if

People could use the parking at the vet office as guest space if it's after hours or something like that if that could help provide parking instead of having too much parking that doesn't get used but finding the balance between too much and not enough I wonder if that's something that there could be an agreement where maybe people could park guests to neighbors could park there if it's not competing with the parking for the

that clinic.

Just pulling up the map.

And if you could share the overall layout there is parking lot.

There's front street parking near the basin and the pedestrian bridge.

Okay, so the answer is no, that people can't park at the vet office.

I'm trying to, I'm anticipating what people might say.

That's a good question.

Marty would have to work that out with the current vet clinic.

And we did put other uses for that space in the event of a vet clinic.

did vacate the property.

We allowed for a couple other facilities.

There you go.

So that shows you that.

That's right, Kevin, right there, that parking lot there, down by the basin.

There was more on-street parallel parking.

VDOT was no thank you.

Back when I did Holly Mead, I tried to show parking lots within those townhouse areas where people just supposed to park.

It's not permitted to have standalone parking in much use.

Okay.

Almost, I don't know.

I can't tell.

That's probably almost 20 there and another four or five back by the basin.

We did have parking along the frontage near the dog park.

Okay.

that we'd be happy to approach that owner and I don't see why that couldn't be maybe even a condition when we limit to no kennel use as well.

And back to Mr. Missel's, the frontage along 240 is designated 20 feet or greater and the trees have to meet KRB guidelines.

you know from back in the Airbnb days.

There was also a tree buffer all the way along the eastern edge.

Again, we extend our road along that frontage from Parkview all the way to the adjoining property because like connectivity, a portion of the neighbor's property to our east is in that growth area.

But this, and we also put single family homes only up against that single family property to the east, as opposed to putting any townhouses anywhere near the residents, other than right at the very entrance.

And this also isolates the single family homes, other than a pedestrian connection.

We've spent two years on working through this with staff or go arounds very thorough.

I hope you're pleased with our thoughts and progress here.

Again, 57% of the land is being dedicated.

Everything we identify as critical slope, we've

Okay, you'll also have an opportunity to come back and make some comments after we hear the public comments as well.

So you do have another chance to offer additional thoughts.

Just a couple of quick ones, probably more detailed, Mr. Rowell, good to see you.

One, the gas easement that's shown here, I think,

Mr. McDermott mentioned that Columbia Gas had no issues with what is shown on your plan.

Does that include roads and curb and gutter?

We literally did go out and pothole that every 50 feet to determine the actual depth of their line, then designed our road profiles to do that, follow that line up through that grade, which is why that is not a flat road.

It does follow the topography.

and then we submitted our grading lines and the pothole surveyed study to them.

Great, thank you.

Our pump station will still be at the lowest point.

It will, okay.

It goes out to whether it's up on

240 at a manhole or back in the back at a manhole.

We've had several discussions with service authority and there are a couple of different avenues to approach.

Again, going back to that fronting sidewalk, if there is right away, the VDOT would permit us to build that sidewalk, we'd be happy to include that in our improvements.

Great, but you don't see either one of those locations

or options for sanitary sewer impacting your code of development in any way?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Last call.

Any more questions?

Thank you, Chair.

So my question is just basically a clarification.

So in the area that you said is the bowl, is that what you show on

On Z-104, is that a sidewalk that's going to go across that area where it's not connected?

Is that just a sidewalk or is it suspended?

Okay, that was it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is regarding the HOA.

So, no, there's no estimated price impact, but typically, since it's public roads, those are maintained by VDOT versus a private development versus private roads.

Secondly, other than maintaining playground area, private, you know, the open space for the community, that's about the extent of it.

Everybody's own lot and maintenance is their own responsibility.

Okay, I hope you'll also be maintaining your stormwater facilities.

But with that, are there any other questions for the applicant at this point?

Okay, and with that, then I'd like to go ahead and move to the public hearing.

I'm getting some funny feedback, sorry.

I'd like to go ahead and move to the public hearing and Carolyn, I know that you have a number of people who've already pre signed up to speak plus 12 people so far.

And then there may be some additional ones who join us.

All right, Mr. Gammon, you have three minutes to speak.

Okay, great.

My name is James Gammon.

My address is 802 Stargazer Lane, Crozet, Virginia 22932.

I suppose I'm affiliated with Emerson Commons.

the community that's just to the north of this proposed development and thanks for the opportunity to speak.

First I'd like to say I'm in favor of more housing in our area and I'm not opposed to this project in general but I think currently the way it's designed is very much designed to give the appearance of being socially and environmentally conscious while failing to take into account in many areas what the lived experience of future residents and neighbors will actually be.

You know I appreciate and support the goal of more affordable housing but that can still be done without some of the problems inherent to this specific design

and develops with this specific type of high density design, which is rows of townhomes with single car garages.

They just end up being very unpleasant places to live.

You know, there are problems inherent to the design that come from developers maximizing profits at the expense of future residents and neighbors.

And it's not that I blame the developer, you know, developers can charge much more for packed in townhomes than apartments.

So that's what they try to design unless the community insists on something better.

But you know, neighborhoods with long rows of single car garage townhomes seem virtually guaranteed to have severe parking problems.

There's not nearly enough parking space in this development for the way people actually live.

Creating a community this big with so few guest parking spaces is a guarantee that everyone who lives in this neighborhood will detest each other within a year of moving in.

Many of the green spaces, such as they are on the plan, are actually on the periphery and in areas with a steep grade, and anyone who's seen them in person would know that dedicating them to the county is a meaningless gesture that actually benefits the developer because they require upkeep but offer very little use.

As designed, most of these green spaces look good on paper, but likely won't get used or even seen very much.

And few who live in the townhomes will have a view of anything but an overcrowded street full of cars.

The central area is a vet with barking dogs.

I'm a sound engineer for a living, and I regularly use a decibel meter.

And I can tell you that a study that suggests that noise will regularly stay below 55 A weighted decibels at 50 feet is not a reliable study.

I don't think that study alleviates concerns that it would be very unpleasant to live that close to a vet office.

and I'm sure that study doesn't mean you wouldn't hear dogs barking.

I'm certain homeowners will hear dogs regularly also because they make noise outside as well.

That noise ordinance exists for a reason.

Would you want to live there?

I take my dogs to that vet and it would be, you know, less convenient to have to travel further to wherever they might end up if they're moved.

But I really think it self-evidently just doesn't work to have a vet office in the middle of such a tightly packed residential neighborhood that has no on-street parking of its own.

Putting so much of the residential area inside of the 200-foot circle is not a good idea for the lived experience of future residents.

I can easily imagine a situation where, regardless of any agreements made about parking, the vet office has to regularly call a towing company on residents who park in their lot.

Residents are stressed and angry at the noise and customer traffic, and the relationship between the vet and the community becomes a constant headache for everyone involved.

Thank you for the time to speak.

Thank you.

It's Robin Bernhard.

Yeah.

Robin, please set your name, address, and if you're affiliated with a group or organization.

Okay.

I'm Robin Bernhard.

I live at 827 Stargazer Lane, Crozet, Virginia.

and I'm affiliated with Emerson Commons.

I moved to Crozet from Charlottesville because I saw Crozet as a satellite community to the area and I was excited about the development that was going to be happening.

I thought it would be part of my aging process to see some new neat things developing Crozet.

But I also wanted to see development that would maintain and preserve Crozet's rural sensibility.

And that's something that I feel really strongly about.

It's one of Crozet's strongest assets.

I'm very concerned about the traffic congestion that this village is going to create, especially at rush hour.

I have already found problems.

I've only been living here for about two years and

from Charlottesville, and I've already found problems with rush hour traffic going down three knots to 250 and also going out 64.

Cars that are sometimes backed up at rush hour almost to Beaver Creek Park, and it takes even longer to get out to 64.

So I'm very concerned.

I've got 115 units.

People are going to have maybe 200 more cars.

And environmentally, that's going to be 900 metric tons of greenhouse emissions annually.

The additional cars are going to affect wildlife, increase light.

We already see a lot of light from 240 and just with more traffic it's going to be increased.

I understand that there have been studies in Crozet saying that there's a lot of area for unused parking potential.

But the benefits of high density planning, at least what I've read about it, suggests that you really need to have the high density developments near high volume transportation options with room for the traffic to flow.

I don't see Crozet as having that option, especially on that side of town.

There isn't easy.

I don't really know where all that traffic is going to go except for to get backed up.

So I think that high density housing as well is going to affect Crozet's charm.

I personally have been extremely concerned and upset by the development

at Old Trail over the years and what's happening around Crozet Park.

I don't go to the park anymore.

I don't walk at the park and I don't go on the greenway there because it's really become ugly and suburbanized.

It's no longer full of beautiful trees.

And I miss the trees and the homes that they provide for wildlife.

Ma'am, your time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Jenny Moore back in, she got knocked offline and can't get in.

Okay.

I know she wants to hear all the public comments.

So just bear with us.

Thanks.

And we're back.

Looks like Jenny, you are connected.

Okay, great.

OK, well, if he comes back, we'll put him back in the queue for sure.

Joe Abraham is the next person.

Yeah, hi.

My name's Joe Abraham, a 29 stargazer and crozet.

I am a member of the Crozet community and Emerson Commons and I do favor livable higher density development and also the preservation of green space and the rural atmosphere of the area.

Carefully developed and reviewed plans, community input and knowledgeable oversight by regulators are all essential preludes to a successful project in creating a wonderful new place to live.

However, I do have concerns and some of these have been addressed already and I appreciate the insight and incisive comments of the

the board members.

My first concern is traffic.

I am concerned about the management of increased traffic flows, specifically left turns in and out of the neighborhood and increased traffic at the corner of Parkview where pedestrians, bikes and school children will be.

The development is projected to increase traffic by approximately 800 trips per day.

This implies 800 vehicles turning in or out of the new development.

Some vehicles will presumably use each exit, but no traffic flow pattern is indicated in the proposal.

The proposal does not clearly indicate where the new turning lane or lanes will be placed or how long they will be or if there will be a traffic signal.

In summary, the proposal lacks the specific information needed to understand what the plan is to ensure safety for motorcycle

cyclists and pedestrians.

I further request that the developers supply the details of a traffic ingress and egress plan that addresses these concerns.

Number two, site safety.

I'd like to share my concern of safety during construction and occupancy and specifically to the gas pipeline that traverses the development site.

It was not mentioned in the proposal copy that I saw.

I did hear it raised tonight and I assume that people are familiar with the risks associated with natural gas.

Grading and erosion.

The grading plan did not show the steep slopes overlay and therefore it was not readily apparent how drainage and erosion may impact the site and the stream.

These details must be worked out and presented before the plan can be properly evaluated.

I'm sure the planning commission will follow through on this item.

And finally, climate change and energy, and this includes provisions for mass transit if there are any, which may ameliorate traffic as well.

Given the changes to the climate, it is essential that provisions in any new building projects anticipate and bill for resilience.

This might include extra storm drain capacity, heat and drought tolerant plantings.

Plantings.

Energy costs are also likely to be highly variable.

The standards for new buildings should maximize homeowner savings and comfort by taking advantage of building features to minimize energy use.

Following green building standards and using environmentally sustainable materials is recommended.

Finally, provision for EV charging should be made for each dwelling unit.

This will increase the housing value and saleability as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yes.

No longer on?

No.

Okay.

All right.

The next person then is Wade Davenport.

Is he available?

Mr. Davenport, please unmute yourself.

I'm Wade Davenport.

I live at 827 Stargazer Lane.

And I want to thank the commission for the opportunity to speak.

I want to start with a few positives about this community.

I really like the green space that's being allocated to the county.

And I like the idea of the trail that might possibly eventually connect to Beaver Creek.

I also like the use of trees along the border to provide privacy for residents.

And I think that once people move in, they will certainly appreciate those trees.

However, my more serious concerns

revolve around energy issues and safety concerns.

Increased traffic from resident vehicles will worsen congestion and cause backup at multiple intersections in Prose that will in turn increase frustration and tempt drivers to take risks that they would not otherwise take.

This traffic increase can be mitigated by decreasing the number of units and building into the community structure

recreation spaces to encourage residents not to drive, but to stay home and enjoy community amenities, of which there are apparently few.

Another way to mitigate traffic would be to increase shuttle service to stores and local recreation, either privately or through the community or through public transportation.

go down to 50 units and the additional load on roadways would be more bearable, I would think.

It was interesting to hear tonight about the roundabout proposed at 240 and 250.

However, I suspect that that roundabout was planned prior to the proposal for this community.

And what is going to happen is we will just be adding another 800 trips per day onto the roadways

to increase that congestion at 240 and 250.

My final concern focuses on the layout of the community.

Like most communities built in the United States, there appears to be no consideration given for how the housing might reduce needed energy resources or heating and electrical appliances by positioning the units for potential passive and active solar gain.

The point here is not that the builder isn't providing solar panels or passive solar spaces.

It's that the housing units are not even aligned in a way that would make for more energy efficiency in the future.

I regard this as a mistake.

And I hope that we realize that it's time that we start planning for the future and energy needs in the future.

And I don't see that happening

Thanks very much.

Colin Durkin.

Colin, please unmute yourself.

My name is Colin Durkin.

I'm a resident of Crozet.

You know, I kind of chimed in here just so I could kind of hear what folks had said.

Something that jumped out at me was the notion of the boarding.

And it sounds like there's some debate about kind of the efficacy of building so close and the impact it would have on neighbors.

I'm struck that, you know, you probably, if you're visiting, you wouldn't really know what it's going to be like at night to kind of be living around a kennel like that.

That might be something for consideration and exploration.

The other element was parking and the fact that I lived in a neighborhood that had the driveway and the garage configuration similarly and nobody really parked in those.

They often used them for storage which meant people parked on the street and it turned into a pretty dangerous situation given how narrow our street was and I do wonder if the street adjacent where there might be people seeking off-street parking

would be a similar situation.

It seems like cars on both sides, it would get very narrow very quick, which kind of has me concerned about kind of that being an eyesore and just kind of an oversight of planning.

So I think it seems to make a lot of sense that the parking should be relooked, given the concerns of the neighbors that have chimed in here and other residents from the community.

Thanks very much.

Next, is Clara Lemire available?

He is not here.

OK.

All right, how about Michael Monaco?

Michael, please unmute yourself.

State your name, address, if you're feeling either the group or organization.

Yeah, hi.

Great.

Yeah, I'm Michael Monaco, I live at 810 Stargazer Lane, so I'm also affiliated with Emerson Commons just north of this development.

I'm a little disappointed.

I was looking forward to meeting new neighbors at this development.

But I think the more that I've looked at the plan, the more

There's a lot of worries I've had, particularly about Block 3 in the plan, which scrapes right up against that 100 foot stream buffer and the front driveway of those houses are sitting right on top of the gas line easement as well.

I'm not really sure how you can plan to get construction done on

a group of units in that area with those concerns.

I mean, I hear that the developer saying that they have worked with Columbia Gas, but that's that's a that's a big risk to me.

And I also am not that impressed by hearing about the 57 percent proffer of land because that that appears to be undeveloped land anyway.

So it just seems like kind of a wash for the developer.

Frankly, I would like to see Block 3 reduced or eliminated in favor of giving these houses some breathing room.

I will say that I live in a designated affordable unit that I purchased a few years ago, like I said, about 500 feet away from where this site is planned.

Affordable housing doesn't have to be crammed in.

You don't have to maximize development to do it.

You can just proffer more affordable housing relative to the percentage of total units.

You can just do that.

So I would like to see, like I said, my concerns about Block 3 addressed in some way, because I think that's a big risk for both construction and for people living there.

Thank you.

All right, please unmute yourself.

My name is Amy Espaya.

My address is 5029 Halcyon Drive, Crozet, Virginia.

I'll skip the niceties and get straight to my point.

I'm completely opposed to any further development in this area.

We moved here in 2005 and the Liberty Board

a home outside of the, at the time, the proposed growth development area.

Since then, we've seen the development of Emerson Commons on our back doorstep, and this was accomplished through a rezoning process.

Any further development in this area is just going to exacerbate the existing problems in so far as traffic, housing density,

impact on the agrarian nature of the area.

And from our standpoint, it detracts from the appeal that brought us here.

I do believe that this is probably a foregone conclusion, but I'm still, by right, allowed to state and voice my opinion.

A number of things that are concerning beyond just my upfront objection.

The green area, I think would be to the detriment of others in the immediate area.

Where is the parking to facilitate people coming from outside the area to make use of the green area?

And it's going to bring

additional foot traffic, noise pollution, pollution, water quality issues that are just going to be compounded by more people in the area.

I was also quite interested to hear the applicant's desire to preserve the trees around the original homestead because there was no apparent desire to preserve the trees that lined

Parkview Avenue when Emerson Commons development went in.

It just seems a bit contradictory to want to preserve one with no past preservation of another.

And my final point is there does appear to be something of a disconnect between the planning and the actual.

I think there were

certainly some more attractive proposals in terms of the overall Emerson Commons development in comparison to what was actually constructed.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, that's my wife.

Okay.

You're certainly allowed to have spouses speak.

All right.

All right.

The first one's Kara Mayo.

Kara, please unmute yourself.

State your name and address.

Yes, hello.

My name is Kara Mayo.

I live at 858 Stargazer Lane.

That is Emerson Commons.

The back of my home faces the veterinarian's property.

I would say I'm maybe 600 feet away because it's across the stream and up the bank.

Last summer with my windows open, I did hear kennel noise.

I complained a few times about the kennel noise.

So I don't understand how people living 50 feet away will not be hearing noise.

And the thing about the kennel noise is it starts in the evening and goes all the way through until the next morning.

So I find it problematic.

So that's my concern for the people that would be moving in.

I also have concerns that my neighbors do with traffic density, the gas line, et cetera.

Next, I have Laura and Trace Carter.

Hi, my name is Trace Carter.

Lauren and I reside at 801 Stargazer, so we are also affiliated with Emerson Commons.

We are part of the problem that Mr. Player wishes not to exacerbate, I guess.

I really appreciate his perspective as someone who has been living here for a while.

He has seen the scrutiny that Emerson Commons as a potential development was

put under and it seems that he has his eyes towards making sure that this proposed development receives at least an equal amount of scrutiny.

I agree that the, sorry, sending a representative to baby care.

I agree that the dedication, quote unquote, of the green space, and I agree that the preservation of rhododendrons instead of a sidewalk, I agree that those are fake.

They help the developer make this look like a generous gift.

and I don't even, it's hard to speak.

There's an ever-growing list of issues with this proposed development.

So many issues that the commission itself has said that it needs to go back to the drawing board on several accounts.

I do not think that this was planned effectively, appropriately.

I think that there have been many concerns raised about

All parts of the plan.

We are in particular, as parents of young ones,

Brain Dead, and also particularly concerned about the fact that the redistricting plan for the area only accounted for nine students, I believe, at the elementary level from this new development, whereas the developers' own documents suggest 22 students at the elementary level.

It's simply not true that Crozet Elementary and Henley will be well under capacity, quote unquote, for the next 10 years.

You need to check your figures.

Thank you for the time to speak.

Thank you.

Yes, hold on.

I have Emerson comments next.

Hi, sorry for the confusion.

This is Rebecca Gammon.

I live at 802 Stargazer Lane in Crozet in the Emerson Commons neighborhood.

I'll start by saying, you know, I kind of expected to see and I'm glad to see some high density housing being proposed for this area.

It is needed in the area and also it's really wonderful to see that the developer is prioritizing

more affordable homes than the bare minimum required.

I do have some concerns as shared by the other accusations in the meeting.

I'll start with the Columbia gas distribution line that runs through the neighborhood.

I understand that localities can't count on a disaster happening with these distribution lines.

otherwise no one would live within 150 feet of one of them.

But it just seems like with new housing, we can do better than meeting the minimum requirement, which seems to be a 25 foot setback given the 50 foot easement.

Even the American Petroleum Institute recommends that

for hazardous liquids like natural gas, there should be a 50 foot setback from the middle of a pipeline or a distribution line such as it is.

I think that these homes being so close to them will naturally have less value.

And so I hate to get dark, but I wonder if that means that those are going to be the affordable houses in block three.

and if so, what would that say about how the county values the safety of our most vulnerable population or one of our vulnerable populations really?

Also just, I wanna comment that I was pretty shocked to hear that all the street parking was removed.

It sounds like VDOT mandated that, but this really just means that the parking configuration being proposed is kind of just a wish or a dream

I think anyone who's lived in a townhouse neighborhood where there's a small one-car garage and a narrow driveway directly behind that garage knows that no one actually parks in the garage because it's not practical.

Usually in those neighborhoods, there's one car parked in the garage and another car jacking for space on the street somewhere.

We have had a few friends live in

densely packed neighborhoods like this.

And it can be very hard as an owner or even a guest to try to find street parking.

So I'm very concerned that we're really talking about practically one space per household.

Carolyn, is there anyone else?

Yes, Danny Bowen.

Danny, please state your name, address, if you're affiliated with a group, an organization.

Hello, I'm Daniel Bowen.

I live at 856 Stargazer Lane at Emerson Commons.

And one of the things I wanted to highlight that hadn't really been talked about was it was mentioned earlier that this development plan was brought through consideration with the Crozet Master Plan from the CCAC.

and it was muddied and it wasn't really clear whether the CCAC had a chance to weigh in on what's going on with this plan and a couple of their guiding principles that are stated in the master plan I have concerns with.

One of them is conservation, talking about preserving natural resources in the surrounding rural areas with the integrated network of parks and gathering spaces, trails and natural areas, which highlighted to me

In this plan, the trail that seems to be self-contained and not really planned out as to how they would connect to the other towns and the sidewalk, which was mentioned earlier, is also a glaring omission to how people that live in this new potential residence would be able to just walk to downtown Crozet.

In fact, that lack of a sidewalk is a problem for the folks here at Emerson Common as well, as that road is kind of dangerous and there's a lot of cars there.

alluding to the traffic issue, 800 more cars coming in and out at a bus station where children will be waiting in the morning to get on and off the bus in the afternoon.

It sounded like the way the trail was proposed suggests only the appearance of compliance with the guiding principles as if to kind of mislead the county planners.

The site may not physically be able to accommodate this trail and that's fine.

It would just be beneficial for the proposal to be honest and transparent about that site's limitation.

The other guiding principle is implementation, provide strategic and timely support for community partnerships, local economic development, policy changes, and capital investments.

Again, this highlights the fact that they bypass the CCAC, or at least it's unclear as to what they would weigh in on.

As I spoke to someone who attends those meetings, there's no clear indication that this was brought before them.

I also had

Some things planned to talk about the gas pipeline that was already addressed.

Traffic concerns everywhere from the 250 intersection up 240, even farther down through all the way down to 29.

If you look at the VDOT records, there's already indication of problems that from 2018, and it's now four years later.

And so those problems even haven't been fixed yet.

We're adding 800 more connecting to Charlottesville.

So I don't think that was clearly there.

So I talked really fast because I wanted to get my three minutes in.

Thank you.

You got through it quickly and efficiently.

Anyone else signed up to speak, Carolyn?

Okay.

All right.

Okay, thanks.

Carolyn, is there anyone trying to come through to speak?

If I may, thank you.

This is Martin and just wanted to address some of the more strong for a glaring commentary.

I do appreciate everyone who has spoken today.

We are all neighbors in the neighborhood

and I appreciate the different perspectives.

First, the gas line issue, including the concern about easements and potential disaster.

I don't believe it was more than six or seven years ago that Columbia Gas came in and completely replaced the entire gas line as it comes across the entire property.

It is not a 50 year old gas line.

It is a five or six year old gas line.

And I believe they also put it at a greater depth than it had been.

The idea that there has been any plan to place affordable units closer to the gas line than others is speculative and is not based on our plan at all, just to reassure folks.

I think 80-90% of our commentaries have been close neighbors across the creek at Emerson Commons and there were some common threads.

One such was inadequate on-street parking which we attempted to provide.

We had four resubmissions and were guided by

Planning and perhaps VDOT to remove those.

I would like Mr. Orwell to address the opportunity for parking at each unit, which I understood would accommodate two cars, one in the garage, one just outside of the garage in the driveway.

In addition to the appropriate number of guest parking units based on the number of housing units,

The idea that this would be a destination, Mr. Player was concerned that additional parking would happen to access the Greenway Trail is not in the plan.

This we're talking about a 10 to 20 year plan.

to have connectivity to downtown to the reservoir as additional requests come before the Planning Commission Board of Supervisors to extend this trail.

This would not be a trail likely used by anyone other than those walking the trail from contiguous properties.

If the commission would like

Any of the outstanding comments not addressed just for time limitations, I'd be happy to address those.

Yes.

So I'll pick up where he's leaving off and

A lot of these issues brought up are based on site plan issues and many of them get resolved at that stage.

If we can work with VDOT and I'm a proponent of more parking within the site, it's not the easiest thing to, at this early stage of a bubble plan zoning,

that talks about density and general home location, road layout, green space, non-disturbance of critical slope.

So we've made an effort to make as much headway with that and attention at very rough stage for master planning and zoning bubble.

Details of a site plan will take another year, year and a half to go through staff and planning and engineering and VDOT.

And many of these issues will be addressed at that time.

Okay, thank you.

So I think that we've heard from the applicant.

With that, I'd like to close the public portion of the hearing and bring it back to the Commission for review and discussion.

So with that, Commissioner Stith, who would like to speak in terms of what you've heard tonight and which direction you're leaning?

I know I see Jenny nodding, perhaps getting ready to say something.

I actually would like to hear from other people in whatever order people want to do that in.

But one thing I just wanted to add is the talk about the community meeting and the CCAC.

And I guess I just want to reassure people that there wasn't a missed step or I mean, I would say potentially there's a missed opportunity when we can't host a community meeting, a CAC, which that does sometimes happen.

I did have to go back and watch the community meeting because it was long enough ago for me that I had to go see it again, even though I attended.

But I guess I just wanted to reassure people that, you know, just to put that out there, that I think a lot of the issues we're hearing are things that are, you know, things that need to get worked out.

They're important things.

And it's following the steps and the stages of when those who get worked out.

And so a lot of things that we're hearing and that we often hear are site plan issues.

and then I think the other point that is important is a lot of times at the community meeting, which is an important step, it's so new that sometimes community members are frustrated because there is not enough information to answer detailed questions yet at that stage.

So the community meeting is valuable, but also it is oftentimes this first look and people are anxious and want to learn more and yet there's not these details that

emerge as the process takes place.

So that's important to remember too, that the community meeting in and of itself is often not as helpful to community members as they would like to be.

And that's not ever, in my experience, hasn't been intentional.

It's just sort of a major, I sort of put that out there.

So I will rather speak out about the

Okay, okay.

So whatever I want to, I really do want to hear from people about where they are on the special exception, because to do that,

That is certainly one of the issues here in front of us that I'm struggling with the most.

And mainly because it's asking us to allow for a function that I believe is misplaced within this development.

And so the 50 feet, the 200 feet are there for a reason.

And so given the function of that facility, which basically saying, let's create a buffer around this facility, but we're now taking this facility and making it the centerpiece for something that is requiring a 200 foot buffer.

So I think there's an incompatibility there.

And so I'm really struggling with reducing that, but the function doesn't go away.

It's just reducing the buffer to allow development closer in to something that really wants that buffer.

And it's truly incompatible with the center of a village, which we're calling this village, or a development.

So I'm really struggling with this so that I perhaps echo some of the Commissioner Moore's sentiments there.

I just don't

and it's why I asked the question and I believe the answer I received was they'd never considered any scenario where they potentially would redevelop the veterinary function someplace else, perhaps in the perimeter.

Thank you.

So I would offer, no matter what we do with that piece of property and with the setback, but one of the conditions we said that there should be no commercial boarding.

So I'm making very, there's a difference from kennels, but really the activity, the commercial activity is that there would be no commercial boarding would be allowed, which then gets to the whole thing of whether or not they have a separate entity, that they have a separate activity that's different from

from the care of domestic animals.

I too, so I'm less, I am certainly not in support of a 50 foot barrier.

I don't know if there's somewhere in between.

I happen to sort of live in, you know, we've been around and unaware of,

of lots of animal clinics that sit on the fringes or sit next to houses, particularly in the sort of development area where I go through or where I'm frequent with some frequency.

I am in complete agreement with my colleagues, but I actually think that it's a convenience that the veterinary clinic is being left there.

and not necessarily that is the ideal place.

But that's, you know, that's not for me to say, at this point, but I can say that because of that, I'm probably not a I want to put in the prohibition about commercial board as a condition on wherever that is in the code of development.

And to I'm, I'm not, I'm not realizing that if you if we don't give them the

the exception that you're cutting out probably two and a half blocks.

And that's an unfortunate thing, I think, because I think there's probably a way for the development to solve that in a way that works for everyone, works for them to preserve their blocks, but to move that function somewhere else on the property.

But other than that, that's that one piece for me,

It's huge.

Also, I should also add that I would like to see some conversation about connecting the sidewalk across the park view up to that one piece of property.

That's part of whether or not the county considers that or we ask the

the developer to the applicant to see if there's a way for them to facilitate that.

So noted.

And we won't lose that point.

But let's see on the connection.

We'll pick that back up in a moment.

But let's see if we can stick with the question of the 50-foot exception request.

I have some thoughts on it, but I want to hold mine to the end.

Thank you.

Just a couple of thoughts.

One is kind of as the new guy, I'm still focused on what our duties are as a Planning Commission.

So

I feel pretty confident that, you know, under the heading of promoting the orderly development of Albemarle County and its environment, that, um, this, you know, is addressing the issue of compatibility of uses.

And I think in my opinion, the compatibility of this use is in contradiction to a very densely developed residential area.

So that said, I am in agreement with my colleagues that there need to be some mitigating factors.

I probably am leaning more towards some sort of a compromise, but have a couple of questions that would be related to that.

One is there was a sound study that was done.

And so whether that was a certified sound study and whether it was, I know that was questioned by one of the comments in the, one of the public comments early on.

So I'd be curious what that was.

whether the developer has considered other mitigating factors or that we could consider other mitigating factors such as sound buffers.

I think that was mentioned in the application.

And then, you know, the other was, I guess, the flip, the balance is the question of developer disclosure and buyer awareness, right?

I mean, this is not going to be a secret that it is an existing use, that it is going to be a kennel.

I'm in agreement with prohibiting commercial boarding.

But, you know, I guess that's the balance, right, is you have people that are knowingly living here this use.

And does that then become a developer issue and an inability to sell the lots?

Or, you know, are we imposing an expanded buffer on that?

Just first of all, I appreciate some, you know, some of the aspects of it of trying to think about the transition of the higher density and the residential and some of the elements and, you know, looking to to provide some of those green spaces.

I find myself similarly

convicted or conflicted, excuse me, as has already been discussed and started the line with the questions around veterinarian clinic and reducing a setback even for sound, but even to the point has been very well addressed by Commissioner Carrazano's

comment about this being a village and the concept of a neighborhood model and having that is to bring people together in that kind of retail space and have that fill.

And for better or worse, what exists there is something that isn't isn't part.

I don't know that I'm struggling.

Is this a by definition, you know, kind of in spirit with that retail and that sense of what is the commercial

I appreciate the whole thing about setback and reducing the amount of distance, but we're kind of finding ourselves in the same place we

have been for so long about like transitioning to this middle density and providing these village type elements, both in different areas and adopting more of these neighborhood principles.

I'm really on the fence.

There would have to be something in addition to the commercial compromise or the commercial kindling compromise to strike a balance or understand what the options has been raised to

even within the property relocate this kennel to a different area that is more you know ingress and egress to the commercial road that this abuts and you know i'm not saying tear down a building for god's sake so i'm not looking to like tear down but there's options to repurpose a building for community centers or other things within the plan and that's the thing that you know i kind of found myself stuck a little bit with um

Well, in full disclosure, I'm still trying to reconcile because some of the designs we saw that Mr. McDermott put up, I was having a hard time reconciling it with the site plans that we were given and understanding where that parking was and where it wasn't and understanding for sure getting a really clear picture about what is even in its conceptual phases as being

addressed here.

So yeah, that's kind of where I'm at, which is not super helpful to Ms.

Okay, well, Ms.

Moore had her hand up and then Corey, and then I'll make a comment after that.

I just wanted to add that when I spoke before, I didn't have my AirPods in and I think it was really hard to hear me.

So I apologize for that.

I know that and I take them out to charge them.

So they don't die, it's a bad time, and I forgot to put them back in.

But I guess the other part I wanted to add to, this isn't helping because it's a part of why I'm conflicted about the special exception is that, and I think Luis said this and others too, but when I think of that use and that it just, this is an odd function, it also is part of

why I'm struggling with like that's where I want to see amenity is instead there's this piece and so it's not just the special exception it's sort of the design overall that I feel like that's causing other spaces that could be more central to be thrown out to the sides where

I would rather see them more central to the development.

So I don't know if that's helping add anything to the discussion, but that's part of why I think that function is strange as a center, and it's causing this need for the special exception considerations.

But also to me, it's the amenity space and not seeing that in this area that I would look to see that more so than that.

Thanks.

I'll just quickly plus one all that I've heard regarding the special exception.

I think I am opposed to that.

I can't see where that would make much sense, particularly with acoustics where, you know, it's one thing to do a study, but the rubber meets the road and the construction of it and how that really pans out.

And then I'll just kind of throw a side note in here.

I'm really struggling to visualize this piece, particularly when you read the Code of Development.

And that is the only block that is one to two stories and surrounded by three stories.

And it's clear that the vet is really what's driving this entire thing.

And to me, it's very difficult with no graphics, right?

When you think about architecturally or how the verticality of these spaces are to play out as one big project, nothing's there.

We get site plans that are detailed to the nth degree, even shows the slope of the sidewalk and how that's draining.

But there's nothing graphically about the verticality of the project.

And I find that very problematic.

And so that's almost like a side comment.

I know it doesn't really the applicant can do anything about that now, but maybe that's something we can look at as a commission in the future.

But how do we start to make that more a requirement?

Even at this phase, there should be some kind of concept to start to show what things start to look like and

the vertical expectation of those building things there.

Thank you.

So I know what, you know, I was just looking at the code of development, looking at the table one, which is on page one, and in some ways the vet's office is probably going to be one of the quieter activities that could possibly take place there.

because we have several options for schools.

We have several options.

We have an option for a group home.

We have an option for a farmer's market there.

And so I think what we're talking about here is the potential evening noise, because the vet's office is probably not going to have the kind of daytime hours noise.

And I know we can't do anything, but I just thought

Let me just see what else could go there and what could go on this, what other 2,000 square feet could be put there if the vet is there.

So in some ways, this is really a nighttime disturbance and not a daytime disturbance because the other activities will certainly have much more, could have potentially more activity and additional noises than the vet will have during the day.

I just wanted to sort of get us to think in those terms.

So I'll just say quickly I did find there

noise study compelling.

I also found it somewhat humorous when they talked about how the dogs were too quiet and they had to go in and get them excited so they would bark so they could actually measure something.

I grew up in a different environment than say rural subdivision.

I grew up in cities where vets were located in neighborhoods and you walked to the vet with your dog.

And to me, I found the idea of having a veterinarian that the people in the community could actually walk to, a nice amenity.

Now, if you were gonna design this from scratch, if this was really a blank slate without the vet building in the middle of it,

Yeah, I wouldn't put the vet in the middle of it either.

You would want to have some kind of visibility even from the road and not encouraging this traffic to come from outside and circulate inside the development to access this business.

So I guess I'm just saying, is this the best central or centerpiece to this development for commercial use?

I don't think so.

Is it something that the developer is proposing because they didn't want to go to the expense of tearing this down and building a new building?

Probably.

and so you know the amenity space on the edge the sort of idea of walking in the stream valley and experiencing that sort of quiet getaway from to nature you know that's that's actually not just a cop-out that's a nice amenity to be able to have that and it would be really nice to also have a little central park in the middle or a clubhouse or something that was was more enjoyable for everyone to use

most of the time, but it's also true that that could also generate its own set of noises.

So I also am torn.

I don't have any big conclusion to offer you all at this point because I feel like I'm not as concerned about the noise, especially if we add a clause that any kenneling of animals has to be related to them being patients at the veterinarian and not just commercial

kenneling for people going on vacation.

I think we could take care of that.

I'm not so concerned about the noise coming from them in the evening, because I would imagine they'll be closed in at night.

I'm not sure about the one comment we heard from a neighbor saying they heard noise in the evening.

I'm not really sure what time of night.

Was that 6pm?

Was that 11pm?

So I think we could address it.

But again, I kind of agree.

It strikes me as a

sort of an odd layout that's being driven by the fact that there's an existing building there.

And that building itself has not been related to us as being particularly historical or significant structure that needs to be maintained.

So the question before us, I think is, do we hold out for a better design, for a better, higher quality community layout than what's before us tonight?

Because

It's sort of an odd reason why we would want to be reducing these setbacks to allow for the blocks to go where they are because essentially the veterinarian building is in the wrong place.

So I'll just leave you with those thoughts.

Again, I'm not sure if they were helpful.

We still have the question of the sidewalk, but the sidewalk will not necessarily be that important if people are not in the mood to permit the special exception.

There won't be a development here, it seems to me.

So what is your pleasure?

This is Ms.

I guess you know one other comment I just want to throw out there and then I had I guess a thought or a question about how we move forward but one thing I wanted to say is I'm not bothered by the numbers that are here I'm a little concerned about block three you know I don't know if we want to I mean I feel like this could there are things that could happen with this that could make it

in my mind, more ready to go to the Board of Supervisors.

But that's not my job.

My job is to say, recommend yes or no to, you know, the rezoning itself within the special exception.

So I think that if we're going to look at like putting the like let's talk about special exception, we're going to put that to a vote.

I mean, kind of what I hear from people is that I don't think that would I don't think that there would be a recommendation for approval.

Now I think what I hear is maybe it's not 50 feet, maybe it's 100.

I don't know.

Or maybe there are some things we could say or recommend that we would be more comfortable with if you have that in the code of development where the kennel use is, we say no commercial boarding or we tie the kennel use to the vet use.

So I don't know if that's the path forward, if it goes as a denial, but we say, you know, here's some things that we thought could make it something that we would approve or if we're in a position tonight to say yes, but only if it does these things, because I don't know.

I think the applicant saying, you know, yes, go ahead, put some conditions on there.

It seemed to me that the applicant is saying that if they have to make the buffer

that could be worked out prior to the board or it could be worked out and then we see it again later.

But that's not my decision.

So I'm struggling with now, having heard everyone's input, you know, moving this forward is that we recommend denial of the special exceptions and that the conversation has been heard that we believe there are things that could be looked at that could miss that work.

This is always the problem.

We do not have, we're not looking at pro forma for this development.

We have no way of knowing what their margin is.

They said that if they can't get this exception, that it's dead in the water, they can't build it.

Again, we have no way to evaluate that.

And because it is true that they have met our code in what they have provided us this evening, but

A wise person might go farther and spend a little more on the design to lay out some of the structures to give us more to go on in order to be able to evaluate these claims as to whether or not they would or would not be able to build this.

Because I think that the commission is not against seeing housing in this area and it does meet the goals of the master plan to have infill.

So Luis, you had your hand up just a moment ago.

Well actually it was a lot of the lies of some of the things you just said.

It's hard for us to make these determinations and I think we said well 100 or 150.

it would be somewhat arbitrary because we don't really know.

So I do think, and I made a statement earlier about a missed opportunity.

And what I, you know, if I can elaborate on that is just what you're saying, if we would see more, we would then be able to determine is this a development that is worse?

Because there are a lot of positives here.

So I do want to say that I think there is a lot of, you know, both from the affordable housing standpoint,

to some of the green amenities that are being provided.

And I agree with Commissioner Firehock.

I don't think it's, I mean, yes, they can build on some of those areas, but to providing some amenities in those areas is, I think, a positive.

So the missed opportunities is in really thinking broader what this could be, I don't think that that was really done here.

and of course if it was by right or if it was a different type of use, I wouldn't have an issue.

But it is the nighttime functions and potential noise that Julian brought up.

You know, schools and a farmer's market aren't, you know, besides being focused during the daytime, there are actually also amenities that that community will use.

You know, a vet's office, yes, they would potentially use that, but

How many of them, and they can have their own beds that they really like that are someplace else.

So I'm not convinced that that use is something that is conducive for that location.

Okay, so I'm not, I'll let Fred speak, of course, but I'm not hearing a lot of support for this exception at this point.

So one option that is before us is, of course, to see if the applicant is interested in deferral, because it doesn't sound like, it's not a question that nothing could happen at this site, but perhaps not in the current configuration.

Thanks, just one quick question of clarification.

Julian, thanks for pointing our attention to the notes on table A from the Code of Development.

I just have one question in there.

Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but in there it does mention under B, for soundproof confinements, no structure shall be located closer than 200 feet to any agricultural or residential lot line.

That's what we're talking about being waived, correct?

Just that one and the remaining

three are still in place within that section?

Okay, thank you.

I just want to make sure I was clear on that.

So just one side comment on that.

Those other three seem to be, to me, a substantial amount of mitigating factors.

Yeah, so, so we're talking about, you know, is it 100 feet?

Is it 150 feet?

Are there other mitigating factors that could contribute to helping with the sound attenuation and the disturbance?

And this is kind of aside from the use itself, but to me, A, C and D being in place,

Does that make sense?

Yes.

I can't pull that up either, but I don't know if one of those is part of it, but I mean, I think it's important to remember

there are other, like the noise ordinance is another protective measure.

And I'm not saying that convinces me enough about the 50 foot.

Yes, as it was pointed out at the beginning of this whole presentation that the 200 feet, that was the right number, was based on prior when you did not have a noise ordinance in place.

So we basically enforce it with distance.

That's how we dealt with it.

Now we have a noise ordinance in place.

We also had testimonial from the vet who constructed the building that it was constructed with advanced soundproofing at the time.

And so, as a result, that particular structure is designed precisely to attenuate noise in closer quarters.

And, you know,

Our job is to create, not to create, but to help foster developments of lasting quality that meet our values as a community for communal space, for gathering, et cetera.

This use in the middle of the development is really intended for a particular business, not necessarily as a community space.

Community space is on the peripheral.

Obviously, people who would buy there would be well aware of that.

And not everyone wants to live on the commons either.

Some people would rather escape into the trail by themselves.

I am not as troubled, I guess, as the rest of you seem to be about the vet in the center.

I wouldn't design this development this way from the get-go, and I would probably move the vet to the outer edge.

This is what is before us and you know we don't have the ability to redesign it on the fly.

It's not our purview.

I would just simply say that you know let us not forget that there may be dogs and dogs and all and like let's say corner of the houses that are that year.

So I want to say that

Even if this vet was to go away, there still is probably going to be dogs barking.

And those dogs barking are probably not going to have, those homes are not going to be influenced by people saying your dog is barking.

You know, that there's going to be little oversight that's going to occur that will occur, and I think in a much more focused manner, by having a business that has to

comply with the various zoning ordinances that will cover this activity.

I guess what I'm doing instead of talking myself into a place that you know I'm actually probably better with it now because this is one instance that we're talking about of a number of commercial activity that could take place there and frankly I was much more disappointed that there's only room for

perhaps one other commercial activity in there, if in fact the 3,000 is basically, but then again, that's not my problem.

That's the decision of the applicant.

So I just wanna, what I'm simply sharing with us is that this, if this goes away and we leave it at 200, that's not gonna solve the noise of dogs bark.

That's just going to take it from this location, but it's not gonna take it away.

Daniel had his hand up, and I thought that was wise counsel deed.

Mr. Royal, we're not recognizing you at this juncture.

Mr. Royal, yeah, go ahead.

Just, you know, one question there, as we appreciate Mr. Missel bringing up those comments.

There's a lot of mitigating factors, but if I understood the ordinance and the code of development, it said that I think it listed as 55 DBA was not to exceed.

And in the self-reported or, you know, noise study, they listed five different periods where it exceeded 55 within those areas.

So trying to square those two things, it's on page three of the of the sound level measurement results.

I mean, they did a lot of measurements, but if I'm interpreting this correctly, there was five different periods, one on the eastern side and one on the northern side, if I'm understanding that right.

exceeded the 55 decibels and if that's our noise awareness that it's not supposed to exceed 55 decibels, I just want to make sure we, it's not just that it's like do we create unintended consequences of you know adjusting this and and approving something that is reporting that it's already and has a violate would I guess from my and then just correct me if I'm wrong I may not be interpreting it correctly through all these numbers and is is that would that be considered a noise violation

Yes, so that measurement is taken at property.

That's the receiving zone.

So like with any other noise, the receiving zone in a rural area, residential areas is 60 decibels during the day, 55 decibels at night.

It's a little bit tighter on the kennel with the supplemental regs or with that 55 at the property line.

I don't remember from the study and I can take a quick look at it and where if they actually took the reading at 55 feet, Kevin, I don't know if you recall that, but again, it's at the property line.

So if they were right outside the building at say 10 or 12 feet or 20 feet and they're reading 55 decibels, then it wouldn't be

I wouldn't know the answer to that and I would argue that we'd have to do a study at the line or it would likely, as you know, kind of the farther away you go, the noise dissipates.

Not always, but most of the time.

So we would want to make sure that the reading was correct, but just to also be clear that in rural and residential areas,

Any noise is not supposed to exceed, there's some exemptions, right?

But a typical noise that is regulated is 55 at night and 60 decibels during the day.

So the average conversation is about 65 dBs when we're kind of talking to each other.

I hope that helps.

Yeah, absolutely.

And at least in the report, I think, if I interpret this correctly, it says that the measurement locations were possibly 40 feet from the facade.

And if they were found to be in violation, which, you know, does require Collin County to come out and use their sound meter, they would then have to take some mitigation actions, which would include

additional soundproofing or not letting Sparky board overnight or whatever mitigation measures they took.

So we have that ability in place to mitigate that.

It's not the type.

It's parking dogs.

They can be moved.

They can be not boarded overnight.

So that's an easily solvable problem.

We're not putting a train turnaround station there.

We're not putting something that there's no options.

Mr. Rowell has repeatedly been wanting to raise his hand and I know that we usually don't go back to the applicant at this time, but given the nature of our conversation, I'd like to make an exception and ask him if he had a comment he needed to share with us.

Two things, general noise level on 240 and being in proximity of the commercial area.

There was general background noise that is also picked up in that sound test beyond dogs in there and it is not a kennel, you know, a boarding kennel.

It is simply for healing dogs on a per night basis.

and I live in Ivy Farms.

I got six and a half acres.

I'm hundreds of feet.

I can step out my back and hear dogs barking across the lake over the valley.

I can hear a Charlottesville band playing on Friday night.

And yes, there are general noises that occur in neighborhoods and hearing dogs barking in a neighborhood or in an area where a lot of people live with dogs.

It's very easy to hear dogs barking and it may not be from the kennel.

I just wanted to

Julian made a good point there, those dog barks come from anywhere.

So I'd be happy to mitigate anything if there's direct sound related to the dog.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, I guess, you know, for me, as far as the special exception, you know, certainly if someone else wants to make a recommendation for approval of that, with some of the things we've talked about, then, you know, by all means, but I'm not in a position to make where I feel like I could recommend approval for the special exception.

And it sort of leaves me with

the rezoning in general, because I think a lot of our discussion has been more about the issue of the location of the vet right here in the center, which has caused the need for that special exception.

So, you know, there's I guess we haven't had a lot of conversation just in general about the rezoning, which I tend to look at a lot more favorably.

But I understand without the special exception, it doesn't mean much for them.

It's difficult to work with.

Okay, so we've got, you're not disposed to grant the exception for the distance to the vet.

You think that we might be able to do some more creative arrangements with parking, but as the applicant said, they haven't gotten down to that finer grain detail.

I will say that when I was with the Charlottesville Planning Commission, we did work out such an arrangement with a business that, you know, work was open from 830 to five and

a condo where people went work to work and then came home in the evenings and they shared the parking and it worked quite well.

So those things can be worked out between uses.

They would have to get permission for that, obviously they have to work out the arrangement and they get permission then put that into their application when it goes to the board.

But in terms of, so let's just for a moment just table that

the question of the exception for the distance of the vet because I will say it's possible that it is not correct that they can't build this at all without that, you know, if they had to leave that vet sitting in the middle there with the distance that there's no way to build anything there.

So does anyone have any opinions they want to share about whether the use, the density change is acceptable?

But yeah, so I think I mentioned earlier, there was a lot of positives.

And I do think that density is not inappropriate.

Again, it's hard to really begin to understand the massing of that, as was mentioned earlier by Commissioner Clayborne.

And so I do have some concerns about it in general, but I do think that density is

is appropriate.

I just wanted to add this to the record.

I know that there's been some improvements or planned improvements and funded improvements, that last part being the most important.

in the intersection, and that is huge because that intersection, I know it well, there's been a lot of accidents only increasing with more population.

However, the two main roads that come into Crozet, the 240 and Crozet Avenue, are not really being improved.

And in terms of pedestrians, in terms of bicycles, we continue to dump more and more traffic into those.

Kevin, I think you can appreciate it.

TIAs are helpful, but they're limited by this fact that if it's not a thousand, you're not doing one.

Well, you could have three, four different developments, all 800, and there you have 3,200 vehicles, but you didn't do a TIA, right?

And so that's the, you know,

While I do agree with the density and that it's appropriate, I think we need to keep those broader issues in mind and how do we deal with these two main

roads that are feeding into Crozet, which we're really not thinking about them holistically at this point.

I think we got little bits and pieces.

I don't know how much Park Ridge is going to actually reduce the traffic on this area, because most of it is traffic coming out on 240.

So I did want to mention that because it is a concern of mine.

And we heard that from the community as well.

But otherwise, I think the mitigation factors that the county has already, and Mr. McDermott has already proposed are appropriate.

I agree with all of them.

I think there was four or five that were listed there.

Sorry, what a bad chair.

I think we've heard everyone's perspective on whether or not the setback is appropriate, whether the sound can be effectively attenuated, whether it can be dealt with with our current ordinances.

It seems like I'm not hearing any big objections to the actual density itself.

There's a lot of clamoring for massing, for design detail.

That type of thing, I would caution all developers to try to bring that kind of detail to the Planning Commission, though it's not currently required because it makes it awfully difficult for us to favorably understand what you're trying to propose.

And that may be addressed in future zoning changes to our zoning code, where we may start requiring more because we're consistently in this quandary.

But

I guess my question for everyone is whether people feel like they, Jenny says she can't support the exception.

Is anyone prepared to make a motion to approve the rezoning and not the special exception?

I guess I assume they were separate motions.

I would be prepared to make a motion for approval of the rezoning.

I think there's

You know, some things and Kevin touched on some of those that I assume would be, you know, recommendations to be picked up.

You know, I agree with Luis.

You know, to me, it feels like it's not quite ready to go to the board, but that's, again, not my job.

I, you know, agree with what others have said that I feel like if I could see more

It would probably help me be even more supportive of some things that I know we don't necessarily require seeing at this point, but that they are really helpful to see.

And I think if I had that with me, as I went through the packet and stuff, I might have been able to maybe not grapple so much with the special exception for noise.

But I am pretty stuck on that piece.

But as far as the rezoning itself, I think

that Kevin picked up on some things that I think would be good to have the applicant work on.

And so I can move forward with that piece.

Okay, I did see our attorney nodding his head to the notion that these are two separate.

Yes, Madam Chair, those are separate conditions, or excuse me, separate votes.

But to the extent that they're the sentiment that the

rezoning be approved but that the special exception not be approved, it might be worthwhile to consider a motion to approve the rezoning with the conditions stated in the staff report and a condition that the setback from the veterinarian's office be 200 feet, if that's the consensus of the planning commission, to make sure that there's not a contradiction between the code of development on a recommended zoning map amendment

Okay, well, that was a lot to unpack, but I'm not sure.

So maybe we'll just do a quick straw poll.

I'm not really totally sure where we are on the special exception because beyond Ms.

Moore saying that she can't support that special exception for the setback.

So perhaps we could go around and just hear from each of you on whether you are or not in support of the special exception.

So I'll just go around, Robin.

Yeah, thanks.

I am not in support of the special exception.

Okay, so just continue to facilitate something that doesn't make sense.

Okay, and I believe Ms.

Moore, you've already expressed that exact same sentiment.

So I've got you.

Did I miss someone down there?

Corey.

Okay, Mr. Bivins, Julian.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

I support it.

You would support the special exception.

All right, and I would as well.

So that'd be one, two, three, four in support, and three not in support.

So it would be possible.

I mean, I prefer when we reach consensus, but I don't, I mean, I think we've wrestled this strange problem as much as we can, again, without actually knowing the truth as to whether the granting of the special exception or not does or does not do in this development to be viable.

Yeah, sorry, Madam Chair.

I had you as a yes in support of it.

Luis, no.

Daniel, no.

Jenny, no.

Yes, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, Jenny.

I left you as a box.

I forgot to doing doodles on the side.

All right, so you're correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I wish I could do better first grade math, but

That's why we have this excellent commissioners backing me up.

So all right, so we don't have enough support for this special exception request to get over the hurdle it needs to get over to be granted.

So that leaves us with only if we would like recommending the rezoning and not granting the special exception request.

So with that, is someone prepared to make a motion?

And it perhaps would help if staff wanted to put the conditions that were recommended back up.

I can make a motion.

I mean, I think that, you know, I would want to say that with the conditions that are recommended in staff's report.

And then to Andy's point,

You know, I didn't catch all that and I'm a little sleepy, but I don't know that what I want to say is like to clarify that the special exception is different than the approval for the rezoning is absolutely important.

But I don't know that I would want to say something like that because we want it to be the 200 feet, because I don't think that's what we're saying.

So I don't know what the right way to make that clear in my motion is without saying things that I don't think are part of our discussion.

because then I think my motion could fail.

And I guess I just hope that I don't know if Andy has suggestions on language, but that I think I thought to be moving to the board, it would be clear that.

You know, while we weren't recommending the.

And we need to make that motion and see how it even goes to do the special exception.

So if the general sense of the condition is to approve of the rezoning, but with certain conditions or adaptations of the code of development, I'd suggest the second paragraph here, but then adding to the second paragraph, and with the additional conditions that the code of development be amended,

I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ZMA 2020-0005 Old Dominion Village for the reasons stated in the staff report, provided that the recommended revisions identified in the staff report are made to the application prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing,

I didn't, I don't really want to get into like 75 feet or a hundred feet.

Sure.

I think we have to have a second before we have any friendly amendments.

I'm just for what it's worth.

I'm sure you're friendly.

Okay.

Gotcha.

Is there a second?

Julian's piece signed second up, I believe.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so now we can go to discussion and friendly amendments.

I was wondering about the term commercial boarding, because I thought that was a little hard to construes, you know, the veterinarian is a commercial enterprise.

So perhaps we could word it a little bit more like,

That's fine.

That's fine.

You know, I would suggest that's fine.

But I also should say suggest that if we if we do what the code of development has right now, we're saying that that needs to be 200 feet away from the borders.

It's not granted a special exception.

But that's separate.

The special exception is separate.

But right now the code of development says that the vet has to be 200 feet away from anything.

I think that the code of development is simply reciting what the county code already provides.

That's right.

And so we're not, we're just, we're adopting by, if we, if we adopt the, the ZMA, we're including those,

that ordinance is embedded in the code of development.

And so we will be sending, if we adopt this, we'll be sending forward that language and that ordinance.

And then if we don't adopt the other one, then it's between them and staff to have to figure that out, whatever they want to present it to the board of supervisors.

So it's net, we're good.

All I'm simply trying to say is I think we're in a good place.

Any other discussion about this proposal?

Madam Chair, if I could clarify, so Madam Chair had made some suggested language instead of commercial boarding.

I don't know that that was formally adopted as part of Miss Moore's motion.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you very much for the procedural correction.

So yes, that was accepted by both the motioner and the commotioner.

So that is the friendly amendment.

Okay, Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

Ms.

Aye Mr. Bivins Mr. Missel Aye Ms.

That concludes.

The motion carries unanimously.

And now to the special exception.

I believe we still need to have an up or down vote on that, correct?

Yes.

Is it possible staff could put that up on the screen?

I'm sorry, maybe I'll be a fancy commissioner one day with multiple screens, but right now I have a tiny laptop.

All right.

So this is the question about whether or not we were going to grant the special exception request to change the buffer from 200 to 50 feet between the veterinary kennel and the residential lot line.

I'll make a motion.

I move to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend denial for the special exception to 18.5.1.11b to reduce

Okay, seconded.

Is that a discussion?

Is there any further discussion?

I know we've discussed this quite a lot.

Is there any further discussion?

I don't have any more discussion because we have talked about it quite a bit, but I guess I hope that as it moves forward that some of the suggestions that people had, I really feel like there's some things there that could make a big difference.

I'm just not there tonight, but I hope those all get pulled forward for consideration because I think there's some good suggestions that could make something

Yes, I don't think we heard people being against a veterinary clinic in this development, the layout was problematic and seemed more a matter of convenience than good design.

So with that, any further discussion?

All right, I don't see anyone raising their hands.