Planning Commission Meeting   3/15/2022

Everyone, I'd like to call this March 15th meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission to order.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Missel?

I don't think he was going to be here.

Here?

He's here?

OK.

Thanks.

Ms.

Firehock?

Here.

Mr. Bailey.

I just knew, so I'm going to give him a second.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

All right, we have quorum.

Everyone's here.

Do we have any matters not listed on the agenda from the public?

Any members of the public here to speak on a matter not on our agenda?

Okay, move on to the next item.

The next item is our consent agenda of the February 15 minutes.

Somebody like to move the consent agenda forward?

I do.

Oh, OK.

It wasn't on my chair agenda.

Oh, sorry.

Yes.

I'll second.

Okay, Mr. Missel, second.

Any discussion?

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Yes.

Mr. Bates.

Aye.

And Mr. Carrazona.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

That is adopted.

We move the minutes forward for acceptance.

Now move on to the next item, our public hearing on Glenbrick ZMA-2021-0001-15.

Yes, sorry.

I'm just pulling things up.

That's okay.

Take your time.

Yes, thank you.

Good evening commissioners, Chair Firehock.

Thank you for hearing this item tonight.

My name is Mariah Gleason.

I'm a Senior Planner in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of Albemarle County.

Tonight I'm going to be presenting Zoning Method Amendment CMA 2001-000-15, Glenbrook, for your consideration.

The subject property for this application is tax map parcel 56A2-1-62, highlighted here in yellow.

The parcel is undeveloped, although some clearing activities have occurred with a previously approved plan.

This parcel represents the last phase of the Glenbrook neighborhood development.

Other phases have been completed or are currently in progress.

The subject property is zoned residential.

R6 residential is indicated by the orange color.

As you can see, properties to the west and south are similarly zoned R6, which allows for the development of six residential units per acre.

Pursels to the north and east of the subject property are zoned R2 residential, shown here in green.

Consistent with the zoning districts, the surrounding properties are largely comprised of residential houses with the exception of Union Mission Baptist Church, abutting the subject property to the east in Star Hill Brewery located across the railroad further north and east of the property.

The applicant for the zoning map amendment is not requesting any changes to the existing zoning district.

Generally, this application can be thought of as a request to modify a previously approved rezoning.

In 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning application plan and proffers to rezone the areas shown in yellow to R6 Presidential.

I'll continue to refer to this yellow area as the rezoning area.

All other areas of the Glenbrook neighborhood development fall into what I may refer to as the bi-right area.

So the 2017 zoning up amendment did a couple of things as it relates to this proposal.

It approved the rezoning of 37.93 acres from various zoning districts, including R1, R2 in light industry to R6 residential, which is likely the reason for the discontinuous nature of the rezoning area.

Second, it prescribed a maximum density of 180 residential units.

It also identified a percentage-based minimum mixture of

building types wherein a minimum of 50% of the post lots would be single-family detached houses and a minimum of 10% of the units would be single-family attached or townhouse units.

Lastly, it's stipulated that 15% of the total number of residential units would be designated as affordable or the applicant would pay cash in lieu of constructing affordable housing units.

The specific commitment to a percentage-based mixture of building types was voluntarily offered by the applicant as a way to demonstrate alignment with the neighborhood model principles, which staff consider when evaluating zoning map amendment applications.

In the neighborhood model principles, there's a principle regarding the provision of, quote, a mixture of housing types and affordability.

The original reasoning successfully demonstrated alignment with this principle.

However, the percentage based mixture was not a topic of concern or importance.

The proposal tonight is a request by the applicant to relieve the subject property, again being that 1.89 acre portion of the original 37.93 acre rezoning area.

The subject property being highlighted in that black box

from the percentage-based mixture of building types prescribed by the previous rezoning.

To do so, the applicant is requesting to add following language to the proffered application plan, which is shown in bold underlined text being the this building type requirement does not apply to TMP 5682-1-62.

If approved, the development of the subject property would still need to abide by the housing types and standards of the R6 zoning district.

As a reminder, all housing types are permitted in the R6 zoning district with the exception of mobile homes and with the caveat that no structure can exceed 35 feet in height.

Also, the applicant has indicated that one of the reasons for this request is to allow them to construct and deliver affordable housing units into the local housing stock.

as the applicant states in their narrative by building affordable units within the Glenbrook development versus paying into housing to find more options are available to residents sooner.

Overall, the proposal is not changing the current zoning district or the maximum density.

In addition, this change would have no effect on the previously developed phases and areas of the Glenbrook rezoning area.

The applicant is essentially requesting to build more attached units in this area than would otherwise be permitted by the original note.

That said, it might be helpful to note that by the way the original note was written, the previous rezoning permitted up to 40% of the dwelling units to be of any type allowed by right within the R6 zoning district.

So in essence, this area has already been deemed appropriate for all housing types allowed under the R6 zoning district regulations.

Lastly, staff compare the application against the recommendations of the long-term future vision for the area, which is cited by the comprehensive plan, specifically the Crozet master plan.

The land use designation for the property is middle density residential, which recommends residential densities of 6 to 12 units per acre, as well as small scale housing types such as small and medium scale multiplexes, accessory dwelling units, and others.

Staff found the request to be in alignment with this land use designation and consistent with the neighborhood model principles.

As such staff found the following factors favorable to the request.

No unfavorable factors were identified with the proposal.

And these favorable factors were included in the staff report.

That concludes staff's presentation.

The commission has staff report.

Well, thank you very much.

Ms.

No?

OK.

He's doing this like sort of naughty shake.

All right.

So here's my question.

So in what was presented to us on attachment four, sort of conditions as of 21822,

Okay, that's where I think there's the squiggly lines around the building types.

Where we see that the language says that, what does it say?

It's so hard to see.

This building type requirement does not apply to that 1.89 acre section over there.

So is there anywhere on this attachment

It's a fair question.

The housing types, and I'll try to go in order, the housing types that would be allowed here would be any that are allowed within the R6 zoning districts, which is basically all housing types except for mobile housing.

So it's your single family detached, single family unattached, and then multi-family units, but not a skyscraper build because it would be limited to 35 feet.

With the percentage mixture, we don't have a typical percentage mixture that we base all of our six developments on.

That percentage mixture was just a commitment in the previous rezoning.

If the developer wanted to build the remaining units that get them to that maximum of 180 units that were allowed in the original rezoning, it would be about 41 units.

Also, if they wanted to deliver the number of units that were committed to in the original rezoning, it would be about 27 units if they built maximum density.

Okay, so you made it easier to understand coming from you,

And that's so so what if I'm if I'm understand, I was waiting, I was thinking that that's what you were going to tell us.

So right now, you're asking the applicants asking the commission to release them from the 40 minimal, 10 minimal, and to say you can now do basically on this one point

Kind of.

They would still be, they would still be subject to the R6 zoning district.

So there are some standards within that.

Okay, so that's the kind of, just for my colleagues, that's what I would like to expect to hear from the applicant, but I would expect to see it in writing.

as opposed to having our talent and expert staff tell us that and having to sort of parse through that.

To me, that's what I expected to see in writing, because right now all I see us doing is relieving a burden off of a piece of property without actually understanding what the county is going to receive in return for relieving that burden.

You don't have to answer, but that's the concern that I have right now.

The others have questions.

I wanted to follow on that, just I'm not as sharp as Julian this evening.

Could you just explain a little bit more about the affordable housing then?

They still have to provide the same amount of affordable housing they would have in the first place?

but they're saying that if they get the release of this mix of housing types that they are going to build it onsite instead of in cash in lieu of.

Kind of, again, the way that the proper was originally written in 2016 and adopted in 2017

It's not like the affordable housing proffer language that we have today.

So the proffer then stipulate and is current.

The proffer states that 15% of the total number of dwelling units shall be designated affordable.

That's for sale or for rent.

So whatever the total unit count ends up being,

But they are still restricted to a maximum of 180 units.

The percentage would essentially go down or the number of units would go down with the lesser number of built properties.

So at most, it would be 27 units would be designated affordable if they

Okay.

I think I'm relatively clear enough for now.

Anyone else have a question?

Okay.

All right.

So with that, thank you very much.

And we'll move on to the presentation by the applicant.

Ms.

I will be.

Good evening.

Good evening, everyone.

It's nice to see you again, Planning Commission and Chair Firehock.

I feel like we were just here doing this the other day.

But yes, it is nice to see everyone.

Ashley Davies with Riverbend Development.

I also have Scott Collins on here from our team that did the engineering of the entire site.

And I think I'll just start by saying

Again, I'm sorry that these requests come across as confusing.

I think it's because everything kind of goes through the sausage factory.

But really what is behind this entire request is the ability to build

affordable units on site.

And we have a unit type that allows us to actually create the affordability on site to build it.

And we wanted to open up the option to do so.

And what we found was, as we were looking at the development plan, we were really just like two units off from that overall percentage that's

said, you know, there's a certain number of single family units that you have to do.

And we weren't, we're not changing the overall unit count at all, but it really lets us do a couple more of the attached style or condominium style units to get the affordability in there.

So it's a little bit complicated because

Most of the actual rezoned area, and I am going to just do a share screen so we can pull up that concept plan.

Let me get to that one.

So this gives you the build out, but let me so you can see Mariah actually shared this with you all, but

Of the rezoned area, most of that has been platted and built out with a healthy variety of unit styles.

And we're in the midst of planning and preparing for this phase three area, which is all the buy right portion.

We have sold off phase five to Stanley Martin.

That's currently under construction at the moment.

What remains of the original rezoning is this 1.89 acre area and it really boils down to this concept plan where you can kind of see overall what's happening in the neighborhood and there are, you know, some single family homes, there are townhomes, there are villa units, there are

Two over one units.

It really does have the full variety of spaces and civic areas.

But what we're talking about is this area up here in red.

And that's where most of the affordable units

in this development will go.

And it's a great spot.

It's going to be within easy walking distance to downtown Crozet and the park and all that.

But we were just maybe two units off from meeting those percentages.

So we thought initially we're like, well, surely we can just do a little variation with staff.

This is such a minor, minor, minor thing.

But because it's an R6 zoning, there's

not any possibility without coming back to you and going through the entire rezoning.

But what we also couldn't do was mess with any of this area in gray because that's already been developed and sold off and that kind of is what it is with the percentages.

So I guess what you'll see within this area is that it's 100% attached units

up there and we had initially had a note that was changing it just from the minimum of 50% single family home to 40% so you would still have the percentages but I think that because of the rest of the area already being developed that was just gonna you can't mess with what's already happened so that's a little bit of the conundrum but

We do still have the entire, you know, the proper statement that is in full effect for the affordability that we want to provide.

But we really just needed a couple of inches of flexibility to be able to build out the site this way and put in the affordable units, which will be a variety of one and two bedroom units on site.

And there's 27 of them.

Total 180 unit count.

So that is the basic idea.

I'm sorry if there was any confusion around that and happy to discuss any of the elements or if there's anything you want to get into.

But as Mariah said, yeah, the way the R6 zoning works, you do get to do any of the unit types that are shown there.

but it's a little bit different in that it's not a zoning where we would put in like the site plan with the zoning we were just at the time we were zoning into R6 and we had certain proppers that you know most of them we've satisfied by now that we're getting

Closer to this tail end and we want to be able to make sure that we can build all the affordable units versus paying into the fund.

Okay, I think that was helpful.

I think commissioners questions for the applicant.

Can you remind us, so what was the original plan for this section?

So the original, when we zoned the property, we didn't have a full development plan at that time.

We just had general idea of, you know, this is how we think the street network's going to

layout.

And this is kind of a general idea of how many units we think the property would support with the R6 zoning.

So we hadn't fully engineered the site at that time.

And that's why we left the proffers open to give us the for sale option, the for rent option or paying into the fund.

You know, I think there's

and a lot of properties that either just pay into the fund or put a rental up for a certain amount of time and then it turns market rate.

And we are really, we're really committed to affordable housing.

I work on affordable housing almost every day and we want to see built

Okay, thank you.

That helps.

Great.

Mr. Bivins?

Let me do this.

So just two points of interest.

Well, I have two points of interest and I have such a question.

So on the

On the schematic dated this February, you show two swim facilities either.

They have trails that go around the one that's over there in phase three.

That one has a trail around it that ties in over the phase five, as shown on the plan.

So yeah, that is more of an amenity facility and then the one in the upper right corner that has access to it.

No, it has some foot trails around it, but no

No trailway itself at this time.

I just remember my colleague, the chair, is really big on being able to either make those amenities true amenities or to do things with them so that they just don't become a mosquito breeding grounds, which is not what we would want to happen in that area.

So my next series of questions.

So if I'm looking at what Ashley has up on the screen right now.

So there's the area in the red rectangle that I understand is going to have, what did you say, 27 affordable units are proposed to go there.

Is that correct, Ashley?

That is correct.

And so if we go down to 9 o'clock off our wall,

Thank you.

Oh, goodness.

So this is phase three.

Okay, so these are going to be for sale.

So that's the area where there's the affordable housing.

So this isn't necessarily for you, but I just need to say this.

So this is the thing that really sort of makes me go crazy, is that we co-locate all the affordable units all in one area.

Okay, now

I'm not a fan of that.

And I usually am very annoyed by that.

And in this particular occasion, I'm kind of really more annoyed about it because it's just next to a historically black church, which is to the right of phase four.

So this whole idea that we couldn't spread these units around the community and sort of integrate them in their system for sale, that's just something that I just need to sort of say to our people that when we look at

The comp plan is we can sort of encourage developers, encourage applicants not to co-locate all the affordable housing in one place, but to sort of season the entire development with units that may in fact meet a different income strategy within the community.

So I need to say that this is the one thing, since this is what I was fearful of, that was going to make me kind of go, yeah, I don't know necessarily if I can support this or not.

why I agree that you should have as much freedom as you need to have in your project.

I just think what feels to me that this is happening at the 11th hour trying to figure out a way to get 27 units into the smallest piece of property that you have and what was a very large unit.

Okay.

You said she did not need to respond to that, either of them.

I understand this isn't, she's not the ultimate decision.

Well, I guess the only thing I would say is that

They are in these two different areas.

It's not through throughout every single part of the site, but it is, you know, specific to these unit types that are in phase three and phase four of the development.

Okay, other questions for the applicant by any of the commissioners or comments?

Just one kind of related question to the conversation that's just been going on.

I don't see the key, but if I understood the key correctly, is it the hatched blocks, the hatched units that are affordable?

So they're intertwined with also market rate homes?

That's correct.

So for example, there are we looking at three affordable and three market rate in the same block?

We are.

Correct.

Okay.

Because I support the mixed income approach as well, wholeheartedly.

Right, it's just not all throughout the entire development.

It's in these two areas.

Any other comments or questions for the applicant?

Okay, I don't see any other hands moving or secret signals.

So with that, we will go to the public hearing.

Carolyn, do we have anyone signed up from the public to speak on this matter?

No, ma'am, we sure don't.

Okay, that'll bang my mouse.

Public hearing is closed.

All right, it will go back to discussion with the commission.

So some of you didn't have any questions for the applicant.

I don't know if you want to share your perspectives on what you've heard so far.

The applicant does have theoretically another chance to respond following the public hearing.

We didn't hear any comments from the public.

We appreciate your time tonight and hope you'll support our request.

Okay, thanks.

All right.

So commissioners, what are your perspectives on this?

We've heard from a few of you, but not all of you.

And you're obviously not required to comment.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms.

Davies, for your presentation.

I tend to agree with Commissioner Bivins, but at the same time, you know, I heard the comment, we live and we learn.

So it would be my preference to see it spread throughout, but also realize that the applicant calls to say, just take the cash and I'm going to have to mess with this at all.

And so I'd much rather see the units in place for this proposal.

Sorry, I'm being slow with my mouse, unmute myself.

Any other commissioners want to make any statements on or comments on this?

Commissioner Moore, we haven't heard from you this evening.

I am.

Yes, I think it's better now.

But I think Corey framed up how I was feeling.

I agree with Vivian.

OK.

Anyone else?

Yes, Mr. Carrazana.

There we go.

Similar to what's been said, so I don't want to repeat all that.

I did feel when I first looked at this, and Commissioner Bivins said a lot of what I was feeling, which was there seemed to be a lot that wasn't there in this proposal.

So with the explanations, and it took both explanations certainly from staff, and then it answered some of my questions, which made me feel more comfortable in general.

Again, I think it's the levels of some of these proposals that we're getting are leaving a lot to our imagination early on.

It just would be helpful if we get more information, which you've heard me say before, I will go into that soapbox again.

But yeah, in general, I will be in support.

I would also agree with

with looking at what ways to putting those affordable units throughout the development.

Obviously, the phase has already been completed.

Thanks.

So, while I said I have a stomach ache on this, I need to sort of be explicit about a few things and I will support this because I think it is, while I am uncomfortable with what feels like the 11th hour on the 1.89 piece of track, I also understand that you're trying to do the right thing and I think having some built out units there that meet the affordability standard is really good for our community.

But I should say a couple things.

So you're not new at this.

So the fact that Riverbend is going to try and don't, please don't do that.

Don't say that you're new at this because you're not.

You're very seasoned developers.

You're doing, you're building big projects with some very interesting things at it.

And so the, you know, I'm, this is the first time that I'm at this is, is, is not helpful to say things like that.

In fact, that's not even a stomachache.

That's annoying to me.

And so please don't do that to us.

Now I can understand that in the development of this whole piece that you said, you know, we've lost track of where we were.

But I would also ask, and this is the thing I guess to Charles now, Charles, as we move forward, that there be some explicit note somewhere that says, it is really helpful if you put

the affordable housing throughout the project as opposed to co-locating what feels like a little corner of the project.

And as I said, I'm particularly annoyed that it's next to the historically Black Baptist church.

But you know, it's annoyed that's not being angry.

So my threshold is here as opposed to there.

And so I get it.

And I see what you're trying to do.

And I appreciate you trying to create a built environment.

You're not novices by any sake of the imagination.

and so I would ask not to rely on that old saw, please.

But the thing that I would also say is that, and this is to us as commissioners, I continue to struggle with this whole idea that the built affordable housing only helps the first person who buys the house.

So if the person's in the house for two years and he or she turns the house over, the house will probably come up to some reasonable market.

and so therefore it's whoever happens to be standing at the affordable housing counter when the house comes on the market that really is the beneficiary of this.

And so we really haven't done any, had any impact on a long-term impact on increasing the inventory of perpetually affordable housing stock in this community of which if you meet any of the stuff that's going on, that's sort of the median price in our community is well over 400,000 now.

unless you bring assets to the sale, which some people are fortunate to do.

But if you're not bringing assets to the sale, then we need to, if the community feels so inclined, we need to be pointing housing types in a way that people can be sustainable and can be a sustainable and affordable way for longer than one owner.

And so I get it.

The applicant has understood our rules

is using our rules and the ordinances to do the things that they, to run their business the way that they seem fit.

And those of you know that I'm not one to tell people how to run their businesses, because that's why I don't think that's my role.

But I do think we can send the appropriate signals to applicants to say, you will

You will find yourself in a better state if you do x, y, and z, as opposed to, well, in four years, it won't be me, it'll be somebody else.

But, you know, not always having to have this level of scrutiny, this level of rhetoric being directed towards the projects you bring.

So that's not to you, Ms.

Davis and to you, Mr. Collins, but that is to the process in which we inherit, which we work under right now.

I mean, there it is.

I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Bivins.

It's a whole changing of a line of thought in our approach to doing this type of work.

We've been meeting, you know, I met with Ms.

Gleason a good bit this past week.

We were meeting with Rebecca Ragsdale, the planning manager for development review, trying to figure out the best way to do this.

As you heard at our last meeting, Bill Fritz was here to talk about

Some ideas that we're working on, hopefully we can have some work sessions here in the near future about the best approach towards this and show the commission some examples and some of the thoughts we're having.

But it's working with our staff planners and it's working with members of the development community like Ms.

Davies and Mr. Collins here to try and bring everybody up to the same page.

Thank you.

Thanks.

And if I may, I will add that I think one thing that is different position the county is in at this point is in the past, we have not had a good system in place in the recent years to help match these units to people who need them.

But the county has, you know, now participated in launching a regional database of these properties.

And so I'm ever hopeful that

these sites will actually get sold to people who need them because as we are for anyone who may be listening from the public there's a time you know there's a timetable that starts and if they don't get sold to people who qualify within that timetable then they're released you know just a general market so I think we're doing better as a county on that score

I'm pretty sure without having applicants come back that they've heard us loud and clear that overall we'd like as a county to see designs that incorporate affordable housing throughout and not just have them in this corner and that corner of the development.

I do think though that the argument about variety of unit types that they're trying to get out from under, at least within this development itself, it does have, if you look at the whole thing, a variety of unit types.

So I myself never wanted to live on a street where all the houses were exactly the same size and dimensions, but that's just me, I like variety.

So with that, I'm curious if anyone has any other comments or if we feel comfortable with moving forward with a motion.

With a motion, not emotion.

If you could bring it up so other people have comments.

And while you're doing that, one thing I was thinking is I remember this rezoning and Karen remembers, maybe Julian, but it strikes as interesting because the conversation we've been having with recent applications where we're looking for a little bit more.

And I remember when this came through, there was a very bare minimum of information.

Some commissioners were

and what we could see at the time and what was reassuring for me was that we have road network connections that really were dependent on the lane.

If we could see that somewhere start to fill in and take place, that piece of it was somewhat predictable that these roads would look this certain and the developer will pull some images around that, not something that we were guaranteed to see.

and we, you know, we move forward with it obviously, but it's, I'm thinking a lot about, because in this conversation about, I see how much do we want to be and being careful that we're, you know, you know, even not just that we must be attractive, but aren't something that's proffered, especially with architecture.

So, this strikes me as an application, back in 2000, that was pretty barebone.

and did show those critical road connections and we've seen all that actualized.

Did anyone else to add?

Are you ready?

Julian moved his hand, but I think he was in agreement.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr. Clayborne.

Discussion?

Any further discussion on this one?

I don't see any hands moving.

All right.

Yes.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye.

Mr. Firehock?

Yes.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.

Thank you.

All right, sorry.

I said this motion carries unanimously and it will now move on to the Board of Supervisors for further deliberation and review.

And I thank the applicants.

Good luck with your next stages.

All right, with that, our next item is committee reports.

Yeah, thanks.

It's a busy week.

So we met with the Village of Rivanna CAC on Monday evening, and Kevin McDermott provided an overview of transportation projects, focusing on two in particular, some smart scale related efforts that are being tracked.

And significant discussion followed from many of the CAC members, and they each shared their personal experiences

at those intersections.

And then we transitioned to a review of the master plan language, which is really ongoing.

They're doing a red line version in house and Commissioner Price, or sorry, Supervisor Price was there as well.

And then on Thursday, we actually have a meeting.

I think Chair Firehock, you'll be there as well with the 5th and Avon Street CAC.

and that will also focus on transportation planning and some of the future development of Southwood.

And again, that's on Thursday night.

Thank you.

Yes, we had the MPL tech earlier today, this morning, with a conversation on the budgets, 2022 budget, some carryovers from that, approximately $96,000.

And then also looking at the 2023 fiscal year,

I believe that budget is $622,000.

Some conversation about the smart scale programs and the submissions that are being prepared right now.

I think they're due at the end of the month.

And in particular, some conversations about the Rivanna River crossings and the two options that are being proposed right now.

There's one at

at Market Street and the other one at Chesapeake.

Okay, and is that a pedestrian bridge?

Yeah.

Does anyone want to see it?

I think it's of high interest.

At least some of us, yeah.

Just a quick run to share the report.

So we had a BRIO CAC meeting.

It's been so long since I think it was happened between the time we met last.

but a lot of review of the Rio corridor plan and the kind of comments and questions on the phase one that for those is the study that's going on and the traffic circle plan, traffic circle for where KTEC and old Rio and JW1 are meeting and all that and the kind of realignment of how Belvedere and

Done Laura and all the neighborhoods and all the way up where I was going.

So there continues to be a lot of good engagement from the CSC as well as general public around that.

Still a lot of unknowns and concerns about what what is going to be the recommendation and the plans, but happy to share more.

And I think

Well, there will be more to come as that kind of it's still early as that it's in a draft of the phase as the draft becomes more final, we'll have something more tangible to review and to share across the planning commission.

Sure, it's a big deal.

Any questions?

Any other reports from anyone?

Okay, if not, well, thank you guys.

Thank you.

The board approved the special use permit for the Boys and Girls Club over there on the Lambs Lane campus as it came before this commission a couple months ago.

And happy to report exciting news that the board has set a time schedule to return back to in-person meetings for the board of supervisors and the planning commission.

So it looks like the next time we see each other, it very well will be, might be in person.

There's the April 12th meeting.

So we have a good bit of a break.

for a few weeks, because as we're shifting, if you remember, to our new schedule of the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, starting in April.

But I think that break will be needed, because we've got some training going.

What the board is elected to do with the board of supervisors meetings and the planning commission is a hybrid meeting type, where planning commission and staff would be in person.

Those applicants could be in person, and folks could either join the meeting in person or

remote in virtually as well.

So obviously there's some technical aspects that we need to learn from staff standpoint and then share with y'all and get everybody on the same page.

So I will be coordinating that and reaching out to y'all over the next couple of weeks to make sure everybody's comfortable as we operate our new environment.

So I'm looking forward to seeing everybody for the first time in a couple of years for most of y'all.

should be a fun new world for us.

I will say, Mr. Bailey mentioned the Rio corridor plan.

We do have that scheduled to come to y'all.

I believe it's towards the end of April as we start to synthesize all that phase two documentation as well and bring all packets to the planning commission for feedback.

We're gonna see a number of,

Work sessions start popping up now as we start to finally make some progress, getting the comprehensive plan kicked off the ground, the zoning ordinance kicked off, and some other projects.

So as all these things kind of come together, we will be scheduling work sessions with you all and bringing according schedules with our staff and consultants and various stakeholders over the next couple of months.

Great, thank you.

And perhaps Corey and I will come a little bit early to the in-person meeting just to make sure we're clear on how we're orchestrating the in-person, remote, hybrid, whatever.

So, okay.

Well, I think that's it, except for old business and new business.

Is there an item for that, Mr. Bivins?

That's trying to get attention without screaming.

I will.

I just had a minor shift with it.

That's okay.

So once I work out some of that stuff, I believe we have the Southwood phase two rezoning coming in April and a couple other ones.

So trying to get those dates hammered down this last minute adjustment.

Thanks for that clarification.

Anything else under older new business?

Okay, no more business.

Oh, Luis, yes.

I have my little hand up there.

I guess Commissioner Bivins' method works better to be recognized.

Yeah, I guess it's a little bit of both old and new business.

And this goes back several years now, I believe.

And some previous commissioners had talked quite a bit about this and this has to do with the portable housing.

And as we were developing our plan, one of the questions that commissioners asked was,

Can we get some measurables?

Can we get to look at what is our net housing from year to year?

And I don't think we've ever seen that.

At least I don't remember it at any time in terms of are we being successful with our housing program?

or is the result a negative growth?

I'm not a betting man, thankfully, but if I were, I would say that we're not gaining affordable housing.

I see a lot of affordable housing disappearing around the county.

Trailer parks are quickly disappearing and these mobile homes, whatever folks may think of them, they are affordable housing.

and their communities.

And we're losing them rapidly.

And I'm just, I don't think that as a commission that we have a good, on this item, I'll speak for everyone, a good understanding of where we are.

And Commissioner Bivins comments about a lot of times these are only

I thought it was a very good conversation and talked about a number of different

options to look at measurements and just to see is there a net?

Can we get a net growth per year?

Is there some kind of report that we can get?

But I don't think that's ever happened.

Commissioner Bivins, I think you might have been chair or perhaps when we had those conversations.

If I'm wrong, I apologize.

We had asked for some accounting from staff on how we were doing with numbers of units that were put out for sale or rent as affordable and what the uptake on this was.

And we did actually get an email back from staff.

That was before the completion of our affordable housing strategic plan.

And so that what was different in the plan is that they spent a lot of time trying to put metrics in it measures, you know, so that we wouldn't just have lofty statements, but actually goals.

I don't know if it's been long enough since that was adopted to be able to say how we're doing.

but I think that I would be happy to follow up on that with staff and see where we're at and then perhaps if there's something worth reporting we can have them come and chat with us at one of our meetings.

And specifically my recollection is

Can we get a report on the net?

So is there a net gain in housing?

And that's specifically what I'm talking about.

And that's where I believe it would provide us a lot of information because are we gaining ground or are we losing ground?

And right now I don't have a good feel for that.

If I can jump in there for a second.

So I think, if we can, there's a couple things that are coming together.

So Karen's right about getting a, what my sense was, was an attempt by staff to capture a bunch of information that really wasn't set out to be able to answer these questions, because nobody was really focused on that before.

That wasn't on anyone's radar, you know, it was basically running a program and not necessarily looking at the impacts of the program.

But the conversation that's taking place now with the supervisors about how do we incentivize the development community to be engaged and to be thoughtful and to be purposeful about increasing our inventory of affordable units around our jurisdiction, around our county, is something that I think ties in nicely with what Luis is bringing back before us, that that would be sort of a perfect opportunity as a baseline to have those, if I don't

I know that the supervisors have made a bunch of discussions.

I don't know if they've landed any place yet.

I know they're wrestling.

And so my hope was is as soon as I saw that they had landed someplace to ask for that to come back to us and for A, to have it explained to us and B, to have it put in context of what's happening where we sit today.

That's an accurate summary of where we are and what's happened.

As Commissioner Carrazana pointed out, I don't know if it was a negative, but I certainly think we can all acknowledge that our affordable housing hasn't achieved the numbers that we had hoped, which is why Housing Albemarle, the recent revisions to the housing policy were taken on, Dr. Stacey Petia,

has led that effort.

We had the policy, the new policy adopted, new chapter in the comp plan amended, but that missing step is that we've been working on is our kind of a developer incentives to make sure that we do actually get these units and they do come to fruition.

So oftentimes we see them, the cash in lieu option, or just so they can't find buyers, things like that.

So all the things that have been brought up are some of the struggles that

I believe are real that we have been working to try and address.

And so we are going back to the board here in the next couple months, I believe in the States of May, with some proposed solutions to how we move forward with those incentives to complete that package.

And then that'll finally, hopefully start to achieve some of the results we want.

So I'd be

Happy to work with Stacy.

Mr. Fovoto is here.

He's been in those meetings with us as well.

We've had quite a few with development community, with all different types of staff, organizations to try and figure this out.

As soon as, as Mr. Bivins pointed out, as soon as the board lands with us on that, we'll be happy to bring that back to the commission to talk about how we can achieve that.

I think that'd be very much appreciated.

And I'd like to know how the database is working because when I spoke to her last, it was just being launched.

And so I don't, I don't even really know if it's fair that we've had enough time for it to work, you know, like it's been a year and a half maybe.

So I'm not, you know, expecting miracles, but you know, it'd be good to maybe see some reflection on that as well.

Okay.

Not to overburden the report that comes to us, but you know, there is that report that we get, but I don't know what the distribution of it is, the sense of built units, occupants, increments and things like that.

That's a good place to sort of set a data element that says, and these are the affordable units that came out of this period or that arose out of this period.

That way it's in one place.

I think we all tend to look at that report.

It certainly gives me a sense of what's happening in our community at large, as opposed to my simple jurisdiction.

And that might be a place, if you were to work with Stacey Charles, to get her to drop something in there that would, I think, help to ask some of those questions.

It would also give us a chance to sort of push that conversation about how much of this is actually remaining or affordable.

The university is talking about doing this, and I think it's

The good thing with the university doing is that most of that's going to be long-term affordability because, I'm not looking at Fred now, because most of it's going to be rental.

And so that's one of the few places that's actually going to be looking at how to maintain, how to significantly increase, or I could also look at Luis too, because he's in that mix too, how we're going to effectively increase the inventory of affordability in this community.

The rub on that is that my assumption is that all the people who enter through those doors will have some intimate connection with the institution, that those aren't necessarily going to be open to the general public.

But you know, I said it, and so I'll just wait and see what happens going forward.

But that would be my sort of a thought, that that's not going to be when I get tired of my house controls and I can just go and move into a university affordable apartment.

As a retired faculty member, I'd really like to do that.

Okay.

All right.

That's enough of that plugging for a free house.

Right, right.

Okay, do not put that in daily progress, everybody.

That was just a joke.

Yeah, I'm also acutely aware of this.

Just recently, I've just hired another, created another job position and

I've been looking for housing for my new staffer, and I'm I'm I'm amazed at how I mean, I looked all over the county and I was just shocked at what it costs compared to what I remember when I was in my 20s looking for housing.

OK, that was 100 years ago.

Anything else?

Are we done with all our business?

Yes, and affordable housing to be continued, of course, and I'll do some follow up on that with staff as well.

but I want to thank you guys for your great attention during this meeting and we are going to adjourn to April 12th in person and we will receive guidance from staff before that date on whether we're to wear masks on the dais or not or in the hallways or what exactly if any is the safety protocol and I'm sure if you feel comfortable staying in a mask you certainly can.

But with that, I wanna wish you all a great rest of your evening.