Planning Commission Regular Meeting   11/29/2022

For how to comment, but I'll get to those in just a moment.

First, I need to ask if there are any matters that someone wishes to address that are not on this evening's agenda.

Would you like me to take the roll?

Yes, Carolyn?

Would you like me to take the roll now?

Oh, sorry.

Yes, take the roll.

Okay.

Here.

Mr. Missel?

Here.

I think I'm here.

Here.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, we will move on to the first public hearing.

May.

Good evening, Commission.

My name is Kevin McCollum.

I'm a senior planner with the planning division at Albemarle County Community Development.

Tonight, I'll be giving staff's presentation on special use permit application number SP-22217 Maple Grove Daycare Center.

This is a proposed special use permit for a child day center within an existing church.

The subject property is located north of the city of Charlottesville at 3210 Prophet Road.

The property is about 1,500 feet east of the intersection of Airport Road, Seminole Trail, and Prophet Road.

It's 6.86 acres and is zoned R1 residential.

The site is home to an existing 18,000 square foot church building currently used by the Maple Grove Christian Church.

The parcel includes existing parking spaces, two playgrounds, a basketball court, a youth center in the rear, and a parsonage building in the front.

As mentioned, the property is owned R1 residential.

A majority of the surrounding properties are also zoned residential, with the majority of the surrounding uses being single-family houses.

The properties to the west include the Lighthouse Christian Church and Preschool, Bright Beginnings Preschool, and a variety of commercial uses along US 29 North.

The applicant has requested a special use permit for a five day a week daycare at its existing church facility.

The request is for a child day center for up to 50 children.

The proposed daycare program would operate from 7 a.m.

to 5.30 p.m.

Monday through Friday year round.

The child day center would utilize the existing building, parking areas, playgrounds, and basketball court for the use.

The concept plan provides an overview of the site layout and the proposed parent pickup and drop-off loop.

Based on the findings in the staff report, the proposed use is consistent with the place's 29 master plan.

The proposal provides a daycare option for people who live and work in the area.

And because no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties are anticipated, staff recommends approval of SP 2022-17 Maple Grove Daycare Center with the conditions as recommended in the staff report.

That concludes my presentation.

On the next slide, I have some sample motions for the commission.

And I also have a slide with the recommended conditions if we want to discuss those.

Questions?

You have one?

Is there a fence that runs along the basketball court between, I guess, the basketball court and the parking drive aisles?

Okay, Mr. Bivins is saying yes, it seems like.

All I'm saying is the playground's enclosed by a fence.

Go for it.

Was there any discussion about why, I don't know what time, I think you put five o'clock or something like that?

Yes, I think you have to pick up at five o'clock as opposed to a little bit later.

And the only reason I ask that is because that part of 29 can be a bear at times and even under the best of intentions trying to get from

South of there to there by five o'clock would be hard.

I think could actually be very difficult depending on what's happened on 29.

I understand that.

I understand that.

But you know, sometimes they can say whatever they want in their materials.

Fair enough.

All right, so I'm sure Seth doesn't have a comment on that.

So I guess we'll just hear, is there any other questions?

Okay, I didn't hear any.

So we'll just go ahead and hear from the applicant.

Is the applicant here to make a presentation or to make any comments?

Please come forward.

Need you to state your name for the record and then you'll get a green light when you're time to go.

Thanks.

My name is Steve Bailey, and I'm one of two elders from Maple Grove that's here tonight.

And I don't know where my presentation is.

This will be fairly brief.

I had eight slides, but Kevin covered about six of them.

So I won't punish you without having to hear of anything else.

So again, we're located off Prophet Road, 18,000 square foot facility on almost seven acres of property.

And both of our playgrounds are, I think it was one of the questions, are fenced.

The basketball court is no longer a basketball court, and it's not fenced in.

We have two other structures on the property, a youth center at the rear of the facility,

a lot and also a parsonage up front, but the daycare will only be in our children's wing of the main church building.

And again, this shows the property and the children's wing is

is the wing of the church that's facing toward 649 or Prophet Road.

And it's not shown on that, but the playground that's gonna be associated with the daycare is a fenced area that runs from the exit right there.

So you could go from the church right out of the playground into a fenced area.

We do anticipate using some of the other property for walkabouts and things like that, but the primary playground will be right here, right there.

We also have a fellowship hall that we're going to use for the children to eat in and also to, on rainy days, they can play and stuff in there and that's about 3,000 square feet.

Our main church building was designed and approved.

It was constructed in 1992.

There's been a Maple Grove Christian Church for 100 plus years.

And it was constructed in 92.

And then it was modified in 2002.

And currently our building is designed for over 400 people who worship 60 or more in the pre and elementary school children that would be attending.

We're currently running about 25% of that after COVID.

We still have a number of folks that watch online and so we have about 100 adults and 25 to 30 children each Sunday.

Pre-COVID we were really seriously considering this and of course we had to take a hiatus because of COVID.

but the area around us is growing.

So we literally have a hundred new houses coming up around us.

And we've done a lot of things into the community to try to support the community.

And we've had several of our church members to tell us that really there's a scarcity of daycare, good Christian daycare in the area.

And so that's what's motivating us to do that.

We have the facilities

They're not being used for the most part.

We have homeschoolers that occasionally meet there, but we really don't use our facility during the day and the week.

And so we thought this would be a great opportunity to support the community.

I think I've covered most all of this.

Also, even though there's housing all the way around our property, we've planted trees through the years.

And so there's a good buffer all the way around.

And so we don't anticipate that the children going out in small groups at a time would cause any conflict or noise or anything like that.

And we, except for

three staff members.

No one will be at the church from the time that the daycare will be present.

And so we do have some activities at night, but that will be after the daycare is closed.

We have a Boy Scout group and some other activities like that that meet besides our normal Bible studies and things like that.

So,

We also, we know that there's gonna have to be some modifications to our children's wing, but we do not anticipate doing anything to the exterior of the church or on the grounds or anything like that.

So everything will be inside the walls of the church.

And I think that's really all I have.

You can come forward and do that, sure.

You have to do the same thing.

State your name.

Jeffrey Ainge.

Thanks.

Yeah, that's a good question, Mr. Bivins.

And it's been asked before, so we'd like to take a shot at it.

Those hours that are specified are the core business hours of the daycare center.

Most daycares are going to have a contingency written in their procedures for what happens if circumstances dictate that kids stay over.

So those will be in procedures and sent to parents.

There'd be no limit on time.

If a parent couldn't get there because they have an emergency or their car broke down, someone would be at the daycare supervising their child until they arrived.

But that is just the,

you know the program's contingency procedures.

Yeah, I think it would be more like, would you be open until six for late parents?

Oh, not on the parents, but for us to grant you the special use, we need to know the absolute end period of the day, including your contingency within that.

I'm not certain that that's typical, or that that's normal.

I think I understand.

I think yes, we can we can

I happily do that.

Yeah, it doesn't make you stay up until six.

If a person's child needed care until eight, because the parent has an emergency, the child would be kept and cared for until eight.

It makes sure that there's no complaints or concerns.

I think I don't see any other questions.

Okay.

I think this is great.

And I have one of those 50 spots.

I'm joking.

Council wasn't laughing.

I'm joking.

I am joking, but in all seriousness, I think we asked this question to almost everyone who comes up with a daycare special use.

Very good.

I don't think we would plan on doing that.

But we can't we we do hope we can take the kids out and let them walk around the property and things like that if the teacher and the curriculum would would dictate that.

So because we do have six acres and so

Thank you.

Yeah, we don't have our part.

No one would be back.

We're at the back of the property.

We have a fenced off through the week and so no one would be back there.

Gotcha.

And then last and final question, I promise our board of supervisors has certainly affirmed a commitment to like equitable communities.

And so it's curious, how does this proposal start to speak to that?

We haven't, we haven't discussed that.

It would probably be on a case by case basis, but yes, we would, we would want to you know, that's, that's part of what a church is all about.

And so if someone

I wanted the daycare facilities and couldn't pay the full amount.

I'm sure we would work to try to help them out with that.

Yeah, we're working with an experienced director, and this person has knowledge and experience with those programs.

where help is needed.

Or families that have siblings, we wouldn't want them to break up their kids not being able to go together.

And so we would definitely be wanting to do that, wanting to keep families together.

Thanks.

I'm done.

OK.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We're going to open it up for the general public to comment.

And then after that, you're welcome to come back up and make a few more comments if you like.

OK.

I have one person with their hand raised online.

Yes.

All right, I don't see anyone coming forward in person from this audience, so go ahead and recognize the person online.

They're not, okay.

How about John Matthews?

Would you like to speak on this matter?

Okay, well, perhaps they're just there as observers and don't wish to comment.

Okay, maybe they want to comment on something else.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Gentlemen, you're welcome to come back and make another comment if you like.

Okay, we're good.

All right.

So with that, we'll close the public hearing portion and bring it back to the commission for discussion deliberation.

The commissioners, any concerns or thoughts about this one?

Seems fairly straightforward.

I like these applications where it's an existing facility with existing parking and it really doesn't require a lot of analysis on our part.

And certainly I believe we all think the daycare is very much needed and including the father of two young people, personal experience with that as do others.

Madam Chair, I would just simply ask that we change that condition that staff has presented to 6 o'clock as opposed to 5.30.

All right, so whoever makes the motion could include that in their motion.

Thank you.

It is.

Happy to see great things in the Rivanna district.

I move to recommend approval of SP-20-22-000-17, Maple Grove Daycare Center with the conditions as recommended staff report with the exception of changing the 5-30 to 6 p.m.

for the hours of operation.

Yeah, hours of operation.

Is there a second?

All right, it's been motioned and seconded.

Any further discussion?

Yes, ma'am.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Thank you.

All right.

The motion carries unanimously.

So this is not a final vote, but a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

So we wish you best of luck at that next stage.

Thank you, ma'am.

And you're welcome to stay for the next exciting hearings or you're welcome to exit.

You don't have to be trapped in there.

Well, I mean, you know, not everyone wants to listen to many, many public hearings.

All right, we're going to move on to the next item on our agenda, which is SB202200024, IV proper water consumption and SP202200031, IV proper catering.

And just for the staff, will we consider the veterinary use application separately or also as part of this?

Good evening.

Yes, Rebecca Ragsdale.

I'll be the staff person presenting this item and it will be a combined presentation going through the veterinary office, the water consumption special use permit and the additional one that's required for what's technically a restaurant use.

Sure, we'll have to have separate votes.

So we'll also do SP 202200025, IV proper veterinary service office, whatever.

Take it away.

So this this is a combo deal for you this evening, but there are separate use categories in the ordinance.

And we've mentioned what those three are, and we'll talk about them in a little more detail.

This is the location map for you to orient you to the site and the surroundings.

It's a 0.87 acre parcel in Ivy, the former village of Ivy that was once a development area and has a little bit of commercial zoning.

There is a site plan that was approved in June of 2022 and a building is under construction.

which these proposals are related to.

You can see on the screen where this is located with the railroad, just to get my pointer, the Buckingham Branch Railroad along the northwest portion of the property.

It's along 250 and it's near Owensville Road.

There is some commercial uses already developed around the property including office, Scott's Ivy, and then the Ivy Post Office and Garden Center.

Nearby are some residential uses across the railroad tracks approximately more than 250 feet away, although the lot line is closer than 200 feet.

So a special use permit is required or, excuse me, special exception, which we will discuss.

And it is located in the rural areas of the comprehensive plan.

There isn't a map for that because it would just be all white.

But this is the zoning map and the pink parcels are zoned C1 commercial and then the tan parcels are village residential, which you see oftentimes in our former villages.

or what we may consider now our rural crossroads communities.

So there are the three separate proposals.

The site plan, as I mentioned, is approved for the building and it's under construction.

A portion of it is proposed to be used as the veterinary office.

And then there's a modification to the supplemental regulations that apply to vet offices.

There's a requirement that they be, even if soundproofed, be more than 200 feet away from a residential property line.

And as I mentioned, this in this case, it's closer than that to the lot line, but it will be soundproofed.

The second special use permit request is related to water consumption.

For properties that are not served by public water, there is a limit of 400 gallons per site acre per day.

So in this case, it's limited to 348 gallons per day.

The request to allow a little more flexibility and tenant mixture is up to 875 gallons per day.

We did have the report that was included in your staff packet and there weren't any concerns raised with that request.

In recent years, we've had a few of these come before you for sites of varying sizes, but we do have a few examples out there of one or 1.3 acre sites.

that were approved for up to 1000 gallons per day or 5000 gallons per day.

So it's really dependent on the water study and we haven't had any issues with those other sites or concerns raised about this one.

We amended the ordinance a few years ago for a few specific use categories to be by special use permit regardless of the water issue if they were not served by public water.

So restaurant uses is a category that is

That does require a special use permit and in this case there may be the potential for a small catering operation.

There would not be any one site dining or carry out and the site would be limited to the water budget that is proposed.

We've analyzed each of these special use permit requests against the criteria in the ordinance and have found that none of them have any concerns about detriment to abutting properties.

The vet will be soundproofed and comply with all of the other applicable regulations in the ordinance.

The site plan is already approved so that included review for stormwater and traffic impacts.

There aren't any additional impacts anticipated with the vet use so there weren't any concerns raised.

As I mentioned it is an area that is developed primarily commercially so we didn't think the character of the area would be changed and again there wouldn't be any

issues with it being in harmony with the surrounding uses or uses allowed in the C-1 district or any public health and safety concerns.

Regarding the comprehensive plan, while it is in a rural area, there's also the notion of rural crossroads communities that would provide a certain level of services for the rural area residents.

So we didn't have any concerns about that.

So we did recommend approval of each of them.

with conditions, which I'll go ahead and mention now, that limit the size and scale of the operations.

For the vet clinic, it's typical conditions that indicate where the building and parking would be located and no outdoor exercise areas or runs and then hours of operation and then no boarding.

Now, the applicant is concerned about the limit that there shall be no hours of operation on Sunday.

I think that would limit any sort of emergency appointments so we would be fine with that change in your consideration this evening for the vet use.

The water special use permit is limited to those impacts associated with water consumption, which we didn't find any concerns, but conditions typically limit the water consumption to 875 gallons, which is what has been reviewed.

by the review team.

And then also, it's typical that we have this monitoring requirement to hold the applicant to monitoring and regular reporting to the zoning administrator.

And then again, limiting the catering operation to those conditions that would keep it to the size and scale that isn't a full scale restaurant operation.

So I'll be happy to answer any questions for you.

OK, great.

Thanks.

Thanks, Rebecca.

Great report, as always.

A couple of quick questions.

One is more general than specific to this request, just about groundwater mapping in the county.

So if there have been, I don't know how many of these.

Well, that's one of my questions, is how many of these types of applications have we gotten?

And are they specifically mapped in a certain area so you can tell whether adjoining properties have also requested higher amounts of groundwater use?

Well, in terms of the special use permit requests, we do keep track of those and it is a very specific analysis and we do look at the surrounding properties and that was included in the technical report as far as the production of the wells that were nearby this site.

There haven't been any that have requested a special use permit to go over the 400 per site acre per day.

So in terms of, you know, there have been about maybe four or five of these in different parts of the county.

Great.

Thank you.

My question is also around the water consumption.

So just for

For clarity, so this is for the entire development, right?

The 875 is for the entire development.

So that's a veterinary, the catering kitchen.

And I'm not sure if there's any more parcels available there.

It's 6,500.

Seems like there may be like another 1,000 square feet.

Yes, so the water consumption special use permit is specific to the water condition.

It's not limiting the uses.

As the applicant, as the tenants come in, they will be required to submit zoning clearances, so there will be additional review and monitoring through that process.

So like I said, it allows the flexibility for tenant mix and then just setting the overall cap.

Yeah.

I wasn't sure if we were just talking about the veterinary there.

And so just to follow up on Mr. Missel's comment that there, you know, groundwater mapping is certainly a technology that's out there.

And if we're not taking advantage of it, we probably should.

I know that areas like Ivy, there is some issue with groundwater and some wells going dry.

And so, you know, having that,

Thank you.

So on the site plan, it looked like there were three entrances.

And so if I understand right now, tonight, we're looking at two of the three possible uses of this building.

Am I correct in that?

If you go to your site plan

Right.

Okay.

That's correct.

A different commercial activity could go into those spaces without them having to come to us unless they were one of the type of occupation that needed to come to us, come before this body.

Okay.

So then, then I guess I have a couple other questions.

So you mentioned that there wasn't going, there isn't an area to exercise animals near the vet, but animals do need to go outside.

And so

and customers, clients will come and they will let their animals go outside before they go to what is often a stressful situation for an animal.

And so how are we going to facilitate the fact that there is going to need to be some designated space for the animals to exercise themselves or to relieve themselves?

I guess that's probably the better word.

We're saying we're not, that's not a necessary special use permit condition, but there is area on the site where people could walk their dogs if they need to.

Okay, so they can do it.

So no runs outside.

Okay, fine.

And then I would also like us to give some consideration on the restaurant that we removed the limitation on customer pickup.

The reason I'm going to say that, if this is truly a catering organization, there may be special events, people who need to come and pick up food to take to an event, or there may be just a regular client who needs to come to pick up the food and take the

take the his or her event.

And so saying there won't be customer pickup, I think, sort of narrows it to a place where you're saying that the caterer only has to deliver.

Where I think that we've seen, particularly coming out of the, emerging out of the past two years, that sometimes, I'm thinking of Etoile in Crozet, which allows people to come to it to pick up things

whereas they don't have a restaurant at Etowah, but they do allow you to come there to sort of collect your food.

So one question is procedural with the acoustics piece.

Is there a test that's done and that has to be submitted?

The way I read it was you have to submit your materials that you use to build your wall.

But is there a test?

OK.

They are because they have a septic system.

So they had a figure in here for how much water was going to be returned to the groundwater and how much would be lost.

and I can't remember what the division was.

I think it was the majority of water being returned, but it is somewhere in all this stuff, materials, I did see it.

Okay, I had a question.

There's a chart, it's on one of the pages of the report and it talks about the different uses

and how many gallons per use or per person.

It's a little confusing because like an office is four people and they have 35 gallons per person for 140 gallons.

But then the veterinary office seems to be, instead of by person, by use and it's one unit of use and that's 250 gallons.

So it's the practitioner and they assumes a bunch of people with them and all the animal use for washing.

There's some exam tables and blah, blah, blah.

Okay.

All right.

It's just the math units were hurting my brain.

Okay.

I don't have any other questions.

Is anyone else for staff at this point?

Okay.

Then we're ready to hear from the applicant.

I don't have a presentation, but I do maybe have some proactive or reactive responses to some of your discussion that may be helpful.

In terms of the water usage and mapping the water table that Mr. Missel brought up,

We did perform a tier three groundwater analysis for the site that studied not just our site but the groundwater for that entire area.

And I sent a report that that should have been in your materials or I realized it was a lot of information but

Based on that study, if we used the 875 gallons, which is the capacity of our septic system, so our septic system is engineered by Old Dominion Engineering, they've

done all of the calculations to figure out how much of the soil can accommodate and that kind of thing.

And if we use the maximum capacity of the septic system, which is eight hundred seventy five gallons per day, based on our the the stormwater retention, which does have a under the parking lot, a big culvert that also

It releases water back into the groundwater, so it's there to deal with quantity.

But if it's a max quantity event, then it will overflow and go into a stormwater that goes into the existing systems that are along there along the road there.

Mostly the stormwater will go back into the ground.

And of course, the regular usage will go into the septic system, which will go back into the ground.

So based on this tier three analysis, we're only 5% of the water of that 875 gallons is actually doesn't go back into the ground, which is a little over 40 gallons.

In terms of that 875, that was a question that's for the whole project.

So the building is under construction.

It's not fully leased up yet.

So in my conversations with Ms.

Ragsdale and the staff, we wanted to have maximum flexibility for leasing in order to

attract tenants that could be there.

And so that table that I presented in the narrative includes some examples from the North Carolina Administrative Code.

because the Virginia Administrative Code doesn't have, for example, Yvette.

And so the North Carolina Code did and it estimates 250 gallons per practitioner, which would include all the uses associated with that practitioner.

So, yeah, let's see if there's anything else that.

In terms of the sound, that's part of the the zoning clearance and the

permit approval for the construction so that gets evaluated during the construction and the CO process.

So I think that covers it.

Thanks for tracking all those and answering them.

I would like some comment on whether or not it would be appropriate for a caterer if that's one of your one of your tenants or one of your lessees to be able to have people come pick up the food.

Do you have space to do that or you just are you wedded to?

Well, we're certainly not wedded to that and I appreciate you bringing that back up.

I think it's a little bit tricky.

I think that the county code and the state code are not really in lockstep on the definition of a caterer.

I think the county code, you could make an argument that the county code does not really have a place for a caterer.

And so it sort of slips into a restaurant where

I think you could argue that it's not actually a restaurant because it doesn't serve food on the premises, which I think is your point.

Ms.

Ragsdale and I had that conversation in the absence of

You know, there being clarity, I think staff felt like it was important to put it in the restaurant category, and I understand that, but I tend to agree with you that it's not really a restaurant because it's not, you're not serving food there.

The water usage is really different.

The in and out, the parking, all of that is really different for a caterer.

We would love to tell the caterer that's very interested in this site, yeah, you could have prepared meals in a fridge that people could pick up on the way home from work.

Yeah, that would be great.

We would love that.

We would also, as it relates to the vet use, and Ms.

Ragsdale and I also talked about this, I would love to be able to tell them, yeah, you could be open for emergency services on Sunday.

Okay.

For the image that had the three entrances at the front, where is the VET located at within there?

Furthest to the east.

Okay, so bottom right?

Yes, bottom right.

Yep.

Gotcha, that makes, I figure it was one of the ends, right?

Yeah, yeah.

You're keeping for the interior piece of it.

This isn't an entrance corridor, so I know I have another review, I believe from the ARB and so forth.

It would have an exhaust fan.

We've already been through this with ARB, our HVAC units.

I don't know, Mr. Clayborne, if you've seen the designs of the building, but it's kind of a modular design where you've got gabled roofs, flat roof, gabled roof, flat roof.

And so the HVAC units are already on these flat roof portions, which are kind of smaller connecting pieces in the architecture.

And they're set back behind parapet walls so you can't see the HVAC units.

That was an ARB concern.

So the presumption is we didn't anticipate a caterer in event hood, but the presumption would be in the design, the contemplated design for the caterer would be

That's, you answered my question.

Yes, so the lighting plan is part of the site plan and it's already, that's been approved.

We had to submit the specs on all the exterior light fixtures and their down lighting and their lumens and how far they project towards the property line.

And that's all been vetted during the site planning process.

And tonight, we're just looking at the use and the water consumption.

I just had one question here.

Good to see you.

One question regarding your comment about the potential desire to have pickup for the catering use.

Sure.

I'm wondering, the traffic analysis says that you had multiple, what was it, multiple studies with VDOT, including a turn lane warrant analysis.

And then the last sentence is, there were no impacts identified or concerns specifically related to the veterinary office or catering use.

I'm wondering if you did allow pickups, if that might change that traffic analysis or any of those turn lane warrants.

Yeah, I don't I don't know the answer.

I mean, I think that would come up in the zoning clearance process of I mean, we'd have if we wanted to have a caterer in there, we'd have to go back through that zoning approval.

Right, like that would happen during the review process from zoning on the approval of the tenant and the use.

Rebecca, that's right.

Yeah, I don't initially have any concerns about the pickup, but we could run that by transportation again.

And there is always the zoning clearance process where

The big conversation with VDOT was about the location of the entrance and the visibility with the railroad trestle and

I think there were some protocols that we had to go through as it relates to eastbound traffic and whether we needed a left turn lane.

But that was all vetted during the site plan process.

And I know the radii in and out of the entrance, it's a shared entrance.

So that was part of the approval process that we agreed to share the entrance with the property to the east and those radii had to be

made a little bit more gentle.

Yeah.

So that it was, it was an easier in and out.

Um, okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah.

All right.

So we'll let you go for now and see if anyone from the public wants to comment.

All right.

Is there anyone from the public here in the chamber that wishes to comment on this application?

All right, Carolyn, is there anyone online?

Do you do have a chance to ask the folks online if they'd like to comment on this one in particular?

No one has their hand raised at this time.

Okay, so we'll close that portion.

You do have a chance to come back and make another comment if you like, but I mean, you were just here, so okay.

We'll close that portion and bring it back to the planning commission for discussion deliberation.

I thought the Sunday, adding the Sunday option seemed appropriate.

I mean, what if you had a dog in there and he'd had surgery, but he needed an extra day to convalesce?

You wouldn't want to randomly have to take them home or not have a qualified person looking after them.

So I thought that was a little arbitrary.

For her.

Okay, I guess so.

That would also include animals that were staying over?

We can work on the wording, but your motion to provide for those things.

Yeah, because there could be a tech there watching after the animals, so it's not an emergency appointment.

and continued care of existing animals, but no new appointments or something like that.

I know it's getting a little wordy, but that's me.

All right.

Then the other question we had was about our concern was about the pickup.

and the applicant noted that they would like to have people be able to pick up orders, but you said, you know, like, you know, dinner on the way home.

I know that that is actually a tricky area for traffic.

And I'm sure VDOT, you know, it's obviously under construction.

I drove by it the other day, it's looking good, but you know, it's still tricky, even though they've met the entrance standards for where the entrance is located.

There's a lot of coming and going there and a lot of turning.

on the other side of the railroad line turning onto the road heading eastbound.

So I don't know that it would be a good idea for people to stop by and pick up dinner on the way home.

Now, if you're picking up a large catering order, you know, like for a wedding cake or something like that, you don't want them to have to deliver.

That makes sense.

But I don't know how to word that.

in a way that would be appropriate, like only large orders or not everyday folks who didn't make dinner.

I mean, we can craft that wording.

And like I said, we can follow up with transportation to see if it is even an issue or not.

I mean, there's weekday hours, you know, there could be an hours of operation, there could be, you know, weekend only pickup.

It could be some other retail.

There could be retail tenants that are open during those hours.

And so I'm assuming that in their analysis, they're just factoring in a retail and trips that would be generated.

And I wouldn't think that this would exceed anything of a typical retail shop.

Unless it's really good food.

Then I won't pick it up on the way home.

Then you'll be there every day.

So far, we've got your daycare taken care of and dinner for you.

All right, well, anyway, those were my only thoughts on it.

Are there other concerns?

So I understand, I was trying to see, I couldn't tell from our site plan, from attachment three, how much green is actually around the eastern end of the building, and also recognizing the fact that

that it's actually really more than 200 feet to the next, while it's less than 200 feet to the property line, it's significantly more to the first house over there.

Plus, you've got the railroad tracks.

So there's what I shall say.

There's both some physical soundproofing and there's also some distance soundproofing.

So actually, if I were to advise the applicant, I'd put the vet at the other end, because you've got green grass there, plus you've got a natural barrier that's going to keep

that's going to deaden the sound when it's there, if there's any sound.

And if you're going to have clients that are going to be more in and out, then put them at the place where there's going to be, towards the front, so they can come in and out while animals are being looked at, which is, well, there is in and out, but they tend to be longer appointments than just going to the postcard shop, which is a great idea.

I love that idea.

Or a stationery.

And the post office is right across the street.

We actually need a stationary shop back in this community, but I won't go to that because I do like Kaspari, but that's down there, not out there.

That's a different issue.

The railroad trestle is elevated.

I don't know.

And I know that area pretty well.

I drive it every day.

It is an elevated track, so I wasn't concerned with the 200 feet because of the conditions of this particular

development and the fact that that is elevated.

It's yeah.

But I thought Mr. Bivins made an excellent point.

I mean, those of us who have had pets, you know, you take them, they get nervous.

They need to relieve themselves immediately.

They come out.

They need to relieve themselves immediately.

And so it's you need to have that patch of grass and a few trees that's not in the way

of other people coming and going.

Anyway, well, I don't think we're going to design the building at this point or make that a condition.

That's just something for you to consider.

All right.

So with that, any other concerns or comments?

Right.

Well, I'm prepared to make a motion, and I'd love to put that.

Yes, thank you.

And I also saw that you did make some of the edits that we talked about just now.

So

I move to recommend approval of SP-202200025 Veterinary Office for the reasons stated in the staff report and with the staff recommended conditions, including the edit that you have made about Sundays.

All right, it's been motioned and seconded.

Is there any further comment on this one?

So we're not voting on the exact wording, but the edit will cover the emergency.

We're just saying we can't perfectly wordsmith it from the diaspora basically.

Perfect.

Okay.

Yeah.

And they will, they usually send it to me to say the right wording and then we fix it if it's not.

This is specifically for the vet.

Okay.

Yes.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Sorry.

Okay, sorry.

Okay, so the motion passes unanimously on that element.

Now, how about the water consumption, SP202200024?

All right.

Second.

Is there any discussion?

Carolyn, would you call the roll?

Mr. Murray?

Hi.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, the motion passes unanimously.

The next one is the catering use.

SP202200031 IV proper catering.

You're the one who wanted dinner, right?

Can I bring it back?

Mr. Carrazana, would that be with or without the prohibition on customer pickup of food?

So customer pickup of food would be allowed.

So the staff recommended conditions with a revision to allow for customer pickup of food.

Second that.

All right.

It's been motioned and seconded.

Any further discussion?

Carolyn, would you call the roll?

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Okay, thank you.

And thanks to the applicant.

You'll now move forward to the Board of Supervisors.

That's correct.

It's optional.

But if we not take that up, we have no legal authority on special exceptions.

So I'm just moving that to the board.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, so we're next going to move on.

Let me just ask the commissioners, anyone need a break before we move on?

Okay, we can take a break later if we need it.

All right, I'm going to move on to ZMA-2021-00008 Old Ivy Residences.

We're going to have the staff report.

And for folks in the audience, this is the second time we're hearing this application.

There have been some changes to it.

So we've asked staff to primarily focus on what's different rather than necessarily going through the entire thing in every element this evening.

Yes, that's right.

We're combining the staff reports into one.

Okay, well, good evening, everyone.

My name is Cameron Langell.

I'm a principal planner with the Planning Division of Community Development.

And tonight I'll be giving you the staff report on the Old Ivy Residences Zoning Map Amendment.

So to begin, there's actually four requests that are part of this overall proposal.

The first one is ZMA 2021-08, and that is a zoning map amendment seeking to rezone five parcels of land that measure a total of 35.37 acres from the R1 district, the R10 district, and the R15 district with existing proffers to a new R15 district with new proffers.

There's also a step-back waiver request, a parking reduction request, and then the second ZMA application, which is ZMA 2021-09, is seeking to rezone some areas of preserved steep slopes on three of the parcels to managed steep slopes.

To get everyone oriented, this image shows the location of the five properties.

They're highlighted in yellow, and there's a star noting where they are located.

To the west is the Route 250 and Route 29 bypass.

To the south is Old Ivy Road.

To the north is some land that's actually owned by UVA, which borders Leonard Sandridge Road.

To the east, there are some existing residential developments, and that includes University Village and Huntington Village.

And I have all those features and neighborhoods labeled on this map.

We can pan back to this later if need be.

Probably of note, you will also see that the Darden School of Business and Law School are located a little bit further to the northeast of this site.

So to talk a little bit about the current zoning, this is our zoning map, and you'll notice the different colors here represent different zoning districts.

Again, our parcels are highlighted in yellow.

You will notice that three of the five parcels are zoned entirely R15, and that is the darkest brown color that you see.

One of the parcels is zoned R10 residential and that is the light green color that you see at the bottom right.

The last parcel, which is the one in the top right, is actually within two zoning districts.

It has both R15 and R10.

There's an existing proffer that applies to the parcels that are zoned R-15.

That's from 1985.

We will talk about that a little bit later, but part of the request tonight is to basically waive that proffer as it applies to those properties with that previously approved zoning map amendment.

Go over it quickly.

This image shows the comprehensive plan future land use recommendations that apply to these parcels.

There's two colors that you'll see within the five parcels.

One of those is orange, and that represents the urban density residential future land use category.

That basically allows for all types of residential uses at densities between 6.01 and 34 dwelling units per acre.

In total, that is about 14.7 acres of this total site.

The other color that you see is green, and that represents the park and green systems future land use classification.

Basically, that's meant to represent areas that have sensitive environmental features, so things like wetlands, floodplain, steep slopes.

And for uses that are permitted within that, it would be things like preservation areas, open space, even recreational amenities.

And in this case, it's 20.67 acres of the overall site is within that Parks and Green Systems designation.

So the old Ivy Residences proposal,

Basically, they want to rezone all these parcels to R15 so that a total of 525 dwelling units could be built on site.

They are proposing a mix of unit types, and that is multifamily units, single-family detached or attached units, as well as townhomes and possibly even some duplexes or triplexes.

I'll let the applicant get into talking about their exact format and programming later, but they are looking to have a mix of residential dwelling unit types in this project.

They are proposing to do 15% affordable housing of their total units, so that would be 79 affordable units in this case.

There will be open space amenity areas.

They're also proposing to install a transit stop along Old Ivy Road.

Some frontage improvements related to transportation include new turn lanes into and out of the site.

There will be a multi-use path with some possibility for eastward expansion off-site.

And finally, there are some proffers related to CAS contributions for any of these transportation improvements.

So this is the concept plan.

This is page eight of attachment three, I believe it is.

This shows basically the layout that they would be looking to do within the site itself.

You'll notice there's some different colors.

There's an orangish or brown color at the left hand side of your screen.

Then you'll see some purple color on the bottom of the screen that extends to the right of the screen.

And basically that's meant to represent areas of building footprints.

So the brown or orangish color that is where they would like to do multifamily or apartment dwellings.

And then the purplish colors where they would do the other dwelling unit types like single family attached or detached.

There's also some green areas that you'll notice and those are meant to be community open space areas, recreational spots or feature other sort of outdoor amenities.

One thing to note is it might be a little bit difficult to see, but there is a dashed purple line at the top of the screen that runs through the center of this image when it turns to a green color.

And that is meant to represent where there is an existing segment of the Rivanna Trail that runs through this property.

This developer is proposing to retain the portions that you see that are marked as purple.

They would be relocating the portion of the trail that runs through this site right now and realigning it to where that green line shows.

And again, the applicant can probably go over more details about their intent with all of that once they get to their presentation later on.

So, and I apologize for not doing this earlier.

I have my colleague, Kevin McDermott here with me tonight.

He is the planning manager in our division who focuses on transportation planning.

He's gonna talk a little bit about some transportation matters that relate to this proposal.

Kevin, I guess whenever you're ready, I can flip through the slides here.

Thank you, Cameron.

And thank you, members of the Planning Commission.

Once again, Kevin McDermott, Planning Manager, and I reviewed this application for transportation issues.

And I do have quite a few slides to go through because I think that transportation was a pretty significant issue when this came before you.

And there's been a lot of developments on that since the last time we

talked.

So a little bit of background, and this is from the traffic impact analysis that was performed by the applicant.

The proposal would generate estimated 4,326 daily trips on Old Ivy Road.

The existing conditions that were identified showed that there are failing movements during the morning and afternoon peak hours.

Primarily, you see those at the intersections labeled number one and number two on this map.

All of those intersections labeled in red were evaluated for the TIA.

The other intersections, three, four, five, don't have existing problems and were not projected to have significantly failing

performance in the future with this development.

So really, intersections one and two are the ones of concern.

There is also a lack of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in the corridor.

And the TIA did show that the proposal would increase delay at all of the intersections, once again, making those ones labeled one and two fail

even worse in the future than they are currently.

So delay would increase at those intersections beyond the existing failing conditions.

Next slide.

One of the issues that we are going through here is related to this 1985 proffer, which limited the density to R1 until Old Ivy Road was improved to the satisfaction of the Board of Supervisors

That wasn't specified as to what would meet that criteria, but things that were identified in that discussion were the lack of curb and gutter, narrow lanes.

Some curb and gutter since that 1985 has been developed along the corridor as other properties have been built up.

Another item that was identified is a realignment under the railroad underpass.

You can see that in the pictures right there.

That's looking both directions under the railroad pass, very narrow and poor sight distance.

There's been no change to that since 1985.

And the provision of sidewalks.

There have been sidewalks constructed on one side of Old Ivy

associated with some of the developments that have occurred.

The intersections on the west side of the bypass were not specifically identified but we do recognize, as I mentioned just a minute ago, they do exhibit port operations right now.

The proposed improvements that are included in this application include a future bus stop on the site frontage.

The area is not currently served by transit, but we could potentially get transit out that way as the development increases.

It is nearby some transit lines.

They've also proffered a shared use path across the site frontage and they would extend that over to Ivy Gardens and you can see that shown in blue.

The section on their frontage is the solid line and extended over to Ivy Commons is shown in the

dashed line.

And in order to do that, they would need the necessary right of way to be donated.

If the owners of those adjacent properties do not donate that right of way, the applicant has proffered to provide $500,000 to the county so that we could construct the rest of that segment of shared use path.

And that would all be on the north side of the road.

They have also proffered a cash contribution for off-site transportation improvements and what they term the congestion area and I will show that to you but it is the area on the west side of the bypass that was identified as being problematic.

That cash proffer was a minimum of 150,000 up to 750,000 and that would be equal to 6%

of the future transportation improvement costs.

That 6% was developed because during the analysis they identified that in the area that's described as the congested area on the west end,

their contribution to the total future traffic was equal to 6%.

So that's why that 6% is identified as how much they would contribute.

They have also Crawford a pedestrian crossing of Old Ivy Road right at the site frontage and a right turn lane at the US 29 bypass ramp.

A little additional information I wanted to go over.

So VDOT has been engaged in a study to determine some transportation improvements.

that would address those significant issues at both ends of the Old Ivy Corridor.

The initial findings of those studies have been presented to the county staff and some institutional stakeholders, including the city and the University of Virginia.

They are still finalizing that study and it will be made publicly available.

But based on what we have seen, staff and VDOT believe that there are

immediately implementable solutions to address those poor operational issues at the western end of the corridor.

So, uh, I'll show you a little bit more about that, but, um, I don't want to get into too much details because we have not gotten that final report to know exactly what's going to go on there, but we do believe that we could do something to fix some of those, uh, issues going on.

Um,

Once complete, these recommendations will be presented to the board and the public for feedback.

Another little point of note is that the bridge, which you can see a picture of right there that goes over the US 29 bypass is slated to get the decking rebuilt.

And as part of that, they are going to add a four foot shoulder on one side of the bridge.

to accommodate pedestrians over there.

So a little bit of improvement to the pedestrian environment on that bridge is already underway.

So the conclusions from this.

So what you see in this picture is the congested area that is really one of our primary concerns for transportation.

The issue is that the traffic coming off the bypass backs up all the way from the star you see at the 250 intersection in front of the

the gas station there in Canterbury Road backs up from there all the way up to the bypass and starts to get into the main line of the US 29 bypass creating a significant safety issue and really locking up that whole triangle with congestion.

So this is the issue that we are trying to address and that VDOT believes it has a solution for.

All of that congestion really is based on what's going on at that 250 Canterbury and Old Garth intersection, the far left star you see there.

So we believe if we can fix that intersection that we'd be able to come up with a solution that would free up the traffic throughout that area.

The applicant has also proffered those funds, as I mentioned, up to $750,000 to make some of those improvements because of these two things, because we have identified a potential solution for this that we can implement fairly quickly.

And because of that funding, we believe that this issue will be sufficiently addressed.

Next slide.

The next area I was going to talk about is really the corridor of Old Ivy.

So we have identified that there are significant traffic volumes.

Previously, there have been lack of curb and gutter.

and a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the road.

Previous improvements, as you can see in this picture, an example of they include turn lanes, curb and gutter, and sidewalks that have been installed by adjacent developments and we believe have really improved some of the operations on that corridor.

Additionally, as I mentioned, the applicant proffered the construction of the pedestrian crossing and a shared use path for a significant length of that corridor and the right turn lane for the northbound US 29 bypass ramp.

So based on that, we believe that once again that these issues, the issues on the corridor have been sufficiently or will be sufficiently addressed through those proffers and the existing improvements.

And then finally on the east end of Old Ivy where the underpass is located.

And you can see that in the picture there right on the border of the city and county line at the railroad.

Could you maybe highlight that for everyone just so we know where the underpass is and where that intersects 250?

So we were not able to identify the same level of immediately implementable solutions, but we are still digging into some options over there for a way to get pedestrians under that railroad.

We did identify a few options that are a little bit longer term.

Reed cost more money so they take a little more time to develop and we are going to continue to work towards those and look at some of those implement easily implementable solutions but none of those have been finalized at this time.

There have been pedestrian improvements at the Old Ivy Road, Old Ivy Road intersection that were just completed, including a new pedestrian crosswalk.

So with the addition of the pedestrian improvements on Old Ivy and those, we believe that there is significant improvement occurring, even if it's not complete at this time.

So we think that the development,

I think that was all your slides, Kevin.

Thank you for that.

So continuing on, as I mentioned earlier, there are two special exception requests that are tied to this overall proposal.

The first one is a request to waive the step back requirement for the multifamily structures that are located at the south end of the project.

They are proposed to be four stories in height.

And under the current regulations of the zoning ordinance, it says that basically, and you can see it on this image as an example,

When a building is four stories tall, the front of the facade needs to be stepped back 15 feet.

So that's what you see in that image on the left hand side of your screen.

The applicant is requesting to waive that requirement again for the multifamily structures.

Attachment nine is a detailed justification statement that the applicant provided related to this request.

They did include some cross sections of the structures and how they would look from adjacent properties and what their sight lines would be.

so on and so forth and that was meant to convey that if the step back requirement was waived this wouldn't really pose any sort of detriment to the public health safety and welfare.

Staff have reviewed this step back waiver request.

We have no objections to it and therefore we are recommending approval of that.

The other special exception request is to reduce the minimum, excuse me, minimum amount of required parking that the zoning ordinance would require them to do based on the dwelling unit types that are proposed.

Under our zoning ordinance, they're required to do 911 total parking spaces.

They're asking to do 751.

So that's a reduction of 160 spaces.

Specifically, the reductions would be for the multifamily unit types and townhouse unit types that they will build on site.

We've reviewed this request.

They gave a justification statement, and I believe that is in attachment

Yes, attachment 10 is the parking reduction special exception request.

And so due to a multitude of factors, which includes keeping the Rivanna Trail on site, the potential for future transit, the proximity to some of the key locations that would be near this residential development, we feel that we can support the parking reduction request.

There are some conditions with that.

We just wanted to call out the exact ratio of spaces that would be needed per unit for the apartments and the townhouses.

As you can see that is in the table on the right hand side of your screen under proposed parking.

Basically, all apartment types would have 1.35 spaces per unit and townhouses would have 1.6.

Again, we're recommending approval of that special exception.

So to get to the final component of this overall project, that's ZMA 2021-09, which again is the request to change some of the preserved steep slopes that exist on site to manage steep slopes.

On this image here, and we have two images, on the right-hand side of the screen, you'll notice the parcels are highlighted in yellow.

Within the parcels, you'll see another yellow color.

It's broken up into several pieces, and then you'll see a light green color at the top of the screen.

The yellow color represents areas of slopes that are above 25% topography, and they are designated as managed steep slopes under our zoning ordinance.

The green is also 25% slopes, but they're designated as preserved steep slopes.

Preserved steep slopes are usually slopes that we've identified that are associated with a water feature or some sort of other sensitive natural environmental element, and they're meant to be protected.

Preserve steep slopes under the zoning ordinance cannot be disturbed.

They can't be built upon for any structures, houses, even in some cases you can't run utilities through them.

Again, the main definition or criteria that you would use to identify something as a preserve steep slopes is if it's a natural feature.

The applicant with the ZMA 2021-09 gave very detailed research and evidence that demonstrates to staff that those preserved steep slopes were in fact primarily created through man-made activities.

That includes the construction of Leonard Sandridge Road back in the 1990s,

There is some evidence that that sloped area was created by placing fill and dirt from the construction of the route 29 and 250 bypass, as well as some evidence that they were created through movement of dirt and grading activities related to agricultural practices that occurred at these properties 20, 30, 40 years ago.

Again in the staff report there's a detailed analysis of whether these slopes meet the criteria and definition of preserved steep slopes or managed steep slopes and we feel comfortable saying that we think these should be rezoned to manage steep slopes and therefore we support this zoning map amendment request.

So I guess one of the most important things to talk about here tonight is a summary of the changes with these applications from the June 2020 public hearing until tonight.

One of the most or biggest unfavorable factors back in June was that the affordable housing that was being proposed by the applicant did not comply with our 15%

Affordable Housing Policy.

They were proposing to do 15% affordable units based on the difference between what they could get under their existing R-15 zoning district and then the new areas that would be up zoned R-15.

Staff didn't support that because we felt that the 15% affordable units should be applied to the overall 525 units that the applicant was seeking to build.

They have since revised their concept plan to include a note that states that and their proffer statement also calls out, I think it's proffer number one, that that is one of the key elements or features of their concept plan that they are proffering.

So we've reviewed that with Stacey Pethia from our Office of Housing.

We have no objections and it now complies with our affordable housing policy.

Also in June, we had some concerns about disturbances to wetlands.

So the concept plan did identify a few small areas of wetlands that exist on site.

And we were uncertain as to whether grading, installation of retaining walls or other site features were going to encroach into those wetland areas.

Since that time, we've had several meetings between the county engineer and other staff in community development and the applicant and their representatives.

And we've gone over the concept plan as it is.

There are no improvements shown encroaching into the wetland areas.

There's no grading shown.

One thing to note is they also added a note to the concept plan that gives the county engineer final discretionary authority at the time of site plan review.

where if unforeseen circumstances come up that may require the applicant's engineers to show some sort of disturbance to those wetlands, the county engineer could look at that and say, no, I think there's other alternatives available to designing your site.

We could get that disturbance out of the wetlands and leave them undisturbed in a natural state.

One other thing is that the original proffer one, which again, notes the key elements of the concept plan that this applicant is committing to, it did not include reference to the turn lanes at the site entrance.

As Kevin mentioned, there's going to be a westbound right turn lane going into the site and then an eastbound left turn lane into the site.

They just added that turn lanes as one of the key elements being proffered with the concept plan.

Proffer number 2A was slightly revised.

We found during our review of the revised materials over the past few months that the existing easement that applies to the Rivanna Trail that exists in site basically has a clause in it that says at any given time the property owner could

give notice to the Rivanna Trail Foundation and say that they're getting rid of the easement and they could remove the trail.

Proffer 2A has since been revised that says the developer will make sure that they get that easement revised so that it is a permanent easement and the trail can exist in perpetuity.

One of the biggest things here is the addition of proffer 3A.

Again, Kevin talked about that, and that is the cash contribution proffer to give up to 6% of the cost of any future transportation improvement projects in the congestion area to the county's CIP fund.

Again, that can range anywhere from $150,000 up to $750,000.

And then proffer 3B, that was originally I think proffer 3 in the previous proffer statement.

It was just clarified a little bit to identify the actual length of that full shared use path that could be installed if the developer can secure the land from the adjoining property owners.

It's 1,275 linear feet.

And then it has another provision in there that says if they cannot secure that land and actually build the shared use path themselves, they would give $500,000 to the county CIP that could be used toward any sort of multimodal transportation improvement projects along Old Ivy Road itself.

So in summary, I'm not going to read these all word for word.

These are in the staff report.

There's several positive aspects to this request.

It's consistent with the majority of the principles and recommendations from the master plan and the comprehensive plan.

Retaining the Rivanna Trail on site and the revised proffer is highly significant, which we support.

It does propose bicycle and pedestrian improvements along the frontage and there is potential for some significant expansion eastward that would basically enhance that for a significant segment of Old Ivy Road itself.

There's a mix of housing types proposed and it proposes 15% of affordable units as required by our comp plan.

The concerns that we've identified with this project is that Albemarle High School is currently over capacity and based on the anticipated student generation figures that we have available from the school system.

This would add some students at the high school level.

So that was one concern.

And again, as we've noted, the traffic situation in this area, the overall network that feeds into Old Ivy Road, there haven't been any significant projects undertaken as of now to alleviate those congestion issues.

But as Kevin noted, with the VDOT study that was recently completed, as well as the proffers that this applicant has put forth, we believe there is a solution in the future that could

enhance operations, reduce congestion, and increase safety.

So with that said, that concludes my presentation.

Okay, so questions for staff.

We'll go the other way.

One question.

Thanks for those a lot of information to digest and I guess my question is about the transit stop that was mentioned.

I had to pull up the concept plan.

Usually what we look for now when it comes to a transit stop is a shelter with a bench and signage.

Sometimes that can include some lighting.

The applicants can speak to it.

I don't have the sheet up from the concept plan here, but it is called out and labeled on the plan.

I think it's, again, sheet eight of attachment three.

Go ahead.

A number of clarifications, if you would.

When you were going through the items which have changed, you mentioned that there's a new right-in that the applicant's suggesting that they'll pay for.

There's a left-in coming from the west to the east.

Thank you.

That's a good clarification question.

I might have misspoke a little bit with the original proposal that came before you in June.

The right turn lane into the entrance was shown on the concept plan, as was the left turn lane into the entrance.

And there is also a new right turn lane onto the northbound on ramp for 29 and 250.

All of those are still shown on the concept plan.

And to follow, to sort of extend that a little bit.

Regardless of what happens at sort of the intersection around 21 curves and the off-ramp from 250.

The funds for that are not included in the $750,000.

Those are funds which are outside of that number.

So there's a couple pieces to that.

So the work that VDOT has done that has identified potential improvements, when I say immediately implementable, I'm saying that VDOT actually has identified funding, which they believe will cover the improvements that they're recommending.

If they don't have enough money, then we could utilize this proffer money, $150,750 depending on the total cost of the project.

We could utilize that to supplement the existing VDOT money.

And we actually do have some additional proffer money from another developer that we could use.

So yes, we could use some of that.

And so that would not take away funding from the three lanes related to the egress of the property and to the 250 exit on lane.

Exactly.

The turn lanes that they're proposing in front of their property and to the on ramp to the 29 bypass,

are separate.

Those are going to be completed by the developer one way or the other.

Okay, thank you.

Maybe I should wait for, no I think because it's just something we can ask.

We have been told that this is looking at sort of the bike ped on sidewalks and pedestrian and ped on that road, on Old Ivory Road.

So clearly with some of the developments that have happened on the south side of the road, there's a decent network from, I don't know what that building is, I guess it's the library's archives or whatever they are, all the way down to I think the end at University Village, and then from University Village down to the,

to the underpass, there really isn't, there isn't anything there yet.

Is there a thought, and I know this is not, you're not, I'm not asking you to sort of say yes, this is the way it's gonna be, but is it a thought that instead of trying to wrestle with the north side of that road, to try and extend what's already there on the west side of the road and to use the funds that the applicant is suggesting that since it doesn't appear that Huntington Village is, that Huntington Village is going to

Regardless of what side of the road, because I think the homeowners on the Huntington Village have said they're not interested in being part of a solution for that.

And so I'm trying to figure out whether or not that's a showstopper or the county can say, nope, there's sidewalks over there.

So the reason why we have that clause where it says that if Huntington Village and the adjacent property owner will not agree to donate that right away to the developer,

and they give us that half a million dollars, if we turn that into a public project, we have the ability to acquire that property.

And so we could do that.

That wouldn't be a showstopper for it on the north side.

But I will say that if it doesn't happen, we're going to keep all of our options open.

Thank you for that.

And then I have just a little bit of clarity.

So I'll go back to your, I'll go back over here.

I'll go back over there, but somebody else may want you.

If I understand what you're saying as far as the special exception for the five foot minimum setback and then on the sidewalks and then a reduction or elimination of the height on the on the multi-story piece so it's just so we go up the full four stories instead of having to step back at 15 feet.

If I understood what I was reading in the plan, it looked like they were wanting to eliminate, the applicants wanting to eliminate the five-foot setback throughout the entire project.

If I look at note five and eight on the, I don't know what these things are called.

I guess it is the concept of learning.

And so I'm trying to figure that out.

Really what they're talking about is they want to eliminate the five.

I think when the applicant gets up here, we should also ask them to clarify.

One thing I'll say is that inside of the site, because they are not being subdivided, any of those dwelling units on individual lots, the actual setback requirement applies from where the property touches the right of way of Old Ivy Road itself.

I think they were saying that the structures within the site along that travelway that goes north to south within the property would still effectively sort of meet what a setback requirement otherwise would be.

That special exception request, though, just to be sure, it is for the actual building step back along the facade.

We're being seen on Old Ivy Road.

Ivy Road, yes.

Okay, so the step back is for any of the multifamily.

The setback, the sidewalk piece, is only for the part that's facing Old Ivory Road, because that's not what it looks like in Node 8.

I have several questions for you.

I'll try to go as quickly as possible here.

The intersections that you mentioned were failing with one, two, you had five, five intersections.

One and two were failing.

Currently the additional 4,300 trips would obviously add to that.

Can you put those up?

Three, I believe it's the on-ramp.

I'm sorry, no, four is the on-ramp.

Go to where you have your numbers, yeah.

There we go.

Yeah, so three is the, four is the on-ramp, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And so there's improvements to that on-ramp that are, I'm trying to follow up on the, that are part of the development, not,

That's correct.

Well, a separate proffer, not the cash proffer.

Separate from the 750.

No, I believe the, and we can clarify this once again with the applicant when they get up there, but the analysis I don't believe included with the right turn lane that they're going to implement or they're going to construct.

So what I was saying is that

Current conditions show that there's essentially no failing movements in that intersection number four.

And I actually shouldn't say none because coming out of the parking lot across the street, I believe the delay does cross over into a failing movement, but it's very few vehicles making that movement.

So if you're coming out of the parking lot across from there, there may be a failing movement.

In the current condition, there are no other failing movements.

And in the future condition, the delay does increase, so you will have some additional vehicles backing up, but it doesn't move into the failing category.

But I don't believe that that included

with the right turn lane, which may leave some of that delay, but because it's just a right turn lane, which was free flow anyway, it probably won't have a significant impact on overall delay.

Yeah.

So I'm assuming the improvement is because right now, if you're in that intersection and cars are making that right turn onto the on-ramp,

There are cars that are backed up and one of the reasons why it backs up and I've experienced that multiple times is because you can't make the left turn because there are cars that are making that right ten turn.

So I'm assuming that with their improvements, you will allow the left turns to continue to happen because those cars are going to have a lane.

Well, the idea is that the vehicles that are moving westbound on Old Ivy, whether they're going through or making that right turn, will be able to move through there faster, creating additional breaks for people to make those left turns.

I don't think and

You know, this is something that we could look at when we get to the site plan detail, or we could discuss with the applicant tonight.

But I don't think what they're doing is proposing an additional receiving lane on the ramp that would allow those movements to happen at the same time, which I think is what you're saying.

No, we do not.

It just says right turn lane from Old Ivy onto the ramp.

If we don't have a detail, we don't have the traffic model that would associate with that particular intersection.

No, we do have that.

They have modeled the future conditions with the 4300 at that intersection.

Without improvements?

Without improvements, yes.

And it is not failing.

And it is not failing.

OK.

Perhaps you can answer this as well.

On the transit,

the proposed transit stop.

How does transit actually work on Old Ivy Road?

So they can't come in through the east.

So is there like a turnaround that's assumed in the future?

There is no transit on Old Ivy Road right now.

If it were to be implemented, we'd have to either ensure that the vehicles were small enough to get under that east end or find a turnaround somewhere.

But that's not something that we've gotten into the detail on yet.

But I do recognize that most buses cannot go under the underpass where number five is.

You've analyzed it.

OK, thank you.

Appreciate it.

I have a few questions for you too, Kevin.

So getting back to ZMA 1985, I just had a question about that.

So you went through some changes, some enhancements that have taken place over the past several years since that proffer was in place.

Well, like I said, the intersections on the west end of Old Ivy were not identified as an issue during the 1985 proffer.

So that wouldn't have been measured then.

So those are new, those are changes since 1985.

The other items that we identified, maybe you go back to that slide with the 1985 proffer.

So the next one, yeah.

So these aren't necessarily things that would be measured, that would be able to be measured in operational improvements.

The curb and gutter is something that helps with the stormwater runoff, and it helps with creating more of an urban feel on the road.

There have been significant curb and gutter construction since 1985, or maybe not significant, but large sections of it.

But that isn't really something necessarily measurable.

Just the fact that it provides access to multiple properties along that south side, I think we can say that that has measurably improved access because people can go from one office building.

There's a lot of UVA facilities or UVA offices on that road so they can go back and forth between each other and access other things.

So I think that's something.

And like I said, the realignment under the railroad has not changed since 1985.

Yeah, I guess my thought was if it's limited, the intent here was to limit density to R1.

Exactly.

Yeah.

And those are, that's most obviously shown at the intersections on the west end, where we did identify that there are significant new problems, but that we think we've identified a way to fix them.

The intersection on the east end is not shown to have failing movements in the future.

So no problems there.

It's a two-lane road and I think the existing volumes are around six or seven thousand, six to seven thousand right now, adding another even five thousand.

A two-lane road can accommodate that, especially because there's no stop signs or signals on it and turn lanes.

Great, thank you.

So shifting west, the 6% contribution is maybe a question for the applicant too versus a cash contribution.

It sounds like they're focused on a cash contribution, not the 6% of whatever, right?

So if the total cost of the improvements is higher?

And the 6% number is a million or more.

It's the max of 750.

Okay.

Thank you.

And do you know whether those cost estimates were based on current VDOT numbers or how those numbers were arrived?

Was that?

No, because we didn't have a specific improvement that we had identified.

So I don't believe that's related to anything, any specific improvement.

It's just that 6% and they're willing to go up to 750,000 because they believe that's the maximum that they should contribute.

Great.

Thank you.

And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but you did mention a relatively short amount of time.

You think there are solutions that could improve traffic at the western edge in a relative or the western side in a relatively short amount of time.

I guess I'm wondering about timing and maybe this is like a crystal ball.

We can't answer this, but in terms of the timing of the improvements, is that near term?

No, it's even more near term than that.

So VDOT has identified Highway Safety Improvement Program funds that they are able to move to this project immediately so they could get this started almost immediately once we've finalized the study.

and the engineering and made sure that our board and the public can all get on, can all accept the improvements that are being recommended, which include like a rebuild of that signal at Canterbury and 250 to improve operations and some operational improvements at the three intersections that make up the triangle.

and all that, they think it would all be complete prior to any buildings being occupied related to the old IV residences.

I just have a quick simple question for you, just to clarify.

So would the county want to move forward with these improvements regardless of whether this application is before, of this application before us tonight?

Absolutely.

We've been analyzing this prior to old IV residences because we knew it was a problem.

Okay, so it's not like one of those other situations where we're waiting to have more developments that will become such a problem, then we can get warrants to have an improvement.

This is already a problem.

Okay.

I did practice this morning and this afternoon driving around in the problem zones.

There are problems.

Yes.

It made me late, almost late for work.

But in any case, is there any other questions for staff before we go to the applicant?

There's one follow-up question.

Thank you.

Well, I'm aware of the flooding issues at this underpass on the east end.

Okay.

Those have been discussed.

We have not identified a way to improve that, but it's something that VDOT is aware of.

And that's probably more of a maintenance issue to correct some of the culverts and things under there.

The solution is still needed.

On East Ham.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. McDermott.

Let's go ahead and hear from the applicant now.

Good evening commissioners and staff.

My name is John Clarkson.

Good seeing you all again.

I'm managing director for Gray Star Real Estate Partners.

Very excited to be back here with you again.

When we met with you in June, some of the big issues that were laid out were traffic and affordable housing that have been mentioned.

And what I said then, and I still very much believe now is that we want to be good neighbors and participants within the community.

And we feel like we've made a lot of changes working with staff to meet those requests that you all made for us at that meeting.

And hopefully at the end of the evening, we'll have proven that to you, but we stand by this project.

We believe in it fully.

We're going to be here for a really long time and we just appreciate

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm Valerie Long with the law firm of Williams-Mullen representing the applicant, Graystar.

We have our whole team here.

It's a big group, so I won't introduce everyone, but please know we have our civil engineers here as well as our traffic engineer.

I think we can hopefully cover all any questions you have.

We do have some slides.

I'm going to skip through a lot of it.

Cameron and Kevin covered the issue so well and thoroughly, which saves us a lot of time and we want to do what they did and focus on the changes that we've made in response to the feedback you all provided us in June, and also

to provide some clarification on some of the questions you raised.

But I'm cognizant of the time limitations.

Since we do have two rezoning applications, we might, if necessary to address your questions longer, I might ask for a little extension of time in that regard.

Sounds like maybe there's not questions about the Preserve Steep Slopes application based on Mr. Langell's presentation, but certainly we can address any questions.

So I'll go quickly through this.

We do have a few new renderings that we had prepared in the interim, just conceptual showing how that would look in a more 3D fashion.

So you could evaluate how that would look.

We think it's turned out really well.

We talk about the amenities.

I know in some other projects you've had questions about those, the quality of the amenities and the quantity of the amenity space.

We're very proud of what we've proposed here.

We've got over eight acres of open space, very high-end amenities that will make this a very attractive location.

This is the illustrative plan that that prior image was based on.

You've seen this, I'll come back to it if necessary.

And these are just highlighting, you know, there's a lot on the screen, but we wanted to really highlight where the tot lots are and sport courts and walking trails, clubhouses, swimming pools, and sort of the layout of where various types of housing units would be located.

One thing I want to reiterate is the level of sensitivity that Graystar

applied to the design of this project from the very beginning to be sensitive to the neighbors immediately adjacent in University Village and Huntington Village, among other things, locating the apartments as far away from both neighborhoods as possible.

and having the shorter two-story townhouses and single-family homes adjacent to those neighborhoods to do as much as possible to minimize any visual impacts and just be respectful of their location.

Just to clarify, over 80% of the property is already zoned R-15, so we're really just asking to rezone 7.1 acres.

Again, the updates which Mr. Langell covered, but we increased the cash proffer for transportation is a total of $1,250,000.

One point of clarification is we drafted the proffer to be very flexible in addition to the funds being able to be used in that so-called triangle or congestion area, which I can pull back up on.

The funds could also be used anywhere along Old Ivy Road.

So from one end of Old Ivy Road to the other end of Old Ivy Road, plus the section at the Bel Air or Canterbury Road signal back towards the bypass where the congestion is.

So we've drafted it flexibly.

Might need a little bit of wordsmithing to cover that, but that was certainly the intent if it wasn't clear.

We also updated the traffic counts.

There was a comment raised at the first meeting that the traffic study was conducted during a time that was the last day of UVA's classes.

We felt comfortable with that, but because we had time, we had our traffic engineers repeat those counts and we're pleased to say that they are very consistent with the earlier counts, which had a 10% COVID adjustment factor involved.

So we've confirmed the accuracy and validity of those counts.

Again, we increase affordable housing commitments substantially.

15% of all constructed units would be affordable.

That would be up to 79 units, a significant increase over the original.

We reiterate that the application is consistent with the

County's Climate Action Plan, Incorporate Screen Principles, you all asked at the first meeting.

Wanted to make sure we were thinking about all these issues and we can elaborate on that if there's interest.

And then the concept plan, most of it was technical changes, clarified the affordable housing, clarified the wetlands note.

We added a clause that essentially if VDOT allows it, the proposed crosswalk

that would extend from the entrance of the project across Old Ivy Road to the south side so that everyone could access those sidewalks that are on the south side.

That that would be a signalized, you know, flashing light or a button that you could activate.

That's all subject to VDOT, of course, but if they'll let us do it, they'll do it.

And then we added a note clarifying a setback issue and I'll speak to that, Mr. Bivins, in connection with your question.

These are some renderings and just a list of the benefits of the project.

I won't go through all of them.

Many of them have been mentioned already, but the amount of the proffers, the affordable housing, it checks all the boxes on the county's comprehensive plan.

The most important is this land has been designated for urban density residential use for decades and decades, I believe since the development areas were established.

We've worked very hard to address as many concerns as we could that we've heard from neighbors.

The most significant, of course, is traffic safety and traffic congestion.

And I'm happy to elaborate more, but all of the transportation proffers and the elements of the application plan, including those turn lanes, those turn lanes are very important for both reducing or preventing congestion as well as addressing the safety concerns.

The sidewalks, the multi-use path, all of those elements are directly intended to mitigate any potential future transportation impacts.

associated with the project.

So we contend that we have fully mitigated any traffic safety or congestion issues.

You've heard a lot from, I know, supporters of the Rivanna Trail about we worked closely with them to clarify that that commitment is permanent.

It was always intended to be permanent, but we reiterated that or clarified that better in our updated proffers.

This I already mentioned that the updated traffic counts confirm the earlier counts,

I have a lot of data here, I won't get into it.

Just essentially the traffic study counts in addition to repeating all of the studied intersections that were originally studied, our traffic engineers also studied and knew the trip counts coming in and out of the three other residential communities nearby, Huntington Village, University Village, and Ivy Gardens.

And the sort of summary is those existing residents,

They're a relatively small proportion of the traffic on Old Ivy Road.

The vast majority, or much more significant, is the pass-by traffic, the cut-through traffic.

the local residents aren't contributing the vast majority and as such old ivy residents certainly it will contribute trips as noted but it will not it's not going to be the driving force of any exacerbation and has been said this is an long-standing traffic issue as everyone knows the 1985 proffer talks all about the the shortcomings of old ivy road

Although I will note that prof from Mr. Missel was that 1985, the minutes reflected wasn't actually about congestion.

It was about the quality of the road.

Those three things Mr. McDermott mentioned, sidewalks, the railroad trestle and the need for curb and gutter.

Happy to talk as much as you want about traffic, and we have our engineer here who can really dig in on any questions.

We already talked about how we increase the affordable housing.

This aligns with the county's housing policy and a variety of additional goals and objectives.

We also have some data we can come back to you and let you dig in.

And if you want to, this property is located in neighborhood seven, and there's been almost no development in this neighborhood.

While there has been, of course, development in all the other neighborhoods, only five units have been built in this neighborhood since 2018.

So lots of data on this, happy to come back to.

This is our updated concept plan, which there's so much going on here, but we have a summary of the little changes we made to it, which I've already covered.

Happy to come back to that.

But this would be really important and addresses, among other things, Mr. Carrazana, your question about the turn lane.

We do have the turn lane that supports or provides a second lane for those vehicles driving west who want to get onto the bypass.

And so it's there.

It obviously is not a site plan level design, but those details will be part of the site plan application.

VDOT would require all of these improvements regardless, but we've committed to them.

And our traffic engineer has educated me even more about how much those turn lanes will contribute to safety improvements as well as reducing congestion.

Since some of the other neighborhoods don't have a left turn, one vehicle waiting to turn left into another neighborhood can create backups.

So by having turn lanes here,

These residents won't have those same problems.

We'll avoid those, create more breaks, and just free the cars up that are trying to get onto the bypass ramp.

Let them get on there, especially now that we know how much of it is pass-through traffic.

We have a lot of... We can switch to the question and answer, and you can use that opportunity to, like a politician would, to answer.

I'm sure you were making a list there.

Let me switch to...

We have a slide somewhere with the congestion area exhibit.

Bear with me.

I'll just do it here.

And this was just a typo, I think, on Mr. McDermott's slides, but it was an important one that I want to clarify.

There was a slide about the Eastern Railroad Trestle, so the one where there are flooding issues, and Mr. McDermott's slide was talking about the challenges with addressing that concern and said, but we don't believe

This project should bear responsibility for those improvements.

Is that fair?

But your slide said should bear responsibility.

So I just wanted to clarify that important distinction.

And then I mentioned already, but just to reiterate, the cash proffer, the total amount for transportation improvements is $1,250,000.

We've designed that to be as flexible to the county as possible.

It can be used in that so-called congestion area, which is

My cursor's not showing up here.

But that triangle area that you saw that's attached to our proffers that has the red and the yellow stars, that's where the congestion is now.

And so that's what we call the congestion area.

But we also clarified that those funds could also be used anywhere on Old Ivy Road as well.

So ultimate flexibility.

Our traffic engineer also clarified to me that, among other benefits, those dollars, if the project is approved,

The county can use those as matching funds for any VDOT funding programs that might apply for whether it's smart scale, revenue sharing, et cetera.

So it provides that even larger benefit to the county.

There was a question about whether the bus stop includes a bench or a shelter.

I think Mr. Clayborne, I didn't get a chance to look it up, but if it's not already clear, we certainly, you know, Graystar will commit to a bus stop and a shelter much as we did with another project recently.

There was Mr. Bivins, you had a question about a five foot setback.

If I could, I will back up to our plan and use that to

explain.

But there's two different issues.

The first is the building step back.

I'm talking about the setback.

Right.

So the setback issue is, there's my cursor, we have established on the plan, a five foot setback.

So any buildings on these travelways will be set back a minimum

That wouldn't technically be required because it's a travel way and it's not a subdivision, but staff pointed out to us that that would be an appropriate thing to commit to.

So we put that on our plans in between.

So that's that issue.

We're not asking for any setback modifications, just proposing to add that one.

that the traffic study and the bypass ramp, Mr. Carrazana, this was in response to your question and whether the, if I understood your question correctly, whether the traffic study modeled that turn lane as if it were going to be in place.

And our traffic engineer tells me, yes, that that was assumed that the counts and the modeling at full build out that that turn lane would be in place

So just wanted to clarify that issue and certainly if there's follow up questions from you or anyone, Thomas Ruff with Timmons Group can certainly handle those questions better than I can.

And then Mr. Carrazana you also asked about the transit and how is that going to work on Old Ivy Road.

As was noted, there isn't any transit now.

The hope is that by at least accommodating future transit, that that will help.

And I know the university's Ivy Gardens Master Plan has lots of elements about the importance of transit and sort of accommodating transit infrastructure.

So the hope is that VVA, when they redevelop old Ivy Gardens or anywhere else, that maybe transit will come.

This will be ready for it.

We're happy to work with the transit folks, regardless about how you know the access and turnarounds and so forth would work.

I also know I don't know if it's resumed or not, but we we learned that before COVID the university had a shuttle system

I think that went between the hospital facilities and office buildings and included Old Ivy Road as part of its route.

I understand it was paused during COVID.

I don't know if it's been restarted.

But that was part of our thing is, well, maybe that shuttle could continue to Old Ivy Residences if there's

employees or medical students that that would be a great opportunity.

So that would work for that as well.

Or maybe there'd be another location internal to the site that would be a better location.

But we wanted to do what we could to commit to improving transit or at least accommodating it, if not improving it in the future.

Mr. Missel, you also asked a question about where did the 6% figure come from, but also where did the 125,000 to 750,000 come from?

Those are based on some cost estimates that were in this draft study that VDOT put together about what certain long-term improvements might cost.

So it was hard to come up with a number because there's not an actual project yet, but we had to have a number.

We needed to have a cap.

And state law requires us to demonstrate that whatever the cash proffer amount is, is that it's proportional to any impact the project would create.

So that's where those numbers come from.

And I believe those were all the issues I had, if I've missed anything.

Well, we've probably been saving a few questions, sure, for you all.

I know I have some questions, but shall we start it this way?

I just have a simple question for you.

Again, getting back to that 6%, you mentioned the total transportation profits are 1.25 million.

That's max, right?

Correct.

So it'd be a range of 650 to 1.25.

It's 125,000 minimum up to 750.

So it's a little hard the way we wrote it, but I'll try to clarify.

I think you get it, but just for the benefit of anyone else that one section of the proffer says will contribute between 125,000 and 750,000 to future transportation improvements in this area.

And then the second proffer says, in addition to building the multi-use path across the frontage,

Graystar would also build it across the two adjacent neighborhoods if they donate the land.

And if they don't donate the land, we'll give the county half a million dollars so it could build it.

And then in conversations with Mr. McDermott, it was we realized it would be helpful to not restrict where the money could be used or how that again, especially since there's not yet certainty on what that project will be.

So we revised it to basically say, you can use the 500,000 for the multi-use path, or you can use it anywhere else.

You can lump it in with the 750 if you want.

I have no doubt that the ultimate project will cost enough that probably that entire amount will be required.

Thank you.

Just one other question regarding pedestrians.

So it strikes me that any paths along Old Ivy Road

especially if there's a source of pedestrians that are coming from this development going east, that they do get to that pinch point at the Eastern Railroad Bridge, which I guess is sort of inevitable.

And I know we heard staff say there's maybe some potential improvements for that.

Is there, and I don't know if you could give us an update on the 10-foot multi-use path that is to the northeast.

that is labeled as connect to Leonard Sanders Road subject to the acquisition of any necessary offsite easements.

Yes, we're not there.

Unfortunately, Gray Star has met with representatives of the university to talk about that.

And we've requested an easement that would be needed because there's a piece of land that that future path would go through.

I haven't probably easier if I turn to that exhibit as well, if you don't mind.

Sorry, we had so many slides to try and cover every

Here it is, right here.

Sorry, you saw this already.

So the, just to orient everyone, I think you can see the colored is the illustrative rendering.

The blue line is an existing 20 foot access easement that this land benefits from.

It's actually through mostly land that's owned by the university.

It's an old road.

If you hear us talk about it, you may have heard of it.

It's called the Tufnell Road.

I'm not sure what the source of that is, but it's a 20-foot easement.

I think it's an old historic farm road.

And this easement has been in place for a long time.

The current owners of the property worked very hard over the years.

They were the developers of University Village to maintain that access easement.

There's also a 30-foot easement that's on the University Village side.

Originally, there was a plan to have a vehicular connection there.

Graystar has no plans for that, but certainly they appreciate the benefits of having a bicycle and pedestrian path to Leonard Sandridge Road.

There already is the Rivanna Trail functions quite well for that purpose, but we think it would be really helpful to have another one.

So the proposal is they would build a bike ped or multi-use path in the area that's blue where they have the right to do so.

But the area in red, that goes through land that's owned by the rectors and visitors, and so we would need an easement to make that connection.

That red line coincides with one, a platted easement, when the Montesano property was kind of conveyed back and forth from the University and the Foundation, and that easement was reserved.

pretty much coincides with where an existing footpath is, where I'm told the Darden students are already walking through there.

So we thought that was a good location.

Unfortunately, the university was not receptive to that issue.

We hope that we can continue those conversations and certainly would like to.

I think there's concern about it interfering with future redevelopment of Ivy Gardens, which we certainly appreciate.

So hopefully we can get at some point maybe a temporary easement at least that would facilitate that bike-ped path.

We think it would be a benefit to the entire community, not just the residents at Old Ivy, University Village, Huntington Village and others, because as you all may know, right along the boundary, if my cursor is going to show up or not, here we go, pretty much right along this line,

That's also the old Tufnell Road.

It's the boundary essentially between University Village and Ivy Gardens.

There is a small asphalt path right there at Old Ivy with some bollards, but that's the start of the 20-foot Tufnell Road.

It's paved nearly everywhere.

There's some grass over it right here, but this functions as a bike-ped connection already.

And so this would just continue it.

People are already using it.

That's correct.

Got it.

Yes.

And I can clarify that as well.

Let me go back to that slide.

Originally, with our original proposal, one of the many things that our engineers look at from the beginning is making sure that this site will have a future fire access row.

You need two entrances if you have more than 50.

So we obviously have one entrance.

So originally the proposal was to use that Tufnell Road as the fire road.

And they could still do that.

But we also, in the meantime, wanted to make sure we had another option as well.

So I'm going to back up to our conceptual plan where we have shown that and it is this sort of

Fuchsia purple pink color here.

That would be, and by the way, we've vetted this with the fire marshal and our construction designers.

This wouldn't be paved.

I think it would just be, you know, designed to have, I guess, pavers or hold the weight of the fire trucks, but probably not noticeably be a path, but it would provide that connection.

to obviously in through that parking lot.

And then if you need to get over here, obviously the idea is that if this travelway were blocked for some reason and an emergency vehicle needed to get access, say to a residence over here, they can use that.

This road is one part of sort of a pedestrian network.

It's also would be needed for a vehicular access to provide maintenance for the dam, for the pond.

And then serves a third purpose of supporting the emergency fire access.

So it's not official which one will be decided, but we wanted to show both as potential options.

Sure.

I'm not sure if they put it on the screen, but it was a section that's included.

Oh, I know what you're saying.

So I'm trying to, so my question is I'm trying to,

These, I think, are the ones.

So this, we have three of these.

So this one shows it looking sort of from Ivy Road across the University of Food Stacks building and showing that in terms of, well you can see, looking that way.

And then this was one

from the ramp showing about any potential visibility, excuse me, from the entrance corridor and the relationship of the proposed units there.

And then maybe this was the one you were thinking.

Okay.

So from Old Ivy Road, I mean, as you travel through Old Ivy Road, obviously those, those four stories are going to be evident because there's really not much of a landscape buffer.

If I look at your, at your submission plan, your application, I mean, obviously that, that land will be disturbed.

Let me show you, I have a slide.

I think that this slide again may help.

Um, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

No, no, that's this is, this is fine.

And this was actually a technical change we added to the plans actually in response to some questions about it at the first meeting.

This is an existing setback that exists.

And there were questions about how far this building in particular would be set back from Old Ivy in connection.

It was part of evaluating whether the step back request was warranted.

And so we show how it

meets the 25-foot setback.

It's measured from the closest corner.

So there is space there for landscaping.

We obviously don't show it here, but this is the proposed multi-use path.

I believe it's from the property line.

So this line, this arrow points to a line.

here, and that represents 25 feet from the red, which is the property line.

Right, so you have some opportunities for landscape, but all of that's going to be new landscape.

Absolutely.

Let me show you maybe on no mature trees that will remain there.

I couldn't speak specifically to that.

Just the size of the building that you're building and the proximity to the road and they'll be gone is my assumption.

Just in order to build a building, right?

There's probably going to be... Our folks are telling me there's not really any trees there.

They're already gone?

A little bit, yes, and it will be, there's certainly room for landscaping and plantings, which we show in this area.

It is a little bit at a higher elevation as well.

So it'll be... Does that address your question?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So thank you for saying that it's a minimum of five feet along the travelways there, and I assume that's that long road that goes from sort of rust to yellow to rust again.

Correct.

Okay, fine.

But it will not be within

Will it extend up to where the orange is over there at the cul-de-sac?

I'm nearly certain it talks about from the travel way.

So does that consider the main, it's really main?

The sort of cluster of

Yes.

Okay, I understand that.

So I agree.

I think you've done some interesting things.

And one of the things that you that I'm still, I will say, while I appreciate, but I'm still

I'm concerned about is that all the multifamily housing is all in one area.

And I understand why you said you wanted to preserve some buffers from, I guess it's Huntington Village over there.

But there's still areas here where we could have put some, where I think there would have been possible to put a multifamily unit that didn't have them all clustered in together.

Because my next question is going to be,

Do we have a sense of where the affordable units are going to be?

Are the affordable units going to be in different housing types, or are we going to only have affordable units in the multifamily, which then will extend my disappointment, or enhance my disappointment is probably the better word to say, that we have a cluster of apartments where I believe if you're still, if you were trying to shield them from the other units, which, I mean, University Village is a tall building, so I don't actually

Thank you for that.

Those issues haven't been fully resolved yet, but Graystar is very open to those and is interested in trying to see if they can ways to make that work.

wherever possible.

So I think that's one of the many benefits of the variety of housing types.

I'm not aware of any other projects that have affordable housing units proffered in anything other than multifamily, which is probably the source of your comment.

So they're open to that option if they can figure out how to make it work.

What I will say to that is that when we look at our census demographics here, affordable housing in this community, and this is not a good thing, in fact, I will say, means that people who are probably working clerical roles in a number of businesses around here, they will qualify for that.

And so those would not be simply individuals who I would say they would probably benefit from having the opportunity to be in some of the other housing types.

As I remember, it's a complete rental, it's a rental community.

So that's when we look at those numbers for our community, those are not what I would say some of our

Some of our citizens believe that affordable housing has some stigma to it.

So that's why I'm looking for it.

It's a workforce housing issue.

Exactly.

All of those and so yes.

As you probably know, Mr. Bivins, the county's housing director is working on incentives package to make some of the concepts more feasible.

We hope that by the time those get adopted, we can take advantage of those.

Okay, I have a quick follow on question.

I have other questions for you for later.

But so if I if I read the application correctly, you put a 10 year limit on how long you would offer affordable housing.

So it really just getting affordable housing for a decade and then it becomes unaffordable.

So I guess that's my not unaffordable, but not easily affordable.

So can you comment on that?

Again, that's the county policy now, 80% AMI for 10 years.

becomes a significant issue without the incentives package.

So again, the hope is that we can take advantage of that and address that issue for the reasons you said.

First, I want to say thank you for the modifications since June.

I think it certainly helps the proposal.

Just to kind of piggyback on what we've been discussing with the affordable housing, in my notes from June,

I had the rent price to be between $1,800 and $3,200.

So it's not really a low price point.

So those numbers were provided in June.