Planning Commission Regular Meeting   4/25/2023

Thank you.

By my watch, it is six o'clock on the nose.

I will call to order the Planning Commission meeting from April 25th.

And I will begin by establishing a quorum.

Yes.

Ms.

Firehock?

Present.

Mr. Carrazana?

Great.

Thank you.

So, we do have an established quorum and we'll move on to other matters not listed on the agenda from the public.

Um are there any?

Okay, seeing none.

Uh we will move on to the consent agenda.

I would like to ask a question.

Carolyn, I know you're online.

I had sent an edit, which I didn't get acknowledgment that you got it from last Thursday.

And I just wanted to check if that edit had been made in the minutes.

Yes, ma'am, it has.

Great.

If no one wants to call it up, do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved.

Great, thank you.

Mr. Missell?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye Ms.

We will now move on to the action items beginning with SDP 2022-47 Victoria Heights AIA review.

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

Tonight, we have several uncommon items that have not come before the Planning Commission in quite a long time.

And these are AIA or Airport Impact Area Determinations.

So in my presentation here, I'll give some background on the project, some background on what an AIA determination is,

and then some staff's analysis of the AIA request and determination and then into the motions like in a usual public hearing.

So as an aerial view of the site of this proposed development, which is called Victorian Heights, it is two parcels that are located on property between Woodburn Road and Berkmar Drive.

And you can see the Walmart is just to the northeast.

A relatively new subdivision called Berkmar Overlook is to the south.

And then up in the top left corner of the graphic, you can see the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.

The zoning of these two parcels that are the subject of this request are both R-15 residential, which is the brown color, which allows 15 residential units per acre.

And there is also two zoning overlay districts, the airport impact area or the AIA, which is the subject of this request, and then managed steep slopes.

Surrounding zoning districts include CO, which is the pink light red color right to the north, HC, which is highway commercial, the dark red to the east, R6 residential is the orange to the south and southwest, and then the white is rural areas.

In the comprehensive plan, these properties are in the Places 29 master plan in neighborhood one,

One, the northern parcel is designated for urban density residential, which is the orange color at 6.01 to 34 units per acre.

And the one to the south, the purple is designated office R&D flex light industrial, which does allow residential as a secondary use.

So some more site characteristics.

As I mentioned, both parcels are currently zoned R15, which allows 15 residential units per acre.

Both parcels to go together total just under five acres.

The applicant is proposing a by-right development of 88 single-family attached and multi-family units.

And with that by-right development, they are proposing both a cluster development as well as using the bonus factor provisions in the ordinance.

And the specific bonus factor the applicant is proposing to use is the affordable housing standards to provide affordable housing units in this development in return for increased density.

and the AIA overlay district, which I mentioned earlier.

When cluster development and or bonus factors are used, the AIA overlay district requires the Planning Commission, a Planning Commission determination.

I'll explain more on that in a little bit.

First, I wanted to just show

where the AIA overlay district is.

That's something we often have in staff reports, but it's not really talked about very much in staff reports.

And as you can see in this graphic, the AIA overlay district really encompasses a significant chunk of the county

and especially a significant chunk of the development areas of the county, ranging from south of 64, pretty much encompassing all of the 29 North corridor up past the airport to include North Point, Inject, those areas up there.

It includes Hollymeade, Brookhill, Walmart, the Rio 29 area.

So it encompasses a large part of the development, the developed areas of the county.

And so looking at this requirement in the zoning ordinance that requires this planning commission determination, there is one subsection in the airport impact area section of the zoning ordinance related to cluster development and bonus factors.

And it states that no cluster development or bonus level provisions or regulations will be permitted unless the commission shall determine that such development will reduce or be equivalent to hazard and or noise impacts

anticipated under standard level conventional development of the underlying zoning district.

And this is really the only sentence, the only section that relates to this.

There are no further factors to consider anything like that in the zoning ordinance.

So what the applicant is proposing, the applicant wants to use both cluster development provision and the affordable housing bonus factor to allow for an increase of density on this property.

The affordable housing bonus factor states that if at least one half of the additional housing units allowed by this density bonus are developed as affordable housing units, then a density increase of up to 30% will be granted.

And the applicant is proposing

to provide, I think it's eight affordable housing units for an overall density increase of, it would be about 20%.

And then the applicant is also proposing to use a cluster development which concentrates lots in specific areas and allows the remaining land to be used in common open space.

And then the cluster development, at least 25% of the area of development must be in that open space.

So this is just the proposed plan that the applicant is proposing for this development.

This is one of the sheets out of the site plan that is under review by staff.

You can see the townhouses are at the top of the page and then the multifamily units are

on the bottom of the development which is the eastern portion of this property along Berkmar Drive and then there are areas of open space scattered throughout the property especially along Berkmar Drive and then one central kind of a path going through the central part of the development connecting Berkmar Drive with Woodburn Road.

So in staff's analysis of this request, we looked at both the land use designation and the Places 29 master plan, as well as the existing zoning of both the property, the subject property and the surrounding area.

And as I mentioned in the Places 29 master plan, these properties are designated for urban density residential and flex office R&D light industrial, which does allow residential as well.

And so the proposed density of this project using the affordable housing bonus provision

would come out to about 18 units per acre, and that would be in the middle of the range for what the master plan designates for the urban density residential, which is between 6.01 and 34 units per acre.

And then looking at the zoning, there is, as I showed in a slide at the beginning of this presentation, a wide mix of zoning districts in the surrounding area, from the R-15 of these properties to CO, HC, and R-6.

and I wanted to mention that the RA, the rural area zone parcels that are nearby, those are not in the development area because they are surrounding the reservoir.

They were determined to not be appropriate for being in the development area.

And so with these different zoning districts around the commercial development, the residential development, the proposed level of development from this Victorian Heights project is consistent with the surrounding areas.

And as I mentioned, with the cluster development, at least 25% of the property would remain open space.

And in staff's review of the site plan, that requirement is being met.

And then looking at the structure height for the zoning district, since we are talking about the airport impact area, structure height would not be increased above what is permitted by right.

In the R-15 zoning district, a height of 65 feet is permitted, and the tallest building being proposed with this development is about 54 feet.

So taking all of these items into consideration, staff does recommend that the commission approve the applicant's request for the determination that this development that is located in the AIA overlay district will reduce or be equivalent to hazard and or noise impacts anticipated under the standard level conventional development of the underlying zoning district.

So I'm available for questions before we get to the motions.

Great, thank you.

Yes, sir.

This is just staying with us.

So yes, I do have two questions.

OK.

So my first question is, well, I have three questions.

So my first question is, did Berkmar Overlook have to go through a similar thing?

Does that change at all?

Who gives you that overlay?

The airport does.

Okay, that's really interesting.

I mean, I fly in and out of there a lot.

But I think... Yeah.

Yeah, they can come up with different areas.

Thinking about our colleagues, if they do anything at North Point, I'm just gonna have more density, but that's fine, okay.

So unless there's gonna be, I'm learning from my colleague here.

This is going to be some significant sort of re-terrishing there.

That's a lot of, I don't know how that's going to be green space.

And so I hope somebody is looking at that to see if it's really usable.

Right now, it doesn't look that useful.

And then the other piece that I'm going to ask about is on the left-hand side there, you have a sidewalk.

How will a person with limited disability, with disabilities be able to do that?

that's the stairs in it.

Any other, excuse me, any other questions?

OK, so I need some guidance.

That's correct.

This does not require a public hearing.

And can I ask a question?

Correct.

And the suggested motion is on the screen.

Or sidewalks or stairs on sidewalks.

So my other question, I guess, is related to the applicant and whether the applicant is interested in giving any kind of a presentation.

I know we're a little bit out of order in a public comment, but no.

OK, good to go.

Do we have a motion to?

I move that the Planning Commission find that the proposed cluster development and bonus level provisions or regulations of Victorian Heights SDP-20-2247 will reduce or be equivalent to hazard and or noise impacts anticipated under standard level conventional development of the underlying zoning district.

Great, thank you.

Second.

Carolyn, could you call the roll, please?

No discussion.

Sorry.

Yes, I can.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Great.

Thank you.

So now before we move on to item B, action item B, I would propose that we reorder items B and C so that we can be in keeping with the AIA reviews back to back and then conclude with the planting strip waiver request.

And in order to do that, I would seek a motion to allow that.

Moved.

Could we call the roll, please, Carolyn?

Yes.

Mr. Missell.

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock.

Aye.

Great.

Thank you.

So this is the second AIA determination that we have tonight, the Montgomery Ridge Phase 4 project.

It's a very similar presentation, so I may go through this one more quickly and skip some of the slides that were the same as in the last presentation.

As an aerial view of where this project is, I've identified the site there in the middle of the screen.

You have the Montgomery Ridge subdivision, the existing Montgomery Ridge subdivision to the west.

Forest Lakes is to the north and then Polo Grounds Road you can see in the bottom left hand portion of this graphic.

The zoning for these parcels, there's technically two, one larger parcel that is where most of the development is going to be and then one smaller parcel in Montgomery Ridge where a connecting road is going to be and that's the, that'll be the subject of the next item tonight.

And these parcels are zoned R1 residential which permits one unit per acre

And the overlay zoning districts on these properties are, again, the AIA managed steep slopes and preserved steep slopes.

And then some of the surrounding zoning districts, you have the NMD neighborhood model district, which is Brookhill, and then Forest Lakes is PUD planned unit development.

Looking at the comprehensive plan, these parcels are also in the Places 29 master plan.

They're in the community of Hollymeade portion of it.

And they are designated for neighborhood density residential, which recommends three to six units per acre.

And then there's an institutional designation on property to the west, and then some green space areas around Forest Lakes.

Looking at the site characteristics, as I mentioned, they are zoned R1.

The two parcels together

Together total approximately 14.27 acres.

The existing use, there's one single family detached house on the larger property along with some accessory structures.

And so the applicant is proposing to develop this property by right with 14 single family detached houses.

And again, the applicant is requesting to use the cluster development and bonus factor provisions of the ordinance.

and the specific bonus factor being used in this development is the environmental standards bonus factor for maintaining wooded areas.

Again, showing where the AIA overlay district is in the county.

The section of the ordinance that explains why we are here this evening.

And then so looking at the proposal for this specific development, as I mentioned, the applicant is looking to use the environmental standards bonus factor, which if existing wooded areas equal to at least 10%, but less than 20% of the site are maintained, then a density increase of 5% will be granted.

So that is what the applicant is proposing to use.

The density really doesn't increase that much because it would still stay at about 14 units per acre, or I'm sorry, one unit per acre, 14 units on 14 acres.

And then using the cluster development, which again concentrates lots in specific areas.

This is the proposed plan for this development.

I've really only shown the area that's to be developed.

This is really kind of the northern half.

of the parcel and then the southern half of the parcel is the portion that is proposed to be maintained as largely open space and where the wooded area, the 5%, at least 5% or the at least 10% wooded area for the 5% density increase.

Looking at the analysis, the land use designation, the proposed density under by right zoning,

is one unit per acre, and that is less than what the master plan designates for the property at three to six units per acre.

And then zoning and surrounding area, it's a very similar development pattern to the surrounding areas, Montgomery Ridge and Forest Lakes.

The zoning district matches the existing Montgomery Ridge subdivision to the west.

As a cluster development, at least 25% will remain open space, and as I mentioned, that's really the southern portion of the property.

And then the height of the structures will not be increased above what is permitted by Wright in the R1 zoning district.

So once again, with this AIA determination request, staff recommends that the commission does approve the applicant's request for the same reason.

Great.

Thank you for the staff report.

Okay, well, all right, Siri is listening to me.

Great.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Yes.

Ms.

Firehock.

Oh yes, sorry.

Great, thank you.

Mr. Chair, if I might, at this junction now that we've considered these two requests, I suggested to staff that we seek the input of the commission as to whether or not the commission would like these items to come back as regular action items or consent agenda items in the future.

This is the first airport impact.

Action that we've had in quite some time and I suggested to staff when we were discussing this that the first ones in a while be brought back as regular action items, but then to seek the input of the commission as to when these are scheduled on future agendas, whether they should be consent agenda items that can be pulled or whether they should continue to be regular action items.

Thoughts on that?

I agree.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So for this final item tonight, the Montgomery Ridge waivers, they also have to do with the proposed subdivision plat of Montgomery Ridge, phase four, just like the previous item we looked at, the AIA determination.

And so I'll go through some of the same slides again.

It's the same site, these two parcels that are just to the east of the existing Montgomery Ridge subdivision.

And specifically this

These requests for the sidewalk and planting strip waivers apply more to this parcel that I've highlighted.

This is the proposed road parcel, which is where the interconnection between the existing Montgomery Ridge subdivision and the new lots are proposed to go.

And this parcel was when the original Montgomery Ridge subdivision was platted.

This parcel was reserved for future dedication to the county.

It is, however, still owned by the HOA by Montgomery Ridge.

And so the applicant is looking to acquire this parcel from the HOA to be able to develop the parcel that you see on the right side of the screen to the east.

But when designing the road for the development and putting it on this parcel, this parcel is not wide enough to accommodate

The road that is required by our current regulations with the width of the road, sidewalks and planting strips and that sort of thing.

So that is one of the main reasons why the applicant has submitted this request to modify the street standards for planting strips and sidewalks for this development.

So explaining more about this proposal, again, the parcels are stoned R1.

Both parcels together are just over 14 and a quarter acres.

The existing use is one single family detached house.

The proposed by right development is 14 single family detached houses using the cluster subdivision and the bonus factors.

As I mentioned, the parcel that

Small road parcel is owned by the Montgomery Ridge HOA, but it's not wide enough for current street design regulations.

So the applicant has requested to modify the sidewalk requirements to permit a sidewalk on only one side of the street and modify the planting strip requirements to allow reductions in the planting strip widths.

Zoning, as I mentioned, it's one R1 residential allowing one unit per acre with overlay zoning districts of AIA and then both managed and preserved steep slopes.

The comprehensive plan again, designates these parcels as neighborhood density residential, allowing residential or recommending residential at three to six units per acre.

This is a conceptual plan from the preliminary subdivision plan that the applicant has submitted.

So this up here on the

Kind of top left of the graphic is the street and the existing Montgomery Ridge subdivision that would be built on that parcel showing sidewalk on the left side, which is the south side of the parcel.

There would be no sidewalk on the north side of the street.

And then the planting strips would be reduced in width, at least a minimum of four feet on the north side, the right side, and a minimum of three feet on the left side, the south side of the street.

And then the applicant is also proposed to acquire an easement from that neighboring property owner on the south side of the sidewalk to put in additional vegetation and landscaping.

And then also the sidewalk waiver would also apply to Settlers Ridge Road.

That's the name of this proposed street on the cul-de-sac.

that's on the right side, the right hand cul-de-sac where that open space is up against the existing Montgomery Ridge subdivision.

Since no houses are proposed in that small area, the applicant is also requesting that no sidewalk be required on that side of the street as well.

However, the sidewalk would be provided along the rest of the cul-de-sac in front of where all of the houses are proposed.

This is just kind of a more zoomed in photo, especially of that area.

You can see Settlers Ridge Road in the top left with the sidewalk just on the left hand side of the street and the right hand side shows a four foot grass strip.

And even though it's called a planting strip, in a lot of ways, it would be more of a buffer because it would be adjacent to that neighbor's yard.

So there would be no separation in the grass or vegetation between that planting strip and that neighbor's yard.

And then you can see Settlers Ridge Road as it curves down at the bottom of the screen, that open space A. There is also no sidewalk being provided on that side of the street either since there are no houses on that portion of the road and it would just be open space.

The planting strip, however, can be provided there.

Again, it would really be more of a buffer than a planting strip separating the street from the sidewalk, but the planting strip can be put there.

So looking at the positive aspects, it does allow for interconnectivity of developments within the development area, both the existing Montgomery Ridge subdivision and this new proposed subdivision.

A sidewalk will be provided on the southern side of the street to facilitate continued pedestrian access.

And with only 14 houses being proposed in this new development, staff did not

think that having sidewalks on both sides of the street was absolutely necessary to be able to facilitate that pedestrian access because it's unlikely that significant numbers of people would be using those sidewalks with only 14 additional houses.

And then planting strips would be provided, although narrower, along with that proposed landscaping easement that the applicant has shown to help maintain the urban character of the streets.

Concerns, none were identified by staff.

And so staff does recommend approval of the request to vary the planting strip and the sidewalk requirements for this proposed public street, which is being called Settlers Ridge Road.

Those requests do follow the plan that was provided showing the location of the one sidewalk and the reduced planting strips.

And Mr. Herrick has provided you with

and the proposed resolutions that include those conditions and all of that language in the resolutions.

So, I'm available for questions as well as the motion whenever you're ready.

Great.

Thanks very much again for our role here.

Three for three so far.

Two for two for three.

Uh so, thank you.

Any questions for staff?

I know this is not what we're doing here but I'm just going to ask it anyhow

If you look at the, first of all, who wouldn't want to live on Monaco Court?

If you'll go back to that sign there, please.

So will there be a way to get across from where the mailboxes are laid out here to lot B, excuse me, without having to walk all the way around?

Yes.

Do you happen to know what the other court is called?

Just by chance that you may not?

That's OK.

I don't know off the top of my head.

The applicant is here, so he may know.

It's OK.

Any other questions for staff?

Yeah.

Come on up, thanks.

Yeah, I figured I was here for three.

I figured I'd talk at one time.

This is Scott Collins.

I'm the civil engineer on the project, working on this.

Yeah, we designed it so that we would have, this is a tough site because it's dropping off pretty hard this way and this way.

And what we did is we, it's weird because you wouldn't think of a piece of property this size, you'd actually come up with like 30 different layouts, but I think we did.

So in order to get something that actually works.

but we created the intersection that way so that and kind of leveled the road off of that part so we would have a good pedestrian access across the intersection right there to get to the mailboxes and everything else and what's cool about eliminating the sidewalk on the on the west side of Sellers Ridge Road is I think we have enough room we can we're looking at basically daylight and some of the storm sewer because we have so much fall and letting it kind of run down along there kind of like JPJ sort of like the global riprap channel

provide a little water quality, but get some of the attention out of that, too.

So it's actually a really cool design.

It's chopped off.

That's why I can't.

It's OK.

I mean, it's good.

I mean, it's just, as you know, when you have such good names like Monaco Court and Settlers Ridge Road, you know, that might be something cool, too.

Yeah, absolutely.

Great.

Thank you.

Scott?

Just a comment.

I think I mentioned it before, but I'd love to see something where we can incentivize or strongly encourage people to use these planting strips for stormwater management.

Thank you.

And again, this is not a public slide.

That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have an action?

Second.

Great, thank you.

Yes.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we have one more that were separate motions for the planning strip exception.

Now, there needs to be a separate motion for the sidewalk exception.

So, if we could, here we go.

Great.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Great, thank you.

OK, we will move on to committee reports.

Yes, I have a committee report that Crozet CAC met and had a committee meeting about the Oak Bluff proposal.

I don't feel like I need to go into great details about what was said there because you've all received many emails, most of which reiterate the points that were made by the many citizens that attended that meeting.

Do we know when that's coming to us?

We do not know when that will be coming.

They are scheduled to receive the first round of comments from staff this week.

So it depends.

After that, it's back in the hands of the developer to see.

But my guess is there were a lot of comments.

and then maybe, so we're still at least probably two, three months out from- I let some of the citizens know that, well, they asked me back, well, why I thought that the planning commission had this and you were reviewing it and I explained that it was the staff that was doing the review and that we didn't have it yet.

So I think they were confused as to who they should write to right away.

So anyway, I do keep all those comments.

Yeah, just one other thing.

And just for the sake of clarification, one of the comments that we had received suggested that we impose a condition requiring an independent environmental impact study.

We can request specific studies that relate to the impacts.

We have a list of them in our

in our standards for the rezoning applications.

And there are some that are related to environmental, but I think we have to relate that specifically to what we see as the impact.

That sounds correct.

So the ordinance spells out what is required for an application to be considered complete.

I don't think that an environmental study is one of them.

environment impact statement is usually a term of art used with federal facilities.

And that is actually quite an involved process, which I don't think I know we would not be requesting such a level of study, but it's good to bring that up in public.

Let's see the fifth and Avon CAC met.

And we really, I don't really have anything to report from that because it was primarily a presentation of the county budget.

That's what we did.

I learned some interesting things, and I'm sure you've all seen the presentations by the supervisors, but if anyone wants an extra one, we have one from the CAC I'm happy to share.

And then the Historic Preservation Committee did meet.

We're on a roll.

We're two for two in the last two months.

And we had worked on the comprehensive plan language last time, so then

We were just going over what we decided, but staff has the challenging job of writing all that stuff into coherent goals and objectives, but we'll see what they do.

But it was a very productive meeting and we finally got to adopt our bylaws for the year, as well as elect officers here in April who had our annual meeting finally.

We had a CAC meeting also on the same subject.

Interesting, you know, I can't speak to what happens in other CACs, but the we want no taxes and increase in taxes and my assessment is too high on my house.

That was, you know, that's out there.

And so all these things that we speak about, I need higher taxes and so

There's a sense, and there's only obviously the people who come out and feel that way.

People who feel that way come out.

And so we don't know, there could be a whole host of silent people out there who say, yes, I'm willing to pay.

If we'll get these kinds of services, I'm willing to pay for them.

Well, since you brought that up, Supervisor Andrews mentioned he did the presentation and he mentioned that the personal property tax had been reduced for the last couple of years because with the pandemic and all the inflation

used cars that were at a ridiculous rate they've since dropped and they didn't want to penalize all of us driving our old jalopies around the county who aren't selling them, but they've gone up to a weird price.

So they felt that in some cases, I don't think they have a mathematical equation, but that the increase in people's property tax, even though the rates sustain their properties increase in value so they have to pay more, but their personal property taxes still being maintained at an artificially lower level by the county.

So anyway, I don't know.

I haven't done the math.

I haven't received my bill yet, so I don't know.

It is a very good point that you bring up, though, in the sense that I know that in Crozet, one of their biggest objections to the Oak Bluff

Development was the lack of current infrastructure in Crozet and how that infrastructure has lagged behind.

Great.

Thank you.

No other reports.

I'll just add one thing to my colleague's report for the 5th and Avon Street, meaning it was not an agenda item.

But there was a pretty passionate, heartfelt conversation towards the end of the meeting about the expansion of the growth area on both sides.

That was kind of interesting, yeah.

All right, we will move on to the review of the Board of Supervisors meeting from April 5th, 12th, and 19th.

Yes, the April 5th board meeting was a busy agenda for us.

We did have a number of transportation items, including quarterly report from VDOT and staff, and also a review of the secondary six-year plan from VDOT, which is the one that looks at the paving money that we received from the state and how that can be utilized.

So that was the work session for that item.

We will have to come back next month for the public hearing on that one.

And then also in the public hearings in the evening of that fifth agenda, we had Wakefield Kennel, which you all may remember, out near Earliesville.

And that was approved unanimously by the Board of Supervisors.

The Gobblers Ridge development rights question that came before you as well was also approved unanimously by the board.

And finally, the Woodridge solar developments were both

approved unanimously.

I'm sorry, one's for the substation, one was for the actual solar array, but both approved unanimously by the board.

So it was a busy day for board meeting.

There was actually nothing on the 19th agenda, which is the only other one that has happened since then.

The board didn't have a 12th agenda.

I'm not sure why that's on there.

The 19th actually had no community development items on the agenda.

Great, thank you.

Any questions for Mr. McDermott?

All right, next item is the AC44 update.

I don't have anything after our presentation.

Yeah, no changes.

I think we got a good update.

But once again, like to keep that on the agenda so we don't lose track of it.

I have a question for staff.

This is just something that came up in the 5th and Avon meeting.

Somebody asked me about this a couple of meetings ago.

There were some concerns.

I don't want to name a particular development right now, but there were some concerns with developments that had lighted bollards or bollards, I don't recall them, you know, posts with lights on them that are bright and glowing, you know, they're sort of on all night and

The question is, is that a loophole in our lighting ordinance?

We tell people about downward directed lighting and how many lumens it can be.

Yeah, usually it's in a public space.

Yeah, I'm not aware of that.

I'll share the correspondence with you.

And then I just like to understand if it if it's allowed, not allowed.

Absolutely, yes.

OK, thank you.

I was just like, that was cool.

So at some point, I'm not trying to put you on the spot right now, but oh, gosh.

Hello, during the meeting, during the presentation for Victoria Heights, staff mentioned that there was an environmental bonus, which was a first time in my

tenure that I'd heard about that.

And it was exciting because we talked about that earlier.

And so I'm wondering at some point if someone could give us just either point us to that in the ordinance so that we could understand more about it.

We can, uh, I'll look into it and I'll get back to you, let you make sure that you have the information there.

So Mr. Brevins, just briefly in the zoning ordinance, it's in a county code section 18 dash 2.4 lists out several different types of bonuses that are available to applicants.

Uh, they include environmental standards, uh, affordable housing, uh, development standards, including road improvements, uh, land not otherwise required by law to be dedicated to public use.

Thank you.

I mean, I think that's one that we actually should hopefully learn more about.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Learn more about that.

I was also kind of curious about, like you said, how they came up with that range, like more than this, but not more than that.

All right, any other new business?

How about old business?

Items for follow up?

It's going to be really hard, really hard when the chair comes back, Mr. Chair, for a time to top the meeting that you just ran tonight.

So with that, I'd also like to mention that we have, if I could have your attention, please.

I'd also like to mention that we have no regular agenda items for the May 9th Planning Commission meeting.

So, we are adjourning to May 23rd.