Planning Commission Meeting   11/28/2023

Good afternoon everyone and welcome.

This is the meeting of the Planning Commission.

Today is November 28th and I always want to say that to make sure you're in the right spot.

So the opportunities for the public to access and participate in the hybrid meeting are posted on the Albemarle County website on the Planning Commission homepage and on the Albemarle County calendar.

Participation will include opportunity to comment on those matters, which comments from the public will be received.

I'd like to call this meeting to order and establish a quorum.

Yes.

And Ms.

All right, thank you.

With that, we do have a quorum and so we'll move into the agenda.

First is other matters not listed on the agenda from the public.

So that's for an opportunity to speak on anything that you would like to that is not currently on the agenda tonight.

So anyone like to speak on a topic that you do not see on the agenda tonight?

Okay, thank you.

All right, seeing none, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the consent agenda, and there are no items listed there.

So we'll keep moving forward, and we will be moving into our public hearings, which we have two tonight.

The first one is ZMA 2023-00008, High School Center 2 at Albemarle High School.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Rebecca Ragsdale with the planning division, and I'll go over the staff presentation for you.

This is a rezoning at Albemarle High School or as we refer to it as the Lambsley campus because there are multiple facilities.

The total parcel is about 216 acres but the area that we're focusing on this evening is the 9.9 acres at the front of the property along Hydraulic Road where the rezoning is proposed.

Just to give you a little more context, it is an already developed portion of the site.

The property is in the rural areas, but it's on the edge of the rural areas and the development area.

There's some surrounding residential and commercial uses and also institutional or industrial with the churches and the loaves and fishes food pantry that's located nearby on Lambs Lane.

As I mentioned, this is the zoning map.

The entirety of the property is zoned rural areas and there is some legacy zoning as we call it with Georgetown Green being zoned R6 and some industrial that is in the rural areas and across the line, of course, in the development area, there's a mix of residential and commercial zoning districts.

And this proposal is to rezone from

rural area to R10.

This is the land use plan, which is also everything on the left of your screen is in the rural area, so it doesn't have any land use designations, but this is adjacent to the Places 29 development area where there are residential designations and a neighborhood center designation.

The proposal itself, like I said, is focused on the front of the site.

It is entirely intended to allow flexibility for setbacks and building height for the new High School Center 2 that's proposed.

It's anticipated that

It may be in areas where there are already existing buildings, but certainly we know that it would be in areas where there's an existing parking lot.

You know, we discussed this proposal extensively with schools and there aren't any other special exceptions or modifications or other avenues to achieve that flexibility in building height.

and setbacks that they may need to take advantage of so that is why the rezoning is before you this evening to R10 which is a residential district that allows you to go up to 65 feet.

In this case, they've established the envelope where

in the red area where the property would be rezoned.

They are anticipating the preferred alignment for the Lamb's Lane Loop Road to connect over to hydraulic.

And the proposal is 35 feet from hydraulic road.

And then there's been a lot of discussion and input from the Georgetown Green residents.

And that proposal is 50 foot from that property line with Georgetown Green.

We think that these setbacks, although they're not consistent with rural area setbacks, they are consistent with some of the surrounding building pattern, which we know predates or is not entirely what we would expect in the rural area, but this is a unique location with a school campus that predates current zoning and land use policies.

So this is a setback table that sort of explains why the rezoning was necessary to get where they needed the flexibility for the high school center to.

In the rural areas, the setback that would be required from hydraulic road and any public road that's not internal is 75 feet.

And then in the residential districts, such as our 10, you could go to a minimum of five foot setback at a maximum of 25 feet.

This rezoning would allow the 35 foot setback.

We did note in the report that that still needs a special exception because in the residential districts, we're encouraging buildings more oriented to the street and not set back too far.

But again, we think that's consistent with the pattern in the area.

And the height flexibility that's needed is up to 40 feet, which is a five foot increase from the rural areas.

to allow that flexibility.

And we mentioned the other feature of the concept plan is providing that 50-foot setback to the Georgetown Green residence.

We have a concept plan that's been provided and that's what I'm referring to here.

The narrative and the staff report indicate that I think the intention is that proffers will be provided that make a commitment to this concept plan and also limit uses of the site to public uses or anything along those lines and not the residential density or anything more intensive that R10 would allow.

So we have recommended approval of this rezoning based on the narrow scope of the request.

We do indicate that it's not typical that we would recommend rezoning to a more intensive district.

in the rural area.

However, it is an existing already developed school facility and we don't think it would create any detriment to adjacent properties with the proposal and the reduction of setbacks and the five foot increase in height.

And there are elements of the comprehensive plan and the community facilities chapter we think that it's consistent with.

All right, thank you, Mr. Ragsdale.

Commission, any questions for staff?

I'll start to my right.

Any questions?

I've got several questions for the presenter later.

All right.

I have one question I could also defer to asking the applicant, but I'm not sure there was a lot in here about parking and relocated parking.

Yeah.

I'm just curious of how much more additional parking would be needed with this addition.

Do you have any idea?

Well, schools parking is based on their own sort of parking study based on what their needs are.

Got it.

Any additional questions?

No.

All right.

Seeing none, I'll ask for the applicant if they have a presentation they would like to make.

First and foremost, I'd like to welcome you here.

And just some of the rules of the meeting.

We'll allow 10 minutes for the presentation.

The light will be green for the majority of it.

Yellow means we're winding down.

So probably about two to three minutes left, and you see that yellow light.

We'll just ask that if you hadn't made your most pertinent points, that would be a great time to make them there.

And then when you see red, we'll just ask that you please stop the presentation, and we'll open the floor to questions.

So with that, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Kagan Squire, and I'm a project manager for building services working on the High School Center II project.

Joining me tonight are building services director Lindsay Snoddy, deputy director Matt Wermin, as well as our consultants from Quinn Evans and Timmons.

We'll be reviewing our request to rezone a portion of the Lambs Lane Parcel which houses three county schools and several support facilities.

We'd like to provide you some information on the plan schedule and overview of the center to highlight the latest community engagement efforts we've been making to assist in the planning design of the new facility and discuss the traffic impacts from this project.

And finally, sharing an update on the design of this building.

The Center II project is nearing the end of schematic design, and we will continue with the design of the building through the end of next summer, after which we will solicit bids for the project.

Construction is projected to begin late fall of 2024 with the school facility opening for the 2026-2027 school year.

For this project, we are requesting to rezone approximately 9.9 acres of the Lambs Lane campus from rural to R10.

This request is to provide flexibility in the design around setback and height restrictions.

Early designs show Center 2 to be no closer than 35 feet to Hydraulic Road, 50 feet to the Georgetown Green neighborhood property line, and have a maximum building height of 40 feet.

This new building will serve 400 students per day and be approximately 60,000 square feet.

The red shaded area is the proposed rezoning boundary of the parcel.

We limited the rezoning effort to this area to establish a clear boundary between the adjacent development areas and the rural area, thus meeting the comprehensive plan's intent to maintain a buffer between these two zoning districts.

This also helps preserve the rural character of the remaining portions of the parcel.

The blue outlined area inside the proposed

rezoning boundary outlines the potential location of Center 2.

The dark red outlined area is where replacement tennis courts and additional parking to accommodate the needs of Center 2 will be built.

The blue line connecting Lambs Lane to Hydraulic Road is proposed routing of the future loop road included in the Lambs Lane master plan, which was completed in 2021.

Center 2 is accounting for the space needed to complete this road whenever that project is funded.

ACPS has held several community engagement opportunities to diverse stakeholder groups to seek feedback on the planning, programming, and design of Center 2.

These opportunities date back to spring of 2020 before the project was paused due to the pandemic, with efforts restarting this past spring.

These groups included students, families, teachers, ACPS staff, local agencies, business leaders, and community groups.

A traffic impact study was conducted in partnership with local government to study the current and future levels of service at six intersections surrounding the Lambs Lane campus and this entire stretch of hydraulic road.

The study also investigated the impact of completing the future loop road and studied three different scenarios for the best road placement and terminus point for that proposed road.

The TIA assumed that development of Lambs Lane Campus would generate an increase of 25% over the existing total traffic entering the existing school complex and assumed an annual 2.2% growth rate over the next 10 years.

For the two main intersections impacted by this project, the projected levels of services in the peak hours did not exceed a sea level of service post-development.

The TIA ultimately made a recommendation as the best location and terminus for the future loop road.

The Center 2 project seeks to build a small portion of the loop road and to reconfigure the existing internal connector road in front of Albemarle High School.

The remaining portion of the future loop road and other improvements recommended in the TIA still require future funding by the Board of Supervisors.

The projected parking and transportation impacts are on this slide.

There are 127 additional parking spaces needed for Center 2.

It is estimated that Center 2 will generate an additional 40 student drop-off and pickups, four to five buses, and 20 bikers or walkers to the Lamb's Lane campus.

Bike and pedestrian facilities will be included in the proposed facility's final site plan.

Lastly, please note that building services will be relocated off campus to another location and the existing building will be demolished.

This will result in a reduction of traffic generated by that facility.

Thank you, Kagan.

My name is Kylan Shirley.

I'm with Quinn Evans Architects out of Richmond.

We've been working with ACPS to develop a schematic design for

the High School Center 2 building, which will go on this site over the last several months.

So I'll share with you a few images of how that design has developed.

What you see here is aerial map of the Landsland campus focusing in on Albemarle High School.

The red circle there with HSC 2 written on it is currently the building services site.

It will become the site for High School Center 2.

That's where it's landed after a very extensive planning process, studying all the different ways that we could

kind of navigate through the different challenges that the site faces now with vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic, and thinking about the Lambs Lane Master Plan campus that was done integrating the way sports happen, bus drop-off happens, and parent drop-off and students walking to campus happens as well.

So all of those factors have been included here as we try to put this building on a very busy campus and in doing so improve the way the campus operates as well at the same time.

The red big bold line there is what Kagan showed just a moment ago of how we'll build this first part of that potential future loop road that's been identified in the Lamb's Lane plan and create a new entry drive into the site.

This is our conceptual site plan as it stands today.

As Kagan said, we're kind of at the end of our schematic design process.

And what we're sharing here has not been approved by the school board.

So it is a concept still.

And we will be moving towards school board approval in January.

So you see the building plan there, of course, in the center.

Albemarle High School is up towards the top of it, just the white outline there.

So you see the road coming around the bottom side of the building.

Where the current driveway is now is that tan colored pathway to the right of the sheet of the building, that curving pathway.

So we've identified a very clear and distinct pedestrian and bike pathway into the site that separates it from vehicular traffic.

moved cars moving into the site to the outside of the site and reoriented the driveways that move up along the front of Albemarle High School and then to the left towards the stadium to make it clearer, more direct circulation, better intersections that will work better.

And this will also, you don't see it here, but it will accommodate the parent-student drop-off much better than the way it works now, separating cars from having to queue up in parking lots during the drop-off for Albemarle High School, as well as for this building.

The building is that kind of L-shape there, also creating a courtyard space and then the space between the entrance of Albemarle High School and the entrance of High School Center 2 will be developed as we gain back some of the asphalt that's green space to create an entry plaza and kind of campus green space there in between the two buildings.

We have some fairly rough renderings here, but if you can imagine yourself in this image standing up on hydraulic road, where the center driveway heads down towards the front door of Albemarle High School, the white block to your right is Albemarle High School, just the mass of it.

And then you can see how the new proposed high school center two sits down the hill, almost 20 feet from hydraulic road.

So you'll see the top of it there with quite a bit of landscaping and parking in between.

This image is with the door to Albemarle High School, the front door at our back.

So you're looking at the front door of a high school center too, with that parking lot along hydraulic up to your left.

You can see how the grade steps down and just kind of an inkling of how that pedestrian pathway, that's where the current driveway is, will kind of come around in between the parking.

This will create a better situation for those coming from that parking lot as well towards either building and be safer pathway.

Here we are up in the air, bird's eye view down in that courtyard space formed by the pathway and the building itself.

A few interior shots just to give you a sense of the scale of the building.

We're in the dining commons here.

Again, in the dining commons, looking back towards the entrance of the building and through the window there, you can see where Albemarle High School's front door is.

Here we are in that courtyard space, two-story building.

And that's where we are with the concept.

So I'll turn it back over to Kagan.

So Center 2 also has some pretty sustainable features.

So obviously some of the most notable ones are on the slide here.

So making sure that the building can accommodate solar panels, trying to utilize geothermal wells for the mechanical systems, improving the stormwater management systems, enhancing the building envelope, using native plantings, and then the building will be at least a LEED Silver certification.

And a stretch goal for the project is to achieve net zero ready.

Open it up to questions.

All right on time.

Thank you.

With that commission, any questions for the applicant?

Well, thank you, Chair.

You know, so everyone should know this is my district and this is my neighborhood.

This is my street.

And so, and I've been, in full declaration, I've been supportive of this project from what it was just a we thought in a bunch of folks' heads.

So I should just sort of declare that.

and I will also say that having been through several iterations with the team and the community just behind at Georgetown Green, that I will say that the project team has done what I will note as a very strong effort to engage with the people behind them on issues that's not necessarily about the project, but that's just about life standing next to a high school.

and I will let all of you recall what it was like when you were in high school and the communities that you walked by on a day to day basis.

So some of that is the same kind of issues that the Georgetown Green is facing.

I need to say, because I just don't know how else to say this, that this feels as if we're doing some sort of fun house mirror show to get five feet taller and five feet closer.

And so I will say to our senior staff members here that as we think about education campuses, can we think about how we do things on these campuses that in fact are promoting what they are?

So this is what we're doing here, but it could be just as well at Western with two schools across the road.

It could be just as what we just had a conversation about Monticello with the anticipated new school across the road.

And so it seems to me that we're having to twist as a code to increase five feet taller and five feet closer.

and so while I don't have, I'm taking my time, not to ask anything about the, well, I do have anything of the applicant, but I do have a question.

So I heard the gentleman from Queen Evans say that parking's now gonna sort of pick parent pick up and drop off is gonna be in the place where the tennis court is.

May I move slides?

If we go back to the aerial image.

The plan is for, again, conceptual.

We're working with Albemarle High School folks and all the ACPS planning folks to kind of nail this down.

But right now, the plan is for where you see the 200 plus parking spaces indicated on the slide there.

It's where the tennis courts are now.

There's some parking.

Expands the parking there into a 200 spot lot that will serve

Students, staff for both schools will be a little bit of a mix.

It increases parking for the entire site.

And then, of course, it creates quite a bit of parking right adjacent to the stadium to really help with those after school events.

Tennis courts will move, we believe, in some configuration back behind the stadium.

And then the bus, or excuse me, the parent drop off loop will then come around.

I can't point, can I?

Can I get my cursor up there?

Bandroom is at Albemarle High School.

It's on the lowest corner.

So from there up along where the cafeteria is up towards the gym entrance on the back, that stretch of road there will be widened to become the parent drop off.

So it's a real, real long stretch there where there's a lot of entrances into the building to move people in and out quickly.

It's more of a comment and a question built in here.

And as well, I like the holistic approaches that the school has taken on this and not just look at one parcel, but the entire campus there.

And so, yeah, this is a great project.

Architecturally, it looks, in my backyard, there's an architecture.

Actually, I'm very pleased what I'm seeing.

My only question, and I'm just putting it out there, is the land here is very valuable as we're building around.

To me, it seems like you're underbuilding the site.

So again, that's maybe for the school board and for us, but it just seems like

I'm not sure that we're thinking far enough, given the growth in this particular area, far enough out, and what we could potentially achieve in this site later on.

And are we going to say, you know, wish it was a three-story building?

Because certainly from the massing, there's absolutely no reason not to go taller here.

No, you wouldn't.

You wouldn't go 10.

I would say that even if you don't have the program right now, shelling space is a lot cheaper to build it now than to build it 10 years from now or 15 years from now.

Super easy, quick question.

Net zero ready.

net zero ready.

So how ready?

I'm curious, are you pursuing sustainable?

Yeah, so it'll be LEED Silver minimum certified.

We've just started that process.

Right now we're tracking LEED Gold, but of course we need to get beyond schematics to determine how ready we'll be.

Our goal for energy use intensity is low enough that once you put solar panels on the building, you'll pretty much be there.

We are pursuing a geothermal well field based heating cooling system.

That's right.

Great.

OK.

Thank you.

All right.

Yes.

I'm glad that you're pursuing sustainable design and you're going to be including new plants.

And I'd like the bioswale on there.

That's great.

I strongly encourage you to make sure that you're looking at regionally native plants, not just American native plants or just Virginia native plants.

Also, I'm sure you're aware, LEED is a building standard and I know there are some points for landscaping.

but there's also a sustainable sites initiative that applies to the rest of the landscape that I would hope you'd look at as well.

Particularly one of my pet peeves are parking lots and how those are designed to make sure that you're capturing the stormwater off.

I hate it when people put those parking islands to keep the water out of the landscaping.

So I hope you can look at the options like permeable paving or other ways to capture the stormwater in that space and direct it into parking islands.

Sure, thank you for the presentation and the beautiful renderings are really that.

It looks like a shiny and pleasant place for teachers and learners and I also appreciate the solar and geothermal features that are included.

And actually, I just want to second Commissioner Carrazana's comment too about the feeling maybe like underbuilding.

I know this is more of a comment for the school board than you all per se, but the center's idea,

like well enough, but it's clearly kind of kicking the can down the road because it really needs another full high school up on the northern side of the county.

But

going a little bigger now could kick that countdown the road a little longer.

I did have questions about parking and traffic, which is not really something I prioritize all the time in these comments at the Planning Commission.

But in this case, we've got like just a huge influx of cars within a 20 minute period.

And so it's relevant.

Yes, there's a lot that's kind of boomerang shaped that is just on the lower side of the stadium that will eat up about half of that in the new design.

So that's 40, 45 spaces we think we'll lose out of that small lot.

I believe it's mostly students that park there now.

Yeah, so you lose about 45, you've got another 150-ish coming in, add 200 spaces, it sort of comes out in the wash.

Yes.

Okay.

How are, and this is sort of two questions at once, like right now the only way to access those spots is Lambs Lane, which is already a very narrow road that also serves two other schools.

And maybe this is too speculative, I don't know.

Are you asking about the road improvements kind of along the bottom side of the site?

Yeah, the loop, the loop.

Well, certainly a construction sequencing question that we haven't totally sorted out yet.

But the building service is building this there now, of course, be demolished first and then make space for that road work to happen immediately.

And, you know, we're

Our intent is that the site work can kind of start to move in one direction while the building work kind of happens in the other direction and get that road up and running as soon as possible because of course we need to make sure there's access into the site.

Like you said, there's 20 minutes every day where it's chaos and we don't want to let that go on too long.

Yeah, I heard from teachers from several of those schools who purchased Palsymon who were all saying like

We're gonna have just that one Lamb's Lane for all these schools all this time, but Lamb's Loop, Lamb's Lane Loop, that's a lot of L's, might, could potentially be done at the start of the center opening.

The loop road is the full loop road?

Yeah, so the full loop road is not a part of this project.

Right.

Yeah.

So when that loop road might be done is still unknown.

It needs to be funded by the Board of Supervisors.

Okay.

So there's, I'm not aware of the exact timeline of that.

So it's a construction sequencing thing, like you mentioned.

Yeah, it does seem like an awfully difficult thing to, I appreciate definitely having 200 more parking spaces to make up for the ones lost and then the new ones coming in.

And yet that's, they're all going to be using just that side road, which is why I think that that sequencing is a big factor.

Good evening commissioners.

My name is Matt Wortman, deputy director of building services.

I'm by no means an expert, but we do have Timmons group here if there's any specific questions, but all roads and intersections when performing a traffic impact analysis receive a grade of A through F. F is failing, A is good, right?

So I can provide you some more specifics.

So the two main intersections that are pertinent to this project's development are the Hydraulic and Georgetown Green intersection and the Hydraulic and Lambs Road intersection.

Under existing conditions, the former Hydraulic and Georgetown Green operated a level of service of A or B in the peak hour.

The other intersection operates at a C level of service.

So on the scale of A through F, kind of in the middle.

It should also be noted that part of what that certainly in the Lambs Lane, the Lambs Road side of this is, is that you've got buses, you've got police officers, you've got a whole bunch of first responders who fuel and have their vehicles serviced off of Lambs Road.

The county has a plan, I believe, with the school to move that function somewhere else.

Okay.

They certainly have land to move that function somewhere else.

So that, I don't know if it'll be within my lifetime, but it'll be in somebody's lifetime on this panel.

That there won't be any buses being repaired there.

There won't be any police officers having their fueling over there.

It'll be a modest amount.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I have a question and a comment.

First, thank you for the presentation.

Will there be a generator serving this building?

Okay.

And is there, the reason why I ask that is for resilience reasons, right?

So we see climate changing, very hot summers, people lose AC, we see hurricanes.

Is the thought that this building could

So as I'm sure you're aware, there's a separate building designation with a building code for emergency shelter, right?

That would be the most resilient type of structure and meets very stringent code requirements to do that.

Yeah, that'd be something I would just, I know that's probably not in your purview to dictate that, but it's something I think it's worth discussing when you're making this kind of capital investment and we are seeing natural disasters increasingly happen

If it's no more than summer heat and folks don't have AC, right?

Summers are getting hotter.

This could be a place that the buildings not being used where you can support the community in that way.

Also, I guess the comment piece was as you're adding to this campus and continue with the design, just flagging crime prevention through environmental design tactics.

I know your firm knows all about it.

You're a great firm.

My office was literally right across the street from yours when I worked in Richmond for years.

So great reputation, but it's flagging that as you all advance.

I think that's very important as well as we see things with school safety continuing to heighten.

So if there's no other questions, I'll open up the public hearing.

With that, I don't have any formal signatures to speak, but I will open it up to those here in the audience.

If you would like to speak on the topic, I'll provide three minutes.

Does anyone here like to speak on this topic?

All right.

With that, I will close the public hearing.

No, thank you guys for your time.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

So with that, I'll bring it back into the commission.

No, just the oddity of the situation.

It does feel a little strange.

That's fair.

That's fair.

I have two things I'll just throw out just as comments.

One is when you think about building a school and actually the image the applicant showed of the sustainability goals at the end with the solar panel on the ground and looked like students around it.

Where during design construction, you could bring students in, you maybe are already doing that, but I think there are opportunities for that.

It would be great, especially

thinking through the fact that vocational workforce is not strong now and could really use a boost.

Second thing I'll mention just under the heading of sustainability and resiliency is again using something like this.

I know you mentioned net zero ready.

I would just encourage you that

saying that's one thing, having an actual plan in place to be able to think about how you could unfurl that with measurable milestones along the way, I think would be really, really helpful and help with capital funding and thinking forward on that.

And also related to that, just a reminder that the city, the county and the university are working together on a resiliency plan.

And so schools, I think would be one really great way to be thinking about

A place to, I don't know, work those out, really, and to look for opportunities.

I love that comment, how it ties back to the two canons of our comprehensive plan, which is climate and equity.

And that's climate.

I'm asking about resiliency for equity reasons, right?

Again, some people don't have AC.

I will just sort of echo that comment, particularly that focus, and also who my colleague, architect next to me had to say.

I think that if the staff can go back and have a serious conversation, as we're thinking through or as you're thinking through the uses of that campus, that this may be an opportunity to build in some additional capacity.

and if in fact the school board, and so I should also say, you never hear us say that to you.

So you never hear this group of individuals say, oh no, it needs to be bigger.

And so if this group of individuals are sort of leaning into that, you might want to have a conversation about that.

The other thing that I will congratulate you on is, and many of you did not know this, and Chair, I will say this, probably about a decade ago, there was when students wanted more parking, there was a plan to take the corner, if you'll look at that campus, they showed you there, there's a grove of trees there, and so they were going to eliminate that grove of trees to give students more parking.

Well, students came forward and said, we don't want more parking, we want the grove of trees.

And so I think this is a group of young people there who appreciate, as Commissioner Murray was saying, the whole idea of how can we have both a place where we can learn and acquire skills and also be part of the solution on preparing ourselves for the new environment.

Thank you.

Just wanted to telegraph to the Board of Supervisors hopefully that they can get it funded and approved to design and construct the Lambs Lane Loop, the other second entrance so there's not just one narrow way in and out for three whole schools in time for the center to open.

I'm sure they're listening.

All right, with that, Commissioner Bivins, this is your district.

It would be with with pleasure that I do so, Chair.

Was it the last slide of the staff presentation?

It's the technology's there.

So I, so... The computer was sleeping.

Ooh, there we are.

It's the beaver moon.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, any further discussion?

Yes.

Ms.

Firehock.

Aye.

Mr. Murray.

Aye.

All right.

Motion passes unanimously.

And with that, I wish you the best of luck as you advance the design forward and further presentations with other county officials.

So with that, we'll go to our second public hearing.

And we'll give staff a chance to rejuvenate and switch out and get fresh jerseys in.

I'm ready.

All right.

Well, thank you, Mr. Reidelbach.

So with that, I'll turn it over to staff for your report.

Good evening, commissioners.

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

This evening, we are here for a public hearing regarding application ZMA 2022-04, known as 1906 Avon Street Extended.

This application may look somewhat familiar to you all because it was originally considered by this commission back on February the 14th of this year.

However, at that public hearing at the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission did vote to defer this application indefinitely to allow the applicant to make revisions based on the comments and concerns that were heard at that meeting.

And so this, after several months of making revisions and additional review by staff, this is the revised proposal that the applicant has brought forward for another public hearing.

Just to refresh everyone on the location of this property, it includes three parcels along Avon Street that I've identified as the site highlighted in yellow.

To the west is the Mill Creek subdivision, to the south is the Avon Park subdivision, to the north is the Faith Temple Church, and to the east across Avon Street is the Spring Hill Village subdivision.

The zoning of these three parcels is currently R1 residential, which allows one residential unit per acre.

And so at a little over three acres of this property, it would by right allow three residential units.

The overlay zoning districts include managed steep slopes and the entrance corridor as Avon Street is a designated entrance corridor.

The surrounding zoning of nearby parcels, Mill Creek is PRD, Planned Residential Development, Avon Park is R6, Residential.

The Faith Temple Church, they include two parcels, is also R1, Residential.

And then across the street, Spring Hill Village, is a neighborhood model development.

In the comprehensive plan, this property is in the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan.

and it is designated for neighborhood density residential, which is the yellow color.

It recommends three to six residential units per acre, along with some supporting uses and a maximum height of three stories.

The surrounding properties on the west side of Avon Street are also largely neighborhood residential, neighborhood density residential, as well as green space, including the large green space to the bottom left is Biscuit Run Park.

And then across Avon Street to the east is a range of different recommended uses including urban density residential, community mixed use, and office R&D flex light industrial.

So the proposal this evening for this revised application, as I mentioned, is it's three parcels currently zoned R1.

They total approximately 3.6 acres.

The existing use is two single family detached houses along with accessory structures.

The applicant is looking to rezone to R10 residential with proffers.

And even though they are asking to rezone to R10 residential, they are proffering a maximum density of approximately six units per acre, which would allow a maximum of 21 units on the property.

And I'll get into more of why they're proffering that density instead of why they're requesting to rezone R6.

and they are proposing a mixture of single family detached, single family attached and multifamily units.

So the revisions that have been made from the original time this commission looked at this application back in February to now is the applicant has changed the requested zoning district from R-15 to R-10 with proffers.

The applicant has reduced the maximum number of dwelling units proposed from 38 to 21

The applicant has reduced the proposed density from 11 units per acre to six units per acre.

They have included a maximum building height of 40 feet for block one, which is the western half of the property up against the Mill Creek subdivision, and the 35 feet for block two, which is the eastern half of the property along Avon Street.

The applicant has changed the layout of the proposed development due to all of these other changes, especially the decrease in density.

And then in their proffer statement, they've also added a proffer restricting the construction entrance for the proposed development from connecting with Hathaway Street through the existing Avon parking code.

And so the construction entrance would come directly off of Avon Street.

This is the concept plan for the new proposal showing Hathaway Street coming out of the existing Avon Park subdivision and terminating in a cul-de-sac.

There are a few parking areas to provide parking for the building envelope at the top of the property, which is the west side of the property, and this is where the multifamily is proposed.

The building envelope, the small square building envelope,

adjacent to Avon Park is proposed to be townhouses.

The one in 1920 that you can see identified in white, that is one of the existing houses that is proposed to remain on the property.

And then the larger building envelope in the bottom right of the concept plan is proposed to be a row of single-family detached houses with an alleyway providing access to the rear of those houses.

Those houses, the fronts of those would face Avon Street.

And this slide just shows an illustrative exhibit from the concept plan.

As I mentioned, there are some townhouses kind of on the left side adjacent to Avon Park.

single-family detached along Avon Street and then the multi-family buildings there at the top.

So the specifics of the proposal, the concept plan, the applicant is proffering the concept plan since this is a conventional rezoning to R10 rather than a planned district such as PRD or NMD.

And in the proffer statement, the applicant has identified major elements that would be required to be followed at the site planning stage if this rezoning application is approved by the Board of Supervisors.

And so those listed major elements include the internal street network and pedestrian connections, the building envelopes,

the setbacks that are identified in the concept plan, a maximum building height of 40 feet, and as I mentioned, a total number of residential units not to exceed 21.

and that would come out to about R6, six units per acre.

And so the reason the applicant is looking to rezone to R10 rather than R6, even though they are doing six units per acre is because of the building height.

R6 does not allow a building height of 40 feet, whereas R10 does.

And so that's why they're looking to do R10 is to allow that extra building height up to 40 feet while at six units per acre.

The proffer statement, there are three parts to the proffer statement.

One, the applicant is proffering the concept plan that was included with this application.

As I mentioned in the earlier slide, they have identified those major elements that I previously listed in a maximum of 21 residential units could be constructed on the property.

The second part of the proffer statement is affordable housing.

profering 15% of the total residential units constructed.

And then the third part, as I mentioned earlier, they are profering that the construction entrance for this new development would be restricted from connecting to the existing Hathaway Street in the Avon Park development.

This table just shows impacts on schools.

This was also included in the staff report.

At the 21

New units that are proposed.

It's expected, based on the school system's numbers that they provide us, that there would be approximately two students generated for Mountain View Elementary School.

Mountain View is currently over capacity and of course this would

It would remain over capacity with this development.

And then it's expected that one student would be generated for each of Walton Middle School and Monticello High School.

And both of those schools are currently under capacity and would remain under capacity with this development.

In staff's review and analysis of this proposal, several positive aspects were identified, including the request is consistent with the recommended primary land use of housing identified in the master plan.

The request is consistent with the density recommended by the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan at six units per acre.

The request is consistent or mostly consistent with the applicable neighborhood model principles.

And the proposal provides at least 15% affordable housing as recommended in the comprehensive plan policy that is currently being enacted.

The one concern that staff identified was the lack of interparcel connections in the proposed layout of the development.

The only vehicular interparcel connection is Hathaway Street through the existing Avon Park neighborhood.

However, the applicant is proposing a pedestrian connection from Avon Street up to the cul-de-sac area of where Hathaway Street would terminate in this development.

Based on these positive aspects and the concerns, staff does recommend approval of CMA 2022-4 1906 Avon Street extended.

And I'm available for questions either now or after the public comment period.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Commissioner questions for staff?

You talked about the lack of inter-parcel connections.

Normally with new subdivisions, we like to see two exits and two ways to get in and out.

And this only has one.

Okay.

And then did the fire department... I think you said that there wasn't any police or fire concerns.

Yeah, just trying to find where I saw it here, but I believe it was referenced somewhere that there would be an open space area in the middle.

Is that included?

It is not included in the major elements proffered.

Not first.

Not first.

I'll work to my left.

You have a question?

Oh, I thought you said right, correct.

Just two quick questions.

One, the interconnecting street question again.

It looks as if the alley is stubbed out for a future interconnecting street.

And I remember the last discussion, there was some implication that they were relying on adjacent properties to potentially connect to that in the future.

My understanding is that they would not connect any further with the adjacent properties.

Yeah, got it.

Like a little bright.

Got it.

And then on open space, also another question, which may be for the applicant, but the

illustrative exhibit shows two buildings in block one that are separated by some significant open space.

They wouldn't be required to build a building at those two buildings like that, right?

Correct.

They could theoretically build one larger building instead of the two that is shown in the illustrative exhibit.

They would not have to do 20% open space.

Since this is a conventional rezoning, they would follow section 4.16 of the zoning ordinance.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all.

Thank you.

One will be for the applicant.

Very well.

All right.

Good evening, Chair Clayborne.

Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Kelsey Schlein.

I'm a planner with Shimp Engineering and I'm joined here tonight by Jenny Smith, who is the longtime property owner of two of these properties and the somewhat longtime property owner of a third of this property and is the applicant for this request before you tonight.

Thank you, Andy, for your staff report.

So just hopping into our slides here.

So as Andy said, you have seen this application before.

However, it looked quite a bit different.

We were nearly at double the density last time it was before you and largely pulling off of justification.

of how the Avon Street corridor as a whole has developed far lower than the maximum density recommendations for the comprehensive plan for that corridor.

So in response to feedback received at the Planning Commission, from the community, from you all, and also some continued follow-up conversations with the Avon Park HOA, we have this application here before you tonight, which we're

Pretty excited to present to you because it is a long time coming as is shown by this timeline.

So I thought it was important to go over the timeline and specifically kind of focus on the entrance.

And I'm going to in my presentation tonight be talking about the interparcel connection and the entrance.

and the interconnectivity of Hathaway Street quite a bit.

I know that's incredibly important.

That is the paramount concern of Avon Park.

And just also from a planning perspective, we understand it's a concern from a connectivity standpoint.

So going through our project timeline, we began concept planning with our client in the beginning of 2021.

And we had a pre-op with the county in March of 2021.

In that pre-application meeting, we had a concept that showed a connection from Hathaway Street all the way through to Avon.

After that pre-op meeting and when we started really kind of developing our concept and working on conceptual grading and running some preliminary profiles on the entrance and coordinating with VDOT before we made a formal submittal, we realized we actually could not construct that entrance point to Avon through property exclusively under Jenny's ownership and meet VDOT regulations for vertical curve requirements.

The grade is too steep

And I will go into this in more detail later.

But given that information, we took a pause on the project for about a year and tried to find solutions to we had conversations with the pastor of the church next door, approached them to see if there was an opportunity for a potential easement.

a potential property acquisition, or even a potential property swap with other property that Jennie has on Avon Street.

And so we worked on a few solutions, but ultimately none of those came to fruition.

The church wants to keep their property, rightfully so, and wants to see and maintain specifically their parking area on their property that is furthest west.

That's critically important to them, and that would be the property that would serve our entrance.

So anyway,

We took a long pause to try to find solutions, and that ultimately did not work out to find that additional entrance point.

So then, in May of 2022, we submitted the ZMA for R15 in 38 units.

That was very similar to the concept that you all saw back in February of this year, which had a connection from Hathaway all the way to the adjacent

property of the church to the furthest east and did not show a connection to Avon Street.

We did a few revisions, had a public hearing back in February, and then in response to that, we resubmitted a few times further coordination with VDOT in the county for R10 and 21 units.

And we're here before you tonight.

So revisions from February 2023.

Looking at our concept here on the left.

So that was the concept that you all saw in February of 2023.

You can see the Hathaway extension that we have here was originally shown through connecting to the church property so that in the future,

If that property were to ever redevelop, that connection, that road could be pulled through or an entrance could be ultimately connecting to Avon right here.

The revised proposal here, we've extended Hathaway Street and stubbed it out into a cul-de-sac turnaround.

So revised the overall concept, maximum of 60 UA, which is consistent with the density recommendations and the comprehensive plan.

And the reason for rezoning to R10 is specifically for these proposed multifamily units in block one.

We've been working with Jenny for several years now and she has some really cool design vision.

She's a landscape architect by training for this property and one unit type that has really been special to her and something that she's wanted to see come to fruition is kind of like a condo unit type along Avon Street.

She currently lives

And in looking for one level living that's accessed by an elevator, those options are limited along Avon Street.

This portion of the property also is a stunning ridge with incredible views.

And so it is just a really

kind of prime location for a housing unit type that we don't see too often on Avon Street currently.

And that also will just be a really stunning setting when it's built out.

So the request for R10 is exclusively for 40-foot max height.

We are proposing three stories maximum.

The 40-foot max height is for taller ceilings in these units in particular.

We also feel that the R10 justification is further is justified just because I just wanted to compare the intent of R6, the intent of R10, identical with the exception of an antiquated comprehensive plan reference that calls for community and urban area locations for medium density residential use.

Other than that,

The intent of the two districts are identical, and so we feel we are developing at a density that's consistent with R10, but the intent of the zoning district at R10 is upheld while still being consistent with the comprehensive plan designation at 60 UA.

All right, jumping into the public street design here.

So Hathaway Street, right now we are looking at the approved site plan.

for Avon Park 1, Hathaway Street here.

This is a public road coming up from Avon.

Hathaway Street stubs out to each addition of properties.

Avon Park 2 developed over here.

This is the subject property that we're looking at tonight, 1906 Avon.

Hathaway Street was clearly designed for interparcel connection future expansion.

And it was designed for, based on the design requirements,

up to 401 to 2,000 vehicle trips per day.

And the current vehicle trips on that road, if this project were to be fully built out, would be about 750.

So kind of well below what it was originally designed for.

That includes both Avon Park, Avon Park 1, Avon Park 2, and 1906 in that 750 calculation for daily trips.

So talking, revisiting why we can't make an entrance

point onto Avon Street extended.

Hathaway Street was built with an increasing vertical curve towards our property line.

We have to level that out, create a landing before we can come back down towards Avon Street.

So 684 is the elevation of Hathaway Street.

We need to get down to 640, so 44 feet of drop, which we actually might be close to being able to do if the road was built at a decreasing curve or was at a landing.

However, it was built as an increasing curve to meet VDOT requirements.

We have to level it out before coming back down.

And so if we were to create an entrance, that would be a waiver, which would include a site distance waiver from VDOT, which they often are not very supportive of.

And they've looked at this many times and we've gone through many revisions with them to try to get this right.

Then this is where the entrance location would have to be.

This is on the adjacent church property.

So again, not part of this proposal tonight, but just wanted to show a profile of where the entrance would need to tie in to meet VDOT requirements.

And then when we went back after further revisions in February with VDOT and we had Hathaway Street extending all the way out to the adjacent property line and further conversations with them, we also realized that due to the grade and the existing developed nature of the adjacent properties, to the north being Mill Creek's open space,

and to the east being the church, that not providing the full connection through the stub out to the adjacent property does meet a waiver of VDOT interconnectivity requirements.

And so in discussions with VDOT, both of these criteria are met given the existing grade challenges on the property, as well as the adjacency, the developed nature of the adjacent properties.

And so,

One favorable aspect in talking through with them is that subbing out the street would create a fire access turnaround, whereas that doesn't exist in the public right of way today.

and I have a few more slides, but that was really the crux of what I wanted to go through, much of the detailed information.

As I know that entrance in the road is the major concern, and I'm sure that there are questions as to why we didn't extend out Hathaway Street in our proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great presentation.

With that, I'll ask the Commissioner if they have any questions for the applicant.

I'll start to my left.

Thank you, Chair.

Again, as is my custom, I will thank you for giving plans that are easy to read and I don't require a magnifying glass.

My recollection is that vehicles that use construction entrances are typically larger than minivans and larger than Tundra pickup trucks, although a Tundra pickup truck is pretty big.

And so the question I have is like, why can't we convert the said construction road into an entrance onto Avon Street?

Now, it may mean that some of the thought of layout there

might have to shift a bit, but if you can do it for that, why can't you just build that into the community, which I think might help the community and also perhaps not have to have this odd cul-de-sac of which I will ask the question.

You're still gonna move the same number of people through the cul-de-sac.

It's just gonna be a narrow goat gate as opposed to a full-fledged road.

Sure.

Yeah.

Um, I mean, great question about the construction entrance.

Like if we're, if we're going to have our construction entrance in this location, which is kind of, you can see here, this is the location of, of an existing driveway, um, accessing the site.

Um, and I mean, the reason why we can't do that is because the construction entrance just doesn't have to meet B dot requirements as far as the landing.

Not at all.

So everybody just be careful.

So when the truck comes down there, just be careful because it ain't stopping.

It's going to run you.

Yeah.

So specifically you're talking about this entrance right here?

Sure.

So I mean, overall, you know, if this is, so we're looking at about, there's six units here and five units here.

So we're looking at about an entrance to 10 units.

So I would say overall, the traffic is going to be relatively low.

But additionally, this is a VDOT right-of-way.

And so this connection they will look at as a commercial entrance.

And so it's not going to be like we, yes, we have it labeled as an alley.

We want it to feel like an alley.

We want people to drive slow.

We want that to be a traffic calming measure.

But as far as that entrance location, I mean, conceptually, maybe I should show some bigger radiuses on it because it's going to have to be a commercial entrance from a VDOT right of way.

Questions?

And thank you for the presentation.

And you mentioned you had a few other slides.

Are any of them going into a little bit more detail on the dwellings themselves?

I don't have a section in this presentation.

I more so just kind of have more details of the layout.

So what is the floor-to-floor height on the

Yeah, so I think we'd probably, you know, we were kind of looking at if we did, you know, if we ended up doing a 10-foot ceiling, depending on duct work, electrical, of kind of how that all would play out.

And so

I mean, ideally, we've talked about some big ceilings on the first floor, but 12 foot, maybe max, which would be very... You're floor to floor, but you're looking at 10 foot ceilings.

I would, well, if we did, if we ended up doing more than a 10 foot ceiling, then our, our, our floor to floor might be, you know, something.

So we'd be closer to like 13.

I think we would just might get above, we might get to 36 if we did 12 foot floor to floor.

And so that's why we capped it at 40.

Um, ultimately if we did a 10 foot ceiling, 11 foot ceilings, something like that, but then for the floor gaps in between, um, or we're just the 35 with any type of, you know, roof pitch or whatever.

That's what we were just looking for, that five extra feet.

Yeah.

If you had any, since you mentioned you had some others, I was just wondering to see if you had some, some sections of that would have been helpful.

And so, yeah, back to the alley.

So you wanted to feel like an alley there.

What is the dimensions of that?

So ultimately, it would end up being a minimum of 20 feet for fire access purposes.

And so that's really, we can... Are you intending it to be a two-way?

We'll have to listen.

Sure, thanks for the presentation.

Just a quick question on this image.

Are those on the dwelling units on the bottom of the screen, those five that go across, is that pull-in parking?

Okay, got it.

That was all.

Thank you.

Yeah, and the drawing that you showed that before the prior plan and this plan, and you showed the stormwater pond on the bottom left corner.

And I don't see it on the new.

We do have, and I don't have it in this set of slides, but in our submission to the county that we have it shown roughly.

Ultimately, the water is going to go to that point.

Right.

Let me see if I have it in here at all.

No, sorry that I don't.

But it is on our conceptual plan.

We have BMP shown in this location, so roughly the same location.

Okay and then where can you say something about the pedestrian access exactly?

What is that pathway that they're walking to Avon Street?

And then I'd also like to hear more about where is recreation happening on this site?

I mean I see you've got a lot more green space that you preserved.

Are they wandering the woods or what is the plan for

either program space or even passive recreation.

Sure, definitely.

So I guess hitting, I can, I'll start with the with the recreation.

And so we've had, you know, quite a few talks about this.

And I think, you know, there was a comment made earlier, just about would there be green space in between these two buildings?

And, you know, we are

kind of, you know, more than amenable to amending our plan to show a green space in between those two.

This block does have the flexibility to be townhomes or multifamily, but regardless of if that takes shape, we're not going to have a line of 14 townhomes there.

There will be a break.

And so just kind of talking about that, you know, I think we could

You know, we've always kind of imagined a nice central courtyard.

And so whether that takes place between two multifamily buildings or kind of two groups of townhomes, I think, you know, we can make something really nice in here.

Other items that we've talked about, I think dog parks are are huge.

I think it's also I think it's kind of almost mandatory in subdivisions nowadays.

And we've also had some really productive conversations with

with the Avon Park HOA and have heard about their agreements that they have put in place with Avon Park 2 for any type of amenity payment sharing or anything like that.

And so we've talked about a few ideas.

We want this to be an attractive place, dog park, gardens, a little courtyard.

But I think ultimately what

What we end up putting here is also going to further a conversation with Avon Park and how either if there's beneficial amenities they want to use on our property or if there's amenities that we imagine residents using on their property would, I don't know, continue the conversation for how this kind of neighborhood works cohesively with open space and green space and ultimately connectivity to Biscuit Run in the future.

and then the second question.

So the pathway we've discussed with staff and we know it's critically important and we've called it out as a critical element in our proper statement.

We have to, I think, define at the site plan phase whether or not that is going to be a public or privately maintained pathway.

and so that will ultimately determine what that kind of final detail is.

Yeah, it looks like you're going across quite a bit of topography at the very bottom.

Exactly.

And we have it shown here kind of pulled directly off of the public right-of-way in the event that this is a public connection.

But I think that we just need to have a little bit of further coordination with staff to see what might be accepted if it's a public connection, if stairs are permissible.

If not, how do we get an asphalt path down?

Yeah, that looks good.

Yeah, I just second Karen's comments, but also just also you have these stormwater facilities, you know, if you design them as biofilters in the right way, you can also use them as public space.

You can plant them with attractive native plants so they can be part of your open space plan.

And I think it's a much, it's a much stronger presentation.

Commissioner Moore?

Thanks and thanks for the presentation for sure and I wasn't on the Commission in February but read through the changes and the comments from then and now and it's definitely different and improved.

Just seconding Commissioner Firehock, I was looking at the maps, but it's a lot of elevation than looking at the actual site too.

It's a steep slope with a lot of trees on it like, huh, that might take some doing.

But that's site plan work.

And I guess this is also a lot of the other commissioners asked questions I had.

The only other thing just to kind of confirm, I guess 15% for affordable housing.

Is there a plan on how that might be dispersed throughout or?

Yeah, well, so actually, I kind of one thought when we took this back to the drawing board after February.

This unit remaining is our longtime tenants of Jennie's, and it's actually renting at an incredibly affordable rate, more like 60% AMI.

And so likely, that will continue, and then

Sure.

No, not at this point.

I mean, there's the flexibility in the proffer statement that it can be for rent or for sale.

Yes, my own edification wasn't anything.

And this is actually kind of a question for, I mean, possibly for staff.

When you've got 21 units, is 15% affordable four units or three?

Perhaps I'll only be six.

I would have to ask our housing manager again if it's rounded down or rounded up.

I can't remember off the top of my head.

Rounded up?

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

No.

I had just a couple real quick.

A clarity question, Chair.

So, you know, we talk about sidewalks, and I know there was a big deal about sidewalks on Hathaway Street, and I see the sort of sidewalk coming through the, I guess it's Block 2 up there.

I mean, we're likely going to incorporate, I would, some type of pedestrian connection there.

I would say the county.

That would be the county's jurisdiction for the private, the private street here.

So, and that's a site plan requirement and private street requirement.

No, you're fine.

It's kind of the same line of thinking I had.

One question I think is easy, but I need to ask it.

Block one, I should say.

Which side is the front and the back?

Because I see sidewalks on both sides.

Which way is the units facing?

Sure.

So I think in these designs, we've kind of imagined this here as the front.

And then we just have kind of like an additional stairway access here.

And then I remember you saying looking at the topography here and this is a high ridge.

How does it impact the views of the neighborhood to the left?

Yeah, so well that's Avon Park 1.

Yeah, how does it impact their views, right?

Well, the viewshed is more so kind of looking out this way.

And so I think it would be any view that they have that, I mean, there's currently woods up here now.

And I would, I'm unsure and maybe one of the, I don't know, one of the neighbors could speak to it tonight.

Alright, and then Commissioner Bivins kind of touched on the private versus public streets.

I mean, I think this is going this project, you know, once it gets to

the attorneys working on the HOA docs.

I think we might have kind of a creative HOA where, because for example, these units are not benefiting from the private road.

All right, thank you.

Any further questions for the applicant?

Thank you, Ms.

Schline.

We'll open up the public hearing.

And I'll go to my list here.

We only have one individual who has signed up, but if you did not sign up, there'll still be an opportunity for you to speak.

I will ask for Robbie Savage to come forth.

And welcome.

And you'll have three minutes.

The light will be green at the top of the three.

And then when you get to yellow, that means time is wrapping up.

My name is, well first, hello commissioners, how are you tonight?

My name is Robbie Savage and I'm the president and board chair of the Avon Park Homeowners Association.

On Tuesday, the 14th of February, you may recall that our residents came to talk with you en masse about the concerns that they had about 1906 Avon.

On Tuesday, September 12th, we had a meeting.

My vice chair and I had a meeting with Ms.

Schlein and Jenny and Don Smith about the proposal.

And it was very cordial and we made a number of agreements and we were very pleased with that meeting.

So given that, I'm just going to focus on the two things that are still remaining as major issues for our community.

First, of course, is the density and while it's now proposed at R10, with the overall understanding that it really is an R6,

My suggestion or thought or question would be if the idea is to have cathedral ceilings in their condos, why couldn't you just have a variance

for that height instead of making the entire area an R10.

And the reason I say that is a number of our homeowners have experienced in the past where it's approved at a higher level with the expectation that it's not gonna be built out to that level, then someone else buys the property or it's rezoned or redone or whatever, and there you are back at the higher level.

So there's a lot of concern about that.

So the second would be that there, I'm sorry, Shimp is requesting a special designation for the R10.

And so we'd like to see an R6 with a variance for the cathedral ceilings.

This is not in the growth area.

And that's sometimes confused.

People think that because it's all in the Avon park, that it's the Avon street, that it's the high density.

It is not.

So again, we would hope that you could go with a six.

The second is the access.

And the commissioner asked a very good question.

If you're going to have a construction road, which we very much appreciate that they've incorporated that

into the new plan.

But if you're going to have that, why couldn't we have a separate entrance?

And we've just finished with the development of Avon II.

Our community has been experiencing all kinds of traffic and trucks and dust and in the middle of the night delivering all kinds of materials.

And

They don't want to go through it again.

It's been a long time since our community has just been a community without construction.

I have listed a number of questions because I see my time is up that we would like for the commission to address and

I believe that I sent those all to you, so you should have those questions.

The last, and I know I have to stop, but the last is if the fire and rescue have said that the property on Avon and through Arden and then onto Hathaway is acceptable, we haven't seen that.

So we have cars on both sides of the street, and we'd really like to know what that fire and rescue analysis looks like.

I mean, is fire and rescue going to really say that this is OK?

And if so, we'd like to see it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak on this issue?

Oh, does somebody want to speak?

Okay.

Good evening.

Welcome.

Hi, my name is Shelly Smith and I'm a minister, one of the ministers at Faith Temple Church.

And our question may have already been addressed, but

This is new to us in trying to understand the plannings and all the different things.

So it may be a little redundant.

But one of the questions is, if the zoning is implemented, will there be any changes regarding Faith Temple's property rights?

From what I'm understanding, our property does attach directly to

the development that's going to be so is there going to be anything that's going to affect any expansion or anything we might want to do in the future as far as you know anything um water lines sewage

Okay.

So we'll take

Okay.

All right.

Let's see here to remember the King map.

Well, one of the questions I had had was from looking at this, I'm gathering Faith Temple's that little white block there in the middle.

And I see there appears to be some trees possibly in between the first of the five blocks.

And then there's the one in the corner.

how many feet is there from it looks like our from the roadway our right side how close is that to your first unit that's right on Hathaway and how close is the back of our church which is that smaller section how many feet yards or whatever is it from it because I'm just wondering you know how close is this going to appear you know when it's all said and done with given the height of these

How is it going to appear with our church?

And also if there's going to be trees, is it just going to be open?

Is it going to be fencing?

Right now we have a lot of people cutting through our property already.

And I'm guessing, I'm assuming it's coming from the units that are currently there that cut through.

So, you know, these are the major questions that we have.

Okay.

Yeah.

Does anyone else from the public like to speak?

All right.

With that, I will close the public hearing.

All right.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

I'll just clarify a few things about the church location and it might help if I go to this image.

Well, I'll explain it here first, I guess.

did meet with Pastor Wright back in 2021 and so I'm glad everyone else came out and if you all have any questions, I'll give you my card and we can talk more for sure.

So this is your existing access to the church and the church is actually over here off screen.

Off screen here is Avon Street coming down

and then the entrance to Mill Creek is kind of, you know, just to the east of your church.

So yeah, so I think there's like an existing tree line here and as far as impacts to property, you know, everything is proposed to be contained within this site.

Any, you know, stormwater management, we can't have adverse impacts on adjacent properties or anything like that.

And

Yeah, I think mostly I just wanted to kind of clarify the context of the church, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Absolutely.

Okay.

With that, I'll bring it back into the commission.

Would it make sense to just address quickly the question that was brought by the first public commenter asking about even being concerned about the R10 versus the R6.

It's my understanding that the proffer to keep it at R6 would run with the land and prevent anyone from coming back later and saying, actually, we want to make it R10.

So that is legally binding.

Well, yes and no.

I mean, it could be changed, but only subject to a further rezoning.

Right.

Correct.

Yeah.

Translating, but thank you for the legal.

Yeah.

All right.

I did have one quick question.

And this is just maybe to slightly answer some questions that the last commenter had as well.

I'm looking that up right now.

So our 10 would have setbacks of a five foot minimum from the right of way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk, a maximum of 25 feet from right of way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right of way.

Five feet minimum side setback.

Correct.

Good?

I'm good, thanks.

Commissioner, are there specific topics that we want to talk about in greater depth?

We've heard, you know, density is one thing that has come up.

We've heard access.

I think we've talked about that a little bit, but we can discuss it more.

Much less, it seems much less impactful at the new density and I'd see a lot more infiltrative open space that seems like the overall site development will have less road frontage and not road frontage, less road mileage.

The other thing is in looking at that alley, I was thinking about that.

I measured the width.

It seems to be about maybe 25 feet.

It's the same width as all the neighborhood streets I've lived on in Charlottesville with cars parked on two sides.

So it's like an urban street is another way to think about it.

That's all that if you leave this building and go out there, you'll find a whole bunch of them.

I drove down a lot of them to get to this meeting stuck behind people going very slowly because you can't drive fast on those widths.

I have one question too as a follow up on the setback question.

In general, having an R10, is that other than height?

Are there things that that provides and allows that should be proffered out that aren't being proffered out?

Or maybe a positive way of saying that is, are there things in an R10 zoning that the applicant can take advantage of

That's right where I was headed.

Okay.

I mean if you're I could comment on the R6 versus R10.

I feel like we've gone from putting 10 pounds in a five pound sack to putting five and a half pounds in a five pound sack.

Any comments or reactions on the density piece?

Similar on density.

I was just kind of doing back of the neck and math here on the land versus number of units for Avon Park.

It's about six units per acre.

Yeah, no.

Okay, we'll get to that.

You can get there now.

All right.

Yeah, jump ahead.

I just had a comment about the height.

And I know this since it's on the entrance corridor, this will be reviewed by ARB.

And so I without any sections, it's really hard to determine what kind of

Anybody else?

I would echo that I'm now in a much better place for density.

There's some places I'm not really good about, but we'll get to that piece.

I will say what I usually say when we have people come in and herald how they're going to make this one of the best looking places.

And so therefore they should get extra points for that.

And I only hope since it was stated early on that the owner of this piece of property is a landscape architect,

that this is going to be a space that's going to have something joyful about it.

And that that's just not something to try and get us to say yes.

I continue to continue, people have heard this from me before.

I continue to be distressed the fact that we have these one way in and one way out streets.

I could say something snarky about people managed to go up Pikes Peak in sort of seconds.

And so therefore, why can't they go from Avon Street to the back of this in more seconds?

But I do understand moving dirt around is an expensive proposition.

But I just believe it is healthier for communities to have multiple ways in and out.

I think there's a general consensus that we all agree with that sentiment.

What other concerns are there that we need to address before we move on?

Any other concerns?

I will, before I guess we get to that point, just to make a comment regarding the property rights where, you know, just in general, you cannot negatively impact someone else's property.

by doing something to your property.

And all of these things are reviewed to look at impacts to surrounding areas.

And so that's in the staff report too.

If you want to look at that online, you'll show the analysis that's been performed for that.

So I did want to address that before we moved on.

I just had one additional thing.

I didn't realize we were wrapping up.

Just one additional comment.

And I don't know, this is just maybe advisory to the applicant if it's possible.

If you look at the north, no south side, southern property boundary, so it's the long property boundary that adjoins.

There's a parking area that is part of block one.

and that parking area setback looks like it's, at least on the illustrative exhibit, it looks like it's right at its minimum setback, maybe.

It's really tight to that property boundary.

If I were living in one of those homes along Tudor Court, I might appreciate the ability to somehow buffer that parking with landscape.

And so I realize this is a conceptual plan and that

Circulation, all of it is, but it's part of the parking envelope.

If there'd be a way to shift that block slightly to the north to allow for a wider buffer between the homes on Tudor Court and the parking associated with block one, that would be beneficial, I think.

Good point.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

Yeah, I don't want to cut it short, but this is giving plenty of opportunity for everyone to weigh in.

Good?

Sounds like you're good.

All right, thanks.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any further discussion?

Yes, Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

All right.

Best of luck as you move forward.

Thank you for the presentation.

With that, we'll move on to committee reports, unless there's any updates from the commission.

The Historic Preservation Committee did meet.

and I did attend with my cough drops.

So they primarily worked on language for the comprehensive plan in terms of edits.

And I really feel for the staff because there apparently had been a lot of effort and recommendations to condense objectives and to collapse them.

So like say if there was five objectives, they made it three.

and then they met with the committee who said we don't understand these objectives so please pull them back out apart.

So I think we gave the staff a migraine but anyway at the end of the day I think they'll be a little bit clearer and you know we also tried to work on language such as there was one in particular that sounded like we were recommending that all residents would have access to all historic sites.

Yeah, right.

But that's a little alarming to some people.

It sounded like we were going to open up everyone in Manhattan so everyone could visit everywhere they want.

Anyway, we fixed that, I hope, so we will not create alarm.

But there was also still amongst our committee members a strong support for

An action item didn't make it to level objective, but an action item to have a historic preservation ordinance.

Even it's just to the point of not being able to just tear down a historic property without a permit.

We can shame you.

It's shaming, yeah.

You know, pillory is not allowed anymore.

Yes.

And that would be the thing if we, right now there's nothing that makes them have to let us document it.

Yeah.

Did not realize.

Any other reports?

We are moving along then.

Thank you, Chair.

So with the board of supervisors meeting from November 15th, we had a number of public hearings that you all had seen before.

The first one being the Walnut Creek

Personal Wireless Service Facility Tower, Tier 3 Tower, Special Use Permit.

That was approved with five yays and one nay.

I didn't follow that one.

Yeah, that was, I got it right here.

I believe it was Supervisor Malik.

Supervisor Malik, correct.

So that did pass though, so that will be moving forward.

We also had the Briary Creek or Reventon Farm Boarding Camp, that big boarding camp with the cabins that's down there on the.

Yeah, glamping glamping one.

And that that one was recommended for approval unanimously.

I think that the

Similar to the Planning Commission, the board appreciated a lot of what they had going on down there and thought that would be a real asset for the for the community.

So that one moving forward.

And then finally, the zoning text amendment related to the application of bonus factors for residential density.

If you remember, remember, Mr. Bill Fritz was here talking about that it was a pretty

Easy discussion here at the Planning Commission, but the board really did dig into it.

They had some, uh, public comment that, um, you know, questioned some of the, some of the repercussions of that.

Uh, so it ended up being a longer discussion, but ultimately the board did approve it with, um, once again, uh, five yays in one day from, uh, chair price was the one that voted against it primarily.

concerned about its impact on affordable housing, but did move forward.

So that is in a new zoning text amendment.

And that was really it for the Planning Commission.

Would you like me to go on with the AC44 then?

So AC44, we are really getting heavily into the land use transportation element.

As I mentioned at the last meeting, we were starting to go around all the CACs, some of those things.

I know over the next, starting again next week,

and the week following, so this first two weeks in December, we will finish off all the CACs, having staff go and present to all of those.

So I think Pan Tops was left, two of the places, 29 ones and the 5th and Avon CAC will all see those presentations.

on what activity centers mean, how that relates to transportation.

And then also some of the minor changes to land use designations in the comp plan that we're looking at.

So, uh, working a lot on that.

Um, and then a lot of that information is what we are going to be.

We're preparing to come to the planning commission with, uh, at the December 19th meeting, we had initially said that that was going to be a meeting where we went over.

The goals and objectives for transportation and land use.

What we've recognized is that there's background stuff that I think we want to present to you all first related to that land use and transportation element.

So looking at things like how density should be calculated and those minor changes in land uses.

So we are planning to bring

That is a work session to you on the 19th and then follow up in January or likely in January with the actual goals and objectives for land use and transportation.

So that's really where we are right now.

Mr. McDermott, I was looking at my calendar for the 19th.

I have us starting at 6.

Yes, correct.

There's only a work session.

We don't have any public hearings scheduled for that evening.

It is only a work session on this item, and I'm not going to actually be able to attend.

I will be on my way for the holidays at that point.

David Benesch who has a lot of familiarity with both this topic and the operations of the Planning Commission will be sitting in for me as the secretary that night on the 19th and of course the presentations will be from the AC44 team, Tori and Ben.

So that's what's coming on the 19th.

I'll have to get back to you on that.

I'm not sure exactly when, where that was.

We had the work session on that one, I recall, but I don't think, we have not, I don't believe we have set, let me just, actually, let me look at my, I've got my calendar here for the planning commission.

Let me make sure I don't have that.

Oh, November is here.

When are we going to get materials for that?

We had the meeting with the board on the 4th.

You got emails on it.

You have 500 pages of emails to me.

They already came?

Riparian buffer ordinance is not scheduled to come back to the Planning Commission until after January.

OK, great.

Sure.

OK.

And I can touch, if you'd like, on the upcoming meeting for housing development.

Yes.

Okay.

So yes, that is scheduled for next Monday.

The materials were emailed out by Stacey Pethia last week.

Okay, yeah, so that would, I believe it was like, I will re-forward that to you just so it's at the top of your email.

I can do that since I find, I think it went out Monday or Tuesday of last week, I believe.

So it's a, it's a thick volume.

I have a tentative general agenda.

with the different items that are presented on, and I can forward that to you as well so you can see that.

We have a Zoom link for that.

Yeah, where are we going?

In the Town Center 4, I believe, where the big conference area is there.

So I'll make sure you have, I'll resend everything to you all so you can see it.

The materials, the location, time, agenda.

I don't think we've got a, or yes, I do, I sent a calendar invite for that.

That's right.

It's not, it doesn't have all the materials in it, but there is a calendar hold on that.

Hold up, I can just go ahead and send that now if you want to.

Please do.

That'd be great.

I'm sorry, I just have been asked this.

It will be publicly available for, yes, yeah, they can do that.

I don't think we've got that yet, but I will verify.

It should be on the, they'll be able to find all that information on the Board of Supervisors webpage.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Any other new business or old business or items for follow-up?

You know, Chair, if I could just put something that you might want to put a pin with the director here.

I still continue to be sort of somewhat sort of

confused when we have a, this isn't about the application, but when we have an application come before us, it says, this is the number of people who will be expected to join the school system when it's finished.

And we seem to get a lot of reaction about, well, we don't have any room in the school right now.

It's like the project probably will take five to six years to get finished.

and so getting wound up about not being able to have a seat today is not relevant.

I mean, I'm not trying to be dismissive, but it's not connected to anything.

And often when we have people speak to it, they say, well, you know, there's no room at Mountain, is it Mountain View?

There's no room at Mountain View or there's no room at Albemarle High School.

It's like, well, that's an accurate statement, but this is not coming on until then.

And so I don't know if there's a way

Right.

And so there's just this whole setting.

I'm becoming more and more aware of trying to set the tone and the expectations of the people who hear what we do when

They aren't exactly aligned when the actions aren't exactly aligned with one another.

So however we do that, I don't know.

But in some meetings we sit in, we get hit that you're bringing people to our schools.

It's like, no, we're not.

Do those projections, and maybe this is a question for another day, but do those projections

Do they look out beyond present day?

So the projections for the number of students generated are for at full build out per year, that's what they expect for each of those grades.

So those are the numbers of students.

The numbers of available seats at the schools is just assuming that there is no change in the schools.

But what we do try and do is if we know there is a plan for

a new school, which we haven't had for a while until, until the most recent approved budget, uh, did have funding for two new schools or, well, three, if you include high school center too.

It used to be that we would get a report from the school board generated or they reviewed the projections for each school.

It's been several years.

Maybe I might have missed it, but it's been a while.

Is that a report that we can get?

Because we used to get it.

That in the past.

We don't have that any longer.

But they were helpful just for the very point that Commissioner Bivins were bringing out.

It gives us an awareness of the plans for these schools because yes, you can say, okay, well, there's a number of developments and they're all required to give us what is the impact of the school, which hopefully is feeding into the school board and to our planning.

But if we had some awareness of that and what potentially are projects that are

are being informed by the growth in certain areas.

Sure.

I'll reach out to the schools.

They are currently in the process of developing a redistricting plan for schools.

And I know they've looked at the future projections for all the schools in that redistricting plan.

So that report would have that kind of information.

But I'll reach out to them and see what might be most appropriate to try and get to you guys.

Thanks.

I will, real quick, another little item in new business.

Yeah, I think this went out to a lot of internal staff, but I think the PC was on that as well.

It was just an email from Jody.

that announced it.

It's Michael Barnes, who many of you may already know and have worked with.

So Michael, UVA grad.

And he was, I met him 10 years ago when he was the planning director over in Waynesboro for a number of years.

So when I worked over on that side, he was in there.

for the past four years.

He's been with VDOT right here in the Charlottesville area.

And so we've worked together quite a bit there.

So he is planned to start in January in the new year.

So I'm sure I'll probably still stick around with you guys to help him get, you know,

Settled for that first month, and then you'll just see me when my items come before you all.

But really look forward to bringing them on.

That's great news.

I didn't see that announcement yet.

I feel like someone down here, one more thing to add before we close out to somebody?

No?

Okay.

All right, with that, there will be a joint Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meeting as we discussed on Monday, December 4th, starting at 1 o'clock at North Fork, address 994 Research Park in Charlottesville.

And then the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 12th at 6 o'clock.

So with that, is there a meeting to adjourn?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.