Planning Commission Regular Meeting   4/22/2025

I'll first read the public can access and participate in the meeting through information posted on the Albemarle County website, specifically on the Planning Commission homepage and the Albemarle County calendar.

During the meeting, there will be opportunities for public comment on specific items where input is invited.

We'll begin by establishing a quorum.

Yes.

Ms.

Firehock?

Here.

Full house.

Thank you.

We will now move on to the public comment on matters pending before the commission but not listed for a public hearing on this current agenda.

Is there anybody from the public who would like to speak to items that are not listed on the agenda this evening?

All right, seeing none, we will move on to number four of the consent agenda and ask if anybody would like to pull any of these or if there'd be a motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion?

All right.

All right.

Mr. Carrazana?

Aye Ms.

Firehock.

Aye.

Awesome.

Thank you.

And with that, we will move into the public hearing section and begin with our only public hearing item to this evening, SP 2024-26 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park.

Thank you, Chair Missel.

Rebecca Ragsdale, Planning Manager with the Planning Division, and I'll be taking you through staff's presentation of this request, which is referred to as Woollen Mills Industrial, and the request is specific to fill in the floodplain.

We're going to

I'm going to take you through some of the site context and the specifics of the regulatory framework, if you will, the comprehensive plan, and then the specifics of the request and recommendation.

This particular site is located in what's referred to as the Woolen Mills.

It is along Franklin Street.

It's outlined in yellow.

The city is to the north and the west, and it is along Moores Creek.

near the Woolen Mills neighborhood in the county adjacent to 64.

And we'll show you some more specifics of the site, but it is on the edge there of the city.

This is an outline again in yellow.

Each of the maps, the site will be outlined in yellow of the site along Franklin.

It's a 7.8 acres property and the request is to fill in the floodplain 1.496 acres, which is located adjacent to Franklin Street.

That 1.496 acres would be similar to the property beside it, the bakery that was approved back in 1997 for filling the floodplain.

It is an area of the county that has industrial uses and a lot of industrial zoning.

This site in particular is owned by the same owner that is adjacent and developing this industrial area that is referred to as the Willing Mills Industrial Park.

So 1.496 of it would be developed potentially if the floodplain request is approved and the remainder of it, about 5.58 acres, would remain outside of that developable area and

be intact as far as remaining floodplain.

Other uses, we mentioned the residential in the city with the manufactured home community, adjacent properties, other adjacent properties are owned by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and are either used for the treatment plant or facilities or there is a wetlands parcel just budding this one

to the south.

This is just another view of the site that shows you the proximity of

of the wetlands area and then the industrial, another more recent shot is why that was provided in terms of the industrial area that's developing.

The site is primarily wooded.

There are some areas of the site with this being an adjacent end included in some ways.

with some of the owners, other properties.

There is a stormwater management facility that's located adjacent to Moore's Creek Lane, and that's here on that portion of the floodplain property.

In terms of the site context, if you've been out to the site, you can see there is in the industrial nature along Franklin, but also the residential that we mentioned before.

The particulars of the request we mentioned, orienting you again to Franklin Street, Moore's Creek Lane.

This is the bakery.

The boundary or the parcel is highlighted in the light green color.

and what we wanted to flag for you.

Since this is a request that's focused on the special use permit for a use in the floodplain, we wanted to make sure that you had that information about the site as far as what is proposed outside of the floodway, yellow, potentially a retaining wall, and then the 1.496 area roughly outlined in yellow.

The extent of the floodplain is in the turquoise

line.

This is indicating the area that they indicated on their plans would remain for either existing tree canopy to be preserved or required replantings.

And as part of their application, they did offer an area for potentially for dedication to the county.

This is the zoning map.

We mentioned the industrial nature of the parcels over here to the northeast.

This is an area of the county that does have a great deal or is a concentration of industrial zoning.

Over here with the commercial zoning is the Woolen Mills where Willow Tree, formerly Willow Tree, is located and then the pedestrian bridge over to the trail on the other side of Moore's Creek.

There's a little bit of rural area that was rezoned.

in recent history.

This is, I mentioned this request is specific to the floodplain.

This is a map of the floodplain in blue with the striping and then the purple is the stream buffer.

This is Moore's Creek again.

and Franklin Street.

And then this request here is the one that was approved going back to 1997 to allow fill in the floodplain.

We don't see fill in the floodplain requests as standalone requests that often.

They're usually accompany another zoning action as in the case over here.

when that was before the commission with Woollen Mills in terms of what was necessary under the flood hazard overlay district there.

We do see it sometimes in these locations in the development area.

We don't have an example exactly like this one except in recent history except for the SP that was approved back in 97.

And again, the underlying zoning is light industrial.

The purpose is to potentially allow that 1.496 area to be filled and then allow for future industrial uses.

We've gotten some questions about

You know, the nature of this request and why we don't have a use right now in terms of a future industrial use.

So I wanted to spend some time this evening going over those industrial uses.

This is sort of generally, very generally, doesn't include everything, the steps in the process in terms of

This request having come in initially as a floodplain development permit that was reviewed by engineering which immediately identified the need for a special use permit.

Of course FEMA would be involved with any letters of map revision if this were approved but then there would be special use permit conditions and then eventually a site plan if they do propose industrial uses

and then all of our other steps in the process.

We'll talk a little bit more about those that are unique to industrial uses.

This particular area, because of the floodplain and because of our recommendations in the comprehensive plan for protecting those areas, is designated with the Parks and Green Systems category that you've seen in some of our master plans.

with that wording or perhaps slight variations of it.

We may use the term green space, but the objective being to retain and improve land cover as it relates to stream corridors and protect the floodplain as part of the county's regulations to manage the floodplain in terms of the benefits that it provides, not only for protection from flooding events, but also environmentally.

So not only

is there the general green space designation, but the reason behind it being all of our other strategies in the comprehensive plan for riparian areas.

Sorry, I think I went too far.

So switching gears to the specific request before you, it is a special use permit and it is specific to the fill request in the flood hazard overlay district.

One of the zoning districts applicable to this request and we wanted to make

make sure that we win over the SP criteria as we always do and what we've considered in terms of detriment to abutting properties.

There is the criteria in the Flood Hazard Overlay District and this is the criteria that is applicable to all comprehensive, excuse me, all special use permit requests including the comprehensive plan that we mentioned and

The inconsistency in terms of the industrial use not being consistent with that.

Some of the feedback we've gotten, I want to mention, you've seen a number of emails on this request and part of our evaluation considers

The public comments, we know that the community meeting for this item happened a little too closely to the public hearing, but there were some other issues with scheduling and getting it to a CAC.

So we prefer not to have it so close to a planning commission meeting, but the community meeting was held and there were about five residents that spoke and the theme.

of the concerns that we've heard from residents that attended the community meeting and also the emails have been a concern about the impacts to Moore's Creek, the Rivanna River and reiterating those goals that we have for floodplain areas and their benefits and making sure we look at any cumulative changes to the floodplain.

So those, you've received the emails.

They do, overarching were outlining concerns and in opposition in some cases to this request and I believe there was one that was in support.

We have received, we had continued to receive those up into this meeting.

So switching gears back to the overlay district regulations and the special use permit request,

We use the terminology in the Flood Hazard Overlay District of the floodplain as a general term and there are distinctions made in terms of regulations in our ordinance and this request is limited to the floodway fringe and then the floodway

is more restrictive and that this will not impact the floodway and is not allowed to do that in terms of the more sensitive area and the area that we would have more concern about in terms of obstruction.

So the fill in the floodplain request and any request for encroaching

is reviewed against these criteria.

There's a lot of technical criteria both in the flood hazard overlay district and the eventually the water protection ordinance.

But the floodplain administrator is the county engineer who's here this evening along with the deputy county engineer.

Tony Edwards is the deputy county engineer who's available for technical questions and has

Reviewed this particular request for fill in the floodplain.

But this is highlighting some of the information that's required and some of the findings that must be made for the county to potentially approve a fill in the floodplain request.

and part of that is the information that's necessary for the floodplain administrator.

To review that request, the packet included the study that Timmons prepared of the modeling and the findings in terms of

not having those detrimental impacts to the floodplain and making the findings that are necessary related to the base flood elevation.

The request is to fill to 325.

In their report, they did not

Identify any wetlands to this point.

I know we've had that come up in a number of emails, but in our search of databases and our look at the information we have and what was provided, don't believe those are in the area of that's requested for fill based on the information we have to date.

And then their packet also includes information about

Habitat or Endangered Species and their search of all of those databases in addition to our look at the information we have related to the biodiversity program.

This is the exhibit of their concept again, limited to that 1.496 acre area.

This is a retaining wall that may be 9 to 10 feet tall to create that

that building pad of 1.496 acres for a potential future use.

Again, the area that would be remain preserved or be required to be replanted and the

The site does have access off of Moore's Lane, which could potentially serve as access to any area that's offered to the public.

Switching gears, I know because we don't have a more detailed concept plan with the parking areas and building envelopes that you would find in some items that come before you.

In this particular case,

This is the broad categories or the broad uses that could be allowed by right in the industrial districts.

The industrial district is one where both in the light industrial and heavy industrial we have updated our ordinance so that it is a use table.

that relies on broad categories.

And this is how they are, we like our slashes, broad categories that have been somewhat categorized or grouped together.

And we have general definitions.

But what we also have is a list of things that are prohibited.

This is a list of uses that are prohibited.

either within the industrial district or just prohibited altogether in the county.

Those things that would have additional impacts.

There are also uses within the industrial districts that could require special use permits.

Now things that are

Our auto-oriented uses are commercial uses.

They're not those that are allowed in the industrial district.

Commercial uses would require special use permits, for example.

Unique to the industrial districts are what we

may have mentioned when we had that industrial rezoning before you a year or two ago near the airport is that industrial districts must submit additional information.

This is the items, one of the last items that is part of our process for industrial uses.

We have what's called the certified engineers report where we may not know

You know, we may know one user at a site plan stage, but it could change over time in terms of industrial uses going in and out of spaces.

So our process includes what's called a zoning clearance.

So either at the site plan stage or if the use changes down the road, we get what's called the certified engineers report.

And that really outlines the exact

the exact nature and the details of an industrial operation including the processes and the products.

And they have to address all of these criteria that we are concerned about in terms of impacts to adjacent properties but also to water related discharges.

So that is just something we wanted to mention and we typically do when we're talking about our industrial

uses as another step in the process.

The conditions of approval that we recommended if this were to be approved down the road or if the commission recommended approval address limiting the request to what the applicant has proposed in terms of the area that's shown on that concept plan.

Two through five are conditions that are typical of floodplain special use permits that we processed.

And then the sixth one, I didn't mention that in my presentation, but part of this process has included review from the historic preservation group of staff and also we've heard from

members of the public about making sure that there is this step for an archaeological survey based on the potential for the site to have some of those resources.

And this would require that phase one study, but also

This condition has been updated from what is in your packet to talk about what would the standards for that survey and also the development of a treatment plan if anything was found.

These conditions have been shared with the applicant and the owner in terms of

the draft that was in your packet and also this update.

But condition six is one that we've seen used in Belvedere, for example, and SACA.

We've seen SACA requests in floodplain areas.

So we have included the summary and the staff report in terms of the positive aspects with meeting the technical findings and demonstrating through the study and evaluation so far, knowing there'll be next steps with

Final engineering and final review and it would allow use of an already zoned LI property.

We know that a big concern obviously is that it is impacting a portion of the floodplain and it is an area recommended for parks and green systems in our comprehensive plan.

which recommends that the primary use of those areas be for preservation of stream buffers.

But it is limited, as we mentioned, to that area and we did recommend approval in the packet.

So I will pause for any questions and we can go back to any of these slides.

Thank you, that was really helpful.

Really comprehensive.

So let's see, any questions for staff?

Yeah, one kind of 101 question with some follow-ups.

Just for the lay people in the room, tell us more again about the difference between a floodway and a floodplain.

So I don't have anything in the slide show and I think maybe the applicant can comment on occurrences of flooding on the property.

You know, when I've been out there, this area doesn't have that.

This is the concept plan and this is the floodway again and then the floodplain.

We also have engineering staff here.

These are the definitions from our

Our Ordinance and County Engineer Frank Pohl has moved up to the hot seat, but the regulatory floodway is where you might expect more flooding and the velocity of the water.

And then the flood fringe in this case is a backwater area of the Rivanna River.

Sure.

I don't have any specific data, but I'm sure it fills up.

So this is a back border area from the Rivanna where the two streams come together.

That was actually my second question.

Well, I mean, the 100-year flood has an elevation.

So I would expect during a 100-year flood event that it would reach that elevation, right?

The models show 300, I think it's 324 is the elevation in this area.

So if you have a storm event that's bigger than that, then it would get higher than that, right?

and it would back up from the Rivanna.

So it wouldn't necessarily just be the watersheds from serving this, the Moores Creek.

It could be the larger watershed of the Rivanna that could affect this creek also.

Of course, because of the confluence here.

But yeah, obviously if we have a 1,000 year storm event, we're gonna have higher elevations.

That's why we asked for one foot freeboard

to provide a little bit of a buffer between the 100-year event, which we can regulate.

Can I expand on one question that you asked that made me think, I thought you were going into, maybe you did answer this, but this is like hydraulics 101, right?

Displacement of that area that you're talking about filling, that we're talking about filling, that one and a half acres relative to the overall watershed.

Is there an impact in the rise or displaced due to the displacement at a say a hundred year flood or a thousand year flood?

So it's like in a bathtub where you can remove, it's backing up into this area, but the flow still goes through the floodway.

And again, it's a backwater area that backs up from the Rivanna.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, Mr. Poole is still here.

So did I understand that this is, let me understand where this is, because I thought I heard floodway, I made a note of floodway fringe.

And then I made a note about what you just spoke about is that the floodplain.

Yes, there are two components to the floodplain.

You have the fringe and the floodway.

Phil is not allowed in the floodway.

OK, so when you do this, I would suggest that you indent those two, because I thought there were three separate.

entity.

Right, exactly.

But I thought there were three different things, which is what I was like, they don't read like three separate things.

Well taken.

Oh, OK, OK, OK.

I'll come back.

I have some other things.

Mr. Murray?

Oh, I do have other things.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, no, no.

That's okay.

You can stay with me now.

So if in reading the report, it seemed that there's a condition precedent that needs to occur.

by the county saying that this is a special, approving this for a special use and then FEMA comes alongside.

And I didn't understand the sort of sequence of approvals.

It felt like FEMA, some piece of it had already gone to FEMA.

And then FEMA said, no, you need to go do this through the legislative piece.

And if you do this through the legislative piece, then FEMA will come alongside of that.

Yes.

and so FEMA doesn't get involved in the local legislative actions.

So, but we require in our ordinance that they get the special use permit.

That's what I thought.

It felt like there were several sort of

go pass go once you get these things.

So you have to stop here.

Then if you get this approved, then you can go here.

And if you get this approved, you can go here.

Maybe if you could go to slide 17 at the bottom, I think that might be one of the things that your certification of floodplain by floodplain, no fill, shutter.

But it was the column that I was trying to figure out, so they got that.

So they're coming to us.

It'll go to the supervisors, and then whatever happens at the supervisors, then if it's a yes, then they have to go back to FEMA at some point.

after they fill the site if they get approval.

So on a visit to the site, it looks like there's a bunch of construction fill already there.

How is that good, bad, or indifferent?

Or should we even consider that there's construction fill there?

And I will try and pull it back if I'm not supposed to have said that.

We're looking around, because part of the thing is the zoning department has also been talking about that.

So if Francis is here, he can speak a little bit to that.

Yeah, the temporary materials.

Tony Edwards, Depay County engineer.

Yeah, the material that's being temporarily stored on there is to be used elsewhere.

And if there's a no.

If there's a no, it's still temporary.

Just so you know, I heard something different at the Citizens Advisory Committee on Thursday about that material, so the applicant might address that as well.

I do have one other question, and this may be for Rebecca, but we can see.

So right now, and this is the whole, I think, this is the whole tension I think people have between the comp plan says this, but the zoning says this.

So I'm just gonna do those things that people don't like me to do.

I'm gonna take the comp plan, I'm gonna put it over here, because today it's zone light industrial.

And I'm also gonna put along with that, I think we have an agreement that we're gonna take the green stuff off of private land,

So we're no longer going to designate private land as being part of the park and Greenway?

Did I hear that earlier on?

You're talking with the new comprehensive plan.

Right.

So the current comprehensive plan for 2015 shows everything in one color.

Right.

And on that, you have everything from homeowner associations to critical slopes to stream buffers to floodplains.

And I think the direction we're going with the comprehensive plan is those things that are including county parks.

So I think we're going to try and separate out the publicly owned land or places we might have an easement for a trail system or something like that.

So the net effect is this parcel would probably

Yeah, isn't it to separate parks and green systems where people are like, oh, it's going to be a park.

I think it's separating those two things.

That was a piece that I think.

I agree.

I understand that.

Parks and open space.

Absolutely.

I wanted to sort of get that out there so we could hear.

You mean with alums?

I mean, there's certain environmental and other things would be allowed for an adjacent property, a service authority, put a wetland back there.

So they can get flood insurance.

They won't be able to get that.

And moreover, as part of our work with FEMA, we're supposed to make sure that our building permits, that people aren't putting building permits and putting buildings in places that would be in the floodplain.

Perfect, thank you.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm just trying to get, because those are the nuances that I think it's helpful to sort of understand what's going on, what you can and can't do with this piece of property, and to sort of get it out of that.

There's not going to be a playground there.

All right.

Yeah.

One of the questions I have is how frequently have these these masks been updated by FEMA?

Are we confident these are the that these are accurate at this time?

Because I know that like I'm looking at the 100 year flood plain, we look up on pan tops.

We've all I mean, I certainly remember when that flooded and it wasn't 100 years ago.

Yeah, it's the 1% chance that it could flood at any time during the year.

That's what 100-year means.

It is a stupid name.

But I feel like that, and I've heard some data elsewhere, and this is just hearsay, but I've heard that a lot of these areas are flooding more frequently than they're mapped to flood.

And as climate change is causing more frequent storms, as we're increasing the amount of impervious surface,

So the maps were recently updated, I think, in 2022 or 2020.

There was an engineer that remapped the Rivanna, and the Woollen Mills did some remapping for the bridge structure that went in.

So I'm fairly confident of the elevation based on the modeling that I've seen.

In terms of future, we don't regulate anything above the 100-year even if there would be an increase in the future.

So until that, I guess there's a couple of ways they could address that, but right now it's based on the 100-year elevation.

So the county has no jurisdiction beyond that.

My confidence in that, we do see more storms, and we've seen some pretty large storms.

So they're beyond the 100 year, like the 1,000 year we had in Ivy.

We had some pretty big storms, I think, down in Batesville.

I hope you all remember when Cosners was underwater when that was flooding.

And so the other one relates to hazardous material storage.

We don't have any other regulations.

Once you're outside the floodplain, you're not regulated under floodplain regulations.

So something I've talked to our staff about is requiring site plans, all buildings to be at least a foot over the floodplain elevation, even if you're outside of the floodplain overlay district, right?

We don't have that right now, but we don't allow structures in floodplains.

So the vertical line from the edge of the floodplain up into space, you can't even put an elevated building over the floodplain, which you can do in many parts of the state.

we stop it at the line.

And that's why I believe they're asking for fill here potentially.

And that's why we've had a few other projects that have asked for fill because that removes them from the floodplain.

And then they can build on it.

You can put parking lots in the floodplain.

You can't park overnight in there though.

So that's an enforcement issue.

We've had a few of those that got approved that were approved.

So beyond that, though, we stop at the edge of the floodplain.

When they remove this, that edge will move.

And then we've also asked for the one foot to offer some buffer to your concern about larger storm events.

Yes, that's why we so where the floodplain may not cover it, there are other ways to cover it or with our certified engineers report process and where you would get information about what would be stored on site and be able to pull in those other agencies that review it, whether it's covered by the building code, the fire marshal, other

That diagram that you showed that had, I think, the certified engineer's report is the last box covers, I think, a little bit about what you're, in terms of process.

Yeah, I think I'll put it, again, so many slides, the importance of the numbers.

And this, I hear your point as far as could have clarified the FEMA steps a little better in terms of the clomer and the loamer and where they were with that process.

I think Steph might have just answered my question, which was around biorite and light industrial uses and smoke and emissions and odor and things like that.

It sounds like that would be checked and reviewed in that certified report.

Well, I can pull that other slide back up.

I think that there are, you know, I mentioned that our industrial uses have been updated recently in terms of this being light industrial and it does, it has been updated to either eliminate uses that are potentially hazardous and would cause those emissions, but also if they are allowed, oftentimes they're allowed by special use permit.

I'm just saying there's a valve that says this project can't go on like this if we see something that we don't like in terms of odor emissions or smoke emissions or waste that's inappropriate, right?

You know, I think our zoning staff is also here in terms of, you know,

Once you get to a certain point, if it meets all the regulations, then we may not be able to deny it.

And I'm asking because there's clearly a reason why the comp plan says what it says there, right, for this parcel.

So

And just to be clear to the certified engineers report is required for any light industrial use, regardless of where it is in the floodplain.

And if, for example, water discharges subject, if they don't meet the applicable regulations of the state water control board, for example, then the project can't be built as designed, right?

Well, I think a lot of what my questions have been asked and answered, but can you go back to the regulatory process?

I think that was very helpful, by the way.

I appreciate you putting that there.

So from following this, you know, we're in the special use permit.

process now, they have not provided a use.

So there's no use that was sent as part of the application.

So that would be determined by whoever, whether they sell a property or whatever happens to the property, or they decide to build something.

There are some uses that are by right within the light industrial, but there's some light industrial uses that are not by right, and those would require a special use permit.

And then there's some that, you know, like a commercial, you mentioned shops or auto shops, potentially could go there, but they have to be, so they would have to go back to another special use permit.

And even the by rights, you have the engineering,

the certified engineering report.

And you still have the water protection orders that they have to go through, even if it's by right.

I think those safeguards are, are there.

Am I, am I, did I capture that?

That, yes, sir.

That was the purpose of this slide.

And one thing I didn't mention, with this step here, it's not a step, it's a component of our ordinance.

which is the supplemental regulation step, the section five.

So when you look in our ordinance, you'll see it's either by right or by special use permit.

And you'll see in parentheses, a lot of times in, well, you'll see it across our zoning districts, but a lot, it's common in the rural areas and in our industrial districts, but section five of our ordinance is what we refer to as supplemental regulation.

So that may be another set of regulations on top of

everything else.

So that's what that is.

I don't have a particular use in mind.

You know, there's a lot of regulations around that that could have with it additional screening and buffer requirements.

I don't have any questions.

OK, awesome.

I just have a couple of questions.

Most of them were answered.

Could you go back to slide 11, please?

So on this site, 7740 is the site that was approved in 98 or so for fill in the floodplain.

and that shows in the Parks and Green Systems area as does some of the other adjacent property and also over into 7821B on the far right.

So I guess I'm just clarifying that there are other areas that are currently developed that are under the Parks and Green Space as shown on the comp plan.

It's generously drawn.

Yeah.

Wide marker.

Yeah.

I guess one other question, which may be for the engineers or for the applicant, but I'll ask it.

So this is a nine-foot retaining wall is what we're saying, right?

That's adjacent to the floodway.

Is there a setback?

We might want to clarify that with the applicants.

In the community meeting, they said 11 feet.

OK, we'll clarify that.

I was just curious if there is a setback requirement or any other requirement.

Because I saw one image that you shared that I hadn't seen in the materials.

I may have just missed it.

That showed grades adjacent to the wall that were coming closer to the floodway.

It was on one of your slides.

So the final engineering and the final height of the retaining wall is something that we've commented on.

It can't be greater than 10 feet.

And that does show, this was in the Timmins packet, it does show the wall here with the solid line.

To answer your question about setbacks and

Within the zoning ordinance purview, there aren't any setbacks applicable to retaining walls.

Is that where that came from?

Well, there is that.

It's 10 feet of fill, or 11 feet of fill, or 9 feet of fill.

It's fill to get it out of the floodplain.

Doesn't necessarily mean it's a wall that's that tall.

I mean, you might have a fill slope that is stabilized with riprap at the pace of three to comes up and may have a wall component as part of it, even.

The top part of it, the last part, four or five feet, may be wall kind of thing.

And we've seen those globally, too.

So there's lots of different ways to engineer and place that fill.

There are standards that it has to be non-erosive.

Okay.

Yeah.

And there is no setback.

There is none.

Okay.

So they can't grade into the floodway if this were approved.

Correct.

Okay.

Got it.

All right.

I just have, maybe it's probably one of us knows the answer to this.

I didn't.

So when you go to the site, there's that, that material that keeps silt from running off, running off the site, I guess to some place.

Oh, sorry.

The black.

Yes.

It's not the boundary that we're looking at here.

Right.

Okay.

I can understand that.

Great.

I didn't realize that it was a temporary fill.

All right, no other questions.

Good evening, Tim Miller with Meridian Civil Survey.

I appreciate your consideration of this special use permit tonight.

Before I go back to the history, I do want to just address this last comment about the wall.

It is a nine foot wall, but there's two foot of fill sloping up for a total of 11 fill that was discussed the other night, but the wall at this point is only nine feet tall.

Just to clarify that.

A little bit of history.

The owner, Chris Donaldson, it was originally parcel 41B, which is the Woolen Mills Light Industrial and this parcel.

And that went through the site plan process, got approved, construction got started.

Phil, the excavation for the stormwater management basin had to be temporarily stockpiled somewhere else on that site.

County and DEQ all agreed that that was a convenient site for the temporary stockpile.

They required certain erosion control measures, so fence and monitoring and seeding, and that was all addressed at that time.

In addition to that,

There's a lot of rock on the property that was stored there.

A grinder was brought in to crush it up and then reuse that as base material for the construction.

RWSA at the time was also renovating some of their facilities and had excess concrete that an agreement was made with Chris to stockpile that there and crush that and use that as base material on the construction site.

Again, it's all temporary.

It's all been monitored and approved by the county and DEQ through this process.

At one point, after the construction had started, some contracts were made to purchase condominiums on the parcel, 41B1.

And it was during that process that the county required this 41B2 be separated

from the main parcel.

So now we're talking two parcels, but it's really just the one project with the one owner.

And so it was the owner's intent during the site plan process to get the 41B1 approved, construction started, find out what kind of interests and needs there were during that process, and then come back and evaluate this area for filling the floodplain and

increased and add some additional light industrial area to the parcel in development.

Again, there's such a variation in industrial uses and needs and the owner has decided that it would be preferable to have this area approved for fill, get the fill in place and then find out what kind of needs there are and what kind of

uses would be best for this area.

Again, why we didn't want to go down the site plan process now and then have to come back later to amend it or revamp it when the true use is determined.

Again, Timmons went through the process of evaluating for the clomer F

Lohmer's letter of map revision.

We were not allowed to cross over into the floodway.

All the fill had to be in the floodway fringe.

Timmons went through that process with FEMA, determined that there was no increase in flood as long as we remained in the floodway fringe.

and that has been approved once the special use permit is approved, the site plan is approved, the fill and the wall get constructed, then they go back to FEMA to get the official letter of map revision approved and that would amend, revise the flood map is the process that we're going through.

So just some clarification there.

I believe that's all I have to say at the moment.

Again, Chris Donaldson is here.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You might want to stay there.

If we have any questions, that'd be great.

Any questions for the applicant?

That's helpful.

Commissioner Carrazano?

Yeah, just given some of the concerns that have been expressed by the community about, you know, the

Obviously you didn't choose this as light industrial.

At this point we have some initial thoughts on it.

We haven't gone into in-depth.

One of the issues we came, we decided to do was to donate the buffer along the stream.

That being the greatest source of treatment before the water enters the stream.

And the county is very good at managing these buffers and maintaining them and

allowing them to function as well as they can.

If it ever becomes a park in the future or some other use, that would be great.

But the initial thought was to provide that area as a buffer for any kind of additional treatment before entering into Moore's Creek.

Once we get into the site plan process, we can evaluate other options that can be done within the fill area of the

property.

I mean, a lot of industrial buildings often have the flat roofs with a rubber liner on top already kind of set up to be able to handle something like a green roof.

So that might be something you might want to consider as you're thinking about it as a way that you could minimize impacts on the waterway.

Chris is very receptive to ideas.

The recycling of the stone and the concrete is one example of him making some effort to do that.

He is trying to implement some things on the main parcel there as well as each building gets designed and he has some elements in those buildings that

might fall under what you're referring to.

Mr. Bivins?

So I'm still trying to get all these parcels together.

So your applicant, your owner will know this.

So the piece that's being done up on Belmont Avenue, I guess that's what it's called,

that's the place, is all of this part of that piece of property or is that its own separate property?

I think some of us remember going there and we had this exploration of a post-Civil War railway that was there that my colleague is looking at me that I said, yeah, what so what?

And so is that that is all of this one piece or is that piece the piece that's up there which I will compliment your retaining walls up there?

There are some of the nicest retaining walls in Albemarle County.

But is that the same piece as this piece or is this the one where the bread manufacturer, the bread bakery is?

Is that a separate piece?

I'm trying to understand when you say one piece was approved and now we've got two other pieces because I could not find 41.

I could not find the parcel number that you referred to.

During the site plan process and initial construction, it was parcel 40B.

and it was on both sides of Moore's Creek Lane.

That's what I thought.

Wrapped around the bakery.

Wrapped around the bakery, which is also part of this.

No.

Oh, so the bakery is not part of this.

The apartment building you were talking about, I'm sorry, the apartment building you were talking about is the one that's 3045.

apartment.

Do you mention an apartment?

Right.

That's what I thought, too.

That's where I'm trying to get to.

It's all commercial.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

I don't recall.

I didn't mean to say apartments.

I may have inadvertently said that.

No worries.

I may have heard it wrong.

That's where I was trying to get to.

OK.

It's when he

there were contracts on two of those parcels for condominium.

And we created the condominium subdivision is when the county, I believe it was the county or the condominium required this separate, this parcel would become separated from the main one because there were no ability to put condominiums on the 40B2 parcel now.

What the parcel we're talking about now,

Prior to this, there was no ability to put condominiums over there.

So they asked that it be removed from the condominium development property.

And it's now 40B1 is the main parcel being developed.

Which is on the hillside.

Yeah, 40B2 is the parcel that we're talking about today.

And 40B1, the hillside piece.

40B1, that's light industrial.

OK, that's a lot of industrial.

And that was at some point going to be a condominium.

The light bulb just went off.

Yeah.

I was thinking.

Thank you.

We're thinking residential.

Yeah.

Yes, it does, of course.

OK, I'm now out of my fog.

Very good.

Mr. Moore?

I'll just ask a couple of quick questions.

One is, I think you sort of answered these, but there is no use in mind, right?

You have no?

Only a buy right and duck real use gets allowed.

And the vision for adding the green way, that space that's dedicated to public use on the backside, there wasn't a larger plan associated with that other than just to dedicate that for future public use for whatever that might be, right?

Yes, and hopefully others will follow suit on down Moore's Creek as that gets down the road to have a linear

Got it.

And then the last question, and I apologize if I just, this was clear to everybody.

It wasn't, it wasn't to me, but that area that's shown is what appears to be sort of a bioretention area.

That's, uh, if you go back to one of the plans.

Yeah, that one.

And so to Commissioner Murray's question, is there any way to tap into that for water quality or quantity?

No.

OK.

OK.

It's uphill from where we're going.

I got you.

Even after you fill it.

Yes, okay, to get.

Yeah, gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant before we open it up?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We'll invite you back afterwards if you'd like to, to respond to some of the public comment.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to move now to public comment and I have a sign up list.

We'll start with that.

And if there are folks who would prefer to speak to this that are not on the sign up list, that's also fine as well.

But I'll start with Jenny Mikulski.

And as a reminder, you have three minutes of time.

And when the light turns yellow,

I do not mind at all.

Are you Eli?

All right.

Just identify yourself, your general area of residence.

And when the light turns yellow, you can kind of start to wrap things up.

All right.

Thank you.

I'm Eli Connell.

I live at 720 Franklin Street, which is directly across Franklin Street from this.

and to your point of higher intensity storms, more increased flooding.

We've only lived there for about four years at this point, but Franklin Street has filled up several times.

To me, this bathtub, I think the engineer made a bathtub analogy of if you put something in a bathtub, the water wouldn't rise up.

I don't really understand that point.

If we had like three acres put in to the floodway fringe, would that be approved?

Would that raise the water?

No.

So is that floodway fringe then not taking any water?

Is that what you're saying?

Sir, I'll just, if you could, I know this is a little bit of a nuance, but we're not actually here.

Oh, I can't ask questions.

OK, that's my bad.

Really, if you just make your points, and we can follow up with questions if we needed to.

Fantastic.

OK.

Thank you.

Yeah, so I guess.

I just feel like on Nassau Street also we've put in several residential buildings where we filled in this floodway fringe.

And if we're looking at them independently, I agree that, oh, this one small acre parcel with 10 feet of fringe isn't going to make a significant impact on the base flood elevation.

but if we put in you know 15 more of these and then we do 15 more and then we do one over here and one over here is that not eventually going to increase you know the flood of these larger scale events that way I think most of us can agree on the climate science we're having a longer hurricane season we're having more intense hurricanes and we're having more frequent hurricanes it just seems to me that this is something that we would prove in 1990 when we didn't really know much better

This isn't something we approve now when we have all this climate science that's kind of showing how important our flood systems are and our paths are.

And so that's just coming from me.

Again, I live in the floodplain.

Obviously, I'm the person who feels like they're most at risk here.

That's really it.

That's my main concerns.

I guess also just looking around Virginia, you know, Clader Lake and Buchanan County, these places are totally getting, you know, washed away.

And I just feel like I can guarantee none of them are thinking, man, we should have put a couple more buildings in the floodplain or flood zone or flood wave.

It just, again, I feel like it's kind of shortsighted, but again, that's not to throw stones from my flooded house.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Hi.

Good afternoon.

I'm definitely going to run out of time.

Jenny Mikulski, I'm Eli's neighbor, 718 Franklin Street.

I purchased my home six years ago with a Virginia first-time homebuyers grant.

I'm a working class person, as are most of my neighbors.

I don't know what happens on other county projects when you're working right on the boundary, but I've yet to see any mention of or depiction of what is on the other side of the street.

Franklin Street is unstriped.

It has no sidewalks.

It's pretty narrow.

We already have a significant amount of truck traffic from the Bread Factory that was permitted in 1997.

Chris's main project as you know on the slope is I think 160,000 square feet permitted.

It isn't remotely close to being done and it's been under construction for six years.

We have been living with that rubble grinding directly across the street from us as he builds those roads.

That pressure on our community is as yet untested in many ways.

Runoff, noise, truck traffic.

Franklin Street has some of the most, I've lived all over Charlottesville.

This is the street where you see people walking every hour, all the time, old, young, children playing in the street.

many low-income people who don't have cars.

They ride bikes.

We have motorized wheelchairs coming down Franklin Street.

But this is going to be the only mode of access to this industrial park, which at least has its own entrance on Moore's Creek Lane.

This development isn't showing how you would exit and enter, but you would have to do so from Franklin Street directly in front of our homes.

He can also, by right, go as high as 67 feet, which would block out all of our morning sun.

A couple of other quick points.

An isolated park on the rear of this lot would be very unsafe and difficult to maintain and a liability for the county.

It is well below the grade of Moore's Creek Lane and it would have large culverts on either side of it, so very difficult for any kind of landscape equipment to get in to maintain the weeds or anything else.

There is no connectivity to the trail system at all.

The Rivanna Trail is on the other side of Morse Creek and the fabulous footbridge at the wool factory takes you across and passes you safely under Monticello Avenue and pops you up out at Quarry Park.

So this is

I don't know, Brett Haring, I don't know what you're going to find, but there's no opportunity to connect to trails there.

It would be an incredible site if the entire site were donated to this community for a park.

As you know, Habitat for Humanity purchased the trailer park very recently.

They have quinceaneras with 100 people in tiny little tents behind their trailer.

An actual park here would be wonderful, and there's a creative ways to do that at the surface level that actually have stormwater mitigation

techniques underneath of it.

I think that the state, county, city, and its partners have invested over $50 million on this area in the past seven years, including the removal of the dam on the Rivanna for aquatic species, the remediation of the RWSA for smell, the rehabilitation of the woolen factory, and the habitat for humanity acquisition.

So it's not 1997 anymore.

Thank you.

Appreciate your squeezing that in.

That is all I have on the sign up list.

Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak to this issue?

You go back to the applicant.

Is there anything you'd like to ask?

Is there anything any of the commissioners would like to ask the applicant?

I have one question for you, if I could.

related to one of the comments that was made.

There was a statement about 160,000 gross square feet by right.

That was part of the original site plan parcel and is now the site plan approved for Willam Mills Industrial Park is on that parcel.

And there's 11 buildings proposed and each has two to three floor levels.

So the total square footage amongst all those buildings and all those floors is 160.

So it's not just your site.

Oh, no, no, no.

None of that square footage is included on this parcel 40B2.

Got it.

It's all the 40B1 Woolen Mills Industrial Park development across Moore's Creek Lane.

Does everybody understand that?

I did not.

You did not?

I might get to that.

Sure, Mike.

The area to be dedicated to the county has access from Moore's Creek Lane.

Off of Franklin, okay.

So then again, I thought that, so I was thinking that if it was off of that, then they really were looking at sort of a grouping of space, you know, that is just across the street.

So to come to the chair's question then, so right now there's one building under roof on the hillside.

Yes, I believe the approved site plan again shows 11 buildings on the 40 B-1 parcel on the other side of Moores Creek Lane.

And that's where we're getting the square footage.

That's where we're getting the square footage.

Is that helpful?

I think so, yeah.

So that 160 number that we've been hearing is already allocated somewhere else.

Already under construction.

Okay, I misunderstood.

I thought that person was assuming or we were assuming that that was on this site.

No.

Have you done a square footage calculation estimate?

I know you can't really do that without knowing what you're going to put there, but

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

I think we close the public hearing and go into deliberation.

Who would like to start?

I don't always have to go to the end.

I can come in and get you in the study.

Anyone?

Yes, I'll start.

I mean, I think the way that this area has been planned, you know, speaks to sort of like early 20th century, you know, when we thought of the river, the areas along the river as sort of waste areas where we could just, you know, stack industrial uses and other things there that were, that we wouldn't have wanted to put somewhere else in the community.

And I think

It also speaks to this idea that I brought up before about we have these areas that we've designated for the parks and greenways, that that's the ideal location of them.

And yet, really, we have a developed to protect mentality.

And this is a perfect example of this, right?

So we have an area that, ideally, this would all be park.

But in order to get this tiny little postage stamp of green space that's actually not really worthwhile to the community.

I mean, they would almost benefit more from a sidewalk and a bike lane.

To get that tiny little postage stamp, we have to fill in the floodplain and develop the rest of it to sort of get this tiny bit back.

And so it's a shame that outside of this, as we look at AC44, that we don't have some land swap program or

transfer development rights program or something else that would allow movement of take these areas that we do want as parks and green space and trade them for other areas in our development area that would be more optimal for light industrial that in a large flood couldn't see chemicals wash wash our waterway or you know

because as I said, I've seen those areas flood.

We all have.

Those storms are going to get worse.

The other thing is just as we are increasingly adding more and more impervious surface, the floods, it's not just climate change, but it's also just the amount of impervious surface.

It's adding more and more water to the system.

There's an area up on

There's another area of the Rivanna where farmers talked about once upon a time, they used to be able to take their cattle, just walk them across.

But now there's these huge canyons where they can't.

That's impossible because there's been that much soil removed from the landscape.

Anybody else?

I'm going to tag onto that since my comments are similar.

Yeah, I mean, there's lots of things that we can do with engineering, with big machines and modern equipment.

I mean, there are lots of things that one could do, and so we do have the ability to build

up the soil and create an island, an elevation that will then put a structure that is out of the 100-year floodplain.

That's true.

We also could pipe the creek and pave it over, and then we wouldn't have to have a buffer.

You could actually get a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to do things like that.

But should we?

Right?

So that's where I'm coming from.

The 100-year floodplain has a very important hydrologic function in allowing during a storm, as the water is rushing down, because it has this area, it spreads out and dissipates the energy of the water.

And then some of that sediment load actually drops out in that slower water at the margins.

That's why floodplain soils are so rich.

That's why people like to farm them because it's some of the best soil because that's where those floodwaters dissipate and lose their energy.

When you constrict the area that the water's flowing through, it goes faster.

So on a sort of like large scale, looking at the whole area,

I understand what Mr. Poll is saying, and I understand what Timmons has said, that this will not raise the elevation of the flood overall.

But I'm also looking at this from two perspectives.

One is death by 1,000 paper cuts, which is all the little fills cumulatively all together.

I don't have the confidence that we're looking at it from that perspective.

The other aspect is, again, what I just said about floodplains.

They have a purpose.

and we really should not build in the floodplains.

Albemarle County is actually more restrictive.

We don't let you put subdivisions in the floodplains.

Our neighbors in Charlottesville allowed a development of housing in the floodplain through an area which I used to kayak when the water was up.

and too bad for those folks when we get another big storm.

I believe very strongly and I have a 35-year career in floodplain and watershed management.

I've spent my whole life trying to keep people out of floodplains.

I would also suggest to you that the zoning yes is from 1997, but in our comp plan, never mind the park thing for a moment to my commissioner at the other end of the dais, they're not suggesting this become a park necessarily, but it's designated as green system because the county did go along and say, all of these floodplains, we're going to call them green systems.

because they are not, don't always think of the earth as just a place where we are going to recreate or not recreate, right?

There are other ecological functions that are going on there for biota, for salamanders, for all kinds of other critters that are also under our stewardship.

So where I'm coming from is I'm not in favor of allowing fill in the floodplain.

I think that zoning can be old

Zoning can be wrong.

Zoning can be a bad idea.

I think this zoning is outdated.

I agree with Lonnie.

There are a lot of reasons why we developed Long Rivers was because that was a transportation system.

We had to move goods, the Rivanna, we put goods on bad toes on the Rivanna and sent them down to Richmond.

So, you know, there's a lot of reasons why people develop near rivers also for water supply.

But today, putting industrial along our rivers is also a bad idea.

So I don't think the zoning is good.

We're not here tonight to decide about the zoning.

We're here to decide whether we think it's okay to fill in the floodplain.

And I'm going to stick with a comprehensive plan.

I think it was wise to say that this is a green system.

And I don't care if no one ever recreated it.

So that's where I'm coming.

And I have a lot of hydrologic reasons and ecological reasons for the way that I am presenting my position tonight.

I don't think we're getting a huge return for allowing this site to become its industrial use by getting it out of the floodplain.

That's it.

I certainly do not disagree with the technical attributes my colleagues have shared.

And I'll just go on record by saying, I hate this image that I'm looking at right here.

Look at the neighborhood to the left of Franklin Street.

What socioeconomic band do you think those people are in?

Where else in our county would you see something like this?

Yeah, in an industrial park, right?

I mean, talk about design injustice on top of all the things that my commissioners have said.

There's a reason why the comp plan says what it says.

There's a reason why we don't commonly build in a floodplain.

There's a reason why you can't put a building on there today.

those reasons are there for a purpose.

And so I won't go ahead and beat the drum that my previous two commissioners had.

I certainly agree with them.

They've said it so eloquently.

I'm sorry, what did you say?

Oh, I just said, I'll go.

Oh, perfect.

Thank you.

This is an odd one.

And I don't think I've seen one of these in my two years on this commission.

This is especially odd because the city-county line is right there.

We talk about what's across the street, or we talk about the street for that matter, and that's that city.

We barely speak to the city, which is kind of a structural problem.

And I think we have so little regional cross-boundary cooperation, even though for all intents and purposes, this is one area, this is one neighborhood, literally across the street.

And frankly, Franklin Street, from what I heard from some commenters, seems very neglected by the city.

It seems like they ought to make it suitable for trucks, and they ought to make it have sidewalks and lines.

So take that under advisement, city, because I know I have a lot of standing with you.

I find the proffer of an acre and a half along the river kind of goofy.

It doesn't do anything with us.

It's like if I proffered my old iPhone 6, you know, it's just like wedged between industrial and sewage treatment and would be hard to get to.

and it's already you know unbuildable anyway because it's within the stream buffer but hey okay it's it's a fine proffer thanks at the same time and I also do hear some things about I would call a con removal of acres from the floodplain it's not great for the hydrologic reasons that I think you

know a whole lot more about than I do, Commissioner Firehock.

That said, I also hear the county engineers describe their study and their conclusions and I've read the methodology and it seems to make sense and I don't have the expertise to contradict that.

You know, we asked some questions and the county engineers

made logical cases for why this isn't a major detriment.

The pros on this is that if you're going to have light industrial operations, we already have a lot of light industrial operations right here.

It's next to a sewage treatment plant, for crying out loud.

And the bakery and the other things, the new light industrial going in.

I mean, if we're going to have light industrial, it literally is adjacent to some of the light industrial we've got.

and other than sort of the terrain change.

You know, the other piece of this is that we've talked about and heard from our economic development office.

In budget season, we heard a lot more about the need for commercial and light industrial because it actually pays into the county more than it requires.

I don't know how big of an impact this would have.

We don't really talk about economic impacts on this.

commission too much, but at the same time, we have very, very few of those parcels.

We've talked about that some in her presentations about that.

So I do wonder if it would be, I mean, I do hear a not unreasonable approach and the engineers say it wouldn't really hurt things on the water side.

So I'm thinking, okay, this could be a good new parcel for things that do improve that tax revenue.

So that's kind of where I'm coming from.

Yeah.

Hardwood.

Commissioner Bivins?

Sure.

So I'll get it off the thing.

So I'm supportive of this.

And let me say why.

Those of us who've been here for a while remember that this used to be a stockyard, used to be down there.

Stockyard and a cafe and some things with roosters used to take place down there at some points on the side.

And I'll let you all think about what that is.

So I don't have a lot of hog wall.

Yeah, hog wall.

Well, so I appreciate what we're trying to do there.

I also have to appreciate that out of all of the acreage that they have, the 5.5, so five and a half acres is not gonna have anything done to it.

This is gonna be green with newts and salamanders and cottonmouths.

all running around there coming off that thing.

Or water moccasins, I should say, probably not continental.

We have water moccasins.

Well, I've had one come up in my ear and say, hey, I'm a friend of yours.

And so, or would you prefer the other ones, just the old copperheads?

We do have copperheads.

And so for me, you know, we've been, as my colleague to my right said, we have been challenged of taking LI space out and making it residential over the last few years.

And so for me, an acre and some change being set up for a pad to be light industrial also does something else for me, as you've known me talk about, I'm about economic development.

Some about putting jobs in places that people could walk to, contrary to what my colleague to the left is sort of saying there.

What's happened there is what has unfortunately happened with our housing stock.

And what has happened with our housing stock is really about economics, is that people do not have the way to move to something different so that they can actually move.

There was a wonderful piece in The Atlantic, if you want to look at what's happened to the inability for people to move, which is how people moved up in their social standing.

And a lot of it had to do with economics.

and so by trying to look at this as an area where we're trying to consolidate, we've got Broadway, which I don't believe this commission was even remotely appreciative of that becoming a residential area.

Remember we had that come to us, we had staff bring us something about, could we turn this into sort of this sort of bohemian art place over there?

None of us supported that.

We were all very uncomfortable about that changing there.

This to me feels like it is part of what's happening on Broadway.

And it's also, when I went to look at what happened on Mount Bellevue, I was surprised because when we looked at that space, we were all saying, oh, nothing's gonna happen here because this is such a challenging space.

I think David Benes took us out there for a little visit some years ago.

And now when I went out there just the other day, hey, I give him credit for not blocking

the building's view from right next to it, but also giving them the thought that they were thoughtful in how they did whatever they did, those walls, whatever they call it, the retaining walls.

And so for me, I'm trying to think where are those places in the county that we can co-locate light industry?

This one happens to be in this location, but there's an antecedent history about why this became the light industrial place.

That's longer and bigger than what we're doing here tonight.

I think that when the applicant has to deal with moving water off the street down,

that they're going to be challenged to do that in a way that's going to hopefully be helpful for that piece of property.

And it's not going to be like it is now, which there is a gully there that I think water comes off of the street that's, I think, between Hinton Avenue and Franklin Street, and it just runs down there.

So it comes down Carlton and just runs down there.

So that I would assume that in the treatment of this space and of this land, they're going to have to deal with it.

They just can't have water running across the property.

If so, then that's a true problem.

We have a different problem with that.

But if not, then I think this may, in fact, help mitigate some of the problems that we have water.

So for me, while I understand and I appreciate my colleagues wanting to preserve this, if we look further down the road, there's a whole heck of a landscape of, particularly behind the livestock, the former livestock place.

There's a whole bunch of land there that's never going to be developed.

It just is not going to be developed.

And so I'm OK for an anchor.

Can I just tag back though?

I just want to say, staff has done their job and is talking about what the surrounding uses are and they're light industrial, but it is across from residential neighborhood.

And some personal history, I used to be vice president of the Belmont Neighborhood Association and I hand delivered newsletters every quarter to each and every one of those

trailers and all the houses there and spent a lot of time down in that neighborhood.

And also I did water quality monitoring of Morris Creek for 10 years.

and actually got better over time, believe it or not.

But it is an impaired waterway and it is suffering from sediment pollution and it is suffering from extreme stormwater.

It does have bacterial contamination.

It's a TMDL contaminated waterway.

So it's an impaired creek and I'm trying to minimize the impacts to it, but it is also a residential neighborhood.

So I just, again, talk into one of my other commissioner's comments a moment ago

You know, it is a place where people live.

And I think that we try to look at issues of social justice a little bit differently these days in terms of putting industrial right next to residential.

And we shouldn't ignore our neighbors across the street simply because it's a different jurisdiction.

I'm not accusing you of doing that.

They've been there for more than decades.

That whole area up there has been something that's been engaged in, particularly that part of the community has been engaged in having and providing shelter for folks for more than just decades.

It's been close to 100 years.

And so, but my piece is that if we go to Carlton Avenue,

Walton Avenue from the underpass over to whatever the road is that goes up to the edge over there.

And so it's not like the pad in Crozet that is under EPA stewardship.

This is a piece that if I see the uses there, they're not dirty uses, if I can use that expression.

They could be perhaps another baker.

It could be some storage that could be their storage or some sort of logistics that we seem to need more logistics now, logistics use.

And that's a clean use that may in fact offer some of the individuals who are living there a job.

And that to me is the important thing.

Are we putting jobs, and because we talk about bicycle lanes and getting people to places without their cars, are we creating centers that a person could walk to or a person could easily bike to that they could find employment?

And this, for an acre and some change, to me feels like that could be an opportunity there, particularly since now I found out there's gonna be 11 units right up on the side of that hill there.

And so that's why for me, given

Yeah, and it is a very, is a relatively light footprint considering that they're taking only a small part of the parts.

I understand that.

I mean, as field projects go, I mean, there was a, Charlottesville itself had a, in its comp plan many years ago, had a plan in the appendix done by Torta Galles, and it showed that we could just fill in the whole Rivanna flood pane with these massive walls, and they could put hotels on top.

And then we could look down into the cavern that was the Rivanna River.

And yes, it was a terrible plan.

Thank God Charlottesville's not doing that.

But I mean, there's been lots of bad plans out there.

One thing to add to that, too.

I think there was a recent, I don't know how recent it was, but there was, I believe it was recent, a situation where

An application came before the city to fill a floodplain.

Yes, they did.

But this is a challenging one, for sure.

And I agree with what's been said on both sides of this argument conversation, which I appreciate, which I appreciate.

You know, where I'm landing on it is that there's over five and a half acres that are being dedicated.

It's a preserve, basically.

It's not just a strip along the river, but it's that open area that from an ecological standpoint is of benefit.

I don't know how that would connect to the wetlands.

I don't know if part of that is wetlands or whether it can expand the wetlands into that at some point.

I'm not sure.

perhaps, I guess depends on what happens hydrologically with the fill.

I also don't think it's a huge amount that's being, what is it?

So 30% of the site, 20% of the site, the majority is dedicated.

We always talk about mixed use and the importance of mixed use and bringing jobs into walkable areas.

And so this is an area that I'm not sure what percentage of the residents have vehicles and can move around.

Maybe all of them can, maybe some of them rely on transportation, but this would be more jobs and more jobs are coming with the other buildings that are being built.

So I think that is a huge benefit as well.

We also have many examples of light industrial across the nation that are turned into retail, turned into very livable areas.

And you don't know if that could happen here, but could happen down the road.

I just came, you know, well, not just in, in, in late summer was in Albuquerque in an area.

And I lived in Albuquerque years, years ago.

and it was an area that was very much in blight, used to be industrial, light industrial, and now it's thriving.

And it's all retails and shops and artists and all kinds of things.

Actually, there was a nursery.

I don't know if this could, maybe this can become a nursery.

So for the applicant, there's an opportunity of how this can engage the community.

and maybe somehow become a resource beyond jobs, which is obviously that's a huge resource.

Perhaps thinking about what happens in the frontage of that site.

So I would certainly encourage thinking about that as it's developing.

Obviously you didn't propose a use yet, something you're still formulating.

So think about that as well.

How does it engage the community?

You have a residential neighborhood across the street.

And so I think that should play into the thinking of developing the site.

But in all, I think there's a lot of benefits that outweigh some of the problems that we all feel this also has.

I'll throw out some ideas.

I tried to approach these things as objectively as possible, which I know everybody does, and I really respect all the comments that have already been made.

I don't think I disagree with any of the comments.

They're all really well thought out and reasonable and logical and helpful.

I have both sides of these things as I was looking through it.

I've got the side in favor and the side against.

The side in favor

is just to cut to the chase tipping the scales against the side against, if that makes sense.

So generally in favor of this limited buy right uses, the applicant mentioned it's likely they'll be pursuing a buy right use.

There are numerous checks and balances in place that we saw in the staff report, which I thought was very helpful to help me understand kind of what's next, help us understand what's next.

There have been existing impacts in grading in this area, not to say that that's the right thing to have been done, but they do exist.

This small fill area, I did the calc, I think it's like 21 acres, or sorry, 21% of the total seven acre parcel, the remainder being a portion of it in buffer, and then the other portion being in remaining untouched floodway.

I was a little

Uncertain about that wall and if they can actually construct it outside of the floodway.

So as I understand it, it has to be constructed outside of the floodway.

So there's that checks and balances again, that'll have to be shown in whatever site plan they're providing.

Agree with the need for light industrial use.

We know it's almost a little bit of cake and eating it too, where we talk about the fact that we want light industrial.

We don't want to impact the rural area.

We need to unlock

the ability to develop in the industrial area or in the development area, sorry, and I think this might, this is an opportunity to do that.

We talked about buffers, I mean, the substantial buffer, you know, the location of the fill is a little bit

It's a little bit of if you push it back towards the river, you start to create that buffer that you provided or mentioned between the use and the residential area, which I think is a good thing.

But then you're also getting closer to the river, which is not a good thing, and you're getting into the floodways.

So I think this tries to strike a balance.

I would say, and echo what Commissioner Carrazana said to the applicant about trying to create some sort of a buffer.

It's obviously not an entrance corridor.

It's not going to have ARB oversight.

But sensitive to the adjacent neighborhood, I think is important.

Appreciate the fact that the applicant was looking at reusing material to help with sustainability.

I think that was a good thing.

And the fact that it was in a backwater area.

Mr. Paul, I think was very helpful to understand that as well.

I don't think we're setting precedent here.

We don't set precedent, obviously, on individual parcels.

So, you know, on the other side, a lot of the things have been said.

I'm not going to restate it, restate the negatives of this.

I agree with all of them.

It's just slightly maybe to what Commissioner Moore said in favor on the positive side, but also it's a tricky one, right?

It's not a full 100%.

And Mr. Chair, if I don't mind, I mean, I just say that this is just going to keep being like this.

We just don't have all the easy sites left.

Right, right.

We're going to, this is just going to be our future as we keep trying to be conscious of keeping our footprint overall in the county tight.

We have these weird sites left.

That's what we have left.

And I think you know the comprehensive plans and other thing right that it is there.

Staff mentioned that it was sort of generous.

And I was, as you know, as sort of my other job, I was a part of some of the mapping of the comprehensive plan with some of the green space.

And I understand that how that was actually undertaken.

And there is, it's aspirational and important to pay attention to.

So on the green space piece, so there's the piece that I want to say, what is a green taking?

And you've heard me say this before, because when we have these kind of conversations and there's anything green on it, then we have a number of very passionate people say, but it's a green space.

But no, it's private land.

And when it's private land, the county, I'm saying this, the county needs to be very

sensitive to how it's colored so that it doesn't look like it's a ecological tech taking.

And maybe I think that's how we're going to get to it with the hashing and the different colors.

But I've just in my time on the commission, whenever anything looks green, and this was particularly when we were in Crozet, when we were looking at lots of things in Crozet, anything green in Crozet was verboten.

Then you can make it as green as you want to make it green.

But if it's a private piece of property, then there needs to be, I think, and we can probably get to this too, this does happen in places, there needs to be some sort of intentional conversation with the owner of the property to say, this is what we're doing.

This is what's going to happen.

The public's going to see this as your property.

Perhaps that's another layer in the uses.

Well, that's a very interesting idea.

And there may be some ways to do that.

I actually like what Charlottesville did here.

They had a situation with a floodplain, and they went out and they purchased it.

And I think about when we're in our comp plan where we're designating these areas as green systems,

It's the same way as when we are looking at places where we might want industrial or where we might want residential.

It's aspirational.

But we have to have a way to reach that aspiration.

and just because we say it's ideal state, we have to have a way to get there.

And I think we're lacking some of the tool sets that we need right now to achieve some of those areas that we've said that we want them to be green systems.

I don't think those tools are adequate right now.

So, and the other thing I'd say too, is I think that there are ways that other localities work.

They have other designations of sensitive areas.

Resource management areas, for example, where they can say in this area, we understand that development is going to occur there, but it has to be low impact.

It's got to be done with the sensitivity to stormwater.

And I hope that we could get that wave with sites like this too.

Right, like they could buy offsite water quality credits and not treat the water quality on site.

They can do that under state code.

So they can do that.

We don't have an overlay called sensitive area.

I think one thing, you know, you use the word aspirational.

I think one very positive thing that we've been talking about in AC 44 is

And I think we've made a lot of progress in that area as well.

Well, I'm ready to make a motion.

All right.

Correct.

So I will move approval.

Second.

I don't know whether, Ms.

Yes, it should be the conditions in the presentation.

Sorry about that.

So I'll amend that to state.

In the presentation this evening on this date

April 22nd at 6 PM.

All right.

We had a second, I think.

Great.

Any discussion?

Further discussion?

All right.

And Ms.

No.

And when saying no, you're to say the reason.

So the reason for my no is because it is not comport with the comprehensive plan that calls for this area to be parks and green systems.

Thank you.

And I know the applicant knows this, but just as a reminder, we're recommending approval.

We're not approving.

You guys know that.

All right, thank you.

We will move on to, we're out of the public hearings.

We'll move on to committee reports.

Are there any committee reports from the commissioners would like to share?

Thanks to staff too for showing up.

Yes, I have one.

So the MPO tech meeting that ends and we approve the

You've approved the draft unified planning work program.

We had a presentation about that.

There's also a nice presentation about the Safe Streets and Rids for All FY 25 grant application.

And as you know, pedestrian safety is something I'm very interested in.

So the idea with this grant would really be gathering data about ways that we can make streets safer

And I think that that's, you know, it's really work that needs to be done.

So it's very exciting.

And then we had an update on the existing, the pre-existing grant, the Move Safely Blue Ridge.

Great.

Yeah, the staff gave our CAC report.

Chair, should I ask Commissioner Murray, was there any sort of, today there was a bunch of stuff that came out about what the Federal Highway Administration is not going to do.

Yeah, cutting out funding.

Are they talking about that on the MPO?

Or are the people from VDOT talking about that?

I think, you know, there is that specter, but nothing's, you know, it's all unknown right now, right?

So, I mean, I think one of the things that has impacted budgets, I mean, right now is just, you know, all the snow and weather that we had that required diversion, yeah.

All right, any other committee reports?

All right, maybe we can move on to the Board of Supervisors meeting, April 16, 2025.

Mr. Barnes.

We went and took AC44's chapters of thriving economy and community facilities to the board.

Fair amount of discussion about

Most of the community facilities talk about how we should be working to

you know I guess there were some errors in the plan we needed to clean up and so we got those mostly spelling errors and typos I guess I should be too hung on that I'm hung on it because my staff shouldn't have brought that to them but anyhow that made it through the the board.

Berkmar Flats was an interesting one as you all recall that was the project that you all I guess staff first brought you a set of plans for that that didn't that had a particular connection running between

Woodburn, and up to down to Berkmar.

And that you all were like deferred it money more green space board supported what you all had pushed forward on that one.

I think highlighted a lot of it being close to walkable areas and that emphasizing the green space, the walkability they prioritized like you all did.

So I thought it's interesting observation.

We also took the canine kennel application.

That was the young couple that was up at Stony Point.

And you recall, I believe you had suggested Mr. Clayborne suggested he make it bigger to 1200 square feet.

And the board actually suggested that they go from a limit of 12 dogs up to 20 dogs.

And they suggested more dogs.

I didn't understand why that came up for the board to get in.

Mr. Callaway, Mr. Callaway, I think recognize that, you know, doing that as an economic

Yeah, exactly.

But he was talking about like, it just seemed like it was tight anyway.

They had bathrooms, it just didn't seem like architecturally you had enough room to do what you wanted to do.

Right.

And so I think.

They have permission to, I'm not certain whether they will.

Built in capacity, right?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Herrick.

Like dog wafts.

Mr. Barnes, it's not on here, but I'm just going to ask, are there any AC44 updates that we should know about?

Fantastic.

And I was getting ready to actually mention under new business.

Carolyn sent you out another agenda.

We're going to try and work more in these two months, look ahead agendas for you all.

Schedule?

The schedule.

Yeah.

And just please note that those are very much subject to change.

Like if you look at the one right now, June doesn't have very much on it.

I'm sure we'll be adding a couple of things to that as we move forward.

But yeah, we've moved from May 13th when we were going to do the cultural resources chapter that's been moved to the 27th to sort of accommodate some of your all schedules.

And that will be the end of the 10 chapters.

Actually, we're dropping it down to nine potentially.

I guess the cat out of the bag here.

Yeah, and so maybe, I think now we're going to go back the other way, as opposed to having that chapter like that, pushing some of those other elements back into the

I'm sorry to interrupt, but transportation is next.

Yes, sir.

will be on the 27th, you'll have community resources.

And then this discussion I've tried to talk about with the community resilience chapter being reformatted.

May 6th, transportation.

All right, well, yes, ma'am.

We're calling it Community Resources now.

That was great new business.

So actually, I actually had a question.

So there were some notable changes that happened before some of these things came before the board of supervisors and some discussions that occurred that we didn't get to participate in.

Yeah, there was a lot of the development area shape and size that were new things within the board that we got emails about.

We hadn't had that.

Sort of the basic structure of this is we're bringing stuff for you all to vet.

You're making a recommendation to the board, and then the board takes your recommendation and adds other things to it as part of their workflow.

You will, when we finish out these chapters, we will come back and bring you the entire conference plan.

for your review in its totality.

So some of these changes that you're talking about, as they make it into the comp plan, you'll see that when we get towards the end of the process in public hearing.

We have a work session first and then a public hearing.

But as far as bringing back to the Planning Commission,

Well, the discussions about the changes to the boundaries that were sort of discussed at the board, we will be bringing back to you, remember there's three major sections of the ordinances of the conference plan.

There's the introductory one.

There's a section on the growth management policy that will have sort of

Not only will it mention about the growth management policy, but it will also have elements about criteria for expansion of the growth management or the development areas.

So you'll be able to see that.

But as far as like sort of the some of those discussions, those items that sort of came up, please understand, you know, as your recommendations go to the board, they can do with it.

All right, great.

Any old business?

Items for follow up?

All right, I will adjourn the Planning Commission to our Tuesday, May 6 date.

And it is a work session, but it starts at 6 o'clock, right?

So go through that.

Start that at 6.

OK, great.

We're adjourned.