Planning Commission Regular Meeting   9/9/2025

Yes.

One second.

Testing.

Mr. Moore.

Present, my vote.

Mr. Bivins.

Here.

Mr. Missel.

Here.

Mr. Clayborne.

Here.

Murray?

Here.

Thank you.

Is there anyone online?

I don't have anyone online with their hand up.

Do we have a roll?

Mr. Moore?

Abstain, only because I wasn't here.

Mr. Bivins?

I have to do likewise.

Mr. Murray?

Yes.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Thank you.

And now we'll move into the public hearings, and we'll begin with TA 2025-2, Structure Height Regulations in Industrial Districts, and I'll turn it over to staff.

Can you hear me if I'm talking here?

Yeah, that's better.

And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Any questions for staff?

Do you happen to know?

I think as we do a comprehensive zoning modernization, that's probably something that we will reassess at that time.

It doesn't create human scale and we've talked about getting rid of creating some conditions for setbacks or step backs already in this commission to try to fix that across the board but it seems especially almost silly in an industrial building but maybe there's some reason why it was kept and I understand you didn't make the report per se.

And if you're advising staff to reassess that and potentially modify that section before we get to the board, I would recommend you put that into your motion as well.

There might be special conditions where a step back might be appropriate, if it's adjacent to a mixed use.

It'll still be pretty far from that boundary.

This particular section of Ordinance doesn't differentiate between the adjacent properties, it's just a requirement.

I can't remember exactly how much it is, there's quite a lot.

If it's adjacent to residential.

So they probably even notice that.

Go ahead, please.

So if we do, if we can add this right now, and until we have a rural area designation for industrial that's different, this would also apply to rural area properties.

Commissioner Moore?

I was just wondering, I have read a little about this since this came up and how the sort of clearance heights of industrial buildings have grown quite a bit over the years and now 36 feet or even 40 or more per floor is pretty common, but I was wondering if you could describe a little bit more about what modern industrial uses look like that might require this.

All in lifeline here.

You don't automatically get this.

You still have to come in and ask for that and view the project.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Probably not common, I would imagine.

You have to move back an additional foot.

Seeing no one, is there anyone online?

No, sir.

Does anyone want to make a motion?

I can try.

Sorry.

I move to adopt the change to section 26-4, to recommend adoption of section 26-4 structure height, except as otherwise provided in section 4.10 or as authorized by special exception, structures may be erected to a height not to exceed 65 feet.

We call the roll, please.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Mr. Clayborne?

Aye.

Mr. Murray?

Aye.

Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Thank you.

And I will ask staff for the staff report.

That must be somewhere else.

Great idea.

And so, yeah, there's a lot of different surrounding uses in this area.

So when you showed this little box, hedgerow park, and you've got four arrows, each one of those arrows is pointing to four distinct parcels that together make up hedgerow.

And there's actually a couple more that are not visible on the screen just because it was if I had zoomed out to that extent, you would just start to lose context on the map.

More to the west?

There to the west.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'd be glad to answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions from commissioners?

And could you talk me through some of the... All right, there'll be time for that.

Thanks.

Could you talk me through some of the planned improvements that intersection or what is the ultimate goal to improve that situation there on 29?

We're talking at the interchange itself.

Yes.

So I guess my answer is a little bit complicated, but there's two different projects right now trying to solve the issues in that interchange.

Is that first project that's the Fontaine Avenue closing the turn lane, is that funded?

That is funded and is moving forward.

You know what the timeline is for that?

Okay.

Can I ask a question then?

OK, thanks.

And so you wouldn't be?

Well, not the light.

Sorry.

from the northbound left turn headed towards Stan.

I know you didn't personally design it.

So there'll be more capacity to handle it.

Thank you.

Sorry, Mr. Murray?

Is there a reason that's not old access?

It's the act of Congress, right?

Oh, OK.

Literally.

But, you know, honestly, the idea wasn't looked at, but it'd be difficult, we think.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Cameron, could you talk a little bit more about the topography of the site?

It's hilly.

Or what they encourage and don't encourage?

Both mixtures of uses.

Creating like a 45 story kind of mini town kind of thing.

and currently in the current version of AC44 is not identified as a center or an activity center in the new parlance.

Do we know sort of the provenance of those?

No, we're talking about this area right here.

And also the kind of the fingers, the green fingers that kind of go up a little bit.

Mr. Bivins?

So is there a way to sort of shift the look at that and shifting out a bit?

So all that land that's in hedgerow, for example, it's not subject to the master plan, which is where that Parks and Green Systems designation comes from.

Is that more to the heart of the question, what you're asking?

As we have often had had conversations that we encourage or we require applicants to put sidewalks in a place that no one in anyone's right or wrong mind would ever walk down.

It would require board approval when they're evaluating the proposal.

Could you borrow it from the adjacent?

Not that you couldn't get the car and go there, but it's not quite as walkable to the folks who are at the site.

This is Albemarle County where we're all fit.

You need your mic if you need it.

But I know I'm getting ahead of myself, Mr. Barnes.

and this current one does not and there was a discussion when it was part of it of trying to get a trailhead a little bit closer to hedgerow obviously that opportunity changed when the so we're you know we're bringing you the proposal we have in front of us in other words this does not this access path does not provide access to hedgerow park right no it could it could it could through another person yeah it could you could not if you approved it tonight it would not

and the board approved it, it still would not actually connect Edros.

I know Commissioner Firehock.

So under that logic, therefore, in our county, we would only be concerned from now on with preserved slopes that are literally having water going through it.

But it's more factors than just, is it part of a water feature?

It has other benefits, buffering, noise reduction, obviously, but I try to get a sense of how much is usable by people.

but yes, the buffers do fall within that 12.55 acre calculation.

So it's not proffered as I understood it.

Are you referring to potentially this image?

Is that conceptual?

The entrances,

We don't know what those are.

The applicant will be able to answer more questions if they have anyone.

Thanks.

Does anyone recall any of the history of why this was designated residential and not light industrial?

Well, I'm sorry.

Some very public discussions.

but that the shoots ended up going away and so that additional compound analysis just was sort of dropped if you will so in summary the red that's up there was has been there for a long long time the purple was sort of added in 2015 and there was some considerations of parcels south of the purple that never came to pass okay thank you for the background

Yeah, the parcels that zone the red color are all right here.

This was just comprehensive plan, future land use classification changes.

And while it was bumped into the development area, it does not have water and sewer, right?

Got it.

I'm sorry, the applicant.

So thank you.

The last start with Commissioner Moore.

I realize that it's a conceptual plan at this point still, but... The emphasis?

So we really are trying to truly do a mix of uses here, which I think the district needs and desires.

With the residential units, particularly Block 5 and 6, it sounds like, do you anticipate those homes being for sale or rentals?

There would be both options, yes.

Did Riverbend have a chance to pencil out the numbers under the plan that we adopted a year and a half ago with 20% of homes affordable at deeper affordability but with the property tax credit for the whole property?

We have not done that yet, no.

I am curious to know if it pencils out any better or worse with that property tax credit because that is one of the things that we were hoping that would would sell it to y'all.

Yeah, I'd like to take a closer look at that too.

How did you come up with that range and how did you come up with 100 to 1200 units?

I think that even with the apartments, it would be several hundred units.

Commissioner Moore, are you good?

I may come back later, but I'm good for now.

Commissioner Bivins, did you have anything?

What's the company thinking about for the extra space if it's not at that high level of commercial?

But I think if not as much commercial shows up, we have thoughts of like senior living and other types of uses that could fill in the space.

So on that piece of property there's an old homestead that's there actually kind of interesting piece of housing structures there is the what's the plan for that?

It will be demolished.

And so I would just say that if it's at all possible while you're around that conference table to give some thought to does it really need to go away or can it perhaps be preserved in some other way?

I think what's more unfortunate, I don't know if this came across in the application plan at all, but this site was the location of Brenwana and the Hilltop Hideaway, so I wish that some of that were still present on the site.

So thank you.

So some really interesting things.

Give them, create them as affordable housing and transfer all those properties to something like Piedmont Housing Alliance or to the county and let the county then transfer so that we can start to build an inventory of long-term affordable housing.

I love that and I think that thus far we're having a very initial successful partnership with the Piedmont Community Land Trust at Victorian Heights and so that is a brand new model that we've been feeling out and I think that for you know anything for sale going forward we want to work with them to get into permanent affordability.

How is that going to happen when we do this again?

this entrance with a right in right out.

So that would be.

making sure to leave buffers and do a lot of replanting along the edges of the development pods.

That's a good point.

You didn't put that out there.

The potential may be capping on what you're willing to do in terms of that residential to maybe provide some security to people that would be concerned about the upper limits of that number.

What's the specific concern about adding residential here?

Yeah, schools and trip generation, yeah.

So I would hate to lose that opportunity.

Sounds like that's a no.

That doesn't currently exist, right?

We're building the shared use path along these sections and I don't know if Mr. Barnes wants to comment on the stages of any of those trail connections.

It'd be a question of money.

And so do we have any, is there any timeline, there's no defined timeline yet on those, being able to make those kinds of connections?

It's a question of money.

Thanks.

Oh, sure.

Block 4 is commercial or industrial, which I would expect in that location, but talk to us a little bit about Block 5 and that determination.

So you kind of have to do it in smaller increments if you wanted to.

You know, similar, those are probably that same sort of distance.

Would that perhaps go to 45 to accommodate the additional traffic and the two signals that are in close proximity to each other?

Mr. Firehock?

Thank you.

I actually wanted to get Scott answering some questions.

I'm just trying to see, what's the likelihood that I could live there and catch the bus?

to tee up because I really want this to be a multimodal site.

So therefore you're going to try to alleviate the traffic in general in the areas that the thinking.

So, um, that's when we came up with the idea to like, let's help with improvements to that existing lot because it's functioning well, it could just be a nicer amenity.

If the rental rate would be basically the same as it would offer anyway.

And, you know, I think that that's important for us to work together and look at that.

Okay.

What was the timing?

So we thought about that as well.

So when you looked at the traffic, what assumptions did you build in on background traffic?

I mean standard assumptions, but

Is that a fair question or clear enough question?

That was our study area, so those were the intersections that we studied.

You mentioned that was two years ago?

Got it.

So are you saying that your model included the assumptions all the way down to where there's that left turn westbound on 64?

Correct.

But did not go beyond that?

Correct.

probably because it didn't exist back then.

But it was not a requirement of this project to study the Fontaine interchange.

Or did you use Puma?

I could tell you the exact.

So less than full build out basically.

The traffic study looked at a combination of those two that's less than the maximum, but

Yeah.

So it's common on a project like this and other mixed use projects around town where we don't know what the final unit count's going to be at the end of the day.

I was just curious as to what you modeled.

So as the project develops, as long as you stay under that trip budget that was established in the TIA, then you can, then the improvements are still valid.

Sorry if I missed it, but how will water and sewer physically get to the site?

They have two separate systems and they want to loop them together and this provides that loop.

We've done any initial conversations about acquiring easements to get those done?

We have.

Or is it just dead end for now?

So I think that there's multiple ways that that could be accomplished.

Thank you.

Sure.

But theoretically, that could be what ends up there.

I do think that that is one use that's listed in the Code of Development.

OK, thank you.

20% at 80% AMI or say, for example, 10% at 80% AMI and 10% at 60% AMI.

Yeah.

I think it would be fair to say we want more affordable housing.

And I guess, yes, more than just what the market might already provide at a rental rate.

In a non-answer way.

All for free.

I think it was 2022 was the traffic study, right?

Approved in 2023.

OK.

I'll just throw that out.

And we absolutely agree, especially that upper section of the site has great potential for employment center and light industrial uses.

So, I mean, I think that that would be the best thing.

Thank you for that comment.

Mr. Murray, I don't mean to get into like a back and forth too much, but where are you reading that there's a shortage of commercial?

So in my mind, until those prices come down we don't have enough commercial space.

Okay.

And when we look at them today, they hold you storage.

Any more questions for the applicant?

But so if it's there.

And I understand that you can.

I haven't looked at it recently.

There it is.

That's much appreciated.

We're happy for in your motion for you to say that we need to remove that from the list or however we go about that.

And Lee Kendor is on deck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Come on up if you would.

Sorry, I don't understand.

And I want to have a point of clarification.

Is that what you said?

That is correct, ma'am.

Okay, I'm sorry?

That is correct.

They will be able to turn left there as well, or do they have to go all the way down to the traffic light, make a U-turn and then come up?

I don't know, but if I could maybe just ask these questions and then we'll invite the applicant to come back up and respond to these questions.

That would be great.

So rather than it being a dialogue, it's easier that way.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, ma'am, are you finished with your comments?

I thought you said go away.

I just want to encourage you that there will be an opportunity for them to come up rather than a dialogue.

OK, thank you.

Good evening.

So thank you very much.

Sir.

And I don't know if anyone's aware of that or if it's appropriate for such a walkway or a trail, but those are the points I wanted to make.

Thank you.

Thanks a lot.

You can come up when she's finished, if you have other comments.

If you're a student, you cannot go anywhere in that land.

Anybody else like to come up?

That's a critical and key aspect of the community south of 64.

Anyone else like to come up?

So that I don't think is justified along with many other things that really need to be addressed.

Feel free to just follow along the person in front of you.

Thank you.

Okay, seeing no one in the audience, is there anyone online?

I have two people online.

Okay.

Mr. Von Reijen, if you could please state your name where you live and you'll have three minutes and your time will start when you start speaking.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

State your name and location and the timer will start when you start speaking.

I'm sorry.

It's pretty garbled.

Sorry, I'm not sure why that is.

Want to try again?

Or can I call in?

I think it's your connection.

Yeah.

Is this better?

Yes.

Can you still hear me?

Yes, perfectly.