Planning Commission Regular Meeting   12/16/2025

Great.

Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the last Planning Commission of 2025, December 16th.

And I'd like to begin by, well, that was calling us to order.

Now I'd like to establish the quorum.

Yes, sir.

Ms. Firehock?

Here.

Great.

Thank you.

We have a quorum, more than a quorum.

Next item is public comment on matters pending before the commission, but not listed for a public hearing this evening.

I have one person signed up.

Good evening.

Neil Williamson with the Free Enterprise Forum.

In what's become a holiday tradition, the Free Enterprise Forum annually presents an adapted holiday poem or carol to the Albemarle County Planning Commission.

Previous iterations have included Rudolph the form-based code, Rio the small plan, a coronavirus carol, walking in a form-based code wonderland,

the NIMBY who stole diversity, the bleak mid comp plan, middle density is coming to town and the original an Albemarle County planning Christmas.

In 2025, we are set where we are preparing for change in Albemarle County's community development leadership as staff elected and appointed will be rotating off and doing other things.

and your new board will seek to implement the new comprehensive plan that changed very little and find new and creative ways to morph local ordinances to allow the arrival of a new economic development driver and all that comes with it.

With the new year promises to bring new challenges to all of our localities, but we remain encouraged.

We are encouraged by the shared desire to see our community become stronger and more diverse

in the building types and increase regulatory flexibility whilst, I love that word, retaining the character that defines us.

Without further ado, we present the 2025 edition.

Let it Grow.

Outdated regulations roasting on an open fire, affordable housing demand nipping at your nose,

Plan review flexibility being sung by a choir and folks dressed up like Eskimos.

Everybody knows an expanded development area and some mistletoe helped to make the county great.

Albemarle planners with their eyes all aglow will find it hard to sleep tonight.

They know that AstraZeneca is on the way.

Kilroy's loaded lots of jobs and investment goodies on the sleigh.

And Jody Filardo's going to spy to see if high residential density is going to fly.

Now, the regulatory fire is still glowing.

And my steers, we're still growing.

But as long as you love Albemarle so, let it grow, let it grow, let it grow.

Thank you.

Definitely highlight of the year.

Thank you.

That wasn't sarcasm.

I mean that.

Excellent.

Anyone want to follow that?

Thank you.

We'll move on to the consent agenda.

We don't need anything on the consent agenda tonight.

Great.

Fantastic and now we are on to the public hearings and we'll begin with ZMA 2022-2 seek property rezoning.

All right, good evening, everyone.

My name is Cameron Langell.

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

Tonight, I'll be giving you a presentation and staff recommendation on ZMA 2022-02, which is also known as the SEAG property rezoning.

I should probably note, I'm sure as you all are aware, this is actually a follow-up from a public hearing that we originally held on this application on September 9th, 2025.

Since that time, the applicant has revised some aspects of the proposal.

I will go into that in a minute on a different slide, but I just wanted to remind everyone that this is the second public hearing for this item.

So some general specifics of this request.

It's a request to rezone six parcels from the R1 residential zoning district and the HC highway commercial zoning district to the neighborhood model district.

In total, it's 62.4 acres.

It would be subject to the application plan and code of development.

And ultimately, this would be a mixed use development with residential and non-residential uses.

They are proposing to disturb 3.6 acres of preserved steep slopes overlay district for different aspects of construction for this project.

That is a reduction from the original 5.1 acres that were proposed when we had this application before us in September.

I will go into more details of that in a moment as well.

Just to reorient everyone, these six properties are located at the southwest corner of the I-64 interchange with the Route 29-250 bypass.

This is Exit 118.

They're highlighted in that light blue color there.

As you can see, there's a different variety of uses in the nearby vicinity.

Fontaine Research Park is to the northeast.

Across 29 to the south and east is the Redfields and Sherwood Farms neighborhoods.

Future hedgerow park is located to the left of our site which is west and then north there's I-64.

Some different uses on those rural parcels and ultimately the Ragged Mountain Reservoir.

So this is the summary of changes, I think the most relevant things that they've updated.

Originally, there was a wide range of residential units proposed.

There was a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 1,200.

They've since reduced the maximum and increased the minimum.

So now we're looking at 275 minimum or 600 maximum.

The original non-residential square footage was 50,000 square feet, and they have increased that to 100,000 square feet.

The maximum non-residential has not changed.

It remains 440,000.

That's the same as the September version.

The affordable housing was updated as well.

Originally, they're proposing 15% of the total units to be affordable units at 80% AMI.

They have since increased the percentage of affordable units that they're committing to, to 20%.

And they've broken it down into two separate tiers.

Half of the affordable units will be provided at 60% AMI, and the other half would be 80% AMI.

In total, if they build out to the maximum, that would be 120 new affordable units.

With the preserve steep slopes, again, they've done a reduction in the amount of disturbance that's proposed.

Originally it was 220,000 square feet.

Now it's about 160, a little bit less than that actually.

And then for non-residential uses permitted, they originally had self storage facilities allowed.

They've removed that from their code of development and they have added hospitals.

And I apologize, yes, I realize the numbers on the left-hand side repeat numbers one and two, that should be five and six at the bottom.

So the next few slides I'm going to go through quickly.

Really, this is a page from the application plan, which nothing really changed on it that much, aside from the areas of preserved slopes that are getting disturbed.

But I have a larger image where I can show that.

So again, the new densities, 9.6 units an acre.

I've got the affordable housing listed.

Just a reminder, this would be on the ACSA public water and sewer system.

So this is page one from attachment four, which is the application plan.

Transportation proposal has not really changed.

There's going to be two entrances.

One of them is a full access entrance with a left in, left out.

Right in, right out will be a signal at that intersection.

That's the one that you see furthest south on the frontage.

The entrance to the north is going to be a right in, right out.

There's a multitude of pedestrian facilities proposed within the development sidewalk shared use paths.

They will have a shared use path crossing 29 that continues on the east side of 29 for about 900 feet to the north.

This just shows their block plan and then this is the updated table for their density regulations.

This is again where we established that they would do a maximum of 600 units and a minimum of 100,000 square feet of non-residential uses there.

So this slide shows you the original disturbances proposed to the preserved slopes.

I had about a 10-minute debate with some of my colleagues today about what color this is.

I see it as red.

Everyone else sees it as brown, supposedly.

But where you see the dark green color on both the left and right images, that is where the Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District currently exists.

That reddish brown color shows the areas that they were proposing to disturb.

So if you do a comparison between these two images, I would recommend looking at Area 6.

It's probably the easiest to see.

Originally, they were going to disturb all those preserved slopes so that they could put in infrastructure like new buildings, utilities, and the roads.

They've now since revised it, and you see a significant portion of it is going to remain undisturbed.

as Preserve Slopes.

They've done the same thing in Area 4, Area 7, Area 5.

It was reduced by about half.

Originally it was almost 20,000 square feet.

Now it's just over 10,000 square feet.

It's slightly difficult to tell, but the green area between Area 2 and Area 3 has widened a bit.

And again, overall that comes down to about a 60,000 square foot reduction.

So this is staff recommendation, positive aspects.

It's consistent with the land use and density recommendations from the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan.

It provides new transportation improvements that are consistent with the master plan, includes transit stops, shared use paths, upgrade to the existing park and ride lot that's located at Teal Lane on Route 29.

And then now it's providing 20% of affordable housings consistent with the county's housing policy.

The one concern, and we originally noted this with the September version, is that Redhill Elementary and Monticello High School are currently over capacity, and they're projected to remain over capacity in future years.

This development obviously would be creating new students at both those school levels.

However, the impact or concern now has been reduced by half.

Originally, it was 108 elementary students, and then I think, what is that, 96 high school students.

It's now reduced down to 54 or 48.

And that's if it builds out to its maximum density.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Any questions for staff?

because they have to if they're going right out then they're going down are they going down to making a u-turn and then can you is there someone want to understand how that u-turn doesn't cause other new problems I think I've got even even better slide I'm just trying to find it there's one that I showed you a minute ago it's like a zoomed in version of their transportation that would help okay I'm gonna use my laser pointer real quick

So this is the more northern entrance into the site, which is where the write-in write-out would be.

And then this is the signalized intersection here.

OK. And so I guess where were the U-turn concern that you had?

OK, so.

Yeah, I didn't know if they were coming down and trying to make a UE somewhere before that.

So the light is here in the southern.

Yeah, yeah, that's where the signal is going to be.

Okay.

All right.

And then

The current signal is where?

That is not visible on this slide.

So is VDOT OK with the distance between those two signalized intersections on the speed of a highway?

Yeah, they've reviewed this and they did not note any concerns about that separation distance between this proposed intersection and the existing one.

I don't think this is exactly accurate because it doesn't reflect the conditions since the project was done to fix this interchange.

Yeah, I go there once a week.

Thank you.

I don't have any other questions at the moment.

Thanks, Karen, for the presentation.

Yeah, so I mean, again, it's 20% of the total units that they do would be affordable housing units.

And half of those would be at 60% area median income.

And then the other 10% would be at 80% area median income.

So basically it's sort of a hybrid version of our current housing Albemarle policy.

And then like previous versions that we had prior to,

housing Albemarle being adopted.

The affordability period that they're proposing with this is 10 years for the units, which if they were being fully consistent with housing Albemarle as it stands right now, they'd be doing 20% of the units at 60% AMI.

And then there's different affordability periods that you're supposed to maintain, whether it's rental or for sale.

Ultimately, I think it's attachments

Seven or eight, Dr. Stacey Peffia gave us a write up of what the housing office thinks about this request.

And they said that it would be providing affordable units that they felt is consistent with our policy.

And again, one thing I would remind the commission is that based on the date this application was submitted,

the offer to provide 20% affordable units is not required.

They could say, we're proposing 15%.

Okay, because I was struggling on how this is consistent.

It's both.

I mean, I guess they meet the 20%, which is part of the new policy right now.

Right.

Not at the AMI.

Yeah.

But not all the way.

But not all the way.

Yes, so one of the concerns that we had before about this was the connectivity on the opposite side.

And one of the things that's been brought to my attention is about the Redfields proffer that's going to expire soon.

Yeah, so we looked at that carefully.

Basically, the Redfields proffer, there were two proffers in this area.

One, can you get that aerial, this there?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So with this, there's a cul-de-sac in Redfields.

And there were two proffers.

One was for potential to extend that road at some point in the future to kick 29.

And then there was a second one for a trail.

The trail was trying to take advantage of an existing culvert that's quite tall underneath the railroad.

The connection wasn't for to go up into Redfields for that trail.

It was to actually come sort of following the rare line and the creek to bring you to I-64 and to go under the I-64 to get to the Granger property.

That's what that offer for that Greenway Trail easement was back in 2001, I believe is when that rezoning came through.

We've looked at this and

Making a connection on that side of the bridge, underneath that portion of the bridge, is very difficult because of a lot of riprap that has been placed as stabilizing that slope.

It's a quite extensive amount and makes for a very difficult place to put a trail.

Further investigations have illuminated that there's actually, under this bridge, there's four spans under the bridge.

and the westernmost one that's on the interstate actually is there's nothing there.

The first two was either the slope or the first three that was either the slope, the creek or the railroad.

This fourth one is actually just dirt so it's open and so we believe that the best connections to be made are along the western side of the

the rail line and connecting to the back of the Forestry Department and not trying to work our way across that riprap slope that's adjacent to Redfields.

It would be very difficult.

Okay.

And so, and then thank you for that update.

And then the second question I have is related to park access.

So part of this is proffering in an entrance to the new, to hedgerow park.

But we've had problems in the past with particularly I'm thinking about pretty Creek and also biscuit run where at the moment there's a way to access those parks.

People came in immediately with like shovels and bikes and everything.

building their own trails before the county could even master plan those areas.

And in the case of this area, there are some G1 habitats, critically imperiled sites that really could be destroyed very quickly if people were in that area building trails or accessing it without a plan in place to protect those sites.

So I was just wondering, what is the county's plan if this was to go forward and somebody put a parking lot and a trail entrance there?

Thank you for that comment.

I think there are some specifications in the Code of Development, which I don't have a printed copy here, about the timing requirements for when

I'm just going to use my laser pointer again.

This is where they're proposing a trailhead with up to five parking spaces that would be, you know, if it was presumably to get into hedgerow park in the future.

But, you know, we would be working with Parks and Recreation at the site plan or subdivision plat stage whenever they show that parking lot being created to make sure that we have some sort of measure in place, probably to restrict access, whether that's, you know, physical gate or fencing signage and things like that.

Any other questions?

All right, thanks.

Commissioner Bivins.

Thank you, Chair.

So this is just a sort of an updating piece on this.

Where you were just speaking with with my colleague, there was a I think there was a group of owners that came in and talked to talk to us.

And I think we moved it on or the supervisor did so.

That's what I want to know.

What did the supervisor say about the piece of property that's contiguous to the south there?

that has some funny name like Sugar Loaf.

Oh, Sweet Spot.

Sweet Spot.

Oh, Speed Spot, okay.

See Spot Run.

Oh, Sweet Spot.

Yeah, what did they do?

What did they do?

Because for me, that's the whole question about, you know, there's been some conversation whether or not that actually going to live into what people are proposing it to be, but if, but we didn't know before because they hadn't been in conversation.

Oddly, I would say that, of course, as we were going into the approval conference plan, that parcel was designated as industrial.

OK, thank you.

And then I'll ask the other questions to the applicant.

Yeah, the question I had was actually back to affordable housing and the policy, essentially the one that this came under, the old policy of I think 15% of units at 80% AMI.

Can you remind me, what was the term in the old policy for those affordable units?

I believe it was 10 years.

Is it only 10?

Yeah, I would have to get the policy.

I mean, there was something in there, but I can't recall it.

The old policy you're referring to?

Yeah.

Yeah, I'd have to pull it up and look it up.

I just asked because I did see, and yeah, I apologize for not having that policy in front of me either, but I did see the

In the proposal, there's only just providing that first for sale unit is considered fulfilling the affordable requirement.

There's not sort of, then it kind of just turns into market after that.

And that may be in the old policy.

I just don't recall.

Yeah, just a little bit more detail.

We've made a determination that the application wasn't significantly different.

I mean, if anything, it's got a little bit smaller, but the entrances and everything was more or less in line with the original.

chose the original meeting and therefore we did not require a second meeting.

Got it.

One quick question.

I think the reason it was added is simply because let's say they had some sort of medical user come along and depending on what exactly that office would be performing, you know, a hospital use is consistent with this land use designation.

Yes.

I just wanted to check because that could be extreme.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Good evening, everyone.

Nice to see you.

Ashley Davies with Riverbend Development.

It's good to be back.

I'm joined tonight by Alan Taylor, Scott Collins, and Carl Hultgren, who worked on our traffic impact analysis and the updated counts for you.

So I just wanted to start with a few reminder slides about just how special this site is and what a great location it is.

We obviously spent a long time discussing the site when we met a few months ago and we learned a lot from the ability to listen to you and your concerns.

and so I hope what we talk about tonight really reflects those updates and I think the real interesting thing about this site is that it does have a lot of challenges but it's also an amazing opportunity

and we really don't have sites of this size left in the county.

It's about 62 acres and so close to the city.

It's also located on our busiest roadways.

So it's just the perfect opportunity for a mixed use development.

We also went through the fact that it's in the Samuel Miller district and just how that is the largest district of the county, but yet it has the fewest housing units.

It also has the most expensive housing units.

It also does not have any

high density residential units that would be more affordable.

And it really doesn't have any commercial in it as well.

So it really is a great spot to help the county out by providing the desperately needed housing at a variety of price points and also some commercial opportunity.

So as Cameron went through, in our discussion last time, it came up that the self-storage use really wouldn't be the greatest use of this property.

And we agreed with that.

It is meant for a true mixed use opportunity.

And so by removing that self-storage use

the remainder of the uses in the code of development we think are much more viable and could create like a more vibrant commercial space on the property.

We did take another look at the residential density.

I think Ms. Firehock was very good at pointing out that she felt like it was too wide of a range in the previous application for both that and the commercial.

We did cut the residential density in half and you know I think we believe that residential is needed in the county but we also want to ensure that this can be a truly mixed-use site so in doing that we leave ample room for some great commercial opportunity here as well.

and then we also brought the minimum commercial amount from 50,000 square feet up to 100,000 square feet so that ensures that there will be a good commercial base as well.

We did up the affordable housing to 20% and putting half of those units at 60% AMI and half of them at 80% AMI.

And as staff mentioned, this project came in from the old

housing policy.

So previously we had just been following that.

And so we wanted to update that to get more into the 60% area median income range, because that tends to move the needle more as we've seen.

and then we did have Mr. Hultgren update our traffic counts on the site because we just realized even though the TIA was fully approved by VDOT it was a few years old so we wanted to make sure while we didn't update the full TIA since everything was approved we wanted to make sure that everything

was tracking and those traffic counts confirmed the 1% growth rate which is what we had accommodated for in the old TIA as well as the old document accounted for 1200 units or the greater number of units and so we've reduced that in half so we have all of that covered and looking good and then

We paid particular attention to the preserved slopes and you can see it's at least a 30% reduction in those impacts, which I think is pretty significant in going in the right direction.

and in addition to that, we're incorporating a series of bio filters along the entrance road that are closest to Moore's Creek.

So we think that that will be helpful as well.

I also have a slide that we can talk to in the Q&A that's about how we're bringing various utilities to the site.

If there are questions about that for Scott, we can also look at that.

but here is our updated illustrative plan and it gives you a sense of the areas where the residential build-out would go and then you can see that there are these large commercial blocks still available so

This should look very familiar to you from our last conversation, but it just shows a little bit more of, okay, here's how the residential might look, but it still has all the same features with the proposed transit stop and the multi-use path and then all of the block formations.

And then this is new to the submittal just showing that illustrative of how along that entrance road we're

Having undisturbed slopes combined with next to the roadway, we do need to grade to get the road in.

But in those areas where we're grading, we are installing the biofilters.

So hopefully that helps illustrate that concept.

But those are our

Primary changes, we can come back to that later if you want that.

But, you know, I thought it was a great conversation the last time we were here and we really spent a long time going through it.

So, you know, we feel like these changes really get the site to where it needs to be in terms of being a true mixed use

mixed use opportunity for the county.

And also just in terms of the hedgerow park component, I think that that was a much bigger issue in some of our previous submittals where we had the sweet spot property included back in the day because that actually brought us up to the very edge.

of the park like we would have been installing more of the trails leading up to the county land and but obviously we'll do whatever we need to do to block that off but in the meantime there is a very large private property in between the county property and this one so hopefully that won't be as big of an issue

I can't guarantee it, but we'll do whatever we need to do to keep that properly blocked off until those trails are up and ready for use.

So that's all I have for now.

I can open up to questions from you.

Great, thank you.

Sure, thanks and thanks for the presentations.

And I do appreciate very much the summary of changes from the last time.

I appreciate the answering the questions about VDOT and traffic and checking in on that.

Also the pedestrian crossing and kind of what that looks like and how that will function and the information we got about sort of how that can connect under the interstate in the future.

and then also the, you know, the reduction of impact to preserve these slopes and also the voluntary addition increase of some affordable housing.

So thanks for all those.

I did want to ask about some housing things.

One, and you kind of alluded to it, but why in that really broad range of 100 to 1200 homes

Now it's 275 to 600 rather than like 600 to 1,000.

Well, you know, in looking at the site and I think listening to some of the feedback we got from our last meeting, if you do build up to 1,200 units, that eats into a lot of your commercial opportunities unless they were very, very high density housing.

And I think in combination just with what we're hearing about

the traffic concerns in this area.

So when you actually reduce the residential and have these commercial opportunities, then you end up with different traffic patterns during the day.

So for the commercial, oftentimes it's opposite of what the residential would be.

So even though the commercial is generating traffic, it's gonna be at different peak hours during the day.

So that is helpful in and of itself.

That is sort of related to the next question which is I assume they're blocks two, three, and four you'd push for commercial if we can in those.

At what point or what's the criteria or timeline for figuring out kind of

Well, this is showing, yes, with this build out, that's basically the residential that we have available with the rezoning.

Got it, got it, got it.

I don't think we have that figured out completely.

From this diagram, you can see that there's a healthy mix of apartment buildings as well as attached units.

And I think the attached sections are certainly an opportunity for sale.

And as you probably know, with the Victorian Heights Project this year, we've had a really great collaboration and we've gotten eight families

into the for sale units with the land trust.

So, you know, we really hope to continue that partnership.

Appreciate that.

Thanks.

Good evening.

How are you?

I'm wonderful.

How are you?

I'm good too.

So let's go back to my colleague's question there, because on page 14 of the Code of Development, it actually has in four and three and two that we could have attached single family dwellings, multifamily dwellings, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Yes.

and to my colleagues, I believe I should not say that.

I thought I heard in my colleagues question that what's the timeline in the event that we have a continuing, we have a slowing economy.

Since I should be not, I shouldn't say that.

We have a slowing economy and commercial doesn't rebound in the way that we hope it does.

I hope it will.

Even though it appears that we wouldn't if we accept this as I'm as over my years here that we would be accepting these appropriate uses in those areas.

And so we won't be coming back to see me, but you'll be coming back to see somebody else.

I will be here.

Yes, so I'm not saying that it isn't an allowed use.

I'm just saying that the density will be built out and the other

side.

Block five and six, just to bounce off that, it's illustrative that there's housing in five and six now, but the housing could be, these are just blocks.

Right.

Could you just give, maybe you might want to have, I'll ask you.

So the traffic impact analysis did not change at all.

It was approved by VDOT several years ago and was a very conservative.

So it was kind of shooting for the moon.

And then with this submission, we've pulled out half of the residential bill.

So all we did was do new traffic counts because we wanted those to be refreshed to make sure that we had an understanding of like,

Here's what traffic is actually doing in the area.

Here's how it's growing over the years.

About 1% each year, okay.

Correct.

Yeah, well, first of all, thank you very much.

It really looks like you listened to the things that we had to say, and you made changes accordingly, and I really appreciate that.

There's been a lot of work in the Ragon Mountains documenting the unique history of the people that live there and the exceptional habitats and biodiversity of the region.

Oh, so you're saying there's been a lot of work, you know, about the Ragon Mountains.

I mean, of course, everyone knows about Edgar Allen Poe, but there's also a lot of work knowing about the history of the people that live in that area.

And also there's, you know, a lot of occurrences of, as you just said, nearby rare plants and animals.

Have you given any thought to the ways that you can symbolically or otherwise represent that in your development?

You know, we have this problem, I think, in Almore County of,

Creating Anywhere America spaces.

Well, you know, I've read through a lot of the report on the hedgerow property and I think it's really exciting when you look at the history and also the plant species there.

I hadn't thought about it specifically for our property other than it can be, you know, it is a future gateway to that very special resource that's available to the county.

But, you know, I'm open

Two ideas, but I honestly hadn't really thought about it before other than, you know, we will be featuring, we'll have the plaque for Bryn Moana there.

So I'm all ears.

Good afternoon, Ms. Davies.

I think this is a much stronger proposal than in September, so thank you.

I think one of the things that most of our constituents heard was around concerns around pedestrians crossing 29.

And you all speak to that and your summary of changes was like bullet number seven.

I'm wondering if you guys get a little bit more granular, whether it's you and your team members.

about how that actually looks and feels in real life when it's built.

Just thinking back to, you know, there's like 50 some children, I think was a calculation that might go to school there.

So perhaps children could cross the street and so forth.

So maybe it's a little bit more granular and like going from aspiration to action, right?

And like how this starts to look, whether it be rumble strips, whether it be yellow warning signs for drivers, X amount of feet before the intersection with flashing lights, whether

be an extended red light so we can guarantee people can get across the street and not get caught in no man's land, right?

Yes, absolutely.

So as you'll probably remember within the site and also across the street we're doing the 10-foot multi-use path so that will eventually, you know, that is meant to connect into Redfields, connect back into the city, and also it goes up through our entire

at that entrance roadway and through the site.

But at the light itself, yes, it seemed like

At our last meeting when we were talking about it, it was a little bit confusing in that maybe people thought we were just putting a pedestrian crossing in the middle of the street kind of on its own.

But really, the idea is that it's fully integrated into that stoplight.

So you would be coming through the neighborhood on the 10 foot

mixed-use pathway you would have a ped button that you push on the signal and at that point it activates a different signal cycle and that would be a much longer cycle that allows the pedestrian during a red light fully stopped condition

to completely cross 29 North.

So it's a longer signal.

Carl may want to speak to that a little bit, but it's not a dual phase.

It's long enough for them to get across the entire

Street.

So they wouldn't be stuck out in the middle during, you know, another traffic cycle.

So it's designed specifically for that.

That's helpful.

Do you also envision, I'm not sure if it's slower speed limits or any other kind of safety mechanisms just to give people a heads up that

There's a pedestrian crossing coming up on the highway.

That is a little unorthodox.

You know, I think that VDOT will be looking at this whole area once this new signal comes in and given its proximity to the other signal and the pedestrian components.

All right.

Thank you.

Yes, I would just like to add a, you know, I think there are many things factors will have to be worked out as details think that accurately trade to you what we know at this time, there was a lot of work at this moment VDOT is

placing a concern or condition I should put on this that they would like to see this path system connect all the way into the development area at some point in the future.

We didn't push the applicant on that during the rezoning before they'll provide the pedestrian crossing of B dot of the 29 here in this location.

I think staff wants to work with B dot moving forward to try and make that

You know, in reality, if we're going to have this many people over here who want to have access to Hedgeville Park, that connection makes sense.

I know that RTF has been trying to work to try to make a connection along that western side of the railroad line underneath the B.

Dot Bridge down to this area, so that will help, but there's a lot of details still to be worked out.

I just want to make sure that you understand that there's a lot of challenges here, but

Absolutely.

Never doubted that for a minute.

So it was a much stronger proposal.

Thank you.

I was not here on September 9th, but I can see a good faith effort to accommodate the comments that were made in that meeting.

And I'd certainly appreciate that.

I did have a question just maybe for staff, actually, then maybe you can respond to it.

My colleague and I were having a sidebar on it.

We're not quite sure that you can't have residential on two, three, and four, right?

The code of development does allow for residential.

Yes, it's possible to build on those.

I think what this is conveying is that the residential density can all be accommodated in these other blocks, but we didn't want to remove the possibility for it there.

All my questions have been answered.

Sounds good.

I just have a few additional questions.

One is on the slope steepness, the reduction, I guess you said 60,000 square foot reduction on critical slopes.

What was the rationale?

If it didn't look like much of the plan change, why the reduction?

Okay.

And then, got my question there.

So where I'm trying to get my head wrapped around this is sort of the phasing, right?

And what this might look like over time.

So option one is you might lead with residential, right?

I think that was one of the things that you suggested you might do.

You might end up building all the residential and then leaving it there.

And then you do at some point have to build a minimum, but it's not really tied to any kind of a clock, right?

You may never build a minimum.

So yes, I mean, hypothetically, you could lead with the multifamily up top or a large commercial development in Block 4.

And the reality is to get either of those off the ground, you have to put in almost all the infrastructure

of the site.

So at that point, it doesn't become realistic to leave large portions of the site undeveloped because we have the large upfront cost to get it off the ground.

So really, I think you're going to see Block 4 and Block 5 coming online

in pretty close concert with one another.

So let me rewind you a little bit.

So I think I thought so you didn't really address the block development in terms of sort of timelines, right?

So the ones closest obviously less infrastructure, you build capital, you go to the furthest last.

So some

There's some residential in Block 6, which is closer to Route 29 and potentially some in Block 3, but also some other non-residential uses in Block 2.

Is it your intent to build the residential and the commercial together?

I'm just trying to get a sense of not only the residential, but also when the affordable housing would come in.

So the affordable housing will be coming online proportionally like per each site plan so that will not be you know held off until the very end.

We haven't put specific timelines on

how and when each block develops just because of the nature of the site and the nature of the commercial beast right now.

I think that that would be just too stifling for the project, if I'm being honest.

But that's why I just was trying to convey that to bring the site online, it's just millions and millions of millions of dollars.

So there's no reason why we would leave it

The essential is you could push the affordable to the end though, right?

Theoretically?

You couldn't?

Otherwise you'd integrate it in at a percentage.

So along with the same phasing conversation, the multi-use path connection,

and the signalization on 29, the traffic improvements.

First of all, we'll start with signalization.

That is in the phase one of the development, the signal.

I think where the nuance comes into play is that if VDOT says that they don't want the pedestrian

Got it, okay.

You answered the new counts and you took into consideration with those counts the new intersection format, right?

The improvements at 64 improvements in air quotes to the 64 interchange with the traffic light there that's all been woven in.

And then just the last one I think maybe have you had any engagement with the community at all beyond the 2022 timeline?

No meetings.

No, I just forwarded this information to the neighborhood contact.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

No.

OK.

Thank you very much.

We'll open it up to the public.

And I have one person listed to speak.

Good evening.

Michael Monaco.

I live in the Whitehall District in Crozet.

I'm also the chair of that community advisory committee in Crozet.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the Albemarle contingent of Liveable Seaville.

And we're asking the Planning Commission consider recommending approval for this rezoning.

The county needs housing.

We need dense housing.

We need rental housing.

We need housing built alongside commercial development.

We need that good mixed-use development.

And this plan presented tonight, an improved plan from September, is I think a good attempt at mixed-use development in the county.

I know I'm preaching, if not to the choir, at least to the first few pews on mixed-use development.

I know that that's a priority both for this body but also for the comprehensive plan for the Board of Supervisors that Albemarle County wants good mixed-use development densely built in the development areas.

So this to me meets those criteria.

I do agree that it's stronger, like I said.

I do think it's also somewhat of a missed opportunity for a more ambitious development here.

Housing problems, our current crisis of affordability.

Those can be addressed with housing solutions, traffic problems and transportation.

Those require transportation solutions.

The original 1,200 homes that were proposed here, or that were potentially in the pipeline here, were included in the land use build out analysis that's appended to the most recent comprehensive plan and comprised about 9% of the homes in the development pipeline.

So cutting that in half does impact the eventual land use build out analysis.

It's a little bit at a time, but I worry that if we whittle away at every development as it goes through the process of discretionary review, we'll end up slow rolling addressing the housing crisis in a way that just generates sprawl and does not generate solutions.

The development areas, I believe, represent a promise to develop densely and well mixed-use development.

If we can't do it here, then I don't know where else we could do it in the development areas as it stands currently.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nobody else has signed up.

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

Please come up and state your name and general location of residence, please.

You'll need to come up, but she will be next.

This woman is coming up.

Sorry I didn't see you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Li Li.

I live on a show farm for about 12 years.

It's really good neighborhood and I welcome development.

I'm not opposed to it, but I have a little concern I'd like to talk about.

We have Airbnbs and we interact with tourists every day.

And everyone say that Charlottesville is so beautiful and that's why they're here for.

And I believe tourism is important to our county

as well.

And to be blunt, I thought North 29, that's just not me.

Everybody say that.

North 29 is ugly.

And now that we start developing south, I hope the panel will consider a different approach.

How do you make the city better and prettier to attract more tourists?

I understand the housing and I'm not against development again and I thought they are cutting the density is a good move from September but I also heard that the developer maybe not just this one maybe in general has a history of

reducing the unit and then come back to us for more.

And how do we address that?

How do we prevent that from happening?

Because if that's the case, then reducing it today, it doesn't mean anything, right?

So those are two points I'd like to make.

So please make the Charlottesville beautiful when you come to the planning the city.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Norma Deal.

I live in Sherwood Farms.

Thank you.

I've lived there for a number of years and those of us who live there and move about daily know what a horrendous situation we have at that traffic intersection now.

So I'm very concerned about

adding more traffic there.

And I realize it's not the responsibility of the developer, but it's the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Highways to do something about this intersection.

However, I'm very concerned also about the crossover that's being projected to cross 29 at approximately that same place.

I think that's a situation that's going to result in some fatalities or injuries

and it should be approached very carefully before it's put in place.

And the last thing I had a question about is the parking ride that's just adjacent to Teal Lane.

Thank you for your comments.

I live in the Sherwood Manor or Sherwood Farms across the road as well.

I'll echo the comments of my neighbors.

I think I too have operated an Airbnb and believe that we want to make this county beautiful.

Adding residential housing makes sense, right?

We do have a problem there.

I think a lot of that has kind of been addressed with affordable housing and things like that.

I think that's great.

The reduction, yes, that can help to alleviate some of the traffic concerns, like a previous resident mentioned.

This crossover is still problematic.

It sounds great in theory, and we're trying to connect this neighborhood and commercial development to the rest of the city, but it's effectively on an island.

It's in an area where people aren't going to cross that road safely.

and I think people need to be very conscientious when we're making decisions like this that lives are at stake.

I mentioned that in the previous hearing and I'll state that again.

That's not something that should be taken very lightly.

So the comment made by the developer about the timing of traffic when commercial, depending on the type of commercial development, that will determine the traffic patterns.

So if you have

I think that is something that you have one in and one out in an already congested area.

On the way here, there was a major accident on 250, further north, of course, but still in a very congested corridor across.

I had to actually go out and put the gentleman's car in park because his wheels were up in the air spinning, and that was just this evening.

So those are things that are constantly happening on this road, and I think we need to be aware of that.

So the hospital addition, I recognize that's a very broad-based term,

But maybe that was because of all the traffic concerns.

You're going to have all those people that are going to need a place to go.

And I say that tongue in cheek.

But truthfully speaking, that's a real concern here that I want to make sure that we're not missing.

The traffic is a problem.

We're already adding more.

There was a recent VDOT survey that was sent out.

And I don't think that this is incorporating that recent VDOT survey talking about the proposed changes to this intersection that are already being proposed again, so again,

Development aside, the traffic situation has really not been addressed here.

Thank you.

Yeah, Bob Herosky.

I'm also in Sherwood Farms.

I'll just make a quick comment.

You know, this has been going on for some time and you know, I think it's going in the right direction.

We're going to develop and that's that.

I'm not dead set opposed to having a crossing.

I think it's a crossing to nowhere until you can actually get to the city when it becomes very, very advantageous to have a trail that allows you to get to the university area and to downtown to just be a wonderful thing and probably improve the tourism potential for the area as well, particularly in the distant future when a park is available.

I recall in previous discussions,

considerations of the amount of sort of green space, trees that would be installed to kind of preserve the rural character.

And at the very beginning, going back to 2022, this was a real issue in earlier discussions about developing this area.

Would we retain the rural character?

So I would love the commission to keep that in mind.

What is this going to look like coming up and down 29?

Is it going to look like 29 North, as Lily pointed out, or is it going to preserve the rural feeling?

And related to that, the issue of lighting.

There were previous discussions about what the lighting was going to look like.

Obviously, downlighting, not spotlights.

It shouldn't look like a Harris Teeter parking lot.

And I think these would be very important considerations to preserve the rural character.

Good evening.

I'm Suzanne Fox.

I am a lifelong member and resident of the Samuel Miller District, and I have lived in this area all my life.

Very familiar with it.

Mr. Bivins, a comment that you made during the September 9th meeting while discussing the lower income railroad district was that the Samuel Miller District was the richest with land in Albemarle County, and I concur.

We are land rich, but it is because the majority of the landowners in our district have owned our land for generations and know what the value means to be rich in land.

We've learned how to use our land for what God intended it to be used for, growing growing livestock, vegetables, fruit, etc., not concrete and asphalt.

Mr. Missel, you sit in the chair seat.

for the Planning Commission, and you are newly elected to the Samuel Miller District.

During your campaign, I read many comments made by you that if elected, you would lower taxes, keep the rural part of the county rural, and be a voice for agriculture.

Sir, I believe your first mission is ahead of you.

Will you preserve the southern end of the county and keep the city sprawl from starting?

Will you be a good steward of the rural areas and how agriculture will run strong here?

My prayers are that you will show those that elected you to your position that you can walk the talk.

A few highlights from the points from the Collins Engineering document with proposed changes from the September meeting.

First, the hospital has been added.

Not sure why we need another hospital, emergency care, doc in the box, whatever you want to call it on this property when located within a 10-mile radius is both UVA and Martha Jefferson.

To me, it is no more than a box to check to impress the powers that be for approval to this proposal.

It is stated that residential housing would be constructed first to help in the search for commercial buyers within a 10 mile radius of this parcel.

There are apartment buildings going up in the Ivy corridor like mad.

Rio Road corridor has a multitude of complexes being built and the Rio Point complex on Rio Road is currently having trouble leasing these newly built apartments.

Why do we continue to approve housing when no one is renting?

and affordable housing does not justify the means.

The highway safety concerns from the intersection of 6429 to the crossroads store at Plank Road, there are two intersections there that already have signage to reduce your speed due to fatal accidents.

No one slows down, accidents still occur.

The intersection for Red Hill Elementary School has become a traffic hazard and within the last six months, there have been two fatal accidents that were absolutely horrific within this stretch.

Multitude of accidents continue to occur at 29 and Plank Road.

My point is that the traffic will increase whether this parcel is developed or not, but until the infrastructure is in place to control traffic flow and speed, why do you continue to add to it unnecessarily?

And lastly, the pedestrian crossing.

It is stated that this will be used for the existing hedgerow park access.

The property for hedgerow park would be adjacent.

So to me, there is no need to cross both lanes of 29.

As for anyone from 5th Street Redfields area that wants to access the park, there would be a need for a tremendous amount of green space, as you call it, to be built before they could hike or ride bikes to this location.

Prepare your infrastructure in full before you build aimlessly.

I know my time is up, but the last thing I would like to say is to the developer and to the client, I understand that you have a parcel that you see fit to develop, and I ask your client to look at what your community looks like now and how it operates.

And thank you, Mr. Missel, for bringing that up.

Have they contacted or talked with the community?

I appreciate that.

Is there something your client could do with this parcel to make it useful?

That is fine.

Thank you.

Anybody else who'd like to speak to this?

All right, great.

Thank you.

Certainly.

Well, I'm happy to hear that there's a livable Seville chapter in the county now.

That's exciting.

We've come a long way in our quest to provide more housing, and I think that times have changed since we started this, so I really appreciate that.

You know, I think the main thing I would just say is that if we look at the development area of Albemarle County and the parcels that are actually available for development, it is few and far between.

And to have one at this particular location that's almost 63 acres is

really unique.

I don't know any other parcel that even comes close to this in the county right now.

And what we have proposed is completely harmonious with what the comprehensive plan, the vision for

this location and I think even more so now that we've made the changes since we last met in September.

So we really appreciate all of staff's time and attention to this over the years.

It's been a long journey but I think

Thank you.

All right with that we will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion at the Commission.

I'll say a couple comments.

And I have not made my decision yet.

So just be clear.

I just want to push back a little on the notion that this is a connected site by virtue of the crossing.

I used to drive that intersection every single day.

Now I only go through it once a week.

But I am really, really, really familiar with it.

and Sam Miller is my district.

And I have a lot of role in some pushback on the amount of the development area that was going to go south.

And it didn't get quite as large, fortunately.

But I just think that

There's a huge difference in adding a pedestrian crossing across 29 in, say, Rio, where we have created that underpass and crossings.

And it's still scary to cross there.

I do cross there.

But I used to work up that way.

I used to actually cross that as a pedestrian.

But you expect that because you're in an urban area.

Even though people drive like nuts on 29, it still feels like an urban area.

This is where people are flying up 29 on a highway, going fast, and then all of a sudden somebody is going to signalize that intersection and push a button to get the path to be longer.

But I don't think

that we can modify the behavior of drivers sufficiently to make that crossing safe.

So even if I support this, I would be against a pedestrian crossing.

It is a car-centric development.

I think we have to accept that.

Maybe one day they'll be able to walk to hedgerow park.

Maybe they can get in their car and drive to a park in the city, but they're not going to be able to cross 29 there.

and I'm certainly also not making that argument for making it urban like Rio so that everyone will know that it's an urban area.

I just don't think that makes sense.

And I just wanted to bring that up right away that that's, I am all about connectivity.

I spent my career making trails.

I mean, that's been my job.

But this just doesn't make sense.

And I agree with the public.

I think someone's going to lose their life if we put that there.

because drivers are coming at 55 miles an hour up to that point.

And people do run the light that's there now.

So anyway, I would step off my Route 29 crossing soapbox.

And then where would that go, right, initially?

It would be an overpass to nowhere for now, potentially.

So I mean, I think one of the things I'm struggling with here is that when the development area boundaries were made, it seems like they just drew an arbitrary circle of some of these areas.

And they probably should have never included the Ragged Mountains in the first place.

I mean, I think that

The topography of this area is very challenging.

It's very disconnected as Karen said.

I mean, you know, when there's the discussions of other generally against the idea of development area swaps.

This is an area that's probably a case where I would maybe even support a development area swap to some places a little bit flatter.

But that said, I mean, I do really appreciate that the applicant heard us, that they made significant adjustments to this, that it's much more mixed use.

I do think it'd be really handy before they go to the Board of Supervisors to have some illustrative examples of what it might look like from 29 because I think that is a concern for a lot of people.

So if people could see what might this look like, I think that would really help.

I also think in terms of the crossing, I still do have concerns about that.

I'll just state the obvious, which is that it's design speed, not speed limits that determine what goes on there.

The design speed of that road is very fast.

Yeah, so I mean, there's a lot of ways that you could reduce the design speed in the area and other people are better traffic experts than I am.

I mean, maybe I see Kevin out there, maybe he could speak to, but you know, you could put rumble strips, you could put other things out there that would indicate to people that they need to slow down.

You know, you can definitely, the flashing lights of the crosswalk, I think that someone has suggested that that's certainly something that's there.

You could temporarily narrow the width of the road.

There's other things you could do, but there's, as I'm not expert, just know that it really is the design.

Right, because it's a straight shot.

I'm happy to weigh in.

I think the proposal is strong.

I'm going to support it.

I think it's a lot stronger than what we had in September.

I think it checks a lot of the right boxes.

Of course, I think we all have the similar concern around crossing the street.

That's the part I'm grappling with.

It's not enough for me to say no, but that's why I was asking the questions I was asking earlier.

And I think the part that I'm really struggling with is

I guess people who are not comfortable across the street, they're just going to get in their car and drive to the park and ride when it becomes a destination and they'll pop off there and walk or ride their bike.

So I guess the question is,

Do you not encourage pedestrian crossing and people will cross if they decide they want to with no infrastructure versus do you encourage it by putting the infrastructure in place and then there is some exposure or risk with that, right?

So it's, are they going to cross anyway?

Those who are comfortable, are they going to cross?

So do you give them the infrastructure or do you just leave it alone and say, you know, drive across the street, park at a park and ride and walk.

Overall, I think the proposal is strong, but I think we all have the same concern.

It's like, how do you get across 29?

And for me, that's not a reason to say no to the proposal.

It's just something that really has to be thought through by some experts and understand what their risk and exposure is.

Sure, I'll jump in for a second.

I, like I mentioned in my sort of questions to the proposer,

I appreciate some of the updates.

It does seem like from earlier this year there's been a number of adjustments and changes that I do appreciate.

Voluntary inclusion, more affordable housing, reduction of the preserves, steep slopes disturbance, the various questions around VDOT.

I think a lot of the things that some of the public comments brought in about lights and trees and things like that would be addressed in the site plan.

I mean, that's certainly part of the process and we have a number of standards in the county that

you know it's not going to look like a Harris Teeter parking lot in all likelihood.

The other part though is this has always been in the development area whether we sort of think it you know some people might think it looks more rural now or whatever but like it has been there for 45 years and so that kind of suggests like a swap or something now it's like it's like changing the job description we've already done interviews or something you know for a new candidate I mean it's like you don't do that but

and I think also the traffic.

I used to live on Overlook Drive so I know that neighborhood fairly well and yeah turning left across 29 is a real pain in the keister there.

This actually I think would make it better if you look on the map.

I mean you know right now you have to turn left across traffic.

This way you can actually drive another 200 yards, have a signalized intersection to a u-turn and then safely get back into Overlook and Teal.

So I think that's all very good.

I also appreciate that they took out the storage units piece and put in the option for like an urgent care.

I got no problem with that.

The only thing that I do bring up, and this is not in any opposition to it, so I support this overall.

And I do think that to Commissioner Murray's point, the need to do things on 29 to make sure everybody's aware, hey, you're getting to the city now.

That is something that we can certainly tell VDOT representatives that we know and that Michael used to work with.

It's like, hey, we need these.

And I think that's all well and good.

So that's why I support it overall.

I do think the one thing to bring up is that last meeting we also talked about

the residential build-out analysis, right?

And so we've got these parcels and we see the need to build out as sort of densely as we can in the development area if we're going to take a while to expand it.

Or even some folks won't even say if, but you know, you get my point.

That said, you know, like if we are sort of saying, all right, we'll accept the max of 600 homes here,

Where else are we going to put people who are moving here?

You know, we're going to put them in Fluvanna or Greene or Waynesboro?

I mean, that's that's kind of the deal, right?

And so those are not like effectively if we don't start looking at additional places that have good transportation networks like, say, Route 29 that are somewhat underutilized, say, 29 South.

that have water and sewer option, that have not super steep slopes.

If we don't start considering opening up some land around there, what are we planning?

We're just sort of reactive to the occasional public hearing that comes our way.

But I think we should start thinking ahead, whether it's 10 years, 20 years, or 25 years, whatever that might be, to perhaps another crozet down 29 to make it more urban is something that we need to think about.

Chair, I will just quickly say that I support this, but I also want to sort of have a couple.

I support this project.

I supported it before and I continue to support it.

And I continue to sort of just struggle with the wishing doesn't make it so mantra that we often hear as planning commissioners or to Nate and some change years that I've been sitting up here.

Wishing doesn't make it so.

However, bank accounts do.

and as I've said to people in Crozet who were concerned that they were gonna lose their sledding hill for all those people over there to go buy the piece of property and you can sled to your heart's content.

And so I say that to a place here that has 60 households in it, across the street there, 60 some odd houses, which I believe they probably have sort of decent incomes, that if this is something that they don't want, then they should come together like they do in different communities and just purchase one portion of the property that they would like to preserve.

and I think that way it can be held in a way that's held for perpetuity.

And so that's always the thing that I hope our planning commission does not become the arbiter of things that are wished for and is in fact the agency and the commission that does think about possibilities because that's in fact what we do because I remind us we never see the easy ones.

Everything that comes before the planning commission is an exception.

Because if it wasn't, it would be by right, that word.

Or if it wasn't, it would work with staff in a way that allows them to do it.

So the stuff that naturally comes here is the stuff that's hard in consideration of what will we be talking about after we deal with this one.

I will say a couple things.

For the individuals who think that there's going to be, I would advise you to look at pages 15 and 16 of the Code of Development.

Most of the activities there are nine to five or nine to seven type activities.

They're not 24 hour a day activity.

You already have a 24 hour a day activity, but that distributes beer.

And that's probably a better thing to distribute than other things.

But that's always been there for a long time as part of this project.

So having a 24 by seven activity is already there with Golden Eagle.

I would also say let's talk about crossing 29.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, where I live right now at the intersection of 29 and Hydraulic Road, I can't tell you the number of bodies that are slain or have been hit crossing that road until they put the crosswalk in.

Not the bridge.

That's too new.

But they put a signalized crosswork that's sort of a, there's a proper term that it kind of goes, then it goes like this and it goes like that.

They know what that is.

I don't know what that's called.

It doesn't, but it goes like this.

And so what's happened is that people have learned on how to cross that.

And if you don't think that it's a drag strip coming off of the bypass to get up 29, you need you to sit there for a second.

and watch all kinds of vehicles, mostly big tractor trailers come through that area as they're trying to get places because we did not put a bypass in, which would have changed the traffic flow on 29 Great Lake.

We didn't do that.

And so I will just say that road crossing is not unique to this particular area.

It is an element of what we're dealing with on a road that is now living into its life and it's also competing with moving traffic from the north to the south.

How we do that is something that this community is going to have to figure out.

But not letting people live in places that many years ago we said people can live is wishing it would happen.

But it's not the appropriate thing, I believe, for the Planning Commission to do.

And so I'm voting for this.

I would also like to ask staff to do something for me.

When we talk about education, when we talk about the number of kids that are going into the school,

Those kids are not going to be going to the schools by the time this project is finished.

It won't happen.

This project is ten years down the road.

The kids, what's happening at Red Hill and what's happening at Monticello will not make any difference ten years from now.

Because we'll have a couple of new high schools, we'll have a new elementary school over there on Avon Street extended, and

At my last count, and I've said this before, there are over 20 independent schools in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area.

And the number of individuals who are homeschooling their children.

Everybody thought it was going to drop off after COVID.

It is not dropped off for COVID.

In fact, it's increased a bit after COVID.

So the whole idea that we can just sort of look at education and make decisions and make comments about what a project's impact is, just basically on one point, I think I would ask Mr. Barnes that you'd have a conversation about how you do that in a way that the number of people who go to school does not become a red herring, which it has been in many of the discussions that we have had.

that because they're not going to happen tomorrow I can't put 50 kids into a school tomorrow those 50 kids are going to go into a school if they go to a school 10 years from now and most of them aren't born I was thinking about this coming here today but the kids when I got here eight years ago

The kids I got here eight years ago, many of them have already come through school.

If there were 10, they're gone.

They graduated already.

If there are one, they're going into eighth grade.

And so that's a long time for us to think about what the impact on schools.

And I just think we need to be more neutral in the way we describe that and not let it become a no for a project or a yes for a project.

Thank you, Chair, for indulging me.

Yeah, some brief comments.

It's always wise to let Commissioner Bivins go before you because even that sage advice that I always have appreciated throughout the years, Mr. Bivins, and you will be missed certainly by me.

So I'm going to talk about possibilities because that's actually what this proposal for me, it went away and I was just looking at the possibilities, it just went away.

So there are some challenges here with the terrain and certainly the topography, but there is some very buildable areas as well.

And it's actually one of the few areas and I think it's been mentioned that you can get this multi-use and we don't really, how many proposals have we seen multi-use lately?

Very few, they go backwards.

So the fact that we're actually seeing this and I think in a very opportune time because of the industry that's coming here to Central Virginia.

So I actually believe that there is possibility that this will develop into a multi-use with commercial.

Perhaps some industries, perhaps the biotech, there's a lot being done just up the road in biotech with UVA.

This actually could be a very interesting development here.

It's got access to major highways.

Yes, 29 needs help.

And hopefully this will provide the impetus to begin to do more things and more development along the 29 bypass in terms of improvements to that road.

So I do think that yes, it's not perfect.

There are some challenges here.

I like where this is headed.

I would encourage

and the applicants to continue to think about diversity in the housing types.

I'm glad to see a couple of different options.

Maybe there's others, even when you think about developing in block three and four, while maybe we're positioning ourselves like that's not a good thing.

Maybe it is a good thing that there's some residential mixed in there and think about residential above commercial, which we don't have enough of in this town.

So I would encourage you to continue to think about the possibilities, which I believe this site can provide if done correctly.

So I am thankful for the changes that were made.

I just have a comment, and you don't necessarily have to respond to this, but we have a very weird situation with how we do transportation planning in Virginia, where VDOT knows that the intersections that are not performing well, and they spent years studying what to do and did a bunch of stuff and seem to have concluded that it's still not working well.

So apparently they don't know how to fix the problem so far.

But then we also hear from VDOT when we try to apply for smart scale, which is the fancy term for competitive applications for transportation help in Virginia, that our problem has to get worse so that we can justify that we qualify for this help.

So it's like they want you to add

I don't feel like this is rocket science.

I feel like this could be fixed, but we are adding traffic to an already bad situation.

That said, this does make sense for development in part.

It is a steep site.

They have worked hard to show us they're not impacting as much of the slope as we thought.

I'd prefer it not be developed, but because of its location, by developing this site, we're protecting more of the rural character of 29 South that people have talked about tonight.

So if we want to protect the rural area, we want to reduce congestion on the roads, then we need to put

people closer in.

And the fact that this is mixed use, I think it has come a long way.

And if they come back and ask for doubling the housing again, I'm going to say no.

So just to be clear, what I'm really sick of having sat on this dais for over eight years is that people come back and say, we couldn't really do the commercial, the market.

We couldn't find the kind of businesses.

So can we just do all residential?

Or can we shrink the commercial to 10%?

I hear that time and time again.

So to the developers, please don't come back.

Tell us that you couldn't get commercial in there.

But I just wanted to publicly acknowledge that the intersection has a lot of problems.

I can't support that crossing, like I said.

I'm not going to propose denying this just because of that, but perhaps just a strongly worded, I don't know, addenda or comment to go with our recommendation, whatever it is that they not have a pedestrian crossing.

Erin, I think it's so much worse than you say, because at the MPO Tech, I watched as they talked about several different intersections, and they presented a series of proposals that had been made in the past about what really needs to happen at those intersections.

But when they looked at the amount of money that it would take to get it in a smart scale, it would make it not competitive.

There's no way the state would fund the things that we know need to happen.

So there's been a series of downgrades to what's been proposed until we can find something that costs enough that VDOT, that might actually be competitive for VDOT to fund it.

And this is one of those areas that we're talking about.

So where that's happened, there's been a series of

reductions in the proposal until we have what's left.

We can call Katrina and Cree and Amy, you know, because they've been underfunded for years.

But I mean, that's really fundamentally the problem.

Well, we need a good regional bus system that actually would allow people to get on the bus and go to town and not at, because I get the idea of biking to town and this whole connection, but it just doesn't, I don't think it works here.

And I used to work at that department of forestry property and it's really steep over there.

I'm just saying it's not like a nice cruise into town, even if you could get to Fontaine, just being honest.

Right.

Almost impossible thing to do.

But there are options.

It's now more of a cost sharing than it used to be.

A sharing from the Commonwealth is now more of a sharing by the location.

Well, I'll throw out a couple of comments.

And this is kind of a weird position to be in, I guess, because I'll see this twice.

I want to make really clear one thing, which I think everybody is aware of, and that is I am all about maximizing density in the development area.

There is no question about that.

And that preserves the rural areas, to your point, Karen.

And this is in the development area, albeit it's in the fringe, right?

It's on the outskirts, but it's in the development area.

When I think, this is really challenging, when I think about the maximization of the density in the development area, the thing that comes to mind, and Karen, you made me think of this as well, is that not all development area is created equal, in my mind.

And that is, you know, when you think about development area and you think about a mixed use project like this that is a good project on its own, and you plug it into an area that has greater density and has interconnecting streets and has the ability to connect into, and I've shared this with the applicant, this just, this doesn't feel like it's the right place for it.

It feels like it is a development area and it should be maximized, but the uses

It's isolated and to me it just feels like those interconnections aren't ever going to happen or if they do it'll be a long time out.

So I started thinking about 64, right?

I mean, I commute this, I've said that before, this is my commute every day.

And it's mind numbingly terrible.

I mean, it's just people are, it like turns people into terrible people.

Yeah, it's crazy.

Cutting in and out everything else.

So I started thinking, all right, well, 64, there's this threshold, but then you look at Fifth Street, right?

You've got all the connections, all that development south of Fifth Street.

You get there from an overpass.

on Fifth Street.

Same with Avon Street.

And so there are ways to cross that.

There's above that threshold.

This is a little bit unique in that it's cut off from the town.

And I wrote it somewhere.

Somebody made a comment about it being integrated, but it, to me, feels isolated.

You know, you look at the amount of residential approved in the pipeline, right?

We got that build-out analysis last week or two weeks ago, was that last week?

And it was somewhere around 11,000 in the pipeline and around 3,000 applications moving forward.

And there are a lot of residential units that aren't being realized that are in the pipeline that are coming.

And so,

I feel sort of the need to leverage an increase in affordable housing because of that, in fact.

So pushing affordable, pushing affordability out sooner rather than it being something that could be maybe integrated over years to come.

Feels to me that there's some leverage that we have as a county to have that happen in the development community.

I think we find ourselves in a position of being reactive way too often.

and I feel like if this and maybe I'm a man on an island here but you know this moving forward is an example of okay well let's just do it and then everything else will fill in right we'll get the schools we'll get the transportation the transportation will fix itself because there's pressure on them now because there's people living there we need to be thinking about how we can create spaces for people to live safely in advance

and have the infrastructure there to do that.

And that's on VDAP, that's on the county, that's not on the developers in a lot of cases, right?

It's just a general comment.

The realities of smart scale funding, to your point, right?

I think one project is funded in Albemarle County in the coming year or something like that.

I mean, it's minimal.

and the shore.

So I'll sum up, but again, not all development areas are created equal.

We need to think about appropriate land uses, not just about maximizing density in development areas, in my opinion.

We need to be reactive, sorry, proactive and not reactive.

And I think in my opinion,

This is not a harmonious use of this development area.

I'm not saying we shouldn't develop here.

I'm saying it's not, in my mind, the right and harmonious use.

There is also, last thing I'll say, is the uncertainties.

So there's the uncertainty of, I listed them here somewhere, traffic, impacts, phasing, affordability, the crosswalk, pedestrian crosswalk,

And to me, all of those things sort of pushed me in the position of saying, I don't feel like this is the appropriate development for this space.

If I might add, after hearing Commissioner Murray's comment about smart scale and looking at these type projects, I have even less faith, which is hard to imagine, less faith in VDOT.

and our county to be able to solve this.

And so yes, it is close in, but it's also really bad.

And you know, Chair, your description is actually

An elegant description for why there should be soft edges around the development area, why there should be phase at phase, which is not what we do.

And maybe in the next world, there'll be an ability to have a transition, add a little bit more, but transition out.

But right now, we're hard-edged.

And to sort of say to a developer, developer, if you buy parcel one, you can do this.

but if you buy parcel 100 you can't do the same as you could do here because that's how we're zoned that's how we approach this we said every piece within the development area now that we're doing gross as opposed to net has the same ability to be do whatever it is contingent sort of as a function of the land that it has to do this thing on but what but the argument you're making and the argument most of our most of our colleagues are making is that in fact there is a reality that says

That's something that sort of is a traditional place between this kind of land use and this kind of land use is probably not going to have the same sort of amenities and the same kind of

expectation for development at a place that's sitting in the core.

I can appreciate, but that's not what we said.

That's not what we said.

That's not what's been said about our development footprint.

Our development footprint says that parcel one is the same as partial 100.

And what our reality is that that's not what happens.

Well, and the comprehensive plan too helps to guide that type of thing, right?

And put some structure to it.

I just, yeah, I just, I think that

and I know you're not saying this, but looking as we're tasked with doing as a planning commission, looking at appropriate uses of land and recommending approval or denial to the board of supervisors.

Part of that is you can't go into just, you can't go into a development with blinders on it and just say, because it says this, because it's in the development area, you can do this, right?

You've got to actually think about what's appropriate in my opinion.

within, it's a filter that you put your developments through.

And most of what we've been seeing unless on this, has been residential development in areas where there's already a lot of residential development.

There's interconnections, there are other things that help to play off of it.

Just to add to some of that conversation.

So it's where I would,

suggest that the location is appropriate is because of the proximity that it has to key resources like the university, like Fontaine Avenue, what's happening.

So, and then we put that into context of what's coming to the county.

This is actually positioned quite well for development.

The challenge that we all recognize is, is yes, car centric and, and

Even getting the car there is challenging because 29 is south there is not the best street.

So it's this challenge that we have in many developments that we don't have the infrastructure or the development.

And this is one that we, but I actually think the location is appropriate.

It's surrounded by highway.

I think they've done a good job in how they mitigated the topography issues.

It's the road, and this is where we need to develop partnerships.

If we're all relying on a smart scale to deal with, we're just never going to get there.

And right now, the county, I think it's in a crossroads.

If you are going to have in Central Virginia, $10, $12 billion invested in here, and that's the beginning, potentially, because if you do have these anchor

companies that are coming in, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, just to the east of us.

Merck is developing another three to five billion dollar facility expansion to their facility, and those people are going to live somewhere.

And so we do have an opportunity.

They're the anchors that are going to bring other biotechs, other companies.

So I do think this is actually very well positioned, and we don't have a lot of these type of opportunities in the county.

It's a question of how do we leverage partnerships to provide the proper infrastructure.

I could throw in there, too, just to make another little comparison, speaking of why I do think it's appropriate as well, is that you just need to go one highway exit, one interstate exit to the east.

And it's frankly a very similar pattern.

Going down Fifth Street and Old Lynchburg, you've got a commercial plot.

It's still waiting on a couple clients to build there.

And then you've got a bunch of the fifth row sort of apartments and the, what's that called,

Fifth Street Place and the five-row apartments.

It's sort of a mix of some commercial and some residential, fairly dense residential.

And even on the same side of the road.

And those homes aren't particularly well connected by bike and ped paths to the rest of the city.

We've got the bridge that crosses 64 and it's difficult.

And it's a known issue that we're trying to resolve.

But people use cars.

I know we want to have better connections and I want to build homes and things that we can then invest in those things to come.

I want to sort of like build for our aspirations and then adjust and use our tax investments to make it a great place rather than not making homes and commercial space right by the highway where people can really use it.

I will say the one thing that I find positive about this is that if we want extra tax revenue that can go to things like improving our roads, having more commercial space is part of what gets us there.

I think they're going to stick to it.

I think the chair made it quite obvious.

I think one of the commissioners made it very, very obvious that they have no stomach for voting yes to anything else when you come to ask for some, for fewer commercial square feet and more residential.

All right.

Any other discussion?

Alright, we have a motion and a second.

I guess I have a question.

I'm still hung up on that pedestrian crossing on Route 29.

Is there some way that we can, we can't alter their application, but can we just somehow signal that perhaps that's not a good idea?

I think that'll be in the minutes because I would probably not support that.

I wouldn't either.

I wouldn't support that.

And VDOT will not allow it.

They won't.

They won't allow it.

I'm telling you, they will not.

They will not put that in there.

So just kind of moot then.

We have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion?

No?

Mr. Bivins?

Aye.

Ms. Firehock?

No.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

After a five-minute recess.

We will reconvene at 805.

Thanks.

It's 805.

We are back in session.

And now we are moving on to SB 2025-6, Woolen Mills Industrial Fill in the floodplain.

May I have the staff?

Good evening.

I'm Rebecca Ragsdale and I'm a planning manager with community development and I will be presenting this item with you this evening and I'm joined by Tony Edwards, our deputy county engineer and this will be somewhat of a co-presentation because as you know, fill in the floodplain requests are heavily reviewed by engineering staff and our county engineer is primarily the administrator of our flood hazard overlay district.

We want to cover the specifics of this request.

The sort of what I refer to as the regulatory framework.

It is a special use permit request and we want to cover a little bit of the background of this project that is relevant specific to the fill in the floodplain.

So the request is a special use permit that is specific to the flood hazard overlay district and we will go into more

The fill that's being requested is about 1.346 acres, and that is a portion of a larger seven-acre site.

I mentioned I would touch on the background, and I'm just hitting a few highlights that are specific to this spill in the floodplain request.

It does have some relationship to some surrounding properties, but what we did want to note is that this property had a prior special use permit request that's noted that was acted on and reviewed by the commission in April, and then also a public hearing was held by the board in June.

They have submitted a new application under the ordinance which we have accepted for review.

We made that determination or rather the zoning administrator did that it was not substantially the same so that determination has been made so now the special exception or excuse me special use permit is before you this evening.

and there were some adjustments to the fill area and some other changes that were made.

Specific to fill in the floodplain and activities in the floodplain, there is an adjacent site which we noted has had a special use permit previously approved and then

We will show you some maps, but there is a relationship between this property and the industrial park that is underdeveloped under development to the north of it that led to some by right activity and stormwater facilities on the subject property this evening.

The site is along Franklin Street and it is located at the edge of the city county line and each slide will have the site labeled and some of the

Landmarks or streets, if you will, Franklin Street is here, Moores Creek Lane, and then it is located in the floodplain.

Moores Creek runs along the boundary of the property and over to the Rivanna River.

This is an aerial view of the neighborhood and in this case the site is labeled and we've also given you some more context in terms of the neighborhood with the residential in the city across Franklin Street and some of the development along Broadway and Woollen Mills that is industrial.

This property is

Bounded by Moores Creek Lane which serves the Rivanna Water and Sewer Treatment Facility.

The treatment facility is on the other side of the creek across from this site and then also, well it's actually on both sides of the creek as you know, but

is adjacent to this site as well as the wetlands mitigation property.

And we already mentioned the residential area with the city.

This is a closer look at the property just to give you some more context.

try and start with general and then zoom into the specifics but what this does show you and is important that the applicant has noted and we'll go over it in their presentation is where they anticipate the fill coming from that with the development of this industrial site which is referred to as the Woolen Mills Light Industrial they do have some fill that they would like to take over to this property that is

nearby.

So that is indicating where they anticipate the fill coming from.

And this also shows you, again, related to the property that's under development, stormwater management facilities have been approved on the subject parcel.

We talked before, or it's noted that this is the location adjacent to Moore's Creek Lane where the facility is ultimately located.

There was previous site plans where this disturbed area that you see where the facility was located deeper into the property.

I'm having a little trouble with my mouse here.

and then the property again I believe showing you just another view of those characteristics and showing the wooded areas.

Switching gears to the zoning, we did mention that the zoning, the underlying zoning is light industrial and that is shown in the blue and this shows you, there is a bit of light industrial in this area and it shows you the

City boundary.

The subject of this request, as I mentioned, is specific to the Flood Hazard Overlay District, which is the blue area.

The entirety of the property is in that district.

And I mentioned, you know, this is just a presentation we use for the community meetings and those that may

not be as familiar with our ordinance, but it is in addition to the underlying line industrial regulations, it's not proposing any changes.

If it was approved, it would allow potentially by right residential uses, excuse me, by right industrial uses.

We are at the special use permit stage of the process.

We do like to note

All of the next steps that would be applicable if this were approved that would include the requirements for the floodplain development permit, the requirements for the letter of map revision, the additional

Review with the Water Protection Ordinance to be able to establish any by right uses in the Light Industrial District.

And there are some industrial districts that have additional regulations with them before any

uses established on the property.

It would also need to be reviewed for the specifics of the use to make sure that all of the performance standards or supplemental regulations are complied with.

So in this case, we don't know what the specific industrial uses are, but we have some steps in place in our ordinance to address more specific uses.

This is the comprehensive plan.

And this is showing you the green space designations on the map.

The property is designated green space, parks and green systems rather.

And we recommend preservation as the primary use, preservation of the existing environmental features on that site or in that use category.

This is the concept plan for this use and this is showing you the fill area is outlined in the yellow and it is an area that would be similar in size to

the existing Harters Bread facility.

This is also showing you the location of the existing stormwater facility on the property and noting where the flood the floodplain fringe is located and the floodway.

Mr. Edwards is going to go into the specifics and the more technical explanation about this request.

The general criteria that we analyze special

or the factors are on your screen there and those include considering what detriment would occur or if there would be any detriment to adjacent parcels, considering the character of the area, considering whether the special use permit would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the applicable chapters of the ordinance and then consistency with the comprehensive plan.

We've already noted there is

the existing ally zoning, but the large area of green systems designation in the land use plan.

Tony is going to be going over it in more specificity, but we did make a finding that there would not be substantial detriment or impacts to neighbors from the fill in the floodplain request, which is the

What we are basing our analysis on and the nature of the request, not whether there's no rezoning changes with the underlying industrial district.

We recognize that it is an area that has residential across the street, but there is an amount

a number of industrial uses in the area.

So we did make a finding in the staff report and recommended approval.

We're going to get into those conditions.

Thank you, Rebecca.

Yeah, I just wanted to go through some of the terms commonly used in this situation in the flood hazard overlay district.

You may hear the backwater conditions being referred to in this stretch of the stream.

This site is an ineffective flow area of the floodway fringe.

So the floodway fringe being that portion of the floodway subject to the 1% or greater chance of flooding that lies in between the regulatory floodway and the outer limits of the floodplain.

This conveyance areas, just for clarity, the conveyance areas are those portions

in this cross-sectional area that we're referring to which floodwaters flow, an area adjacent to the floodplain where floodwater collects and as a pond or standing water, perhaps is not a conveyance area.

So two distinctions there, what carries the main flow, the floodway, and then these outer edges or fringe areas which

in this case become like a ponded water situation.

These are inundated adjacent to the flowing flood waters but which flood waters are not conveyed as I said before.

So they're referenced as a ineffective flow area or non-conveyance.

The regulatory floodway will not be impacted.

That's

The main statement to take away, I think, in this situation is the channel of the river and the other water course and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flow without cumulative increases.

That makes sense.

Next, we've got a few terms.

that kind of reflect what that backwater condition refers to here.

The first one being the hydraulic isolation, the backwater areas such as oxbows or wetlands, often disconnected with the limited interaction of the main river.

Again, it's that shoulder area of the floodplain that we're referring to.

Adding fill in this area doesn't significantly alter the main channel capacity in carrying the flood waters.

So floodplain water elevations remain reasonably unaffected.

Next, you'll see the parcel location here.

is in that teal green area.

This is reflective of the floodplain with backwater.

And if you'll look at the cross-sectional black lines there, we have an elevation of 324.

We go to the next slide.

You see the floodplain without backwater and in that same area that elevation is different.

It's actually lower 322.39.

So keeping in mind that that backwater condition creates a higher elevation naturally there because of the restriction that it's trying to get into the Rivanna River.

So that's the restrictive point which pushes it into this condition.

Encroachment standards, just so we're reminded of what those are.

Minimizing obstructions, appeal should be designated and constructed to minimize obstruction to and effect upon flow of water that such.

The field will not

in the opinion of the administrator, result in any increase in the base flow elevation above that authorized.

And number two here, no fill is placed in the regulatory flood way, which is the case here.

And then of course, protect against erosion.

That will come later in plan reviews.

and no polluting, the field shall be of a material that will not pollute surface water or groundwater.

And then additional information to support all of that will have to be required and has been provided up to this point in order to get the FEMA CLOMAR-F approval.

And then certification finally for the no fill activity before,

the owner submits to the site plan and then floodplain administrator certifies.

Yes, thanks Tony.

We, hopefully that gives you some of the analysis and context of what led to the staff conclusion.

We have made the same findings that we did on the prior special use permit.

We haven't changed our recommendation in terms of potentially recommending approval for this.

We included some draft conditions in the staff report.

What's on your screen is the conditions as they are proposed in the staff report.

And I will tell you we have, I'm going to go through the changes between the two.

We have included some updates to those conditions and we printed out a copy for you that's at your seat at the dais.

But we're also going to go over what those changes are.

We have discussed these conditions with the applicant and we have gone over them again and what we've done is make, with the changes I'm about to show you, we want to make sure that they have more specificity in the timeline for certain things.

We want to make sure that they're consolidated and make sense and are easier to administer and that there's certainty for staff and the applicant if this were to be approved going into those next steps

that we showed you on what the steps are in terms of site development plan, floodplain development permit, the water protection ordinance plans with the next step.

Also, it's good practice not to repeat ordinance requirements in special use permit conditions, so we've taken out anything that was repetitive from the ordinance.

So we have our typical condition, which is that if this were to be approved, that a site plan would be developed in general accord with the application plan that we showed you and was in your packet, excuse me, the concept plan.

The second condition is adding those timelines for when they would submit and complete fill activities and make sure that we address the letter of map revision process so that there is no lag and that that FEMA requirement is met.

Number four is related to the mitigation plans and the required replanting area.

So in discussion with the applicant, and we agree we think it would be helpful to identify what areas of the site would be expected.

to add the replantings and at a minimum that is the areas that were disturbed for that prior stormwater facility location.

That's why I took you through that explanation in terms of why there were areas of the site that had been

impacted prior and it was for those by right activities.

We also want to make sure that the planting standards and the mitigation species is appropriate for the riparian condition.

We have worked with our engineering staff and our conservation program manager to suggest the planting standards that are there in the condition from the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The stormwater treatment, we believe there should be enhanced stormwater treatment on this site if this special use permit is approved.

Initially, staff has recommended and was in your packet twice the total required nutrient load reduction.

The applicant may share some information as suggested that an alternative condition that they'll go over with you that

they would like to make sure and they'll explain that that condition is in line with the impacts that may come from the fill and the fill area is about 20% of the site.

The last condition is one that would require a phase one archaeological study or survey rather because this is an area where there are potential Monacan Nation

sites.

Great, thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Forget where I started.

Could you go back to the map where you were talking about the flow, the fringe there?

No, the one before that.

Keep going, please.

It's probably back.

That's this one.

So could you just please help me understand what's the small, well, I guess it's the large dotted line, the teal line, and then the darker navy line, which is the, yes, the dark one.

So there's like three different lines.

There's actually four.

The really dark solid, the same color but dotted, and then the teal, and then the thick blue dotted at the bottom.

Certainly.

The one labeled with the large dot line, I think you're referring to the effective FEMA floodway.

That designates that portion of the floodplain channel that has to carry that storm event.

And as you can see, nothing's proposed within that area.

The other one you refer to...

Yes, the teal.

That's roughly the full extent of the floodplain.

But that's referring to a future line that FEMA is proposing with the new mapping.

I think that's what this is referring to here.

And if we'll go up to the... And that's the, yeah, the smaller blue dash line I think you're talking about.

I'm sorry I didn't put the legend on there.

Yeah, the 500-year floodplain.

Starting from the top of the slide, this is the 500-year floodplain in the solid blue line.

The teal is the potential, I'm sorry, just to clarify, the teal is potential map change to which?

So that's the thin blue dashed line right now, so be relatively minor.

Thanks.

Frank Pohl, County Engineer.

I can answer this question.

The teal is what FEMA refers to as an available map.

They've done some modeling throughout the county.

It's not, quote, preliminary because that means something to FEMA.

So they have it on their website as an available map or available floodplain.

And it's based on LIDAR.

It's based on some modeling that's been done at the William Mills site and in the Rivanna River.

So it's what we believe is a more accurate

representation of what the future map will be, but I can't say that.

We cannot regulate to it because it has not been declared as a preliminary map.

Once it's declared preliminary, that opens up the public input phase where FEMA advertises and gets public input.

As

Rebecca stated correctly that dark solid line is the 500.

So the available map in teal, if it goes through that process and we were adopted wholesale, would replace the dark blue dash.

Yes.

And I would suggest or say, not suggest,

that what the engineer did is reflective of that, would be reflective of that.

Great.

Thank you.

That helps.

So I don't know if staff remembers back when Cosner was underwater.

So we've seen some pretty big floods in our area.

And I was just wondering, these maps are all theoretical in nature, but what is the furthest extent of the flooding that we've actually seen in real life?

Has it reached Franklin Street, for example?

Well, I think the mapping does reflect that it does reach Franklin Street.

Yeah.

So, yes.

It certainly has.

OK, so my other question about this is because what is being proposed is light industrial.

What are our regulations around chemical storage?

Because I know particularly we've had a lot of industrial uses that have been placed along that floodplain where there are some serious dangers that when flooding happens now that we can have toxins get into the water because some of the uses have been improved there, including the junkyard that's down there.

Yes, that's correct.

I think that's the change.

One of the substantial changes.

That the stormwater treatment must be provided on site.

Could you remind me, how long is a special use permit valid for?

It is valid and runs with the land and does not expire unless we add a condition that makes it expire.

That is something that is a valid special use permit condition.

That's that one more question.

It's more just to educate myself.

Number six says a phase one archeological survey must be conducted prior to approval of the VESMP application for the fill area.

And just comparing that to number two, where it talks about fill activities, including retaining wall and mitigation plan must be completed within two years of that set approval of the application.

So does that mean, from my knowledge, that the survey

Just walk me through how that takes place.

I think perhaps the order of the conditions might have helped.

Oh, it is a condition.

Gotcha.

That's another question on the archaeology real quick.

So there, there, there has not been any archaeology done to date, as far as the county is aware?

Not, not by this owner.

I'm referring back to the staff report, which was, includes the information that we got from our historic resources staff.

I just wanted to double check.

There's already a temporary fill on the site though, right?

It's got a whole big pile of dirt more or less where the proposed fill area is.

I mean, it's a temporary permit at the moment.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I've heard about the archaeology and I might have the unusual experience on this dais of actually having done phase one archaeology digs before.

It's going to be all disturbed already.

I mean, if you're just limiting it to the fill area, it's already full.

You're not going to find anything.

You just sift through rocky dirt.

But if you were to go down closer to the water, you might actually find some stuff.

Because it is those sort of confluences of streams or great places that you find stuff.

That said, I had some other questions.

One about the green systems overlay.

And I remember when we were looking at the flume, the future land use map, that overlay, we had these conversations about these sort of green overlays that were just sort of in lots where people had trees, and all of a sudden we called them green systems.

So the land use plan designation is not an overlay in the sense of a zoning district that comes with regulations.

Flood hazard overlay district has the weight of an ordinance and is based on the flood, the 100-year flood plain.

This map is

Something we've talked about before in terms of leaving those fragments and how the green space designations were drawn.

This is the 2015 comprehensive plan.

That's what this is based on.

So it does include some of those edges or those fragments, if you will.

So I think that they are, they're typically consistent with floodplain stream buffer and how our slopes mapping in GIS is.

Okay, yeah, I was just gonna say that this gets to one of the points I made before, which is that, you know, I think the public sees this map that says, you know, green systems, and they think that eventually the plan is for that to be some sort of green space, but in practicality, as each one of these little parcels is developed,

Not the whole, unless the county acquires that property, then there's no way the entire thing is going to be green.

Only a portion of that is going to be green.

You named what I was getting at with my question.

And we have worked on making distinctions on our

AC44, Flum, to make that distinction between what we would expect to be a public park.

But the green systems designation may include properties that we expect to be public parks.

We don't expect that in this case.

It could be an area where there's trails along the river.

They've offered that, but that's not something that was part of our analysis.

It was just sort of an offer.

Sure, sure.

Yeah, that's an interesting concept to talk about.

I wanted to ask one other question, and I don't know that the answer's in the room, but I'll ask anyway.

I can't answer.

I wouldn't be comfortable speculating what they would say.

When you noted section 30.3.14, how is that monitored?

How is the county kept aware that all of those conditions there are being supported and not being violated?

Well, our conditions that we've recommended in this case are tied to specific application processes so that we have steps to enforce them.

And they do run with the land, future owners, so they are checked often at each step of our application process.

We check the special use permits, see what's applicable,

to site plans, see what's applicable to building permit, if it's applicable at all.

That's why I show you this chart.

And the very last step is the zoning clearance where we check it again.

And then going forward, then it's about someone has to report the violation.

So we get you to that point where you get your, if it was a household, you get your occupancy permit.

Great.

Any other questions for staff?

All right.

Good evening, Chair Missel, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Kelsey Schlein.

I am a planner with Tattle Line Planning and Development Services.

I'm here tonight representing Chris Donaldson, who is the property owner.

And here with me tonight to my right is Brian Sahaki with the Timmins Group.

I also have Tim Miller, an engineer with Meridian Planning Group and Matt Dennard with the Timmons Group as well.

So a whole group of us here to answer any questions you might have this evening.

I'm going to provide a high level overview of this application and then turn it over to Brian to discuss the unique characteristics of the floodplain on this property, as well as the floodplain development process and the work that he's put in to this so far.

And so even though it's helpful to understand kind of the broader context and the big picture with this site, which includes the development across the street, I definitely don't want to lose sight of the fact that this special use permit is specifically for fill in the floodplain.

And that request has been evaluated by FEMA.

That request has been evaluated by the County Engineering Department.

And there are multiple checks in place to determine that there will be no impact to the regulatory floodway.

The special use permit process to please fill in the floodway fringe is somewhat unique.

in Albemarle County.

This is an additional check that's in place that a lot of other localities that we work in across Virginia don't have in place.

So as you all know Albemarle has a very high standard of development.

This additional special use permit process in place is another additional check that ensures quality development is in place and we really feel

that this proposal meets that threshold, especially with the additional conditions that are proposed as part of this special use permit request.

So an overview of the site here.

So what we're looking at, the site subject to the fill request is shown in the yellow outline.

And then across Morris Creek Lane is the Wuhan Mills Industrial Subdivision site.

If you've been out to the property recently, or in the past year or so, you've seen that it's an active development site.

The pink building here is the building that you currently see that's under construction on the property.

And I just kind of outline all this to orient everyone.

This here is just a conceptual plan that was submitted

with this special use permit request to demonstrate a potential development so that we could kind of show a concept, work through the accurate amount of fill, and also work through some conditions with the county.

So this is just a conceptual design, but the special use permit request is specifically for 1.3 acres of fill, and that is the request before you tonight, so just conceptual here.

I show this because

and this also shows the limits of fill area there.

The development of the Woolen Mills industrial site kind of goes hand in hand with this request to place fill on this property.

There would not be a request.

I think given all the time and expense and headache that has been involved in this process, I do not believe this application would be before you if it didn't make

logical sense for the construction that's going on across the street.

And so if you go up to the site, there is a large stockpile here.

And this stockpile needs to move.

It currently is kind of prohibiting continued construction through the site.

And so this dirt is going to move off this property regardless.

This is an ideal location that is 500 feet away.

It limits the trips traveled, the miles traveled by dump trucks.

It's very close to the property.

And the benefit, the unique characteristics of this parcel is that there is no impact to the floodway.

And here, I'm just kind of outlining the truck route that trucks would take to move this dirt that has to move to this property here.

I'm just going to kind of quickly go over the site context and then turn it over to Brian.

So this is, there are, you know, residential uses across the street, but this is very much, you know, characteristically and historically an industrial area.

We have Broadway Street here, brewery HVAC contractors, roofing contractors.

We have a coffee shop down at the wool factory and more tech office users.

So kind of very much historically an industrial site, the property is zoned light industrial and we feel we're directly consistent with that zoning.

But I do also want to note that

80% of the site will be dedicated to a forest open space easement or a stormwater management facility.

And so although the comp plan designates the entire site for green systems, there is underlying zoning here for light industrial.

That zoning has rights affiliated with it.

But a majority, overwhelming majority of the site will remain dedicated to open space and stormwater easements.

and lastly, we are within the Broadway Blueprint area, which was an economic development study to kind of revitalize this area.

Hi, good evening, Brian Sahaki with the Timmons Group.

I wanna start with addressing the elephant in the room.

I am older than I look.

I have 14 years of experience and 10 of that is in fun plane modeling.

And I want to recognize that floodplains are important.

That's why we're here talking about this tonight.

That's also why there is a careful and technical process in place when work is proposed in the floodplain, which is what you see on the screen here.

It's a highly technical process.

It's a lengthy process.

It takes, on average, six to 12 months to go through.

There are multiple review cycles throughout the process.

It is specific to each individual application.

It cannot be reused elsewhere for other reasons.

So just to walk through it quickly, we obtained the best available data from FEMA.

We use that to perform our study, develop a technical report, a digital model, in this case, a no rise certification.

It's not an opinion, it's a certification based on facts and data.

That's then submitted to Albemarle County for their review.

They have to agree and concur with our findings before we submit anything to FEMA.

We both signed applications to submit it to FEMA.

FEMA then reviews it, and in this case, they approved it.

And we all found that there is no impact to the floodplain.

There is no rise for the placement of this film by multiple technical subject matter experts.

So I'm going to try and summarize in a little over two minutes how float planes work.

So I'm going to be brief and run through this and I'll try to spare you the technical jargon.

Believe it or not, this slide is actually about time.

So what this is illustrating at the bullseye is essentially where the project site is where the, where Moore's Creek and the Rivanna River come together.

and what didn't show up for some reason on this slide, but I can highlight it, is this lower area.

There is Moore's Creek's watershed.

Because it is so much smaller, it's all about the length of travel of that water.

So Moore's Creek being at this location, this water gets here much faster than all of the water from the Rivanna River with this much, much larger drainage area that goes even beyond the limits of Albemarle County.

This results in a significant difference in time when these two creeks and rivers flood and that's important because that time equates to the peak flow and the peak flow equates to the peak water surface of the floodplain.

And what this is illustrating is that difference in time of these two events.

What you see in blue is Moore's Creek, where that water peaks, comes down, and it's gone by the time all of that water for the Rivanna River comes down and peaks.

And that is how and why this backwater condition occurs.

It's this difference in time between the two.

So this is...

A map of the project site and the floodplain.

I'm running short on time, so I'll try to be brief.

The floodway is the red and blue striped area.

The floodway fringe is the blue area.

The proposed fill limits are here.

And what you see with this red line is the extent of this backwater influence from the Rivanna River.

So this 324 elevation is static throughout this entire stretch.

That's important.

What's also important is this natural flow constriction where Moores Creek also does not utilize this area where we intend the place to fill.

Maybe one last sentence or two?

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

Yeah, and this is a helpful slide to answer some of those questions.

Sounds good.

Thank you both.

So, question.

All right, so as one of the conditions is proposed is that there be no increase in phosphorus.

Yeah, absolutely.

So there was a conceptual kind of stormwater management plan, and it's a series of jellyfish back to back to back for increased stormwater treatment as it flows through.

And if you'd like more detail, I guess, on the high level, I'd ask Tim Miller to come up and respond.

Jellyfish.

Someone else heard of that?

She's never heard that term.

She's been doing this for 100 years.

The other thing on that, there's the orange part on the map, the 500-year area.

This may also be for staff too.

Have we experienced flooding in that 500-year area?

There was some major flooding in the 1980s, mid 1980s.

That's when the one of the spans of the Rivanna bridge going across.

No, 72 was another.

Yeah, it's not the number of years.

It's a percent probability that it will occur in any given year.

Correct.

It's more of a labeling that FEMA made up.

Great.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I just have sort of a business question.

So if this is in an area that may be changed by FEMA when they get around to it, which under the present set of circumstances, I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

But if it did happen, do you have problems?

Would that area have any impact on a business's ability to get insurance?

And if so, then why would we

Why would we shift the risk?

I'm trying to figure out what's the viability of that space, if it does in fact become part of the 100.

If I'm looking down at Karen, the 100-year floodplain with the blue, or I guess I'm looking over here, if the blue becomes that part of it, that would mean it would be part of the 100-year as opposed to the fringe, if I understood you correctly.

The teal line, if the teal line becomes solid blue, then right now it's proposed and we don't know if that's ever going to happen.