Planning Commission Meeting   11/24/2020

to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

Opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting will be posted on the www.albemarle.org forward slash community forward slash county hyphen calendar when available.

Mr. Bailey.

Present.

Mr. Keller.

Present Ms.

Firehock Present Mr. Randolph Present Mr. Bivins Yeah Ms.

We have no items on our consent agenda tonight, so we're going to move on to our public hearing for this evening, which is SP 2014-1680 Seminole Trail.

Yes, I will attempt to share my screen.

Are you able to see my PowerPoint slide?

Yes.

Great.

Good evening, everyone.

It's nice to see you.

I am Margaret Malaszewski.

I'm a manager in the planning division of community development.

And tonight I am going to be presenting to you this request for a special use permit for outdoor display.

outdoor sales storage and display of vehicles in the entrance quarter overlay district.

So in this presentation, I'm going to give you some basic information on the property that's under review, some details on the proposal itself, some general background on the outdoor display special use and discuss the AirBees role and action in the process.

So this special use is requested for the site that is currently occupied by the Hardee's Fast Food Restaurant that's prominently located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Rio Road.

The parcel in question is zoned Highway Commercial.

Motor vehicle sales is a permitted buy-write use in the Highway Commercial zoning district, and sales, storage, and display of vehicles is considered accessory to motor vehicle sales.

The general motor vehicle sales use is not what's under consideration tonight.

Sales, storage, and display is the focus of this review.

In the entrance quarter overlay district, sales, storage, and display requires a special use permit.

This site is bordered by two entrance quarters.

Both Route 29 and Rio Road are designated entrance quarters in the county.

The purpose of requiring a special use permit for this use is to allow for the review of potential negative visual impacts on the entrance corridor streets.

The intent of the entrance corridor overlay is to ensure quality development that's compatible with the county's important scenic, historic, architectural, and cultural resources.

The county has entrance corridor design guidelines that have been adopted to help meet that intent.

The Architectural Review Board applied those guidelines to the review of this application in a meeting on September 8th of this year.

This is the applicant's concept plan.

The proposal includes 34 display spaces that are distributed primarily along Rio Road, along Route 29, and adjacent to the south and west sides of the building.

In this image, the display parking is illustrated as tan or orange depending on how your monitor is displaying.

To accommodate the display spaces adjacent to the building, the proposal includes the removal of the drive-through structure on the south side of the building and the refrigeration unit on the west side of the building.

The proposal also includes increased planting area along Route 29 and along Rile Road.

The increased planting area would be created by reducing the width of the travelways on the north and east sides of the building.

These increased planting areas

would allow for a significant amount of new tree and shrub plantings that bring the site much closer to meeting the entrance corridor landscaping requirements.

The proposal also includes the removal of nonconforming site lights and the removal of a nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as the consolidation of dumpsters on the site.

Also, it's possible that a portion of the retaining wall that currently exists on Ryle Road could be removed in connection with the increase in planting area.

Over the years, the ARB has established standard conditions for mitigating impacts of outdoor display of vehicles.

One of these is a requirement that vehicles not be elevated anywhere on site.

Another is a requirement that cars only be parked in striped parking spaces.

These conditions help maintain an organized and orderly appearance on site, and they are among the conditions the ARB has recommended for this request.

The increased planting areas, the added landscaping, the removal of non conforming features, and other planned improvements are all positive changes that increase consistency of the site with the entrance quarter guidelines.

The staff report does note that the proposed use is not consistent with many of the goals of the Rio 29 small area plan.

But given recent guidance from the county attorney's office, the direction that consideration of this proposal is strictly limited to determining whether the use is consistent with the entrance quarter design guidelines, the factors unfavorable are eliminated.

And our recommendation is revised to one of approval, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Thank you so much.

Are there questions?

Oh, let me move this over.

I'm sorry.

I need to do this.

OK.

I can see everyone.

Are there questions?

Mr. Clayborne, I'd be happy to address that question.

I'm Andy Herrick with the county attorney's office.

Ms.

Maliszewski and staff had originally drafted this report taking into consideration consistency with the comprehensive plan.

And as you're probably aware, in almost all applications for special use permits, consistency with the comprehensive plan is really a critical factor.

However, when we took a closer look at the conditions for this specific type of special use permit, the ordinance limits consideration or limits review to determining whether the outdoor storage display and or sales is consistent with the applicable design guidelines.

Additional questions?

So I have a question.

Will we hear from the applicant?

There you go.

Then do we have anyone from the public who wishes to speak?

Well, hearing none, then we're bringing this back quickly.

And so I do have a question.

We have, if you could go back to the image with the plantings on it, please.

which I would assume based on what I read in the report from the ARB that that's actually to give some buffer, some visual buffer between, particularly between that little narrow strip that comes sort of an on-ramp back onto the bypass and then coming around 29.

That's right, if I'm correct with that.

Is that how you would interpret that, ma'am?

I'm sorry, could you?

Around where we see the increased planting area, I'm thinking that one of the rationales for that is to bring some visual sort of transition and also some isolation from the vehicles that use that, if we're on the 29 side, taking that little sort of on-ramp down back onto the main part of 29.

The existing condition is not consistent with the entrance quarter landscaping guidelines.

The standard landscaping that's required along the entrance quarters is large shade trees planted at three and a half inch caliber, 35 feet on center.

interspersed ornamentals and rows of shrubs.

So you can see from the photo there, there's almost no landscaping along the corridors at this time.

So is there a way then that, do the plantings need to be in place before they get a, I don't know, it's not an occupancy,

I think it is the CO.

The site would need to be in conformance with the, they'll need to do a site plan amendment.

Right.

Before we move farther, I understand that there is an applicant for this project.

He's trying to get in, but as in many of our situations in Zoom land, he's trying to cross over that marginal line.

Or is he not?

We might be able to patch him through.

Let me speak.

Carolyn did say that he is in the public side of the meeting ready to speak.

If not, we might just need to hold on.

I see him.

We cannot hear you.

You need to unmute yourself.

The public can hear him.

Oh, but we can.

Thank you.

So Margaret, I'm sorry to have interrupted you, but I got that message.

Okay, I'm fixed for some reason.

I have Scott Collins, who's the applicant, and he is ready to speak whenever you all will give him a chance to now.

Great.

Awesome.

Thank you.

No, I appreciate the opportunity to present this project to the Planning Commission tonight.

Really, I just want to, I think Margaret did an awesome job with the staff report and really sort of highlighted what we're trying to do.

We've really kind of focused on making this site meet a lot of the entrance corridor requirements and sort of the landscaping requirements for the small area plan, even though the building

where we're using that building and that building doesn't quite plan it's calling for.

We recognize that this corner is a very predominant corner of Albemarle County with the two entrance quarters on two sides of the site.

So we've really sort of focused on the site aspects, those of which we can control

and really looked at sort of enhancing the landscaping along those two corridors to create a much better pedestrian zone along those two entrance corridors with the increase of green space and landscaping and buffering.

from the site.

So that was the main thing I just wanted to kind of point out.

The other thing is that you know this predominant corner is made up of five parcels and the total acreage is about 4.5, 4.6 acres.

This is 0.7 acres of it and my client also owns another property

two properties down, which is another 0.7 acres.

So the idea is that, you know, this is a good use in the meantime, as these, as this property, as things start to evolve in Albemarle County, with the idea that ultimately these two parcels could ultimately be combined with the other three properties in the future.

And then that something could ultimately come that's more consistent with the small area plan.

But for right now, we're focused on what we can control and what we can do with the site in order to, like I said, increase the landscape aspect of the site and the buffering along the pedestrian corridor to really sort of enhance the site aspects of it.

So if and when this property is developed with other properties, because it would be really hard to really develop this property by itself being of the size it is, it will be in a better place for it

more consistent with the small area plan with the landscape buffering that we've provided so far.

Oh, sorry.

Scott Collins.

With any particular form.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicants?

No questions from you.

So sir, I have a question for you.

Yes, sir.

And he would

Oh sorry, he would go ahead, what he would like to do is move his downtown auto to this site and then he has a lease, a pending lease to use that existing property two doors down as a new different business in Albemarle County that meets.

It's not an auto dealership and it's a use that's allowed for the

So here's my recollection, and I may be wrong on this, but I remember when your client came before the commission for a special use permit to use that particular property where their business is located now.

There was screening that was supposed to be put in there, and there was supposed to be some striped parking areas to sort of give a bit of orderly context to that particular property where downtown ought to move from when they moved off Preston Avenue.

That was my recollection.

Probably have staff find the notes from that.

I have to tell you, I come to that area a lot, and I haven't seen any of that put in place.

And maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but I haven't seen any screening put in.

And I haven't seen cars sort of in an orderly manner on that lot.

So I'm now somewhat, how do I say it, cautiously nervous

that the same actions won't take place on a more prominent position in our entrance corridor.

And so I don't know how, I'm sure you didn't come prepared for me to ask you that question, but since you said your client is the person that owns it two lots further down the road, I'm asking that question.

From my understanding, my client had his business downtown in the city of Charlottesville, and he got this property with special use permit about a year ago, a year and a half ago, with the intent as a possible use to move there, but it was really too small, and he hadn't moved over there yet.

and up until about six months ago when he found out within a matter of 60 or 90 days or 60 days I think that he had to vacate the site in the city of Charlottesville so he had to up and move his business

over to this new site and do it rather quickly in the midst of COVID and everything else like that.

So he's really kind of been scrambling a lot and the sites was pretty small.

So he's trying to kind of work through a lot of issues on that site.

But from my understanding, when I met with him about six weeks ago out there on the site that he was working on getting that landscaping installed, I believe he had had had conversations with the county about it.

and they were working through some aspects and he was working on getting that in there.

So, and this site does definitely gives him a lot more room so that he can get, can maneuver and function correctly.

So, so basically you're saying instead of going into a house and figuring out all the clients closet space that I thought I was going to have, I really don't have.

And so as a result, I've got to put some more closet space and that's why we want to move up to the corner.

Okay, so I guess when we come back out of you, I'll ask staff if that's their recollection, but thank you.

Are there other questions for the applicant?

Thank you so very much.

Well, then we're going to bring this back in.

and are there additional questions to talk about ourselves and also for our wonderful staff before we move forward?

I had multiple conversations with the business owner about landscaping that was required.

I don't know.

OK.

Any other questions?

I guess this is a question for Margaret and Andy both and that is and I guess in many ways this is more for the public than for us but when we have a special use permit like this and it is approved what then could happen on this site with a different

So Mr. Keller, as you're probably aware, special use permits run with the land so that if the special use permit were to be issued in this case, future owners and occupants of this property would have to comply with the terms of the special use permit issued.

and that would limit it to outdoor storage.

So the owner would still have all the buy-write uses that exist under, is this highway commercial?

Is that correct?

They would still have all those permitted uses.

This is more of a follow-up question.

It's not really pertaining to this specific proposal, but in light of what Mr. Keller just said,

What tools will eventually be put in place so that we can achieve the vision of that form-based code in the small area plan if the special use permit runs with the life of the property?

How will we ever get to that three to six-story building and see the fruition, if you will, from a policy standpoint or from a procedural standpoint?

Just curious if that can be answered quickly.

Well, the form-based code is still in development.

And as you probably are aware, the form-based code is an optional overlay.

So owners of property have the option of opting into the form-based code.

Owners that choose not to will continue to have the buy-write uses of the highway commercial district.

Yeah, Commissioner Clayborne, I think you raised a point that was initially some of the thought that staff had as we looked into this, that this would certainly make implementing that RIO 29 small area plan vision more difficult.

And if we continue this eventually, we need to find a way to really support that plan.

And as was pointed out earlier, we have an ordinance that

really restricts the way we can evaluate some of these proposals.

So it's going to take some work on our ordinance as a whole to hopefully square some of that up and promote the type of development we want in this area if we want to see it come to fruition.

I did want to, I did note, excuse me, I did note staff's comments to that effect that it wasn't quite in keeping with the vision espoused in the form-based code currently under development.

But I did want to point out a couple of things just the way I looked at this.

Number one, nothing that the applicant is proposing to do would structurally alter the site such that a future building could not be constructed, right?

So it's currently a fast food,

chain restaurant.

And it's not, you know, it's as attractive as it could be as a fast food chain restaurant, let's just say that.

But I think that the landscaping will dramatically improve it.

And, you know, you could debate whether this is the ultimate highest and best use of this premier corner parcel.

I mean, from the applicant standpoint, it gives them great visibility for their business, but I don't think that it precludes it in the future, converting into the types of instructors we've talked about in the form-based code project.

I will also say that, you know, there's talk about the pedestrian experience of that area.

I mean, anything to add more vegetation would certainly improve the experience.

I regularly took my car to one of the repair shops behind it, as well as use the car rental place on almost a weekly basis for rent a car sleeve town.

And I then walked back from that location down Route 29.

And it is a really difficult and unfriendly place to be walking.

and this applicant is not responsible for fixing that but I'm just saying that it's really a site that is designed to be accessed by auto.

It's just not a pedestrian destination really.

So anyway, I think it's a great improvement and I don't think that anything we would decide tonight on this would prevent it from evolving eventually into the type of development we hope to see at this corner.

Thanks.

I agree.

I mean, it's unfortunate the timing, you know, we're asked to look at the entrance corridor overlay and it's in keeping with that.

And from that perspective, you know, and looking at the proposed vegetation as are discussed, it is a significant improvement over what exists there today and makes it much more friendly and inviting for the neighborhood.

I guess the unfortunate part that I've wrestled with is, as we think about trying to achieve that small area plan vision that we're going for is, and it's within right of the highway commercial ordinance, is that a car dealership is not a place that people come together so it doesn't promote more walking.

It promotes in and out and only when you maybe need a car.

So it doesn't, and it's such a prominent corner

of these corridors within the core of the vision of where we want to go.

It doesn't necessarily promote more coming together of the neighborhood, of the area.

And I think that's the thing that I've struggled, but it's within their right.

And for that regard, you know, as President Forrest and as Commissioner Firehock has stated, there's nothing, it is an improvement over existing today, and there's nothing to prevent from achieving the

I guess the concern is that since I write the special permit transitions for it, there is concern that it'll get stuck in that guard, in that use, which isn't one that promotes community gatherings.

Would anyone else before, it seems like we're talking that we understand that this is a piece of timing.

We understand that this is well within the rights of this particular property owner to move in the direction that they want to move in and that as council has advised us and the staff has revised, that our conversation tonight is really to see whether or not what's being proposed to us is in keeping with

the context of the visuals in which we should receive something from the ARB on it that given the conditions that they outlined that they would find us in keeping with the hopes for design of that particular corner.

And I think they would have to have a particular approved site plan before they got the documents.

Not everybody can see us.

There we are, folks.

If there is anybody else, is there anyone willing to?

Can Margot, would you put those back on, please?

Are we ready to take action on this piece?

Make a recommendation on where they are.

Second was by Karen.

Mr. Clayborne.

Aye.

Ms.

Moore.

Aye.

Mr. Randolph.

Aye.

Ms.

Mr. Keller.

Aye.

Mr. Bailey.

So this passes.

And if the applicant, I know you don't need to come back on, but for the applicant, thank you for your work tonight.

And I know you continue to work with the county staff to make this an interesting and appropriate site.

Thank you.

And thank you, Margaret.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to an action item.

The next item, which is an action item, is ZMA 2019-04 Breezy Hill.

So you will notice that this has come back to us and I will let, actually, I'm going to let

Our council sort of kicked this off before we moved through this process to give us some of the sort of procedural process that we are as an action item.

Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you.

So I did think it was important, given the volume of comments that we've received on this, just to take a few moments to kind of set the stage for where we are.

Procedurally, as you're aware, there's already been a public hearing on this before the Planning Commission.

It was referred then to the Board of Supervisors in the fall, who then is referred now back to the Planning Commission.

And it's before the Planning Commission for a non-binding recommendation.

The Board has asked for the Commission's recommendation, but the Board of Supervisors ultimately will have the final say on this.

Also, as noted, because a public hearing on this has already taken place, before the board tonight is not a public hearing.

The board, or excuse me, the commission can choose to accept public comment this evening, but it's not required to do so because again, the commission has held its public hearing in this matter already.

I also wanted to just go over briefly the role of the master plan and the comprehensive plan.

The master plan as you probably know is not a contract or an agreement, but it's a guide to orderly development.

The plan's helpful, it's informative, and should be given the appropriate weight, but it's ultimately not determinative.

And as we've discussed at prior meetings as well, moratoriums on development under Virginia law are not enabled.

A local governing body doesn't have the authority to enact an ordinance that would establish an outright moratorium on all zoning changes in a portion of locality until highway improvements are made.

However, current and projected traffic can be a consideration in individual applications.

And along those lines, if traffic impacts do become a determining factor, it would be better to focus on statements on the current state of the road infrastructure, whether recommending approval or denial, than on the six transportation improvements listed in the master plan.

So I just wanted to go over briefly, again, just a few parameters of the discussion, trying to be responsive to some of the comments that have been received.

Thank you, Council.

Are there questions for Council now, or are we holding those?

Seeing no hands, thank you.

I know you'll be ready when we need you, if you need to go through the process.

Good evening.

Give me one second to share my screen.

All right.

So good evening.

My name is Megan Adostip.

I'm Development Process Manager in the Planning Division with Community Development.

As Mr. Herrick just advised, tonight we are here to discuss the Breezy Hill proposal and changes that have occurred since this proposal was last heard at the Planning Commission in July.

And to remind everyone, this is a request to rezone seven parcels that together are approximately 84 acres located along Route 250 East.

in the village of Rivanna master plan area near Glenmore from RA to R4 residential.

So a brief overview of my presentation.

I'll give a quick overview of the location of the proposed development, present a quick slide that Mr. Herrick briefly covered on the meeting history of the project.

present some of the changes that have occurred since this was last heard of the Planning Commission and conclude with the updated factors favorable and unfavorable.

Since this has been heard as a public hearing previously, I won't be presenting all of the information from my previous presentation.

However, if there are questions regarding that information as it relates to that

covered information, I'll be happy to answer those specific questions and bring up the previous slides that you've already seen accordingly.

So just to orient everybody where this proposal is again, this is Route 250 here.

And I've drawn a red line in of where the edge of the village of Rivanna, our master plan is.

And so it follows Route 250 East.

And as you go west, that goes towards Charlottesville.

This is the Rivanna Village neighborhood model development.

Glenmore is located here.

And as you can see, the site is outlined in yellow gold there and the Running Deer neighborhood to the east.

So on July 7th,

You held a public hearing on the project and voted to recommend denial.

Then on September 2nd, the application was heard at the Board of Supervisors as a public hearing and was deferred at the meeting by the applicant and the board accepted that deferral.

The board then voted on October 21st to send the application back to the Planning Commission for further consideration, which is why we are here this evening.

So the applicant, this is the revised concept plan, and the applicant has made a number of changes since the application was last before you.

And those changes are outlined fully in the staff report, and I'm going to just cover a few key changes right now.

And just to orient everybody again, this is Route 250 here and Runny Deer Drive along here.

The density was reduced from 160 units to 130 units.

This equates to 1.6 units per acre gross density and 1.9 units per acre net density.

Block five, located here, was offered to be proffered to limit the density to one unit per acre in that area.

The roads were revised to include curb, gutter, sidewalks, and planting strips for street trees.

An applicant has offered to proffer that construction traffic be prohibited from using Running Deer Drive.

A proffer was offered to restrict Block 6, that's in the very back of the property, to one dwelling via a deed restriction.

and additional erosion and sediment control measures along with grading and lots outside of the stream buffer were added to the concept plan and proffers.

This is just another part of the concept plan that shows the new revised lot layout.

As you can see, the lots are larger in that block five area where the density was reduced and then the one unit in block six.

So the factors favorable and unfavorable have been updated to reflect the changes by the applicant.

Please note that the factors in italics are newly added factors and those with a strikethrough are removed factors.

So I'll be reading those that are now applicable to the revised application.

The Favorable Factor number four was added.

The proposal's affordable housing proffer would generate $422,500 of monetary contributions.

And please note that that number was reduced to reflect the 15% of 130 units rather than 160 units, which was previously before.

And Favorable Factor number five is a proposal meets the applicable neighborhood model principles.

The unfavorable factors include those elements that don't align with the master plan and factors four through seven have been addressed with the revisions.

Staff acknowledges that the applicant has addressed a number of concerns identified and raised by staff members of the community, the planning commission and the board.

However, staff's recommendation of denial has not changed.

Well, so I wanted to note that you all have and for the public received approximately 234 emails since I last looked at my email since the board voted to have the application heard by the Planning Commission.

So I was just going to provide a summary of the majority of the concerns that were included in that correspondence, the concerns from the community

were consistency with the recommendations of the master plan, including the transportation recommendations, the density recommendations, and overall density of the proposal, the transition of development from Rivanna Village as the center, concerns raised about the increase in traffic from the development, specifically concerns on adding additional vehicles to Route 250 going into Charlottesville,

the impact and safety concerns to running deer residents with the connection to running deer drive, safety concerns for access from 250 for emergency vehicles, the impact to school capacity and environmental impacts.

Other questions from me?

I actually, I mostly know the answer to this question, but I want to ask it of Megan just for the purposes of having it as part of the record, because when I watched the board meeting, I heard this come up in some of the final discussions and I think it was clarified there, but I wanted to clarify it here.

and I kept hearing some people say when they talked about what the buy right number would be and referring to the 60, 65 to 66 unit and so I don't know if we actually have a buy right number but my understanding is that would be much lower and the 65 to 66 range is what the plan recommends.

based particularly on the guidance given by the Planning Commission and the work session.

And so I just can Megan is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So the parcels are zoned rural areas right now, which would involve a determination on the number of development rights, which hasn't been done to date.

So the applicant has done their own calculation and they in their narrative on previous submittals had said that there would be 24 by right units.

The 65 number would not be by right.

That would be need a rezoning.

Other questions for Megan?

No.

So we have a standby meeting.

So we have an interesting opportunity.

So as you know, we all received a big package of information from the applicant.

And this is an action item that we, this is an action item before us that we could work off of the information that's been presented to us and talk to each other about that without having to hear from the applicant.

And certainly given the amount of public information, public communication and excellent public communication we've received

and simply make a recommendation back to the Board of Supervisors.

And so before moving in that direction, I'd like to get a sense from us whether or not we, given the materials that we've received, given the report by Macon, given the applicant's reports, do we need to hear from the applicant?

I'm not seeing any heads moving yes and no.

Okay.

I'm saying if you haven't, this is one of those affirmative things.

If you say nothing, then I'm taking that as a no, and then we're going to talk among ourselves.

We have a lot of information.

We received a great deal of what I thought was thoughtful input.

Some of it seems to be, as Megan laid out for us, and as I think you've seen from, we'll hear from some of our colleagues,

laid out the arguments pro and con, mostly con as experienced and as stated by the community quite well.

Well I actually did have a very minor question for the applicant and I didn't ask it of staff because it wasn't an answer the staff would give and my question had been about why I understand that they're putting the proffering the one unit on that far parcel but I guess I was curious what you know why even have one house there why not turn that into a park or some other kind of amenity

and I was just curious about that design choice for the layout and I don't know that staff could answer that so I was kind of assuming the applicant would be presenting and we'd hear about that.

I was also somewhat curious about the traffic calculations and the 10 hours saved per year.

Now having said that I'm not going to demand that I must hear from the applicant tonight but that was kind of a couple of things that I had wondered about.

and I was not at the planning commission meeting when you all denied it this summer.

Are there any particular, anyone else who wants to know that or can the applicant just answer those questions?

But does anyone else have anything more specific

I do not.

And I think if we're going to hear from the applicant about those two specific questions, it should be about those two.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Is there anyone else?

Tim.

Oh, Jim, were you?

Okay, I saw you became yellow, you know, like Hollywood squares, you became yellow.

Yes, I'll go with Commissioner Kello for $1,000.

No one else?

So Mr. Armstrong.

That's all we're, we're not asking you to sort of go off and give us a treatise on all the various things that you'd like to give us a treatise on.

I acknowledge that you all have received an awful lot of communications, and I appreciate your position on that.

I will tell you that Bill Wedge, the traffic engineer with EPR is here if there are questions that come up that you would like addressed by him later.

And Don Franco is in the wings with Rod Rushingdale as well.

But we'll stick to what we've been asked.

Why one unit on the rear parcel is, there is a house there now.

and it just seemed like a logical thing to leave that existing unit in place there as it currently exists in the fabric of the neighborhood.

That's not a fall on your sword kind of issue, but it was just something that seemed to make sense to us.

And then refresh me on the first question if you don't mind Ms.

Sure, I was just asking if you wanted to, if you could elaborate a little bit more about the 10 hours of time saved per year.

I think it was something like two and a half minutes per day.

It is, would it be better to have the traffic engineer

That's your judgment.

But remember what we've asked you to do.

That's fine.

I'll try to give my best stab at it.

And if that's not satisfactory, then you can call on him later.

So the signal improvements that we're proposing are a complete reconfiguration of the existing signals at Milton Road intersection with 250 and Louisa Road intersection with 250.

And by doing that, it actually provides additional capacity

I think the frustrating thing people see right now is that because those signals are not synchronized, are not timed, and do not have the modern sensor and computer technology that kind of lets them talk to each other,

You might get a green at one and a red at the other or a red at the first one, while the second one you can see down the road in front of you is green.

And by the time you get to the second one, you get a red again.

Signalizing or synchronizing those signals means that if you get a green, and I'm simplifying, but if you get a green at the first one and you drive the speed limit, you should get a green at the second one.

So it moves traffic through those almost as a single user.

The effect of that is saving each commuter who drives through there from a theoretical starting point at the village of Rivanna or Glenmore or somewhere to a theoretical endpoint in town, two and a half minutes on their commute daily.

That's not changing the world, but it's two and a half minutes better after Breezy Hill, including the new cars from Breezy Hill,

than it would be if Breezy Hill were not developed.

So we're not just mitigating the impact of the traffic that Breezy Hill would cause, we're improving beyond that and providing a broader community benefit.

And the other numbers are just math.

You multiply that by the number of cars that go through the intersection every day, and that's two and a half minutes multiplied out to them.

I don't have my notes right in front of me, but I was trying to get this right.

11,000 vehicle hours per year.

When you total that all up, I think the exact number in the report is 11,353 there.

We did not have this much supporting data and these numbers last time I spoke to you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

So we're gonna, they're gonna put you back in the panel room.

Yeah, as part of that.

So I wanted to make a comment then based on his response about the traffic.

So it sounds like that's basically synchronizing the lights, which I recall doing that in Charlottesville, and it came to about $45,000 per traffic light.

That was years ago.

I don't know what the going rate is today, and I'm not gonna ask Kevin to tell me, but that is a type of project that the county could undertake.

Obviously it requires money, but I guess I'm just throwing that out there.

That is something that we could do on ourselves as a county if we wanted to solve that.

So the question to me is, does the developers additional,

traffic project.

Does that warrant approving this development?

Or can we just simply do that fix sometime in the future?

And I'm not suggesting we're deciding that tonight.

I'm just putting that out there.

I will recall as listeners right now in the Villager-Rivanna area also recall who served on the Villager-Rivanna CAC that after the new bridge was put in across the railroad tracks that we had a meeting with Joel D'Annunzio and regional representative of VDOT who explained that

There was coordination between the traffic lights at the Milton and 250 intersection and the Luisa Road 22-250 intersection.

And

So that supposedly has been operational now for, if it's 2014, for almost six years.

It might be longer because by the time that bridge got opened, it might have been 2013, not 14.

But I think 14 is probably a more accurate figure.

And during that six years, traffic volume has continued to increase, coming down on 250 heading west in the morning.

And so those of us that have some experience in the congestion on this corridor, living with it on a daily basis, will understand that past technological fixes

don't begin to address the fact that the volume of automotive traffic has been increasing significantly year by year by year.

And then into the mix comes Breezy Hill, hence the basis for the 223 emails that you all have received since the community was aware that this application was going to be moving forward to the Planning Commission.

and I've eliminated from that 223 a couple of people that resubmitted.

I just want to say for the record, I was not suggesting that the solution to the traffic problems are simply adjusting the lights.

I was just saying that what the developer had proposed was something that could be done by another party.

Understood.

Do we want to hear from

from Mr. McDermott.

Rick, do you want to say?

No, that's fine.

And Karen, I wasn't directing my remarks to you.

I was directing them more to the argument that the technology fix here is going to solve the problem.

Well, then, in that case, I'm actually going to ask Kevin to be the bomb on this particular conversation.

And Kevin, if you would, if you would just give us, hopefully, an optimistic view on what you might see in the future before we come back to the conversation that's before us.

So we're pausing and putting a bracket around transportation and solutions.

And Kevin, you're going to be that bracket.

Thank you, Chair Bivins, Kevin McDermott.

I'm Chief of Planning here at Albemarle County and run the Transportation Planning Division.

Did everybody just notice that new title?

That was a new title.

In case you didn't notice it, that was a new title.

I'll be changing it again here, certainly, I think, with our reorg.

But a couple of points I just wanted to make.

to Commissioner Firehock's comment about the improvements.

It absolutely is something that we could do on our own, but I want to clarify that it's probably not going to be a $45,000 per signal fix.

I'm guessing that we are looking at least a couple hundred thousand for something like this, and it could be

Even higher dependent on whether the light current poles can handle the signals that we would put on there.

So we would have to evaluate that.

But to bring it up and the new technology is fairly expensive.

So keep that in mind.

It's not something we can go out and fix right away.

regarding, and I agree with what Commissioner Randolph said also that technological fixes are not, you know, not going to solve all the problems on this corridor in any manner.

But we did review the application.

VDOT reviewed the data from the signal changes that the transportation

the engineer provided for us and they did agree with the improvement's ability to improve the congestion situation at those two signals.

So if there were, I had not heard that those were previously timed.

If they were, it was done with likely some much older software that we have much better

stuff available to us to use nowadays.

And so we did agree that it looks like there would be a significant improvement from adding those two signals or updating those two signals to be a coordinated system.

But I will point out that there's a lot more friction on that corridor, meaning we see a lot more congestion on there than I think is entirely reflected in

the results of the analysis because the amount of time that it looked like was coming through on their analysis doesn't always match up with what we see from reports as far as congestion between 250 and the city and a lot of that could be

You know, minor accidents, problems that are slowing things down, but we did see an improvement in the general congestion levels if they were upgraded.

I would just like the fellow commissioners to notice that with Kevin's very helpful update of what the real cost may well be with the installation of new poles to hold up the signalization that the $500,000 could evaporate

Other comments, questions?

This is among us now.

So the conversations and discussions we're going to have from this point out is moving us to a point where hopefully we will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors one way or the other.

And I assume at some point we'll hear from the commissioner in that jurisdiction.

Well, if Rick wants to set the stage, that's fine.

I want to make sure that, and I don't want to preclude any discussion, but I want to make sure my comments are very direct about why I feel the way I feel about this.

And it's the same way I felt about it before.

And the reason why I want to be very clear is, well, because I think that obviously makes the most sense, but

I noticed at the board that there seemed to be some comments that because some of the unfavorable factors had been checked off the list that that was, I mean, that is a good thing, but in my mind, some of the most critical unfavorable factors still remained and still do now.

And so I worried that while I do think that is,

an indication that the process worked well.

I do think it moved forward from us last time to the board and the applicant was able to adjust.

And so a lot of things were addressed, but the underlying concerns, at least on my part, still remained and still do now.

And so that's why I want to be very clear about where I'm coming from.

Well, there's a lot that can be said, but I wanted to go ahead and take two selective quotations from emails that all of us have received.

The first, I cite this, that this individual who lives in the village of Rivanna said, I understand that we need additional housing in the county.

but jamming it into an area that ignores the master plan for growth in the area creates additional gridlock on 250 and overcrowds our school justifies common sense.

and the second remark came also from a village of Rivanna resident who said, as a retired career civil servant, I have worked under the watchful eye of public scrutiny and public trust.

I encourage the board and thereby also this commission to earn the public's trust and follow the Albemarle County's master plan

and deny the developer's request for Breezy Hill development.

I'll skip a couple of sentences and he ends by saying, I respectfully ask you to earn the public citizen's trust and deny the Breezy Hill request.

In remarks that I've sent all of you,

I really just want to concentrate, if I may, on what I view as really the major objection to this application.

And that involves the master plans guidance regarding density and also the comprehensive plan approach that staff has followed in the community development department for as long as I've been involved with the county, which is nine years.

The master plan, page 20, in the 5-12-2010 master plan copy I have, makes clear that for village of Rivanna, the total number of new dwellings, and now I quote, is to be between 300 and 400 units.

While Rivanna Village, permitted in 2015 for up to 400 units, will at final build-out probably come in with some 300 units, may even come below at 290.

This does not mean the potential extra residential capacity of some 100 units accrues automatically to another development.

The primary reason why the 2007 maximum build-out number for Rivanna Village's total dwelling units fell from some 600 in 2007 to some 400 in 2015 was more stringent federal wetland

and intermittent stream standards.

Those tighter federal standards ensure that new residential development in the village of Rivanna works with the environment rather than in spite of the environment.

Shoehorning in more development just to satisfy a total build-out number that is no longer operationally feasible is not sound planning.

The revised development plan for Breezy Hill at 1.9 dwelling units net per acre and 1.6 dwelling units gross per acre still remains out of whack.

with a stated goal in the master plan of a tapered density for the edge of the proposed expanded development area.

Given that Breezy Hill is east of Carroll Creek, its residential density should continue to lessen as running deers approach.

The latest Breezy Hill application continues to ignore that stated expectation and planning guideline.

This resubmittal neuters the master plan by proposing a much higher level of density than the master plan advises is appropriate as a transition from development area to rural area occurs.

And as you'll see in block five, there's a proposed buffer.

This buffer is a mere fig leaf covering an egregious repudiation of the master plan's stated goal of concentrating density in the center of a Rivanna village and having that density transition into approximately one dwelling unit per acre when abutting Running Deer Drive.

So that's what I really rest my case on, is the master plan and the comprehensive plans approach to taper density.

And the resubmittal that we have has not altered the ills that we saw previously in the application this summer.

I feel as I did when it came before us before, I do not see significant changes.

I don't think that anything is gained by going over the points that I made last time, although I think that there are a number of very important points that were made by the various commissioners that came together to address this and similar issues that we're facing.

I see.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Bivins.

I just wanted to clarify one thing.

On the proffers, the transit and transportation proffer is, with the signals, a separate proffer from the cash proffer for transportation in our school.

So there's actually two different proffers that could address transportation.

One is

The applicant has offered to upgrade, design, and install the signal timing and coordination.

And that is separate from the $500,000 for transportation and or schools offer that they also offer.

So that is proffers two and three if you want to look in your packets.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Sure, I just wanted to, I think Rick covered a bunch of stuff so I will be very concise.

One of the notes I had that Rick touched on was this

this sort of idea that there's a reduction in the density of the overall village of Rivanna at full build out.

And so that somehow these units should be transferable to another property.

And I really, you know, I want to push back on that rationale as convenient theories by someone who would like to selectively use the master plan for

One purpose, but not another.

So, you know, I'd like to set that aside, because I really think that, you know, I've heard that we heard that, and I heard that at the board.

And that that makes zero sense to me.

And so what I also would like to focus on is what, you know, we what I said before, when this was before us is that I understand the point, the principles, the idea behind master planning, but

Again, we are asking the community to engage in this process and then we use this document as a guiding principle, but it does, it's a guiding tool.

It offers communities a sense of what to expect.

And so here, what I see is that we have two things that I've focused on in my notes as it's come back to us yet again, is that the density exceeds the recommendations.

And then we have this idea of edges and the edges being less dense.

Now that's

in our comprehensive plan.

It's in this master plan.

It's kind of a basic planning principle that we have this transition to the edge.

So to me, that's the bottom line.

Those are the most important things that we still have not addressed with this current RISA middle.

Megan, I just wanted to thank you for correcting that.

I did misspeak.

You're absolutely right.

I think, therefore, there's a million in the mix here, 500,000 for transportation and 500,000 for transportation and or schools.

My point really is, by the time Kevin and

finishes the work on the transportation needs, I feel that in all likelihood there probably will not be much in the way of funds available to address the educational impacts of having the additional enrollment at Stone Robinson.

Thank you, Rick.

Next, who is feeling called to offer their observations on this?

So we've heard it from Tim, we've heard from Karen, we've heard it from Rick, we've heard it from Jenny.

Before you go to sleep, I want to ask you something, Corey.

I said, I want to see the smile.

I just want to see if you're still there.

Everybody else I see said an animated face.

I said, let me tap him right quick to make sure he didn't go to sleep on us.

So any other comments?

I'm not here.

I'll add a few comments.

I guess I don't know.

My position on this hasn't changed from the last time.

I think there was, you know, commend the applicant for trying to address some of the areas, but as has been previously stated, seems to have fallen short on some of the major components there.

I guess less directly to the application, I think that's been well covered and well, well,

discussed at this point on key principles of transition at the edge and other things.

I guess the thing that I'm left with and it's less against the, it may be a feature for the transportation is that the amount of engagement from the community about the transportation issues and what is our plan from my county perspective and a planning perspective to help address this.

area.

I guess that's what I'm left with.

I see a lot of recommendations and just echo what Commissioner Firehock put as if possibly increasing legalization is it'd be great to look at some of these improvements from a county perspective to assist the residents that are, you know, in some ways I'm grateful for this opportunity to hear this application in the sense that it illuminates an issue in the county

and a safety issue as evidenced by the outpouring of email against us due to those traffic issues.

So I just say that that I, you know, as with regards to the specific application, I don't think it meets the criteria that has been set forth in the master plan.

I do think this is an opportunity for us to also not let it fall off the radar that

So, you know, Kevin does do every now and again.

We've asked Charles to make sure that at least once a year, or I think maybe it was Tim who said it the other year, for Kevin to sit with us and sort of talk to us about one of the major places around the county that he believes in study requires attention beyond his

Every year Kevin puts together a list of priorities and my projects and it looks at sort of traffic, it looks at accidents, it looks at what the condition of the road, the condition of the various item that's there and Princess has been presenting that to to our supervisors and we've had it presented to us recently and we would hope to have it presented again and then Daniel as you're speaking to some also add on to that what might be the opportunities that lie in front of us either self-funding from

from the county or funding with the Commonwealth.

And there's a whole host of funds that Kevin knows on how we partnered to get some of that done.

And Kevin, if you want to clear that up so it doesn't sound as bumbled as it just did, please do.

Absolutely.

I'll make a plan to come back and talk about the future priorities to you.

And obviously this there, that segment of 250 has already been looked at and it has been prioritized.

And I will point out that we have already put some very significant

Thank you.

Other comments?

Mr. Chairman, I should ask this question earlier, and I apologize, and so I'll ask the staff, but could you share a little bit about the applicants, I guess, when they made this proposal again?

No they didn't share anything that I could help answer that question on why it was 30 as opposed to 50 or you know

Additional question.

So we're moving in a direction, folks.

I know that it's the pre-Thanksgiving sleep time here, and you're all dreaming about turkey.

Luis, did you have a, was that a hand up?

Nope, but Rick is.

I am, because it seems our colleagues are waiting for something to happen.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Jenny.

Is there additional discussion?

Mr. Bailey.

Aye.

Mr. Keller.

Aye.

Ms.

Mr. Randolph.

Aye.

Ms.

Mr. Clayborne.

Thank you.

So what we are doing in that is recommending denial on the proposal that came back to us to our supervisors.

And perhaps, I don't know if this will be the project that goes before them.

Only Megan knows that for sure.

And the applicant too.

But tonight, we have said that the proposal that has been laid out in front of us, with all the change conditions and with the profits,

Mr. Chair, if I also may clarify, normally when a planning commissioner votes no there to state the reasons for their denial.

And I just simply said no, but I was going with the same reasons that Mr. Randolph espoused in his motion.

So I just wanted to make that clear.

I mean, I think that's what I think that's assumed, but I just wanted to make sure that because

I think we've been following that tradition that each of us, when we support a motion that comes before us, that we're supporting the motion and the explanation that comes forth with the motion.

So thank you for that.

And I believe, as I just said, that we are doing that.

And I also believe that anyone who has read or has listened to our meetings over the course of

the number of times that this has been before us and also, or had the opportunity to read the record.

No one here said that they were changing their opinion or changing their positions from what they were stating in the previous public meeting.

And often what people stated at the same time, I think, Karen, that was well understood.

So rest assured you're in safe company with all of us in this decision.

So with that, we will move forward.

We will only move forward if I can find the agenda.

Oh, there it is.

Too many papers.

Are there reports?

Colleagues, do we have reports?

Oh, Tim has a report.

Does anyone else have a report?

It is given the hour and the day.

CTAC, Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee met last week.

And there were two items that I think would be of interest to all of you.

And you can find out more about this by going to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission website for the second one under the greater Rivanna River issue.

some website and then there'll be a part for what I'm about to discuss.

The first one is kind of relooking at the smart scale transportation, transportation smart scale process to add more citizen involvement.

But at the same time, if you all remember the kerfuffle about one of the projects that sort of was out of sync

with the commissioners and the counselors.

Really take a look at that full process and make sure that the timeline works well.

I don't believe this would affect the next round, which is underway, but it would be the one after that.

The second one, and this has been alluded to by I think just about everybody on the commission at one point or another,

is a study that VDOT undertook with a consultant to look at two pedestrian bicycle Rivanna River crossings in the greater Woolen Mills area, or I guess to be fair, from the

Freebridge down to past the Woolen Mills area.

Originally, I understand that there were six proposed crossings that were considered and DDOT actually narrowed that to two.

One that is a sort of an extension of Chesapeake Street across and up to State Farm area.

The other one going from the

Woolen Mill area to a small island and going across from there.

They did conceptual design, very, very rough conceptual design through cost estimates.

And then they held up

public participation, a Zoom meeting that had, I think, over 60 participants.

It was very well attended.

I also attended that as well, as well as some things with the Rivanna Trail that have been offshoots from the Planning District Commission that I thought were all relevant to

Corey in my position as your representatives on the Rybana River Peace Study Phase 3.

So again, for details, I encourage you to go to the Planning District Commission website for both of those.

Thanks.

Yes.

Did I see that there was a bridge behind the Woolan Mills?

I thought I was over there for not a grand opening, but for a tape cutting.

I didn't go on.

There's a Moore's Creek crossing that is not, it has not been opened to the public.

Notice I said I didn't go on the bridge.

I saw the tape.

Sure, you're correct, there is a bridge back there.

But while we're on the topic, before I sign off, for anyone that hasn't been to the Willen Mill and the one restaurant that's open, it's

It's quite a nice experience for those of us that have people that we want to be with that can distance in that outside space and still have some tasty bits.

So that's it.

Mine will be really quick.

I'm having some allergies.

I just wanted to say that the CIP committee met today, capital improvement plan,

and the committee will primarily be considering the projects for the next two-year period rather than a five-year period right now because we're trying to make some adaptations based on COVID and the fact that the county is not currently proposing to raise the property tax rate in light of the pandemic.

So it's a really eye-opening experience.

We didn't make any decisions today, but we are talking about ways to try to accommodate as many projects as possible.

and we'll be meeting again for another two hour marathon in a couple of weeks.

Okay.

Sure.

So last week's board meeting, there actually were no public hearings from development applications or other community development department items in that evening.

I have put together a draft meeting schedule for our official meetings and work sessions for the 2021 calendar year.

I will say before I get to that our meeting next Tuesday has been canceled.

We had a few applications asked for deferral as they worked out some additional

items, but we will be having a joint work session with the board on December 8th, so in two weeks, to talk about the housing policy as requested by this commission and the board together.

So looking forward to that.

But I've attached that 2021 meeting schedule.

I kept a similar approach as has been done in years past of, for the most part, a meeting on the first and third

Tuesday of each month in a work session on that second Tuesday of each month with the fourth Tuesday off with the exception of holidays and months that might have an extra week in them.

So I encourage you all to take a look at that.

Give me some feedback.

I think we typically adopted at our first meeting.

So we've got a month before we need to sort of get there.

But I think at that point, if you know, I know it's a long time away, but if you know, you're definitely going to be away on a particular day.

Letting us know sooner than later is helpful.

So just I recognize we're still in this extraordinarily fluid time.

And some of us aren't going to be sleeping, so they may look at this meeting time as being the best time for them to come to a meeting.

after the new arrivals come.

But we'll tolerate that too, Corey.

So on that note, if you see it, say it, and adopt it on our first meeting on January 12th of next year, 2021.

Other old or new business?

Nothing else.

Folks?

This was a good meeting.

We dealt with some, I will say, some pretty important issues, some pretty rough and tumble issues.

So thank you for the work that you've put in and thank you for your caring and your obvious attention to all the details.

And if we still have people from the community who are listening to us, usually when your matter is over, you tend to leave.

But if there are some of you who are still there, thank you for your comments, your thoughtful comments.

Thank you for feeling free enough to

Share your thoughts with the commission.

They actually were red or digested.

And as you can see from tonight, they helped to inform our decision in our discussions.

So with that, everyone continue to be careful.

Unless someone has something to say.

Be careful.

Karen doesn't have her mask on, but she probably needs to have her mask on.

Be careful with all the turkey that you eat.

Remember, don't let it sit out on the counter for more than some X amount of time.

Put it in the refrigerator.

because we're gonna see each other, we're gonna see each other and we're gonna be on our best behavior when we meet with the board in two weeks, okay?

Be safe everybody and have a great and peaceful Thanksgiving.

Bye bye, bye bye.

You okay?

You okay?