Planning Commission Meeting   7/20/2021

There's the out of body voice.

Good evening, everyone, to our Planning Commission meeting on July 20, 2021.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with ordinance number 20-A16, an ordinance 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 Albemarle.org forward slash community forward slash county calendar when available.

And with that,

Yes, sir.

Mr. Carrazana?

Mr. Heller?

Present.

Ms.

Firehock?

Here.

Ms.

Do we see her?

And this wasn't the day.

Mr. Clayborne here?

He's not here.

Not.

OK.

So with that count, we will go, are there any, we have a quorum, are there any matters from the public not listed on the agenda?

Hearing none, this evening we don't have any, we also don't have any items on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission.

Tonight is an exciting start to our meeting.

We have Ms.

Alice Rauscher from the University of Virginia.

She is the university architect and she is here this evening.

to speak to us about their updated plan for the Ivy Corridor, the master plan for that area, some of the projects that have recently been developed and discussed, provided a review of that exciting project.

Welcome.

Thank you very much.

Perfect.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

So thank you and good afternoon, everyone.

I'm very pleased to be able to share with you our current planning and design for the Emmett Ivy Corridor.

So I just have to say that although I'm here today representing the university's efforts,

I really want to stress that I have an army of dedicated colleagues and collaborators in the offices of the President, Provost, Chief Operating Officer, Facilities Management, the University of Virginia Foundation, and the Office of the Architect for the University, in addition to our talented consultants whom I would just like to quickly name.

And they include Dumont Janks, Biohabitats, Omo van Sweden, VHB, Hopkins Architects with VMDO Architects for the School of Data Science,

and Deborah Burke partners with Hanbury for the UVA Hotel and Conference Center.

As you will see, there's been much careful thought and consideration that it's gone into this design, and we are not doing this work in a vacuum.

Every step along the way, we have coordinated with the surrounding municipality and our neighbors, and I'm excited to share our progress with you today.

But first, I just thought I'd give you a little background.

No doubt you've heard a lot about the Emmett Ivey Corridor over the last year or so.

In fact, President Ryan's 2030 strategic plan, Open Grounds at the Emmett Ivey Corridor, is number eight under key initiatives, coincidentally the new School of Data Science at number nine.

But why now, you ask?

The University of Virginia Foundation first began acquiring parcels in 1983, with the first parcel at the corner of Copley Road acquired, sorry, with a final parcel.

at the corner of Copley Road acquired in 2017.

There were many studies in the ensuing years because it was always acknowledged how strategic this parcel was, but this was the first time we were able to contemplate the full 14-acre parcel, and really the first time there was a singular vision for that parcel.

And this parcel of land at the corner of Emmett Street and Ivy Road provides an unprecedented opportunity to enhance our community

and encourage cross-disciplinary engagement.

When we began actively planning this parcel over five years ago, there were those who thought of it really as the opportunity to provide an entry or a gateway to the university.

While the intersection is indeed important, we saw this parcel more as having the ability to provide connectivity between central and north grounds.

While the rotunda and the lawn will always be the heart and soul of the university,

This parcel is located in the geographic center of most of the academic activity on grounds, as shown on this slide.

But what was lacking was not only an identity and vibrancy to the area, but basic ways of traversing the land with the railroad tracks,

lack of sidewalks and lots of surface parking, making it inhospitable to pedestrians and bicyclists.

So in this diagram, the blue lines represent pedestrian connectivity, the orange bicycle routes.

And so it's clear to see that this area, along with the athletics district, which is just north of the railroad tracks, is really the hole in the donut without any connecting paths through it.

So from this diagram, you can see that the framework plan we developed proposed a rational network of roads and pathways, reduced the curb cuts along Ivy Road from 11 to three, making the pedestrian sidewalk much safer and proposed ways to cross the formerly impenetrable athletics area, which led to the subsequent development of the athletics master plan and proposed the possibility of future bridges over the railroad tracks.

We were focused on improving the public realm so that instead of narrow sidewalks interrupted by utility poles and directly adjacent to lanes of traffic, we proposed wider sidewalks paraded from traffic by a tree lawn.

We are working with the city to incorporate their standards for wider drive lanes, dedicated turn lanes, and clear bicycle lanes on both sides of Ivy Road.

We looked at separating the bicycle lanes even more, but existing utilities in the roadway made that infeasible.

We're also proposing terracing the steep incline at the International Residential College, as you can see on the right, to eliminate the existing tall retaining wall and allowing the sidewalk to widen on the south side of Ivy Road as well.

So this was the site when we began the study.

We knew that there were at least two amenities on the site, including the daylighted stream and the existing parking garage.

This meant that we would not need to increase the parking capacity in this area to accommodate the new program.

In fact, there will be fewer parking spaces overall with the change in use from current retail with their asphalt parking lots to a more academic focus on the site.

After living with the open corner for two years now, it's a little difficult to remember what imposing presence the Cavalier Inn once was.

When we began the study in 2016, we first imagined what an open corner might look like.

and how the open green corner seen here with Cars Hill Field, Nameless Field and the International Residential College across the street would provide that civic space denoting an approach to the rotunda, which you can see in the distance.

Okay, I understand that a few trees have been artfully removed to enable this view.

But if you think nothing gets done in a timely manner around here,

After much consideration of the significant capital investment it would take to upgrade the hotel, two years ago the Cavalier Inn was demolished.

And in the spring, with all the trees in bloom, you can see the north side of Alden Library.

When the new addition is complete, there will be great views from each of the sites.

And the other factor in our planning for this development was the fact that the city of Charlottesville was successful in receiving a smart scale grant from the state to improve the streetscape along Emmett Street for pedestrians and bicyclists.

There was opportunity for great collaboration and maximizing of investment.

So that instead of this pedestrian and bicycle experience along Emmett Street,

There was this experience with dedicated bike lanes, planted tree lawns and a wide multimodal path.

The framer plan that was approved in 2016 proposed relocating the daylighted stream to the center of the parcel, enabling city block size parcels to face both the street and the interior green and screen the existing parking garage.

As we further develop the framework plan, engaging in significant hydrological study, we recognize that there's a lot of water on the site and would need to modify the open green we had previously shown.

Working with the city, we developed a pond on the corner to provide stormwater storage, working in much the way the Dell works, which would prevent the future flooding of Emmett Street, which happens during major storm events, as you may know.

So it's important to remember that this intersection is at one of the lowest grade elevations on grounds.

Deeper purple color shows the lower elevation,

and how the stream and stormwater management is part of a larger system that includes Dell and the wetlands around the JPJ arena.

So when President Ryan arrived, he formed the Emmett Ivey Task Force, whose report, by the way, can be found on our office's website, which looked at the programmatic needs for the site, essentially what should go there, and proposed some overarching goals of activity and inclusivity.

The task force also stipulated the three nexuses of creativity and experimental arts,

Democracy and Discovery and how they may be arrayed on the site.

And that's what you can see in this diagram.

The yellow on this diagram is meant to identify all the shared public space, not only in the open green, but within each building.

You'll also note that the site on the southwest side of the garage is all yellow.

The task force endorsed the recommendation for a new university hotel and conference center as being a program that would serve the broader university and local community.

And so the first two sites that will be developed will be fronting the corner green for the new School of Data Science and towards the center of the parcel for the new UVA Hotel and Conference Center.

You may also be aware that the University just received a substantial gift to develop a new Democracy Institute, which will likely be located adjacent to the hotel at the western edge of the lower green.

So this slide shows the key components of the initial development, including the civic scale landscape pond and a wide pedestrian promenade.

Over time, we hope to build out the remaining parcels on the site, perhaps in phases as shown here.

So a high priority for the university in the development of the site is ensuring active pedestrian and community activity.

This sort of x-ray diagram of the site shows how we've located the public-facing program of the proposed buildings to be adjacent to the exterior civic spaces of the amphitheater around the pond, the connecting 20-foot-wide pedestrian promenade on the north side of the site, and the hotel's arrival court off of Ivy Road.

And this is more of a fully clothed view that shows the School of Data Science in the foreground adjacent to the pond and amphitheater, as well as the future hotel and conference center in the background.

So from this view, approaching the site from across Ivy Road, the building is seen as a three-story brick mass which acknowledges the angle of Ivy Road.

The fourth floor engages with a civic scale portico which will provide an appropriately scaled facade for the district.

So the building at 60,000 square feet is not large in size, but it really needs to have a presence on this first site of the porcel.

This space will allow the life and activity of the School of Data Science to be on full display.

So now that I've discussed the landscape and the design for the School of Data Science, this slide shows the proposed site for the Hotel and Conference Center.

It's centrally located not only on the Emmett Ivey Corridor parcel, but geographically, it is centrally located between Central and North grounds and adjacent to the athletics district.

It will also screen the Southwestern portion of the existing parking garage, which is fulfilling one of our original goals.

So it's interesting to note that there's also a roughly 40-foot change in grade elevation between the Emmett Ivy intersection and Copley Road.

change in grade between the upper and lower sections of the site.

It also shows the relationship of the hotel's public-facing program of the cafe, the visitor center, and what we call the living room to the pedestrian promenade.

There'll be a public restaurant on the main level off of Ivy Road, and the main conference facilities will be located on the third floor overlooking the green with the hotel rooms above that.

So on the far right, you can see two stacked

White boxes, white terraces, which will allow for great exterior space overlooking the green adjacent to the restaurant on the second floor and the conference facilities on the third floor.

This image shows the main hotel arrival from Ivy Road with its porte-cochère protecting cars and pedestrians from the weather.

So we're also hoping to have a rooftop venue.

And this is a slightly different view of the main hotel arrival showing the relationship of the building to the adjacent future development on the left, likely the site for the Democracy Institute.

That's the more casual gathering space in the hotel on the right to the very pedestrian nature of the promenade.

The porch overlooking the stream on the left is located adjacent to the hotel's cafe grab and go and will be an area for outdoor furniture to encourage gathering.

So you all know as I do that our landscape on grounds is magnificent and our goal in the design of this district is to make sure that it too will look beautiful in all seasons.

Palette for late summer when the students will be returning to grounds.

late fall for the holidays.

Spoken like a true northerner, sorry.

So if you're interested in the timing of all this work, these next few slides break out the anticipated schedule of the major components.

The city's SmartScale project is anticipated to begin mid to late 2022.

Our School of Data Science is anticipated to break ground this fall and be open for classes in the spring of 2024.

We're really excited to see how the district develops over the years and our hope is that it becomes an important place for the university and the broader community.

Thank you so very much.

If we can unshare you so that I can see our colleagues.

and while you're doing that, Alice asks you, do you have a sense, would you say that what's your plan and your vision for the Avi Road and Emmett Street area sort of connects into the contemplative commons that's going to be up at the Dell so that you're doing so that in fact you're actually recreating or reimagining

an area there by moving the basketball courts into a actually a more public space.

Well, you know, so it's a really good question because I think our focus has always been to make the streets, which are city streets or county streets, more walkable and bikable and for pedestrians to be able to use them with a little more comfort and our reliance on public transportation.

So that's been the focus for the contemplative commons as well, just south of Emmett Street.

building on a parking lot that was a beautiful Dell, but waiting for the other half of that landscape.

And so the building that's going to be there is really going to enhance Emmett Street and really form a much more civic streetscape.

And that is the same details in terms of the streetscape we're using for

Ivy Road and Emmett Street, the bike lanes, the sidewalks, et cetera.

The Contemplate of Commons, which will also replace a current bridge that currently crosses to Ridley Hall and to Ruffner and Ridley, sorry, Bavaro and Ridley, and

It's inaccessible at the moment.

It has two very steep runs of stair at either end.

So our idea is then to make a ramp that comes down from New Creek Hall and allows the new crossing to be accessible and will continue all the way over to McCormick Road and the old dorms.

Thank you for that.

Ms.

Raucher, I'd like to compliment you and the university.

You're one of the few projects that I've seen in nine years where there is a multimodal path proposed and dedicated bike lanes simultaneously.

Oftentimes developers want to present the multimodal paths as being a catch-all for

bike lanes, people walking, women and men out there with strollers with dogs and children in them.

And I think it's terrific that the university has gone ahead and it identified the need for both.

So I wanna compliment you and I appreciate you coming to us and providing all this information this evening.

Well, thank you, Mr. Randolph.

I'll have to give credit where credit is due, though, that that really is the city's collaboration with us.

You know, they really they really prefer the idea of a multimodal path and commuter bike lanes.

And so that is I have to say it's taking a fair amount of real estate, but we appreciate, you know, the need for it.

But I do want to share that that credit with our colleagues at the city for that for that detail.

I also welcome, you know, thank you for inviting me to do this.

I feel, you know, that we have been, I mean, I'm hoping that we've been open and sharing with about this scheme as it has developed over the years.

I've made multiple presentations at PAC and LUPAC now and also I'm hoping that, you know, that we do have an open line of communication, you know, with our neighbors.

Good evening.

Thank you very much for this presentation.

And thank you to you and your colleagues and the university for showing us that it is possible to work with the topography and the hydrology of this area.

It has been so frustrating to many of us on this body to see project after project that takes away from the beautiful Piedmont of Virginia

with the flattening of sites and the lack of creative thought and use and stepping down and taking advantage of the underlying and above surface hydrology.

So thank you very much.

Well, thank you.

We appreciate that.

I don't know if any of you have seen the Brandon Avenue development.

But that has been our central green, which is a working landscape.

It was a stormwater catchment area as well, I think has been very successful.

It's very beautiful.

And it also has an attitude about district-wide stormwater management.

And we have to deal with the topography there as well.

So thank you.

Do I see anyone else who would like to?

Good afternoon, Madam Raucher.

It's such a pleasure and a treat to have you here.

And what a great project that you presented.

And I was just curious if you could speak a little bit about like the site lighting scheme as you illuminate that corner and move through.

That's a good question too.

So, you know, we do have the commitment to, you know, Night Sky.

You know, we've been working with the city on their regulations.

We have, I don't, to be honest with you, I don't know if they're full cutoff.

I see.

Well, I have to say that those details are still being developed with our team.

But the attitude is that there's one realm, which is the public realm, which blends seamlessly into grounds and the city so that we have similar levels of light for safety around the edge.

And then there's a slightly different scheme

in terms of not only street lamps, which will be a little more modern, pedestrian street lights on the interior of the project, and then a series of bollards and lights over the bridge to make sure that we have code requirements, obviously, but that also we are sensitive to dark sky

issues around the site.

I think the great thing about this is that it's true that it will be a hotel that's screening the garage, but it's gonna be much more pleasant to see the soft lighting of hotel rooms with curtains on them rather than the lights of the garage that are currently kind of bright.

And there will be still a robust landscape with trees

in the central green, as well as the fact that it will be planted for a wetland area.

Thank you.

You've answered the question.

Yeah, I mean, I think the idea for the amphitheater in particular is going to be quite lovely because it's going to be much softer lighting, you know, around the amphitheater that's meant to be an open public space.

I think that will be really well used and all of these, you know, this framework plan was being developed before, you know, this past pandemic, you know,

I say in the past, I'm hoping it will be passed.

But the need for exterior spaces has never been seen as more important than this past year.

Thank you.

Are there others before we let the university architect continue her evening?

I keep expecting Karen, who is our

to come forward, but I see she's, I see her name, but I don't see her.

Oh, she just went off mute.

I'm here.

Okay.

No, I have that.

Okay, a question's a question now.

We're allowed to ask questions.

And we're not voting on anything.

We're just asking questions.

So if you have a question, that's okay.

Daniel, did you have?

No.

That looks like a great project.

Yeah, I thought you'd have something to say about that.

That's the one thing I thought you might have something to say about that, Dan.

That's been the challenge.

You know, we've been working, Hopkins, you know, VMDO is a local architect as we know, but Hopkins is from Great Britain.

Well, seeing that none of my colleagues have had their hands up, Alice, thank you so very much for being here.

Thank you also.

Many of us may not realize that during Alice's tenure, or during this university architect's tenure, she will have had a hand in reshaping, I will say, more of the university community than any other architects such as Thomas Jefferson.

And that is a major accomplishment.

And I think it will point to sort of what we will have before us

as we go into the future.

And as our colleagues said that I think that this is the standards and the thinking that's going on in this program will allow us perhaps to point some of our applicants to a different way of thinking.

And so thank you so very much for that.

And I look forward to seeing you soon.

And I think we can hit the,

We can have Luis up to show us the Brandon Avenue.

Thank you.

So we'll, we'll talk to him about that.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

You too.

Moving on to our public hearing tonight, which is for ZMA 2021-0004 Breezy Hill.

If we could, if we could begin to have the staff report on that place.

So I'm gonna ask just to sort of bring everyone to a space.

I'm gonna ask our council just to give us a tiny bit of administrative background and sort of some scope of what we've done to get to this place.

Because I know we've been there, we've gone away, we've been back and I thought it would be helpful if I could ask Mr. Herrick to just do that.

Mr. Chair, happy to do so.

There've been a number of questions that have arisen over this application, so I wanted to address a number of the questions that seem to have come up.

The first of which is, why is the Planning Commission considering this application?

Isn't this an application that the Planning Commission has heard before?

And actually, as the Commission may be aware, this is actually a new application.

Even though this applicant has filed previous applications, this is a new application.

The applicant has filed an application as a title to a public hearing on its new application.

We've also received a number of questions regarding the role of the master plan.

And the master plan, as the chair may be aware, is not a contract or agreement, but it's a guide to orderly development.

It's helpful, it's informative, and it should be given the appropriate weight, but it's not necessarily determinative of either the planning commission's recommendation or the board's decision.

We've also had questions about potential moratoriums on development and questions about traffic impacts.

And under Virginia law, a local governing body does not have the authority to enact an ordinance establishing a moratorium on all zoning changes in a portion of a locality until highway improvements can be made.

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

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

So I just wanted to add some clarity to those issues and a lot of the questions that we received.

Well, I ask you, thank you so very much.

Thank you so very much.

Yeah, I do have a question for council.

Sure.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Madam, may we have the staff report on ZMA-2021-0004, Breezy Hill.

And welcome.

Yes.

You'll give me one second.

Okay, good evening.

I'm Megan Adosto, Development Process Manager with Community Development Department, and tonight we are here for the first public hearing on a request to rezone five parcels together approximately 75.6 acres located along Route 250 East in the Village of Urbana-Master Plan area, ZMA 2021-004 Breezy Hill.

So as I said, this proposal is a request to rezone from RA zoning to R1 residential.

A brief overview of my presentation, I will present the site context, the current zoning, the master plan's future land use designation, including recommendations on transportation improvements, overview of the proposed rezoning and plan, and then I will give a brief overview of the applicant's offer proffers, factors favorable and unfavorable,

and conclude with the recommendation on the resigning.

This is a vicinity map on the screen and I'm just going to orient everyone.

Route 250 is here in the middle of the screen.

To the upper left is the city of Charlottesville, Rivanna Village, Village Center, Glenmore is here.

The site is in the center in the gold star and running into your neighborhood.

There are currently some single family houses on the property, two that are off of Breezy Hill, Maine and one that is accessed off of 250.

There's also a structure in the very back of the property that is a farm building access off of Hearns Lane, which connects back to Running Deer.

So the zoning of the property is currently RA and

This is a map showing the various zoning in the area.

The village, Rivanna Village centers zone neighborhood model.

Glenmore is zone plan residential development.

This map also shows the environmental features such as the floodplain, which is the blue striped area on the map.

the stream buffer, which is the purplish pink color and the preserve slopes, which are this lime green color.

And so all of the parcels that are white on the map are zoned rural areas.

Now the development area boundary is a long running aircraft and you'll see that more closely on the next slide.

So here is the Village of Rivanna master plan overlaid onto the GIS.

And you can see the dividing line.

This is the rural areas and the development areas.

And Breezy Hill is within the Village of Rivanna master plan.

The future land use plan includes two designations for the property, the neighborhood density residential low, which is the lighter yellow color on the map, the parks and green systems along

Carol Creek Road.

It's kind of hard to see, but it's underneath because it captures also the floodplain and stream buffer.

And also there's green systems along US 250.

To the west on

Across Carroll Creek, the land use designation is neighborhood density.

So this exhibits the transition that is discussed within the master plan to provide the most intensive and denser development within the village center, which Rivanna Village, it's off of this one out here to the least dense adjacent to the edge of the master plan and running here drive.

So this is a

screen capture of the land use plan within the village of Rivanna master plan.

Parcels aren't shown on this map.

This is the area where Breezy Hill is located.

This is Hearns Lane.

and Running Deer Drive and 250 is that reddish orange line.

So the land use plan within the master plan also shows this connection to the west over Carroll Creek from a connection into Route 250 and a connection to Running Deer Drive.

It also recommends a multi-use path

to the south side of 250, which this is the section that is within the master plan showing that multi-use path.

The proposed plan is providing the future connection across Carroll Creek, the full access connection to 250, the connection to Running Deer Drive, and the multi-use trail along 250.

And you'll see that later on when I get to the concept name.

So the master plan further designates this area.

It's area B with a density recommendation of one dwelling unit per acre.

This on the screen is from the master plan.

This chart describes three areas where future development could be expected within the village of Ivanna.

It provides guidance on how this area would transition from higher density to lower density radiating out from Glenmore

And so Breezy Hill is within area B that is described as having the lowest density of the development area.

This is an enlargement of that area B and I've outlined Breezy Hill and how that overlays on top of area B.

that are with the five parcels that are being requested to be rezoned.

There are 11 additional parcels within area B in the master plan outside of Breezy Hill.

And you can see those are the lighter parcels in these three areas.

As detailed in my staff report, the recommended density for the proposal is using

that staff has used is using the calculation to not include the environmental features and areas designated as parks and green systems, which is outlined in strategy 8C of the development areas chapter and the comprehensive plan.

We commonly refer to this as net density.

Net density is actually not a term used in the comprehensive plan, but that's the term that we've commonly used to describe

that calculation.

And staff has identified that it would be 58 to 59 units at one unit per acre for these five parcels.

In addition to the land use recommendations within the Village of Red Band and Master Plan, there are a number of recommended transportation improvements.

The Master Plan also states that approval of any development by rezoning will be predicated

on the completion of a number of transportation improvements.

And that is essential that all of 250 improvements be constructed before new development occurs in the village.

This chart is a summary of the transportation recommendations and the master plan and the status as provided by Kevin McDermott, the County's planning manager overseeing transportation that was included in the staff report.

I'm not going to go through all of these.

If we want to return back to them, we can do so.

So onto the proposed application.

This is sheet three from the concept plan document and it's an attachment for the staff report and to reorient everyone.

This is 250.

It's the same orientation that we had before Running Deer Drive is located here.

The proposal is for 80 residential units, single family detached residential units from RA to R1.

The proposed proposal includes 22 acres of green space that will include the environmental features of the preserved slopes, flood plain, and the stream buffer.

You can see those in this lighter green area.

The green space will also include trails and a pocket park.

The main entrance is off of Route 250, and there is a multi-use path

also proposed as recommended by the comp plan that I mentioned before.

All the streets will have curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees.

This is sheet four of the concept plan document, which is an illustrative layout plan.

Since this is a resorting to conventional development, R1 and not a plan district, the applicant has offered the plan to be proffered with nine major elements

identified, which include a maximum of 80 units, primary vehicular connection at 250, the secondary access provided at Running Deer prior to the 31st building permit, that construction traffic be restricted from using Running Deer, the reservation for future connection toward Carroll Creek,

the typical road sections that were included in the packet and the trails, multi-use paths, and pedestrian networks, the locations and sizes of open space stream buffer and conservation areas, and that lots may encroach into the stream buffers, may not encroach, excuse me, into the stream buffers' preserved slopes or any proposed slopes of 25% or greater.

And I have a slide

If you want to look at those elements, I can pull up a slide just for that.

The factors favorable to this request include that the proposed development includes an entrance as recommended on the future land use plan.

The proposal includes a multi-use path along 250.

The proposal includes future vehicular and or pedestrian interpersonal connection to the west across Carroll Creek as recommended in the future land use plan and the proposal meets the intent and purposes of the R1 zoning district.

Unfavorable factors include the proposed density exceeding the recommendations in the master plan,

The proposal does not address the transportation improvements identified in the master plan as being a prerequisite to new development through rezoning.

The applicants have not clearly demonstrated that impacts of the development of transportation facilities in schools has been mitigated.

The proposal is not meeting the existing affordable housing policy.

And the proposal does not meet a number of the applicable neighborhood

model principals.

And I recognize I didn't go through every single one of these in my presentation, but I'm happy to answer questions.

They were outlined in detail, I think, in my report.

So based upon the unfavorable factors, staff is recommending denial of the rezoning request.

And that concludes my part of the presentation.

Adam Moore from the Virginia Department of Transportation is here with me this evening as well if there's questions.

If you will.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Are there questions for Megan before we go to the applicant?

Or I guess also for Adam before we go to the applicant.

OK.

Seeing none.

Good evening, Mr Armstrong.

You're next, as you know.

Okay, good evening.

This evening we're presenting a much lower density version of Breezy Hill.

This one with half the density of the previous version.

I'm Charlie Armstrong, I'm with Southern Development.

Also on the call is Don Franco, land planner and engineer with Boudreaux Gale Associates.

You saw two previous iterations of this last year.

Quick recap, the first time we presented it to you, we proposed 160 homes or roughly two dwellings per acre in an R4 zoning district.

The second time we reduced the density to 130 homes or 1.6 dwellings per acre, still proposing an R4 district.

This time we've reduced the density by another 50 homes

down to one dwelling per acre.

And this time we're requesting an R1 zoning district, not R4.

The major objections to developing this parcel have been density, traffic, and the road connection to Running Deer Drive has been a sticking point with neighbors as well.

It's very clear that Glenwell residents are opposed to anything that generates additional traffic on Route 250.

That is acknowledged, but major improvements to Route 250 at I-64 are under construction as we speak.

And both VDOT and the county traffic planner determined and stated in your staff report that the traffic impacts from this revised lower density proposal would be minimal.

We also understand that some residents of Running Deer don't want a road connection to Running Deer Drive.

We initially proposed that connection as an emergency access only, but both VDOT and Albemarle are requiring that road connection.

It's shown on the village of Ariana master plan that Megan just showed you.

And our connection point is exactly where it's shown on that master plan.

So we're doing that as a full road connection because that's what will be required here and what was intended in the master plan.

In this revision, we've pulled homes even further away from running deer drives in the last couple of iterations.

Our closest new homes would be more than 300 feet from running deer drive with woods in between.

Only required road connection touches running deer.

Regarding density, we've changed our request from R4

to R1, and R1 is the lowest density conventional zoning district that Albemarle has.

We've offered a density cap in the proffers so that bonus density cannot be requested.

And we are at one dwelling per acre.

And unfortunately, such low density precludes the financial feasibility of some things like proffered affordable housing.

Higher density is the best path toward that goal.

And we've had to choose low density over the financial benefits that higher density can confer on those other goals.

We don't like that decision, but it is what is feasible when we're left with the density we're talking about here, which is what adjacent neighbors have strongly demanded.

Breezy Hills within Albemarle's designated growth area, you know that.

This is where we want our development to occur at only one dwelling per acre.

I have some serious hesitations that this proposal is underutilizing our designated growth areas.

And that's to the eventual detriment of our rural areas.

That's my opinion.

But this commission has said before that it thinks two dwellings per acre or even 1.6 dwellings per acre is too much for this particular site.

So we are back with this R1 proposal.

If I can share my screen briefly here.

Megan showed you this.

It's a detailed Area B of the Village-Rivanna Master Plan.

There are several places in the Master Plan indicating that up to two dwellings per acre are desired in Area B. There is one place in the Master Plan indicating that the density in this area should be one dwelling per acre, and that is what is on your screen now.

Nowhere in the master plan mentions less than one dwelling per acre.

So the entirety of area B is highlighted here and Megan did an even better highlighting job than this does because she overlaid Breezy Hill in it.

But area B that's highlighted here includes the sensitive environmental areas that we're preserving and it is a total of 115 acres gross area.

The master plan future land use map says 115 dwellings

in 115 acres.

That's highlighted there.

That is one unit per acre.

Gross, not net.

It's a very clear description of what is expected in Area B. We are 80 of those proposed here in a portion of Area B. In this revised application, we're down to that one dwelling.

Though we philosophically

disagree that portions of Albemarle's development areas should be developed in such low densities.

We're attempting to comply with what we've heard loudly from others and from you and respect that.

And so we have come back to this lower density proposal.

It's our one, and that is what is before you tonight.

So thank you very much for your time.

I'm here for questions at any point.

Thank you very much.

Other questions for the applicant?

Thank you for the explanation, Mr. Armstrong.

Just curious, if you could share, what is that sweet spot in terms of density and the ability of the board to provide affordable housing units?

What is that sweet spot?

I feel like the last time we saw it, the pendulum, and I was on this end of the pendulum.

I guess there's a general answer and a more specific answer to your question.

The general answer is

Generally, the higher the density on a piece of land, the more community benefits can be financed through the revenues from that development.

That's a very general statement.

It's not necessarily true because land costs and other things like that can very much complicate that picture.

In this particular instance, we found a sweet spot at 130 units of density.

where we thought the impacts on the surrounding area were fairly minimal and could be mitigated through things like an affordable housing profit could be financed with 130 units of density.

But the community was really focused on density as a primary concern for this particular property.

And it was very clear

In your meeting and other conversations we were having, the community still thought that 130 was too many and that one per acre was the absolute max that they would be interested in.

And just one final question.

Thank you for that answer.

That's the one, plot B. We don't own the parcels behind Breezeo, which are in Area B. That's off of Hearms Lane.

I don't know the exact acreage of that, but it's probably 25 or 30 acres.

So we have no intentions on that.

There are some other parcels that are on the northwest side of Area B that we also don't own, similar situation.

And then we own two parcels that we had proposed as part of this project on the east side of Area B. They were in a previous application to be developed.

We do not propose to rezone them here.

Those remain

Rural Area Zoning, and I believe right now it's two lots.

One has a house on it already that is occupied.

So the other lot could conceivably be built on at some point, but we don't plan to up zone that at any time.

Corey, you good at the moment?

Okay.

Anyone else before Mr. Armstrong?

Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.

So we'll, we'll come back, but just before we go to it.

That's right.

I just wanted to clear that up.

Okay, so hearing no other comments for him, and you know you'll have a chance to sort of wind things up when we come back, but I'm going to open it for public hearing and go forward from there.

Yes, at this time I have one person pre-signed up.

That's Neil Means.

I'm going to unmute him and give him

The opportunity to speak, if there's anyone else that would like to speak on this matter, please raise your hand so you can get in the queue that you lined up to go in the order that your hand is raised.

I'm Neil Means, and my address is Keswick, Virginia.

I live in the village of Rivanna.

I've been a resident of the village of Rivanna since before it was a village.

I've been involved in the planning process since the beginning, including the creation of the master plan.

And I served on the community advisory committee for a number of years, and I'm currently a member again.

I urge you to recommend denial of Breezy Hill.

It does not conform to the master plan.

In 1989, Albemarle County created the village of Rivanna Saltman area over the objections of local residents.

One of our major concerns was traffic.

The county proposed

County promised us adequate roads to Charlottesville.

Providing transportation infrastructure was one of the original justifications for the whole strategy of steering growth into development areas.

The definition of a village in the comprehensive plan includes roads with adequate capacity between the village and the urban core.

It says employment centers are not anticipated in the village and villages are not expected to operate independently.

The village of Rivanna is totally dependent on Route 250.

The county approved all the development in the village, that is Glenmore, its expansions and Rivanna Village, while not permitting us to do a master plan and while promising us adequate roads.

Then finally, they did do the master planning during which they showed us the East Albemarle sub-area study by VDOT and Albemarle County based on 2005 data, which shows Route 250 was under capacity before Rivanna Village and Glenmore's expansions were approved.

That study by VDOT and the county

recommends widening route 250 to four lanes between the village and the I-64 Shadwell interchange in order to provide adequate roads.

So that requirement was included in the master plan.

The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed it, once again promising the adequate roads already in the comprehensive plan and the development area policy.

Breezy Hill is the first development application under the master plan.

It does not meet the master plan criteria.

If the county approves it, it will be saying to its citizens that the master planning process is a sham, the comprehensive plan is a sham, and the development area policy is a failure.

Please recommend denial of Breezy Hill.

Thank you, Mr. Means.

Is there anyone else at this time that would like to speak?

Please raise your hand.

We will give it another minute.

If there's anybody that would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

Thank you, Madam.

So we're closing the public hearing.

And Mr. Armstrong, if you'd like to come back to us.

And if you'd like to give us a bit more information, if not, we appreciate it.

I will address one thing Mr. Means said very briefly.

He's absolutely correct that the master plan lists

Four-laning of 250 from Glenmore to I-64, which is about three miles, as a major priority.

I don't think I have to say that that is not something that we can do.

That is a major, major regional VDOT project if it ever comes to pass.

and VDOT has no plans for that and the county has no plans for that.

So if that is a primary reason that new development in this development area should be denied, then that is essentially a moratorium on any rezonings in this growth area.

I don't accept that premise, I think the master plan

and that one.

But that's my only comment on that.

Thank you so much for being so we will turn it on to ourselves.

Corey, you had a question for counsel.

So that policy would be, again, a factor unfavorable rather than necessarily determinative.

Is that okay?

I want to start off by just correcting some statements that have been made this evening.

All members of the Planning Commission have received communications from residents, not only from Glenmore, but also from Breezy Hill.

And for the previous application, with 130 units, and the application before that, 160 units, received communications from residents outside of the village of Rivanna, residents of Keswick in general.

and therefore it is not an accurate statement that Glenmore residents oppose this application solely because of traffic.

Just today you received members of the Planning Commission, all of us received communication from the former president of the Glenmore Community Association, Deborah Conway, indicating her concern about the school impacts of this project.

And numerous letters have come in expressing concern as Neil Means eloquently stated and accurately

historically accurately presented the concern about the master plan.

Now, the second point I wanna make is in nine and a half years of service in this county, I keep hearing the remark of Chicken Little, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

And by that, I mean, what's happening is there's going to be a sudden rush

of houses being constructed in the rural area if we don't just pack everybody in like sardines in the development area.

Master plans notwithstanding, because if we don't do that, there's going to be substantial pressure in the rural area.

I submit exhibit A of just this quarter's building permits

183 building permits were issued for 222 dwelling units and 11.5% of them were actually in the rural area.

Once again, the overwhelming preponderance of building permits in this county is following the outline of the comprehensive plan that's occurring in the development area.

Breezy Hill, whether one approves this this evening or submits that it should be rejected because of several factors that I'll bring up, it's not going to change this equation.

You can look at it historically, it comes in right around 12 to 8 percent.

in terms of development in the rural area.

So as Bill Clinton used to say, that dog don't hunt in terms of putting the flag up the flagpole and saying, if you don't approve this planning commission, it's going to mean that there's going to be more rural subdivision development.

Now, I do want to talk a second about Area B. And in the master plan,

which as Neil pointed out this evening was really developed around 2008, which for government, that's almost like ancient history.

I think the Romans were actually looking at that plan in 2008.

And at that point, we hadn't really had an educated discussion as a community about the distinction between gross

density and net density.

But I can say this unequivocally, having served as a member of the Board of Supervisors with an application that arose out on 250 West in the community of Adelaide, at that point, the board very clearly asked for clarification

from the planning staff because it was our understanding that we should take the overall number of acres that were proposed for development and subtract from that the acreage that was either wetlands, that was steep slopes, and

therefore come up with a net density.

Now, if you apply net density here, you do the math.

Let the numbers be determinative.

75.6 acres minus 22.1 acres, which is going to be set asides for steep slopes or because of wetland.

You come up there, you get there for 53.5 acres.

And if you divide that into 80, you don't come up with 1.4, you come up with 1.4953.

My fellow colleagues, this is an R1 zoning.

This is an R2 zoning.

This is R1.5 zoning.

Funny thing, I don't think we've ever had a discussion about R1.5 zoning.

So regardless of what the master plan had actually posited as one development unit per acre,

The operating philosophy of the county over the course of at least the last four years, if not longer than that, has been that we operate with net density.

The statement was made, the county doesn't have plans for widening of 250.

When I joined the board in our initial discussion about improvements on the 250 corridor, that project lay at around project number 63.

And I'm happy to say after there was an invitation extended to Kevin,

and Kevin came out for a well attended meeting at East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company about four years ago.

As a result of that, where he got better understanding of some of the nuances

involved with the transportation challenges on the 250 corridor.

He then, I think, changed that project from about number 63 and it went down around project number 32.

Now, maybe that doesn't mean a lot to some people, but when I see an improvement of 30

places, then that indicates that the county does have plans down the line.

And obviously, we have a lot of demand for road improvements in our community.

But this project is not something that's off the county's radar, as a developer would like to have us believe.

So based on this,

I can't come to any other conclusion based on once again a staff report that cites a whole series of negative factors.

Had we seen now in this application one unit per acre based on net density and provision for public transit as he once offered to provide transit to

Pantops with public housing included.

because without transit, there's no reasonable basis to put public housing all the way on the eastern end of the county.

But if there is transit offered and there is public housing, that would be workable.

But I just do not see in this application at this time a serious proposal consistent with the master plan that is worthy of our support.

And thank you for indulging me as I went through all these points.

Yes, I was, I just wanted to react to Commissioner Clayborne's comment about affordable housing.

I had the same concern initially, but as I thought about it, the master plan calling for

one acre per dwelling unit at this location shows me that clearly the county did not intend for this site to support affordable housing.

And we can debate whether that was a good idea or not, but it seems like there's just at that density, no one intended for that to happen there.

I would say though that I not sure

and I may be misinterpreting this, but Commissioner Randolph's comments about means.

I'm not sure that even at a net density of 1.4953 units per acre is overly dense either.

And we have the same problem that we have had all along in traffic planning, which is that

It's difficult to get projects to become a priority until we show that the road is significantly failing.

and yes, the residents believe that this road is failing, that 250 is failing at the traffic backups that are occurring there and I'm sure I agree with that.

But it's always a catch-22 the way traffic planning is done in Virginia.

So I don't know what it would take to get this road to actually be four-lane except for adding more density along the corridor.

Yeah, I have kind of similar, I've heard a couple of things tonight and I'm trying to untangle some of the arguments of like, this is not consistent with, this project is not consistent with the village of Urbana master plan.

It doesn't conform to the neighborhood model density.

plans, but at the same time, when I read the section on neighborhood model density from the zoning, it says that NMD is intended to provide for compact mixed use development with an urban scale massing density and infrastructure configuration that integrates diverse uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive way.

So I'm left a little bit struggling to say, are we, you know, we're applying a concept to this development to be NMD.

but yet we don't want, you know, we want affordable housing, we want all these things, but we don't want density, but we don't want density.

So I feel like there's a, I'm struggling trying to understand how to evaluate it a little bit.

Not, you know, and so let me, let me rephrase, that's one concept of this, how we, is it consistent with the village or Havana?

The traffic and all that is a separate, you know, is related, but it is a separate entity.

And so when I'm looking at this,

application and I look at what the developer is trying to bring and work within, I'm trying to understand as we, our responsibility as a planning commission to try to provide clarity and guidance on what the intent is and what are we trying to do with this area of the village of Rivanna and what is the step down from the city, the village center and the density to rule and what is the appropriate phasing.

I'll just say that, you know, as I stand now, I agree with Commissioner Firehock.

I don't think the county, I don't know that affordability is a place.

I don't know where transit is in here at these densities.

I don't see affordable.

And so I'm left feeling that, you know, I think we need to have a discussion or understanding about like, what is the intent for this area, Breezy Hill?

And I'm not debating the,

you know, the precedent we've set against Groes and Net as of today.

But I also register, as Commissioner Proctor said, as that's not a very high density as we transition to the rural area.

And so I would just like to get to a point where, as I say now, I don't know that I'm leaning towards, you know, supporting this application.

But I do think

Some of the factors unfavorable need to be reconsidered or clarified when it relates to the Naval Earth Model density, the cul-de-sac, you know, some of those concepts that are to be considered.

And I welcome any, you know, helping the staff walk me through some of those factors and some of them are kind of joined together to say, where's the tipping line?

You know, how many do you have to be unfavorable for?

You're unfavorable to the neighbor of model density.

And how do you say ones apply and don't apply given the individual parcel?

So that was a rambling kind of response.

Can I respond?

I think it is a little confusing because we do have the neighborhood model principles which are discussed within the comprehensive plan that talk about pedestrian orientation and those 12 principles and then

I think the portion that you were reading is the neighborhood model district, and those are two distinct different things.

While the neighborhood model zoning district, which this development is not proposing to be, would follow the neighborhood model principles, all developments in proposals in the development areas

are evaluated against the neighborhood model principles in the comprehensive plan.

So we go through those principles, and I've kind of identified those ones that haven't been completely addressed.

Some of them are not applicable.

Some of them, you know, depending on the type of development and what in coordination with what zoning district they're going to,

as I did the analysis under the R1, the intents and purposes relate back to the neighborhood model principles, but the principles are separate and apart from the district.

I don't know if that helps.

So in any development area proposal, staff will be evaluating against those 12 principles, no matter if the recommendation of the master plan is a lower density

development such as this.

If you recall, as one example, if you recall the previous application when it first came in was requesting modifications of street planting strips, sidewalk, curb and gutter, which is part of the neighborhood model principles.

And we were recommending denial of those.

Right.

Yeah, I apologize for confusing.

Yes, it is helpful.

And, and I, so referring to the model principles, I see there's a few one mixture housing affordability has not been met.

I'm struck, you know, our one zoning doesn't allow for restor houses.

And so then I'm only left to understand that it's because the affordable housing is not provided is why it doesn't meet the principle there.

That's correct.

It was that one.

Yeah, I was going down the line.

I'm just going down the line.

So then interconnected streets and transportation networks.

And so that's one of the things that it says has not been met.

It's listed as cul-de-sacs as being one of the things.

The future connection to the West is, I guess, not clear enough.

I guess that's the over Carroll Creek areas.

Am I understanding that correctly?

The future connection to the West?

And then the third one is the development has only one vehicle connection to 250, and then the Running Deer is supportive.

So I guess that is the primary reason the cul-de-sacs that has not been met or is that it's, I mean, I'm looking at these three, but when I look at the plans, I see that there's future connections and interconnection between the village of Rivanna and Running Deer, whether they want it or not.

That's a different thing.

So is it really just the cul-de-sacs that are better discouraged than the neighborhood model principles?

It's the cul-de-sacs and also the length of the streets.

There's opportunity that I could see there to provide other interconnectivity in between those.

The previous application had

paths that kind of had that pedestrian access that broke up the blocks of houses as an example.

Got it.

Right, they said it would be picnic tables and grills which I would anticipate children being included in this type of development and so I think an active place base would be appropriate.

I understand that there are large lots, people might have their own play structures, but... And then I think... And so then the last one I see is relegated parking and I'm trying to, I guess that says that it's front loaded.

Lots are expected for this development.

So this principle isn't in that.

Well, you could have, you know, in large lot subdivisions like this, you could have the, you often see the garage turn to the side.

So the garage isn't facing the street.

And we would consider that kind of relegated when you pull into the side,

So the driveway front motor road but then it'd be a side load garage.

Right or a you know a

And sorry, I appreciate the commission's time and humoring me on these questions of application.

I just wanted to understand as we were judging this plan, how it matches against what the vision is for the village of Rivanna and for this park.

Thanks.

Actually, I think that this was a helpful discussion that we just had.

Thank you, Megan.

I think there's another piece of this that warrants discussion, and that is the connection to running deer.

And I wonder if, Megan, you and the

our VDOT representative could speak to that.

And I'll just preface it by saying with my long-term tenure in this county, it seems to me that as I looked through each of the times that we've had this before as the comments from the public, which are very important to me, they sort of fell into two categories and that were

the residents in Glenmore and the residents in the more traditional areas, many of which predate the 1980s agreement that sort of led us to our rural and development areas approach to the county.

So as I look at the concerns of the folks in the more traditional areas, and there's some other than running deer that were expressed in the first one as well,

It was more about the impact directly on them, some of which has been dealt with by the setback that Mr. Armstrong speaks to.

And he spoke to his concern about the connection through that was a requirement from the county and from the state.

So I wonder if you could speak to that, because if that is a no changer, then it seems to me that we have these two communities

coming at this from very different approaches that are strongly against this.

But that if the connection to running deer could be removed, I mean, yes, then I think it might, and again, we'd have to hear from the public, but they've had that opportunity at the supervisor's meeting to do that, whether this assuages their major concerns with this project now that there's more of a setback presented.

again by Mr. Armstrong.

Sure, I'll start from the county's perspective.

As I stated in the staff report, our comprehensive plan and our policies and even our subdivision ordinance recommends interconnectivity, especially when there's

a connection to a public street.

So that is where staff is coming from for recommending the connection in addition to the master plan showing a connection in that location.

But we do have a comprehensive plan strategy that specifically talks about interconnectivity.

Hello, my name is Adam Moore.

I'm the assistant resident engineer for the Charlottesville residency.

And the connection to Running Deer would be required here for any plan rezoning by right or otherwise proposing a public street network be added to the state system for maintenance.

The county essentially requires public roads for new subdivisions.

Sometimes they entertain waivers for private streets

If the roads are public, then the network design must meet the SSAR requirements, the secondary system requirements.

One of those requirements is connectivity, requiring at least two connections in different directions, meaning not two connections on the same road, and that connections to existing public roads take precedence over stub outs or planned future connections.

Thank you.

Again, I think this is important for the public, for the record, to make clear why the applicant has said that he would be willing to pull it back, or I believe I understood that from Mr. Armstrong, that he would consider that and

the framework that we are all operating within based on staff, two staffs approach.

And Adam, don't go away.

So let me just sort of extend backwards and then we'll go to Rick right quick.

So you mentioned the stub out.

So the stub out that's on page four of that, that indicates a potential crossing of Carroll Creek, which would connect up, which would connect west on that.

If it was infeasible to connect to Running Deer, then it is possible or likely that that connection would suffice if it were made all the way to the property line.

But because the connection is right there to be made,

And so just to push one in and I'll release also to stop on this.

It would still need to be there.

I was actually wanting to follow up on Daniel's point and to clarify about that potential crossing of Carroll Creek.

If I know this is asking a lot, but if you look at page two of the April 23rd 19 rezoning application for Breezy Hill.

on page two, it shows TMP 94-8A, which is part of the Breezy Hill application.

It shows where there is to be a crossing of Carroll Creek.

It is, by the way, at the narrowest section of Carroll Creek running adjacent to Breezy Hill and actually

It's the narrowest section running all the way down into Glenmore.

However, because it's the narrowest section, it's shown coming in to Tax Map property 80-56,

which is owned by Juliano Gordon and Julianne Jackson.

And it shows that path, that road, bikeway, whatever it is, it's not really identified in the application what this is to be.

It shows it coming in literally on their back doorstep which is something that's not gonna be realistic.

But my point is that

Carol Crete poses a real challenge to be crossed here and there is nothing in this application by this applicant to help pay for any of the future cost of an additional connectivity to the West.

Now,

Beyond the Juliano Gordon and Julian Jackson property lies property, tax map property 80-568, which is owned by the gentleman who spoke to the planning commission this evening.

And he has no intention of selling that property.

So

But the point is that there is no proposal here for any money to be set aside to help the county in the future.

When, if and when in 20 years, 50 years, I don't know when, if that property beyond to the west of Cow Creek is developed, there's no provision.

for any set aside, any proffer, any funds to help cover the expense of that.

Just wanted to bring that to your attention.

And it doesn't specify whether it's a pedestrian crossing, a bike path, or whether it's to be a vehicular path.

Is there anyone else?

So I will share that my main, there's a couple of things that I'm sort of uncomfortable with, and I don't know how to present these, but the first thing is, I think it's sort of, it was when the development area was drawn, I think it was, it would have been helpful if the entire community that sits on

So they remained in the rural part of the community.

Because I think what we have happening here is I think we have a master plan that's asking, that's trying to sort of mesh together and mash together two different philosophies of housing.

And I don't know how to get around that.

That's been something that got done in a previous

Planning Commissioner and our supervisors decided with that, but that's something that I've wrestled with.

How do you, in fact, sit this kind of development next to this kind of community realizing that

I struggle with this kind of road system.

I struggle with a road system where there's

One cul-de-sac, two cul-de-sacs and the people in the front of the property are never going to have any sort of real opportunity to engage with the people in the back of the property because there's no sense of community there.

There's no sense of interconnectedness there and I think for me that's the piece that has talked about interconnected streets in the transportation network.

So I'll set the transportation network aside but the interconnected streets in a place that's being built and even if it does come down to

or lesser density, this really doesn't feel like a community to me.

Now, that's not our role as I understand that as planning commissioners to want to create community.

But it is my role, I think, to sort of say, is this, should we or should I

support a change when this feels as if it's not meeting some of the principles which when we talk about neighborhoods and so for me the fact that this is a key part of what does neighborhood mean and the way that it's set up on on this particular plan doesn't feel as if to me we're creating the neighborhood.

Now I do believe we're creating a bunch of

One acre lots and they're going to have reasonable houses on them, but I don't necessarily know that we're creating a community and that's a big thing.

You've heard me speak about that before and you've heard me and you'll always hear me speak about that.

The other piece is that, while I understand, I'm going to assume that the two green spaces are the green spaces that are being left on

on the project that runs Pocket Park and I agreed when I saw the whole idea there was going to be some picnic tables and some grills there.

That felt sort of odd to me, given that we're sitting on one acre lots and why wouldn't I expect that there would be

all the various grills that one could possibly have out there and all the various picnic tables that one could possibly have in the backyards of all these houses and so I was having a hard time understanding why that would become the placement of just those few items would create a gathering place for all these people that didn't work for me so that was another why I'm backing away from saying yes on this and then

And then the other piece that I, and so that's the Parks and Recreation piece of it.

And while we didn't see it, or at least I didn't see it on the cover shoot when I brought my magnifying glass out.

You know, it would be really nice, and this is just for Megan, for Charles, it would be really helpful.

And I know there's a bit here.

of one piece of paper, because it's hard to read that, particularly when you've got eyes that use bifuncles.

And it's just hard to sort of keep all that, to keep it in one place.

When I looked at it and I was trying to sort of get a sense of, so why can't there be a different housing types out there?

Why on one acres do we always have to have one different, the same kind of housing types?

Why couldn't you have one acres, two acres together

and come up with townhouses.

have a shared or have a different kind.

We've seen some interesting things where the houses were perhaps a little bit different together or they were together and they had side yards as opposed to front yards.

All I'm saying is that I don't believe that the natural way that we do one acre is to stick a house in the middle of it or stick a house in the back of it and say there we've got a house per acre.

I think there's some different ways that you can site houses on that size property that in fact you could have different types of houses out there, a mixture of housing types up there.

and so I was hoping to see that.

I didn't see that and so that's another.

So those three things have pushed me to a place where I would have expected to see a bit more variety and a better use of the pocket park and certainly a group of houses that

don't run all the way back to a cul-de-sac and then don't come to the middle and turn right to a cul-de-sac.

I would have expected to see something that said that this is a place that's inviting people to come and live and make this their new homes for some x amount of time.

And so I'm feeling I'm in a place I guess where I would not be able to support as I see it on these particular pieces of property.

I think, Mr. Chair, what you were thinking of is Eco-Village, which this Planning Commission approved, where very much kind of a European model of trying to

utilize as a little acreage for the actual housing and leave the rest as open space.

Thank you for that for encouraging that memory.

So I've laid that out.

Any other comments?

Daniel.

Just to clarify some of the questions for our comments, I agree with the statements that you made.

I think having more interconnectivity without the cul-de-sacs would be possible on this property

be a little bit more consistent in the neighborhood model principles as we went through in detail.

However, I don't think as all of the criteria laid out in the neighborhood model principles are applicable to this development or should perhaps this development be applied to this development given the

you know, the structure and the conflicting nature of the different plans and activities led up to this.

I'll say that the density, just, you know, the density in this, in and around this one with a more imaginative plan that does meet model, I think is, in my opinion, the right approach for this area.

I don't think it, you know, it's not our floor, but I don't have

as much of an issue with the 80 or the 50.

We've already discussed the running deer connection that is required.

And I think the only outstanding piece that we've already discussed in previous is the larger transportation and the language inserted into the village plan or village of Rivanna master plan around the improvements required.

I don't know that we've come to the last my recollection of that when

The transportation I do is that several of those things may not be possible.

I don't remember exactly the nature of those, but it does make me wonder, you know, are we I just want to be really clear that we give guidance to this is like what might be possible or is this and not and be clear with regards to the stance on it, you know, to some degree they provide guidance to the applicant on

what might be possible and inconsistent with the planning as opposed to, you know, continue to send it back and do different iterations of this.

So I think the only other thing that we didn't really address was the education piece.

My recollection from that, from the

Staff report was that the middle school and high school was within capacity but the elementary school would be over capacity.

Karen.

Yes, I just wanted to reflect briefly, Mr. Chair, on your comments regarding neighborhood connectivity.

I realize that at a certain point, the developer is trying to get enough units in here to make this

a viable project economically.

And they've dropped and dropped the density.

But I do think that if looking at this site, it seems like you could provide a number of pedestrian corridors between those long, long blocks of cul-de-sacs.

And then also a trail network through the buffer potentially.

I don't know how steep it is right there.

But there seems like, you could actually create

a very inviting walkable community where you would be able to traverse and visit your friends through what we used to use in the city as green alleys, a series of those types of things.

So I know this will go to the board of supervisors regardless of our decision tonight.

So, I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

It was just getting some clarity on the comment or in the indication of staff report that the elementary school would be over capacity and just trying to get some clarity.

Was that going to be over capacity in a buy-write or was it over capacity?

So I would probably need to go back to schools because I rely on schools to provide that information.

And I apologize, I didn't get a clear answer about whether or not it would happen with the buy-write scenario or this rezoning.

And I know that they're looking at capacity now at Stone Robinson.

And if I might, I can add to it.

So we know one thing that when by time the projects are awarded, if it goes away, it gets out of ground.

The whole school system could change again.

So, you know, we're looking at numbers now they're being projected now without some knowledge about what the various pieces that are coming online in the next two to three years might be.

I'll just leave it there.

Also, there's been some conversations I may have mentioned to you that actually our census was down by a significant amount across the system.

And so what's our census going to be like in two to three years?

So some of this is still in flux, is still in significant flux because of the season we've sat in.

Karen.

I'm just going to say something a little controversial, which is that are we also expecting that people who buy homes on one acre lots in this area will all go to public school?

Because I think that these houses are going to be expensive.

And I don't know that everyone

Tim?

I think that Daniel has challenged us to be more specific in this third round.

And I'm not sure that I'm prepared to go there.

And Megan,

talked about places that she would have to go to to get that.

But we really, we all know what the issues are.

And we know what the vast majority of the public comment has been about, which is congestion and traffic.

And so there's sort of two forces that are going here.

And one is

What is an ideal density and development form for this parcel that's on the edge of the development area?

And second, if that is agreed upon, will that number of units still be too high for the impacts that it will have on

the existing conditions.

And I don't think any of us have an answer for that.

And I think the applicant has tried valiantly to come back with different alternatives and different shots at this.

And I really feel Daniel's pain on this.

And I don't have an answer.

Anyone else?

I have

prepared some motions.

I do, but I also saw our council move up into the frame.

Okay.

He was just getting comfortable.

Okay.

I saw him move forward.

I was just going to suggest that Mrs. Adosta put the suggested motions on the screen.

Look how the two of you just worked in tandem.

Thank you.

Chair, I'm not hearing numbers.

that provide confidence to me to make a recommendation for denial, but I'll go ahead and move denial of ZMA 2021-004 Breezy Hill for the reasons stated in the staff report and the reasons stated by the Planning Commission this evening.

Is there a second?

I can't see a second.

I can't see.

Oh, there's a Tim.

Is there a second?

Are you seconding Tim?

So seconded by Tim.

Is there further discussion?

Seeing no one, if you do want to discuss, take yourself off mute and speak because you're in that funny little update.

You're in the funny little thing.

So the motion has been moved by Rick and seconded by Tim.

Is there further discussion?

Just a clarification, that discussion.

As presented, the motion is for the following factors as listed in this for all unfavorable.

So there's five that I see here.

Correct.

That's the motion before us to deny based on that.

But also remember there's the other legal, but also based on the conversation by us this evening too.

So it's not just

since that, in addition to the conversation we've had tonight as a group.

Yes.

Ms.

I feel really stupid here.

Okay, I just understand.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, so it's passed.

Mr. Chair, if I could clarify, please.

My understanding is that a no vote on a motion to recommend denial means that the denial is rejected, that the planning commission rejected denial.

Okay, so we're back at zero.

Correct.

I just lost you.

Go for it.

Do I have another motion?

I can't see people.

Okay, I'll move to recommend approval of ZMA 2021-004 Breezy Hill with conditions recommended in the staff report.

Nope, that's it.

Does Mr. Clayborne wish to state any reasons for recommending approval?

So, Mr. Kausler, in the report, so it had favorable factors and unfavorable.

which has been modified.

Daniel, I saw your hand go up.

It was a question on the possibility or process.

I think we did it to like a friendly amendment or something to add some of the conditions from the conversation around the neighborhood model principles and the connective streets are the, some of the things that as Firehock had mentioned, as far as, you know, an unfavorable says it doesn't meet a number of them,

applicable neighborhood model principles.

I know in the past, sometimes the staff has made recommendations for how to address some of those issues.

And I don't know what would be a possibility for, is that just captured in the conversation or do we need something more formal in the adjustment to passing the, you know, making the motion?

So if,

If Corey was willing to have a friendly amendment so we can keep moving on, the whole idea about connectivity, the whole idea about how to use the green space, the whole idea, that sort of discussion around the Parks and Recreation Amenity space, the conversation about those items would be something which could be included in his motion, if he were so willing to do so, as I'm looking at.

I didn't know if you were typing or if you heard my recommendation that if we were including in the recommendation to approve sort of conditions around connectivity and conditions around the amenity space and conditions about those things, which we did talk about things in way too,

To the extent that the commission wants to make additional conditions, it should be specific on those.

Commissioners can suggest conditions to the other.

If Mr. Clayborne wishes to amend his original motion to include those conditions, that's up to Mr. Clayborne as the original mover.

I'm fine with that, I think I'm struggling with how to make it concise, if you will, right?

So we talked about a lot of stuff.

Okay, so I guess two that we discussed,

and there may be more but to add to this motion that the applicant include defined and improved amenity space to include recreational facilities and also that the site plan be amended to include a trail network through the buffer and to connect

the cul-de-sac streets through a pedestrian connection, thus allowing a comprehensive trail network throughout the development.

Very good.

Tim.

I wonder if we could see the favorable and unfavorable list to just make sure that we've ticked off each thing, because we're working off of that.

Yes.

I was typing up Ms.

Firehock's revisions to the condition.

So if we also want to take a look at that, we can do that.

So here are the factors favorable.

Does everyone want to unmute yourselves?

Everyone all right to go?

If you don't want to move, just unmute yourself for now.

And so this is the piece where there was a conversation about.

Number five.

Right.

And so I... Here are the motions again.

Okay.

And the first two that can...

number these instead of bullet points.

The first two were included in the staff report.

Okay.

So I'm still having, as much as I have been a proponent for connectivity,

I still feel that running deer neighborhood in particular is getting the short end of the stick on this.

And I would like to not see the full vehicular connection there, even though we've been told that it's difficult, but we were also heard from Adam that there's this, I forget the term,

of how you could stop it just shy and you could have the pedestrian connection.

And one hope would be that these two neighborhoods would over time see the benefit of the vehicular connection that they don't see now because they see an infringement on their traditional neighborhood.

That needs to be pointed out, predates the agreement in the county that led to the development areas separate from the rural areas.

I think that there is a rural area protection that needs to somehow be built into this.

How could we do this?

Karen.

I had asked, yes.

I asked staff before this meeting, Charles Rapp, particularly, not you, Megan,

if it would be possible to do something such as have bollards that could be taken down in the need to provide emergency services, but that it would not be a vehicular connection.

And my understanding was that bollards would not be acceptable, that it needed to be a full on road connection.

And I don't see why.

If you buy a lot in this development all the way in the back,

and you could be acknowledging that you have a long drive to get out to 250.

But in case of emergency, there would be an additional exit that could easily be opened by rescue crews or fire to let people out, say if a storm came and blocked the other entrances.

So I guess I just wanna push again on that option as I've seen that done in other places.

As you mentioned, I have seen that done before.

I have not seen that done on VDOT-maintained roads.

I've seen that done in city environments where they maintain their own roads, so I would defer to Adam Moore as to what might be acceptable

And Adam, what was the S system that you said?

What was the name of that?

SSAR.

Mr. Chair, could I also point out that the county's own subdivision ordinance, specifically section 14-409B of the county subdivision ordinance requires that all public streets within a subdivision be extended and constructed to property lines

to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development.

And so the county's own subdivision ordinance requires that now.

Well, I realize that we're trying to modernize our thinking both in the county and in the Commonwealth.

However, I have been all over the world where there are retractable bollards.

It would be an expense to the developer, but retractable bollards that are key to the fire departments and the safety communities and they can push a button and not a physical button, an electronic button on their phones and do it.

Thanks.

So I'm assuming that was part of the discussion.

We needed to get the revised motion made.

And then second, I assume it's still the modifications.

OK.

And Daniel, I saw that you were looking to second that.

Okay, and then we've had a series of discussions about running deer and, folks, I don't know how you, hearing what you're saying, and I think that's a piece of information that we might need to push to our supervisors, but basically we've got our own ordinances and we've got the Commonwealth that says that this is a public street, which is something that we want.

that it needs to have connectivity there and how that gets worked out.

I'm not sure how this body reckons or doesn't reconcile those two pieces, the ordinance, the subdivision ordinance, and then the commonwealth's ability to accept a street into its public network.

I think that we have a commitment to our rural areas.

And while this is really complex for us, because it is in the development area right on the edge of the rural area, this is an area that has traditionally been rural.

And it is on that edge.

Karen.

Oh, I was just.

I was just wondering if it could be a, I know we're beating this to death, but I'm wondering if it could be a private street.

It has to be two public road VDOT approved entrances.

Is that true?

Or could one be a private street if its only purpose is emergency?

And then it could have ballards.

I don't know whether or not.

OK.

So we have a motion before us.

It's been properly seconded, and there's been discussion.

Are there additional points to be discussed here?

Yes.

Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

Firehock?

Yes Mr. Randolph?

No Mr. Bivins?

We have a tie vote.

I'm sorry.

Sure.

We have a tie vote.

I don't think so.

So the motion carried, but it carried with advice, it carried with counsel, it carried with modification, of which I believe Megan will be able to share the full motion with Mr. Armstrong.

And so we've also, I think we've also done some things in asking our supervisors to give some serious consideration about what does this

particularly in the village of Rivanna, what does the development zone, does it need to be reconsidered?

Does it need to be looked at?

And then the piece that I think that Mr. Keller and Ms.

Firehock were speaking to, how do we sort of engage with the transitions in a way that helps the whole communities in sort of the esprit

and the lifestyle that they've become accustomed to, which is where I think you're going, Tim.

But how do we not impose that kind of radical change on a boundary place?

And that's something that I think we're pushing forward in our narrative to the supervisors.

So Mr. Armstrong, there you are.

Thank you all very much.

One of our committee, Charles, do you have anything from last week?

OK.

Committed reports, please.

Karen?

Nothing.

OK.

So we also, one of the things I'm going to sort of just, since there isn't any community groups when we go to all the new business, this particular project, I think, has a number of elements that when we move into the consideration of the comp plan that Charles said, I think should be smack dab in the middle of that.

So what's the reality?

What's the reality of the traffic situation on all of these projects when in fact,

Sometimes the traffic situation is not going to change for decades, but the projects need to be forward.

How do we in fact balance the fact between emerging developments and existing communities?

How do we sort of do that in a way that works for the characteristics of those two communities?

And then the big one here that I think that Rick pointed out at the very beginning, the sort of settling, formally settling on net versus gross density.

and how do we sort of move forward with that?

What's the way in which we inform applicants to bring projects to us so that there's a realized and an actual clarity and you've got some ideas on that.

I know on how everyone is quite aware of what the bounds of their, the property bounds that they can effectively use for a particular project.

So those are the kinds of things that we've wrestled with for a while.

Karen?

Yes, thank you for bringing up those points.

And I also want to add to that, that as we look at these growth areas and connectivity in the future, that we'd be more mindful

of not dumping the second connections or third or fourth connections necessarily into small rural neighborhoods.

The connection to running Deer Drive was in the master plan.

And I don't think that is, I don't like that plan.

I don't like that idea.

I think Karen said it well.

And I think that we also need to reflect on Daniel's

points earlier.

And I think in Megan taking us through the pieces that we all know, really.

But when we have a project that's trying and comes back to us in three different ways, I think that we staff and commissioners need to have a point at which we can agree what that sweet point is.

And I don't

think that we got there tonight.

But we work towards it, and I think we work towards it well.

And maybe Charles and staff can think about some guidelines, how we might be able to get closer.

Hopefully, we're not going to have so many projects like this that are right on an edge, that create these kinds of issues.

But I am aware that

as there is more development, we may find ourselves facing more of these.

And I think it does also bring up the issue.

I didn't want to muddy the waters with rural PUDs because I think maybe even in our new comprehensive plan and our policy, we may be actually moving away from that.

Maybe that's just me thinking that.

But there seems to have been kind of a

a movement away from that because historically that was the kind of curvilinear cul-de-sac kind of development.

But maybe it can be envisioned as Rick said about the different housing types, I think it was Rick, in these where there would be a great deal of open space.

And so maybe we need to ask the staff to just

take a few minutes and look at that and see how something like that might apply in cases like this.

And if not this, if we're seeing if we do see an uptick in as the

demographic information that we're gaining post COVID, if that continues, then I think we may see more pressures on, across America, developments in the rural areas that are not far from smaller population centers like Charlottesville.

and what forms we envision those taking and what their policies would be for those.

So that's my thoughts after this coming back several times.

I think it was an important series of discussions tonight.

Is there anyone else Rick who doesn't have to have a... Thank you everyone.

Our next meeting is August the 3rd, so we will not see each other next week.

But we'll be back together on August the 3rd.

And if your plans change, please let Charles, Callan, and me know so that we're aware of how many people will have on a particular meeting.

Thank you, counsel, for your advice during this evening.

And we'll see you on the 3rd.

I hate to make this go longer, but I think that there was an important MPO tech meeting today and I wanted to call everybody's attention to it.

You could download the agenda to get the specifics, but we did move on for smart scale projects that would

that were recommended by staff.

There's six in the list.

You can see the ones that were not selected, again, based on staff recommendation.

A lot of discussion about several of these, and that will continue obviously with MPO.

And as you all know, there will be city and county smart scales, and there will be planning district smart scales as well.

So this is kind of the first shot in the next round of the smart scale.

The other thing is that we all discussed the electric vehicles in light of the efforts in the county building parking lot.

And there was a draft report presented on the electric vehicles.

I did not think, and a number of my colleagues did not think it got into the detail or that maybe it was even as current as what is happening and being done

today, but it's a good start, and it's maybe worth a quick perusal by you all.

I would say that one thing that came up from Chuck Proctor that was interesting in an article that he read is that in Indiana, there's an experiment in a section of highway between the research that's being done with Purdue University in conjunction with a German firm and is looking at whether there are ways that one could actually charge cars as they're driving along.

And so then one begins to think about where are we going with this whole infrastructure of electric pumps, if you will, electric charging stations.

It just shows that the technology is moving along so quickly.

Where are we going to be in all of this?

And of course, we keep hearing hydrogen coming back to the floor as a discussion.

There was also a sidebar.

There were a couple of reference pieces that are

going to be of interest, and they will show up in the minutes for this meeting, what Colorado's doing and actually what a group within VDOT is looking at.

And I guess there's been a sidebar study that at least was arguing, and this may be pre-COVID data, that hybrid vehicles seem to have a smaller carbon footprint than electric vehicles.

are in where the electricity for the charge is coming from.

So again, it's all shifting, but you all have asked about the EVs.

Thanks.

All right, folks.