Planning Commission Meeting   9/14/2021

being recorded.

Oh, there we are.

Got it.

I got that we're being recorded.

Thank you for being recorded.

There's Daniel.

There's our council.

There is our illustrious Tim.

And it's 1600.

Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of September the 14th.

That's the six o'clock meeting.

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 www.albemarle.org community county calendar when available.

Yes.

Ms.

Firehock?

Here.

Mr. Bivins?

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Present.

Thank you very much.

So we have, we're all here.

So we have enough to establish quorum.

Are there, I do have just a quick question for counsel.

Counsel, we've now gone past 19.

Should be, can we change that from COVID-19 to something else?

Could you ask in your office, please?

I think the official name is still COVID-19.

Is it really?

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Commissioners, you're seeing the items are one consent item.

Does anyone need to pull that or feel necessary to pull that?

Okay, is there somebody move that we can move this matter, please?

Ten.

Five.

Seconded by Daniel.

Is there any discussion?

The motion is to approve the consent agenda as submitted.

Correct.

Correct.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Thank you very much.

Okay, then we're going to move to our public hearing.

Our first public hearing this evening is SP 2021-11, the Fields School of Charlottesville.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Andy Redelbach, and I'm a senior planner with Albemarle County Planning Division.

And tonight, we're here for a public hearing for the Field School of Charlottesville SP 2021-11.

So first off, just to help orient everybody, here's the location of the subject parcel

TMP 60-68.

It is located on Barracks Road, approximately 400 feet southeast of Coldhurst Drive and about 750 feet northwest of the intersection of Montview Drive with Barracks Road.

The property is 21 acres in size.

It is zoned rural areas and it is also designated as rural areas in the comprehensive plan.

This is just two more maps showing the zoning of the property, rural areas, largely surrounded by other parcels that are also zoned RA.

And then in the extreme southeast, there are a couple parcels in PRD, planned residential development, and R1, residential at one unit per acre.

And then looking at the comprehensive plan, all of the surrounding parcels are also designated for rural areas.

So the purpose of tonight's public hearing is an amendment to an existing special use permit, SB 2019-12, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors last summer, July 1, 2020.

And that was actually also an amendment to an earlier special use permit.

And so last summer's special use permit was to change the boundaries that the special use permit, the boundaries of the parcel that the special use permit applied to in the location of a tree buffer.

And then the original special use permit that was approved for this private

2015-24, and it was approved back in March of 2017.

And I also have there the section of the code where it states that a special use permit is required for private school within the rural area zoning district.

So the applicant's request is to eliminate condition number nine that is in the existing special use permit.

And the language of that condition is seen there at the bottom of the screen.

If the construction of the private school for which the special use permit is issued is not commenced by February the 28th of 2022, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted there under shall thereupon terminate.

So the applicant is requesting that that condition be eliminated to allow for additional time for the construction of the private school use to commence since the end of February of 2022 is about less than six months away.

And then there is another small part of the request, and that is minor changes to the concept plan that was approved.

This is really more of a housekeeping type of matter, just revising labels, notes, legal references to reflect a boundary line adjustment that was recorded.

Earlier this year based on the changes to the special use permit that was approved last summer with SP 2019-12.

And condition number one is also being amended, but only to reference this most recently revised version of the concept plan.

and then all the other items and the other conditions of the special use permit are not changing.

The student enrollment level is not changing.

It will remain at 150 students maximum.

The hours of operation are not changing.

The layout of the site, including the entrance onto barracks road is not changing.

It's just those minor changes to the concept plan and then the major request is eliminating condition number nine.

And then I've included just a figure of the concept plan just to help orient everybody and remind everybody what the layout of the private school is proposed to look like.

There are a couple of recommended revisions to this application before going to the Board of Supervisors.

Really, it's just requesting that the applicant provide additional information in their application.

One, providing more information on their proposed timeline for construction of this use since they are requesting to amend that condition.

And then two, just providing additional information as to whether

Removing this condition might have any additional effects on future traffic flow on the surrounding street network.

So factors for consideration of this special use permit.

Factors favorable is that with no enrollment increases requested, no revisions to the site layout, no revisions to the hours of operation are requested, the proposed changes are not expected to have an impact on the surrounding area and are largely expected to remain the same as has been previously approved with both the

and the First Amendment that was approved last summer.

There are no factors unfavorable identified for this application.

So staff does recommend approval of SP 2021-11 Field School of Charlottesville with the following conditions and provided that the previously mentioned recommended revisions are made to the application prior to going to the Board of Supervisors.

So the conditions are, as I mentioned earlier, condition number one has simply been changed to reference the most recent version of the concept plan, including the correct dates.

Conditions two and three remain the same, conditions four through eight remain the same, and then condition number nine being eliminated.

So these are the suggested motions for you all when we get to the voting portion of the meeting this evening.

And I'm available for any questions now or after the public comment period.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm sorry, all the squares shifted when you said my name.

No, they would not have to.

Okay, and then a follow-up question to that is, why was the original date put there?

So my understanding is that there was actually in the ordinance, it included in the factors for special use permits that there were deadlines.

And so that was a matter of practice to include deadlines of two, three, five years for special use permits to convince a use or they would be invalidated.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

I wanted to clarify the five years that was provided by the board at the time.

I think part of the discussion, Andy, was that the board wanted to provide a reasonable time period for a capital campaign to be operating.

And I believe we had representation

by the headmaster of the school that he was confident that within a five-year time period that they would raise the money to be able to begin construction on this site.

So that addresses in some sense Karen's question.

I do think it's important for us to come back to this file right now by

perhaps new policy or new tradition in special use permits, not setting a time limit, but we might want to talk about extending for the next maybe two years a time limit

to conduct a capital campaign prior to COVID kicking in.

And I totally understand that COVID completely wipes out any capability to raise money.

But this is not the time to have that discussion.

I'm just raising it.

But I think it's something we should probably talk about.

In a sense, this is kind of a grandfathered application that time has put in there by the board.

and the Planning Commission take it out and then have the board back in.

So they can always decide to change whatever we do.

Thank you, Ray.

Is there anyone else?

I was wondering, Andy, the information you're asking about, to have more information about a timeline, is that something that isn't available to us this evening, but that you're requesting that?

prior to going to the board.

And I think what I'm hearing is that still the request is still to not have, you know, like a sunset condition in there, but just that more information would be provided about what to expect.

Yes, the applicant may have more information this evening on what their expected timeline is.

She can help to bring some clarity to that question.

Is anyone else before we open it up to the applicant?

OK.

Could we hear from the applicant, please?

Thank you, Commissioner Bivins.

It'll be me tonight speaking.

Can everyone see that?

Good evening, planning commission.

My name is Kelsey Schlein.

I'm a planner with Chimp Engineering.

I'm here tonight representing the Field School of Charlottesville in their special use permit amendment request to eliminate the sunset clause on their current special use permit.

Here with me tonight is Charlie Skipper, the head of school

and Justin Schimp, the engineer on the project.

Justin's been involved with this project from day one and has a lot of the project history, as many of you do as well.

So this really is a request for more time.

You know, put simply, it's more time for the field school to

raised the necessary funding to construct their vision to deliver on their promise to their families to realize a permanent home in a location where they have autonomy over their land and over their buildings.

And so just briefly, site context, Andy went over this.

You all are familiar with this just outside of the Charlottesville boundaries here.

As Andy said, we are not requesting to modify any of their conditions of the special use permit, no changes to enrollment, no operational changes whatsoever, just requesting additional time to realize this vision.

And in that request, since we are here tonight nearly almost five years after the original special use permit approval, I figured it would be helpful to go over a timeline of what the field school has been working on in the past five years, events that have occurred, and why we're here tonight requesting that there is initial time granted for them to construct their school on this property.

So

March 2017, the original special use permit for the private school was approved.

Shortly thereafter, the field school submitted an initial site plan in April of 2017 with the aim to get that in before what I'm referring to here is summer of 2017, a critical funding period.

Commissioner Randolph referenced that previously with this application there was a great deal of certainty with the funding and it was the school's hope that they could move forward with construction of at least phase one which would be the field shortly thereafter the approval in 2017.

However,

After the submittal of the initial site plan, there was a dispute about a porta-potty spec that was on the initial site plan and that porta-potty shown on the initial site plan was found to be inconsistent with the conditions of the special use permit.

It took a while, it took time to work that out for that determination to be made.

took time for our staff to work through that with county staff and that one comment ultimately kind of extended out the initial site plan review period where that critical funding period in summer 2017 could not be met because the initial site plan was not approved in the timeline that we were hoping for it to be approved.

So, September 2017, ultimately that kind of critical funding period where a donor was lined up was ready to commit the funding that was missed by the delayed site plan review.

and so after that, it was really kind of a recalibration time for the field school to work on their funding to fundraise and get a new donor lined up so that they could build their school.

In fall of 2018, there was a minor boundary line adjustment conducted with the property to the east and that,

A letter of determination needed to be issued to determine that this small boundary line adjustment could take place.

That again took time.

So in fall of 2018, that minor modification request to adjust the boundary line with a parcel to the east.

It took four months in our five year time period to make that determination that that boundary line adjustment could be made.

And then

In March of 2019, the property acquisition for the field school was finalized.

So, you know, all during that time from the school was working to ultimately close on the property and assuring that they had the funding necessary to close on the property.

In November of 2019, we submitted a special use permit amendment

to adjust the boundary line with another neighboring property and had to modify the special use permit so that that residential property was not encumbered by the conditions of the special use permit.

And ultimately, that that boundary line adjustment enabled to generate and enabled some revenues to be generated for the field school of Charlottesville and.

Excuse me.

and also at that time we were very hopeful that we could still meet the sunset clause and in November 2019 that we could have construction underway by February of 2022.

In March 2020 plans changed for that and the

COVID-19 global was declared as a global pandemic.

The field school really at that time spent a year just recalibrating their operations, focusing on serving their students the best possible way that they can, ensuring that everybody was safe, ensuring that everybody's needs were met, regardless of whether or not it was in the classroom or virtual.

And then in that time, while we

We were kind of caught in that with that special use permit revision to the boundary line adjustment in actually getting to a public hearing.

So in July of 2020, as the special use permit amendment to adjust the limits of the SUP was approved,

and then, and I'm sorry, I have something labeled incorrectly here.

I say May 21 SUP amendment to limits of SUP approved.

That is when May of 2021 is when we submitted this current SUP request to remove the sunset clause.

And so there's a lot of information in this timeline, but ultimately I just wanted to present that to you so that you understand what has occurred in the past five years, funding that,

we thought was secure that ultimately fell through because a review timeline couldn't be met, various boundary line adjustments, acquisitions of property, global pandemic.

And so our request is to remove the sunset clause just because the school has already spent a considerable amount of money and created a significant investment in this property.

Philip is the right location for the school and we hope to give them adequate amount of time to ensure that they can call this place their forever home.

However, in addressing the outstanding concerns in recommended revisions and staff's report, I mean, the field school is very anxious to get this project off the ground.

They did approach us and asked our firm to submit a

An initial site plan, it was our recommendation to request an extension of the special use permit just so that we weren't running up against timelines.

So the field school is very much ready to go there, have secured a significant amount of funding but are still working to secure even more so that they can hopefully build more of their vision all at once.

I know that they're aiming for a two to three year time period where we can have a shovel in the ground.

However, as I said, they've already made a significant investment.

And so it is our request to just have the sunset clause removed.

As far as alternative traffic impacts or how

and traffic could be impacted by extending the sunset clause.

You know, I will say, you know, the the impacts of this school and how that is considered within the background traffic flow has has been considered.

And as previously and as, you know, funding for road projects and everything moves forward, this project is kind of on the table and those considerations as you know, any type of

That is all that I have to

share with you this evening.

And I am available for questions as well as Justin Shimp and Charlie Skipper.

And I thank you for the opportunity to present to you all this evening.

Other questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

I'm trying to disassemble or I'm trying to unlink, which was a very thorough sort of project plan with all the various, not trying to sound disrespectful, but the pandemic gave my homework sort of situation there.

to the fact that that's not related to whether or not they've been successful raising funds.

So the capital campaign to build a project is not necessarily a function of boundary readjustments or the ability to make a decision about where people can use their facilities if they're standing out in a field.

So I was hoping to hear something that wasn't more like the pandemic gave my homework and more like this is really why we can't make this, as Rick put there, why we're not able to make the capital campaign that we have established to build this building.

So that's one of the things I was hoping to hear this evening.

and then on the other piece, I'm assuming, I think, Andy, you can, when we come back, you can have a conversation to talk about, but I think when we come back, that the VDOT will have to look at any site plan that comes out and determine whether or not the traffic can adequately get out and what the difference is giving them, the bar market is down across the road because that's the kind of thing that I'm hearing a lot about is that the traffic comes up.

It sounds like, Andy, it sounds like you're in a car.

Are you in a, are you, oh that's better.

But it sounded like you were in an automobile and I can see you're not.

has increased the traffic in that area that was probably different five years ago.

And so we've got changed conditions and how do we sort of become aware of the impact of that, of this new potential new activity on this property given this

May I speak to some of that as well?

My name is Paul Skipper and I'm the Headmaster of Field School.

Good evening.

To add a little more color to that particular story to try and address the question that you raised, Mr. Bivins.

Also, the other event that took place in 2018 was a transition in leadership.

So I'm the new head of school who came into office during the midst of the COVID situation.

And at a practical level, such transitions in leadership always have effects on independent school fundraising.

It's the nature of the way that system works.

But to be honest, or honestly, part of the another complication, all that was

that we really as a new head of school last year it was dealing with COVID.

I mean this year to be honest pretty much most of the things we had planned to start the year when this year had to go out the window in the last month with the surge coming on as well so with a very small school with a small staff it

The development office is me and my executive assistants to try and realize all of that.

So it wasn't so much a failure of will or a failure, it was more a time and priority punch for pushing the campaign forward.

We have in fact raised a significant sum of money, 1.5 million towards getting this property done.

And so I feel confident that at least phase one is going to happen very quickly.

And my priority for the next two years is to drive this train forward to try and get to accomplish the rest of the fundraising goal.

and I've had some experience in doing that in the past.

So never make any promises on how that stuff will work, to be honest with you.

But the reason we came forward with this request for the additional time was to ensure that we didn't run afoul of a timeline when we're in the midst of trying to make things happen.

Thank you.

And then Ms.

And I think that had a school skipper cleared that up very well, I'm sorry for not doing a kind of more a better job of explaining the the reasoning why we're before you tonight.

Really, the first blow was the 2017 review funding and then the review timeline that compromised the funding that was on the table at that time.

And then as Head of School Skipper said, the transition and leadership, he's really had a lot on his plate since rising up to that position.

Thank you very much.

I had a quick question and then I'll let others share, but this may be something other people need to learn, or maybe it's just me, and I apologize if I should know this, but for either staff or, well, I guess either Andy, either of the Andes could answer the question that what would satisfy a start?

So like in my mind, I think, you know, if the initial phase was a field, would that satisfy the start or say like a pavilion was built and the school started using the property for hiking and

So with the condition and the enforcement of conditions, it would be up to the zoning administrator to determine what could be considered a start.

Yes, thank you, Andy, Commissioner Moore.

We actually now have a definition that we're able to utilize in our ordinances when it comes to start of construction and we utilize that information that

definition includes obtaining an issued building permit for the actual structure and that doesn't happen until you get the site plan completed.

So the final site plan for whatever phase, I think they were proposing phasing this development.

So

but the actual grading and things like that that you can do after say a preliminary approval with the proper

Proper engineering plans that are approved for grading doesn't constitute commencing that construction.

Infrastructure work, some infrastructure might qualify for that.

We would have to look at any specific.

We don't have to make those determinations very often because this doesn't come up that often.

But when we do, we have to look at the specifics of what's going on and know that to say yes, that it has commenced.

Francis, what was your comment on the grading?

That was a no.

Okay, thank you.

I don't usually do this.

Jenny, I was going to say, I don't usually do this, but it's in my district.

Do you want to go?

Because it is your district.

So you don't get to do that.

Why don't you do it that way?

OK.

I see that.

I'm glad.

I'm actually sort of very struck by Rick's comment about what the what the Board of Supervisors did when they did this back in 2017 and so I think it would be actually a very reasonable sort of approach if we were to extend it by even two and a half years from 2022 but I would you know I think that

To eliminate it from our point, from our standpoint, does not follow the intent of the supervisors when they were doing this, but in fact to extend it, to recognize that there was a change in leadership and that there was a health emergency that took place, and so to provide extra running room for them to get themselves bought

and particularly it's helpful to see that there's been, I don't know how much the project's been, but being able to say that you've got designated 1.5 million to the project, that's a good, healthy and meaningful start.

So I guess what I'm saying, I would not, what I'm saying, I would not support eliminating condition nine.

Jenny.

August 28th.

Well, I wondered if staff could answer, maybe give a little more about why it's become common practice not to have a clause like that in there.

And I still do appreciate

I mean, just wondering, you know, if you had, if we were starting from the beginning here and the common practice now is not to have it.

To me, I feel a little open to it or at least making it not or more, I would be open to it and not having it at all or

definitely open to having that be more time than what was just suggested because we have evidence that so much has been put into this and all these reasons to believe that there's every intention to move forward and that we don't just have another project that comes along and then we it sits for years and years and you know comes back to us we have that type of thing so I guess

I just wondered if staff could speak to why it became the practice not to have that condition.

So my understanding on that is that it would run into situations kind of like this where events happened and the applicants, the property owners weren't always able to commence the use by what was designated in the special use permit.

And so then they would come back and request an amendment to allow for additional time.

So it ended up creating additional applications and staff time to process these sorts of amendment applications.

Nothing specific, but I would just comment that it's

It's something that's evaluated with each separate use that's proposed and what those impacts might be as far as what might be identified, whether a time limit is because it is still in the ordinance.

We could still make that request to say that we would like it to propose that condition if it's found during an evaluation that that would be necessary.

But I believe Andy is right.

I don't have the data as far as how many have come back and had to keep extending and things as opposed to like when they decide to grow.

A lot of the private schools that decide to grow and they come back to amend their number of students.

We definitely because we know there's a big impact there when they ask for those increases on the students.

So it could vary, but it's without seeing all the

data on the specifics of what the actual analysis is and how we went into that.

It's hard to say for a particular once, you know, making that decision.

Okay, thank you for that.

And I guess I'll just end with saying I'm inclined to discuss the option of having no sunset clause because of the nature of this application and the commitment that we see.

But I would suggest for discussion, I'm also open to why people think it might be important to keep it in there.

And I would definitely suggest that I think

um whatever I keep what you say Julian like two and a half years or Rick was saying that I would my idea would be if we were to have another sunset clause that we would um I'm sensitive to um a lot of why I feel like they weren't able to achieve it in this time and and and some of that being the focus of energies on

COVID protocols and these type of things and not having the full attention to go into fundraising and all that stuff and I feel like if we're going to think about a timeline I think I would encourage you to think about having a similar timeline as they were given before and

Two years doesn't feel like it's offering much grace and the knowledge that we're not done with this yet.

I mean, we have a surge is going on and, you know, I think as Charles Stipper said that there's, you know, still a lot of focus that's being taken away from that goal to the primary goal of serving.

the families and students.

So I think that that might be tough to put that on them, not knowing what we have happening ahead of us all in six months or a year.

So I would encourage if people are inclined to have to keep a sunset clause in there that we maybe be a little more generous knowing that we have some uncertainty before us.

That's all I have.

Rick and then Karen.

Yeah, I would just comment as somebody having done institutional fundraising, nothing gathers the attention of a community in a more focused way than when government steps in and says, you need to get this done by this time period.

And actually, Jenny, I think by having a pussy goosey and extending it over a period of time, we're actually not helping the school, we're hurting the school.

The primary body responsible within an independent school for fundraising is not the headmaster, it's the board of directors of the school.

And there has been a leadership change, but within the

should have carried on in terms of its role, money for this key strategic project for the school.

So I do think the idea of giving them two and a half years will focus their institutional resources, and I mean this in a manpower sense, in a leadership sense, and especially within the board of directors to go after the raising of the money.

At this point,

with a little bit of a change at the top there.

Well, major change because the previous headmaster was an inspiration for the school.

So you have a founder leaving and you have a new headmaster coming in.

I do think that we're actually helping the school by going ahead and establishing a standing

Yes, if I may.

I actually would support giving them a longer time horizon than two and a half years.

As someone who has been in the nonprofit sector and done fundraising for the past 35 years, I can tell you that there's the time period for when you have to look for grants, look for support.

Sometimes those relationships and those applications take a year to cultivate.

We are still in the middle of a pandemic.

The pandemic is not over, even though some of our state and federal agencies think that it's done and have kind of stopped supporting a lot of the relief efforts.

So I believe that I would be much more comfortable with giving them five years so that they have ample time.

This is a major capital campaign.

I can also tell you that from my experience, a lot of funding has dried up because funders have redirected their funding to health concerns for obvious reasons.

but that means there's a lot less money out there to go around both from foundation community as well as individual philanthropists.

So I'm as a fellow nonprofit person, Mr. Skipper, I am feeling your pain.

I'm keeping my nonprofit afloat but the fundraising is much more difficult and I think that we should be a little bit more sympathetic to this.

And I think five years is a reasonable period of time

The project itself has not changed substantially.

And I think that that would be a lot more fair considering that the climate that we're in and the worthiness of the project.

And I'll end it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that support.

I'm a nonprofit CEO, so coming from that position, I think it's safe to say that today's strategic plans are about three years in length.

I'm not sure what this organization is within its current strategic plan, but this gives them another chance to do a new one also and to make sure this is front and center within that vision.

And so I will certainly support a five year deal based off of that kind of logic.

So thank you.

Yeah, it seems like we're coalescing around not removing as current applications are being handled for special permit uses.

I guess though, I have a question and then before I close the comment, but I'm still struggling to understand the downside of risk.

I mean, we've removed that to where we don't put a time limit down.

So by extending, by either extending or not having anything at all to be the way current special permit applications are handled, what is the downside risk

for this parcel land being sunsetting.

You know, they have to come back, they'd have to reapply.

If it was removed, what's that downside risk?

It would be locked up in this special use permit or indefinite, and it could be, that's what I'm struggling with is like by what is the impact of extending to a deadline or extending, you know, three years, five years, or removing it altogether?

I don't know, staff can help me understand the risk profile of those decisions.

Respectful of what Commissioner Randolph said about the board and taking out the board's hand.

So I think kind of as Kelsey mentioned earlier with the

The use has been approved.

So kind of whether they started construction, you know, recent or very soon tomorrow or took another couple of years, the use would stay the same and the traffic generated by the specific use would be expected to stay the same.

However, the background traffic would likely grow as other parts of the county and the city, since this is close to the city line, would continue to grow.

So that could add more

However, in regards to traffic as well, VDOT would review any traffic improvements that are required at the time of when the site plan is submitted

So whether they submitted the site plan, you know, in a few months or whether it took them another several years to submit a site plan, whatever the traffic is like at that time is how VDOT would review it and determine what is needed, whether that's turn lanes, whether that's the potential for stoplight or other traffic control, turning control mechanisms.

So a lot of these concerns, I think, would be addressed during the site plan review.

Absolutely.

I appreciate that.

And based on that feedback, I think I would be probably supportive of being more lenient towards given that there are checks and balances for some of those other concerns downstream for this application and especially use.

So I would say that I would be I would I would

Thank you, Daniel.

It's been an interesting discussion, and I guess I can see both sides.

The question that I have, and maybe this is for our Council more than anyone else, we have examples of where

A special use permit has been dormant for a long time and policies, controls have become less stringent and yet the current commission is held to those older standards.

Is that going to be the case with this?

And if it were, is there a way that we can put a condition on it that says that

Good question, Mr. Keller.

I think the proposal that's come forward tonight is to retain the other eight conditions in some form of revision or other so that those other conditions would still be in effect.

The proposal would still be subject to all the existing zoning ordinances of the county.

I would remind the Commission that the conditions that are fixed to a special use permit

are intended to address specific impacts of the proposal so that unless there's some sort of specific impact that's time sensitive, that there's a shifting time horizon that makes it such that if this doesn't occur within a specific time that somehow some impact is going to be left unaddressed, then it seems to me that the condition for

for having a time restriction isn't something that would be needed.

The other eight conditions would still be in effect, would still govern.

And again, the default these days is for, and always really is for special use permits to run with the land.

Tim, you're muted.

You're muted.

If we feel that we have it to the point that we want it, I'm not sure I understand what's gained from the time frame.

It seems to me that if the supervisors are concerned about a time frame, they will add that to it.

Meaning?

Well, I'll just mention that this particular application is not one that I would be concerned about the time frame for it occurring in terms of it being extended indefinitely.

What I was trying to do with five years was give them enough time to raise their fundraising goals but try to also respect the fact that the supervisors felt the need to put a time frame on this

and to the earlier question about why some SUPs have timeframes.

I can relate other SUPs that I've been involved with that had timeframes.

There was some concern about the risk of the use, that it would have other detrimental impacts if it was delayed too long and not actually actualized under the conditions that were present at the time.

I don't know.

Why the board put a time frame on this one.

So like I said, I'm just I'm trying not to second guess I'm trying to give some deference to a timeframe.

But I would also be fine with with not having one at all.

So I don't know if you're coming or not.

I can see you poised to come in, but I also don't know.

I will share that and this is not to negate anyone's particular fundraising expertise.

But I will say that nonprofits or fundraising is very different from educational institutions.

And so health and health and environmental services, 501C3s have a different path for funding than typically educational institutions, particularly independent schools, because of the time in which their students sort of roll out.

And in this particular case, I think they're there for a shorter amount of time before they move on to to other institutions.

So I think that there is a piece that, and I will add that from the conception of this project, one would assume that the board was engaged in some serious and deep thought about how they were going to fund this.

And that as far as the timeline that Ms.

Klein showed us, it really is only sort of since last year that there was a hiccup.

in what the board might be having to pivot to do.

And so I believe that for me at least, that's not enough to take away to eliminate condition nine.

That is enough for me to say, okay, like lots of things that we're confronted with, that's enough time to modify condition nine, but it's not enough conditions to eliminate it.

And I will share.

for someone who has still, who said this is in the era that they travel a good deal.

But I would really like to see this particular project in place.

because the Barracks Road, Garth Road has become the alternative from coming in from Crozet and from west of town.

And so it'd be really good to have that there sooner or later so that we can have some full appreciation of what that commute and what that traffic bylaw is going to be like.

And so not having that pushed out till five years from now, would I think not be helpful in trying to manage the traffic and manage the built-in

on the Garth and Barracks Road.

And so while I would struggle with five years, to be quite honest, because I think they've already had a significant amount of time till they got to this point.

I mean, they've had basically four and a half years till they got to this point, and I'll give you a year.

Why don't you make the motion?

I shall.

So I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval for SP 2021-11 Field School of Charlottesville with the conditions and revisions as recommended by the staff and the staff report and with the additional modification of condition nine of having it be completed in three years.

So that's August 2025.

Mr. Chair, would that be three and a half years or would that be?

Just extended by an extra year.

Not by six, by an extra year.

So three and a half years.

Is there a second?

Oh, second by Daniel.

Am I right, Daniel?

Raise your hand.

Yes.

I have a point of discussion.

Just before we vote, I guess I would add that I guess I'm no expert in raising money for nonprofits or institutional organizations, but I don't know that I see it as my job as a planning commissioner to put a date in that I feel would help them because having a date makes it more helpful.

or it doesn't you know so to that to that point you know I don't really feel like that's part of what I'm at I should be considering.

I really do appreciate what our council has advised and you know is that condition in there because of the impact that was concerned and

And so while I also do appreciate Commissioner Bivins' point about traffic and things in that area, I'm still more inclined to, well, I'm really inclined to actually remove it.

And then if the board would want to put something back in, they could.

But I think, again, I'd go back to what Karen was saying was I'd be a little more generous with a five-year.

I just want to say, Jenny said it best.

Are there any other discussion items for discussion?

Yes.

Mr. Keller?

Aye.

Ms.

Ms.

Ms.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

I know this was a hard decision for a number of us.

For the applicant, we asked you to, let's see, where are you?

You've heard the discussion.

Thank you for doing that, sir, because as you can see, it's not let's make a deal, but it's Hollywood squares.

I will do so.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So our next matter before us.

is our public hearing on CPA 2021-01, the Crozet Master Plan update.

Good evening, Ms.

Good evening, commissioners.

I am Rachel Goldstein.

I am joined by my colleague Tori Kanalopoulos, and we're going to start the presentation for the Crozet Master Plan.

Let me get my screen situated here.

Okay, well, you all can see my screen now.

So this is a public hearing for the frisbee master plan update.

The purpose is to receive the Planning Commission's recommendation on the draft master plan as well as to the public hearing this evening.

Our agenda for today's work session is a quick overview on the planning process, excuse me, to develop the master plan and then we'll have an overview of the planning content and then we'll have the commission discussion with Karen.

Start us off by providing an overview of our planning and engagement process.

Much of this will be repeat information for the commissioners, but I wanted to give an overview for members of the public.

who might be tuning in this evening.

So we've organized our planning process into four phases.

Phase one began in September of 2019, and we had a series of in-person public workshops with discussion focused around the vision for Crozet.

And at the completion of that phase, we had drafted updated guiding principles for the master plan document.

Phase two began our discussion of focus areas where we received input

on goals and draft strategies to address the identified guiding principles from the first phase.

And this is also where we shifted from the in-person gatherings to virtual meetings due to COVID-19.

And at this point, we began hosting our master plan meetings during the virtual CAC meetings.

And we also rely heavily on online engagement through public input.com, which is our engagement hub.

In Phase 3, we began to refine goals from Phase 2 and develop draft maps and plans for each of the chapters, such as trails maps, land use maps, future streets networks, and we drafted written recommendations to support the guiding principles and goals.

And then Phase 4 is where we are in the planning process now.

This is involved developing draft chapters based on previous input.

And we've also had a focus on implementation in this phase where we brought all of our recommendations together and received feedback on which were the community priorities from the implementation projects.

I also want to provide some clarity about how we use community feedback throughout the planning process.

We have heard some feedback that our communication about how we use input has not been clear and has led to some confusion.

and misunderstanding and frustration, especially for community members who have participated in the planning process but don't feel their opinions are fully represented in the draft.

So I wanted to talk about how we use the input.

So this graphic you see here is a feedback loop.

We developed this when we were first scoping this project about how we would use community input and how we would go out and conduct engagement on this project.

And the best way I can describe it as an iterative process.

It involves bringing a question or some content out to the community, getting feedback from members of the community, stakeholders, partners, elected and appointed officials, and then

trying to compile all of that feedback and make a recommendation.

And then we'd bring that recommendation back out and listen to more input and again, aggregate the feedback and revise it.

And so that loop kind of continued throughout the process and helped guide the recommendations that staff made.

And then at the left-hand side of the screen, you can see a recent list of planning commission and board meetings.

Our process was designed to be heavy toward the end of the process to have Planning Commission and board input so we could share with you the feedback we've heard.

The final decision and plan adoption ultimately lies at the hands of the Board of Supervisors with the Planning Commission recommendation based on content developed by SAP.

I want to also share some recent feedback that we've heard before we get into the content of the master plan.

We had a July 14th draft of the document that went to the Board of Supervisors and then the current draft before you that was last revised on August 20th.

The changes between those two drafts are pretty minor.

They're mostly cleanup changes or putting final touches on the document.

So we've had the current draft of the master plan online since August 25th and I've had actually several hundred views of the project page since that time, but very few people actually participated in the online questionnaire or left comments.

You can see the numbers here on the right hand side of your screen from that online content.

We had 20 participants, 17 people left comments.

The people who did participate online gave kind of low markings on how well the draft content met the guiding principles.

And you can see those are the dark green ratings here in the one numbers, meaning it does not comply with the recommended guiding principle.

We've also had some email comments we've received from members of the community who chose to provide feedback that way.

We had an August 11 CAC meeting where the CAC discussed some aspects of the document.

Some feedback themes from the recent feedback we've heard are summarized on the slide.

Accessibility for walkers and bikers was a theme we heard, especially along Route 250 and around schools.

I think this is top of mind with school coming back into session, so we've heard a lot of comments about that.

And there's also been some concern expressed about the relationship between housing and employment in Prose.

There's a statistic in the plan talking about less than 6% of commuters live and work in Prose.

So we had some comments about that.

We've also heard feedback about the engagement process and some criticism of the process and how it was conducted.

and also that staff has not listened to community feedback or CCAC feedback.

One more recent change that happened back in May was a change to the land use map that was based on some Board of Supervisors feedback to properties along Paver Street where we applied a middle density residential land use designation.

And we've heard feedback that that change is made too late in the process and something that we should consider with our next update.

Tori will talk more about those particulars of that change.

And then lastly, concerns about traffic and school capacity with increased growth.

On the right hand side of the screen is just a screen capture from some of the online feedback that reflects the variety of feedback we've heard on the online engagement come.

Many of these themes are themes we've heard throughout the master planning process, so I think the more recent feedback about Taber Street is one of the newer feedback topics that we've heard quite a bit about.

Great.

Thank you, Rachel.

So good evening everyone.

I will now cover an overview of the content of the master plan document, including the main changes since the 2010 plan.

and also a brief summary of feedback from the board's August work session.

So the transportation, oh, sorry, one slide back, thanks.

The transportation, land use and conservation chapters each begin with the overview and background for that topic, including the challenges and opportunities.

And then each chapter includes more detailed narrative recommendations and maps and plans that support the recommended projects and policies within the chapter.

And then each chapter ends with the guiding principle for that topic and the goals and supporting projects.

The implementation chapter brings those recommendations in those three chapters all together with the recommended projects, plans and policies.

So now we'll go through each chapter in a little bit more detail.

Next slide, please.

The introduction chapter includes a brief summary about community engagement and drafting this plan with more details found in the appendix.

It has the guiding principles for each chapter, historic context, including history of people, development, industries, and schools in Crozet, data and demographics, including more data on recent growth in Crozet, and then the key challenges and opportunities, which highlights some of the major themes that are included in subsequent plan chapters.

Next slide.

The transportation chapter includes the future bike and pedestrian network for connecting neighborhoods, centers, and districts.

the future street network including planned future connections such as Eastern Avenue and then potential smaller connections where local streets nearly connect today and there may be opportunities for them to fully connect in the future.

There are street typologies which provide recommendations for the designs of streets to accommodate capacity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers.

and then proposed intersection improvements, which are focused on the downtown and Route 250 areas, mostly based on the EPR transportation analysis, and then opportunities for future transit improvements and recommendations from the downtown parking study, which was done by Kimberly Horn.

Next slide.

The land use chapter has the future land use plan, which also includes centers and districts, and then land use categories applied to the plan, which include recommended uses, densities, building form, and massing, and prioritize design principles for each category.

And the appendix also includes more detailed guidance for the middle density residential category, which we'll also cover in more detail in this presentation.

There's specific guidance for these centers and districts,

and there's a focus in the chapter on the downtown center as this is the only town center and an area of significant importance for community members.

There's a section on housing choice in Crozet and encouraging more options for creative designs, but that are also compatible with existing scale and smaller and more affordable unit types.

And a section on other areas in Crozet.

So these are areas that are not designated centers or districts, but are still areas of importance based on community feedback.

That would include rural edges.

Next slide.

The conservation chapter includes the Parks and Green Systems Plan with connections between recreational areas, schools, neighborhoods, and centers, and also areas with sensitive environmental features to preserve.

It includes major parks and trails and supporting recommendations and improvements.

Recommendations for other county-owned properties that are not major parks or schools, such as the county-owned stormwater wetlands on Crozet Avenue.

And then within the biodiversity, natural resources, and green system sections include water quality, stormwater management, steep slopes, and tree canopy.

And then there are also cultural and scenic resources with opportunities for continued and expanded heritage and cultural tourism and connections to the nearby rural area and national park and other regional amenities.

Next slide.

Implementation starts with an overview of the types of projects, how they're categorized and prioritized, and then some options for funding.

Then there are the catalyst projects which reflect community priorities and are expected to be completed or have substantial progress within 10 years.

Following are the future projects which are expected to be completed within 10 to 20 years.

And each catalyst in each future project has a description, cost estimate with a range,

and realization timeframe.

And these projects are based on the recommendations from the transportation, land use and conservation chapters.

And then there's also a list of ongoing projects at the end of the chapter.

These are expected to happen with future development or redevelopment or just to occur with regular ongoing county programs and maintenance.

Next slide.

The appendix includes a glossary of terms used throughout the plan and also a more detailed summary of community engagement continued from the intro chapter.

And that includes engagement opportunities and then the feedback heard within each phase.

There's additional guidance on middle density residential, including recommended heights, building footprints, and unit sizes by housing type.

And there's also the full downtown Crozet parking study and the EPR transportation study.

Next slide.

So this is a summary of the overall changes from the 2010 master plan, which I'll also go through in more detail on some following slides.

But the majority of changes are intended to be cleanup to bring the plan into greater consistency with other county master plans and existing zoning, especially for that future land use plan.

So as an example, many of the green systems designations that were made were intended to align with by right development potential for existing zoning districts and also to better align with updated environmental features mapping, such as steep slopes and stream buffers and other green system changes that increase development potential were noted separately during the review process, such as White Gate Farm.

The overall growth projections remain very similar compared with the 2010 plan based on the future land use designations.

The estimated increase in units is approximately 100 to 500 units, again, based on the updated future land use plan.

And just wanting to note that the ultimate build out would depend on what was submitted through the application process.

And the changes reflect engagement themes heard throughout the process, including scale and form of growth and focusing on downtown

is the main hub of activity.

Next slide.

And so this slide shows a comparison of the 2010 future land use plan and the updated 2021 plan.

So a green network is still retained throughout Crozet but there's more clarity between areas designated for public access so those are shown in the darker green color and then other areas with sensitive environmental features like steep slopes and stream buffers which should be preserved or private open space and those are shown with the lighter green.

There are still centers of activity included but instead of just being text in the plan those are

applied specifically to the draft future land use plan.

There's also a new neighborhood service center in Wickham Pond, which was not included in 2010.

This is intended to align with the future mixed use development that's approved for that neighborhood with the rezoning approved for Wickham Pond.

and also with recommended bike and pedestrian connections in that area.

So the 2010 master plan included downtown, music today, Old Trail, Western Park and Clover Lawn as centers of activity.

And the updated mixed use land use categories are intended to align with other recently updated master plans and with existing development potential, especially for Old Trail Village, such as the community mixed use designation.

Next slide.

We also wanted to cover the middle density residential land use category in more detail since there's been significant community feedback around this topic and several discussions by the Planning Commission and Board around this topic as well.

So the 2010 Crozet Master Plan includes urban density residential as a land use category with a recommended density range of 6 to 12 units per acre and recommends all types of housing including single family detached, attached, and apartments.

It also recommends non-residential uses of 5,000 to 20,000 square feet where appropriate.

And it should be noted that in the other county master plans, urban density residential is 6 to 34 units per acre.

And the new middle density residential land use category is intended to encourage a variety of housing types, including smaller housing units that are naturally more affordable and to promote housing choice and affordability.

Middle density residential recommends density ranges of between six to 12 units per acre with up to 18 units per acre to allow for additional affordable units beyond baseline requirements.

or for construction of small-scale housing types such as bungalow courts, small and medium multiplexes, and live-work units.

It recommends commercial or retail uses up to 5,000 square feet for the building footprint and office or institutional uses up to 20,000 square feet.

And it should be noted that the recommended densities, housing types, and form and scale guidance would be evaluated with any rezoning application.

The middle density residential future land use designation does not change the zoning districts of any properties where it is applied, but would be used as guidance for evaluation of any applications that are requesting to change the zoning of these properties.

Next slide.

And so this map shows the two maps show urban density residential applied on the left to the 2010 future land use plan.

And then on the right shows middle density residential

as applied to the updated future land use plan.

And Middle Density Residential replaced the previous urban density residential areas in Crozet with the exception of blocks 20 and 21 and Old Trail where the summit apartments are located.

Middle Density was also newly applied to the undeveloped White Gate Farm property along Route 240 adjacent to Wickham Pond.

and this was previously designated as entirely green space.

It was also applied to the view properties as these are already developed and to the block bounded by Tabor Street, Crozet Avenue, High Street and Dunvegan Lane and this was previously designated as neighborhood density residential.

Next slide please.

So the Board of Supervisors provided feedback during their August 4 work session on the full draft of the master plan.

There was support for the majority of the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the implementation chapter, including shifting some future projects to catalyst projects,

and some catalysts to future.

The board recommended keeping affordable and workforce housing priority review as a catalyst project and the board recommended that the block founded by Taber Street, Crozet Avenue, Dunvegan Lane and High Street be discussed during the public hearing process regarding its middle density residential future land use designation and the board directed staff to keep the same future land use plan that it saw on August 4th for the public hearing process with the Taber block to be further discussed.

Next slide.

So the next step in the process is a public hearing with the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, October 20th for adoption of the plan.

Next slide.

We have several motions for your consideration, but we're happy to pause here for discussion and questions.

Thank you very much.

Rachel, are we coming back to you or are you now open to, thank you, okay.

Commissioners, questions or comments for staff at this particular point?

So let's see, I've got Daniel, Jenny, Karen.

Okay, well, I don't know why I get to go before the Commissioner's District it is, but I'll try to be brief.

First of all, I just want to say to staff that this is an outstanding plan and also to the community that spent time to create it.

I think it really raises the bar for master plans and small area plans for our area, for our, excuse me, for our county.

So I just wanted to begin with a compliment and also I did, in reading this, I did see a lot of places where

Staff had taken prior comments from the commission and from the community and incorporated them.

So kudos for that.

And I also appreciated that you took some time to talk about the community engagement process.

I just want to bring up one point that was actually brought up by staff that the board specifically wanted us to discuss the Tabor High Crozet Avenue and

I can't stand Vegan Lane area, the area that is proposed for middle density in the downtown.

And I think some of the concern for that area focuses on the fact that there are some potential historic structures on those sites, and we currently do not have a historic preservation ordinance in our county.

So that were those to be developed, there would be no protection for those structures.

I am saddened that the county does not have historic preservation ordinance and I am also a little reluctant to move forward with middle density in that block without any kind of historic preservation in place.

And I just make a quick note that this, and I know people don't like me to actually bring up Charlottesville, but when I was a planning commissioner, I presided over five new historic districts being created and I'm a big fan of them.

But one thing that we did for some of the neighborhoods that were lower income and had concerns with affording the,

the standards for historic preservation because what a local district does is prevent teardowns.

We created something called a historic conservation district and I sort of call that historic preservation light in which we were able to say you can't tear down your structure but you might be able to put in less expensive windows.

If you couldn't afford to put a slate roof back on your house you could put a less expensive roof but the point was that the structure itself remained intact.

So

I would just put forward a sort of bigger idea here that we might want to consider not moving forward with middle density in this location within Crozet at this time until we have a historic preservation ordinance in place.

I know that it's not politically palatable to some folks, but over and over again we hear from folks in Crozet

that they are upset because this and that historic structure has come down.

And that's because we have nothing in place to prevent that.

So in order to maintain the character of Crozet, I'd like to see an ordinance in place before we move forward with middle density in that particular block.

But in general, I like the middle density idea.

And I think we need more density in Crozet in order to make downtown work.

Daniel?

At risk of changing the topic a little bit, I'm sure there'll be lots of conversation on that topic there.

I just wanted to ask a clarifying question with regards to some of the map and designation.

On all the maps kind of seen throughout and land use on page nine and on transportation page six and others, it denotes Crozet Park as public land.

And when I read the definition of public lands and the future land use topologies,

It's existing and proposed publicly owned parks and greenway systems.

And so I just wanted to get a clarification.

Is Crozet Park publicly owned land or is it privately held?

And so should it be designated green systems or publicly?

I'm just trying to think about as we think about catalyst projects and other things, how should this map be represented as far as I know it is available for public access was a term used earlier, but is it public land or public access?

Thanks for that question.

And that's actually a comment we received online.

And we have noted for the next time we update this report, the intent is publicly accessible.

All right.

Appreciate that.

That's all the comments have at this point.

Yes, I guess, Julian, if you could clarify, I really, I guess I thought I just had a two quick questions for clarification.

And then I thought we would do public comment.

And then I had more to say that I, you know, had wanted to sort of say at the beginning of people thought that was appropriate.

Karen sort of touched on that, but I thought it would be helpful to facilitate conversation if I

I said that piece and then added in something I'd like to hear other commissioners weigh in on.

So let me be clear.

The reason that I wanted you to go before, assuming that it would be before we went into public hearings, for you actually to be able to set the tone.

So well, I understand what Karen was saying, but I wanted your voice to be to have the opportunity to be the voice that

Okay, I would like to just start quick, if I may, because I did have two questions for I guess Rachel or maybe Andy.

I've had this question for a couple of community members and I haven't been able to

answered specifically.

And the question is, if because the middle density is a new land use designation, the question has been, you know, as this moves through the board and assuming that they, you know, vote to adopt this draft that includes that designation, is that a new designation countywide by default?

Or would they take a separate vote on that as a designation?

that would be used countywide and then take a separate vote on the inclusion of it in the plan.

So I'll try to answer that and maybe something else to add, but as you may know, the master plan is developed as part of the comprehensive plan, and there is a comprehensive plan review that's a little farther out on the horizon at this point.

So if the Crozet master plan were to designate something that doesn't currently exist in the county-wide comprehensive plan, that's okay.

Okay, because that was my understanding was that that would be a new land use designation that would be beneficial in other areas as well.

So I think there was just a process question and I wasn't able to give the exact answer and just one other really quick question and then I will just add some thoughts.

to hopefully set the tone.

But and for Rachel in the implementation for 2A, the downtown neighborhood architectural and cultural resource study.

And I see that that's there's a nice explanation about the part, you know, the two parts to that.

And I just wonder, are we leaving space and is that where we're leaving space for the potential to revisit the downtown neighborhood overlay, which was an idea that was brought up and

It seems like it was maybe too complex to take on in this process, especially while we're all struggling to meet virtually.

Thank you for the question.

I think a lot of the feedback we heard was members of the community and even when the commission discussed it as people wanting more design controls and specifics about, you know, potentially density or form or, you know, other features that we just weren't prepared to put into the master plan.

So I don't know what an outcome could be.

I think more likely an outcome would be for us to just go straight to zoning.

and so if there are zoning changes that we could do to implement the outcomes from the study, we would think that'd be the next step rather than coming back to the master plan.

Though, if we identify changes that needed to be done to the master plan for consistency reason, we can go back and do that too.

Okay, thank you.

That makes sense.

So I wrote some stuff down, so I apologize for reading to you, but it'll make it better for everybody.

So I have this comment, and then I do have something I want the other commissioners to consider.

And so I'll start and say that this process has been challenging.

And I understand that not everyone's satisfied with the final draft.

I want community members to know that I've listened to all the discussions

I've read responses to all the surveys and I've read all the emails that have been sent about the Courbet Master Plan review.

I follow this process very closely.

I do believe there's an opportunity for the county to examine how this process has gone.

and identifies changes that can help facilitate future community engagement efforts and possible tools to manage community expectations.

There are several examples of things that could have been done differently, and I'm not going to go through all of those now, but I think that giving that input, and I have been giving that input along the way, I'm happy to share these thoughts at a later time if there's an interest on the part of the county

to collect both negative and positive input.

I wanna thank staff for the enormous amount of work they've done.

They were able to shift very quickly to online format because of the pandemic so this review process could continue.

There are so many amazing elements to the plan.

I'm very impressed with the layout and the overall content of the plan.

There's one part that I would like to bring to the commissioner's attention and Karen mentioned this already in her comments

and I'm interested to hear what commissioners have to say and like feedback on the following topic.

In this process, there were two new concepts that emerged and one was the middle density landings designation and the other was the downtown

neighborhood overlay.

The idea of the overlay didn't make it into the final draft, but I still believe the overlay has a lot of potential.

And it was really a great example of staff responding to community's concerns about how infill will occur in the older neighborhoods that surround the downtown Crozet area.

On page 25, in the Landy's chapter, the Tabor Street, Crozet Avenue, Middle Bensie residential is identified and explained.

This area was originally included in the proposed downtown neighborhood overlay.

Late in the process, the future land use designation was changed from what it currently was, which was the potential for three to six.

to middle density, which can go up to 18.

And I don't support this change.

Originally, this area was included in the overlay that was contemplated on how it might offer some protection.

This area should be removed from the chapter and set aside for more discussion after we were able to have the Down to the Hood architectural and cultural resource study completed and hopefully revisit the overlay concept.

I understand that this change is a future land use designation and so it is saying this is something that could happen in the future and likely with this area it would be in the distant future.

But from a process perspective and a planning perspective I believe this area needs closer attention and that it should not be included in this plan and revisited at a future time.

I look forward to hearing what others have to say and just general comments and then how people feel about

that particular issue.

Just a quick question.

I didn't see anything about a ban, but I might have overlooked it.

I know at the last time we had chatted, we talked about broadband reliability and expansion and so forth.

It did not make it in there.

We explored that topic after your last discussion and actually had held a meeting with our new broadband director, the director of the Office of Broadwind.

I forget what exactly it was called.

We met with him and some of his team.

and talked about what would be appropriate to include in the Crozet master plan.

And they recommended not including anything at this time and that the county-wide direction be used instead of something specific from the Crozet master plan.

I know the board has plans to expand broadband throughout the county and they felt like keeping it out of the specific master plan was the best approach.

Wow, Rick, are you reading or do you have your hand up behind you?

Are you reading, Rick?

I'm scratching.

Fine.

Could we have just a piece of clarification?

Tori, you said that the Tabor Street had one kind of designation prior to being considered amidst the middle density.

And if you would say that again, please.

Sure.

So in the 2010 master plan, the current plan, it's designated as neighborhood density residential.

So recommending three to six units per acre.

I just didn't.

Thank you very much.

Anything else before we go?

All right.

So then we are going to open it for our public hearing.

All right, thank you.

Would everybody that would like to speak, please raise your hand.

Even if you emailed and said you wanted to speak, I need you to raise your hand so you get in the queue.

All right, first we're going to go with Ali Besh.

Ali, please state your name

Hi, I am Allie Pesch and I live at 6287 Minsprings Road and I am the chair of the Crozet Community Advisory Committee and I just want to thank staff and

you the commissioners for your work on this project.

I'm really excited that we are at this point and I just want to voice my support for Jenny's comments and basically what she said.

I sent an email so just to reiterate I would, I'm very happy with the new layout and the thoroughness of this plan but I definitely think that

It is not the right time to be putting middle density on the Tabor Street property and hope that you all will consider recommending that removal of that at this time.

There's other things that maybe some of my fellow committee members will bring up as far as

the order of catalyst projects and future projects but overall I'm pretty happy with it and I'm glad that we're at this point and I hope that Rachel and Tori and Michaela and everybody know that I appreciate your engagement with us and I know it's been difficult so I'm sorry

that we had to do it during the pandemic, but I'm excited we're here.

Okay, next we have Brian Day.

Thank you.

My name is Brian Day and I live at 2090 Avon Way, which is in Emerald Ridge.

And I too would like to compliment staff for an enormously long and difficult process, particularly trying to do so much of this remotely and virtually.

But the one concern that I have that has been spoken to, and I'm just

will support that the middle density on the Tabor Street piece of property is probably at least premature.

I mean, 10 years from now, maybe, but not until we've sorted out the traffic problems along Crozet Avenue, not before we figured out if the county is going to have a historic preservation ordinance.

And when my read as a member of the

Crozet Community Advisory Committee is that majority of people really don't think that's the right place for it.

If downtown really goes and we need expansion space 10 or more years out, then that could be a serious consideration.

But middle density on the Taper River piece of property is just, in my eyes, premature and not sustainable given some of the traffic studies we've already seen done.

All right.

Good evening.

My name is Joe Fore.

I'm a Crozet resident, 1044 Amber Ridge Road.

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

But tonight I'm just speaking on behalf of myself, not on behalf of the committee.

This plan, in my view, you know, represents two years of hard work and collaboration between the community and county staff.

And I think that overall, the plan is a reasonable and pragmatic compromise that really balances some of the serious and legitimate concerns about the pace of development that many crozations have against the county's growth priorities.

So I think it's a thorough and a thoughtful document.

And I urge spending commission to accept it.

I have just two suggestions

First, I would urge that the plan move all three phases of Western Park to catalyst status.

Right now, Crozet lacks sufficient public play spaces and sports fields for the many families and children who live here.

We are a community of nearly 10,000 people.

We just don't have sufficient play spaces for all of those families.

The 2010 Crozet Master Plan listed Western Park as a quote, focal point for Western Crozet, but it's 11 years later, the park is still not built,

And the current draft only lists phase one of Western Park as a catalyst project.

Phases two and three are relegated to future park status, meaning they could be another 10 to 20 years away from completion.

If staff doesn't think that moving all phases up are feasible, I would suggest at a minimum

That phase two, which includes basketball courts, athletic fields, and some natural play areas, that that can be moved to a catalyst project.

And then phase three, which has more nature trails and passive amenities, that that be reserved for future time periods.

And second, I would just echo the comments from Allie, Brian, and a number of the other commissioners about the Tabor Crozet Avenue block.

As a matter of substance, I actually do think that these properties are good candidates for eventual hired and development.

And frankly, when it came before the Crozet committee advisory committee, I supported the idea.

And I think that staff did a good job developing a respectful plan that allowed for increased density, but respected the historic homes and the tree canopy, which is really critical in that area.

But as a matter of process, as some people have noted, this is not the right time.

This designation simply came up too late in the process with feedback from the board, but it didn't have enough opportunity for public input.

So I think that this late addition really raised or perhaps sort of confirmed for some crozations

doubts about how much the county was valuing the process.

And as a practical matter, the landowners have lived on these properties for generations and they've made clear they have no intent to sell or seek rezonings.

So it seems to me this is really an unforced error.

If it goes forward, it's generating some animosity in the community with no real tangible benefit.

So still, as I said, I think these properties are good candidates for eventual redesignation.

So I would urge the plan still retain and mention the issue so that it can be revisited in the next master planning process.

This time I don't have anybody else with their hand raised.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak that would please raise your hand now?

Okay, Valerie Long.

Valerie, please state your name and address.

Great, thank you and hello, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission I'm Valerie long.

I also am a resident of per se.

at 6617 Wellborn Lane.

I too obviously want to support the staff and echo all of the positive comments about their perseverance and patience with this process through all the challenges they've endured.

And I too support the plan.

I want to echo Joe Fore's comments about the importance of moving at least the first two phase or the second phase into of the western park implementation into the catalyst category for all the reasons he said.

When I first worked on the zoning for Old Trail back in 2004 and 2005,

It was so exciting.

The land was dedicated early.

Money was dedicated for the park plan.

They're now in the second park master plan and still we have zero infrastructure in place.

At the time I had one child.

I was pregnant with my second child.

Now my second child is 16 years old.

We've been living in Old Trail for 10 years and still there is no community park in Old Trail and that's the western park for all of Western Crozet and as Joe indicated we really really need the amenities there and it's just long overdue for all of Western.

Jose, with regard to the Tabor Avenue or the Tabor block, I actually think it's a good location for that middle density for all of the reasons that staff identified.

I think it's a practical challenge given that the landowners have stated so strongly that they will not be redeveloping.

So my concern is actually that maybe there needs to be somewhere else for this.

I think the reason that it was late in the game was because members of the CCAC and others frankly rejected other locations that staff had proposed middle density

residential, and when the board provided feedback and said to go find somewhere else to put some, they came up with a good location.

But if the landowners are not going to pursue development anytime soon, my concern is that really it's kind of all for nothing and that maybe there are other locations that can be considered.

I think the traffic issues certainly are worth looking at, but if the goal is to have pedestrian-oriented

Development and residences where people can walk to downtown and all the amenities nearby, that that's a good location.

Perhaps we need to look back at some of the other proposals that staff have brought forward early on.

At this time, I do not have anyone else with their hand raised.

Thank you, Carolyn.

Thank you, everyone who has made from the public who is either with us and who made comments.

But at that note, I will close the public hearing and come back.

Rick.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a recommendation

The hour is late.

In my time, it's after two o'clock.

I would like to suggest that we agree that we omit the Crozet Avenue, Taper Street from this master plan and do not put a land use designation on those blocks.

That's the first step.

The second step

that they investigate creation of a small area plan that factors in the historic nature of the homes, the opposition of the landowners, and provides an opportunity for a focused study, including community, other community members, staff, planning commissioner, and members of the board of supervisors.

to put together a small area plan to explore what is the highest and best use for these homes.

And after that's done, we'll let the chips fall where they are.

But I don't want to see one single block, in essence, in Crozet, in a discussion about land use, become an obstacle, a roadblock.

to our agreeing this evening on the fact that this is an outstanding master plan.

I thought the work that was done at Pantops two and a half years ago was excellent, and this has gone beyond that.

So I can't say enough good things about it.

County.

It's really an issue of the capital budget, the CIP, and what dollars are going to be available.

And I'm not really comfortable in having the Planning Commission make recommendations of one phase being put in front of another phase.

I really think that's basically a recommendation that should come from the board.

So whatever is in the master plan today and what are our catalyst projects today and what are not, I'm comfortable with.

Okay, so Rick, I'm not sure if what you were trying to do is move an amendment to the resolution.

I'm just... Well, I know there's going to be continued discussion about it, Mr. Chair.

And what I was trying to do here is to give us a focus to say, let's go ahead and agree

that it wouldn't be in there, but a way I don't want to admit it and just say, as one commissioner has proposed, we'll tackle this after we have a historic preservation ordinance.

Well, I started out almost 10 years ago on the historic preservation committee, and we still to date do not have a historic ordinance for the county.

And another 10 years,

Maybe we will, maybe we won't.

And I think what we need to do is come up with a way to really look very carefully in a focused manner on what would be most workable on Crozet Avenue and Taper Street.

Okay, okay.

Is that correct?

Because I do feel like I mean the historic ordinance thing that's a whole other set of things but I think what I was seeing in the implementation was the study about the downtown resources and you know part of the historic

a piece to that.

And then and that that would be I guess that's a larger study of a smaller a small area that was sort of identified in that overlay, which shares so much in common with the Tabor block, which was originally included in that, you know, as a potential overlay.

All these downtown neighborhoods have so much of these things in common, you know, and why Tabor might eventually become a property that this could make sense on.

a lot of other neighborhood share, you know, those same qualities.

Correct.

OK.

Because part of why I feel that we should wait on this area is that, you know, I don't know that, you know, I guess I wanted to provide a little bit of a correction that when there was pushback on the missing middle, to my knowledge, none of it was taken away.

There was a statement made

that because things were taken away, then staff put this in.

To my knowledge, what happened is none of the missing middle where it was originally proposed was actually taken away.

Staff were directed by a few board members to find more, and they came back with this location.

And so that's been some of my angst is, you know, is or could there be a better location?

Would that be somewhere around the downtown area?

And so I feel like broadening that study a little bit

might make it take longer, but might make it a little more thorough.

But I do appreciate where you're coming from, that smaller is better in the sense of actually accomplishing something that doesn't take five years.

Anyone else?

So let me sort of capture if I can, and I may ask our counsel to help this.

So the piece that I heard from from Rick over our transatlantic lines here is that is is there is there agreement to removing the removing the the the piece on page 29, which is the St.

Tabor Street, Prezet Avenue, Middle Dixity residential from from the plan.

I see one thumb.

I clearly know what Jenny thinks.

Am I right, Jenny?

I clearly know what you think.

Okay.

Don't do that.

Don't do that to me.

I see what Tim is saying.

I'm looking at Daniel, who has got a thumb up.

I see Corey.

I think I saw a thumb up.

Am I right, Corey?

Yeah, OK.

I see Karen nodding.

Luis, are you nodding, too?

You're nodding, too.

OK, cool.

So that's one piece of it.

So one of the recommendations that's going to come up, we're going to modify the resolution, is to remove the Tabor Street Crozet Avenue and Middletown density residential from the Crozet master plan.

Well, Mr. Chair, I know that when Ms.

Kanellopoulos was having her presentation that there were three different suggested motions, the first of which was approval of the plan.

The second was approval of the plan with amendments and it sounds as though there may be consensus about approving the plan with certain amendments that have just been discussed.

My concern is to be specific about what is being amended from the plan that was recommended by staff and specifically I guess I'm a little concerned about

So if that's the consensus of the commission, again, my suggestion would be that the middle motion that Miss Kanellopulos suggested would be approving the resolution with certain modifications, one of which is that that that specified area of land be preserved as neighborhood density residential, I think this is what it is.

Charles, is that right?

So that's one piece of it.

Then there was this other piece that Rick was putting before us, which I think was to try and advance the examination of the downtown district.

And I believe the downtown district flowed into that area anyhow.

And I'm looking at Tori and Rachel on that one.

I think it included that.

So there's a recommendation for downtown neighborhoods architectural and cultural resources study.

It's in the implementation chapter of page 16.

It would, yes.

But it's not a small area planning effort.

My point was that I favor that approach which already exists in the plan, which would I think allow us to further assess not just that one little property, but all of those that share a lot of the same characteristics.

I think looking at that in a bigger way rather than the very smokestball area plan is we're introducing a whole new thing which could get us bogged down and when we already do have that that Rachel just explained in there that allows for I think a little bit of a more robust review of

You know, does this make sense to go here on this property that we're discussing or collection of properties or somewhere else?

And so I would favor just that we keep that in there and that I think what the board would hear from us in our discussion is, you know, that's listed as a catalyst with a bunch of other great things.

And so that they that we may lift that up and forward as a priority.

Okay, so right now we have one piece that we're pushing forward.

Anything else?

Keeping movement on this?

A significant piece.

By me saying one piece, I'm not trying to minimize that.

This is a significant piece here.

Other things?

Also, just because, you know, we did hear this from public comment and

I do agree with Rick with the parks and the phases that I'm, you know, I appreciate those comments and I share a lot of the feelings too about that, but I am reluctant to, you know, honestly, if I go through all of that, there's a whole bunch of things I might scramble around a little bit that's my personal opinion and not necessarily representative of the whole community.

And it really does fall, as Rick said, into, I think the supervisor should weigh in on that piece.

and, you know, there's a lot of other things that go into how that would move forward.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there other pieces that people want to lift up now?

Tim and then Luis.

Well, I just I've held back on this because I've been so vocal on this in previous meetings and I just wanted to also applaud staff.

I think that this is potentially a state or maybe even regional award-winning APA project and I hope when it's all completed you all consider a submission the way we have other reports from the county in the past.

I think you've done an amazing job and many have spoken to that and I

And as you all know, I very strongly feel that we do need to examine these areas.

So I was intrigued with Rick's approach to it, but I understand where Jenny Moore is coming from.

And I do think that there it's more than just that one area.

There are several of these blocks of historic resources.

And we've seen from the good work with prototypes that Rachel and her

Cadre have worked on that doing some prototypes, exploring the work that's going on in the Twin Cities and the policies in the Twin Cities and Portland, Oregon, for instance, that we could have some prototype examples of infill raising density without losing historic character of the resources.

So I'm very interested in this approach of proceeding the way is outlined.

Luis.

And I want to preface my comment with a question for Rachel.

Sure, if you look in the draft implementation chapter, which is the last chapter before the appendix,

It's on page 16 and it's the Downtown Neighborhoods Architectural and Cultural Resources Study and the intent of this would be to do a study of the neighborhoods that are actually outlined in a map on that page as well.

in the red outline, do a comprehensive study of the historic resources in all of those neighborhoods.

There was previously one done in 2009 that focused on a smaller area and left out some of the important

So we're recommending expanding that study and then based on the study that is done there's a phase two that would be to implement the study and there could be recommendations such as doing a historic overlay ordinance or

Right.

And so what I want to also applaud, and many folks have said that, is that approach of creating a planning effort

as a catalyst project.

A lot of times we think of them well, the parks or roadways or infrastructure or particular development area.

Not necessarily another planning piece, but I think what you're acknowledging is that we need more information here.

And the historic framework is one that is needed.

We've heard that voiced numerous times.

It is an overlay that we don't have.

So I think it's an acknowledgement of, hey, this is a really good plan.

There's a lot of ways forward here, but there is a need to look at this a little deeper.

They'll give us more information on what we don't know yet.

So I applaud that.

I believe that that will give you some more information, particularly in terms of the historic framework.

I also believe we'll give you more information, hopefully, if you include traffic as part of that, so you can dive a little bit deeper.

into traffic, because as you develop that downtown area, which is going to bring a lot of resources and opportunities for Crozet to develop, it is going to bring significant traffic with it as well.

So as we continue to expand those into the Tabor or other areas in the future, it's only going to mean more traffic.

So understanding that is, I would hope, would be part of it.

in a little bit deeper dive in how we address the traffic.

Commissioner Randolph talked about capital improvement budgets in relation to parks.

Well, we know that capital improvement for BDOT is also going to be critical in how we balance the growth and density in Crozet with what BDOT can do in terms of their capital improvements.

I applaud that approach of creating a planning study out of a master plan.

It's something that we've been able to do successfully at UVA.

At one point we presented Fontaine.

Fontaine was exactly one of those things.

It was a catalyst project, if you will, that stemmed out of the integrated space plan for the health system.

Yeah, I think it's a really good approach and it's an awareness that we don't have all the information and we need to dive a little deeper.

I see Jenny, but let me see if anyone else can probably come back to Jenny.

I appreciate that, Luis, and I would when you brought up the traffic piece, I

I think that you know one of the discussions that a lot of us have had and I understand you know expanding the purview of the study you know could go on and on and on but a realistic challenge when we you know

There's also the real constraint of a lot of these are really tiny small neighborhood roads that don't meet VDOT standards.

There's a hodgepodge of sidewalks.

There's pretty much nothing as far as

you know any bike lanes and things like that so I feel like further study into that I think has always been a hope of the community for the purposes of understanding you know when we take on this infill and and that we expect more density to occur in these areas how do we safely manage because we're working with something older that was never designed to potentially

you know take on that much auto traffic but how could we support more pedestrian and bike because these are neighborhoods that surround downtown so that's a big piece to it so I appreciate that Luis mentioned that and I know there's a group or it was one gentleman and I think some friends who had volunteered at one time to just kind of inventory some of those neighborhoods to find out where we have existing sidewalks and where

You know, there are none and where to work with the county to see if there's existing right away and things like that because it really is a problem with these older road designs, which, you know, certainly we're not the only place that faces that situation constraint.

Yeah, and if I may just further the conversation a little bit more.

Crozet

Um.

it's what's going to lead to frustration and maybe is already with some residents because they see it.

They see it today.

They see the challenges of failing intersections today and knowing that it's only going to get worse with the density that's being planned.

If you haven't had a chance to I'd say dive into that Crozet transportation study that was included in our packet.

That was an enormous amount of information that I have to say was helpful in me sort of understanding some of the existing conditions.

and so I think there's I think staff has already sort of gotten us pointed in a good direction or Dr. County pointed in a good direction on sort of trying to assess and sort of just to sort of think through what the present conditions are and there was a few suggestions in there that I think that would be helpful depending on how things come from the CIP.

Is there anything else anyone has to say?

Yeah, thank you for the conversation and all the suggestions.

I think they've been great.

One thing I just wanted to point out just for transparency, I know there's a lot of folks in the community that are really eager to do this cultural resource and

historical study and additional steps.

And I just want to remind everyone that we are about to embark on a comprehensive plan update, a major ordinance update, and there is some capacity there.

So we do have to work through some of those projects where we will have capacity to get back to these.

Understand and so noted here.

Are there other things?

Okay, so I will say I'm thankful that, so to be clear, we are not stepping away from middle density.

That is still going to be on our map.

Am I right, Richard?

Am I correct in saying that?

It's not going to be in that location, but there's still instances in the Crozet.

I just want to make sure of that because there's a lot of discussion is that really are we like backing away from and to be clear, we're talking about this particular parcel, cereal parcels of land, but we are not talking about the concept.

So, Tori, are you able to

Let me back up.

I also just want to say I'm glad that we also are having conversation about workforce housing and housing that is not at the $400,000 mark for those people who that will be an extraordinary stretch.

And I'd like to say that while some people may think that that's government supported housing, I'd remind each one of us, unless you paid with your house with cash, all of us benefit from government subsidies.

Each of us benefits from the government subsidy because in this country you still get to write off your mortgage interest.

So I wanted to be real clear that this is not just about some people who get supply or get support from one part of the government, because unless you pay cash, all of us are getting support from the government because we get to take a tax deduction for our mortgage interest.

And we

Tory, can you put up that middle piece that Andy talked about?

That middle resolution for adopting the language that we would move this forward to our supervisors with the removal of the... Okay, here's where I need your help, sir.

That needs to be... Well, thank you.

So we're talking about the second resolution or the second motion if we decide to go in that direction.

And then I'm prepared for any friendly suggestions if need be.

I move to recommend the attached resolution attachment two to recommend approval of the updated Crozet master plan

CPA 2021-0001 with the following list of changes.

Is there a second?

I can't see everyone, so let me move.

I'm going to close you down just a little bit so I can see.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Tim.

Right now, those catalyst projects are not being there's no change.

Okay, so I guess I would ask for a quick check on some of the suggestions made by the call-in attendees and emails related to the park, Western Park in phase two being added to the catalyst moved from the future project.

I don't know if that's a point that should be discussed prior to making this motion or are to be comfortable with

I guess I thought we were I mean, I'm happy to make a change, but I thought we weren't going to officially weigh in on recommending that change.

But that hope that the our discussion and the comments and the public would lift that up to the board who, you know, might be more have all the pieces to weigh in more

No, I'm comfortable with that.

I'm comfortable with that change and that it is on record that there isn't a publicly accessible park in the middle of Crozet but it's not public lands for the park and so I think it is something that is best left to the board and have the full picture with the capital being a capital improvement project but it is something that I think is important to

So Daniel, just sort of to do a clarification, we're talking about the western part of Crozet.

Yes.

Opposite of art, not Mint Springs, which are actually quite accessible to people in Crozet.

Yes.

So we're going to go forward as the motion has been made by Jenny, seconded by Tim.

So additional conversation and discussion about this.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Aye.

He's coming.

Aye.

Ms.

Firehock?

Aye.

Mr. Keller?

Thank you very much.

And thank you, Rachel and Tori and Michaela.

This was, as I've said before, and as a number of our colleagues have said, this was actually a joy to read.

And I wasn't anticipating that it was going to be a joy to read, but it actually was.

It was an enjoyable document.

And so, as Tim has suggested, hopefully that will be something that you can share with the rest of our profession as it moves through its final review and its consideration.

Yes, we did.

Thank you.

So we're going to move on a little bit here, if I can find the agenda.

Hope that I lost.

You know, I have a hard time keeping up with the agenda because there's so many pieces of paper that get sent our way.

Are there committee reports?

No committee reports?

Tim, are you reaching the unmute yourself, Tim?

No, put that.

Sure.

September 1st, the board met and reviewed the AFD districts.

Same came before this commission.

And on a very exciting note, the board adopted the form-based code for the Rio 29 small area plan after several years of hard work.

Can you hold on for a second?

Rachel, can you unmute yourself?

I know it's not just you.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

That's very cool.

OK, if you want to go back to being not seen, I understand.

On the other thing, tomorrow night we have a very engaged public hearing with RST Residences.

You staying up for that one, Corey?

Yeah, I'll be there.

All right, so that's all.

That's all.

Okay.

Do we have any old or new business?

Okay.

Do we have any items for follow up?

Okay, well then we will, our next meeting is on September 21st at six o'clock in Zoom.

I thought I heard.

Did I say something wrong?

I don't think so.

Okay.

I thought I heard our coordinator there and I didn't discuss our taskmaster.

So everyone do what Karen's modeling.

Karen is modeling her mask.

So remember to wear your mask, double up and be safe and we'll see each other.

We'll see each other on September the 21st at six o'clock.

Okay.

Also remember early voting starts this Friday.

So don't forget to do that.

Peace.

Bye-bye.

And thank you.

Thank you.

I know this was a hard thing for many people.

Jenny Moore, thank you.

No, we won't.

I want to ask you- At least for like a week or two, I want to go to the grocery and not have somebody say, hey,

Can I talk to you for three hours?