HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 06 2018 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
February 6, 2018
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 6, 2018, at 6:00 p.m., at
the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Tim Keller, Chair; Julian Bivins, Daphne Spain; Pam Riley, Vice -Chair; Bruce Dotson,
Karen Firehock, Jennie More and Bill Palmer, UVA representative.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Community Development;
Elaine Echols, Chief of Community Development; David Fox, Neighborhood Planner; Rachael Falkenstein, Senior
Planner; Tim Padalino, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and John Blair, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Keller, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda
Mr. Keller invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Hearing none, Mr. Keller said the meeting would move on to the consent agenda.
Consent Agenda
Approval of Minutes: October 24, 2017
Mr. Keller asked if anyone wants to pull an item from the consent agenda for discussion. Hearing none, he asked
for a motion to accept the consent agenda.
Ms. Spain moved, Ms. Riley seconded to approve the consent agenda, which was unanimously approved by a
vote of 7:0.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
Public Hearing Items
SP-2017-00024 By Word of Mouth Automotive
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 061WO010000100
LOCATION: 442 Westfield Road and 446 Westfield Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
PROPOSAL: Motor vehicle sales as an accessory use to automobile repair service on 0.76-acre parcel.
PETITION: Motor vehicle sales and rental under Section 18-22.2.2-(8) of the zoning ordinance. No new dwellings
proposed.
ZONING: C1 Commercial — retail sales and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor (EC), Airport Impact Area (AIA), and Steep Slopes — Managed.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use — Neighborhood Service Center in Neighborhood 1, which allows for
commercial, retail, and employment uses with supporting residential (3-20 units/acre).
*Am- (Tim Padalino)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Padalino presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the staff report that would include a brief
description of the proposal, information about the subject property, a summary of the staff analysis, and staff
recommendations for the Commission's consideration. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Padalino said the applicant is Mr. Matt Stimart, the master technician at By Word of Mouth Automotive; and
his request is to conduct motor vehicle sales and rental as it is listed in the ordinance at an existing vehicle
maintenance and repair shop in the C-1 Commercial district. The proposal includes no new development or
additions to the existing structure. The applicant proposes to designate three existing parking spaces to be used
for the display of motor vehicles for sale.
With regards to the subject property, it is located in the development areas in the Rio Magisterial District in
Neighborhood 1, which is Places29/Hydraulic. More specifically the subject property's location is at 446
Westfield Road and is identified by tax map/parcel 061WO-01-OC-00100. It is a 0.76- acre property. The property
is also within the Entrance Corridor Overlay; however, ARB staff have indicated several months ago that it is not
subject to ARB review due to not being visible from Route 29.
Mr. Padalino said with regards to the future land use map in the Places29 Master Plan this area is designated as
Urban Mixed Use Neighborhood Service Center as shown on the screen. Looking a little more closely you can see
the subject property highlighted with purple highlights around the property boundaries. The adjacent uses
includes a motel, a clothing and sporting goods store, a hair salon, a veterinary clinic, an office building, and an
auto repair shop, which also is permitted for motor vehicle sales.
Mr. Padalino pointed out the existing uses on site include a one-story approximately 8,400 square foot structure
containing two commercial operations - a baseball training academy as well as By Word of Mouth Automotive
Vehicle Maintenance and Repair only at this time. Looking at a couple of images of the existing conditions, Mr.
Padalino noted an image taken of the existing entrance where you can see the signage, which would not be
altered or enlarged, and the existing structure. Looking at the rear of the property he pointed out the mature
landscaping and the topography that help to screen the existing conditions from the Berkley Subdivision, which is
somewhat adjacent but not really touching this portion of the property. This image shows the approximate
location of the three spaces proposed for the display of used motor vehicles for sale. As you can see on the
concept plan, those spaces are also delineated in the rear of the property.
The travel way exhibit was included in the staff report as Attachment D, but Mr. Padalino explained that it is no
longer pertinent. In working with the applicants, they have been extremely proactive in addressing the concerns
articulated in the staff report. The applicants have provided photographs showing how they have recently painted
the curbs bright yellow and installed several new no parking signs in the area of concern. Mr. Padalino said he
believed this addresses staff's concerns about keeping travel ways open for safe and convenient access as shown
on the approved site plan, and now the conditions on site match that and ensure that it will not be an issue.
With that in mind, Mr. Padalino said he could provide a summary of staffs analysis, and noted that a detailed
analysis is in the staff report. However, by way of summary and with those recent updates on site, there are no
unfavorable factors remaining.
A summary of favorable factors includes:
- This proposal is consistent with the Comp Plan; and
- Relative to the existing uses, this proposal represents a rather minor change in the appearance and the
use of the site; and
- The proposed new use should not create any significant new impacts.
Therefore, staff recommends approval with the conditions as outlined in the staff report and as summarized on
the screen. Mr. Padalino offered to answer questions now or after the hearing.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Keller invited questions from the Commission for staff.
Mr. Dotson said he had a question of staff and then the same question for the applicant when they step up.
Regarding the concern with the intermittent compromised travelways, he asked if the yellow curb and no parking
signs are effective and working.
Mr. Padalino replied that, to his knowledge, yes; however, he thinks this was done within the past seven days,
was recommended in the staff report and he thinks the recent on -site improvements would be sufficient.
There being no further questions, Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
Steward Wright, representing Mathew Stimart the proprietor of By Word of Mouth Automotive, said he could not
add much to Mr. Padalino's staff report since it is very thorough. There are a few things he would like to point
out, while Section 22.2 in the Zoning Ordinance calls this out as two uses — motor vehicle sales and rental — my
client has no desire to get in the car rental business whatsoever. The reason why we are requesting this is just
because, by the nature of the business, frequently you have customers who have an older car that they get tired
of sinking money into and don't want to keep it running any more and just want to sell it and get rid of it. He said
that the cars are frequently offered to my client to purchase and he is more than capable of fixing and cleaning
them up to turn around as a nice inexpensive used car. He said it is a good service to people who can't afford a
$40,000 new car.
Mr. Wright said again, there would be no change to the site whatsoever because you have a parking lot right now
with cars waiting to be repaired and you will still have a parking lot with cars waiting to be repaired with three
cars that will be for sale from time to time. He pointed out this is not a constant thing and occasionally a vehicle
worth keeping on the road comes up. He added that the county has approved almost two identical special use
permit requests in the past two years. The most recent one was approved in August, 2017 and is actually located
on the abutting property at 450 Westfield Road. The one before that was USA Auto Sales that was special use
permit 2015-31 that was approved in July of 2016. Therefore, this is not an unusual request and they keep
coming. He said if there were any questions, he would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Dotson said he just had the question asked of the staff that apparently in the past there had been some
people leaving, parking and stopping their cars in the travel way and he just learned that within the last week you
have put some yellow paint on the curb and no parking signs. He asked if just in that one week has that proven
effective.
Mr. Wright replied yes, that has proven to be effective. He noted he did see the photograph that Mr. Padalino
took that showed a car and pickup truck parked illegally, showed it to my client and we promptly got on that. It
appeared that was just a parent who was picking up their kid from the baseball training facility and he was just
too lazy to park in a correct parking space. He said he had been to the site numerous times over the years and
had not observed that before. Again, Mr. Stimart is being proactive about it and they are walking the parking lot
better to make sure nobody is parking there. He pointed out that it needs to be kept open especially if a tow
truck is coming in bringing in a broken down vehicle so it is crucial to my client that travel way stays open also.
Mr. Dotson said that was helpful and thanked Mr. Wright.
Mr. Keller invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited the applicant for rebuttal. Hearing none, he closed
the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Dotson said he was prepared to make a motion. He said for the reasons outlined in the staff report and with
the analysis, he recommends approval of SP-2017-00024 By Word of Mouth Automotive — Motor Vehicle
Sales/Rental with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
**AW Ms. More seconded the motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 3
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Keller invited further discussion.
Ms. Firehock said she did not think condition #2 is necessary anymore since it is the one condition already met.
Ms. Echols noted that condition #2 needs to stay just so there is a record that needs to be kept.
Ms. Firehock agreed that condition #2 needs to stay.
The motion was approved by an unanimous vote of 7:0.
Mr. Keller said that the recommendation for SP-2017-24 By Word of Mouth Automotive — Motor Vehicle
Sales/Rental will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined. He thanked staff for the
presentation.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
SP-2017-00004 James River Runners Amendment
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 13600-00-00-012A0, 13600-00-00-014AO
LOCATION: 10092 Hatton Ferry Rd
PROPOSAL: Amend special use permit SP197800074 for canoe livery by expanding the camping area accessory to
the canoe livery to allow 5 campsites on a new parcel of 1.8 acres (13600-00-00-014A0)
PETITION: Expansion of canoe livery with accessory camping under Section 10.2.2.29 of the Zoning Ordinance,
which permits boat landings and canoe liveries.
ZONING: RA Rural Area - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots)
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Flood Hazard Overlay District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area — preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic
and scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
(David Fox)
David Fox, Neighborhood Planner, presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report on SP-
2017-00004 James River Runners Amendment. The request is to amend SP-1978-74, which is a special use permit
for a canoe livery. The request is to expand the camping area accessory to the canoe livery on to parcel 13600-
00-00-014A0, which is adjacent to the current use. This property is at Hatton Ferry in the southern part of the
county adjacent to the James River approximately 3 miles southwest of Scottsville in the Scottsville Magisterial
District and the zoning is Rural Area.
Mr. Fox highlighted the parcels in question and the history of the parcel.
• Original SP-1978-74 for Parcel 136-12 approved in 1978.
• 1983 Subdivided 136-12A.
• 1991 zoning complaint about campground — Official Zoning Determination that camping is an allowed
accessory use to the canoe livery under the County Ordinance.
• In 2008, the current applicants, Christopher and Page Wilkes, purchased the JRR business and property.
• Request is to bring into compliance five (5) existing primitive campsites on 136-14A with the permission
of that landowner which is shown on the southeastern portion of the map.
In response to some of the requests for additional information from the Commission, Mr. Fox apologized that this
information was not originally included in the staff report and that the map highlights some of the additional
water features that are in play at this site. He pointed out: the County's Water Protection Ordinance Buffer, the
extent of the 100-year floodplain plan and the jurisdictional floodway. Mr. Fox noted that both the existing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
camping use and the proposed expanded area where there is existing camping are within the jurisdictional
floodway and the floodplain and no permanent structures allowed.
Mr. Fox reviewed photographs to give an indication of the status of the site and pointed out the parking area at
Hatton Ferry, the James River, the existing camp area approved under the zoning ordinance, and the proposed
expansion area. He pointed out the vegetative nature of the bank along the James River below the camping area.
Mr. Fox briefly summarized the issues considered in the staff report and that came up in the public meeting:
• The applicant is requesting no additional uses, and only bringing into compliance a longstanding use.
• No structures or permanent changes proposed; this is primitive camping only with a seasonal use of
picnic tables and portable toilets, which are removed when the boating season is not active (May to
September).
• The camping is only available to participants in the canoe livery; it is not open to the general public.
• The conditions seek to protect the adjacent property owners and maintain a general quiet nature of the
rural area.
• The applicant has demonstrated a continuous compliance with the Virginia Department of Health
regulations related to campgrounds.
• No objection from VDOT for this use. One concern that came up in the public discussion is concerns
about excessive speed on Hatton Ferry Road. Hatton Ferry Road is currently unclassified by the Virginia
Department of Transportation so it defaults to a 55 miles per hour speed limit. The applicant has
actually asked VDOT to reconsider this several times; however, they have not done that. Kevin
McDermott, Transportation Planner, spoke to VDOT recently and they have agreed to revisit that issue in
light of this proposal.
• Staff believes this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting tourism and rural
opportunities for employment. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan also calls out boating access on
the James River as a desirable goal.
With that staff is recommending approval with conditions:
1. Accessory structures within the floodplain shall be constructed and secured in accordance with County
Code § 18-30.3.15.
2. The use of fireworks on the property shall be prohibited.
3. The owner shall establish and enforce Campground Quiet Hours, as approved by the Zoning
Administrator, for the hours between 10 pm and 6 am.
4. No amplified sound or permanent lighting shall be installed or used on the property.
Mr. Fox said he would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff. Hearing none, Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to come forward.
Chris Wilkes, with James River Runners, said he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may
have.
Ms. Firehock said that she had a few questions - first of all the campsites since they are primitive she assumes
that means that they are not set up as pads, they just literally put a tent on the grass.
Mr. Wilkes replied that is correct — there are picnic tables and fire pits.
Ms. Firehock asked where trash is stored from that, and if that is up by the main building.
Mr. Wilkes replied it is; we have a separate building for storing trash inspected every year by the Department of
Health that comes down and issues our camp permit.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 5
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Firehock said on the actual location sketch she was concerned about whether the campsites themselves are
within the 100' buffer that we try to maintain along the James River. She asked if he knows the distance since she
could not quite tell.
Mr. Wilkes replied that they were adjacent to the river and probably are about at 100'.
Ms. Firehock said she knows there was an incident in the last five years where one of the porta-johns actually
escaped into the river during a high water event.
Mr. Wilkes replied that he did not believe it was one of ours since we have never lost one, however, Parks and
Rec have one by Hatton and we have moved it for them in the past and notify them of high water.
Ms. Firehock said that it is in the floodplain and she was just wondering if he knows the distance and where the
porta-john will be located.
Mr. Wilkes replied that the porta-johns are at least 100'; we keep those up against a tree line where in the event
that water is coming up we can move them well across the tracks and out of the floodplain. He said depending on
how fast the water comes up we have had to secure them to the trees with chains before; however, in my time
there we have never lost one.
Ms. Firehock asked if he had his own equipment to go ahead and move them if he has to; and Mr. Wilkes replied
yes.
Ms. More asked as they are currently operating are there staff there 24 hours a day or overnight.
Mr. Wilkes replied yes, when we are in season from approximately March to October.
Ms. More asked if that would continue, and Mr. Wilkes replied yes.
Ms. More said she noted in staff's report neighbors have raised concerns about special events or fireworks
display; but, it does not appear as though as far as zoning there was any official complaints. She asked if he was
aware of any and if that is something that you have allowed and now are not going to allow.
Mr. Wilkes replied no, we have never allowed that; however, we have adjusted our waiver that we have people
sign off on in the past to agree to comply with state and federal law and have clarified that a little more to
specifically include fireworks.
Ms. More said if there are other campers or neighbors that have a concern that they would have someone, they
could reach out to at any hour.
Mr. Wilkes replied yes, absolutely we have somebody on site in season and then my direct contact as well is
posted permanently on the front door of the building with cell phone and ways to contact me directly.
Mr. Dotson said just a further clarification on the staff that is on the site in what are their hours.
Mr. Wilkes replied we have people on site from 7:30 am to 7:30 pm on full staff and then there is one staff
member on duty who stays there as long as there are campers on site. He pointed out if the campground is
empty we do not have anybody there.
Ms. Spain said she was pleased to see this type of project because we do want to improve access to the river and
recreational opportunities, but mainly for the river's health, she thinks it is good for more people to be on it and
appreciate it. She said she was not clear about the 100' buffer and when Ms. Firehock asked about that, you said
there would be campsites within that 100' stream buffer.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Wilkes replied that we are talking about 100' from the riverbank there are campsites there that have been
there for 38 years.
Ms. Spain asked if the sites were already within that limit, and Mr. Wilkes replied yes.
Mr. Keller invited further questions. Hearing none, he invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited
applicant for rebuttal. Hearing none, Mr. Keller closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the
Commission for discussion and action.
Ms. Firehock said obviously this use has been going on there for some time; camping along the James River is a
desired activity and she has no objection to that as a general concept. However, she would like the sites to be
stepped back out of the 100' wooded buffer. She noted that buffer has a purpose, which is to remove nitrogen
phosphorous, and sediment from runoff that would enter the river and our Water Protection Ordinance is
something that we try to enforce. She said it is structured such that if you already have cleared land it does not
cause you to plant trees; however, she thinks that it is in keeping with the county's ordinance. She said given the
large area of land that is available since it is not that they are constrained there, she would prefer that they move
back the campsites 100' from the edge. She said even pitching tents there can compact the soil and she would
like to allow the buffer to grow up naturally and fulfill its role in protecting our river from runoff. She said the
James River does suffer tremendously from sediment input and that would be her personal preference. However,
she understands if other Commissioners don't agree since it has been going on there for a while, but in this case it
seems easy enough to move them back 100'.
Ms. Echols asked to provide a little bit of clarification on the 100' buffer since it is a little confusing. She said if
you look at the image our 100' buffer is coincident with the floodplain boundaries so it is actually a lot further
than the 100' and so if it were entirely out of the buffer it would be entirely off the parcel. She pointed out the
floodplain boundary and then the 100' buffer is about the same. She said it sounds like maybe what she is saying
that you would prefer that the campsites be at least 100' away from the river itself to help with that 100'
between the river and the edge of the campsites for the filtering purposes and the purposes that a buffer does
serve.
Ms. Firehock said that was correct and one of the purposes of our buffer ordinance. She said that 100' from the
scientific literature removes more than 90 percent of the nitrogen phosphorous and sediment that would
naturally run off the land so she would like the campsites to step back 100'. She understands this was a prior
approved special use permit for the parcel on the other side; however, had she been sitting on the Planning
Commission at that time she would have made the same request that it be stepped back 100'. As this is a special
use permit, she believed it is within our privy to request that. This would not preclude the people going camping
from sitting at the edge of the river and enjoying it; it just simply means that most of the occurrence would occur
100' back from the river's edge.
Mr. Fox said to address that concern without taking an exact field measurement there was a question if you
measure from the bottom of the bank of the James or the top of the bank. However, he thinks 100' would
essentially preclude the use of this existing parcel since it was only a little bit longer than 100' wide. He said he
had discussed this issue at length with the county engineer and he did not recommend that we preclude camping
based on the WPO buffer.
Ms. Firehock said she misunderstood; she thought that red line was just the area denoting where they wanted to
have their tents; but, you were saying that is the actual legal boundary of the parcel, and Mr. Wilkes replied that
is correct; that is the entirety of parcel 136-14A.
Ms. Firehock said given that she did not want to preclude them from camping at all and so she will withdraw her
concern although she would still say for the record that we should protect the 100' buffer along the James River.
,*M+" She suggested that maybe they could plant a couple extra trees, but she would not ask that as a condition.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 7
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Keller asked if there was further discussion.
Mr. Dotson said he just had a comment perhaps for reaction from other commissioners or from the applicant.
Mr. Dotson said he thinks my comfort level with conditions 2, 3, and 4, the fireworks prohibition, the quiet hours,
the lighting, the sound and so forth are based on what the applicant indicated that a staff person would be
present. He said that is considerably to my comfort level given the location and the difficultly of the county
enforcing this really puts a lot of onerous on the owner's shoulders. Mr. Dotson suggested a condition that says
staff must be on site during the time when camping takes place that would give us some greater assurance that
those conditions would actually be achieved so he would be interested in commissioner, staff or applicant
reaction.
Ms. Riley agreed with Mr. Dotson's suggested additional condition since she thinks the previous complaint was
around fireworks. She said there is a real possibility of people camping and getting a little loud and out of hand
and so thinks requiring a staff person there may not preclude these things from happening, but if there is an issue
and there is a complaint there is somebody there to deal with it.
Ms. Firehock asked if it was possible to ask one other question of the applicant, and Mr. Keller replied yes.
Ms. Firehock said her question was concerning staff themselves since she was not sure exactly what the response
time is for any emergencies from the Scottsville Fire Department; she was guessing it was 25 to 30 minutes.
Mr. Wilkes replied that Scottsville Fire Department is only about five miles away so he would say that is probably
an over estimate. He noted that usually when we have had incidents with the rescue squad, which is even further
away, they are generally there within ten minutes.
Ms. Firehock thanked Mr. Wilkes.
Mr. Wilkes noted that we do also continually plant trees along the bank on the proposed site there as well just to
help with erosion.
Mr. Dotson asked if he would have any concern with a fifth condition that says staff must be on site during time
when camping takes place, and Mr. Wilkes replied no, not at all.
Mr. Blair said that he had sketched out a fifth condition that "a staff member shall be on the premises at all times
when individuals are utilizing camp sites on the property."
Mr. Keller asked if there was a motion.
Ms. Riley moved to recommend approval of SP-2017-00004 James River Runners Amendment with the conditions
outlined in the staff report, as amended, including the additional of a fifth condition as stated by our attorney.
1. Accessory structures within the floodplain shall be constructed and secured in accordance with County
Code § 18-30.3.15.
2. The use of fireworks on the property shall be prohibited.
3. The owner shall establish and enforce Campground Quiet Hours, as approved by the Zoning
Administrator, for the hours between 10 pm and 6 am.
4. No amplified sound or permanent lighting shall be installed or used on the property.
5. A staff member shall be on the premises at all times when individuals are utilizing campsites on the
property.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Keller thanked the applicant and said this request for SP-2017-00004 James River Runners Amendment is
moving forwarding to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval.
The meeting moved to the next item on the agenda.
SP-2017-00018 Rivanna Solar Project
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 09400-00-00-017AO
LOCATION: Southeast of the intersection of Buck Island Road and Rt. 53 at 2631 Buck Island Rd
PROPOSAL: Solar -energy electrical generation facility, with solar panels occupying approximately 90 acres
PETITION: Solar energy system allowed by special use permit under section 10.2.2.58 of the Zoning Ordinance on
a 149-acre parcel. No new dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: RA Rural Area - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots)
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor, Flood Hazard Overlay District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area — preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic
and scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
(Scott Clark)
Mr. Scott Clark summarized the staff report, with Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning, in a PowerPoint
presentation. This is a special use permit request for a solar -energy electrical generation facility.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
• 149-acre site, cleared in commercial timbering operation
• Proposed facility would include approximately 90 acres of passive solar photovoltaic arrays on the 149-
acre property.
• Solar panels oriented horizontally, approximately six feet above the ground
• Electricity generated by the facility would be transferred to the adjacent substation
• Solar panel areas would be surrounded by chain -link fences
• Approximately seven inverters (contained in metal boxes approximately 14 feet long, 7.5 feet high, and
3.5 feet wide) and other electrical equipment would be located on the site.
• No buildings would be needed, no on -site staffing.
• It is just north of Buck Island Creek and the floodplain of that creek.
• The majority of the site has been recently cleared in a commercial timbering operation.
• In photos, staff pointed out the areas that have been cleared have been replanted with the small pines.
• Reviewed overall concept plan of the site.
• There is one particular area where the envelopes of the panels would come up close to Route 53 and
there is some more detailed screening placed there.
• Pointed out existing substation and the existing powerline easement that crossing through the property
and the connection from the proposed equipment yard over to the existing substation to connect to the
grid.
• The second sheet of the conceptual plan has a more detailed screen and planting plan for the area that is
adjacent to Route 53. Up near the road there is a line of shrubs to be planted which would be effective
at interrupting the views from passing drivers and passengers so they are down more at the level of
people in vehicles and then stepped back from that back out of the line of road right-of-way and the
utility corridor that comes through here are some rows of lower trees and then higher species that are in
front of the fencing that would be around this area of panels here.
Factors to be Consider for approving special use permits in this case:
No substantial detriment The proposed special use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
The main issue staff found was the noise from the invertors, which are not tremendously loud but they create
Inverter noise:
• 70 decibels at a distance of one meter (3.28 feet) — comparable to "radio or TV audio" or a vacuum
cleaner
• The decibel level decreases with distance from the source. However, the noise would be continuous
during daylight hours
• Staff recommends an inverter setback of at least 100 feet from all property lines — would reduce noise
level to approximately 40 decibels
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter,
The purposes of the RA zoning district include:
Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
• The site could return to agricultural or silvicultural use after the solar facility was no longer needed. The
applicant expects up to a 25 to 35 year life span for a facility like this. When it is done all of the
equipment can be removed. In fact, staff are recommending separate conditions.
• Recommended conditions require a "decommissioning plan"
• Removal of both above -ground facilities and below -ground panel supports
Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
• Little if any demand for emergency services
• No need for drinking -water supply or septic fields.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Rural Areas Plan
• Rural Areas priorities:
• agricultural and silvicultural uses and activities
• natural and cultural resources.
• Proposed use would occupy approximately 90 acres of recently-clearcut forest land with an
energy -generation use.
• However, the site could return to agricultural or silvicultural use
• Recommended decommissioning plan would ensure that this potential is achieved
Environmental Sustainability
• 1998 Sustainability Accords as important guiding principles.
• community should "[p)romote the conservation and efficient use of energy resources."
• Natural Resources chapter
• County should "continue to demonstrate leadership in energy and carbon reductions at
the local level."
• Local Climate Action Planning Process recommended that the community "promote
wider awareness and adoption of cleaner sources of electrical energy (e.g., solar
photovoltaic, co -generation, biomass, wind).
The proposed facility would be in accord with these policies, as it would supply energy from one of those "cleaner
sources."
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 10
FINAL MINUTES
Visual Character
• The Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan calls for "[r]ural and historic landscapes that
iw enhance the visitor's experience."
• The site is located on Route 53, which is a major access route to Monticello and James Monroe's
Highland
• The current conceptual plan shows landscaping and screening reviewed by the ARB.
• The ARB felt this design would effectively screen the most visible portion of the site (especially the
portion directly adjacent to Route 53) without attempting to eliminate all possible views of the site. Staff
believes that this level of screening is appropriate for protecting the visual character of Route 53.
Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
• As an electrical generation use that will provide energy to a public utility (Dominion Virginia Power), this
proposal is subject to a Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Review as required by the Code of
Virginia (Section 15.2-2232).
• A compliance review considers whether the general location, character, and extent of a proposed public
facility are in substantial accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
• The Planning Commission reviews it, and the Commission's findings are forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors for their information. No additional action is required of the Board.
• For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the proposed use is in substantial accord with the
Comprehensive Plan.
• Staff recommends that the Commission formally make the finding of substantial accord, in addition to
the recommended action on the special use permit proposal itself.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this proposal:
1. The use is in accord with Comprehensive Plan policies for the Rural Areas and for encouraging
use of sustainable energy sources.
2. The site can be returned to agricultural or silvicultural uses, unlike more permanent forms of
commercial or utility development.
3. The proposed landscaping and screening effectively reduce the visibility of the site from Route
53, and long-distance visibility of the site from historic sites and the rural landscape in general is
significantly limited by topography, distance, and the low-lying nature of the proposed facility.
4. Noise impacts can be managed by equipment setbacks.
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this proposal.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the development of the proposed solar energy facility to be
in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff also recommends approval of SP-2017-00018 Rivanna Solar with the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plans prepared by Draper
Aden Associates titled "Conceptual Layout, Rivanna Solar Farm" dated January 5, 2018 (hereinafter
"Concept Plan") as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
general accord with the Concept Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements as
shown on the Concept Plan:
a. Location of solar development envelopes;
b. Location of access/entrance improvements;
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 11
FINAL MINUTES
c. Location of equipment yard; and
d. Retention of wooded vegetation in stream buffers
Minor modifications, with the approval of the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, to the Concept
Plan that do not otherwise conflict with the elements listed above may be made to ensure compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Landscaping and screening shall be substantially as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and shall be planted
as shown on a landscaping plan approved by the Director of Planning or his or her designee.
3. All inverters shall be set back at least one hundred (100) feet from property lines and rights -of -way.
4. The applicant shall submit a tree -protection agreement between the applicant and the landowner of Tax
Map Parcel 09300-00-00-047EO with the building permit application. This agreement shall prohibit the
removal of shrubs or trees (except for non-native or invasive species) by either party within 475 feet of
the rear boundary of this parcel until decommissioning of the solar energy facility on Tax Map Parcel
09400-00-00-017AO is complete. The tree -protection agreement shall be subject to review and approval
by the County Attorney, and shall be in a form and style so that it may be recorded in the office of the
Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the tree -protection
agreement shall be recorded by the applicant in the office of the Circuit Court of the County of
Albemarle.
5. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties.
6. The applicant shall submit a decommissioning and site rehabilitation plan (hereinafter "Decommissioning
Plan") with the building permit application that shall include the following items:
a. A description of any agreement (e.g. lease) with all landowners regarding decommissioning;
b. The identification of the party currently responsible for decommissioning;
c. The types of panels and material specifications being utilized at the site;
d. Standard procedures for removal of facilities and site rehabilitation, including recompacting and
reseeding;
e. An estimate of all costs for the removal and disposal of solar panels, structures, cabling,
electrical components, roads, fencing, and any other associated facilities above ground or up to
thirty-six (36) inches below grade or down to bedrock, whichever is less; and
f. An estimate of all costs associated with rehabilitation of the site.
The Decommissioning Plan shall be prepared by a third -party engineer and must be signed off by the party
responsible for decommissioning, and all landowners of the property included in the project. The
Decommissioning Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the County Attorney and County Engineer, and
shall be in a form and style so that it may be recorded in the office of the Circuit Court of the County of
Albemarle.
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Decommissioning Plan shall be recorded by the applicant in
the office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle.
8. The Decommissioning Plan and estimated costs shall be updated every five years, upon change of
ownership of either the property or the project's owner, or upon written request from the Zoning
Administrator. Any changes or updates to the Decommissioning Plan shall be recorded in the office of
the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle.
9. The Zoning Administrator shall be notified in writing within 30 days of the abandonment or
discontinuance of the use.
10. All physical improvements, materials, and equipment (including fencing) related to solar energy
generation shall be removed from above ground and from below ground down to bedrock, or to a depth
of at least 36 inches below the ground surface, whichever is less, and the site shall be rehabilitated as
described in the Decommissioning Plan, within 180 days of the abandonment or discontinuance of the
use.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 12
FINAL MINUTES
11. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced by [date two
years from Board approval], the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted
thereunder shall thereupon terminate.
Mr. Clark noted staff had recommended motions for the Commission and would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff from the Commission.
Ms. Spain suggested staff also add for the public that Monticello did approve of this in terms of its effect that it
would have little to no effect on the view shed of Monticello and all of the Commissioners got letters to that
effect.
Mr. Clark agreed and that they provided a letter to the Commission and the Board to that effect.
Ms. Spain noted that the chain link fence makes me a little nervous and she would like to know how long it would
take the planted vegetation to cover the chain link fence.
Mr. Clark replied that the planting height for some of the trees at the front or closest to the road he believed
were going to be in the order of 7' foot; that is going to be pretty effective and pretty sizeable trees to be
screening of the fence. However, he did not recall whether that front fence is chain link. Mr. Clark noted the
applicant could tell you more in detail about that. He said they are required to have fencing for their insurance
purposes to protect the equipment in the facility.
Ms. Spain said she can understand that, but, whether it needs to be chain link or some other type fencing just
facing Route 53.
Mr. Clark said the screen goal was to see the trees and not the fence.
Ms. Spain noted that would take a while for the trees to grow.
Ms. Maliszewski noted that part of the reason for what looks like that heavy landscaping there along the tree is
because there is an Entrance Corridor guideline that says chain link should not be visible from the street. So that
is one of the reasons it was not just the visibility of the solar panels but also the visibility of the fence.
Mr. Keller asked if there was further questions for the staff.
Ms. More said that she had a question about condition 5 about outdoor lighting. She said that it sounds like the
site is not staffed and how often would there be lighting on the site at nighttime.
Mr. Clark pointed out that is just our standard condition just to make sure that the fixtures are full cut off and my
understanding from the applicants is that there would be lighting on the site that could be switched on if they
wanted to do repairs at night if something broke. He said but, no, there would not be office facilities or staffing
on the site for there need to be constant lighting. However, he was sure the applicant could tell you more about
that in more detail.
Ms. More asked if was not a security fixture or something like that; and Mr. Clark replied that he did not believe
so but they can ask the applicant.
Mr. Dotson said the question about accessing the site once construction has been completed. He sees on the site
plan temporary access would come off from Route 53.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 13
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Clark replied that the construction entrance would be on Route 53, but then that would be closed and would
be actually covered up by the proposed landscaping on Route 53. Then a permanent entrance, which again would
just be for occasional maintenance would be back here on Buck Island Road.
Mr. Dotson said a related question in terms of operating this facility a certain number of inverters would be
involved and are those spread around the site or clustered in one area.
Mr. Clark replied that my understanding is that they are spread around the site but the exact locations will not be
known until the final engineering is done on the exact layout on the panels. He said our main concern with those
is just to keep them be back to some degree from the nearby residences which is why we are recommending a
100' setback, we are mostly concerned about noise when it came to the inverters.
Mr. Dotson said when you speak about noise that is noise made by the inverters during the hours of operation
and you described it as continuous; and Mr. Clark replied that is correct.
Mr. Dotson said in terms of the panels tilting, and maybe this is a question for the applicant, is there however
many panels there are here tilting simultaneously does that generate noise.
Mr. Clark said that he recalled asking the applicant about that a few months back. He recalled that the answer
was that it happened so slowly that it does not produce much noise because they are talking about tilting from
one angle to the other across the other across the entire course of the day, but they can answer that better than
he can.
Hearing no other questions, Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
Seth Maughan, Director of Projects with SolUnesco, said his colleagues Joan Hilts and President Glen Telfer who
works for J. Breeden who were doing engineering work for us joined him. He said also present is Carolyn
Sweeney who is the landowner on this property. He acknowledged all the work the county has done to date; we
have been working with them for a year and a half on this project. He said we know it is a new year and we really
appreciate off the effort that has been put into responsibly embracing solar development in the county. He said
Scott did a great job of giving an overview of the project. He has a couple of items he would like to ask to talk
about somewhat commonly asked questions particularly to this project.
Mr. Maughan said he thinks we have had a good summary of this proposal and if you have questions, he would be
happy to answer them. He presented a PowerPoint presentation that he wanted to share; this is a representation
of what an 11 megawatts project would look like on the property. He pointed out the roads that Scott showed
going north/south here and as he pointed out, they rotate slowly throughout the day and at that speed there is
no real noise. He clarified one thing Scott said about the height was that 6'8" height is when they are at a
maximum tilt and it is not the height they are when lying flat but are lower to the ground and a very low profile
use. He said at the maximum tilt at the end of the day one edge will reach that height and then they will flatten
back out for the night.
Mr. Maughan said as Scott mentioned we have worked pretty excessively with the ARB and staff to develop a
buffer plan. He said there is a chain link fence there and it is 7' high, which is the reason that we are planting
trees that are also 7' high; not all of the trees but a significant amount of the trees so that at implementation
there is some decent coverage. He said we are also giving a setback of 85' to the fence and 100' to the panels
that is beyond what is required there in addition to an extensive buffer plan that is quite a bit more than industry
standard. He said we did this throughout several hearings of the ARB because of the Entrance Corridor. He noted
he has learned since then that technically there is no Entrance Corridor standards and with that said we recognize
and respect that this is an important street and the rural nature of the street is important to the county. He said
we want to be good neighbors so we are not proposing any changes from what we came up with the ARB and we
hope will go a long way in creating harmony with this property and the surroundings. He said we have also
prepared a couple of simulations of what this buffer plan will look like. He pointed out in a shot from Route 53
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 14
FINAL MINUTES
with the trees granted after 5 to 10 years of growth; but when planted they will be 7' which is higher than the
' panels and equal to the height of the fence. He pointed out before and after photos. in addition, he said we
understand that Albemarle County is known for its view sheds and Scott shared the analysis we had done to the
left. In the analysis, the red areas are areas that theoretically have a line of sight to this project. He said one of
the notes is that we used 40' average trees for this analysis which is quite a bit below what he understands what
the actual average tree height is in Albemarle County. Therefore, this is a very liberal estimate in actuality and it
may be very much better than this. He said as Scott pointed out you have to be quite a distance from the site
before you get into the hills where you have the elevation where you could theoretically see over the surrounding
vegetation. At that distance, we have demonstrated in our application it is very hard to see anything at all let
alone matte black panels that are 4' off the ground.
Mr. Maughan said what we have also done is taken pictures from a drone that we had commissioned of the
Louisa site in Louisa County. He noted that site is quite a bit larger than the proposed site. The first picture is at
2.7 miles and you can see off in a distance the actual site. Then the picture below is at 4 miles and again this area
is the site that is nearly impossible to see at this distance. In fact, the lower right picture was taken to simulate
the approximate distance in height from Monticello. He said we shared this picture with Monticello along with a
glare analysis and a lot of other information. He said we have really enjoyed working with them and they were
able to endorse this project. He said we were happy about that.
Mr. Maughan said the big question we always get is decommissioning and rightfully so; he certainly understands
the counties don't want to see racks of garden panels that have been left for 50 years and that is certainly not the
case here. First, of the entire landowner contract, we have an obligation to the landowner aside from our
obligations with the county to decommission and that language is in the contract, which is also included with the
application as far as our sight control documentation. He said also we have a number of conditions that have
been proposed by the county all of which we are happy to adhere to, the conditions are fairly standard and stuff
that we have agreed to in other counties including a decommissioning plan with a third party cost estimate and
also updating that plan every five (5) years to ensure that conditions have not changed and we can still do the
cleanup. In addition, with the conditions we are committing to full decommissioning and rehab as described in
the application and in our contract with the landowner within 180 days of this project going off line. He said that
is quick, usually we take a year; however, this is a smaller project and we believe that we can meet that.
Therefore, we are happy to oblige there as well.
Mr. Maughan said we hope we have been able to effectively demonstrate that these projects pose little risk for
negative impact to the county; but we would also like to highlight some of the benefits that these projects offer
the county. Obviously, it is a revenue opportunity for the landowner and a way for the landowner to use their
property in a way that generates revenue for them beyond what they could otherwise expect to earn off the land
through alternative uses. In addition, there is expected to be an increase in real estate tax. Currently, this is in
land use so the county will see a small increase. At present day values, it is a little over $6,000 per year plus five
years back taxes and so a little bit of cash for the county. In addition, there will be construction jobs for the
construction part of this project. These jobs are cropping up all over the state and in Central Virginia Piedmont. A
Virginia Community College locally actually has a project now where they are training workers in this field.
Therefore, we are glad to see that because it means there is opportunity to hire locally for this project. In
addition to that, the county can expect that general economic boost especially during construction for services
like rock quarries, landscapers and nurseries. There is a local EPC firm that specializes in building these sort of
projects in Charlottesville, they have approached us and are looking forward to bidding on this project when it
comes up. Finally, it provides the county with an opportunity to take a leadership role in clean energy role in
Virginia. He said we know that is a priority from you based on your Comprehensive Plan and in participation in
the Sol Smart Project you made a dedication to champion renewal energies and this is a great opportunity for you
to do so.
Mr. Maugham pointed out there is a lot of due diligence still to come since this is sort of a generic step of a
project since right now we are in county permitting and have to work with the state on what is called the DEQ.
He said we have to do technical surveys to perform boundary surveys with the Army Corps of Engineers, historical
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 15
FINAL MINUTES
and archaeological surveys and then give reports to the state along with the mitigation measures that we deem
necessary. He noted they would have to sign off on this project before it is built. In addition, we will be working
with the county actually for the Virginia Stormwater Management Plan on this project for any wastewater
management needed. With that, Mr. Maughan thanked the Commission and said he hoped they would agree
with staff on the recommendation for the special use permit and was open to any questions they might have.
Mr. Keller invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Firehock said the plan shows a stream on it with trees and obviously, the landowner left that after completing
the forestry operation. She asked the applicant how wide that is and if he plans to maintain that water buffer.
Mr. Maughan replied that there is a stream buffer that shows up in the GIS, which was the main strip in the
middle, and per the plan, we are leaving a 100' buffer that matches what is in the county's GIS system where we
will not be disturbing anything.
Mr. Bivins asked to speak a little bit about the decommissioning plan. He said the plan right now is that there will
be a review every five years.
Mr. Maughan replied that was right and that was actually proposed by the county.
Mr. Bivins asked if that five-year review will include the county attorney and the county engineer and if there
were changes to it.
Mr. Maughan said that he believed the plan is to have a third party do a cost estimate every five years; and if we
feel that there are any changes required of the decommissioning plan we will make it at that time and resubmit
to the county. However, at a minimum he believed the requirement specifies that we will redo a cost estimate
that he believes is the important piece and the one most likely to change.
Mr. Bivins said that would also be recorded as the other plan since my concern is that every time you do a
reevaluation that piece makes it through the process set down in 6f to ensure it is put on the plat and gets
recorded so that it sets some place so everybody knows what you are doing.
Mr. Maughan suggested that might be a question for Mr. Blair since we are supportive of the conditions, but did
not offer them and did not know what the county requires there exactly. He said they would be happy to oblige.
Mr. Blair said that obviously we would review all documents that were to be recorded before they would be
recorded. He would say this is sort of a novel process; this is the first such facility. The zoning text amendment
occurred last year and this is the first facility to come under that special use permit so we have been looking at
decommissioning practices across the country. Obviously, we would review these documents before they are
recorded by our office as well as the county engineer's office. However, to be frank he said this is sort of a novel
process.
Mr. Bivins asked how you are made aware if by some unfortunate moment a panel is stuck up when it should not
be. In addition, he asked how long it takes someone to come and correct that.
Mr. Maughan replied that there is real time monitoring of these systems through a computer monitoring system
that would come to someone's desk and they would send out a dispatch. As far as the response time on that he
is not sure, but would assume it is possible because if a panel is not working correctly we are losing money. As far
as possible other negative impacts of that he cannot think of one other than we are losing money. He said so
even if a panel was stuck in a position that was not facing the sun he did not think that would be a detriment to
the county or neighboring properties; it would just be a detriment to us so we would want to fix those as quickly
as possible. However, he does not know what the exact response time is.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 16
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Riley asked Mr. Maughan for a little more detailed description of the landscaping and screening plan given
the ARB's concerns and if he could talk about what areas in particular were the most challenging and how are you
going to treat them.
Mr. Maughan pointed out that this was sort of a tiered approach. He said one of the obstacles we had here was
that there is an electrical easement running along the entire frontage. He said this is the only frontage that
actually abuts Route 53, which was the Entrance Corridor, and probably will be again soon, so we really wanted to
focus on this area. He said what we have here is shrubs directly adjacent to the road, but not within the VDOT
easement. He noted that we had a little bit of room there between the VDOT easement and the electrical line
easement, and we felt that shrubs are appropriate because they fit and did not have an opportunity to grow up
into the lines. He said we worked a lot with the county and the ARB on this matter and kind of agreed that was
an appropriate fit for that little strip of land we did have and beyond that we step it up with some higher trees
just on the other side and basically back to the fence. There is still a tiered approach with the trees closest to the
fence being the tallest where you see the 7' range trees next to the 7' fence. He said those trees of course would
get bigger quickly that you saw in the rendering. He pointed out another aspect of the property, as you saw;
there are some small pine trees that have been growing for the last 3 or 4 years since it was clear-cut. In our
application, we make it clear that we will also keep those in place where possible so in addition to the planted
trees we will also have some trees that are currently about this high and will continue to grow that alone certainly
do not cut it as far as the screening goes. However, those trees do county for something and we are happy to
leave those in place as well. He noted those would be left in place all around the property and with the joint
properties there is a 50' buffer and we will leave those pine trees and anything else that grows in there.
Ms. Spain asked along these lines is there any alternative to that chain link fence abutting 53 or anything that
would be as cost effective or would fit with the chain link size that she would assume you would want to keep.
Mr. Maughan replied that we looked into this and understood it was a concern as part of the Entrance Corridor
and the ARB issue, and what we found was an alternative solution as far as a different fencing type that was not
fir' chain link but we are still taking about a metal fence. He said he cannot remember but Glen looked into it and he
thinks it was something like 10X and we abandoned that at that point since it put a lot of financial strain on the
project. Instead, we moved the fence back from its original proposed position of 60' to 85' and we added another
layer of buffer. Again, this buffer plan is way beyond engineering norms; it is frankly stressing the project as is
financially and we are committing to it because that is what the county has asked us to do. However, he firmly
believes that it will be adequate and between that and the distance, it will be adequate to screening this from the
roadway.
Ms. Spain said the ARB clearly agreed, and Mr. Maughan relied yes.
Mr. Keller opened for public comment.
Ms. Riley said we have three people signed up to speak, but anyone interested can speak. She invited the first
person to come forward.
Eric Kirshnick said he had lived in Albemarle County for 53 years and was very familiar with this piece of property.
He said Ms. Firehock asked about the stream buffers and pointed out that anything within your 100' is coming to
the creek. He pointed out in the first motion the Commission heard about the amount of disturbance to the area,
which was minor to the automotive business. He said that with all the people working here this is going to be a
major thing and all their pictures from Route 53 he can see a long ways. Mr. Kirshnick said that the applicant said
it would take 10 to 15 years for the buffer to grow up and let's just say that for the 10 years we are going to see
this big field of panels. Mr. Kirshnick said the second motion that the Commission heard was about the James
River and we want to keep rural area. He said it might generate some jobs; but for the landowners around it that
have beautiful homes this is going to be an unsightly to look at every day. He said the amount of traffic that is
going to be coming in and out of there from the workers is going to be dangerous. We just had a death out there
and if you go out there and look where their easement there is a pine tree with ribbons on it where people died.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 17
FINAL MINUTES
He said it is very sad that this is what is going to come out. He said this is just not the place for visitors to come
from out of town. He said they have said Monticello has signed off on it but why are all of the pictures from five
miles away. He asked are not there some neighbors that get to look at that and why didn't we get to hear from
them and the Fluvanna site. He noted that at five miles everything looks a little out of focus. He said that with 90
acres you are going to see that even if it is lying flat on the ground. He heard them say that a panel makes as
much noise as a vacuum cleaner; however, imagine 90 acres of panels and how much noise is that going to be.
He said he did not think they were giving us the whole truth. He asked Scott before the meeting what is the
damage to the land over the 25 years and was told we are going to be cleaning it up; however, we do not know
what is going to be left behind. He said for the homeowners who have a beautiful home next to this property you
do not know what it is going to do. He said they want this project to go through; but he bets they are not going to
have to look at it. He said he travels 53 a lot and he is using a low estimate that for ten years this is what we are
going to have to look at.
Mr. Dotson asked staff to put up the map so speakers could point out where they live.
Brenda Lee Sirvenska said she lives at 2605 and as a neighbor; she pays many taxes of about $4,500 a year and
had moved to the country to be in the country and not next door to some type of situation like the one we are
talking about here. The other concern is property value and we have heard noise pollution. She asked are there
any contaminants within these panels that would pose any health risks and if so what studies have been done on
that. She said that also we do not have wells. She pointed out we had an earth quake a few years ago, and for
example if we had an earth quake is this company going to protect our water if these panels break. She did not
know what type of contaminants or pollutants are within these panels, but if that goes into our groundwater all
of the neighbors have wells and what happens to us. She said we do not have any advantages as far as being a
neighbor in the county paying the taxes that we do to have this as a neighbor.
Alissa Bryant said she lives at 2655-Buck Island and the solar panels will be actually at my back door. She has no
problems with it, and yes there are always accidents on 53 and a lot of it is due to falling asleep, drunk driving or
whatever and it will continue to be after the panels go up. She said many people do not want them, but it is Ms.
Sweeney's land and she has no problem with it. She noted they would be coming right beside my property and at
my back door. She said William Kingray who lives two doors down she is sure he has no problem with it. She said
that it would be great for jobs and the community.
Ms. Riley invited other public comments.
Calvin Frazier said he lives next door to Alissa and so this project will be in my backyard. He noted that his house
was built on the farm itself and why you do not see it separated. When he heard about this project going on for
the last year and a half he was and still is all for it. However, what he did not understand and the reason he came
to this meeting is the notice has been up and 50 neighbors could have come up here tonight and said what they
had to say and whether it would affect them or not. However, the only people that are here with us are all for it
and the other two people here that are not for it are Ms. Sweeney's stepdaughter, Brenda, and Eric Kirschnick
who use to go with Brenda's daughter, may still be, and worked on the farm at one time. However, out of all the
people who could have come here and contested this projected it had to be her stepdaughter and a friend of her
stepdaughter's daughter. He noted that all that boils down to is a family feud and does not have anything to do
with this project. He said if it would affect any more neighbors then neighbors would be here to speak their part.
Travis Petrolia, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, thanked the Commission for the chance to
comment here tonight and thanked staff for answering some of their questions about the proposal. He said we
see this project as a great opportunity to advance the county's goals of pursuing cleaner energy, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time we help make this project the best it can be especially because it
is the first of its kind through the gate and will influence how similar projects are accessed going forward. He said
a big part of that is ensuring a careful review and mitigation of its impacts on the rural area. In our respect, we do
have some questions about the proposal as well as a few suggestions to strengthen it. As an overarching point, it
is a key that all the mitigation commitments that are truly important in the county are captured in the special use
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 18
FINAL MINUTES
permit conditions themselves. With that point in mind, we have a few recommendations. First, the application
provides that the ground cover on the site will be grasses and fully permeable. However, that commitment is
now made clear in the special use permit commitments. Since this project has a stream flowing through it and
when remove large areas of existing vegetation that drain to that stream it is important that these protective
measures are specified as actual commitments in the special use permit. Second, the conditions proposed in the
special use permit reference tree protection areas being designated in a couple of different locations near Route
53 including the proposed 475' area on the adjacent parcel. We do not see any of these protection areas actually
identified on the concept plan and recommend they be added to it. Third, the staff report indicates that the
project will still be visible from several approaches along Route 53. We recognize that it may not be possible to
screen it completely from view; but based on the ARB's feedback there do appear to be some discreet locations
where additional screening would be useful. In those locations, we at least urge you to consider some type of
barrier other than a chain link fence if only for particular sections. Finally, we are glad to see language in the
special use permit conditions on the decommissioning and rehabilitation process for the site. However, some
tweaks to the language particularly condition 10 should be made to more clearly specify that it is the applicant
that is responsible for carrying out these activities rather than a passive voice which puts the obligation on no one
in particular. In closing, he thanks the Commission for considering these comments and recognizing the
importance of getting this one right. Thank you.
Jamie Graves said that he lived one property over from Ms. Sweeney's stepdaughter and just had a couple of
questions. He asked what is this project going to do to the adjacent property value and how long would the
construction take from the beginning to the end. He asked how long will people be coming in and out of the
property. He asked would the speed limit be lowered on that road because right now the one stretch is 55 miles
per hour, which is too high at this point. He said those were some of the concerns. He asked to reiterate the
noise concern because they did say that at 7 decibels per unit but how many units would there will be. He said if
you put 100 units together, that would be a lot of noise for the neighbors to hear. He said that was some of the
questions that he had.
Mr. Keller said the Commission would have staff address those questions.
Ms. Riley noted there was no other public comment.
Mr. Keller invited the applicant back for rebuttal.
Mr. Maughan said he understands there are some family dynamics going on around here, but also he
understands that any sort of new development in your neighborhood can be intimidating and he certainly wants
to try to answer as many of the questions as he can. First, he wanted to clarify that those renderings of the buffer
plan were 5 to 10 years and not 10 to 15 years. As he stated they are putting them up at 7' at planting many of
the trees to deal with this. He pointed out that other counties require 3' at planting. He said that 7' of planting as
he keeps saying is above and beyond industry norms and we are committed to doing so because we understand
this is important to the county. The panel noise versus inverter noise for clarity he noted that only the investors
are what we are talking about with the vacuum cleaner level of noise. He said there are seven of those, as Scott
stated, spread throughout the site. As he demonstrated in the application for the spec sheets for these seven
invertors that will be spread throughout the site, they met the 70 decibels when you are standing right next to it.
When you back up about 50 feet, you are now below what the county requires as far as the noise ordinance,
which he believes as 40' or 50', which has been described as a library whisper. Now we have doubled that
distance as our minimum and we will obviously adhere to that and probably they will be quite a bit further and so
he actually pushed back on the idea that anyone would be able to hear these off site.
Mr. Maughan said regarding the safety about highway 53 all notes that construction is only 3 to 6 months
expected on this project and we are going to be doing this in alliance with VDOT to make sure everything is done
correctly. In addition, he notes that during logging operations that same path was used as a temporary entrance,
which in fact is why we chose it. The idea of contaminants he knows of no verifiable story where panels have
" broken and spilled contaminants. He said if Ms. Sirvenska has some concerns or reports on that, he invites her to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 19
FINAL MINUTES
share that with me and he would be happy to address that at the Board of Supervisors meeting. However, he
knows of no examples of such a thing happening. He said she also spoke about this having no advantages to the
neighbor. He said this project could not benefit every single stakeholder. He said what we are obligated to do is
to mitigate any impacts and make sure there are no negative impacts on stakeholders and he thinks we have
demonstrated that we have done that. So there may not be an advantage or benefit to a neighbor but certainly
he thinks we have demonstrated that we have taken reasonable measures to make sure there are no negative
impacts on the neighbors. He said in her case we are not doing anything in the northeastern arm there and there
is over 1,000 feet of fully vegetated forest between her and the farthest extent that were we are going to be
allowed to build based on our concept plan. Regarding property values, he said there is not a lot of research done
for solar. He said there is a lot of research done for wind, which is a much more disturbing use for neighboring
properties and that research has come back largely negative. He said rooftop solar is obviously shown and that
could make it negative as far as impact on property values. He said he was not aware of any good studies that
show that it will have a negative impact on property values and he would be happy to address that at the Board
of Supervisors meeting. He said he would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Keller invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson said it has been said that this is something that is new in the county; it is a direction probably that he
hopes we are moving nationally but it is a learning opportunity and you have mentioned programs possibly at
PVCC relating to this. He asked what are the teaching opportunities of a site like this, he was imaging at one
extreme it is a bunch of things in a field, and there is not much to go look at and learn about. On the other hand,
he could imagine someone being there with a group of students and watching gauges how they perform in
respond to clouds going over, monitoring the grid and other things since he was not knowledgeable. He asked is
there a teaching opportunity in facilities like this.
Mr. Maughan replied sure, and in fact, in other projects we have even suggested that. He did not know that we
have the resources to develop a program with that, but if the county were to approach this project with an idea,
he totally agrees that there are definitely lessons that we can put on younger generations on the future of energy.
Again, we do not have resources to develop a program like that, but we are certainly game if the county wants to
present something to us.
Ms. More questioned condition 4 and the tree protection agreement. She said it speaks to 475' on the rear
boundary of the parcel and she wondered if attachment F is helpful. She said what is shown in the middle of the
property is the stream buffers so we will have the 100' trees that would stay there with the rear boundary.
However, she wondered about going up into the point.
Ms. Maughan said as was actually brought up by the Southern Environmental Law Center there was concerns put
forth by the ARB about neighboring properties and right now, there is vegetation that blocks any view and
distance we argue up to 800' on some of these neighboring properties along the road. However, what we also
argue is that on this parcel it is particularly bad because the backyard was clear-cut and the topography does not
lend itself well to view sheds. From the road you can somewhat see through this as it stands and if she were to
clear cut further or the back area again so we persuaded an easement on the timber and Ms. Sweeney agreed to
not cut some of the timber again for the life of this project. The reason that this property was included and the
other properties were not was because we have a relationship with the other property owners and most
importantly, those properties are better crowned when you look at the topography. He said we have
demonstrated through cutting through sections and looking at the topography with this section on it in our
applications that these properties are pretty crowned and there is not a real risk even if they were clear-cut for
those properties. With Ms. Sweeney's property it is a little bit different which is why we wanted to put something
in place there really to convince the ARB that she can't clear cut. He said the risk of Ms. Sweeney clear cutting is
kind of null and void.
Ms. More asked that he pull up attachment F so they can get a little more specific about the tree protection areas
that are designated to clear up when he is talking about the 475'.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 20
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Maughan pointed out there are four properties to the north that run along highway 53 and the second from
the left that has some clearing on it already basically the easement would allow those existing pines to continue
to grow and that 475' extends about another 100' into the existing vegetation. So really, it is the majority of that
parcel and we left the front yard alone.
Mr. Clark pointed out it was the rear portion as outlined.
Mr. Maughan explained they came up with a contract that Ms. Sweeney did sign. He said there were some
problems identified by the county attorney just in the legally of the document. So that is why this condition is in
there asking that the language in the document be tightened up. He said he would work with Ms. Sweeney on
that assuming this goes forward.
Ms. Firehock said the only comment she heard from the public he did not answer was people asked about how
long construction would take.
Mr. Maughan replied that 3 to 6 months is estimated for a project of this size.
Ms. Riley asked for more explanation on the stream buffer and how the ground cover on either end is going to be
protected. She said he said there would be ground cover underneath the panels in general, but could you
address the question about the stream buffer more specifically.
Mr. Maughan replied that they were obligated not to touch the stream buffer as he understands and beyond the
stream buffer there that they are disturbing they are setting aside 100' on either side basically taking the county's
GIS stream buffer and just overlay it on the project and committing not to touch it. Beyond that area, they are
disturbing and putting panels there below and around the panels, on page 23 of our application, we discuss what
is planned for there and that is native wild grasses and/or flowers. We worked with Rhett in the Environmental
Division of the county to put together a list of possible grasses and possibly wildflowers that might be a little bit
harder as we look at the legalistics involved. However, there are grasses that will grow under those panels and
per our application we have committed to at a minimum using, the wild grasses and we provided a list of possible
species that Rhett provided.
Mr. Clark noted the conditions staff has given them that would require those other three strips to remain those
don't appear to be mapped streams and don't have water protection ordinance buffers on them. He said
whether some later process with the state would do something with those we do not know; but we were focused
on protecting the identified stream in the Water Protection Ordinance buffer. He pointed out originally the
proposal included the entire section of property up here that would have had not only water impacts on the pond
outlet but also visibility impacts up here and working with the applicants they agreed to pull back the envelope to
this side of that drainage there so the visibility impacts would also be reduced. He said one thing we might
consider in the conditions was just to be absolutely sure the way staff worded section d of condition 1 retention
of wooded vegetation and stream buffers. He suggested that we could add the word "existing" before wooded
there to make sure that what we are talking about is keeping the existing trees on those buffers so there is no
doubt at all.
Mr. Palmer said just along the storm water vein that we have been talking about if the main entrance for after
construction is on Buck Island Road there will be like a stream crossing on that buffered stream.
Mr. Maughan said they have actually engineered around that so it goes up and around it.
Ms. Spain said just clarifications for the minutes the person you worked with in the county is Rhett Gladly.
Mr. Maughan said he had one question for Mr. Blair on condition 11 it talks about us commencing and he would
like to know exactly what that means and if commencing the use means operational in two years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 21
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Blair said it would not mean fully operational and he thinks what we would typically do in that situation is
refer to what is called the vested rights status in Virginia, which is 15.2.2307. What we would typically do there is
look at have you taken steps that would in fact constitute what we would consider expending funds or due
diligent efforts to develop the site in accord with the special use permit.
Mr. Maughan said that they were very satisfied with that.
Mr. Keller said he had a question in terms of clarification. He said he thinks he made a statement that the panels
would be 1,000' away from each of the neighboring properties.
Mr. Maughan replied no, it was just from the one neighbor to the west who spoke, Ms. Sivanka just addressing
her concerns specifically. He said in general 1000' would be too much for us to commit to, but in that particular
case, it is just how it worked out for Ms. Sirvenska. He said as Scott just mentioned we agreed to pull out of that
arm for a whole lot of reasons.
Ms. More questioned condition 10 and who would be responsible for carrying out the activities. She said it talks
about the decommissioning plan and so it seems in condition 6b the identification of the party currently
responsible for decommissioning is identified there. She asked Mr. Blair is he thinks that is adequate in identifying
who would be responsible.
Mr. Blair replied yes, it would be spelled out in that decommissioning plan as well as Commissioner Bivins was
talking about the updates and he believed that was in section 8. So if any of that changed that would be part of
that update to the decommissioning plan.
Ms. More said it would cover condition 10, and Mr. Blair agreed.
Mr. Keller closed the public hearing to bring the request back for discussion and action by the Commission. He
noted that they had two motions, the first one dealing with the Comprehensive Plan and the second with the
special use permit.
Ms. Firehock said she would like to walk through the criteria for review of new uses in the rural area that is
stipulated in our Comprehensive Plan. This complicated project both meets and does not meet some of that
criterion. So one of the criteria that it would relate directly to the rural area and need a rural area location in
order to be successful; the example given is a farm winery. The challenge here is that while it does not need to be
in a rural area to produce solar power there is open space in the urban ring and so the open space that is
available for such a use happens to be in a rural location. It must be compatible with and have a negligible impact
on natural, cultural and historic resources. That one is another one that is both. It has a negligible impact on
historic resources such as Monticello but it is debatable whether it has a negligible impact on some of the
neighbors and also on the route to Monticello. It should not conflict with nearby agric and forestal uses. It does
not actually conflict with nearby uses. It should reflect the size and scale and compliment the character of the
area. She did not know how we would evaluate whether solar panels compliment of the character of the rural
area. It must be reversible so the land could easily return to farming, forestry, conservation and other uses. It is
most decidedly reversible although perhaps would be there for a long time. It must be suitable for existing rural
roads and result in little discernable difference in traffic. It sounds like most of the traffic would be during
construction and very little after that. It would generate little demand for fire and rescue. They have already
established that the solar panels will not need much rescue. It must be able to operate without the need for
public water and sewer. She said it must be sustainable with available ground water and that condition is met and
also to be consistent with other rural areas policies. In addition, we go back to the challenge that it is not
supporting a traditional agricultural use of farming and forestry. It is not necessarily the highest and best use of
the land. Ms. Firehock said she was torn on this application and had not decided yet, but she thinks we are all
sitting here under lights that are probably powered by coal, which is not clean and probably resulted in a lot of
environmental destruction so we can sit under these lights. This proposal does meet other goals in our
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 22
FINAL MINUTES
Comprehensive Plan for responsible energy generation. Therefore, this is why it is a difficult situation because it
both meets and does not meet some of the criteria that we have established for uses in the rural area.
Mr. Keller thanked Ms. Firehock for doing a good job of going through the points we need to be considering in
doing that.
Ms. More said it has been made clear that this is new territory for us and she thinks staff has done a good job of
outlining conditions. In moving forward, she asked would we look to other localities to set up guidelines and
establish something that we have learned from this process moving forward. She said that would be her
suggestion to staff to pursue that.
Mr. Keller said actually staff in the report does suggest that this might then become a model that would allow
them to develop guidelines based on comments from the public.
Mr. Clark said staff has discussed using this as standard conditions for a template. There has also been some
discussion in the past of whether or not we want to develop supplemental regulations for this use as we have
other uses we could go that way as well.
Ms. Spain said this one seems like the cell phone issue with new technology and those 20 years ago we might not
have thought about the need for cell phones but now we have to weigh conflicting parts of the, Comprehensive
Plan. Ms. Spain said she this as another type of technology that may or may not be increasingly evident in rural
areas but one we will probably have to deal with again.
Ms. Firehock suggested that the location be considered strategically.
Ms. Riley said she appreciates your comments specifically around location and she thinks that really should be
something that we really look at. She thinks we may very much be limited by locations at least currently
transmission substations being the only locations that these panels can be sited; but, she would be very
interested to see what other elements we really want to consider as we consider that for the Comprehensive
Plan.
Ms. More agreed with that and thinks Tim made a similar point moving forward that could be something we
could consider where what makes a site appropriate and what does not. However, for the motion before us now
is about this proposal. Ms. More moved to find the facility proposed in SP-2017-00018 Rivanna Solar Project to
be in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bivins seconded the motion.
Mr. Keller invited further discussion. Hearing none, he asked for a roll call vote.
The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Keller said the Commission was now on to the second request and the specifics for this site.
Ms. More said she was comfortable with the conditions here even though she thinks they have already talked
about moving forward and working with the work staff will do to guide us for future applications of this nature.
The one thing she did want to bring up that was another comment from the public was about the ground cover or
grass that would be planted actually within the panels themselves. She asked does staff feel that is adequately
covered in our conditions. She pointed out we talk a lot about plantings, but it is more about screening.
Mr. Clark replied that staff did not apply a specific condition about the ground cover under the panels because
there was still a fair amount of uncertainty about what was going to work best. Originally, we worked with the
applicants and honestly pushed them a little bit about using native species to the greatest extent possible. But, it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 23
FINAL MINUTES
seems like the standard practice is to use certain grass mixes under these facilities and we did not want to push
one issue with native plants and then have the shading from the panels make those plants not survive and then
cause a soil erosion problem because we picked the plants wrong. So we were more leaving the exact choice of
ground cover to standard practice in the industry which from what we have gotten from research and talking to
the applicants is generally speaking they are going to go and clear stumps and smooth out the surface. It is really
not grading but they are going to pull stumps and things like that and then plant grass. It might be native grasses
if they can manage it, but we did not feel comfortable enough with being sure that the species we might limit
them to were necessarily the right species for long-term durability under the shade of the panels.
Ms. More pointed out she certainly would not want to limit it that much, but just wants to ensure that even
though it is the industry standard that will happen on the site whatever type.
Mr. Clark noted there is nothing that he has seen that suggests that it will be bare soil that is going to run off. He
said there is grass on all the facilities we have seen that is maintained and mowed so it is there to hold the soil in
place.
Ms. More asked if anyone else has that concern.
Ms. Firehock said she thinks if you have soil exposed in Virginia stuff grows on it. Therefore, she was not so
concerned and would be more concerned that it would be weed choked. However, she thinks that they are going
to need to maintain it anyway just to protect the panels from getting things growing over it so they are going to
be out there trimming.
Ms. Firehock said the view analysis was mostly from Monticello and places such as that and not as much
consideration given to just whether a neighbor on a hillside who lived in the rural area for their whole life wants
to look at a farm of solar panels when they anticipated a farm of cows, trees or meadows.
Ms. Riley said the question about the visual impact is something that we need to think more about. From my
understanding of the potential noise impacts and the setbacks required in terms of the decibel levels is pretty
well spelled out and those are related to the transmitter boxes as opposed to the solar panels themselves. She
thinks it is more of a question of the visual impact.
Mr. Clark noted the noise ordinance requires the noise will drop to 60 decibels daytime at the property line. So
that probably requires those invertor setups to be 50 feet or a little more to the property line to be sure of fitting
that by the time the noise level drops off. Staff recommended 100 feet in this case just because it is a continuous
source while it is not the occasional operation of equipment or something; it is going all the time while the sun is
out.
Mr. Dotson said he had three comments that he understands and appreciates some of the landowners being
concerned about the impact on property values and we don't really know one way or the other since it may be
neutral and have no impact. He said or it may have no impact that is different from the impact of the clearcutting
on the site, which has some impact on the value of abutting properties or the substation. Therefore, he does not
think we can resolve it but he thinks given the significant lengths that the staff and the applicant have gone in
trying to mitigate the visibility and noise he is inclined to think that they have mitigated the effect on the property
values. He said he did not support totally trying to screen something out of any view from any angle, a total
camouflaging or total screening. If it requires total screening then we should not be approving it. It is like in cell
towers, sometimes people have suggested let's make it look like a tree — no, it is a cell tower and we need to
relate it, it will be seen, but we don't want it to be more than a certain distance above the existing tree line and
so forth. Therefore, option b of trying to totally screen it he thinks is not as good as trying to be a good neighbor
and he thinks that is what in my mind the various mitigation measures which are substantial amount to as trying
to be a good neighbor.
Mr. Keller asked if there was a motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 24
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Riley moved to recommend approval of SP-2017-00018 Rivanna Solar Project with the conditions outlined in
the staff report.
Ms. Spain seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of 7:0.
Mr. Keller thanked the public, staff and the applicant for thoughtful discussion this evening. He said this moves
forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dotson said he had a quick question of the applicant. He asked if the Board of Supervisors, Planning
Commissioner or people in the audience wanted to go see a facility like this could you tell us since he mentioned
Louisa County. He asked if that was the closest similar facility.
Mr. Wilkes replied that Louisa County's facility is a little bit bigger than this site, but it uses the exact same
technology type. He noted that in Louisa you would see green grass underneath the panels. He said that is 30
miles from here. He said in fact they took the members of the Planning Department out there several months
ago and if anyone wanted to go out there he would be happy to escort them. He said it was not one of our sites
so we don't have access inside since that one is owned by Dominion at this point. We actually had an
appointment with Dominion to tour at one point with planning staff, but it rained that day so when we all went
out we just stood at the fence, which he thinks we still got a good view.
Mr. Dotson asked for a particular route or intersection in case they individually wanted to do a drive by.
Mr. Wilkes replied that he did not know off hand.
Mr. Dotson noted that Ms. Maliszewski is nodding that she has the information.
Mr. Keller said they have finished the public hearings and it is the consensus that we would like to take a break
before the work session.
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:10 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:21 p.m. and moved to the next item.
Work Session.
CPA-2017-00001 Willow Glen Industrial Area
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 03200-00-00-049BO and portions of 03200-00-00-04910, 03200-00-00-049.10, and 03200-00-
00-049FO
LOCATION: On the east side of Dickerson Road, approximately 1000 feet north of the intersection of Towncenter
Drive and Dickerson Road,
PROPOSAL: To amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for approximately 3 acres, from Urban Density
Residential residential (6.01 — 34 units/ acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses to Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial which allows commercial, professional
office; research and development, design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging; residential
is a secondary use (no maximum density).
ZONING DISTRICT: Planned Residential Development, which allows 3 — 34 units/acre with limited commercial uses
and Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 25
FINAL MINUTES
STEEP SLOPES MANAGED: Yes
(Rachel Falkenstein)
Ms. Falkenstein presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding CPA-2017-01 Willow Glen Industrial Area.
Purpose of Work Session:
CPA-2017-01 Willow Glen Industrial Area
To evaluate whether this applicant -initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) has merit for
consideration, and if so, to provide feedback for specific elements to be addressed if this proceeds as part of
the future CPA.
Background:
• Property fronts on Dickerson Road across from the airport. It also has an entrance off Town Center
Boulevard. 23.7 acres
• Zoning: PRD (2007 ZMA)
• Portion zoned RA was not part of the 2007 ZMA
• Comp Plan: Urban Density Residential
• To date, one phase of Willow Glen development has been built.
• Willow Glen PRD approved for up to 234 units (9.8 du/ac)
• Phase 1: 34 units — mix of townhomes and single family units have been built to date with an entrance
off of Town Center Boulevard
• Remainder of the property undeveloped (two previous units)
• Partially cleared for utility work
• Along northern property line is some vegetation,
• There is a stream on the northern portion of the property
• The approved application plan shows grading right up to the edge of the stream — including some
portions being piped. There is no WPO buffer on the stream.
• At the request of staff, the revised plan pulls the grading and development a bit further away from the
stream.
• Photos showing the existing entrance off of Dickerson Road; the area that has been cleared for utilities
to serve Phase 1,
• Dickerson Road — existing two lane road — rural cross section, no curb gutter/sidewalk,
The Comp Plan Amendment is to change the land use designation on a portion of the site fronting on the
northwest corner of the site along Dickerson Road from Urban Density to OF/RD/Flex/LI.
The proposed CPA:
• Change from Urban Density Residential to Office/R&D/Flex/LI
• 2.77 acres
• Portions of four (4) parcels
The Willow Glen application plan is oriented a little differently:
• CPA area (approximately) transposed over the 2007 Willow Glen Application Plan
• Orient — Dickerson Road, Towncenter Drive
• 2007 plan shows this area for residential uses
• Townhouses and condominiums as well as the outparcel.
• Area shown in red is now proposed for office/flex/industrial space
• Pointed out changes to other portions of the Willow Glen Development to unit types: Applicant is no
longer proposing condominiums on the site —just a mix of townhouses and single family residential.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 26
FINAL MINUTES
• These changes are not part tonight's CPA request; but the Commission could weigh in if you have
concerns about the loss of this unit type (change in unit type will likely require approval of a future
special exception)
• It was previously shown for residential development — building F is a condominium and building D are
townhomes
• The rural area part of previous Willow Glen application.
The area for focus of tonight's discussion is the three (3) acre CPA:
• The proposed concept includes approximately 50,000 square feet of flex space in four 2-story buildings
• Applicant has not provided a specific user for the site; rather intends to build and design space specific to
prospective future users.
• Separate entrance proposed off of Dickerson Road — to keep traffic separate from residential uses
• Amended proposal pulls building/parking grading away from the stream.
Staff has a few concerns with the proposed form:
• Proposal does not allow for relegated parking off Dickerson Road — rather has it fronting right on
Dickerson Road.
• Showing potential loading areas adjacent to the residential uses,
• While providing for a good mix of uses adjacent to each other, the uses are not well incorporated
(retaining wall around the site on 3 sides) nor well screened (doesn't appear to be ample room for
screening trees if loading areas are intended to be adjacent to the residential as shown.
• No interconnectivity for pedestrians or automobiles to go in and out of the site.
• There is no opportunity for screening here with these tight spaces. So the loading areas would not be
well screened from the adjacent townhomes.
Factors for consideration:
Favorable Factors:
1. Supportive of Economic Development goals + industrial inventory
2. Adjacency to airport
3. Improves the mix of uses
4. Stream protection
Unfavorable Factors:
1. Small size
2. Surrounded by residential
3. Neither well incorporated nor well screened from residential
4. Reversal of 2007 CPA decision
Items for Discussion:
1. Compatibility of uses, which may mean limiting the site to only Office and R&D uses, but not Light
Industrial uses
2. Design considerations for compatibility, including screening of loading/storage areas from adjacent
residences and interconnected streets/pedestrian facilities
3. Streetscape expectations for Dickerson Road including relegated parking
4. The appropriateness of different dwelling unit types for the remaining residential portion of the Willow
Glen development (separate from the CPA area).
Ms. Falkenstein noted she had a motion for approval that she will show at the end. If the Commission wished to
move forward, you would be adopting a resolution of intent. If you don't wish to move forward, there is no
motion and the Commission just does not have to adopt that resolution.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 27
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Echols pointed out the discussion items are only relevant if the Commission decides that they want to go
down the path. If you decide that there is no merit to this and do not want to go down the path you don't even
need to discuss those items. However, if you think this might have some merit this is the feedback staff would
like to get from you. Ultimately, there would be community meetings and a public hearing, we would be bringing
text to you.
Mr. Keller invited questions and comments for staff.
Ms. Firehock said looking at uses across the road from where this would be located, it does not seem
incompatible and the Light Industrial makes a lot of sense near the airport. She pointed out as someone who
looking for similar space recently that she can testify that it is very hard to find smaller scale space in which to do
start-ups or small light industrial operations. In addition, she does share the concerns that staff brought up about
some of the screening. She thinks we could do a better job with that but she does not think a site plan is before
us tonight any way and we are really just talking about whether the use is appropriate so that it could be
integrated into that site. Therefore, she thinks it has merit moving forward and we can discuss the rest of it.
Mr. Keller invited the applicant to speak.
Valerie Long, with the Law Firm of Williams Mullens here representing the applicants and owners of the project
Willow Glen, said George Ray is here, his business partner is Suzanne Jessup Brooks and they have been in
business on this project long before 2007 with the first approvals so since 2002 or 2003. Also joining us is Steve
Edwards, with Edwards Design Studio, who is the landscape architect and project leader and my colleague Nicole
Scro as well. Ms. Long said she appreciates Rachael covering a lot of the basic information and she would be
happy to answer questions at the end. She said to recap we obtained final approval back in 2007, changed the
designation of the Comprehensive Plan for the property back then from Light Industrial to Urban Density
Residential and thought that made sense then and now. She said we are only asking to change a small portion of
it today. However, the property was zoned RA at the time; it was surrounded on three sides by residential and
marketing the entire parcel for light industrial uses was just not feasible and the applicant would have to come in
and rezone the property from rural areas to light industrial. She said while today that may not sound
insurmountable times were very different then and that would have been incredibly challenging. At that time she
was working regularly on various projects and it was challenging to get most anything approved but in particular,
things like that which were perceived as so controversial. She said the times have changed and the county and
community now has a greater appreciation that the scope of the types of light industrial and R&D type uses that
are available and we will talk more about that.
Ms. Long pointed out the location was shown on the map and in addition to fronting on Dickerson Road it is very
well integrated with the surrounding neighborhoods including the Hollymead Town Center has walkable distance
to that location. She noted the side by side showing the Comprehensive Plan designation compared to the zoning
and again Rachael went over this but it was designated for Urban Density Residential and was zoned Planned
Residential Development. She noted that at the time the owners did not own or even control this property so it
was left out; however, since then Mr. Ray has been able to work with the owners of the property and has it under
contract. The next slide shows the current Comprehensive Plan for the property that was all Urban Density
Residential and we are proposing a small change there. She noted that the piece that was not part of the original
approval is just about 3 acres. She said this was the original 2007 approved plan with 234 residential units with a
few changes not originally part of it. She said the small condominium buildings were quite popular at the time
they were proposed and Mr. Ray has a similar development project off of Rio Road called Glenwood Station that
includes small condominium buildings like this that were very successful. Unfortunately, the condominium
market just fell out in this community so condominium are no longer a viable housing product certainly right now
there is no financing or market for them. There is, however, a very strong market for townhouses and single-
family detached units in this area. She pointed out the large 28-unit condominium building and that it was not
really market viable at this time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 28
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Long said this is our proposed plan and she would talk about the flex space in the front. She noted the
changes are they obviously took the condominium buildings out there, replaced the 28-unit condominium with a
row of smaller townhomes, and replaced the condominium buildings back here with other townhomes. She said
Mr. Ray has been approached by several builders who were very interested in finishing out the project and the
one he is leaning towards has suggested that more single-family detached units would be very successful and
sought over there. So we are showing those on our illustrative plan as how we think that would probably be
developed, but we will have a little bit of flexibility with the application plan. She said this reflects the existing
development of phase one, which is a mixture of single-family detached and townhouses. She pointed out the
acre in question that is just under 3 acres and we are proposing a range of 45,000 to 50,000 square feet of
flexibility space. She said Mr. Ray has been in economic development for many years; he was the Director of
Economic Development for the City of Charlottesville for many years, has been in development for a long time
and has been learned as Ms. Firehock that it sounds like you knew through personal experience that this is a type,
size and use of space that is in demand in the community. She said we all know that there is limited amounts of
light industrial space in town and some of it that is there is not in a great location or is environmental
contamination. She said the Research Park is not for everyone; it is a different price point and you need to have a
connection to the University. She said George thinks this is a great location and several other commercial real
estate brokers in town have told him that they have companies that are looking for small start-up kind of
flexibility space, some light industrial more manufacturing type product development with some R&D. She said it
was something like a carpet wholesaler who does not need a huge space but needs a loading dock in the back.
Ms. Long pointed out that the lines shown on the building are intended to show there is flexibility and somebody
might just need one of those little slivers and someone might need two or three; obviously, it would depend on.
what various users are interested in. She said George is very confident that space will be very marketable. She
said the staff report indicated it might not be the best compatible use but George has been working very closely
with the residents of phase one Willow Glen and he has established a committee of existing landowners who are
kind of his kitchen cabinet that he works with to get input and guidance. She said before we ever brought this
forward he proposed this to the neighborhood group and they are supportive of it and you may have received
some emails from folks. She said we had a community meetings last night because notices had been sent to all of
the adjacent owners we did not people to be concerned about a proposal that maybe sounded a little bit
alarming about light industrial in the neighborhood. She said we hosted a community meeting last night and.
actually had three people show up, two of whom were existing residents at Willow Glen. She said we hope that is
a good sign that people are comfortable with it. She said the phase one residents have expressed to us their
support for this; they know that it is conceptual at this point and if we move forward at the rezoning stage and.
the site plan stage there would be many opportunities to discuss the amount of appropriate screening in this
area. She said we recognize there is not a whole lot shown now we were trying not to get into too much detail at
this stage of the process but George is very committed with working with those residents to ensure that there is
an appropriate amount of screening.
Ms. Long said with regard to the parking and the issue of relegated parking we worked very hard to keep it
minimal; but, for the nature of the use we do need to have a little bit of front parking for visibility. She said the
site slopes down as you move away from Dickerson Road so if the building were was pulled against Dickerson
Road customers would have to park in the back and then hike up the hill. Therefore, we tried in some portions in
a single row of parking and others it is double, but well screened with landscaping. She said we know there will
be need for more landscaping and careful treatment of that area there. She noted we are trying to show that
there continue to be pedestrian routes throughout. She said we are out of time but we are happy to leave the
slide up but these are the type of uses that we have in mind; we tried to provide examples of conceptual
architecture to demonstrate a little bit of what we have in mind. She noted just as a point of reference this is the
new Carpet Plus Store that is located on Preston Avenue and we thought that was a good example of what
something might look there in terms of scale and design. She pointed out we have other images we could show
you if you are interested about some of the site amenities that are proposed for the rest of Willow Glen. She said
if this were to move forward and be approved it will provide revenue to help the developers construct the
amenities in the rest of the project, which they very much want to do and the neighbors obviously are very
interested in.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 29
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Keller asked Ms. Long to finish scrolling through.
Ms. Long said we talked about the benefits of the flex space, increase tax revenue even though they are small
areas and live/work opportunities for the residents of Willow Glen to live near where they work. She said we did
eliminate that vehicular connection to Willow Glen to isolate that area a little bit, which is an element that is
important to the existing neighborhood residents. She said we provided inventory for light industrial reduction in
the residential units. She pointed out next is another proposed phasing plan just to show we want to do this
section next although they may go at the same time as phase three. She said the next slide shows examples of
the existing amenities, an aerial of the existing phase and some of the existing units. She said Mr. Ray built a tot
lot for the residents that was not a requirement for the plan, but there is a large number of children in phase one.
She said a clubhouse, sidewalks, trails, conceptual amphitheater and use the stormwater pond as an amenity for
the neighborhood are proposed, and obviously, those are all issues that are related to the overall plan and not as
much about our proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan designation. She said from our perspective they are
all related because it will help improve the financial viability of the project and enable the developers to provide
those amenities earlier than they would otherwise be able to. Ms. Long said if there are any questions that she
would be happy to answer them
Ms. Spain asked why the reduction in the number of residential uses is a good thing.
Ms. Long replied that is an excellent question and we debated about whether to list that since some will say it is a
good thing and some will say it is not a good thing. She said if you are talking about fiscal impacts on the
community it would be a reduction in fiscal impacts. She said some would say it is less traffic in the area;
however, she thinks it is debatable. She said we think on the whole that the benefits of adding this flexible space
in the front while being very respectful of the relationship between that area and the proposed and existing
residential units outweigh the benefits of leaving it the way it is.
Ms. Spain asked would that apply to the amount of tax revenues that would generate that is higher.
Ms. Long replied that is certainly significantly higher tax revenue as you know from your review of proffer
legislation and fiscal impacts from residential units that unless you are talking about units with a price point of
over $650,000, which none of these would be, there is a fiscal impact. She said you are removing those units,
reducing the fiscal impact in that regard and at the same time, you are adding tax revenue in the form of the
commercial and the other benefits of a few more jobs and spaces for folks to have their small businesses.
George Ray, developer and part owner along with Suzanne Brooks, said you asked about the reduction in the
residential units. He said that in pulling out all of the condominiums because of current market conditions the
condominiums are much denser than townhouses so that automatically reduces the grand total of residential
units. He said in the aftermath of the recession the condominium market in Charlottesville just tanked and it is
rebounding somewhat but very slowly. He said the other main reason for the reduction in the number of
residential units is the additional of 14 more single-family detached houses in what used to be several rows of
townhouses. He pointed out the six townhouses they built in phase one were partnered with Piedmont Housing
Alliance and Stanley Martin Homes. He said they wrote down the cost of the land and the builder wrote down the
cost of construction, and Piedmont Housing Alliance bought all six houses at a discount and they were responsible
for filling them with their client who met the affordable housing guidelines. He said it is our intent to approach
them again and if it is not PHA, we will try to partner up with some similar group.
Mr. Wardell asked at what percent.
Mr. Ray replied it would be 15 percent of the total houses.
Ms. Long said the county's guidelines is 80 percent, but we have not gotten that far.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 30
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Keller invited questions.
Mr. Dotson said the question on affordable housing in reading the staff report he was not sure whether you or
the staff would explain but at one point there was 32 percent of affordable or workforce housing and then in the
next paragraph it talks about 15 percent. He said that he could not follow the narrative there.
Ms. Long said she would try to explain. She said when Willow Glen was first conceived it was very early in our
community's discussion about affordable housing and it may have predated the County's Policy in the
Comprehensive Plan. She said George and Suzanne wanted to have this be a bit of an unique neighborhood and
wanted to have work force housing in addition to affordable housing. She said work force housing is not an
official definition but what we were assuming was it is those making a little bit more money than the folks who
qualify for the affordable units. She said it was for the kind of the people who are stuck in the middle who make
too much money for affordable housing but could not quite afford a market rate unit and in particular for first,
responders, teachers, etc. She said we worked with the county to see if we could get flexibility form the proffer
policy at the time and if we committed to having a certain number of work force housing units in addition to
affordable units. Unfortunately, we were not able to make progress on that issue and so ultimately in order to
just keep the project going we made it 15 percent affordable and the rest was market rate. That being said, there
has always been a variety of housing types here. Ms. Long said one thing she did not mention was we would still
have two sizes of townhouses in addition to the single-family detached units. She said even though there are only
two product type townhouses and detached we like to think of it as a bigger variety than that because there is a
range of townhouse units and price points for those so hopefully some variety and choices for residents
depending on their needs and interest.
Mr. Ray said there are actually three different sizes of townhouses, 16', 20' and 24' wide. He said with the
exception of the 16' foot ones that are too narrow for a garage the line share of the two larger sizes have either a
single garage or a double garage. He pointed out one of the projects we did a few years ago called Greenbrier
Station you may remember the Recording for the Blind was there and now the Virginia Institute for the Autism is
there; Suzanne and I bought the property and we build 3 buildings. He said in a similar way we subdivided the
first lot and third lot and built a suite for VIA and Classic Furniture so they own their lot and buildings, and we
have that same flexibility here of subdividing the 3 acres.
Ms. Firehock said we are looking at this subdivision because we obviously are proposing changes to it if we add
light industrial. She said my overall reaction is that there is not an open space even if they use the storm water
pond as an amenity. She said for the property to hold its long-term value there needs to be more thought to
greenspace and not just tot lots. She said that otherwise it might become more traditional housing people live in
for a short time and then move out and would like to see a much greener development. She said it was just
some food for thought because it is not the final site plan, but she does not see park space or trails even though it
is conceptual.
Ms. Riley said she was focusing on the potential change in the land use and the Office and Research and
Development are uses that could very well be compatible particularly with live/work situations with the
residential subdivision; however, she is concerned about some of the potential Light Industrial uses that might
not be as compatible. She said today she looked at her land use chart but staff said there might be some way to
limit what some of those uses are, but we use to say proffer out but we can't do that anymore. She asked are
there certain uses in particular that you thought might be less compatible than others in terms of light industrial.
Ms. Falkenstein replied no, just industrial uses that are going to be bringing in a lot of truck traffic right back there
against where the residential uses that might be noisy, use outdoor storage space, stacking pallets, dumpsters
and things like that. She said there are a row of townhouses right behind this and what uses are going to be
noisy. She suggested we could include language that would say industrial uses should not be included in this from
the Comprehensive Plan if that is the desire of the Commission.
Ms. Spain said one example would be a kennel that would go into light industrial but that would be quite noisy if
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 31
FINAL MINUTES
it would be there so would be something to consider.
Mr. Bivins asked what uses are light industrial in their list of uses.
Ms. Long replied that would include some of the sales, showroom and service shops, contractor offices, research
and development and the use George has heard a lot about is a carpet warehouse type facility or a R&D facility
that is also producing product.
Mr. Bivins said he was in a similar place that he is having a hard time appreciating how anything with pallets and
trucks, particularly trying to come off of Dickerson Road when trying to get to the airport getting stuck behind a
truck trying to make that curve, and how you would bring that size vehicle into that space. He said that is a traffic
issue. He asked how that space would work with children and young families right on the other side since he did
not hear about any proposed barriers. He said he was having a hard time to understand how those multiple uses
would work in what looks like a lovely community.
Ms. Long said obviously it would depend on the types of uses and Mr. Ray has talked about continuing to work
with the existing Willow Glen residents to make sure that the mix of tenants is compatible with them. She said
Mr. Ray would have an incentive as a landowner to ensure that any tenant mix is compatible so there are not
conflicts. She noted an example was a glass blowing company that she worked with previously that made
decorative glass, but it is light industrial use with a low impact with one employee that was pushed out by a body
shop. She said they would like to have uses like the glass blowing company that kind of fall in the cracks. She
asked George to come up to share some other examples of the types of businesses that you have heard about.
Mr. Ray said he had a list at home but one of the things he could envision would be a kitchen counter tops for
instance and one of the people who has talked to one of the realtors has a showroom for granite and that sort of
thing. He said we envision a showroom with parking up front and around back he would have a warehouse high
ceiling space up under his showroom where he could fabricate his countertops. He said we have no problem in
negotiating a way for uses that are not compatible since we don't envision any automotive use repair and just NOW
want flexibility to allow the uses that fall in the cracks.
Mr. Keller asked if the stream in the back all in a culvert under the parking lots.
Ms. Falkenstein pointed out that the stream starts in the back and runs along the property line and they are
proposing to pipe a portion of it under this travelway and parking areas and continues to run along this property
line. She said they actually have previous site plan approval for this whole site and had grading right up to the
stream because there is not a WPO buffer along this stream because it was not designated previously for a buffer
so engineering staff worked with the applicant to ask them to pull this back a little bit even though it is not
required at this time.
Mr. Keller said my recommendation to the developer and representative would be to think about what you are
hearing in Places29 and what the greater community is asking for in open space and connectivity. He said there is
vehicular connectivity that we are constantly hearing about with adjoining properties not wanting that to happen
— but it does seem that in terms of the pedestrian and alternative in other words bicycle, etc. that there is an
interest in that. He said if we go back to what Rachael has invested in trying to think about these complete
communities that he thinks there are ways that could be incorporated. He said so along those lines let's talk
about design and the fact that you are showing a light industrial that has it back to townhouses - what about a
double loaded kind of unit that has access through a center that could still be a non -heated external center so
there are two fronts to it. He said there are design solutions both in terms of the land and in terms of structures
that could make places like this extremely successful in our greater Charlottesville/Albemarle community and we
are having visions that area starting to be put forward. He pointed out that Valerie was at those sessions
yesterday. He said first we heard that the developers are taking all the light industrial away and saying there is a
market for housing and now we are saying that it could actually be replenished and he is really positively inclined
to want to support you. He said we are trying to up the bar so that these are integrated communities where
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 32
FINAL MINUTES
there is work, living, recreation and hope even in close proximity to schools. He said these pieces need more
thought and work to get there, but the overall vision of this greater community seems to be going in the right
direction.
Ms. More said that any changes that might happen to the neighborhood would have a process of their own and
we need to respond to the four things staff needs to hear from us about this particular piece.
Ms. Echols said that was right and there would be through this process and this is just to initiate the process to
get it started. She said there is the time where we work together to find the right words to the page and the right
expectations for this would then come back for you to review again to decide if this is what you want to hold a
public hearing on. She said once you are satisfied this is what the public hearing would be held on you would'
hold your public hearing and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. She said there is time and
opportunity to get this molded to be satisfactory.
Mr. Keller said he was thinking of the specific parcel there and in effect saying that in the non -proffer time since
they have done a good time of collecting all the pieces that he thinks we have an ability to say if this, then how
about these other things or in other words thinking of the bigger picture.
Ms. Firehock said you had a conversation about could we change the use of this rectangle to make it light
industrial and then about loading bays and screening from the residents. She pointed out if she was the buyer she
would be looking for a cool hip place a little different from something else the products had to offer, so when you
showed the four pictures she would be saying well could my young families that work for me can walk here.
Ms. Long said we were trying to strike that balance; there would be pedestrian connections between the two for
that very reason, but we were trying to address the concerns of not wanting to have truck or other traffic to have
the best of both worlds. She said we definitely hope that it would be a place that would be attractive to the
residents of Willow Glen or that perspective business owners would then think hey maybe I will just buy a house
144W here to live right there.
She asked to put up our plan and explain the comments about maybe not having as much open space as you
thought we should.
Mr. Keller said he would just like to correct that, it is not an amount of open space it is working with existing
terrain, hydrology and topography — we need to be doing more of that and not losing those qualities of this
county.
Ms. Long highlighted that we have sidewalks throughout and those are on the approved site plan. She said we do
have the trails that Rachael pointed out and the connection to Town Center Drive was an exceptionally critical
element of the project from the very beginning and took a tremendous amount of effort because the owners did
not own this gap of land. She said we had to work very hard and we proffered that we would build that
connection if that developer would grant us the ability to do so. She said it was quite a negotiation but we knew
the importance of connections. She pointed out we did not have to do that because at the time there was also
another entrance so we satisfied the two entrance requirement but we knew it was very important to be
connected not only vehicular but also for pedestrians and bicyclists to Town Center Drive and all of the amenities
and options in Hollymead Town Center and in other neighborhoods. She said the amenities that are shown are
ones that George has worked with the neighbors. She said we added a pool here as a concept if there is interest,
however, it might end up being more just open space. Likewise, the proposed amplitheater that could end up if
the neighbors preferred just being more of an open recreation area. She said originally this whole area was a
green lawn and with the clubhouse at the site plan level VDOT wanted to make sure that there was sufficient
parking at the clubhouse so that cars were not getting too crowded here. She said so those are just some of the
realities in that give and take and we are open to suggestions — we just did not get into as much detail on the 3-
acre flex area because of the conceptual nature of this meeting. She said we know this is the very first step and
are happy if you will let us move forward at the rezoning stage or whatever stage we are happy to get into more
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 33
FINAL MINUTES
detail we just have not done that yet because we were just bringing the initial proposal to you.
Ms. Firehock said one of our challenges as a county is that as we try to develop the urban ring we are not keeping
up with the demands for open space but she was not saying that it is your responsibility to provide the entire
county's park space. However, she just worked for a developer on a site and we redesigned the entire parcel and
it already was approved for larger lots — we made smaller lots and got a significant park at that site. She said
those lots are selling faster and for a better profit margin, got more 8 more units than the original and we got a
gorgeous park that will now out compete other subdivisions around that don't have that. She said even listening
to Chairman Keller's point earlier that some of the green spaces we have are still trapped green spaces or that a
square you go to. She said we are not here tonight to design this, she is just saying that preference she would like
to see even more imagination than what you have been able to bring to bare so far.
Mr. Dotson said he would like to build on what Commissioner Firehock said in the beginning of her statement that
is creating a cool live/work space that would attract small businesses to both work and live there. He said one of
the issues he sees is my gut feeling that this is sort of like spot zoning or a spot CPA. He said particularly the non-
residential is sort of walled off and segregated so to create an integrated mixed -use project is the challenge here.
He said there is no other light industrial that he saw on the map adjacent so this is not like taking 20 acres and
making it 23 acres; this is a little spot. He said this is sort of a unique island and it should not be an island or if so,
there should be bridges. He suggested pedestrian connections for instance; where the street would have
extended through to Dickerson Road and perhaps make that a pedestrian connection there in addition to the blue
line that you showed over by the entrance feature. He suggested like Tim was saying possibly some pedestrian
connection that links to the stream that is along the other edge of that. He said a procedural question is if this
came in as one application because you are making some changes to the residential portion as well as this if there
was one application that showed this as one project rather than coming in with an LI rezoning and then six
months later coming in to change the residential that it would be convincing if it all came in as a packet.
Ms. Long noted that our plan is actually to bring it in together if we are able to get to the next step. She said right
now it is zoned Planned Residential Development, which does not permit anything other than residential and the
only other zoning district that fits is the Neighborhood Model Zoning District so we would be able to create the
Code of Development, identify the types of uses that are allowed in each area and that would all be subject to the
Commission's and Board's review through that normal rezoning process. She said the challenge and response to
your comment about is this a spot Comprehensive Plan amendment is there is not a Comprehensive Plan
designation that is both. She said there is Office R&D Flex, Urban Mixed Use but not a Neighborhood Model
equivalent that we thought was as good of a fit that worked well. So maybe at the Comprehensive Plan level it
looks like it, but we hope at the rezoning level if we are able to get to that point we can integrate it more from
the zoning perspective if that makes sense.
Mr. Dotson commented that if your proposal had been made back in 2007 probably it would have met a warmer
reception than changing the whole thing to residential.
Ms. Long said the other thing that George pointed out is another big important change that has occurred since
then is the construction of Berkmar Drive Extended has made this a much more marketable parcel for uses like
this than it was in 2005 when we started. Again, we are just asking for the ability to take this to the next step and
appreciate all your comments and input. She said we are happy to take all of that into consideration if we are
able to move to the next step and come back with more detail. She said there was some members of the public
present to speak if the Commission wants to take comment.
Mr. Ray said he wanted to mention the storm water pond does take advantage of existing topo. He said that is
the low point on the site and we have rock to take out of there and it is our intent to line that, fill it and stock fish
from Arkansas so it will be a neighborhood fishing place for kids and stuff. He said also in the central area at the
bottom of where you see the pool and amphitheater, the amphitheater is intended for outdoor kind of activities
and the clubhouse for the indoor activities, but there is a junior regulation soccer field for the green space right
below the cross street for the clubhouse. IWAW
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 34
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Riley invited public comment.
Jason Devillier, Director of Operations for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, said the Airport Authority is not
taking a position on this; however, this development is adjacent to the airport and immediately adjacent to
property that is scheduled for development within the next few years. He said it was for additional hangars,
additional aircraft parked in these hangars; additional noise and so you are going to see some increased activity
immediately adjacent to this area. He said again the Airport Authority is not taking a position but the Federal
Aviation Administration has published on numerous occasions that residential development immediately adjacent
to an airport is not recommended and so he just wanted to state that publicly for you and can answer any
questions.
Mr. Keller thanked him for weighing on this because we have had questions about these sorts of things before
and have not had the proper representatives here so it is really great to have you come. He invited questions.
Ms. Firehock asked if you have comments on whether you have preferences for how this land would be
developed and maybe it is in your crash zone and you would rather that it not be housing.
Mr. Devillier replied that it is not in the high noise impact area or on any extended approach or departure corridor
from the airport runways. He said we just want to follow the Federal Aviation Administration's recommendations
as closely as we can in this particular case and others residential development immediately adjacent to airports is
not recommended. He said that would be our unofficial/official position going forward. He said the Federal
Aviation Administration has stated that commercial development adjacent to airports is preferable over
residential development.
Ms. Riley asked if there was anyone else in the audience that would like to speak.
Hearing none, Ms. Riley closed the public comment.
Mr. Dotson asked are we to consider this resolution of intent and does is that complete.
Ms. Echols said she would like to wrap up — and what she is hearing from the Commission is that you think this
has merit and that the Commission would like to consider this as a potential Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Ms. Echols said she heard from most of you that there was a need for compatibility of design and the uses need
to help to create a place where people want to be and want to potentially walk to work and have a close
proximity of walking and living. She said some Commissioners said that there is a desire to have better
relationships for loading next to the residential uses; however, we did not get to the streetscape expectations and
we did not get to the dwelling unit types. Ms. Echols said that is not necessary at this juncture and the only thing
that is necessary is for you to say yes we want to go forward, adopt a resolution of intent and staff will then
develop the schedule for public process as well as the issues we need to work through to get this moving down its
path.
Mr. Keller asked would a motion be helpful on that.
Ms. Echols replied yes, you have to do that in order to adopt the resolution of intent and there has to be a
motion.
Mr. Dotson moved that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution of Intent submitted by staff with the
addition of two words be it further resolved that the Planning Commission shall consider and hold a public
hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He said that he was adding "consider and" hold a public
hearing so what our ultimate decision will be would result from those considerations.
Ms. More seconded the motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 3S
FINAL MINUTES
The motion passed by a unanimous vote of 7:0 to adopt the following resolution of intent.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network section of the Places 29 Master Plan
includes land use designations within the Places 29 Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas within
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, a petition was received requesting that the land use designation in the Places 29 Master Plan
for Tax Map Parcel Number 03200-00-00-04960, and portions of Tax Map Parcel Numbers 03200-00-00-04910,
03200-00-00-049.10, and 03200-00-00-049FO (hereinafter the "Property") be amended from Urban Density
Residential to Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial; and
WHEREAS, the Property is located on the east side of Dickerson Road, approximately 1000 feet north of
the intersection of Towncenter Drive and Dickerson Road; and
WHEREAS, upon a request by a property owner, the Comprehensive Plan may be amended by the Board
of Supervisors, acting upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission, in response to criteria first adopted
by the Board of Supervisors on April 17, 1985, and amended December 11, 1991, effective April 1, 1992; and
WHEREAS, one of the criteria is whether there has been a change in circumstances since the land use
designation was established for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property's owner asserts that market conditions for the Property have changed, and
housing demands for the Property's immediate area have changed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that changes in circumstances have occurred relative to the
demands for residential and office/flex properties in the immediate vicinity of the Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare
and good land use planning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution to
consider amending the land use designation of the Property from Urban Density Residential to
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall consider and hold a public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by this resolution, and make its recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Keller thanked the applicant and staff.
The meeting moved to the next item.
Committee Reports
Mr. Keller invited committee reports.
Mr. Dotson said he would email copies of the CIP final recommendations to Commissioners.
Ms. Firehock reported the Historic Preservation Committee met.
Mr. Bivins reported the PACC Tech Committee met and spoke about the next environment of Ivy
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 6, 2018 36
FINAL MINUTES
Road/Emmett Street.
With no further committee reports, the meeting moved to the next item.
Old Business
Mr. Keller invited old business. Hearing none, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business
Mr. Keller invited new business.
Mr. Keller announced:
• ADJOURN TO JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING
COMMISSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018 FROM 3:OOP.M. - 6:00 P.M., IN CONFERENCE ROOM 241.
• PLEASE NOTE: THE FEBRUARY 20, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE HELD IN CONFERENCE
ROOM 241 BEGINNING AT 6:00 P.M.
There being no further old business, the meeting moved to next item.
Items for Follow -Up
Work Session topics. (Andrew Gast -Bray)
Ms. Echols distributed information from Mr. Gast -Bray for the Commission to review on work session topics. The
Planning Commission asked that discussion take place at the February 20 Commission meeting under "Old
Business".
There being no further discussion, the meeting moved to new business.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. to the Joint meeting with School Board,
Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in
Conference Room 241.
Andrew Gast -Bray, Secre
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
Approved by Planning Commission
Date: 10-16-2018
Initials: sct
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -FEBRUARY 6, 2018 37
FINAL MINUTES