HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 07 2018 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
August 7, 2018
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a joint work session with the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors on Tuesday, August 7, 2018, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Conference
Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville; Virginia.
Planning Commissioners attending were Tim Keller, Chair; Julian Bivins, Pam Riley, Vice -Chair; Daphne
Spain, and Bruce Dotson. Absent was Karen Firehock, Jennie More and Bill Palmer, UVA representative.
Board of Supervisors members present were Ann Mallek, Chair; Norman Dill, Ned Galloway, Diantha
McKeel, Liz Palmer and Rick Randolph.
Other officials present were Christy Shifflett, Director of Project Management Office; Megan Nedostup,
Principal Planner; Elaine Echols, Chief of Planning; Claudette Borgersen, Clerk to Board of Supervisors;
Travis Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk, Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission, Jeff Richardson,
County Executive and Greg Kamptner, County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order and Establish Quorum. At 3:02 p.m., Ms. Mallek, Chair, of the Board of
Supervisors, and Mr. Keller, Chair, of the Planning Commission, called the meeting to order for a joint
work session of the two bodies.
Claudette Borgersen, Clerk to Board of Supervisors, noted that a new sound system had been installed
last week in this room. There are no headsets or lapels to worry about; however, everything you say will
be picked up on the recording so any side conversations that you may have will be recorded so pleas;
keep that in mind throughout the meeting.
Ms. Mallek said our agenda today is a work session ZMA-2018-3 Southwood Phase 1 and Christy
Shifflett and Megan Nedostup would be presenting.
Agenda Item No. 2a. Work Session: ZMA201800003 Southwood Phase 1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 090000000001 A0; 090Al 0000001 E0; 076000000051 A0.
LOCATION: Southwood Mobile Home Park located along Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 631) off of
Hickory Street approximately 350 feet from Ambrose Commons Drive.
PROPOSAL: Rezone property from residential to a mixed use- mixed income development. PETITION:
Rezone 32.5 acres from R2 Residential zoning district, which allows residential uses at a density of 2
units per acre, and Neighborhood Model District (NMD), which allows residential uses at a density of 3-34
units per acres, mixed with commercial, service, and industrial uses, to Neighborhood Model District
(NMD). This request includes amending a portion of ZMA200500017 Biscuit Run included on TMP 90A1-
1E which is zoned NMD to remove the proffers from the parcel. A maximum of 400 units are proposed for
a density of approximately 12 units per acre. A maximum of 120,000 non-residential square footage is
also requested.
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Flood Hazard Overlay District; Steep Slopes- Managed and Preserved
PROFFERS: No.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Parks and Green Systems — parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways,
trails, paths, recreational facilities and equipment, plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas,
preservation of stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to rivers and streams; Urban
Density Residential — residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as places of worship, schools,
public and institutional uses, neighborhood scale commercial, office, and service uses with a Center in the
Southern Neighborhood within the Southern and Western Urban Area Master Plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2018
DRAFT MINUTES — Submit for approval
MONTICELLO VIEWSHED: Yes.
The Executive Summary forwarded to the Board states that Southwood Mobile Home Park is
located approximately W of a mile west of the Covenant School, and approximately 2 miles southwest of
5th Street Station. The area proposed for rezoning was formerly part of the Biscuit Run State Park land
and consists of three parcels located to the east of Old Lynchburg Road and southwest of the existing
Southwood community. The parcels are heavily wooded. The edges of Parcel 090A1-00-00-001EO
contain preserved and managed slopes, and partially lie within the 100 Year Floodplain and Stream
Buffer. Attachment A shows the location of the mobile home park and area proposed for rezoning.
The applicant is proposing to rezone three parcels: two parcels are currently zoned R-2 Residential (2-3
units/acre) and one parcel is zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD up to 34 units/acre). The
proposed district is a unified NMD for all three parcels (up to 34 units/acre). The applicant is also
requesting waivers for alternative parking locations and for substitution for recreational facility
requirements. While not essential for this work session, the applicant will be providing a traffic study and
proffer statement in the future. Attachment B provides the Code of Development (COD) and Attachment C
contain the Application Plan.
The purpose of this work session is for Habitat and staff to receive answers and direction from the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on key questions about the character of the transect
areas, level of detail provided in the Code of Development and Application Plan, and provision of
affordable housing. The action of the Planning Commission and the Board is non -binding but is meant to
help advise the applicant on next steps. In addition, this is an opportunity to give the Planning
Commission and Board members, who have not been fully involved in this effort to date, an overview and
background of all the work and collaboration that has occurred between the County and Habitat.
Currently, there are 341 mobile homes and approximately 1,500 residents in Southwood. Southwood
contains the largest concentration of substandard housing in the County, which Habitat plans to replace
with new units that will meet codes and ordinances using a phased development approach.
Habitat is committed to redeveloping Southwood as a well -designed, sustainable, mixed income
community of substantial benefit to the region guided by the following core values: (Page 5 of the Code of
Development)
• Non -displacement
• Net increase in affordable housing
• Community engagement
• Asset -based approach
• Self-help model
• Fiscal responsibility
Habitat has had success with other mobile home park redevelopments without displacement, such as
Sunrise Park in the City of Charlottesville. The Southwood redevelopment is expected to uphold the same
values, although it would occur at a significantly larger scale.
Key Milestones Relevant to the Southwood Rezoning Proposal
A summary of activities, meetings, and review of the project is provided as Attachment D. This history
represents the extensive outreach and collaboration of Habitat to Southwood residents and its partnership
with the County in preparation for the redevelopment and this rezoning request. Key milestones include:
• 2007 -- Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) acquired the Southwood Mobile Home Park.
• 2011 -- Habitat established core values for the Southwood redevelopment project. The most
important value is non -displacement, while others include increasing the net amount of affordable housing
and using a community -driven approach.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
M
• October 5, 2016 -- The Board of Supervisors approved a resolution for a partnership between the
County and Habitat. (Attachment E)
• November 2016 -- Southwood redevelopment Action Plan was included as part of the Albemarle
County FY17-19 Strategic Plan, under the 'Revitalize Aging Urban Neighborhoods' priority.
• January 2017 through April 2017-- Habitat led a series of bimonthly workshops through which 70
Southwood residents became versed in planning and design topics from neighborhood and land use
planning to block patterns and road design.
• March 2017 -- Habitat acquired the 20-acre 'exchange parcel' from the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, giving Habitat the space it needed for redeveloping Southwood. This would
allow Habitat to build in a greenfield area without having to move residents out of their homes.
• September 8th, 2017 -- The Board of Supervisors considered questions from Staff on Southwood
and provided additional input. The Board emphasized that this project should be flexible and adapt over
time, and should be directed by residents as much as possible. The Board recommended that a variety of
commercial uses be allowed, determined mainly by residents, and that residents have opportunities to
start and continue their own businesses.
• January 10, 2018 -- The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the appropriations,
redevelopment team approach, action plan for Phase I and the Performance Agreement for the
Southwood redevelopment project. The appropriations included $400,000 (FY18) for the ZMA application
process and $275,000 (FY19) for the application plan and code of development. (Link to Documents)
• February 20, 2018 -- The ZMA application for Phase I was submitted by Habitat.
• June 2018 -- Two charrettes were held to provide more clarity and detail for the application from
discussions within the Executive Team, Southwood residents, Habitat staff (including their consultants
BRW Architects, Water Street Studios, Timmons Group Engineers), Board of Supervisors members,
Planning Commission members and County Staff attended. Residents used scaled wooden and paper
pieces to build their concept of Phase I, including housing, parking, roads and greenspaces. They
incorporated different types of housing, both market and affordable, as well as a mixture of uses. Habitat
consultants are currently designing renderings that will use residents' models from the charrettes, while
accounting for environmental and other limiting factors.
• July 2, 2018 -- The ZMA application for Phase I was resubmitted.
• July 26, 2018 -- Habitat and their consultants held a meeting/charrette where they presented the
combined renderings from the results of the June charrettes to the Southwood residents.
Due to the scope and complexity of the proposed redevelopment, a multi-disciplinary/functional team
approach was presented to the Board that included teams for the following areas: Planning, Services,
Policy Funding, and Executive team which would be led by the residents vision for Southwood. See
diagram below.
Team Diagram:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
C11)INIVAUNITY VISION
CON0,41INTf VISIC)N
Details on the Rezoning Application
Phase I of the Southwood Redevelopment project is to rezone the three parcels along Old Lynchburg
Road, including the 'exchange parcel' described in Attachment D. The first part of this development would
be the constructing a model village which will set a standard for the larger -scale redevelopment to occur
in Phase ll. Phase I will also provide residents with a chance to see an accomplished section of the
overall project.
This rezoning is the first of its kind to involve a redevelopment where replacement housing on a large
scale is proposed for existing residents. Most residential rezonings have been for green field development
and have included a masterplan for all parcels involved in the new development. In this case, the
applicant believes there are overriding goals and safeguards that justify moving forward with rezoning
only a portion of the property. Habitat has a commitment to resident -led design and a goal to prevent
displacement of any resident who wishes to reside in the community. As a result, Habitat wants to build
housing on the exchange parcel and move current residents there to make room for redevelopment in the
area that already contains homes. Habitat hopes to build trust with the residents by showing progress and
making sure they have a voice in how Southwood develops. These factors and the County's commitment
to be involved in the project lead to staff support of Habitat's approach to only rezoning a portion of the
property at this time.
As seen in the Code of Development and Application Plan (Attachments B & C), Block A of Phase I would
consist of mainly residential uses with opportunity for small neighborhood scale non-residential uses.
Block A would have between 110 and 150 units in a variety of unit types. Any commercial uses would be
at a neighborhood scale, such as a coffee shop or community center. Block B would have up to 250 units
and more intense commercial uses. The area for commercial uses is intended to provide an opportunity
for Southwood residents as well as others to open businesses.
Expected Timeline for Development
The applicant hopes for approval of this Phase 1 rezoning in early 2019. To achieve this, the applicant
intends to complete work on the ZMA application in September 2018, with an October Planning
Commission public hearing and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in December. Habitat and
County staff expect to provide planning workshops for Southwood residents in fall 2018.. Once the ZMA
is approved, Phase I will then move to the site planning process and construction in 2020 and residents
R
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
moving into the village in 2021. The Phase II ZMA would likely be submitted in 2020 and buildout is
expected to be completed in 2033.
Questions
As stated earlier, the purpose of the joint work session is for the Commission and Board to provide
guidance on the proposal. Below are the questions for which answers are requested. Staff has provided
comments to help guide the Commission and Board's understanding before weighing in.
Q1: Is the character of each area (described on Page 29 of the Code of Development and
detailed on pages 30-32) appropriate or are improvements or changes needed?
Habitat and their professional consultants have worked closely together with the Executive Team,
Planning Team, and most importantly with the residents of Southwood to revise and resubmit their
rezoning application to address concerns from the County regarding the amount of detail provided within
the Code of Development. In response to the concerns, Habitat and their consultants completed three
design charrettes with the residents of Southwood. The results of these design charrettes have developed
character areas showing density, open space, a variety of unit types, a mixture of affordable and market
rate housing, with a more detailed code of development as noted above.
Staff Comment
Early in the rezoning process, Habitat and their consultants completed three design charrettes with the
residents of Southwood. The results of these design charrettes have developed character areas (transect)
showing density, open space, a variety of unit types, a mixture of affordable and market rate housing, with
a more detailed code of development as noted above. To evaluate how well the areas conform to the
County's design expectations for all development, staff analyzed the proposed Transects in relation to the
Neighborhood Model Principles below:
1. Pedestrian Orientation: All tansects contain street sections where the sidewalk is not buffered
by a planting strip or street trees, although all sidewalks are at least buffered by a parking lane. Block
lengths are not specifically described, however, the environment is designed to be walkable and
accessible for pedestrians. Street furniture, crosswalks and outdoor lighting are not specifically mentioned
as proposed improvements.
2. Mixture of Uses: All Transects allow for a mixture of uses. Uses transition gradually from a
higher intensity in T-1 to a lower intensity in T-5. Trees will be used to screen parking.
3. Neighborhood Centers: All Transects are expected to have their own character and sense of
place, which will be determined with residents' input. T-3 is the only transect that specifically calls for a
"distinct identity as created by use, connection, form or material."
4. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordable Units: All Transects allow for a variety of housing
types by right. There is no minimum lot size for any of the Transects. A commitment has been made for
43% on- site affordable housing within the overall development. Affordable housing is discussed later in
this report.
5. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Network: When redeveloped, the mobile home
park is expected to retain its interconnected street system. The rezoned area will connect to the existing
Southwood development with a future road connection into the exiting network, as well as the proposed
trail system will connect to the existing trails within Southwood.
6. Multimodal Transportation Options: Options will be provided for pedestrians, bicyclists,
motorists and public transit users. CAT service will continue to operate in the Southwood neighborhood
with the Services team advocating for an extension of that system. Bike lanes are listed as optional for the
T-1 and T-2 areas and would add 4' to the ROW width. A trail is proposed (where) as a Class B Type 1
primitive trail to protect managed and preserved slopes but allow residents to access natural areas.
Design standards call for this type of trail to have breaks to prevent erosion and a 20% maximum grade.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
7. Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space: Recreation amenities will be provided in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance with the exception that a request has been made for the proposed
pedestrian trail to substitute for one required tot -lot in Block A. No greenspace or amenities are indicated
in T-1 or T-2 (Block B), although 90% of units in Block B will be within 114 mile of the proposed trail and
multi -family and any proposed attached residential development will be subject to the recreation
requirements stated in the zoning ordinance. All of Block A will be within 114 mile of the trail or existing
soccer field. T-1 and T-2 does provide for civic and open space opportunities.
8. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale: Standards for building setbacks in T1-T-3 are within
NM guidelines and keep buildings close to the street to provide a sense of enclosure and more active
street environment. However, Transects 4 and 5 do not provide a maximum setback, which does not
meet the NM guidelines. A maximum setback should be provided so that the units are close to the street.
9. Relegated Parking: The Code provides for buildings in all of the Transects to be oriented toward
the street, although amenity -oriented lots are allowed. Amenity -oriented lots will have at least 40' between
units, with the amenity at least 30' in width. On street or relegated parking is only required in T-1 and T- 3.
Front -load garages are not permitted in T-1 and T-2, and must be setback at least 18' in the other
Transects. Side -load garages are permitted in T-3, T-4 and T-5. Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow
parking requirements to be met in alternative locations, and not necessarily on the parcel. This includes
off-street, on -street, alleys and parking lots. Parking must be within 200' of the associated parcel.
10. Redevelopment: This NM principle does not apply to the first phase of Southwood, but will apply
to the second phase of redevelopment.
11. Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re -grading of Terrain: Managed and preserved
slopes will not be disturbed with development on the rezoned parcel.. The proposed trail along managed
and preserved slopes is a Class B Type 1 primitive trail, which will respect grading and be designed with
erosion -prevention in mind.
12. Clear Boundaries between the Development Areas and the Rural Area: Southwood is not
adjacent to the Rural Area. There will be a 30' preserved mature tree buffer along Old Lynchburg Road.
On the whole, staff believes that the character/transect areas are appropriate and workable with some
additional revisions.
Q2: Do you support Habitat's proposal to a future commitment of 43% on -site affordable units
for the overall project during future rezonings knowing that with this rezoning for Phase I the
affordable housing commitment is only within Block A, and two outcomes are possible that would
equate to less than 43% overall?
Given that Southwood residents are focused on designing model villages in Block A and have created a
code of development for Block B to allow for more outward facing uses, Habitat focused its commitments
of affordable housing to Block A and to the future sections of the site as it rezones and redevelops.
Therefore, no affordable housing is committed to be located in Block B. The details of their affordable
housing proposal is located on page 18 of the COD.
There are two scenarios that have been provided by Habitat for Block A regarding affordable housing for
this first phase rezoning. The first is that they have committed to 43 units out of 110 to be provided within
Block A. This equates to 12% overall in Phase I if Block B builds out to the maximum proposed
density/residential units.
In the second scenario, Habitat has committed that if Block A exceeds 110 units, 43% of the total units in
Block A will be affordable. This equates to 16% provided overall in this phase if both Block A and Block B
build the maximum proposed density/residential units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 6
FINAL MINUTES
Habitat has stated that they will provide a future commitment of 43% over the whole project during
subsequent rezonings for the other phases, and will provide 43% within Block A if density increases over
110 units. However, as explained above, there is a scenario in which only 12% affordable housing will be
provided in this phase. Since non -displacement is the most important goal for the redevelopment, the
43% corresponds to the number of units expected in the whole project for current Southwood residents.
Staff Comment
The Housing chapter of the Comprehensive plans contains many objectives and strategies in relation to
affordable housing. One of those strategies, under Objective 6, is to ensure that at a minimum, 15% of all
units developed under rezoning and special use permits are affordable. While in one scenario for PhaseI
of Southwood would not provide the recommended 15% affordable units, the overall commitment of 43%
will well exceed the recommendation. The Policy Team that was formed since the adoption of the Action
Plan has recommended that a commitment should be made that would provide a minimum of 15%
affordable housing in accordance with the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan, and staff
supports this recommendation.
The redevelopment of Southwood will be meeting many of the other objectives outlined in the Housing
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. These include the following:
1. Objective 1: Support the provision of decent, safe, and sanitary housing in good repair for
all residents. With the redevelopment, all of the substandard mobile homes will be replaced with housing
that meets this objective.
2. Objective 2: Ensure that housing is equally available to all populations. Southwood will
provide housing options for people of all incomes and populations by creating a mixed income
community.
3. Objective 3: Provide for a variety of housing types for all income levels and help provide
for increased density in the Development Areas. The proposed density for Phase I is within the
proposed density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The Code of Development also allows for a
large variety of housing types within Block A and Block B, including multi -family, townhouses, single
family detached, accessory apartments, carriage units, and other attached single family.
4. Objective 5: Support provision of housing which meets the needs of various ages and
levels of mobility. Southwood consists of a number of residents that have mobility needs as well as
seniors. Habitat has made the commitment to non -displacement for any current resident that wishes to
stay in the community. In addition accessible sidewalks and pedestrian paths are proposed, access to
public transportation system will remain (CAT and Jaunt), and assisted living is an allowable by -right use
within Block B.
5. Objective 7: Promote the inclusion of affordable units throughout neighborhoods and
strive for similarity in exterior appearance to market -rate units. In other mixed income communities
within the area that Habitat has built, the affordable homes are indistinguishable to the market rate units.
Q3: Given that one of the goals of Southwood redevelopment is to catalyze affordable housing
opportunities throughout the region (page 5 of the COD) and that Southwood residents may want
flexibility to choose other locations, what are your thoughts concerning Habitat's proposal to
provide 51% across jurisdictions and not just within Albemarle County? Do you support this
proposal?
On page 18 in the submitted COD, Habitat has stated that they will make a commitment to provide 43% of
the housing developed on -site to be affordable over the whole project with future rezonings. Additionally,
a commitment that 51 % of the total housing units will be affordable allowing for cross jurisdictional (in
other areas of the County or adjacent jurisdictions) development. Habitat has stated that the whole
redevelopment is projected to allow up to 800 units. The 43% commitment would equate to non-
displacement for all the residents of Southwood (341 homes). In order to address the goal of increasing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
the affordable housing stock in the region, Habitat has committed to providing up to 51% either on -site or
in other jurisdictions.
Staff Comment Question
The Neighborhood Model and the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan state that affordable
housing units should be dispersed throughout the Development Areas rather than built in enclaves. The
Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan recommends as a strategy that the County develop a plan
for a regional cooperation for affordable housing that is connected to community amenities, parks, trails
and services in the City of Charlottesville and Development Areas of the County. In addition, the strategy
states that each of the Commissions in the City and the County believe that a more regional collaboration
on housing is needed.
The County's policy and practice for rezonings is that the units are provided on the property proposed to
be rezoned, which is under the control of the developer and allows for easy tracking of the units.
However, Habitat's proposal could be seen as a way to better disperse affordable housing than potentially
create an enclave in Southwood. It could also meet the objective to create a more regional approach to
provision of affordable housing. In addition, allowing for 51 % to be provided in other areas of the region
could allow more flexibility for the residents of Southwood, or other community members looking for
affordable housing, to choose where they would like to live. Staff believes that provision of affordable
housing outside of Southwood is supported by the Comprehensive Plan; however, it might be more
appropriate to limit the area to just Albemarle County or to jurisdictions adjacent to Albemarle County.
Q4: Within the Code of Development and Application Plan that has been submitted, are there
aspects that require additional detail?
Staff Comment Question 1
Habitat and their professional consultants have worked closely with the Executive Team, Planning Team,
Policy Team, and most importantly with the residents of Southwood to revise and resubmit their rezoning
application to address concerns from the County regarding the amount of detail provided within the Code
of Development. In general, staff believes there is sufficient information to understand the expectations for
the project and enforce its zoning. There are a few technical issues that need to be resolved but by and
large, staff is satisfied with the amount of detail provided in the COD. Due to the fact that staff has been
closely involved with the preparation of the project, staff and the applicant want to make sure that it
appropriately meets the Commission's and Board's expectations for clarity and detail.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission provide input to staff and the
applicant at this meeting to help Habitat complete preparation of its rezoning request for a public hearing.
Ms. Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner, provided an outline for the meeting agenda and introduced Ms.
Kristy Shifflett, Director of Project Management.
Ms. Shifflett stated that she is the Project Director for the Southwood project and stated that the goal for
this meeting was to present the same information and become grounded in the same facts, as well as
getting input from both the Board and Commission to help reach consensus on the topics related to the
project.
Ms. Shifflett reported that in fall 2016, the Board had adopted a resolution for partnership with Habitat for
Humanity to focus on the Southwood project, and she noted that this was a bit different from typical
rezonings and reviews. Ms. Shifflett explained that the County has committed itself to extensive
collaboration and coordination with the project developer, affected residents, public agents, and County
staff and officials. She stated that staff had been focused in working with Habitat through the entire
rezoning process and wanted to come together as partners to show what had been developed to date
and help the Board and Commission understand that the same rules and regulations applied to this
rezoning, despite the need for heightened collaboration.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Shiffiett reported that in November 2016, the Southwood Redevelopment Action Plan was included in
the County's strategic plan; and in January 2017 they came together and passed the action plan, which
led to this meeting and ultimately the final rezoning. She stated that in February, Habitat submitted the
ZMA application and also hosted a lot of charrettes with Southwood residents, which also involved Board
and Commission members. She said that Habitat resubmitted the ZMA application on July 2, which was
the last action prior to this joint work session — with the hope for resubmittal of the application on
September 4, to go to the Commission for public hearing in October and the Board in December.
Ms. Shifflett stated that Southwood was located on Old Lynchburg Road and pointed it out on a map
provided, noting the location of critical resources and the three parcels being proposed for rezoning. She
said that one parcel was part of the original Biscuit Run rezoning and is referred to as the "exchange
parcel" because it was exchanged with the state, and all three parcels are greenfield parcels without
houses or improvements. Ms. Shifflett pointed out the environmental constraints, including water
protection buffers, floodplains, and preserved slopes.
Ms. Shifflett explained that Habitat was proposing to rezone the three parcels, with the two closest to
Lynchburg Road currently zoned R-2 residential to be zoned NMD, and the exchange parcel already with
that designation to be amended to be part of this proposal. She reported that the proposal consisted of
two blocks: Block B, which was adjacent to Old Lynchburg Road; and Block A, which was in the exchange
parcel. She said the main entrance was off of Hickory Street from Old Lynchburg Road, with a new main
road proposed to go into the exchange parcel and into the site. She noted that the applicant was also
including some potential future connections into the existing Southwood Mobile Home Park and a
potential secondary fire access. She reported that Block B was the most intensely developed part of the
proposal, with both non-residential and residential uses permitted and Block A anticipated to be mostly
residential with limited non-residential uses that were restricted in intensity by the size.
Ms. Rose Glasgow, a Resident Planner for the Southwood project, addressed the Board and Commission
and stated that the redevelopment was a huge undertaking that involved the resident community in the
transition to a new and different direction. Ms. Glasgow stated that over the past year and a half, the
resident redevelopment committee had spent more than 1,500 hours, along with engineers, architects,
and County planners to cultivate this innovative project. She mentioned that an EF-0 tornado had touched
down right in Southwood's backyard, and residents were extremely excited to know that their new
community would alleviate the stress of uncertain and changing weather conditions. Ms. Glasgow added
that flexibility of all involved in the redevelopment projects would also be key as they strive toward the
goal of safe, affordable, healthy family -based housing. She encouraged expediency in the process and
said this would be a new model for future redevelopment projects.
Ms. Marta Trujillo, an interpreter, provided a verbal Spanish interpretation of Ms. Glasgow's comments.
Mr. Dan Rosensweig, President and CEO of Habitat for Humanity, addressed the Board and Commission
and expressed his appreciation for those — especially residents — who put together the code of
development in a unique partnership. Mr. Rosensweig explained that Habitat purchased Southwood in
2007 and for the first four years was trying to stabilize operations in the park, so they invested about $3
million in deferred maintenance for issues like backed -up sewage. He said that after doing Sunrise, their
first trailer park project, the Habitat board defined "core values," with the first being upgraded housing.
Mr. Rosensweig stated that Southwood had 1,500 residents, but the condition of many of the trailers was
not great and varied in condition. He said that Habitat's first commitment was for non -displacement, and
they have come to understand that this must be holistic and encompass revenue streams, the sense of
community, friendships, and spatial organization, among other aspects. He stated that one of the most
important realizations was that Habitat was looking at the framework in a dated and detached manner,
which did not work anywhere because it did not allow the residents to plan, design, and eventually own
their community. Mr. Rosensweig cited an example of the residents coming to Habitat and saying they
wanted a soccer field instead of a community garden, and the residents planned and built the field
themselves.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Rush Otis, Habitat's Director of Redevelopment, addressed the Board and Commission and stated
that the organization was able to reframe the project and accept the premise that not every partner had to VOW
be ready at once, instead recognizing that they could work with people as they became ready. She stated
that this non -coercive approach yielded an "early adopted" approach, with residents who were ready first
leading the charge on redevelopment.
Ms. Otis said one of the first questions to be answered in the most recent leg of the process was to
identify where redevelopment would begin, and when Habitat talked with the state and the Department of
Conservation and Recreation about 10 years ago, they discussed the aspirations and starting point for
redevelopment — but in speaking with engineers and architects about the viability, it was determined to be
quite expensive due to the greenfield nature of the site. She said that as they talked with residents, the
physical and psychological residents of being able to start on a green site and ability to demonstrate to
Habitat's commitment to non -displacement outweighed the costs incurred from a land development
perspective.
Ms. Otis said that what was presented today was the first phase of a very long process of the first
redevelopment and rezoning. She stated that the 32.5 acres of undeveloped land to the south and west of
Southwood would provide an opportunity to demonstrate Habitat's commitment to non -displacement and
ensure that residents' lives continued on in the fashion they were today. She stated that in January 2017,
they realized they could not have a particularly authentic conversation with residents about design without
first defining some of the vocabulary and building some skills — so they set out at the beginning to build
some common language around what defined "density," what housing types were, and what some of the
constraints that happened when going into a land development project.
Ms. Otis added that they also discussed the push and pull of land as a limited resource and the need to
prioritize aspects of the project, which provided an opportunity for residents to learn these skills and shift
their focus on what was best for the community as a whole — shifting from "me" to "we." Ms. Otis stated
that they found from this process that the vision for the community from the resident perspective was the
vision of an affordable and inclusive place to live, with enough housing for a diverse community to grow
and flourish. She said they also invested in some resident leadership skills and committee work, giving
the residents the opportunity to be the messengers around redevelopment — both with neighbors and with
decision -makers such as state leaders and local officials, recognizing that the resident voice was stronger
than anything a representative could do or say.
Ms. Otis explained that in the resident workshops, they got more specific as to what would happen in the
first phase, with discussions around the process of rezoning and how a piece of land got through
entitlements. She stated that they talked with residents about how the rezoning was really about setting
up a framework for design and how they could ensure they had the rules and regulations to support an
organic, vibrant redevelopment effort. She stated that the charrette process done most recently took a
deeper dive into that process, taking those developed skills and putting them into practice, designing
Block A. Ms. Otis noted that the work from the charrettes developed into the character areas and the
regulations reflected in the code of development.
Ms. Otis stated that there were about 1,500 hours of volunteer effort by community members, with
thousands of hours put in by County staff, as well as the engineers, architects, and landscape architects —
who were at the table facilitating design conversations with residents. She said that this led to the ability
to translate that energy and vision into a document that planners and officials can understand and use to
evaluate what is requested in the rezoning. Ms. Otis stated that there were already 37 residents who have
expressed an interest in the first phase, which would only grow as people got more excited and started to
see the manifestation of the work. She said that the County was committed to continuing the resident -led
process through the site planning of the next few villages and future rezonings, which would involve
changes spanning over 16 years.
Mr. Bruce Wardell of BRW Architects addressed the Board and Commission, stating that his firm was part
of the design team that included Timmons Group and Water Street Studios as community planners. He
said that the most important partner in the team was the group of early adopters in the Southwood
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 10
FINAL MINUTES
community, with process intersecting with actual design work. Mr. Wardell stated that they brought back
to the community charrettes done in June and responses to those done in July, and found that in
translating the process and values, the community had developed an idea of the two blocks — Block B
along Old Lynchburg Road, which was envisioned as a mixed -use commercial/residential area; and Block
A. He said that a major amenity to the community was an 8.3-acre greenspace that surrounded the block
and sloped down to the stream, with the community focusing on the desire for a connection to the natural
area as an integrated part of the community.
Mr. Wardell emphasized the importance of getting the roads right in a neighborhood development, as they
could provide a reinforcement to the connectivity, the way the neighborhood was organized, and the
connections to open space. He stated that this was reflected in the proposed code of development, and
they would discuss the possibilities for making the road systems reinforce the character of the community.
Mr. Wardell said that the team took the work from the past 18 months and brought the understanding and
knowledge the community developed, and then broke into four teams — with design proposals emerging
from the charrettes. He stated that there was an amazing amount of energy in the room as residents were
beginning to make their own neighborhoods.
Mr. Wardell explained that the groups had looked at open space, density, connections within the.
neighborhood, etc., and found consistent patterns, so the professional design team interpreted those
patterns into the character areas as seen in the code of development, along with a matrix that evolves
into defined dimensions and organization. He stated that the design team then took the charrettes and.
brought back some ideas as to how the neighborhood could be developed in two different ways. Mr.
Wardell said that they had the character of a "central green" where everything was facing and possibly
weaving into the next phase of the community — and a very different approach with smaller greens in
different parts of the neighborhood, with 6-12 homes organized around each green. He stated that it
would have been easy to take the process out of the neighbors' hands at this point, but instead they gave
it back to the residents to make it better.
Mr. Wardell said that the package before the Board and Commission attempted to lay the design and
process aspects on top of each other so they know the process being developed has the capability of
creating wonderful neighborhoods but also enabled residents to have their own neighborhood in their own
hands.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Assistant County Executive, stated that the video and audio of the meeting were
available in the auditorium if people preferred to sit down.
Ms. Nedostup asked the Board and Commission to refer to question one in their packets: Is the character
of each area as described in the code appropriate, or are improvements and changes needed? She noted
that transect one refers to the most intense transect, with transect five being the least intense. Ms.
Nedostup mentioned that since the report was written, there had been concerns expressed about Block B
and the transects T-1 and T-2, so she thought it might be good to address those areas first.
Mr. Bivins commented that in starting with Block B, which was the mixed -use area that would be facing
out, and he stated that the land in the area is wonderful and reminded him of a planned community in
Maryland known as Greenville. He said that he would like a sense of how Block A would be integrated so
it had a similar feeling to Block B, and how long it would take for an eight or nine -year -old to run an errand
such as buying some bread. He clarified that he was trying to establish the walking time and distance
from the center of T-4 to the intersection of where Hickory came off of Old Lynchburg Road — and then
down to the Boys & Girls Club.
A representative from Water Street Studio indicated that it was about a 10-minute walk at the most, being
about a quarter -mile total.
Mr. Wardell noted that the design team was working with the planners of the trail, which would hopefully
go behind Mill Creek and connect with the trail system in a multi -use path that went through the green
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 1
FINAL MINUTES
areas, with a total length of about two miles off road. He noted that the idea was for a trail that straddled
Biscuit Run and connected to their internal trail system.
Mr. Bivins emphasized that there was a whole sense of safe community in the existing area.
Mr. Rosensweig stated that they would not have enough time at this meeting to address roads, but the
road sections allowable by VDOT currently did not make for safe, neighborhood -scale placemaking-type
pedestrian walkways. He said there were sidewalk requirements on both sides of the road that they would
adhere to, probably with a planting strip between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. He added that
ultimately, they would like to do shared streets, and the residents have said one of the best parts of the
neighborhood is the fact that the kids ride bikes — and they were not enamored with the idea of bike lanes
on roads, so the idea is for the off -road multi -use path that kids could use. Mr. Rosensweig added that
this was also where the greenspace began to tie together the ultimate geographic center of the existing
neighborhood.
Ms. Nedostup clarified that the residents were proposing a maximum of a six -foot -wide sidewalk, with a
minimum of four feet, and they had recommended a wider swath for multi -use paths but that had not been
integrated into the application. She added that County Transportation Planner Kevin McDermott had
recommended a path at least eight feet wide for multi -use.
Mr. Wardell noted that it was 1,400 feet from the geographic center of Block A to the intersection of
Hickory Road.
Ms. Palmer asked if that happened if they recommended it. Ms. Nedostup responded that it was part of
their comments, so it would be heard as a desire from the Board and Commission, although she could not
speak for them.
Mr. Rosensweig asked for clarity as to whether the desire was sidewalks on both sides and a certain
width, or specific dimensions for a multi -use path.
Ms. Mallek stated that it was difficult to answer based on one chunk without the context of anything else,
but sidewalks or ways for people to get places were topics that could be addressed.
Mr. Rosensweig pointed out that they had not shown the structure of the partnership between the County
and Habitat, and they knew there were some tools missing from the general toolbox —mostly pertaining to
standards of design but also possibly relating to zoning. He stated that along with rezoning, they were
trying to push the envelope of what VDOT would accept as VDOT roads, and Habitat's opinion is that the
right of ways and curb -to -curb sections were way too big for neighborhood scale in any neighborhood. He
said that the hope is to approach VDOT to see how they can build neighborhood roads that existed pre -
car culture, and without that element, it would be very difficult to knit the whole neighborhood together.
Ms. McKee) stated that there had been many discussions and concerns expressed already about this
issue, so it was good that this team was also raising it.
Ms. Mallek commented that it was not completely outside the box, as VDOT mentioned context sensitivity
in reviewing the roads that were put in at Old Trail.
Mr. Rosensweig stated that they had shots of the neighborhood streets in north downtown, which were
the dimensions they were considering for this, and they would like to have that as the framework of the
development and design.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Chief of Planning -Long Range, asked if it was fair to say that this group believed there
needed to be more refinement of the pedestrian network in here, and those sidewalks were a key feature
that needed to be concentrated on.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 12
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Randolph said that it encompassed multi -modal paths, not just pedestrian uses, because bike lanes
were listed as optional for T-1 and T-2 but were accepted as critical in enabling people to move across
Southwood on an east -west access as well as a north -south access.
Mr. Rosensweig said that it would be satisfactory to do them off street.
Ms. Riley stated that she would like to talk about the character of the buildings and the use in T-1 and T-2,
as it was being proposed as the most intense but had the least information in the packets. She said that
the table with various setbacks, heights, and restrictions allowed three to five stories, and her
understanding was that Habitat was asking for a waiver of greenspace and parking on the entire Block B
as they felt it did not need to be provided there. Ms. Riley added that she was also interested in
understanding how Block B interfaced with the existing community and along Old Lynchburg Road.
Ms. Rush clarified that there was no reduction in parking at all requested for Block A and Block B, but
they had requested flexibility in how they counted the parking, so that residents would have input into
whether parking was directly on their site.
Ms. Riley said that she was mostly concerned about the commercial development.
Ms. Rush responded that there was no waiver requested for parking on Block B, and the waiver request
was for the eight acres in the amenity areas to count for one of the tot lot requirements, based on the
density in Block A.
Ms. Nedostup stated that Ms. Riley's comment was that the parking was not clear in the code of
development that the parking was restricted specifically for residential uses and not for commercial, as it
talked about the parking in general being able to be shifted around.
Mr. Randolph commented that it was easy to look at this project in isolation in association of Block A to
Block B, but they also needed to be mindful that Block B interfaced directly across the street from an
existing residential community — and without greenspace in Block B, he could easily see a scenario in
which Block B looked like the Flats at West Main, but would be five massive stories. He emphasized that
character referred to the context of the overall community and how it interfaced with other communities,
and permitting five stories with no setbacks or greenspace in Block B seemed problematic to him.
Ms. Nedostup confirmed that there was not a proposed setback where after a number of stories or height.
the building would be stepped back to provide variation, and it was listed as three to five stories in that
block with setbacks as zero.
Ms. Riley commented that there were no setbacks and what she would call completely flexibility.
Ms. Nedostup clarified that there was a maximum but not a minimum.
Ms. Mallek stated that with downtown Crozet, multiple stories were required, three stories were ideal, and
any height above that would get special permission, with step backs all designed in the code of
development. She stated that they were already designed and could not be lifted, but there was a way
with multiple stories to create a very personable -sized street fronting Old Lynchburg Road and it did not
have to be a mass.
Ms. Palmer said that there was a lot of new development, including affordable housing, going into the
other side of Old Lynchburg Road, and she wondered if a traffic study had been done as it would be very
important.
Mr. Wardell stated that they focused in the early stages on the residential aspects and found there were
interested parties, so they began to respond to those specific interests. He explained that they realized
they needed to set up a framework within which they can accommodate and address those interests, as
there may be a third party that came in and did development here. Mr. Wardell emphasized that they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 13
FINAL MINUTES
needed to establish a framework that was flexible but also one that would allow the neighborhood to
evaluate the proposals. He said that no one was envisioning a long, five -story structure with no breaks in
, aoillli
it along that street, as the street was envisioned as one half of a main street that the other side fronted on
— with townhouses or similar. Mr. Wardell said they also did not imagine this to be fronting on Old
Lynchburg Road because the access to the property is on Hickory Road and another entrance cannot be
made off Old Lynchburg.
Mr. Randolph said that he understood that, but the community had invested significant time in planning
Block A, and to turn Block B over to a third party to develop with no community involvement for
development would hand over broad flexibility via these guidelines — with the potential for tall buildings
with no setbacks or open space, along with other variables that lend to massification for other
neighborhoods but also for Block A. He stated that Block B did not seem to be ready to advance, as it did
not have the precision or community involvement that Block A had, and the ambiguity concerned him.
Mr. Wardell responded that Mr. Randolph's points were salient, but he wanted to emphasize that Block A
would not happen without community involvement.
Ms. Nedostup pointed out that there would be an "internal ARB" per the code of the development; the way
the zoning would work meant that what was in the code of development would have to be approved. She
said that if a site plan came in with a five -story building, it would have to be approved if it met the code of
development.
Ms. Riley stated that the job of the Commission and Board at this meeting was to provide feedback, and
there were concerns about the lack of specificity in the code of development and the potential for
massification. She said that she felt community involvement was a separate issue, although she
happened to agree with it.
Mr. Rosensweig commented that the residents had rated the form -based code by indicating the kinds of
structures and uses they wanted on that block, so the use matrix itself was entirely community generated.
w,
He said that Habitat disagreed in some aspects but deferred to the residents, and the form itself was
regulated by the specific setbacks and step backs — and if the Board and Commission felt these would not
yield something positive or appropriate, they should provide that feedback.
Mr. Keller suggested that they move onto the bigger issues, specifically the questions most related to the
overall planning, as they were more implied in the first set.
Ms. Nedostup stated that this was implied in the first question, but she wanted to start with the Block B
issues that she had heard.
Ms. Mallek asked if staff could provide the feedback about Block B. Ms. Echols stated that she was
hearing that there needed to be more specificity about what was happening on Block B, and there was a
strong desire that the relationship of what went there would be assessed and planned for both what was
facing internally and what was facing Old Lynchburg Road. She said that there was a strong desire that
there not be a canyon effect on either side.
Ms. Palmer noted that greenspace was mentioned.
Ms. Riley said that greenspace and parking were raised.
Ms. Echols stated that the character of the area did not need to be all buildings and parking without
greenspace or open space.
Ms. Mallek that this would be applied to this type of development anywhere, and she would like to see the
common expectations.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 14
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Kamptner said that he heard the desire for an expanded description of T-1 and T-2 on page 29;
pages 30-31 would need parking and amenities clarified and enhanced. He said that page 31 in the code
of development addresses front setbacks and step backs, and if these issues were not being raised now,
the applicant and staff would surmise that the two bodies were fine with those items not discussed.
Mr. Keller responded that this was not the case.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that the three to five stories were concerns.
Mr. Kamptner said minimum and maximum lot sizes, building footprints, accessory structure setbacks,
and other setback and step back requirements would be covered in that.
Mr. Keller commented that it seemed premature because there was a large portion not being addressed
where 1,500 were living, and Mr. Bivins' point about connectivity and how that may or may not be
developed was a significant piece of this. He said that this was why there were comments about the
whole piece needing to be master planned together.
Ms. Echols stated that she would like to bring closure to the issues already raised, and she wanted to
make sure that buildings over three stories would need special exceptions, as five stories were not
acceptable as presented.
Mr. Randolph said that a special use permit should be required for buildings over three stories.
Ms. Mallek noted that the setback issue was different in different perspectives, as in downtown Crozet
that was a 10-foot maximum because people wanted the buildings to front the street.
Ms. Echols added that Old Lynchburg Road and the internal street had to be considered in that.
Mr. Keller stated that he had questioned all along how much Habitat had paid for the property in the first
place.
Mr. Rosensweig clarified that it was $7 million.
Mr. Keller said that having looked at some interesting revitalized properties in Texas and New Mexico, he
looked at the largest parcel in this project and wondered what would happen if it were bought as a land
bank with infrastructure put into it — with a partnership over time between Habitat and the County working
with individuals who received the parcel they were living on and having parcels rehabilitated individually
as families wanted them to do it. He emphasized that there had been constraints on what citizen
involvement entailed, and perhaps it was not pertinent for this project but could be in future mobile
developments. Mr. Keller said that he did not mean to degrade this approach, but he wondered if
something more innovative could be done for less money, with open space reserved and the potential for
money to be given back to support the land trust, given that this is a long-term buildout.
Mr. Rosensweig responded that resident -owned communities (ROCs) typically worked with the first
intervention being an outside entity coming in and helping residents purchase the land from its owner. He
explained that in this construct, a nonprofit helped residents create the equivalent of condo documents for
joint ownership, which would have residents owning the land. He stated that typically this happened with
mobile home parks where the infrastructure itself was up to standard, where in this case there were
needs for improved water/sewer, with lot dimensions not allowable per County zoning regulations and
roads not up to VDOT standards.
Mr. Keller asked if they were sure of that in terms of PUD potential. Ms. Nedostup confirmed that the
current R-2 zoning would prohibit this, but a rezoning could possibly allow it.
Ms. Echols stated that she would like to know if they were okay in general with the form being proposed
for Block A.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 15
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Randolph responded that he was not comfortable with no minimum setbacks in T-1 on the front, side,
side corners, and rear — and he was also not supportive of no minimum lot size or building footprint.
Ms. Mallek said that the question seemed to be whether they needed more specificity in T-3, T-4, and T-
5.
Mr. Bivins stated that there was a lot to grapple with in Block B because he was concerned that there
would be a bifurcation between an active sense of entry into the Southwood neighborhood, but nothing
was happening in the community once they came in and he agreed with Mr. Randolph regarding the
concerns over transition between the blocks. He added that he had some concerns with the housing
types in Block A, and there may be some approaches that would provide some uniqueness.
Mr. Keller said that he agreed with Mr. Randolph in that they were putting the cart before the horse, as
they needed to know what was going to happen with the heart of the community and how the part not
being rendered was going to be developed — and this needed to be clarified prior to them saying how they
would develop the portions adjacent to the external edge and roadway.
Ms. Echols asked if there was agreement among other members or if they were comfortable with two
distinct rezonings: one for the properties currently in greenfield, with the knowledge that in the future, the
other part would come in for another rezoning. She asked if they were okay with the separation or if they
wanted a single master plan.
Mr. Dotson responded that he was comfortable with this as a phase one, but there should be an overall
concept that committed to key principles that would apply to both parts.
Ms. Spain stated that she shared the concern in wanting a fuller picture of the entire development, but
she was also sympathetic to how Habitat can engage the residents in the entire process if the County
demands an overall master plan. She said that this was just a first step, and the new part could be the
model for directing redevelopment.
Mr. Keller said they also needed to be candid as to how many residents were involved in this on a
recurring basis.
Ms. Mallek commented that they were doing their best, adding that with 8,000 people in Crozet, she still
got 50-100 people involved.
Ms. Riley stated that they were not asking for a master plan but were looking for a conceptual plan, and
they had already touched on a number of those elements. She said that the major concern for her was
the lack of specificity and the intent for it to be the most intent use on Block B, and no sense of how it
related to the existing community. She emphasized that a conceptual plan was necessary to address the
issues raised thus far.
Ms. Echols said that the distinction was the level of commitment and whether having a conceptual plan
was sufficient, and whether they would be okay with just seeing a general conceptual layout that
addressed connectivity and relationships to the existing development.
Ms. Palmer said that this would be the basis for the rezoning.
Ms. Echols clarified that it would be for phase one rezoning.
Ms. Mallek suggested proceeding with Block A now, getting more information about Block B, and then
letting the existing part be phase two.
Ms. Echols said that they seemed to be supportive in general of the parameters in the code of
development for Block A, and she would like to move onto the next item.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 16
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Riley commented that she was comfortable with Block A, but had concerns about the sidewalks and
the buffering of sidewalks, which was standard in Neighborhood Model Development.
Ms. Palmer asked at what point a traffic study for Old Lynchburg Road would be available. Ms. Nedostup
replied that it was being submitted.
Mr. Craig Kotorski stated that they have been working with VDOT on getting background traffic data, and
VDOT was already doing a study in partnership with the County. He said that they received information
three or four weeks earlier and were finalizing the traffic study, noting that they had set some caps related
to total traffic coming out of the redevelopment, and it considered the entirety of the property. Mr. Kotorski
added that the study would also consider different traffic patterns that could occur if Block B were more
commercial versus multi -family residential, as that would be going out onto 5th Street whereas
commercial would be coming in. He stated that he anticipated the study information to be submitted within
the next week.
Ms. Shifflett mentioned that the executive team had met and submitted a request to Habitat on June 6
asking for an overall concept plan, with the stipulation that it would not be binding and should reflect
reasonable estimates, locations of density, approximate number of affordable housing units, road
networks, blocks and uses. She said that the language of the memo stated that it was acceptable to the
County that the concept would change during phase one's actual development, and the requested
concept plan would be separate from the code of development. Ms. Shifflett noted that some of the key
components — road networks, blocks, uses and housing units — were difficult considering they would be
planned at a later date.
Ms. Mallek said that the existing and new roads should meet in a way that encourages connectivity, with
sidewalks and greenways helping to connect this, and that was enough for her to know it would be
possible. She stated that having an approval for Block A and Block B and having those be successful
„Ar depended upon the successful completion of the second phase — otherwise it didn't work. Ms. Mallek
emphasized that they would be getting a tremendous investment in the first phase that would yield hard
work to bring the second phase into existence. She commented that failure was not an option here, so
they would just have to maintain effort to make it work, and everyone around the table wanted to do that.
Ms. Mallek added that she was hopeful that with the infrastructure connections identified, they would have
enough information to be comfortable going forward in two phases.
Mr. Dotson stated that he found the photographs of the models of the blocks the residents put out to give
a holistic picture, and perhaps they could be used going forward to help develop a conceptual plan.
Mr. Wardell commented that planning something over an existing property that residents had not been
part of was the moment they took the process back and undid everything they have worked for over the
last seven or eight years. He said that when they talked about concept, they could talk about "heat maps"
that denoted similarities in things like edge conditions or internal blocks — without putting community
centers, roads, and parks over someone's existing property — and a key component of this process was to
not superimpose planning over people that are not participating at this point and were waiting to see if it
was successful. Mr. Wardell stated that 37 adopters out of 341 homes was a 10% level of involvement,
and any other community in the County with that level would be significant. He noted that the percentage
of the population in this community was higher than the general population as a whole, so any inference
that they were only working with a tiny group was not really true. Mr. Wardell emphasized that they were
working with an engaged and enthusiastic group, and there were people who were inventors and
initiative -makers and others who waited to see how things would work out.
Ms. Echols stated that the next conversations would revolve around affordable housing, and if they run'
out of time, they would need to determine how to complete that conversation.
Ms. Mallek asked if she had considered doing questions 3 and 4 first, then going into a separate
discussion on question 2. Ms. Echols responded that they could do that if the group agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 17
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Randolph agreed with the approach.
Ms. Nedostup stated that the applicant's proposal is to provide 51 % across the jurisdiction but not just
within Albemarle County, so they were stating in their code of development that with future rezonings they
would commit to 43% overall affordable housing, which equates to non -displacement of current residents
at the maximum projected density. She said they were also saying they would provide up to 51 % in other
jurisdictions, but not onsite and not necessarily within Albemarle County, so the question was whether
they supported the regional approach.
Ms. Mallek responded that having seen how well the neighborhood at Wickham Pond was prospering,
she would definitely support it in Albemarle County.
Mr. Bivins clarified that they were proposing 43% of the property, so they were talking about a net
difference that would not necessarily be done on this property.
Ms. Nedostup confirmed this, adding that it could be done on the property but would not have to be — and
43% was the base level. She emphasized that this question was really about future rezonings, and the
second submittal involves the whole property being rezoned.
Mr. Bivins commented that this was 16 years out, and because of that he wanted it all on the property and
the property should be able to absorb it because the 88 acres was a clean slate.
Ms. Riley agreed, stating that currently the level was 96-98% affordable, so if the intent was no
displacement and maintaining the character of the community, they needed to shoot higher than 51 %
affordable homes and put 43% onsite.
Mr. Keller stated that he agreed with his colleagues, but they had not yet talked about AM[ and he was
not sure if they were discussing homes that would switch from affordable to market rate. He commented w/
that this was a very complicated question that continued to surface at the Planning Commission level,
which was ultimately passed onto the Board, and in the long term they were not increasing their
affordable housing numbers.
Ms. Riley said that there was also the issue in the proposal that anyone below 40% AMI would count as
1.5 units, which diminished the number of units fairly dramatically, and that was something that needed to
be flagged.
Ms. Echols clarified that the question being asked was whether there should be more affordable housing
provided than just to deal with the displacement, and if they could answer that they might be able to
pinpoint some numbers — but right now they needed to establish whether this project needed more
affordable housing than for just the people who live there now.
The Board and Commission members expressed that they felt it should.
Ms. Riley commented that this was the original principle.
Mr. Gallaway stated that was the original rationale for him to go along with investing the money and staff
time into this project.
Mr. Rosensweig stated that he would like to clear up some inaccuracies. He said that there was 43%
affordable housing guaranteed onsite, with 51 % overall across the area — and not 100% of Southwood
residents want to live onsite. He emphasized that they would not force people to stay where they were
and instead would offer opportunities to go elsewhere, either in the County or in the City. Mr. Rosensweig
stated that if they restricted offsite affordable housing in Albemarle County, their own affordable housing
proffer would have made it impossible for developers to develop those homes. He explained that with the
60 or 90-day rule to put something on the market, the developer offboards his requirement to the builder,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 18
FINAL MINUTES
who puts it on the market for $243 thousand, which was usually a small unit. Mr. Rosensweig said that
five years ago when they did Wickham Pond, the developer and builder were willing to give that up,
finding that in today's hot market they paid less for the land because of the proffer but made more money
by developing and selling it. He stated that Habitat could not even pay market value in Albemarle County
and had been searching for a year for other space — but the County's own proffer policy has made it
impossible for them to find it.
Mr. Rosensweig stated that trying to cram all the affordable housing needs into this one neighborhood
might conflict with everything else in terms of the space people need to breathe, the parkland, and they
would be willing to make a commitment of about 400 units, but that had to transpire over time. He
stressed that in Habitat's 27-year history, they have built 220 units of affordable housing and were looking
to double that over the next 10-15 years.
Mr. Rosensweig said that if they promised 51 % of affordable housing onsite, there would be some
complicating factors. He explained that 90% of American housing subsidy went to low income housing tax
credits, which were typically multi -family units developed "in a mediocre way," pockets of single income
usually above 50%, which means the vast majority of Southwood residents would not qualify. Mr.
Rosensweig said that after 15 years, the tax credit financing ran out and those units went off the market,
so 70% of units would go out of affordable housing.
Mr. Rosensweig stated that the most important part was that Southwood, residents do not want to live in
apartments or multi -family units, and they like having some space. He emphasized that if the County
required the arbitrary 51 % onsite, it would push Habitat into a low-income tax credit project that would
ultimately be multi -family warehouse -type housing that the residents of Southwood did not want — which
was an unintended consequence he was certain the Board and Commission did not want. He added that
this requirement would make the project either unviable or unrecognizable to the most important people,
the residents.
Mr. Randolph stated that the Board signed onto the project with the stipulation of 51% affordable housing,
and they secured support out of the budget for $675 thousand to deliver on that. He said that Habitat
came back and provided a level of 60-70%, so now to see a figure in the 40-percent range was
completely unacceptable to him. He emphasized to Mr. Rosensweig that he knew it was the County's
goal, and there had been several meetings where 51 % had come up. Mr. Randolph said that he was
actually shocked to see the proposition that property elsewhere in the region could be counted — Greene
County, the City of Charlottesville — while Albemarle County taxpayers' money was going to this project.
He stated that he was confident that Habitat could deliver 51 % affordable housing, because while some
people would want to leave, others would want to move in. Mr. Randolph emphasized that they were not
talking about removing the greenspace, and all that design in Southwood from the last charrette was
laudable. He clarified that the Board and Commission were saying they wanted a higher level, and to him
the 51 % was non-negotiable, with a commitment as a County to affordable housing through other
projects. Mr. Randolph said that he wanted the entire Southwood community to remain affordable, while
retaining its character.
Ms. Mallek stated that she pulled up the Board's resolution, and the 51 % level was not specified there.
She said that she recalled the non -displacement creed at that percentage, and if they were going from
400+ units to 700+ units, that created the mixture that was up to 100% because there were additional
units on top of those that were already there. She said that she understood that they were signing off on
the concept of non -displacement, which in her mind generated the numbers they had agreed upon. She
added that the other important aspect was having Habitat be the lender so the houses did come back and
someone wanted to sell them, and did not go out and become market rate homes — which to her was the
major failure of their current housing policy.
Ms. Echols stated that she was hearing a few different opinions from them and wanted to get other Board
members to weigh in, as this reflected the initial expectation the Board had when they went into the
partnership. She said that she thought she had heard an expectation for more than displacement, and
*Awl she was hearing from Ms. Mallek that she was not sure this was the case. Ms. Echols mentioned that she
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 19
FINAL MINUTES
was not present for the discussion and thus did not fully grasp what the Board's expectations were, and
she asked them individually to clarify their positions.
Mr. Gallaway stated that the Board member from that district — Mr. Randolph — was the trusted liaison
until the item came back to the Board. He said that he understood the non -displacement and felt it was an
admirable goal, but he never expected that to be 100%, and he felt that it was different than the number
of houses counted as affordable. He stated that his expectation was that the number of affordable units
was going to grow, but what that grows by was not discussed before. Mr. Gallaway stated that at the time
he was very enthusiastic about having the residents involved, but there was a significant investment from
the County and if they didn't see an increase in affordable housing stock he did not understand why they
invested in the project as a public entity.
Mr. Rosensweig responded that they would see an increase in stock, the question was whether it had to
happen onsite or if it could happen somewhere else in the County.
Mr. Gallaway emphasized that he signed onto this project for onsite affordable housing, and it was
presented to him that the units would increase onsite, maintaining what they had. He commented that
they had two -on -two meetings in addition to full Board meetings about this, and he recalled that this was
presented as an opportunity for an amount of affordable stock onsite — with a project that would not
displace current residents and would increase the number of affordable units. Mr. Gallaway emphasized
that this was not discussed in the context of having affordable units somewhere else in the County or
even out of the County, and this was the first he had heard of it.
Ms. Mallek said that it was a question being asked, so they should not be mad that they were being
asked.
Mr. Gallaway responded that he was not mad but when it came to investing money, with this $675
thousand being done outside of the process and out of the context of other priorities, there was criticism
from people for taking that kind of approach. He stated that they needed to be clear that they wanted to
address affordable housing, and this money was to help them accomplish that.
Ms. McKee) stated that she agreed with Mr. Gallaway, but she did not remember anything magic about
51 %, with the overall goal of increasing affordable housing. She added that she could support other
locations in Albemarle County but not outside of that, and a selling point for this project was that the
affordable housing would stay affordable.
Ms. Mallek said that her goals for the project were: non -displacement and affordable housing for the
current residents; increasing the number of affordable units onsite; and not losing the affordable housing
that was there. She stated that she did not recall 51 % having any significance other than its relation to
some formula for HUD funding — but it was the applicant's issue if they chose not to use that funding.
Ms. Palmer stated that she agreed with Mr. Gallaway and was also concerned about the percent AMI they
were getting and did not see anything about that.
Mr. Randolph said that he had his notes from a March 15, 2018 Southwood community meeting, and they
had talked about 51% affordable housing in phase one. He stated that his notes from a March 1, 2018
report showed that "A CDBG-funded project must show at least 51 % of the beneficiaries as low to
moderate income by federal statute. DHCD has no flexibility with this federal mandate. A CDBG-funded
project is typically the activity related to one specific application." He said that this was a reason why the
51% was built in as an expectation to maximize the possibility of having federal dollars.
Ms. McKee) stated that it was not part of the Board's broader discussion.
Mr. Randolph confirmed this, adding that the discussion with Habitat included repeated references to the
51 %.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 20
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Mallek asked if Ron White had any comments on this.
Mr. Dill stated that he was more in favor of flexibility, as this project was long term and had another 15-20
years ahead of it and they could not stay rigid to what was agreed on three years ago. He said he was
okay with it not being onsite, but it needed to be in Albemarle County unless there was some deal with
Greene County or the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Dill said that while $675,000 was a significant
contribution, but in the world of building it was about 1.5 houses, and they should try to leverage it as
much as possible. He stated that he also agreed that the housing should stay affordable for the long term.
Mr. Ron White, Chief of Housing, stated that he heard three different things being discussed: rezoning,
which said nothing about 51 %; a contribution by the County and Habitat with expectations that may not
yet be completely clear; and CDBG potential, which would be considered on a project -by -project basis.
He explained that the housing office just put in an application on Habitat's behalf for $2.25 million, and
they were offered the opportunity to submit an application for a structured small village of 15 houses that
would more than meet the 15% — with 100% of those units to be affordable. Mr. White emphasized that
the CDBG would be dependent on what the specific project was, not the overall development. He said
that he felt they should deal with contributions in a clear enough way that they knew what they were
getting from that contribution up front, whether it be performance agreements, contributions, etc., and that
seemed to be where the questions arose on the number or percentage of units.
Ms. Mallek stated that she thought the 1.5 units for people below 40% AMI made tremendous sense
because of the inability of those families to contribute more to their rent, so they essentially need more
support.
Mr. White responded that this aligned with the 2015 comprehensive plan, in which there was
consideration of a weighted scale for giving credit for affordable units. He stated that from his point of
view, the weighted scale and non -displacement were huge compensating factors for considering what
they wanted to require as a level of affordable housing for the rezoning versus requirements for monetary
contributions, staff time contributions, CDBG, etc.
Ms. Echols stated that her understanding was that most Board members expected additional affordable
units to be provided in Albemarle County — and it would be preferential to have them onsite but there
could be some flexibility.
Board members agreed that they could accept that.
Ms. Echols said that she felt they had gotten somewhere with this discussion and asked Mr. Rosensweig
felt that he had received some direction.
Ms. Mallek asked if question 4 required a lot of extra presentation. Ms. Echols responded that they
needed the questions from the other session first.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the 43% was tied to the non -displacement theory, and if the applicant was going
to proceed with the bonus factor for AMIs that were around 40%, he wanted to know how that would
interplay with the non -displacement. He said that if they did 100 units at 40 AMI or less and got a 1.5
credit, that was 200 units.
Mr. Rosensweig responded that the intent was for non -displacement and support for people who wanted
to live elsewhere, and that number would ultimately be increased. He stated that the additional bonus was
requested by Mark Graham and Mr. Kamptner, and they included it because this was a pilot project for
the County. Mr. Rosensweig emphasized that they were committed to supporting people, and this was
something that could help create a policy for the County that would have broader applicability.
Ms. Riley agreed that it was a policy question and for this particular set of commitments, people should
run the numbers — which were greatly different in terms of AMI data, as 35.7% of residents were below
the 30% level, and even just taking 20 of the 43 would mean 55% of the units. She stated that this was a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 21
FINAL MINUTES
policy question but had implications in terms of how many units would ultimately be built. Ms. Riley added
that these would far more likely be rental units than ownership units, and it was a far more complicated
affordable housing discussion that lacked policy dictating direction.
Ms. Mallek commented that this was what made the discussion at this meeting so challenging.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the Board's resolution of October 5, 2016 envisioned non -displacement, which
had been Habitat's pledge, resulting in approximately 400 new affordable housing units — which was close
to the 51 %. He said that the other factor coming into play was the current affordable housing policy, which
were not intended to be exclusively affordable housing and instead should be mixed -income housing
types incorporated into the development. Mr. Kamptner stated that they were usually looking at it as a
market -rate development.
Ms. Mallek said that she understood that for Block A but would be very reluctant to insist that the existing
neighborhood had to give over some of their property to another type.
Mr. Keller stated that the Supervisors may want to consider actual numbers versus percentages, as the
number may be lower because of the lower AMI.
Agenda Item No. 3. Planning Commission Adjourn to Regular Scheduled Planning Commission Meeting at
6:00 p.m. in Lane Auditorium.
At 5:01 p.m., Mr. Keller adjourned the Planning Commission meeting to its regular scheduled meeting in
the Lane Auditorium at 6:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 7, 2018
The Albemarle County Planning Commission reconvened from the joint work session with the Board of
Supervisors to their regular public hearing on Tuesday, August 7, 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, Pam Riley, Vice -Chair; Daphne Spain, and
Bruce Dotson. Absent was Karen Firehock, Jennie More and Bill Palmer, UVA representative.
Other officials present were Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning; Heather McMahon, Senior Planner;
Chip Boyles, Executive Director of Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; Megan Nedostup,
Principal Planner; Elaine Echols, Chief of Planning; Bill Fritz, Manager of Special Projects; David Benish,
Chief of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Keller, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 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, the
meeting would move to the next item.
Presentation.
Housing Update
(Chip Boyles)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 22
FINAL MINUTES
Chip Boyles, Director for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), said it is very
timely; we were talking earlier today about some funding mechanisms that may be able to help us within
the Charlottesville -Albemarle region with some affordable housing. He said so it worked out really nicely
to be able come here and update you as to what the Planning District Commission is doing working within
the community about not just affordable housing but all housing and how we have been partnering with
Albemarle County to do that. Mr. Boyles said that he tried to put together a slide show of just walking
through some of the history of what we have been doing, where we are today and if there were any
questions during the slide presentation, he would be glad to try to answer those.
Mr. Boyles said back in September of 2017, the TJPDC Commission during some strategic planning
sessions identified regional housing as a priority for the Commission. Then with their approval and with
some budgeting in February we were able to hire a full time regional housing coordinator who we have
contracted out as also the Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust first Executive Director. Therefore,
she spends part of her time working for the Community Land Trust and the rest as the Regional Housing
Coordinator for the PDC. In April a three-day period including the 13th and 14th, we partnered with the
Urban Land Institute (ULI) as well as the Tom Tom Festival to hold a seven -session affordable housing
summit. In addition, on Saturday we had a regional action forum, which was kind of a strategic planning
session where we were trying to identify just a very limited number of action items that we could walk
away from those seven sessions and try to accomplish. The two items that were prioritized was for the
PDC to work on developing a regional housing partnership.
Mr. Boyles said all of you were instrumental in working with the PDC, MPO and the City of Charlottesville
in creating a Regional Transit Partnership and that has been very successful for us and it was
recommended at this housing summit that a Regional Housing Partnership acting as an advisory group
would be just as beneficial towards the housing initiatives. He said the other thing was have the PDC to
work towards obtaining funding to create a Regional Housing Plan and at that time the City of
Charlottesville was in the middle of having an affordable housing needs analysis completed just for the
City of Charlottesville and it was identified that the same type of analysis needs to be done for the entire
region. He said those were the two action items that we came away from in April. Since that time, a
framework to create that regional housing partnership has been drafted and stakeholders have reviewed
it and for us we are including the stakeholders, multi -jurisdictional elected officials and staff, private
developers, builders, bankers and other types of financers and the residents of affordable housing
homes. He said that framework has been developed and we anticipate that it will be going to our
Planning District Commission for approval in September, possibly October if there were any other
revisions that need to occur but we do expect to have that framework before our Commission in
September.
Mr. Boyles said additionally we have identified $50,000 of funding to go towards the Regional Housing
Development Authority for an additional $100,000 for a $150,000 total project. He said this is a much
larger scale housing analysis than the City of Charlottesville did because we wanted to include quite a bit
of community engagement at the Planning Commission, elected official and resident level in all of our
jurisdictions. However, we also wanted to walk away from our needs analysis with at least two or three
priority strategies that each of the local governments would be able to begin to implement at the end of
the report after the deliverables are approved. He said the other thing that would be produced it not quite
so important for Albemarle County, but it certainly is for some of our more rural counties, that there is a
state requirement that you have an affordable housing chapter in your comprehensive plans. He said as
much as he hates to say it not all counties in the Commonwealth have that affordable housing chapter.
He said the grant that we are going after one of the important priorities of that funding is that we are able
to use our experience with our regional plan, create a template that if a local county or local jurisdiction
can develop the housing data they would then have a template and a model to use to put that data into
that model to be massaged to fit their county and then use that as a very easy way to get them up to the
State standards of having an affordable housing chapter within their Comprehensive Plans. He said that
Albemarle County's is up-to-date, but not all counties are there.
Mr. Boyles said we would cover our jurisdictions, as you know is the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 23
FINAL MINUTES
Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson counties and we've begun discussions with including Augusta
county since given the traffic patterns between Augusta county, Charlottesville and Albemarle they have a
lot of housing units that are full of workers within our region and it goes vice -versa. He said so we are
looking at including Augusta County in this plan as well. He said some of the items that will be included in
this plan is community assessments, review of all the Comprehensive Plans within the jurisdictions that
we cover, stakeholder and focus group interviews and again this was one of the items that we added. He
said the City of Charlottesville was strictly at this point just a needs analysis, strictly data generated, and
we thought if we are doing that we want to keep the public and the decision makers in each of the
jurisdictions involved and updated throughout the process. He said we would include a number of
stakeholder and focus groups throughout the process, community meetings and then one large regional
community meeting. He said the data that would be gathered would include the basics of population,
household trends, population characteristics, commuting patterns, affordability and certainly the
geographic patterns of housing within the region.
Mr. Boyles said it would include a market analysis that is supply and demand for both rental housing and
ownership housing. He said you will notice throughout this that we use the term housing and not just
affordable housing since we want to make sure that if there is a market to create more market type
housing that will help the supply of affordable housing. He said we want to make sure that is addressed
and we do not want to look at just the affordable housing market. He said that within the affordability gap
data we would be looking at rental housing, homelessness, ownership as well as the housing gap
conclusions. As part of the process we will be including impediments to fair and affordable housing just
trying to identify what types of barriers such as development costs, limited financial resources, land use,
zoning and also discrimination as to possible obstacles that prevent the affordability of housing. From
that, we will development a priority of strategies by the locality and we anticipate more of the rural
counties the strategies will be very similar and more urban environments will have similar strategies
different from the rural. He said Albemarle itself will be treated in two ways — the rural area will be treated
more like the rural counties and then your urban environments will be treated a little bit more like the City
of Charlottesville. He said we would finish up with presentations to both the planning commissions and
each jurisdiction and the elected bodies. He said the time frame for this is we hope to have a notice to
proceed to a consulting firm that will be doing the lion share of the data gathering and our office will be
doing most of the community engagement throughout the process. He said in September we anticipate
the creation of the Regional Housing Partnership and then the actual work will begin in September and
run through February where the draft report and the final community meetings will be held so that the final
deliverable will be sometime around April of next year.
Mr. Boyles said we published a request for proposals in May of this year and received three proposals
back; a committee reviewed those and made a recommendation to contract with Partners for Economic
Solutions, a Washington, DC firm that just completed the City of Charlottesville Housing Analysis. He
said we were able to get a very good proposal based on the amount of data they have already gathered
for the region since you cannot look at the Charlottesville housing needs without looking at the housing
data from all around it. He said a lot of the work has already been done and we were able to obtain a
very favorable cost from them because of that. He said that in Albemarle we would be looking at both the
rural and the urban in a very different way almost as if it were two different jurisdictions even though we
will be working with it as one just to make sure we are considering the urban environment quite differently
than the rest of the county. Mr. Boyles said he would be glad to answer questions.
Mr. Keller invited questions for Mr. Boyles.
Ms. Spain asked what the tasks of the new housing coordinator are and will they take they lead on all the
projects you are describing here or does this person actually match up housing units with people who
need them.
Mr. Boyles replied that our role is not to really being any type of a housing developer or provide a housing
service and it is more of matching up affordable housing developers trying to work with Habitat, AHIP,
Piedmont Housing Alliance in keeping groups organized and communication flowing. He said it was very
similar to today's opportunity zone meeting and our current housing director is out on temporary leave
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 24
FINAL MINUTES
and she would be responsible for organizing and bringing these groups together to share information. He
said we are not in the business for the actual housing activities and she will be charged with managing
"' this project and will manage the contract with the consultant and the community engagement meetings,
but that is it.
Ms. Riley said in terms of some of the strategy recommendations that might come out of this for specific
jurisdictions she has two questions. She said one is are they going to be looking at if there is a strategy
suggested what are the resources that are necessary to carry that out or what is the capacity of the
jurisdiction to be able to implement it. She asked would they be looking at any overarching strategies that
would be regional and again with recommendations about how that might be implemented.
Mr. Boyles replied that they would be looking at all of it, but looking at the regional type strategies may be
a little more difficult and each jurisdiction has its different goals as well as resources. He said to try to find
an overarching strategy he would like to think that it could be done, but he was certain that it would be
quite difficult to find that. He said their charge would be to look at everything as long as, in my direction,
it has to stuff that is doable. He said to have a vision or strategy that we know up front we would not have
the resources to do or the political will to do is to initially to look for that low hanging fruit — what are things
we can implement as quickly as possible and see some type of positive results. He said that is why we
have tried to limit each of the jurisdictions to maybe just two or three strategies. He said that if we can get
those moving the Regional Housing Partnership is being created not just for this project but with the
hopes, it will be around until we no longer have an affordable housing need, which will be a long time. He
said we hope that the Regional Housing Partnership over time will look for more strategies to try to
implement but initially we really want to make an impact as quickly as possible.
Mr. Dotson said he was just assuming that there is going to be a huge affordable housing gap, but
somehow people are making it today and are living some place; they may be living two counties away,
commuting in, and they maybe doubling up. He said they are finding ways to somehow survive, which
leads me to say the usual sort of census data analysis is very useful, but maybe some case studies that
look at somebody who is in a given wage bracket and how they are doing it. He said they might have
two households under one roof and wondered exactly what is going on. He said that looking at some
case studies particularly for emphasizing practical ways to achieve things might open up some thinking in
directions that we do not normally have.
Mr. Boyles replied that is a great idea and actually is the strategy we used to sell this idea to our
Commission. He said we used just a generic case study and took the average teacher's salary from the
City of Charlottesville and put that into a scenario given the known average rental rates within the City to
show the average teacher making the average salary would have to spend over 30% of their monthly
income, which is a non -affordable housing situation. He said that is about as far as we took it and thinks
that running that even further that if that person was living in Greene then what are those transportation
costs, what are the environmental costs to have them come in and that gap then is money that is not
being spent in the communities on other things. He said that they would look at scenarios.
Mr. Dotson said an idea that came from their 3 o'clock meeting on Southwood was is there some way to
identify champions like Habitat to lead the charge. He asked if there was a way to look at different
champions, not just Habitat, and if there are other ways that you could identify potential champions.
Mr. Boyles replied that we have had a group of executive stakeholders that include Dan and another
move to this group to this area is Sunshine Mathon who is the Director of the Piedmont Housing Alliance
from Austin. He said it is people like them and many others who have been part of our stakeholder
groups that have us this far and so we are building more and more. He said the other thing is that while
the obvious champions within the affordable housing arena are also some others that we have been
identifying with the credit union and the private sector being part of the discussions that there are some
equal champions there he thinks that we can certainly take advantage of their commitment and expertise.
He said this regional housing partnership would be a large stakeholder group that we will be working
together with and hope we will do very good at managing according to the issue and find that committed
person that we can utilize in the best way we can. He said it was very important for us that it is a cross
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 25
FINAL MINUTES
section since he did not believe we can solve the problems by just depending upon the affordable
housing developers since we have to look at the market rate housing developers, the bankers, the
builders, the designer, everybody.
Mr. Dotson said in economic development that most new job creation comes from existing businesses
and that you should spend a significant effort on retention of existing businesses. He said taking that idea
and applying it to housing we should be spending a lot of effort on retaining existing affordable housing
and would hope that the study would do that and look at rehab needs and not just new construction
needs but how so we retain the stock that we have now.
Mr. Boyles replied that he thinks that will part of those strategies. He said we are currently doing a small
area plan for the Cherry Avenue — Fifeville area of the City of Charlottesville and one of the conflicting
goals of the community is more affordable housing but we want to maintain the single-family type of
housing that made the community what it is. He said that is a balancing act, but being aware that maybe
there are solutions that we can do both by fixing up. Mr. Boyles said he had just left a meeting talking
about accessory dwelling units and how we can overcome the obstacles within our local governments to
provide more opportunities for that, which don't take away from the single-family housing but it does
create new units. He said so looking at things like that is certainly on the table.
Mr. Dotson said a last point that is hard to define is the he knows that the School Division is interested in
looking at student generation rates as neighborhoods change over time because there are some dramatic
results that are taking place and that has not really been examined. He said it strikes me that this group
should also be interested in looking at neighborhoods over time as they change and maybe there is some
interaction that would be useful with the County School Division.
Mr. Boyles replied certainly, that is a great idea that we have not talked about at all.
Ms. Spain said when she thinks of TJPDC as the MPO the primary mission is transportation coordination
and that adding the housing is an expansion of that mission.
Mr. Boyles replied not really, since we are kind of a complicated group. He said the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District is the legal entity and regional government. He said we house the MPO so it is as if the
MPO was a department of the Planning District Commission. He said why it stands out a lot is one item is
transportation has been a hot issue in this region for a while and so we normally hear MPO more than the
Planning District Commission. He said the other thing is we have a dedicated funding source from the
federal and state government that pays for our MPO activities and so you tend to hear a lot about the
MPO but the mother organization is the Planning District Commission and our mission is housing,
environment, community and economic development planning to include transportation. He said although
we do a lot of transportation planning, we are not primarily a transportation planning agency.
Ms. Spain said the housing has been there as an interest but now you are saying there is more emphasis
on it and she was asking because she did not want the nexus between transportation and housing to get
lost with housing siloed off in one section and transportation in another. She asked if he was saying that
the umbrella is there with the Commission and that will not happen.
Ms. Boyles replied that you would be very happy to see that we just went through in four years our
second strategic planning exercise with our Commission and stakeholders. He said it was very unique
this year the emphasis that we were given from our Commission and we are drafting up the final copy of
that strategic plan. He said it said all of our emphasis should be to coordination of all of the things you
just spoke about and you cannot talk about housing without talking about jobs. He said you could not talk
about either of those without talking about transportation and within jobs you talking about both economic
development planning and workforce planning as well with education. He said the Commission said it
was our role to try to bring all of those items together every time anything is considered because like a
three-legged stool you have to have them all there for it to work. He said that has been quite different
from our strategic plan before, but that was the priority of our Commission this summer was to say when
we do something all of those have to be considered.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 26
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Keller said since we are just coming off a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors - will you be
presenting the final report of the housing study to each of the board of supervisors, planning commission
and EDA as well, and Mr. Boyle replied yes, we have built in that we will present to every planning
commission of each jurisdiction.
Mr. Keller said that might be one where we could suggest a three part because the EDA is also involved
in that and asked Elaine to think about passing that on to Andrew because we all found this afternoon
quite rewarding. He said that might be a way to continue this discussion and again all housing in what we
see from the city study that all housing is quite important in the ramifications of that on the market place
and therefore affordable housing.
Mr. Boyles replied yes, very much so and at any time we can have one meeting instead of three and you
will not get an argument from us.
Mr. Keller asked would those slide presentations be on your website and is that going to be the logical
place for us to share.
Mr. Boyles responded that all three of those would be on our website and we videoed the meeting today,
which will also be available on our website. He pointed out we will be pushing out through our newsletter
and Facebook face the lengths to those presentations and will have all of those available including the
articles referenced.
Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Boyles for coming.
Ms. Riley said she just wanted to press on the issue of identifying the existing affordable housing in this
study because it seems like it is something that can be identified in general. She said often the existing
affordable housing is lost in the shuffle, there is a lot more emphasis on new development, and she thinks
a lot of us are wondering from an efficiency standpoint wouldn't we be better just preserving for a longer
time. She said for example those low-income tax credits, can we restructure those deals and extend
those terms of affordability in existing single-family housing and is there a way to recapture those units
before they go to the market. She asked will there be information in this study that really identifies the
existing housing both in terms of ownership and rental, and then are there going to be specific strategies
and/or sort of any ability to address cost benefit of preserving existing versus new.
Mr. Boyles replied sure, the later part of that he would be afraid to try to answer now because some of
this as we get the consultant on board we will be massaging the scope as we go. He said some things
would be identified while we are developing the deliverables that we did not think of up front so a lot of
stuff will happen there. He said that because of resources, we will not be able to go into detail of
strategies and my understanding in a city like the City of Charlottesville the strategic part of the housing
plan will cost everything we are spending on the regional plan. He said you are in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars there and so that is why we definitely want to have some strategies but we want to
pick the most clear achievable ones and it may only be 2 or 3 strategies per jurisdictions. He said it could
be during this process if we are able to identify a way to expand that and can find the resources to do it,
we will amend the contract to add that. Mr. Boyles said he was not sure of how much detail we will get
into with the actual strategies; we are just trying to make sure we have some of the highest priority ones
identified.
Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Boyles.
The meeting moved to the next item.
Public Hearing Item.
SP-2018-00005 Amendment to Malloy Ford Body Shop
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 27
FINAL MINUTES
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000068AO and 045000000068C1
LOCATION: 2060 and 2070 Seminole Trail
PROPOSAL: Expand previously approved body shop use on TMP 45-68C1 with new body shop within
the existing building on the 2.06-acre parcel 45-68A
PETITION: Body shop under Section 24.2.2.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows body shops by
special use permit. No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: HC_ Highway Commercial — commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15
units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District — overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural
or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. AIA Airport
Impact Area: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial Mixed Use — commercial, retail, employment uses, with
supporting residential, office, or institutional uses in Neighborhood 1 — Places 29.
(Heather McMahon)
Heather McMahon summarized the staff report in a PowerPoint presentation.
This is a request to amend SP-2016-18, which was approved in 2016 for a body shop use at the
Malloy Ford property on Route 29North. The vicinity map highlights the subject property that
includes two parcel, both properties are owned by Malloy Properties, III LLC and combined they
encompass 7.03 acres.
The southern parcel addressed 2060 Seminole Trail is occupied by the showroom of the former
Better Living Furniture Store, which is now vacant. The northern parcel 2070 Seminole Trail was
formerly the Better Living building supply store and it is currently being converted into an auto
dealership and automotive repair facility for Malloy Ford. Both parcels are zoned Highway
Commercial. Commercial uses predominate in this area along Route 29 and the body shop use is
considered accessory to motor vehicle sales.
Motor vehicle sales is a commercial use permitted by right within the Highway Commercial zoning
district and the body shop use is similar in character to vehicle sale centers at nearby auto
dealerships including the Jim Price, the Umansky and Colonial as well as Brown's Collision
Center.
Ms. McMahon said that consequently the proposed use is expected to be in harmony with the other by
right uses in the district.
- The next slide is the applicant's concept plan; the previously approved body shop use is labelled
body shop #1 at the top left of the concept plan. This request is to expand that use with a new
9,120 square foot body shop that would be located within the rear portion of the existing building
at the southern parcel that is labelled body shop #2 on the concept plan.
- The approval for body shop #1 would be retained giving the applicant the flexibility to use either
space for body shop use.
- Body shop #2 would be located in the rear warehouse addition of the existing building which
would also leave the showroom space as it is and available as future tenant space. The
warehouse would be renovated to accommodate the use.
- The noise and emission consequent of body shop work will be contained within the building.
- All repair and storage will be confined to the indoors so the use will not create a negative visual
impact on the Entrance Corridor or neighboring parcels.
- Prior to issuing a zoning clearance for the use the Zoning Division will require approvals from
other agencies to ensure that impacts such as noise, vibration, heat, glare, electrical disturbance,
air emissions, water discharges or impacts from paint booths or flammable, hazardous or
explosive materials are sufficiently mitigated. This is to ensure that the use will not impose any
substantial detriment to adjacent property.
Ms. McMahon said the only renovation to the exterior of the warehouse would be an alteration to the
doors on the north elevation. She said there is no vehicular storage or display of vehicles proposed at
body shop #2 in the outdoors. She said the applicant's proposal indicated that no changes are proposed
to the previously approved parking configuration travel ways, storage and display or the number of
service bays and that the sole change was to allow a second body shop location.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 28
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. McMahon noted after the staff report was prepared the applicant verbally asked that the proposed
limit to five body shop stalls be eliminated from the recommended special use permit conditions. She
said the number of stalls has an impact on parking since two parking spaces are required per service stall
so any increase in the number of stalls in the future would need to be accommodated in a site plan
amendment. She said it was not the intent of the original approval of the special use permit to limit the
number of stalls and because the impact of any increase would be addressed in a future site plan
amendment, staff is not opposed to the elimination of that second condition.
The factors favorable found:
1. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. A portion of an existing building would be renovated to accommodate the use.
No unfavorable factors were found.
Staff recommends approval of SP-2018-00005 Amendment to Malloy Ford Body Shop with condition
#1 as listed in the staff report. Ms. Mahon said staff is not opposed to eliminating the second condition
limiting the number of service bays and that condition as shown has been struck through.
1. Use of this site shall be in general accord with the concept plan "Conceptual Special Use
Application Plan for Malloy Ford" last revised July 11, 2018, as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with this plan, development and
use of the site shall reflect the general size, arrangement and location of the parking area for
vehicles awaiting repair. Permitted modifications may include those required by the ARB, those
necessary to satisfy the conditions of this special use permit, and additional
landscaping/screening approved by the Site Plan Agent.
2. T-he tQ-ta4l A1_1FR_heF Of SeWiGe bays fGF 130dy Shop #1 and Body Shop #2 nernhined shall not eXGeed
five
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff.
Mr. Bivins said that he wanted a clarification of one of the attachments - Attachment C that says it is an
existing access easement and that does not have anything paved on it and asked if that is correct. He
asked is there a rear entrance to this property.
Ms. McMahon replied no, there is not a rear entrance and thinks that is to the adjacent parcel that Malloy
Properties also owns to the south.
Mr. Bivins asked if there is a Berkmar Drive entrance to the property, and Ms. McMahon replied no.
Hearing no further questions, Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address
the Commission.
Valerie Long, with the law firm of Williams Mullen representing the applicant, said joining me is Justin
Shimp, with Shimp Engineering who is the project civil engineer. She said to clarify Mr. Bivins' question
the access that you saw on one of the pages of the concept plan is actually an access easement to
provide access to a small drop inlet or a stormwater facility. She said because it was far in the back there
is a deeded access easement if VDOT ever needed to come in and maintain that in the future and there
is no access from Berkmar Drive. Ms. Long said she has a presentation and some slides and
photographs; Ms. McMahon's slides were very similar and she would be happy to go ahead and answer
any questions since she does not have anything further to clarify although she would be happy to do so if
anyone would like me to. She said in the interest of not wasting anyone's time maybe she will take a seat
and if there were any comments from the public or any questions she would be happy to do that.
Mr. Keller invited public comment. Hearing none, he asked Ms. Long to come back to the podium to see
if there are any questions from Commissioners.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 29
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson commented that he attended the community meeting on this application and there was no
community opposition, they were interested in gaining information about it. He said they had been
familiar with it because of the earlier approval and the questions that they had tended to be more about
county and state regulations of oil and waste disposal from body shops and garages in general, but no
specific concerns with this proposal.
Mr. Keller invited further applicant wrap up.
Ms. Long replied that she had no wrap up.
Mr. Bivins said in the front part of the body shop #2 is that proposed to be part of the new dealership too
because he read something that it was an additional showroom and then read something that said it was
going to be leased out.
Ms. Long replied that it is possible that Mr. Malloy has made some decisions on this since she last spoke
with him specifically; however, he gets proposals every once in a while from potential tenants and brokers
but she knows of no plans for a dealership there. She pointed out that Mr. Malloy owns other dealerships
in the state so it is possible that he will decide to use that as another dealership in the future, but my
understanding is that it will not be part of the Ford dealership but that could have changed.
Mr. Keller asked if you have sense of each of the dealerships coming down Route 29 whether there is
that rear access on Berkmar because there has been discussions about that road that may or may not
happen further up.
Ms. McMahon replied no.
Mr. Keller noted that the reason he brings that up is because the movement along 29North and the
alternative flow at some point off Berkmar. He said it would not be a determiner in this for me but just in %MW
that longer range planning he thinks you may have been involved in presenting some of those other
dealerships who are doing some kind of creative things. He said it was just a follow-up of whether there
could be a benefit to that access.
Mr. Bivins pointed out that Colonial is moving the Volvo dealer down and the entrance to the Volvo
dealership will be off Berkmar. He noted that is what prompted my question are we going to start seeing
the new motor mile not being on 29 but being Berkmar, which would be okay but he did not believe that
Berkmar was designed to be the new motor mile.
Mr. Keller said the Better Living office is going to be off Berkmar but is Better Living warehouse going to
be off 29.
Mr. Bivins responded that it was going to be off Berkmar and that having this interesting set of movement
to certain activities that Berkmar Drive is taking on this new level of traffic.
Ms. Long said to address that we did work with the owners of Colonial Auto, Carter's Meyers Automotive,
when they were working on the zoning for the property that is where they will move the Volvo dealership.
She said part of that is they have owned that for a long time and they really wanted to use it and so we
helped them be able to get access through to that site. She said that during the construction of the
grade -separated interchange they had better circulation patterns for their vehicles. She said they just
always knew they are leasing the land where the current Volvo dealership is so they always knew that
one day they really needed to find another property so they were able to acquire that land right behind
them and it makes for some efficiencies and so forth. Ms. Long noted there is that frontage on Berkmar
but thinks that was more just coincidence that the property was there, and again the Malloy Ford
dealership is not proposing any connection. To help answer your question, Ms. Long pointed out where
the Ford dealership will go and near the back of this building is where the second body shop would go.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 30
FINAL MINUTES
She pointed out the new Better Living facility but it does not go all the way to the back and this little piece
is now part of the Malloy properties so Better Living does not extend all the way to 29.
Ms. Echols asked to add that on that same map if you look at the property just to the south that 2060
Seminole Trail was owned at one time by the people who owned Better Living, but she does not know if
they still own it. She said but between that property and the Schwell's property there is a right-of-way, the
grade is steep but we have preserved an opportunity for that right-of-way to be used for a potential
extension to Berkmar Drive sometime in the future. She said if you look there are 2 parcels if you go
north and west along that property line and those 2 parcels that make square right in there at the Berkmar
Business Park and that was rezoned 2 or 3 years ago for more of an office park type of development.
Ms. Echols said there probably will be an emerging face on Berkmar that is rather mixed but we have
been leaving open opportunities for connections to be made in the future at which time they make sense.
She said right now they don't because some of the sight distance issues used because some of the
topography issues and the little service road that was built in conjunction with the Better Living project,
but we are looking towards that and my successors are aware of this and will be looking towards that.
Mr. Dotson said he hates to lose that institutional memory.
Mr. Keller asked Ms. Long if she had anything else, and Ms. Long replied no.
Mr. Keller closed the public hearing to bring the request back to the Planning Commission for discussion
and action.
Mr. Dotson moved to recommend approval of SP-2018-00005 Amendment to Malloy Ford Body Shop
with condition #1 as outlined in the staff report.
1. Use of this site shall be in general accord with the concept plan "Conceptual Special Use
Application Plan for Malloy Ford" last revised July 11, 2018, as determined by the Director of
Itlaw Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with this plan, development and
use of the site shall reflect the general size, arrangement and location of the parking area for
vehicles awaiting repair. Permitted modifications may include those required by the ARB, those
necessary to satisfy the conditions of this special use permit, and additional
landscaping/screening approved by the Site Plan Agent.
Mr. Bivins seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5:0. (Firehock, More absent)
Mr. Keller said that SP-2018-00005 Amendment to Malloy Ford Body Shop would move on to the Board
of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
Public Hearing
ZTA-2017-00006 Section 33-Zoning Text Amendments, Zoning Map Amendments, Special Use
Permits and Special Exceptions
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on its intention to recommend
adoption of an ordinance amending Secs. 18-33.1, Purpose and intent, through Sec. 18-33.9, Special
exceptions; relevant factors to be considered conditions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. Section 18-33 establishes the procedures and requirements for zoning text amendments (ZTAs),
zoning map amendments (ZMAs), special use permits (SPs), and special exceptions (SEs). The
proposed ordinance would reorganize Section 18-33 by, among other things, splitting existing sections
into multiple sections and organizing those sections into divisions based on the type of application or
action, and would revise, clarify and standardize the text. The primary proposed substantive changes
would: (1) amend the times by which recommendations and actions must be taken on ZTAs and County-
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -August 7, 2018 31
FINAL MINUTES
initiated ZMAs (County Code §§ 18-33.5, 18-33.6, 18-33.11, and 18-33.12); (2) amend the criteria
considered by the Director of Planning to not require certain information with applications for ZMAs and
SPs (County Code §§ 18-33.15 and 18-33.32); (3) allow applications for ZMAs, SPs, and SEs to be
electronically filed (County Code §§ 18-33.20, 18-33.34, and 18-33.45); (4) require notice to be given to
open -space and conservation easement holders when complete ZMA, SP, or SE applications affecting
the property are filed (County Code §§ 18-33.20, 18-33.34, and 18-33.45); (5) establish procedures and
consequences when applications for ZMAs, SPs, and SEs are incomplete (County Code §§ 18-33.20, 18-
33.34, and 18-33.45); (6) authorize the Director of Planning to require studies to identify impacts of ZMAs,
SPs, and SEs (County Code §§ 18-33.21, 18-33.35, and 18-33.46); (7) incorporate the requirements of
Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.4 for proffers related to residential and mixed use residential ZMAs; (8) amend
the criteria for determining when a community meeting may be required for a ZMA or SP (County Code
§§ 18-33.24 and 18-33.37); (9) establish when an application for an SE must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission (County Code § 18-33.48); (10) authorize an SE to be revoked for noncompliance with
conditions (County Code § 18-33.50); and (11) amend the procedures and requirements to withdraw an
application, to suspend application review and defer action, and to take action after deferral (County Code
§§ 18-33.52, 18-33.53, and 18-33.54). The proposed ordinance would also: (1) delete the procedure that
allowed any member of the public to apply for a ZTA (current County Code § 18-33.2); and (2) delete the
State law reference to judicial review of Board of Supervisors' decision on a ZMA or SP (current County
Code § 18-33.4(t)). A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols noted that she needed to find the document.
Ms. Spain asked for clarification between a special exception and a special use permit while Elaine is
doing that, and Mr. Keller asked that she tell us about what is on the dais.
Ms. Spain said this attractive award went to Elaine Echols for her work and that of the staff on the 2016
Planning Commission annual report. - it was recognized by the Virginia Chapter of the American
Planning Association as one of the best over two dozen nominations in this category of citizen planning
and so we are very appreciative to Elaine for making this happen and making the Commission look good.
Thank you.
Ms. Echols replied that it was very special to receive that award and that we all did this together so thank
you all for everything you did, too.
Mr. Keller asked staff to answer Ms. Spain's question first.
Mr. Fritz replied that a special use permit is a legislative action that is permitting a use that is by special
use permit in a particular zoning district. He said a special exception in its simplest form, we used to call
those waivers or modifications, and it is where you are adopting a different provision or modifying the
provisions of a planned development.
Ms. Spain asked have we seen those recently.
Mr. Fritz replied that special exceptions go to the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Spain said so special exceptions do not come to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Echols replied that special exceptions do come to the Commission when a planned district requires a
special exception, it is included with that zoning map amendment (ZMA) and typically, staff has a report
with an analysis of the special exception within that ZMA or special use permit (SP) report.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that the Commission also sees special exceptions in instances where staff may not
be recommending approval of the special exception and we will bring it to you. He said the Commission
saw a special exception on the wireless facility not that long ago about the attachments to the high *404
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 32
FINAL MINUTES
voltage power lines that was then taken to the Board of Supervisors. He said that was the simplest way
of explaining it.
Elaine Echols said she will not be able to see this amendment through and Bill Fritz and Greg Kamptner,
County Attorney, will be carrying it on through. She said this has been a joint effort among at least the
three of us, if not more, in trying to modernize Section 33. She pointed out the bulk of the work Greg did,
she did the deferrals and Bill has been part of the whole thing. She said if there were questions about the
content that Greg or Bill would probably be the ones who jump in. She said we are having the public
hearing tonight on this group of changes that really originated from the County Attorney's Office and as
you know Section 33 relates to the processes and procedures for special use permits (SP), zoning map
amendments (ZMA), special exceptions (SE) and zoning text amendments (ZTA). The proposed
changes were the ones outlined in the staff report; the first one was to:
- Reorganize Section 18-33 into multiple sections and adding the things that are pertinent to each
section with that section.
- Adding deadlines for action for County initiated ZTA's and ZMA's and applicant initiated ZMA's
and SP's.
- Allowing the planning director not to require certain information when that information is not
relevant.
- Ability to file electronically.
- Requiring notice to open space and conservation easement holders, which is also very important.
- Adding criteria for completeness that has to do with the fact that we get a lot of applications that
are just not complete when turned in. What we have added to this section is some procedures for
what do we do when we get those incomplete applications.
- The changes in the proffer legislation have prompted us to need to ask applicants to give us
additional information on evaluating the impacts from their development.
- The State Code language related to proffers needed to be added in for a residential mix use
ZMA's.
- The consequences for noncompliance with the special exceptions - we do not have anything right
,w now that says your special exception can be revoked if you do not abide by the decision of the
Board, and we need that in there.
- Removing the information on the judicial review because that is already in the State Code.
- There needs to be corresponding changes to Section 35 fees because of when we are collecting
certain fees and our recommendations to remove the fee for deferrals, remove the ZTA that is
citizen initiated. As we said last time it is in the staff report, we are looking at trying to standardize
the way of managing a refund for public hearing cost if a project does not go to public hearing
within the first 70 days. After we finish this, we can talk about that resolution of intent.
Ms. Echols said tonight we are asking the Commission after you hold the public hearing to discuss this
ZTA and tell us if you think any changes are needed. She said if not we would ask that you move for
approval of the ZTA to the Board of Supervisors and if it is completed tonight, it would go to the Board of
Supervisors on September 12.
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff. Hearing none, he opened the public hearing and invited public
comment.
Valerie Long, attorney, said she met earlier with Elaine and Bill on this when they held a work session
and was one of two people who attended so she did share many of comments with them. She said the
only one that did not get incorporated, but will admit she was on vacation last week so did not get a
chance to dig in to all of this as much as she would have liked, is the issue of the requiring that the legal
advertising fees be collected at the time of the application. She said that is because right now the way it
works is after an application is submitted staff reviews it to confirm that it is complete and roughly 7 days
later they will write to let you know it is deemed complete, what your application fee is and then you have
5 to 7 days to get it in. Then the legal advertising fees are usually required prior to the staff placing the
legal ad for the Planning Commission hearing and you can either pay the Planning Commission public
hearing ad before that and then pay the Board hearing before that is advertised or you can pay them both
`%w at the same time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 33
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Long said she did not know how often applications get withdrawn, but was concerned if the fee is 1400
specifically intended to cover the county's expenses associated with the legal advertisements and other
notices it is perfectly fine to allocate those to the applicant. She said however, if the applicant has
withdrawn the application such that there will not be any legal advertising fees she thinks it is appropriate
at a minimum to refund that portion of the fee to the applicant, but personally she would think even easier
don't collect it on the front end. She said in advance of the hearing my suggestion was when staff
contacts us and says okay your application is complete and send the fee to us by Friday if you want this
Planning Commission date of August 7. She noted that we pretty much move heaven and earth to make
sure we get that from our clients so we keep the date and our client is usually incentivized. She said staff
has shared with me that they have other applicants who are not so good about following up and my
suggestion was well if they want to have their application reviewed by the Planning Commission it is
perfectly reasonable that you have a deadline to get the fee to them. She said there may be far more
other issues involved that lead staff to go the way they have, but she just wanted to share my perspective
with you. She said that maybe it is just as easy if you collect at the front end but there is a process in
place that the fee is refunded to the applicant within a certain number of days after it is withdrawn. Either
way Ms. Echols said she thinks it is important that the fees are refunded if they are not actually incurred
for the purpose.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said that he did not attend the meeting that Ms. Long
referenced, as he was not notified of it and that being said, there are two issues that he has with these
necessary and important changes. He said the first is the removal of deleting the procedure that allowed
any member of the public to apply for a ZTA, which he did think there have been that many. He said
when this came forward from staff, there was a discussion that this way you have to get somebody on the
Board to weigh in and he was concerned about the alternative folks or the folks who do not have Board
representation in their particular corner. He asked why are you silencing them and what data is driving
this since he did not know how many citizen inspired ZTA's have been filed or why you need to get rid of
it. He understands that it might be an issue that you have to discuss that does not have the support of a
member of the Board; however, that still might be an issue you should discuss if the community is willing .,
to put down the money to bring forward a zoning text amendment. He said that issue is one of two.
Mr. Williamson said the second issue is something that he is glad Greg is here because he certainly
complained about this for about 15 years — the idea that required notice be given to open space and
conservation easements when a ZTA is filed. He said when a conservation easement is given there is no
public hearing, however, when you put something into an Agricultural/Forestal District there is a public
hearing and the public gets a chance to comment. He asked why these property owners get super
property rights since they should be notified if they are neighboring parcels just as every other
neighboring parcel would be notified. He said the idea that you now have super property rights because
you have chosen to give up some of your property rights for an open space easement kind of seems like
unfairness to me because they did not have to come forward to get a public hearing to do what they did
on their property. He said but you have to notify them of public hearings of other people that want to do
things with their property and he asks for a little bit of equity here. Thank you.
Valerie Long said she echoed Neil's comment about both issues but in particular, the zoning text
amendment she was remiss in not mentioning that but had shared those comments with staff as well.
She said we have successfully obtained approval of two applicant initiated zoning text amendments at
significant savings to the County and she would be happy to elaborate further.
Mr. Keller invited further public comment. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing to bring it back for
discussion and action. He invited further discussion.
Mr. Kamptner said touching on Neil's two issues the first dealing with allowing applicants to apply for a
zoning text amendment that staff took that issue to the Board several months ago and the Board's
decision was when this ordinance comes forward to remove that provision, which is more generous than
State law. He said State law really does not enable individuals to apply for zoning text amendments and
when initiated by the Planning Commission or the Board we have had this kind of clunky process, and he 1"40�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 34
FINAL MINUTES
will let staff elaborate on the process. However, the Board already made that decision so the ordinance
rw that has come to the Commission is consistent with that Board direction on that issue. With respect to the
notice being given to easement holders, the easement holders would be not the owner of the fee simple
interest but the third party that holds an easement, for example the Virginia Outdoors Foundation so that
they get notice of when an owner of property that is under easement has applied for a zoning approval.
Mr. Kamptner said he would let staff address Valerie's comment regarding the fees. He noted that the
current and the proposed ordinance both provide that the fees are to be collected when the application is
deemed to be complete and he thinks the practice has been to separate the advertising fees to request
those later.
Ms. Echols responded that is right and thinks that was in an effort to better manage when a project came
to the Planning Commission it did not work out as well as we had hoped it would work out. She said that
because of the number of people who are not like Ms. Long's clients who will fail to follow through on
something for whatever reason and then we are left holding an application with no idea what to do with it.
She said that is part of the reason that we have put an ending on it and at the very beginning we want to
be able to within that 90 days get an application to you for an action. She said we hope that will be an
incentive for an applicant who decides they really do not want a recommendation for disapproval to either
ask for a deferral or withdrawal.
Mr. Kamptner said the fees resolution of intent when the amendments take place they will provide for the
refunds and Ms. Echols said that is what is in the proposal right now to provide for those refunds.
Mr. Fritz clarified that the fees are not part of the ZTA that is before you tonight and they will be coming to
you later.
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff.
Ms. Spain said on page 29 of Attachment B she made a note where it says 33.20.d mailed notice that a
complete application has been filed and is this email or snail mail. When she looked for the same
section in Attachment C, she did not find it so where is that in Attachment C and does it mean email or
snail mail notification that a complete application has been filed.
Ms. Echols responded that it was on page 32 of Attachment C and the County Attorney can tell us if there
is a requirement for there to be snail mail since we have typically done an email but we look for an
acknowledgement that the email was received.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that he believes all of our applications have an option where an applicant can choose
to receive everything by email also.
Mr. Kamptner said he was looking to see where we provide for that in the ordinance and it may be helpful
to include that provision. He said generally, if it is a State law requirement it dictates how the notice is to
be provided when the County gives notice that is in addition, there is some flexibility in how the notice is
provided and we can clarify that in the ordinance.
Ms. Spain said in Attachment C, page 27, 33.1.5.a and b. talks about existing proffers and she was
confused about why a. and b. are in this position in the document. She said there does not seem to be
prior reference to proffers or where is the proceeding part of that since she did not think they can do
proffers anymore.
Mr. Fritz replied that you can do proffers on residential development, on -site proffers in particular, are still
easily permitted and commercial development can have proffers as well as industrial development.
Ms. Spain said but the residential being proportionate to the impact of the development.
Mr. Fritz replied that there are on -site and off -site proffers and then there are cash proffers. He said cash
`'*JW proffers and off -site proffers are very difficult if not impossible to accept right now, but on -site proffers
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — August 7, 2018 35
FINAL MINUTES
would be that they would increase the stream buffers or that they would do block 1 before they do block 2
and so on.
Ms. Spain asked why it is there.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it is there because when we think of a rezoning we are thinking from rezoning
to R1 to Neighborhood Model or something like that but there are two other classes of rezonings. One is
when property has already been rezoned and there are proffers and the purpose of the rezoning is simply
to amend those existing proffers and what subsection Al does is lay out the legal requirements for those
types of applications in who can apply. He said, "for years around the state there was an assumption that
if I am in, for example Hollymead Center and own parcel 1 everybody in Hollymead Town Center has to
consent to amendments to those proffers and that is not the law - the law is that if I own parcel 1, 1 can
apply to amend the proffers as they apply just to proffer one." He said subsection A2 deals with a similar
issue when we are dealing with property that is already part of a Planned Development and it is the same
issue who can apply under what circumstances. He said that is what Al and A2 do - they apply to
subsets of the typical zoning map amendment.
Mr. Bivins said you would recall in the staff report where they mention sub item 2 and in our work session
he had asked if there was a way if a particular individual was not responsive is there a way to keep that
from coming to the Planning Commission. He said that at that time he did not realize there is a whole
process before that block that if a person is not responsive and if the director has not deemed that the
application is complete that they do not get to this point.
Ms. Echols said the applicant may get their first set of comments and not respond so we want to force
them into an action and you might get some of those but hopefully not many.
Mr. Fritz said if the applicant requests a withdrawal that we would have a response that we refund part of
the fee.
Mr. Riley asked Greg to explain the reason for notification for property holders of conservation
easements.
Mr. Kamptner explained that was a request by the Board going back that predates this ordinance and this
was the opportunity to include it in a regulation. He said we have a number of processes that are in this
ordinance that have been incorporated over the years where we can go beyond the minimum that is
required by State law. He said what we have learned is that posted signs are the most valuable way to
get information out that there is an pending application and that is not required by State law. He said we
have certain procedures where we require that in site plans and plats where notice is given to adjoining
property owners and is just something above and beyond what is required by State law.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that this notice he thought was only for the property that is subject to the rezoning.
He said if the adjoining property is applying you don't notify VOF unless the easement holder is holding
the property owner to the easement that they have and not expanding where the adjacent property owner
put their property into a conservation easement and somehow it is bleeding over into the other property.
Mr. Riley said that was good clarification.
Mr. Keller asked if anyone objects to Mr. Williamson commenting. Hearing no one, he asked Mr.
Williamson to speak.
Neil Williamson clarified that he was concerned that adjoining property owners if you have a conservation
on your property and are applying for a rezoning the easement holder should know about that.
Ms. Riley asked what is new under the procedures for the special exception provision under f. and g. or
what is the content of what the Board of Supervisors was requesting be new.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 36
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Echols replied that was the conservation easement because when she looked at that it looked like f.
is there but not g. and f. has to do with the conservation easement holder.
Mr. Kamptner replied that he was not sure and it could just be a cut and paste.
Ms. Riley said she wanted to make sure she was not missing something of substance.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that it must be from an old draft.
Ms. Echols said that we believe that it was from a renumbering error and there is no substance to it. She
said staff would let you know whether there is any substance to it and how to deal with that.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that error and the comment has been there for at least six months and so just a
cut and paste error.
Mr. Dotson said my question is about zoning text and zoning map amendments and who may initiate
those. He said the Exhibit C on page 20 says initiating a zoning text amendment can be by the Board of
Supervisors or by the Commission and it says the Commission may initiate a zoning text amendment by
adopting either a motion or a resolution. He said it was the same thing on the County initiated zoning
map amendment it says either by the Board of Supervisors or by the Planning Commission and he was
not sure that it is right that we should be able to directly initiate either of those. He said the Commission
could recommend that the Board initiate them, but it creates an awkward situation where the staff has two
masters. He said the Board controls the resources, the approval of the work plan for the department, the
number of staff members they have to authorize in additional positions and so forth and even though the
State law says it is possible for the Commission to initiate a zoning text amendment or a zoning map
amendment that he was assuming that could mean the Board of Supervisors would not know about it until
after the staff had done the work on it; we had held the hearing on it and then it suddenly appeared.
'*w Mr. Kamptner replied that is possible and for the 21 years that he was advising the Planning Commission
and assuming before then the Commission did adopt resolutions of intent to initiate zoning text
amendments and the Commission is authorized by State law to do it just by motion. He said the practice
here has always been to do it by resolution and the Board of Supervisors probably almost always adopted
the major zoning text amendments or the Board at least knew about them. He said that sometimes just
the timing was such that it was more efficient to have the Commission adopt the resolution. He said the
practice here has been that the Commission does and he knows recently the practice evolved and the
Commission would adopt a resolution that recommended that the Board adopt an ROL Mr. Kamptner
said he would recommend that the language in the draft stay as it is because it more closely parallels
State law recognizing that the practice the Commission can decide no we are not going to do that we are
going to let the Board.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that staff has found that helpful when we have had a zoning text amendment that we
have been working on and in the process we discover that another section needs to be amended that
was not included in the original zoning text amendment that we are able to come to the Planning
Commission quicker than going back to the Board. He said it is consistent with the work so we are fixing
the zoning text amendment so that it goes. He said when we have one that is a completely new ball of
wax we will go to the Board of Supervisors and say the Planning Commission did this or how do you want
us to prioritize it. He said it is an efficient way of doing it to have that at our option.
Ms. Echols noted what Bill said the very last thing is how we make sure that we are not serving two
masters is we take your resolution or intent to the Board and ask how do you want to prioritize this. She
said that is how we make sure that we have their buy off in how we proceed. She said the ROI for tonight
on Section 35 is a perfect example of what Bill was just explaining.
Mr. Dotson said he finds that very confusing that we are adopting an ROI that says now therefore be it
resolved that the Board adopt a resolution.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 37
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Echols replied that should be something that should say the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dotson said so staff is not concerned with the two masters' problem and it has been useful in the past
and so would set that concern aside. He said the other comment is that by tradition the Commission
when we want to recommend that the Board initiate something has used a ROI, which is sort of a
misnomer if you think about it since Greg says that the State law would allow either a motion or a ROL
He said a motion it seems to me would be a lot clearer. He said the Commission makes a
recommendation that the Board do something or other or that the staff do something or other and using a
ROI both for the Commission's action and the Board's he finds confusing for ZMA's and ZTA's.
Mr. Fritz said under the language that says the Commission may initiate a zoning text amendment by
adopting either a motion or a resolution of intent.
Mr. Kamptner said when the Commission wants to recommend that the Board adopt a ROI how they do it
should be identified differently and it should not be called a resolution of intent. He said it could be by
motion or if you want to have a written document to pass on to the Board it could be titled a resolution
recommending that the Board adopt a resolution of intent or something like that.
Mr. Dotson replied that he thinks that addresses the question and we have sort of fallen into the ROI
vocabulary, which we should not. He said that in Bill's point that it gives us the option and we are going
to have a discussion about our bylaws and how we communicate with the Board so maybe that is where
we decide how we want to term it either a resolution but not a resolution of intent or a motion.
Mr. Keller said it is an excellent point especially in light of what we have been through with the ROI's and
then making that distinction between whatever we end up calling it having a different name than the
Supervisors. He said that Greg would be taking John Blair's place in working with staff on how we are
going to handle that official relationship that we want between our body and the Supervisors. He said that
gives him an opportunity to clean the language up later so we can accept what they have for now and
then that can be a modification after the fact. He asked Mr. Kamptner if that was correct if it needed to be
and Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Mr. Bivins said he would find it helpful to have a primer at some point about the new proffer statutes
because he had read them and like Commissioner Spain, he had been laboring under the impression that
proffers were now forbidden but according to the statute, they are not. He said it appears to be an error
that has been carved out that we cannot do any longer and so thinks it would be helpful just as a small
item on the agenda to just be brought up to speed.
Mr. Keller suggested that we take that up under new business. He asked if somebody was prepared to
make a motion.
Mr. Bivins moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZTA-2017-00006 Section 33-
Zoning Text Amendments, Zoning Map Amendments, Special Use Permits and Special Exceptions to the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Mr. Keller invited further discussion.
Mr. Kamptner noted that it is with the understanding that he will dig through this and clarify the written
notice provisions.
Mr. Keller asked for a roll call.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5:0. (Firehock, More absent).
Mr. Keller thanked staff for all the work on this and we will look forward to the next round with Mr. Fritz.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 38
FINAL MINUTES
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
Regular Item.
Resolution of Intent Amend Section 35 Fees to correspond with changes to Section 33
Adoption of a resolution of intent to amend the fee schedule for zoning map amendments (ZMA) and
special use permits (SP) to include the minimum cost for notification of a public hearing, remove a fee for
deferrals, modify circumstances for which a fee reduction for concurrent review of a site plan and ZMA or
SP, remove a fee for citizen -initiated zoning text amendments, and others. (Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols said we referred to this in the Section 33 staff report with a resolution of intent, but this one
has to do with making sure we have corresponding changes to Section 33. She said after we make the
changes to the ordinance there will be a public hearing and we will bring it back to the Commission for a
public hearing. She said there have been some people asking about changing all of the fees and
relooking at them and we want everybody to know that is something that Mark has committed to for the
following year. She said we are just trying to get at what we need immediately and not trying to increase
or decrease but just rather do the even exchange. Regarding the proposed changes Ms. Echols pointed
out this is the fee for the citizen -initiated ZTA; we just talked about the notification, the refund and moving
the deferral fee reduction. She said there was an existing fee reduction for a site plan if you submit it with
a SP or a ZMA, however, we find that has been causing a lot of problems and we thought that now would
be a good time to modify that. She said we would only be giving you the fee reduction when you have to
have a site plan because of the use and that is outdoor display, an ARB thing and also just putting in
there the capability for credit or debit transaction to take place. She said so these are what we consider
minor changes to the fee section and we either need you to adopt a resolution of intent or make a
recommendation and a motion that the Board adopt a resolution of intent for this one where we want to
get it done quickly so it can catch up with the other one. Therefore, our request is that someone make a
motion to adopt the resolution of intent.
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff.
Ms. Spain pointed out the fourth item down did not show up on your screen and it says provide a fee for
reapplication of a zoning or special use permit request — all the other phrases refer to removing, including
or adding a fee. Therefore, she was confused about what provides mean.
Ms. Echols replied that she did not call that one out, but this is to provide a fee for reapplication. She said
that means if a project gets deferred and it turns out there is some reason why almost at 3 years or past 3
years if the Board of Supervisors wants this project to continue on its path because you finally have
gotten it so close to something that is acceptable, that the Board could authorize a reduced fee for them
to reapply so they do not have to start all over again at the same fee.
Ms. Spain asked could it say then charge a reduced fee, and Ms. Echols replied yes.
Mr. Bivins asked how the $852 amount on page 1 of the staff report relates to $435 amount on page 2.
Ms. Echols replied that the $852 was the average cost for an advertisement fee and we got some push
back on that being excessive if you did not need that much so we dropped back to say everybody has the
same minimum and $435 is the figure. Therefore, our recommendation for right now is that we make that
fee lower.
Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Hearing none, he closed the public
hearing to bring the matter back for discussion and action.
Mr. Dotson moved that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of intent, also known as Attachment
B, that it be modified to say now therefore be it resolved that for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good practices the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 39
FINAL MINUTES
adopts ..." He said my understanding is that this will not go to the Board, the Board knows and wants
the fees to come along with the other Code changes to help implement them and so we are not really
recommending to the Board, we are just enabling the staff to do the obvious.
Mr. Fritz noted that it was an integral part of the other action.
Ms. Spain seconded the motion.
Mr. Keller invited further discussion. Hearing none, he asked for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0 (More, Firehock absent) for approval of the resolution of intent.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 35, Fees, of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County
Code) establishes a schedule of fees for various zoning related applications and approvals under the
Zoning Ordinance, and procedures and other requirements related thereto; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 35.1 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to delete the fee
for a citizen -initiated zoning text amendment; add a flat fee for notice for a single public hearing by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors; add a fee to re -advertise and provide other public
notice for additional public hearings; add a fee to reapply for a zoning map amendment or a special use
permit that is substantially the same as a withdrawn application, when authorized by the Board of
Supervisors; delete the fee to defer an application; and allow fees to be paid by credit or debit card; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 35.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to limit the availability of
the reduced fee when there is a simultaneous review of an application for a zoning map amendment or a
special use permit and a site plan or subdivision plat to only when an application for a special use permit
for outdoor display and sales is reviewed simultaneously with a site plan; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 35.3 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow paid
fees to be refunded if an application is withdrawn within 70 days after the date the application is officially
submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend Section 35.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the purposes described
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
The meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors - August 1, 2018
Ms. Echols reviewed the actions taken on August 1, 2018.
The meeting moved to the next item.
Committee Reports.
Mr. Keller invited committee reports. Hearing none, the meeting moved to the next item.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 40
FINAL MINUTES
Old Business.
Mr. Keller invited old business.
Mr. Dotson asked to defer discussion of the process changes since Commissioner Firehock was absent
and with the change in attorneys, it makes sense that this is not pressing business though it is important
business to schedule it at a later point. He said that John Blair indicated that when we do amend our By
Laws that we have to so declare at least one meeting prior to the meeting where we are going to do that.
Mr. Kamptner noted that it had been a couple of years since he looked at them, but that would parallel the
Board's procedure for amending their By Laws.
Mr. Dotson said proposed that we defer that until we can get with the legal department, but he thinks
tonight's discussion actually has helped to define the issues that we will be addressing.
Mr. Keller said the points that you made on that are quite interesting and a way to do this in a thoughtful
way. He said he liked that distinction between what we do and what the Board does since they are the
ultimate decision makers. He thanked Mr. Dotson for thinking about that clarification.
Ms. Riley asked to get a staff summary of what the next steps on the Southwood Study Session were.
She asked are we going to get anything written about what the consensus of the direction that was given
back to Habitat and the second part is there going to be another study session.
Ms. Echols replied that we could report on what we heard at that meeting and as you might, all remember
we did that with the Comprehensive Plan whenever we had a work session we would put together a
summary document and we can provide that. In terms of the next meeting, Ms. Echols said she was
ice, thinking there will be a next meeting, but it was not completely discussed at the end of that session. She
said Megan believes there will be one, but we just need to make sure that the Board members are all on
board with that. She said there was so much discussion around these issues and a lot of different
perspectives that needed to be demonstrated in that room that she thinks there will be. She said my
guess is yes, but we will give you the facts as soon as we get them.
New Business.
Mr. Keller invited new business. He said there were a couple items we talked about including a point
about proffers and a little work session cheat sheet.
Mr. Bivins said he was struck when he read the update to the ZTA that there was that section on proffers
that referenced the State Code and so he went to the State Code thinking we were not allowed to do
proffers any longer or we are not able to receive proffers and it is sort of a planning mystery. He said
after reading the language that there appear to be two items that have been set outside and so thought it
would be helpful if staff or our attorney could give us a bit of the more current thinking since this is a
reformatted statute.
Mr. Fritz said that he can do two things, one, we gave a presentation to the Board of Supervisors some
time ago.
Mr. Kamptner said the most recent analysis in writing that he had done was March 2018 so it was just a
couple of months ago and he teaches a statewide class every June. He said if you go on line and look in
the Land Use Law Handbook, Chapter 11 and the analysis of the new proffer legislation on page 11-11
and it gives the break down. He said because of the complexity of that statute it is best that you go to this
most recent analysis of it.
Mr. Bivins asked staff to send that link to the Commission because it would be helpful, and Mr. Fritz said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —August 7, 2018 41
FINAL MINUTES
staff would send you the link.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to the next meeting on August 14,
2018 at 6:00 p.m. at the COB -McIntire, Au I Se nd Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Andrew Gast -Bray, Secretary
(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 — August 7, 2018 42
FINAL MINUTES