HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 25 2018 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
September 25, 2018
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 25, 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; Bruce Dotson, Julian Bivins, Jennie More, Daphne Spain; Pam Riley,
Vice -Chair and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative. Karen Firehock was absent.
Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Manager of Special Projects; Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner; Tim
Padalino, Senior Planner; Andrew Gast -Bray, Assistant Director of Community Development/Director of Planning;
Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Andy Herrick, Assistant County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Keller, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda
Mr. Keller invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. Hearing none, the meeting
moved to the next item.
Public Hearing Items.
PROJECT: SP201800007 — 1895 Avon Street Extended
`Vftw MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 090000000035A1
LOCATION: 1895 Avon Street Extended, Charlottesville, VA 22902
PROPOSAL: Limousine and other motor vehicle rental service on 1.5-acre parcel.
PETITION: "Motor vehicle sales, service, and rental" per Section 26.2(a) and Section 24.2.1.25 of the Zoning
Ordinance. No new dwellings proposed.
ZONING: LI Light Industrial — industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR (EC): No.
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Steep Slopes — Managed.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office / R&D / Flex / Light Industrial — professional office, commercial; research and
development, design, development of prototypes, engineering; light manufacturing, fabrication, distribution if with a
non -industrial use.
(Tim Padalino)
AND
PROJECT: SP201800008 —1895 Avon Street Extended
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 090000000035AI
LOCATION: 1895 Avon Street Extended, Charlottesville, VA 22902
PROPOSAL: Automotive detailing service on 1.5-acre parcel.
PETITION: "Automobile, truck repair shops" per Section 26.2(a) and Section 24.2.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. No
new dwellings proposed.
ZONING: LI Light Industrial — industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR (EC): No.
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Steep Slopes — Managed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —September 25, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office / R&D / Flex / Light Industrial — professional office, commercial; research and
development, design, development of prototypes, engineering; light manufacturing, fabrication, distribution if with a
non -industrial use.
(Tim Padalino)
Mr. Keller asked if the; Commission could handle the two items as one public hearing, and Mr. Herrick replied that
the Commission can have a single public hearing but they need to be handled in separate votes.
Tim Padalino, Senior Planner, said the two special use permit applications involve a special exception request and
he prepared a staff report presentation that covers everything comprehensively for both the two special use permits
and the special exception. He said the request is for the same applicant, Albemarle Limousine and the primary
contact is Mr. Mike Meyers, professional engineer of 30 Scale, LLC. The subject property is tax map/parcel 90-
35A1, located on Avon Street Extended in the Scottsville Magisterial District, in Neighborhood 4 and the Southern
Urban Neighborhoods. In looking at the map, the subject property identified is a 1'/2-acre property and it does
currently contain an addressed structure, which is 1895 Avon Street Extended. The property contains some
managed steep slopes in the rear of the property as shown on the critical resources map and is zoned LI, Light
Industrial.
Mr. Padalino said regarding the future land use designation in the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods
Master Plan this property is designated for Office/Research & Development/Flex/ and Light Industrial uses, which
encourages professional office and commercial, research & development design, light manufacturing, fabrication
and similar uses. Mr. 1adalino pointed out the existing conditions on some site photos taken at the end of August on
a much warmer day and that he would move through everything else rather quickly and leave space and time for
questions if necessary. He pointed out the existing structure and a view of the existing site looking south down
Avon Street Extended towards the intersection with Scottsville Road and Route 20.
Mr. Padalino said regarding the proposals for the two special use permit applications that SP-2018-07 would be for
limousine and other motor vehicle rental services for Albemarle Limousine and SP-2018-08 would be for
automotive detailing services that corresponds with Virginia Auto Detailing business. The proposal also includes a
two-story addition to the existing garage structure shown a moment ago as well as a request for a special exception
relating to the proposed location of about 7 parking spaces and a parking canopy within the 30' side yard setback for
off-street parking spaces and within the 30' disturbance buffer. It is the same improvements and same 30'
dimension. Next, is an image taken from the project narrative, a conceptual rendering, showing how that two-story
addition and other site improvements would be configured and how they might look. He pointed out that they
would be reusing the existing entrance with updates as will be required by VDOT and approved in reusing the
existing parking lot as well of a portion of the existing structure on site. He said there are just a few more renderings
and as noted, he will move through these somewhat quickly and can come back if necessary. He said next is an
image of the conceptual plan submitted with the special use permit applications and he has included a slide that
shows everything in more detail.
Regarding a summary of the staff review of these two special use permit applications, staff have identified the
following factors of this proposal, which are favorable and unfavorable:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The proposed uses are consistent with the Master Plan future land use designation for future uses.
2. The proposed uses represent a redevelopment project within the Development Areas. The proposal would
improve a previously developed, currently vacant or underutilized site; and does not require tree clearing,
significant grading, or increased impervious surface area.
3. The proposed uses would generate economic activity and support job opportunities.
4. The proposed uses that would occur outdoors would be substantially or fully screened from the Avon Street
Extended public right of way.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ;PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
1. Although the Concept Plan shows a "Potential Sidewalk" near the front of the property along Avon Street
Extended, the application materials do not explicitly contain a formal commitment to providing this
sidewalk.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Based on the findings described in this report and factors identified as favorable, staff recommends approval of
special use permit applications SP-2018-00007 and SP-2018-00008 with the conditions as noted in the staff report
and as contained on the slide.
Mr. Padalino said that he would provide some information about the special exception request, again, this is relating
to the 30' side yard setback requirements for off-street parking in this district as well as a 30' disturbance buffer. He
said this is the conceptual plan for the special exception request — the green area shows that 30' dimension as
measured from the side yard. There is a hatched area showing the existing encroachment from the previous use and
improvement of the site. The darker green area shows where the proposed landscaping would go and that
landscaping would be in addition to the proposed screening that would be sited along the side yard itself, so
screening and landscaping are slightly different proposed ways to mitigate that requested encroachment.
Staff found that the request of the special exception as proposed has several favorable factors.
1. The side yard setback area and disturbance buffer zone has previously been developed and used by one or
more prior owners, and therefore this special exception request does not require removal of any existing
trees or any significant grading;
2. The proposed mitigation for this request includes the installation of a double row of evergreen shrubs along
a portion of the side yard setback area and disturbance buffer zone where the existing vegetation along the
southern property boundary is less than twenty (20) feet wide, as well as approximately 1,000 square feet of
new landscaping visible from Avon Street Extended;
3. The proposed improvements would result in an improved site design, for the following reasons:
a. it reuses existing impervious surface area to support the redevelopment and efficient reuse of the
subject property; and
b. it includes mitigation practices (described above) which meet the minimum screening
requirements and which exceed what would otherwise be the minimum required landscaping, to an
area that has previously been developed but which is otherwise unimproved; and
4. This requested special exception (as proposed in the application materials) does not otherwise constitute
any harm to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Therefore, staff recommend approval of the requested Special Exception to modify the side yard setback
requirements specified in Section 4.20(b) of the Zoning Ordinance and to modify the disturbance buffer zone
requirements specified in Section 26.5(c) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the conditions as listed in the staff report.
1. The development and use of the side yard setback area and disturbance buffer zone shall be in general
accord with the Special Exception Request application materials (including Letter of Justification and
Conceptual Plan) prepared and submitted by Mr. Michael Myers, PE, CFM, dated July 30, 2018. To be in
general accord, the development and use of the property in the area of the side yard setback and disturbance
buffer shall reflect the following major elements in the Special Exception Request application materials:
a. The location and extent of the parking spaces and parking canopy;
b. The area of re-claimed landscaping; and
c. The double row of evergreen shrubs for screening the southern property boundary.
Mr. Padalino noted that there were several motions made available for your reference throughout the evening and
separate votes are required for the special use permits and the special exception request. Mr. Padalino said that
concludes my presentation and he would be happy to answer questions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson said the landscaping says evergreen shrubs for the vehicles parked in the buffer zone and asked if there
are any specification about the size and other details.
Mr. Padalino responded that the only detail he saw in the application materials was a reference to an approximately
1,000 square feet but not necessarily material specifications in terms of size or other species.
Ms. Riley asked about the large screened gate.
Mr. Padalino responded that there was some information including digital renderings and the 3-dimensional models
that are conceptual in nature. He said the idea discussed and shown would be a sliding gate that provides functions
for security and screening. He said it is a board fence that has gate utility to it and then the idea would be to have a
raised planter bed with some type of screening vegetation planted in there. He noted when distributed to other
divisions for review there was some concern how viable that might be but thinks staff was planning to look at that in
more detail during any subsequent planning process.
Ms. Spain asked for clarification on page 7 in Section d) gross floor area should not exceed 3,000 square feet; the
proposed floor area of'Albemarle Limousine is 3,700 square feet. She asked if that is part of the special use permit
request.
Mr. Padalino responded that no, it is not part of the special exception request and this would be more a factor of
evaluation as opposed to a legal limit. He said it is there for evaluation and you are correct it does exceed that
recommended 3,000 square feet.
Ms. Spain said that it was not that far enough over the maximum to cause concern for staff, and Mr. Padalino
agreed.
Mr. Bivins asked staff to provide clarity to page 8 under your recommended action condition of approval #2 — in
what the difference would be between sidewalks that met the County's standard and VDOT standard. He asked if
we have a preferred standard is this not the place that would say a sidewalk that meets County standard.
Mr. Padalino responded that it certainly is something we can distinguish this evening but he thinks in preparing
these recommended conditions there was a comfort level with as long as it met either specification that would be
okay. He said as far as actual differences in terms of width or material, he actually cannot speak to that.
Mr. Bivins said as a follow-up given Spring Hill Village is slated for the land on the southern border if it would be
helpful to have a sidewalk in front of this business that would be similar in type to the sidewalk that is expected
when Springhill is built.
Mr. Padalino responded that it was a good idea and suggestion to have a consistent treatment and specification.
Mr. Bivins replied that he did not know how we do that but he would like that to happen.
Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward.
Mr. Mike Myers with 30 Scale said he was representing Albemarle Limousine tonight in regards to the special
exception that Tim did such a great job in summarizing that he would give a quick presentation and answer
questions. He said Albemarle Limousine currently operates on 175 South Pantops in an existing office building and
being the owners of this property are looking to move their office to this site. The applicants are proposing to
redevelop this site by cleaning up the existing block building and the addition next to it. Mr. Myers said because it
is a redeveloping site and making use of a site not being currently used they think it is a great project. He said there
were a couple other advantages and things to note - there will be very little traffic generated by this use and there is
very low traffic volume; and it is probably in order of 20 vehicles per day by the ITE trip generation charts traffic
generator.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 4
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Myers said one of the questions that came up was about the shrubs and pointed out that during the site plan they
will propose actual species for those shrubs. He said they vision those to be part of the 3' to 6' high Arbor Vitae type
shrubs that would provide screening for the headlights from the cars that are parking underneath the canopy facing
towards the Spring Hill Village project and that would block the headlight glare. He said there was a question about
the fence and that it is proposed to be some sort of wood board on board fence that would actually provide adequate
screening for some of the busy vehicles that would be parked in the rear of this site that would be screened from the
folks driving along Avon Street.
Mr. Myers said regarding the sidewalk question that they found when looking at the sidewalk construction that this
project is industrially located right next to Snow's Garden Center as well as other industrial uses along Avon Street
Extended; going north there is no sidewalk for a half mile on Avon Street Extended on our side of the street from
Avinity and the final plans for Spring Hill Village have not been submitted. Mr. Myers pointed out that was why we
put on the plan potential sidewalk since we were thinking that may be something especially without a sidewalk at
this time that might not be the best idea since it is not connected to anything and it may not in the near future. He
said the sites to the north are developed so they would not individually come in and build sidewalks and that was
one of our concerns moving forward with the sidewalk requirement. Mr. Myers asked that to be considered and
brought up during the site plan stage of the project and let the county engineer make that final decision and he would
be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Keller invited public comment. Hearing none, he closed the public comment and invited the applicant to come
back for questions.
Ms. Spain asked do you have an estimate of about how much it would cost to construct that sidewalk, and Mr.
Myers responded that he had not done an estimate on that and would believe it would be in the neighborhood of
thousands and that the sidewalk would also be the construction of curb and gutter and curb ramp construction.
Ms. Spain said she was trying to get a sense if would be less than $25,000 but it sounds like it is going to be less,
and Mr. Myers responded perhaps and if you are trying to separate out the sidewalk.
4400 Ms. Riley said just a follow-up question about the sidewalk that the communities in the area have been working on a
Corridor Study that we just had funded but for many years, we have been working on multi -modal ways for both
pedestrians and bikes to connect throughout the area. Ms. Riley said the sidewalks are an important component of
that and so she was hoping you are open to the condition of sidewalks as part of this.
Mr. Myers responded that he thinks we would be open to have it as a condition for that reason and pointed out
another issue that there is an existing bike and pedestrian trail on the other side of Avon Street Extended that extends
all the way across to the Mill Creek residents and development. However, if part of your requirement we would be
fine with it and do not want to hold it up for that. He said although, we: are not 100% in agreement with it, but can
live with it
Mr. Dotson said thinking ahead to the residential element next door that he was trying to envision the residents next
to the proposed use and the thing that comes to mind is the 12 to 16 vehicles that have those annoying backup noise.
He asked what the typical pattern is when they come to the site; do they back into their space and are the beeping
back up sounds not heard. He asked what kind of vehicles park on the carport closest to residential.
Mr. Myers responded that the way he understands it the larger cars that have the beep would be in the back and
those are the larger 47' and 32' long, which are the only ones that have the warning signal. He noted that those are
used so infrequently that maybe once per day because those vehicles are usually taken on long trips or go out of
town. He said the use of the larger vehicles would not be a whole lot happening and for a certain length they are
required to have that.
Mr. Dotson asked what kind of vehicles would be on the carport.
Mr. Myers responded that there was also the detailing shop associated. with it and the limousine service also has
sedans and Mercedes or regular car type vehicles and those would detailed and kept perhaps underneath that carport.
err He said it would not be the vans but just the typical vehicle.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson said that one of the graphics made it look like when the large vehicles return home they back in and he
would assume that would be at the end of a day's work and during the morning when it might be most disturbing to
the neighbors perhaps they would just simply drive out.
Mr. Myers responded yes, that is a great point and the way that he believed that it is done. He said the way we
modeled it was to have; the cars come in and back up at the end of the day and then the next day it was easier to pull
out with the situation we have.
Mr. Keller said as a follow-up are you doing wedding venues and bringing the vehicles back late after bringing folks
back to town possibly after mid -night and if the vehicles with the backup sounds are backing up close to those
houses.
Andrea Sidharth, representative for the applicant, responded that it would be after midnight and they back up just a
short way and end up parking on the side that is closest to Snow's as opposed to the residential. She said regarding
the kinds of vehicles that would be parked underneath the overhang that would be sedans and SUV's.
Ms. Riley said at the CAC meeting there were some questions about the detailing operation and we were under the
impression that all of that activity would take place inside the buildings. She asked will there be detailing on the
exterior outside in the driveway and the yards and when would that activity take place.
Ms. Sidharth responded that would all happen during daytime hours and if there is any work that takes place outside
it would be a quick spray down with water and then it goes inside where all the work is done in the garage bays.
Mr. Keller closed the public hearing to bring it back for discussion and action. He suggested that they handle each
of these items separately for our discussion tonight. He said for the folks in the audience we apologize for having
some technical difficulties there is a hesitation in picking up speakers. He said the first item was SP-2018-0007 and
invited comments.
Mr. Bivins said moving forward that he would like a change to condition #2 that says the County or VDOT
specification after keeping with the Spring Hill Village sidewalks so there can be a placeholder that can be there
during the site plan for this project so at one point in time there will be sidewalks contiguous to this project. Mr.
Bivins said given our previous conversation about Biscuit Run and if in fact whatever X years that is going to
become an additional thoroughfare to an open park space, then it is clear that the things that the people pass as they
get there should have a level of curb appeal.
Mr. Keller invited further discussion.
Ms. Riley moved to recommend approval of this special use permit with the recommended conditions of approval as
outlined by staff in addition to condition #2 that stated that the consistency of the sidewalk be with that of the
sidewalk of Spring Hill Village.
Mr. Herrick noted that the only complication with that of course is that other sidewalk does not yet exist so if this
sidewalk were constricted first perhaps the condition would be imposed on the other parcel to ensure consistency
with this parcel.
Mr. Keller said since we have a VDOT representative here this evening it might behoove us to hear what they would
recommend as the standard. He said we have a roadway that is building out at a pretty fast pace so the questions
really for us on the Planning Commission is about the continuity of that edge treatment, curb and gutter as well as
sidewalk.
Adam Moore, Assistant Resident Engineer for the Charlottesville Residency, said the sidewalk in this corridor he
would say is most likely not to fit a textbook section because if it is going to be complete it is going to have to
connect the dots in front of the existing parcels regardless of redevelopment. He pointed out that what you see is a
certain amount of flexibility in the arrangement of the sidewalk to the edge of the road or most often curb and gutter.
He said without knowing the specific drainage situation along this frontage it is hard to say what would be necessary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 6
FINAL MINUTES
to make curb and gutter as well as a sidewalk work in this small section. Mr. Moore said that he also does not
remember exactly what is called for in the Springhill Village Plan as we mentioned. He said if there is a desire to
have a sidewalk across this frontage there is a certain amount of flexibility to be able to fit it in with minimal lateral
offsets from the edge of the road. He said typically we like to have at least 3 feet between the edge of the road and
the sidewalk and in some very constrained instances especially in redevelopment projects you could work with less.
Mr. Keller invited questions. Hearing none, he thanked Mr. Moore.
Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner, said she just wanted to mention that the Springhill Village Initial Site Plan
actually came in this week. She said they had a previous initial; they are resubmitting revisions but she just looked
up what the standard was for a sidewalk that they had previously approved and it was an 8' wide sidewalk along
Avon Street and would just offer that information.
Mr. Keller asked how much setback from the curb and gutter to the sidewalk, and Ms. Nedostup responded that she
did not see that dimension and staff would have to figure that out.
Ms. More said we have a motion on the floor and she was comfortable with it the way it was but asked if you want
to add anything. She said it says it is meeting County and VDOT specifications so what we heard from VDOT is
not knowing this specific site that they would have to evaluate that for drainage. She said therefore she was
comfortable with #2 the way it was.
Mr. Herrick said one alternative would be to leave # 2 the way it is and another alternative might be to have #2 but
to say that it shall meet County or VDOT specifications and allow for interconnection with adjacent parcels or
something to that effect if that is the concern.
Mr. Bivins said that he liked the modification offered by council having it be consistent with any planned
development along the sidewalk; he did not want to have a disconnection there.
�%W Mr. Keller said there would be direction for staff at this next stage.
Mr. Dotson asked staff to put back up the picture showing the existing condition looking from the driveway across
the street at the church.
Mr. Padalino replied yes, that was the slide showing the edge condition.
Mr. Dotson asked where would the parking area be and if the existing trees would be removed to put the carport in.
Mr. Padalino replied that it was a little tough to say because the entrance would be modified and will actually be
restricted a little bit to meet commercial entrance standards and he was going to cross reference this photo with the
special exception request plan.
Mr. Dotson pointed out in just looking at the photograph it looked like there was some evasive kudzu or something
else growing up the trees. He said if those trees are to be part of the buffering then there should be a commandment
on the part of the property owner to do whatever you do when you have an evasive species so those trees that are
intended to be preserved are not killed.
Mr. Keller asked if the motion made needs to be fine-tuned.
Mr. Herrick responded that there would need to be a friendly amendment made and accepted by the initial mover.
Ms. Riley replied yes, she was interested in the friendly amendment and asked how it would read.
Mr. Herrick responded that the language he suggested which Mr. Bivins seemed to find acceptable was a sidewalk
meeting County or VDOT specifications and allowing for interconnection with adjacent parcels shall be constructed
as shown on the conceptual plan prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy as the language of condition
#2.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Riley said yes, that now there was an additional friendly amendment potentially regarding the buffer and the
preservation of the existing trees as a buffer.
Mr. Dotson said that he was not offering that as additional condition but was hoping to call it to staff s attention to
follow up that if those are important trees they be treated in a way to preserve their life.
Mr. Herrick noted to Mr. Dotson that your comments would be taken into account on the special exception request
that would be up for a :motion and vote later.
Ms. More seconded the motion made with the friendly amendment.
Mr. Keller asked for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0 (Firehock absent).
Mr. Keller said the Commission would move on to the second piece of this. He asked if there was any further
discussion on the vegetation.
Mr. Herrick noted that SP-2018-08 is actually the special use permit for the auto detailing service and the buffers
would be taken into account in the special exception request.
Ms. Riley recommend approval of SP-2018-08 for 1895 Avon Street Extended.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Mr. Padalino recommended that the same modification recommended with SP-2018-07 condition 2 happen with SP-
2018-08 condition 2; however, it is a little bit odd because it is two uses and two permits for one project but the
language for both of those conditions should be modified.
Mr. Herrick suggested that it would be simpler to administer all the conditions from SP-2018-07 that were also
carried over into SP-2018-08 including the modified condition for #2 plus all the other conditions as originally
proposed.
Mr. Keller asked if we need a friendly amendment to add those in and Mr. Herrick responded yes, unless Ms. Riley
was already including that as part of her motion.
Ms. Riley said she would be willing to include that as part of my motion.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Mr. Keller invited further discussion. Hearing none, he asked for a roll call.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0 (Firehock absent).
Mr. Keller asked for discussion or a motion on the special exception.
Ms. Riley moved to recommend approval of the special exception with the note to the staff about the interest in
preserving the trees in the buffer area.
Ms. Spain seconded the motion.
Mr. Keller invited further discussion. Hearing none, he asked for a roll call.
Mr. Herrick asked before the roll was called if that includes all of the conditions that were recommended in staff
report, and Ms. Riley responded yes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 8
FINAL MINUTES
09
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0 (Firehock absent).
Mr. Keller noted the request would go forward to the Board of Supervisors at a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval.
The meeting moved to the next item on the agenda.
PROJECT: ZTA201800005 — Section 35 — Fees
ZTA 201800005 - Fees The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on September 25, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in
the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, to receive comments on its intent
to recommend adoption of the following ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code:
(1) Amend Section 18-35.1 (Fees) in order: (i) to delete the fee for a citizen -initiated zoning text amendment; (ii) to
delete the fee to defer scheduled public hearings at the applicant's request, but to extend existing notice fees to the
re -advertisement and notification of a public hearing after advertisement of a public hearing and a deferral is made
at the applicant's request; (iii) to require applicants to pay calculated notification and legal advertisement costs for
citizen -initiated zoning map amendments solely pertaining to proffers that do not affect use or density, when the
board of supervisors authorizes alternative application and procedural requirements under Section 18-33; (iv) to add
a fee of $1,770 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; (v) to add an Initial notice fee of $435, to be
provided in conjunction with application, for preparing and mailing notices and published notice, except for uses
under Sections 18-5.1.47 and 18-5.2A, or applications submitted under Section 18-30.7.6, for which there would be
no fee; and (vi) to add a notice fee of $220 for farmers' markets for published notice under Section 35.1(c)(7); (2)
Amend Section 18-35.2 (Calculation of Fees in Special Circumstances) 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; (3) Amend Section 18-35.3 (Mode and Timing for Paying Fees) to allow
zoning application fees to be paid by credit or debit card; (4) Amend Section 18-35.4 (Fee Refunds) to allow initial
notice fees to be refunded if a zoning application is withdrawn within 70 days after the date the application is
officially submitted; and (5) Amend Section 18-35.5 (Pre -Existing Use Fee Waiver) to eliminate pre-existing use fee
waivers for zoning text amendments. The proposed fees and fee increases are authorized by Virginia Code §§ 15.2-
2241(9) and 15.2-2286(A)(6). A copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance amendments 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. (Bill Fritz)
Bill Fritz noted that Elaine Echols had wrote the repair and did all the hard work and so he gets none of the credit
here. This is a zoning text amendment to amend the fees to catch up with the recent amendments to Section 33 and
it:
• removes the fee for the zoning text amendment;
• changes the notice fees to be a flat fee;
• adds a fee for re -advertisement and re -applications;
• eliminates the fee for deferral;
• changes the fee calculations for when a site plan is submitted in conjunction with a rezoning and special
use permit;
• adds credit and debit transactions; and
• Includes a refund for projects that are withdrawn within 70 days of the official submittal.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that after the ordinance was written he found very few mistakes and they are all because of the
renumbering within Section 35 or the changes to Section 33. He said those changes could be made before we go to
the Board because it is not substantive at all; it simply points you to the right number and he can go through and tell
you what those are.
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Spain said in Section C, second page F3 zoning clearance for tourist lodging that is not the Airbnb type lodging
that we have been discussing.
Mr. Fritz replied that is the existing ordinance that deals with up to five rooms.
Ms. Spain said the tourist lodging would be an established B&B not transient lodging, and Mr. Fritz replied yes.
Ms. Spain said then under 5f, this is my personal interest zoning clearance for temporary funding activity. She
asked if raising funds for the Girl Scouts in my garage then would she need to apply for a zoning clearance, and Mr.
Fritz responded that he did not administer that so can't answer that question of whether a zoning clearance would be
required for that.
Ms. Spain said she would imagine that most people do not realize that it is a requirement.
Mr. Fritz responded that to my knowledge it is only done when they are making use of commercial sites; however,
since he does not administer that section so he is not 100 percent positive.
Ms. Spain said she would expect the Girl Scouts do not apply for those since they sell outside of grocery stores but
since it is no loss of revenue it is okay. She said the final 10, 11 and 12 at the bottom are 11 and 12 the variation or
exception and is that supposed to be indented and apply to the floodplain impact plan or are they separate.
Mr. Fritz replied that 11 and 12 are their own thing and if you are asking for a variation or exception from one of the
provisions in Section 32 and there are a couple of different sections. He said however when you have a site plan and
you are going through it is a provision of the ordinance.
Mr. Bivins said he had a question on 35.5 on the last page because he had a hard time understanding a. since the use
applied for does not conform to the zoning prescribed for the district in which the use is situated so therefore there is
no fee because the use is not an allowed use. He said so we are not going to charge you to tell you no you cannot do
this thing there.
Mr. Fritz responded no, what he believes that is saying is that if you have a nonconforming use and that actually you
would not be applying for anything.
Mr. Bivins agreed.
Mr. Fritz replied that lie would have to follow up on that one because he did not know the answer and it may no
longer be necessary because that may have applied only in the case of zoning text amendments.
Mr. More said she had a question for Attachment C on the second page, number 12 the deferral of scheduled public
meeting at applicant's request and that is struck through and just wondered if you could clarify is that after
advertisement of a public hearing has occurred.
Mr. Fritz replied that we got rid of that because we are collecting the notice fee up front and then we are adding a re -
advertisement and if they defer we need to re -advertise that; there is now a re -advertisement fee.
Ms. More said so that would take care of the time when we have had an advertisement and then a deferral the
Commission still had to convene and staff is here, nothing happens but we are required to because we advertised.
Mr. Fritz pointed out if we had to do a re -advertisement yes, but with the other changes that are going on that kind of
situation should be much more infrequent and due to some circumstances beyond control.
Mr. Keller invited further questions.
Ms. Spain pointed out on the first page on the staff report and this is a wordsmithing issue as Commissioner Dotson
calls it on the fourth bullet point down that says provide a fee and she made this point on the draft and it was
supposed to be changed and she thinks it should just say "include a fee". She said that the other ones all are include,
remove or add a fee so provide is not consistent with the other uses and confusing to me.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 10
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Fritz agreed to the correction and that it should be included.
Ms. Spain said also we have talked here in the past about the additions to the orientation materials for new Planning
Commissioners and she thinks this chapter with the fees would be important for commissioners to understand just
how expensive it is for applicants to apply and reapply but also to know when the fee would be waived. She asked
is there a way to make that request.
Mr. Herrick responded that we certainly could include this in the orientation materials.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that all of the fees are scheduled for reevaluation next year so we should have better numbers
about what the actual costs of review is so that when we are working with the County Attorney's Office we will
have better numbers.
Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing to
bring the matter back for further discussion and action.
Mr. Dotson moved that the Planning Commission recommend adoption by the Board of Supervisors of ZTA-2018-5
Section 35 Fees.
Ms. Spain seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0 (Firehock absent).
Mr. Keller said the ZTA-2018-5 Fees would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined
with a recommendation for approval.
The meeting moved to the next item on the agenda.
PROJECT: SP201800004 — Peabody School Amendment
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 076M1000001500
LOCATION: 1232 Stony Ridge Road, at the intersection of Stony Ridge Road and Southern Parkway
PROPOSAL: Amend Special Use Permit (SP2012-030) to expand enrollment of a private school to increase
maximum number of children from 210 to 240 (30 additional students) within a proposed addition to the existing
school. Also, proposed are two special exceptions from ZMA1995-019 and ZMA1996-021 to allow a disturbance of
the buffer along Southern Parkway for an egress only access to Southern Parkway; and to allow disturbance of the
conservation area for a sports court. No residential units proposed.
PETITION: 20.4.2 and 23.2.2(6) School of Special Instruction; 8.5.5.3 Special Exceptions
ZONING: PUD- Planned Unit Development -residential (3-34 units per acre), mixed with commercial, service and
industrial uses (ZMA1995-019 and ZMA1996-021).
OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Managed Steep Slopes; Airport Impact Area
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial — manufacturing, storage, distribution, office and
commercial activities related to industrial use and research and development.
(Megan Nedostup)
Ms. Nedostup summarized the staff report for SP-2018-00004 Peabody School and pointed out the location of
Southern Parkway, Mill Creek Subdivision, Peabody School, Stony Ridge Road, and Foxcroft Subdivision. She
noted the trailers which are going to be replaced with a permanent one-story addition that will include classrooms, a
fine arts studio, a science class, a library and media center to total an approximately 7,195 square feet. She noted
there is an interesting open area that will have an addition of an amphitheater and a sports court and you can see the
parking circulation that goes through.
Ms. Nedostup said they are proposing a right -out egress only onto Southern Parkway that we have heard many
concerns about, and we can discuss that further. As part of that egress there is a special exception request for
'�%W disturbance of a 10' existing buffer along Southern Parkway here. Their proposal is to amend their existing special
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 I 1
FINAL MINUTES
use permit to increase the maximum number of students from 210 to 240; replace the existing trailers on site with a
permanent one-story addition also including an amphitheater and a sports court, the egress only access way right
onto Southern Parkway and a special exception for that access way along Southern Parkway.
Ms. Nedostup said the next slide shows the concept plan that shows the existing trailers where the expansion
addition is and the amphitheater is located west of that and the sports court. As you can see, their proposed egress is
located along Southern Parkway. The next slide is an enlargement of that egress because there is going to be
questions and discussion around that and she can go back to that graphic as well. Next is the vicinity map that
shows Southern Parkway, the highlighting of the site, as well as Avon Street and Mill Creek Drive that has the
signalized intersection. Ms. Nedostup said staff recommends approval of both the special use permit and the special
exception with conditions and wanted to leave time because there are a lot of concerns and questions about the
egress and additional exit on to Southern Parkway.
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff.
Ms. Spain asked if the Commission received an email today saying that there has been some consideration of this
egress which is why the VDOT representative is here
Ms. Nedostup replied yes, VDOT can speak to this more clearly but the summary is that previously they were
considering Southern Parkway a collector road which has a different spacing standard and so they were requiring the
right turn egress only out. However, upon further review of a future plan for Southern Parkway, they believe it
could be looked at as a local street that has a different standard for access and spacing standards so they thought it
could be a full access entrance there.
Ms. Spain asked for both left and right turns, and Ms. Nedostup responded yes.
Commissioner More, said currently the access without that exception we are looking at tonight is a roundabout with
a drop off and then they come back out to Stony Ridge Road, and Ms. Nedostup responded that is correct.
Commissioner More said then they come to Southern Parkway and can go left or right and Ms. Nedostup replied
that is correct.
Commissioner More asked is there a signalized intersections at Southern Parkway and Avon.
Ms. Nedostup replied there is no signalized intersection at Southern Parkway and Avon and pointed out the location
of Peabody School and Stony Ridge Road. She said they would come in and come out and can go either left or right
and if they went right, they would go down Southern Parkway, take a left onto Grist Mill, come down, and take a
left onto Mill Creek Drive, which would then get them up to the signalized intersection at Mill Creek Drive and
Avon Street. If they took a left, they would get onto Southern Parkway and get in a left turn lane but there is no
signal there at the intersection of Southern Parkway and Avon Street.
Mr. Carrazana asked was the initial issue with the proximity to the intersection and is that why they are
recommending a right only and Ms. Nedostup replied yes.
Mr. Carrazana asked what is that distance, and Ms. Nedostup replied it was 250' for a collector road and asked what
the standard for a local feed is — it is 50'.
Mr. Keller asked the VDOT representative to come up and speak.
Adam Moore, Assistant Resident Engineer for the Charlottesville Residency, said as Megan said when we first
looked at this we considered Southern Parkway to be a collector road and it is how it was designed and how it was
intended to be used when it was first constructed. Mr. Moore said the development plans have changed so at this
point it is probably not likely for that road to extend much farther; and therefore thinks because the design officially
is classified as a collector road that it can be viewed as a local road. He said that therefore we are applying local
street spacing standards that is 50' from the ends of the radii.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 12
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Moore if he could open up what that means in what kinds of possibilities can happen on the
property and how that might impact both entrances.
Mr. Moore replied that most likely this means that people exiting through the proposed entrance will be able to go
up and take a left and go directly towards Avon or cut through the neighborhood and go right. He said without a
study on this subject it is hard to say how many would choose to go which direction and it had not been studied.
Mr. Keller asked Mr. Moore to explain the fact that in counties in Virginia, the roads are the state roads and so
therefore, if a subdivision's road has been accepted into that system those neighborhood roads are state roads rather
than subdivision roads.
Mr. Moore said that is true but how would you want that to be expanded on.
Mr. Keller replied that we are trying to grapple with this all of the time. He said our citizens in neighborhoods
where changes are occurring on the edges grapple with whether their roads are indeed their roads or whether they
are everyone's roads.
Mr. Moore responded that he thinks in general, there is an effort and we talked a lot about connectivity with the new
proposed plans. He said what that means is distribution of traffic and the presentation of options for the traveling
public to be able to find the route that best suits their origin and destination. He said in this case some students will
live in the neighborhoods nearby, some parents will cut through the neighborhood and some will choose to go up to
Avon and turn right and maybe U-turn but those options distribute traffic more evenly and allow the intersections to
operate as best as possible.
Mr. Keller said that you are speaking to flow and another aspect of that would be that if these were actually the
subdivision's roads then the HOA fees would most likely be higher because they would have to be paying for the
maintenance of those roadways as well as opposed to the tax distribution for the cost of maintenance.
W Mr. Moore responded that is correct.
Commissioner More said with the current traffic pattern when people are leaving the school and they turn right onto
to Stony Ridge Road they can still turn right and cut through these neighborhoods to get to the signalized
intersection.
Mr. Moore replied that is right.
Commissioner More said that might be happening already, and Mr. Moore responded that there is some portion of
the traffic that is already doing that.
Commissioner More said a secondary access to Southern Parkway would seem to benefit only the potential flow
within the parking lot itself.
Mr. Moore responded that is right and that is a common challenge that we try to assist the schools with public and
private is site circulation finding a place for the many parents that come to drop off students and allow the waiting
for the drop-off and the pick-up to impact the surrounding roadways as least as possible.
Commissioner More noted that currently people with what is available to them could be taking that right and using
that shortcut, and Mr. Moore responded yes.
Commissioner More asked if a driver wanted to turn left onto Stony Ridge Road is there an option for them if they
are trying to get to Avon Street and having trouble making that left off Southern Parkway to leave the school and
turn left onto Stony Ridge Road and somehow access.
Ms. Nedostup replied no, it actually ends in a cul-de-sac.
*rr Mr. Bivins said so your new evaluation of the proposed entrance says that it can be a right in, left in.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 13
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Moore responded that full access would mean right in, right out and left in and left out with no restrictions.
Mr. Bivins said given that does it also mean that a condition could be right in, and Mr. Moore responded yes.
Mr. Bivins said that would then answer some of the questions that people are proposing, and Mr. Moore responded
that is right.
Mr. Bivins asked could you tell us a little bit more about the traffic flow on the property and he would like to have a
bit of an appreciation of what your guidance was for the Peabody School.
Mr. Moore replied without having reviewed this site specifically that for their own circulation site specific should be
asked of the applicants. He said in general with school circulation or any site circulation we would like people to be
able to limit the amount of difficulty in turning around and that is why you can see this site having two loops. He
said clearly it is easier for people to cycle through and it provides space for a defector waiting line, a que, for parents
dropping off and picking up students.
Ms. Riley asked Mr. Moore to describe a little more what studies have been done or what problems have already
been identified at the Southern and Avon Street Extended intersection.
Mr. Moore replied that he thinks the most pressing study is the study currently being undertaken by the County, the
Corridor Study of Avon, looking at multiple intersections and not this intersection alone. He said in the past this
intersection has been evaluated for potential signalization and it has not met warrants and spacing with other
intersections. He said it has been problematic but he does not think that has been done in the very recent past and is
why we are waiting to see what the results of the Corridor Study are and what options that may provide for future
projects to change and improve intersections.
Ms. Riley said she believed that Avon Corridor Study probably would not be completed for 9 to 12 months, which
means we will be waiting for any potential recommendations let alone actual changes for quite a bit of time. She
asked Mr. Moore to speculate because she was under the impression that there was not an ability to signalize the
light at that intersection given its proximity to Mill Creek. She asked Mr. Moore to explain whether the signal at
Mill Creek was possible or not and what other possibilities such as a roundabout or a more minimized roundabout.
She said that ultimately the long-term solution was to dispersing traffic and moving it general in this area since some
kind of improvement needs to be made at that intersection.
Mr. Moore replied that he hesitates to speculate on a study that is just getting started and thinks that what we see
now is the frequent success in projects being funded for alternative intersection designs. He said that part of the
hindrance of this intersection specifically is its spacing to another signalized intersection so if that situation were to
change then perhaps some more options than the existing intersection design are available.
Ms. Riley said that she was not sure she understood that answer.
Mr. Moore replied like perhaps if Mill Creek is no longer signalized in the future but it is an alternative intersection
design that is not a traditional 8-phase signal with traditional turn lanes and so forth but maybe it a roundabout, R-
cut or something like that which operates more efficiently than a traditional signal.
Mr. Dotson said the additional egress or possibly ingress and egress was something that the applicants sought or was
that something that the County or VDOT thought would be necessary in order to have smooth functioning and
safety.
Ms. Nedostup pointed out that was a request of the applicant.
Mr. Carrazana asked are you looking at warranting the intersection or what is the scope of study.
Mr. Moore replied that he believed that the County is doing a study.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 14
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Gast -Bray pointed out that the County is undertaking an Avon Corridor Study that is looking at intersection
treatments all up and down that segment of Avon and with a view to multi -modal connections, with a view to
**XW improving intersections, and with a view to doing a better job of managing traffic. He said that he did not remember
the exact expanse from where to where but it includes this section which is included in that discussion.
Ms. Riley noted that it would be from the City line all the way down Route 20.
Mr. Keller asked if there were other questions for staff or VDOT before we open the public hearing and hear from
the applicant. He asked did staff consider a sidewalk along this property boundary for both streets encompassed by
this.
Ms. Nedostup replied no there are no additional sidewalks planned for this area and thinks it is more focused on
Avon and so we did not consider asking for a sidewalk here.
Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to speak.
Valerie Long, attorney with Williams Mullen representing the applicant Peabody School, said we have a number of
members of the project team here tonight who can help answer questions. She said we also have Rob Orlando, Head
of School; the school's Board Chair Mr. Robert Orlando, our traffic engineer Bill Wench; our civil engineer Scott
Collins with Collins Engineering and a few other board members in the audience as well and she would go ahead
and address a few of the questions that have been raised. She said Ms. Nedostup's presentation covered many of her
slides so she did not want to be duplicative unnecessarily. She said one clarification to Mr. Dotson's question about
the proposal of the new exit, and for what it is worth that originally we did not propose that when we came to the
pre -application meeting for the special use permit. She said it was actually a VDOT representative, not Mr. Moore,
but another VDOT representative that attended that meeting who suggested that we should consider that. She said
so we did hear that feedback and not hearing any objectives to it at the time we did propose it and we would of and
still do prefer that it be a full access exit. She said we are very happy to learn this morning about VDOT's new
analysis with regard to Southern Parkway and so if it is the preference of the Commission to recommend approval if
that is a full access intersection we are more than happy to accommodate that and we think that will help the
situation.
Ms. Long pointed out the context in a map, which was very similar to what Ms. Nedostup showed. She said there
was a little information on the next slide that was included in the staff report or some of our other materials. She
said the school has grown over the years and we are asking for a modest increase of 30 students. She said we have a
variety of diverse student body from a number of surrounding areas in the community and they have specially
trained teachers to address the unique mission of the school. She said the school has a very small class size of 10 to
16 students. She said we have a number of nationalities represented and about one-third of the students receive
financial aid.
Ms. Long said to clarify one other issue that even with the proposed right -out exit the idea was not to restrict the use
of left turns off Stony Ridge Road, in fact, that is probably how the circulation pattern would continue to work. She
said parents would still be able to turn left to go directly to Avon or turn right to go that way. She said there are a
hand full of students who live in the Fox Croft Subdivision and the Mill Creek Subdivision. She said that the
circulation pattern is with the drop-off and pick-up. She pointed out as the cars come in here the students are either
dropped off or picked up here and then cars come around and some of the older students are dropped off and picked
up in the lower loop and then they come back and go back around, come out and then they go one way or the other.
Ms. Long said if this were a full access intersection such that left and right turn exits could be made that would
actually help because it would mean that the traffic flow through the parking lot would just be one-way circulation.
She said cars could then come out, either go right or left, and we think that is actually a better situation. Ms. Long
said as Ms. Nedostup and Mr. Moore explained with the difference in the way Southern Parkway is categorized by
VDOT as a collector road we barely had enough distance from here to here and it was just at the 250-foot minimum
to have even a right -out exist. She said with the re -categorization of Southern Parkway as a local road the distance
requirement, as she understands it, is only 50 feet to have a limited access and with the distance of 250 feet it would
qualify for full access and was happy to talk about this at any point.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 15
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Long pointed out the existing trailer that would be replaced with a new building addition. She pointed out the
proposed addition, new sports court and images submitted that the architects proposed showing conceptually how
the new addition would relate to the existing building and fit in with the land. She said next is a conceptual floor
plan for the new space performing art center, stem classrooms, pre-K rooms and a library and media space. She
pointed out the egress and images from our traffic study showing how the circulation patterns work and the sort of
two different pulses that we are describing in the study based on the drop-off and pick-up times. She said our traffic
study did say that the proposed exit only access onto the parkway would increase the efficiency of traffic flow and
avoid congestion. Ms. Long said she was going to show you the same routing that Ms. Nedostup showed you about
the way that it is currently possible to exit the site and access the signal. She said the conclusion of our traffic study
is that the increase in. the school enrollment at the site will provide adequate parking and traffic and it would
circulate in and out of the site without adversely affecting the adjacent roadway.
Ms. Long said knowing there would be many interesting questions about the Avon intersection we asked our traffic
engineer to take a quick look at this to see what impact the additional 30 students would have, if any, on that
intersection. She said essentially it is detailed in our report that in sort of the worst -case scenario we would have an
additional 22 vehicles at the site from the additional students and that is in the morning peak. She said it was 22 in
and 20 out because some of those are teachers so they do not leave right away in the morning. She said the
conclusion was that the overall intersection delay would be less than one second longer than the existing delay and
that the overall cueing length will not be more than an additional car occasionally. She said so that was consistent
with VDOT's rough findings or at least the statement in the staff report that indicated that both the County's
transportation planner as well as VDOT were of the opinion that the proposed increase in enrollment would not have
any type of significant impact on that intersection.
Ms. Long said we certainly acknowledge there are challenges with that intersection and the school is happy as
everybody to hear that the Corridor Study is going to be beginning soon and hopes that there will be a good solution
arrived at and constructed. She said but the good news is that at least our preliminary analysis is that the additional
22 trips that the worst --case scenario will not have a material impact on that intersection and it will not make it any
worse. She said those; are all the questions but she does have a few other data points from our traffic study that she
was happy to answer questions about but would hold that until after the other public comments are made and then
address any additional questions.
Mr. Keller turned the public comment over to Vice Chair Riley.
Ms. Riley invited public comment and requested the first person signed up, Ben Whittier, to come forward.
Ben Whitner, member of the Mill Creek Home Owner's Association, said that first he wanted to thank you for all
the questions that you posed to the various constituents and it shows your concern and interest in our community.
He said from the board's perspective our primary concern was with the right -only egress and not the incremental
students, not the change in the structure terms but the right -only egress and the potential for all the additional traffic
that could float through because they would be essentially incentivized to make that right versus now they do have
that option. He said if the traffic flowed in the way that it was presented it seemed as though it would then funnel
indirectly into our community. He said if the full access intersection is something that would be considered he
would hope the Commission would give us the opportunity to go back to our communities and let them re-evaluate
that in how it could impact our community but formally our concern was with the right -only egress.
Rob Finley, Vice -President of the Mill Creek Homeowner's Association, asked if he could assume that you all have
received the written comments that we provided in an email yesterday to the Commission members. Mr. Finley said
he was the principal author of that document so you have a clear picture of our concerns as a Homeowner's
Association. He said again to clarify more specifically and he sees this here in the material this evening, we have no
concerns with the special use permit since our concern relates to the special exception for ZMA-1995-019 and
ZMA-1996-021, which are the exceptions to allow the egress that was proposed. Mr. Finley said in summary he
will not read the letter but will simply say that we are concerned that the egress as proposed appears to have the
intent of funneling a significant amount of traffic to the western Southern Parkway with the result that traffic would
exit to Avon Street Extended using Grist Mill and Mill Creek Drive. He said those streets are neighborhood streets,
state highways, to make sure they are numbered as state highways; they are 20' wide with no centerline and
relatively narrow with the mailboxes very close to the edge of the paved right-of-way. He said we have had already
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 16
FINAL MINUTES
significant increases in traffic through that area and we have issues with speeding on Mill Creek Drive particularly
during the morning rush hour. He said so our concern relates to the geometric as is currently originally proposed in
the plan, which would serve to funnel traffic to the west on Southern Parkway with the only egress then to Avon
Street Extended would be through the Mill Creek neighborhood. He said to the best of our knowledge there was no
outreach to our neighborhood by the Peabody School in proposing this approach and we would take respectful
exception to the staff s conclusion that there would be no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties. He said our
concern is with the geometry of that roadway and those concerns are outlined in the letter that we wrote. Mr. Finley
thanked the Commission for their consideration.
Blair Carter, resident of Mill Creek, said she was here because of the concern about the right turn only egress and
was thrilled to hear from Ms. Long that there is a good possibility that can be taken care of. She said that Peabody
School actually then would be a good neighbor but that rather freaked me out especially because she went through
the numbers. She said having gone through the numbers and the on -site traffic and circulation analysis and if every
single car that comes out of Peabody School is routed down the Parkway to Mill Creek based on the actual cars
counted and the encapsulated cars counted, we could have between 245 and 280 extra car trips in our neighborhood
every single weekday. She said that would be overwhelming. She said Ben and Rob have done a good job of
covering points and wanted to point out if you don't know the Mill Creek neighborhood we have no sidewalks,
which means our joggers, runners, cyclers, family with their kids, parents pushing strollers and dog walkers — we are
necessarily in the street with our activities. Ms. Carter said as Rob pointed out the streets are not super wide and
that is where we have to go to do our outdoor activities. Ms. Carter said she was happy to hear that Peabody School
asked for that particular egress because it was suggested to them and that they are not necessarily wed to it and she
would ask the Commission to approve this special use permit but not to approve the right -only egress. Thank you.
Miles Weiss, resident of 1279 Gristmill Drive in the Mill Creek subdivision, said he was opposed to the special use
permit for the Peabody School primarily for the additional traffic that would be funneled through my neighborhood
and my neighbors' neighborhood. He said at the risk of being redundant but brief we have narrow streets, walkers,
dog walkers, bicyclists, kids getting on school buses and he fears that the additional traffic would be a problem. He
said as relates to that this staff report states that there are no factors unfavorable to the Peabody School request and
he was not sure with all due respect how staff reaches that conclusion when traffic with the right -turn only egress
will clearly be forced through our neighborhood and will be detrimental to our quality of life. He said finally he
was not sure that with all due respect to the Peabody School that they acted in good faith because they never
approached our homeowner's association, never alerted us to this request, and he did not think that is fair.
Ms. Riley invited David Golladay to speak, and it was noted that he had left the meeting. She invited other public
comment.
Susan Shaw, resident at 73 Mill Creek Drive, said she was alerted to the proposal for the right lane egress for the
Peabody School and certainly enjoys the school as a neighbor so that is not an issue for me. She said however, as
one of the regular walkers and joggers through Mill Creek that she cherished that morning time on a regular basis
but without sidewalks had to walk down the middle of the road. She said it is very concerning that there would be an
increase in traffic coming through Mill Creek because as others have said these are small streets that really add to
the character of Mill Creek and thinks you will find that most folks live there because of the small streets. She noted
that because of the lack of sidewalks, we do not have streetlights; it feels rural but close to Charlottesville and so
that is one of its charming aspects. Ms. Shaw said she was curious and wondering why the traffic pattern could not
be reversed where people go in where the egress is proposed and then the traffic for Peabody through the parking lot
would funnel out and come out to the larger intersection as opposed to the reverse.
Hunter Mccardle, resident of North Garden and parent of 2 students at Peabody School in the 51 and 7' grade, said
we have been there since first grade for each of those kids. He said Peabody School has been a gift for us as far as
allowing exceptional academic, emotional, and social support for our kids in the needs that they have that we could
not find at any other school. He said through our time of 7 years at the school we have seen it grow thankfully and
we have met the needs of that growth through various additions and infrastructure improvements. He said this
particular proposal is critical for our school at this point because it allows us to be economically sustainable, which
is very difficult, as you know a lower school to achieve. He said it also allows us to expand our infrastructure in our
classrooms to become more relevant and competitive in today's school in the area of classroom needs. He said as
you can see the biggest challenge we have had over the year is being able to grow within a very constrained site; we
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 17
FINAL MINUTES
are bound to the east and the south by two roadways; and to the north and the west by steep slopes and several
easements. He said we have to be very creative in a very small box so to speak. 1400
Mr. Mccardle said that he could assure you that the egress proposed is not meant to funnel traffic by all parents into
the Mill Creek neighborhood by any stretch of the imagination. He said it was a recommendation in our pre -
application meeting by VDOT and he thinks it is a very good solution to have the option of left and right turn out as
opposed to just right. Mr. Mccardle said he did not drive through the Mill Creek neighborhood and it is a little more
convoluting and time consuming and most or our parents don't even do that or are even aware that is an option. He
said the whole idea of that egress was essentially to be a much more efficient and safe internal flow of traffic for our
pick-up and drop-off particularly where you have kids moving throughout the site. He noted there are other
commercial activities adjacent to Southern Parkway that are moving throughout the neighborhood including tree
services and Fed X so we are not the only traffic impact associated with this. He thanked the Commission for their
consideration and we look forward to your vote.
Tobias Dengel, Chairman of the Board for Peabody School, said first of all he wanted to apologize to anyone from
the community that felt we acted in poor faith for this thing that we are trying to do. He said we obviously are a
volunteer board and we do a process like this once every eight or ten years and does not think there is more than one
or two people that were on the board the last time. He said we apologize for that and thinks Valerie can take us
through the process we went through to try to communicate with everyone. He said the second thing is we did not
think about how to do this egress until we met with VDOT and it was suggested to us that adding an egress would
help internal flow. He said at that point we requested that we would have a two-way egress, which at the time given
the designation of the roadway did not seem possible. He said having learned today that it is possible that we will
have strong internal support to have that two-way egress, which hopefully solves the major concern around the
community and allows us all to move forward on this. Thank you.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Keller invited Ms. Long back for rebuttal.
Ms. Valerie Long said she had just a few clarifying points — one, she wanted to echo Mr. Dengel's comment about
the outreach and that we did hold a community meeting as required. She said we came to the community advisory
committee meeting a couple months ago, we did sent written notices or invitations to a large number of residents Now
and worked with staff on that in terms of the appropriate radius of folks to invite. Ms. Long said she did not know
whether an invitation went directly to the homeowner's association representative but we certainly sent invitations to
a large number of residents and other adjacent owners as required by the County's process and then made a
presentation at the Community Advisory Committee and fielded many good questions that evening.
Ms. Long said just for clarification because there was a comment from a member of the public that the special
exception request is for the proposed exit and the special exception that we have also applied for is actually to
disturb an existing buffer that is along Southern Parkway. She said we do need to disturb that buffer in order to
construct the proposed exit regardless of whether it is right -turn only or both turns permitted. Ms. Long said there
was a comment about a large number of additional trips that were projected to go through the neighborhood if this
were approved. She said there was a reference to over 200 trips per day every week and for clarification as stated in
our traffic study the most trips is 22. She said it has been broken down in the morning peak hour that there would be
22 additional trips from the increased enrollment coming to the site and an additional 20 trips leaving and in the
afternoon the numbers are even lower — there are 14 trips coming during the peak hours and 15 trips leaving during
the peak hours. Ms. Long said she just wanted to clarify that for the record and would be happy to answer additional
questions.
Mr. Keller invited further questions for the applicant.
Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Long to go back to the slide that has the proposed interior for the new construction and to
share with which classrooms are already in existence in the temporary structure, and Ms. Long pointed out the
existing trailer that was used for classroom space.
Mr. Bivins asked which are new classrooms to this because he was trying to reconcile in a couple of places people
said that new students will come because they already have siblings attending the school and so that is not a new trip
but another body in a car. He said there was another section that said that administrators, teachers and staff would
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 18
FINAL MINUTES
also have the opportunity to bring their students to the school. He said he was trying to get a sense of what is the
true delta as far as new families that will come to the school and that it sounds like it is 30 or 40 but he did not think
that there are 40 new families coming to the school.
Ms. Long replied that is correct, but just for clarifying that she would ask Mr. Orlando to specify if our request is to
increase enrollment for a total students by 30 and how many new families that would equate to be.
Mr. Robert Orlando, Head of Peabody School, said to get back to the first question that currently the trailer houses
our two pre-school classrooms and we would be building nice new spaces for them. He said we have the need to add
two general education classrooms for our current enrollment and the performing arts space and technology lab. He
said we currently have smaller spaces for those programs right now and they are value added programs for our
current students and any perspective families that we might attract to the school. He said that in terms of increased
enrollment we do not admit every student that is interested in Peabody School currently because of the 210 cap on
our current enrollment. He said our statistical data based on our inquiries and folks looking at the school has
prompted us to ask for the additional seats. He said we feel like there are children we are not serving currently in the
area that could be students at our school, but we cannot go over the 210 number. He said in terms of 30 additional
students it would not equate to 30 additional families, which was your question. He said over the next 5 to 10 years
he could not project what that number would look like, but it is pretty much in line with the car trips that the parking
study came up with so maybe 20 new families give or take 10 percent depending on the year. He said that is helpful
obviously, because you are not adding 30 new families or 30 new cars since we have kids riding together. He asked
if that answered the question.
Mr. Bivins replied that it did because he was trying to get a sense since the statement was made in the community
meeting and then in the document that we were providing opportunities for families who already had a child in the
school. He said also the piece about providing an opportunity for staff and the faculty to have their children there so
he was assuming the person has to come to school anyway because they work for you and he was trying to sort of
drill down to what really is the marginal increase in cars from this property. He said if it was ten cars then why we
are putting in another exit.
Mr. Orlando replied from my perspective there are some good comments made by VDOT around the flow of traffic
on the property. He said if we go back to the outline of the current property it would be my hope since we currently
run arrival and dismissal without this egress just fine that from a safety perspective if this is an option he would
agree if it were an all access exit that would be amazing. He said the school would just have one-way traffic coming
in so cars would enter one way and then exit that way as we described. He said right now cars come in, drop off,
and then wrap back around and you can see that we also have a very narrow lane here so we have cars going in this
direction and that direction at the same time with cars coming in and going out. He said from a safety perspective
and a flow perspective it would be great to have a one-way approach to our arrival and dismissal where cars are
coming in one way and going out another. He said could we do it without it, absolutely because we are currently
doing it.
Mr. Bivins asked could you do it if the primary entrance was on the proposed area.
Mr. Orlando replied that his only concern about that would be cars coming this way interfacing with this intersection
and having the cars come in the way we currently do, it gets the cars out of this intersection off the road and onto our
property quicker because we have more space here to bring them in. He pointed out when the cars come in right on
the curb we have staff members waiting out and it just makes sense to unload in that direction. He said without
seeing this in action because we do not have this option right now we would create a backup of traffic here versus
actually mediating that. Mr. Orlando said he had not considered that and would have to think about that to actually
confirm or deny that; however, our preference would be to keep the current flow of traffic going this way. He said
our neighbors to the left, the lumberyard, ambulance depot, Fed X and if we had cars entering and exiting this way
he would think we would have a longer cue here on this road. He said that any vehicle trying to come from this
direction down here by the cul-de-sac coming out that there would be more of a backup here at this intersection. He
pointed out there was also a bus stop for Mill Creek right at this intersection so the value of bringing cars out of here
down to here again for safety reasons is compelling to me. He said that currently our parents do a good job when
they are coming out of here stopping when the stop sign comes out for the bus stop but that would just clean that
`mow whole situation up if we were coming down this way. He said my goal as the head of the school is to get the cars off
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 19
FINAL MINUTES
the road as quickly as we can so we are not impacting traffic.
Mr. Keller invited further questions for the applicant.
Commissioner More asked if you were able to have this other access and it was left or right out you are suggesting
that this would become; all one way, and Mr. Orlando replied yes it would become one way internally.
Ms. Riley said this is good new information that VDOT is willing to consider this road as local and not a connector
and that therefore that is all pretty new information for you all because you may be have some other options
available to you now that you did not before when you proposed a right -out egress only. Ms. Riley said she
appreciates that you are looking out for the safety of your students and for an efficient flow of traffic for your
families that then also impacts the traffic on Southern Avon, Mill Creek or the whole surrounding area. Ms. Riley
said today she had heard from a lot of constituents today primarily concerned about safety for them and they are
residents in the area. She asked have you considered any possibilities in addition to routing traffic what other
private schools have done which is either identifying off -site location where parents can drop their kids off that can
then be bused to the site, such as Field School. She said or in the case of Tandem, which is another local school, has
hired a traffic cop to manage the traffic at least at the a.m. drop-off and maybe at the p.m. too because there is such
congestion at these intersections. She said egress has changed to become both right and left turning and/or if you
change the entrance to be as currently proposed egress there is still going to be a snarl in this intersection and the
bigger traffic question is you can't get out onto Avon through Southern. She said that is why the residents' concerns
are as great as they are. She asked have you considered other options like the two mentioned of busing and/or traffic
cops as a way to manage the traffic.
Mr. Orlando replied that they have been looked at and he would ask Bill to speak to this as well. He said that both
of those options for us that we are priced out of both of those options. He said the Tandem situation and site that he
conferred with their head of school and they share that traffic guard with Monticello High School so the cost for
them is half of what we would have to cover. He said it would cost us close to $20,000 a year to hire a traffic guard
since they have a minimum amount of hours they have to be there which for us means two hours a day. He noted
that information was from last June. He said in terms of busing there is an increased cost for us in terms of bus
maintenance and to hire additional personnel and those are two items that cannot be worked into our budget. Mr.
Orlando said one of the reasons for trying to increase our enrollment is to reach that financial sustainability model so
he was not saying we cannot look at those things but that is rather where we are at this second. He said if we could
financially make that kind of move, we are willing to look at that in the future. He said that it looks like the impact
would be minimal with the increased numbers we are looking at in our traffic study.
Mr. Keller asked Ms. Long to wrap up the rebuttal.
Ms. Long said the only issue she would make one final comment on is the consensus seems to be of VDOT, the
County Transportation Planner and our traffic engineer that although there would be additional vehicle trips
resulting from our proposed enrollment increase that it would not have an impact on the surrounding roads when
you look at the data. She said likewise at the intersection at Southern and Avon is a very low number of additional
trips that are added that would not increase the delay or cueing behind a nominal amount.
Mr. Keller closed the public hearing to bring this back for a discussion and action.
Mr. Dotson said thinking along the direction that Commissioner Bivins mentioned in terms of perhaps no access to
the Southern Parkway given the number of students and the traffic analysis but there is another reason that he does
not believe it is good policy to base a decision maybe VDOT will classify this road. He said that apparently came
up very recently but we do not know that if will happen and thinks we ought to be aware that there could be
unintended consequences of a reclassification. He said that many times when roads are reclassified it is a cost
savings effort and that might mean less snow plowing, less maintenance after all it is no longer a collector but only a
local street, less concern and attention in general and just does not think it is good policy without having
investigated and that reclassification going through the process to base a decision on it. He said if we do not base a
decision on that only then the option would be the right out and that is the problem. Mr. Dotson agreed with
Commissioner Bivins since he was not sure that any added access to the Southern Parkway is needed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 20
FINAL MINUTES
Commissioner More said she tends to agree with that statement and was a little confused if the intention of VDOT
suggesting this and hearing at this last minute there might be a way to not just have it be a right out but the whole
%AW' idea was to create different options. She said if on site it becomes one way then she did not see how we have
created alternatives because everybody was having to come in one way and go out one way not disbursing traffic
and tends to agree that with the added trips having that access is necessary or really provides safety or alternative
routes.
Ms. Riley agreed with Commissioner Bivins' suggestion as well and it seemed to be that the new egress was the
largest concern with the community in this proposal.
Mr. Keller said he feels strongly that there should be a sidewalk or a bike ped along the full frontage of this
property. He said we do not know what is going to happen with the Southern Parkway since we do not know
whether it is going to be vehicular but if it is not vehicular, there is a good chance that it might be a pedestrian
connection in the future. He said that it is important that be provided along this parcel. He said the response would
be that Stony Ridge has built out but he thinks we can project with the redevelopment that is happening in our
greater community that at some point there will be a redevelopment scheme for Stony Ridge given the valuable
property and location of that property. He said that supports the argument of a sidewalk along that as well. He said
then learning that there is a public school bus collection point across the road it seems that everything that we have
been talking about with all of the new subdivisions is trying to provide connectivity along the fronts of them — and
yes this might be one tooth that is replaced before the other implants occur but it will be in place and it should
happen now.
Ms. Spain said she concurred with my colleagues particular Mr. Keller's comment about the sidewalk since we just
requested the sidewalk be built in front of the Albemarle Limonene Service and that is arguably more isolated than
the Peabody School.
Mr. Bivins said that there is a broader traffic analysis that is going to take place in that area and so it would seem
that if there were a way to rather pause that, wait, and see what is going to happen before we support a level of flow
complication that area cannot sustain. He asked to add that to my comment that he would have not supported a right
only exit but he might have supported a left only exit.
Mr. Carrazana said he believed there was an internal circulation challenge and thinks that has been shown and
VDOT recommendation to provide that exit would help; however, he wondered if there were any other options
looked at for other opportunities to widen those lanes. He said it seemed like you do have a little bit of a landscape
buffer but not sure if even adding a few feet would help you in your internal circulation. He said if you do not have
an exit onto Southern Parkway that could still improve your internal circulation but he did not know if that had been
looked at. He said the other question for VDOT regarding the condition of that intersection are there some
opportunities to improve that intersection as we consider not only improvements of sidewalk but is there
roundabouts or other ways of improving that intersection to minimize traffic not only now but also in the future. He
noted it was the Southern Parkway intersection and Stony Ridge.
Mr. Keller invited the VDOT representative to respond.
Mr. Moore, VDOT representative, said he thinks improvements to that intersection are a large part of what is hoped
to be determined by this study the county have initiated. He said that at this point he could not speculate as to what
results will show or what different types of changes or improvements would have specific secondary consequences.
He said that Corridor Study would specifically look at operations of the intersections both along the Corridor and
through traffic up and down Avon Street but also improving the efficiency of access to the side streets Southern
Parkway being one of the larger ones and it was access to Avon Street in both directions.
Mr. Carrazana said the traffic study never included, as he understands it cars exiting onto Southern Parkway and
then the impacts of those cars onto that intersection. He asked is that correct.
Mr. Moore replied that was right that with this application, you would have to ask Ms. Nedostup about the traffic
study and he would say it is limited in scope based on the proposed increase in traffic. He said it had been discussed
'14%W by something like 11 percent in the peak hour was not deemed necessary by the staff to require a traffic study of a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 21
FINAL MINUTES
larger scope.
Commissioner More asked if the bus stop was at the intersection of Stony Ridge and Southern Parkway.
Ms. Nedostup replied that it was on the other side where there is a small subdivision with no sidewalks, and she did
not consider it because of the industrial uses there but thinks it is a good suggestion for that area.
Mr. Keller noted that he could see that the applicant would like to weigh in.
Mr. Bivins asked that the VDOT representative tell us what the process is and how that road will change.
Mr. Moore, VDOT representative, replied that may be a misconception since it is a local road now. He said initially
it was considered from a design perspective to be a potential future collector and so looking at how it was designed
is how it may be classified as a collector in the future. He said we are not talking about a down classification
because right now, it is a local road and for the near future, we expect it to remain that way.
Mr. Keller said this was in the future plans to connect over to the Fifth Street area, and Mr. Moore replied that is
correct.
Mr. Keller said that was the argument that he was making that regardless of what kind of connection occurs there is
the potential for that pedestrian connection and the walkability that we are all so concerned. He said the
interconnections between neighborhoods and communities it is still a possibility and that would be the argument for
sidewalks and sidewalks for ped/bike if not sidewalks but some kind of connectivity. He said it is an opportunity
lost if we do not act now.
Ms. Riley said having been through the whole master plan process that occurred five years ago that there has been
repeated concerns that Southern Parkway was not identified as a road that should have sidewalks where it is clearly
currently used quite a bit for biking and pedestrians. She said that regularly we hear at the CAC that they want to
see sidewalks built on Southern Parkway.
Mr. Keller said it was a bit out of order but wanted to give the applicant a chance to respond on the
transportation/traffic.
Ms. Long said that Bill Wench our traffic engineer could address more specific concerns to clarify the internal
circulation currently functions just fine; it would be improved with this additional exit onto Southern Parkway no
doubt just as Mr. Orlando explained. She said that it currently functions just fine and they can make that work,
however we do think it will be improved and thus safer. She said our traffic engineer also noted in the traffic study
that the additional exit would be a benefit for public safety vehicles, ambulances and things like that if needed. She
said it is a full access and you could bring emergency vehicles in even better. She said that with regard to the
sidewalk we certainly understand your perspective and suggestions but would just add for the same reason staff did
not originally propose it. She said Stony Ridge is an almost entirely industrial or commercial area with lots of trucks
and so forth and we understand it was not built out that way it just seems like a large burden for a non-profit school
to bare to build sidewalks when there is none other that exists now.
Ms. Long said she could be comfortable if she may suggest a condition that if in the future sidewalks were built on
either end that they would then build a sidewalk that could connect to it. She said we would be happy to consider
that since that is often a mechanism that is used so that you do not miss the opportunity if it comes forward but at the
same time, you do not require a landowner to build a sidewalk to nowhere without having any idea whether the
connections on either end will ever occur. Ms. Long said we think this is an improvement; again, we can live
without it because we were told that it was a collector road, which is why we showed it as a right out and would
have preferred it to be full access from the beginning. She said maybe if we had been provided that information we
would have shown it as a full access exit and entrance and probably no one would have become alarmed and we
certainly understand and appreciate why the Mill Creek residents were concerned especially those who thought that
we perhaps were going to not allow left turns off Stony Ridge. Thank you.
Mr. Keller invited further discussion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 22
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson said he had a question of the two commissioners who mentioned the sidewalks, are you speaking of
1%,W along the Southern Parkway or also Stony Ridge.
Mr. Keller replied that my idea is that we would require as we are requiring with other special use permits that there
be sidewalks in its entirety and could live with the alternative that Ms. Long presented if our director tells us that it
does have strength. He said that it seems like Southern Parkway might end up being a more creative bike/ped
solution than a standard concrete sidewalk in the future and so having the option to put something in that is in
keeping with what would be proposed along there would be okay with me. He said as far as Stony Ridge that he
was disappointed that we do not have sidewalks there since he believes in pedestrian access along the way that he
would like to see it there.
Commissioner More asked staff or council for help with language that does not require the sidewalks until there are
other connections or something like that.
Mr. Gast -Bray said that he did not have any examples where we have done that kind of requirement with that
flexibility which he would encourage because as Chairman Keller did suggest we do not want to lose the
opportunity.
Mr. Herrick pointed out there are transportation improvements that have delayed effective dates they are just
obviously more difficult for staff to track and more prone to get sort of lost in the shuffle if those are conditions that
are madel0 to 20 years out or if they are contingent on some other event taking place first. He said that obviously
that is more difficult for staff to administer and to track those sort of conditions.
Ms. Spain said she believed in the Pantops area that this issue arose and the landowner was able to submit a letter of
guarantee that he would build the sidewalk once the connections were made and the County accepted that.
Mr. Herrick said that it was a letter of credit perhaps but he was not familiar with the specific example that you raise
�001 but he could image something like that.
Ms. Valerie Long said she could provide another example, the Charlottesville Catholic School, maybe 20 years ago
it was a condition of approval that they build a sidewalk once the parcel to the south was redeveloped and if they
built a sidewalk then the school would connect to it. She said the property to the south is under construction right
now and so as part of that will be required to build the sidewalk. She said that they posted a bond or some sort of
security to ensure that there is payment in the future and it worked very well and there is a sidewalk there now. She
said they did not have to spend that money up front without knowing if there was ever going to be a connection
there and so that was what was helpful.
Ms. Riley said it would be helpful to have some clarification about the ownership of the adjacent parcels because
Foxcroft is the neighborhood south of Peabody School and they would be the entity that would connect the sidewalk
along there. She said it would be a neighborhood HOA making the decision about that land because there was not
going to be any redevelopment of Foxcroft. She said the land north of Peabody she was not entirely clear about the
ownership of some of those industrial parcels since most of those parcels are currently being used as light industrial
and could redevelop over time. She said the interest for the community for multiple people who have expressed this
in meetings is that they really want to see a connection from the residential areas, Foxcroft and Mill Creek, up to
Avon where the whole Corridor Study is attempting to create multi -modal possibilities from Mill Creek down to the
City. She asked that the parcels be clarified adjacent to Peabody School.
Mr. Keller said there are two pieces that we have to act on and asked if someone was prepared to make a motion.
Ms. Riley said she would attempt some language and will look to council to see if this is appropriate. Ms. Riley
recommended approval of SP-2018-04 with the staff conditions, as amended, with a couple of changes: Number 1
remove the egress onto Southern Parkway and add to that condition a sidewalk on Southern Boulevard.
Mr. Keller said so you would go as far as the sidewalk not be and the other option that we have been discussing the
letter of guarantee.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 23
FIN AL M INUTES
Ms. Riley replied that my proposal is for a sidewalk on Southern Parkway only and not on Stony Ridge
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion and then had a question for staff in condition #3 that addresses the landscape buffer
and would that condition go away in light of the fact that the egress is not being proposed, and Ms. Nedostup replied
yes.
Mr. Keller asked wouldn't it be affected by that given the slope there and wouldn't the sidewalk affect that.
Ms. Nedostup replied that she would not think so and in some photos that she took that it appears that there is plenty
of room along Southern Parkway to put that sidewalk in and the buffer starts way back here.
Ms. More said she wanted to support the special use permit but did not support the language about the sidewalk and
would be more agreeable to support something like what we have discussed. However, she did not know how it
would be worded somewhat as was described with the Catholic School with some sort of letter of promise or
guarantee for the future, however, she was not inclined to make that a requirement but otherwise was inclined to
support the special use permit.
Ms. Spain concurred with Ms. More.
Mr. Dotson asked Ms. Riley to clarify are you speaking of a sidewalk concurrent with the addition to the school or a
sidewalk at such time.
Ms. Riley replied that my proposal was to be concurrent with the development and if somebody wants to make an
amendment regarding as such time then he or she need to do that.
Mr. Keller asked would you consider a friendly amendment.
Mr. Herrick said Mr. Chair that would be to propose a friendly amendment and he thinks Ms. Riley has indicated
that she is not open to friendly amendments at this point.
Ms. Riley replied that she would be open to a friendly amendment, but just has not heard one yet.
Ms. More suggested a friendly amendment but would like the right words.
Mr. Herrick said he had drafted some language that addresses both the egress issue and the sidewalk issue modeled
on the language that was used in the prior special use permit that was before the Commission. He said that would be
an additional condition stating, "a sidewalk meeting County or VDOT specifications and allowing for
interconnection to adjacent parcels shall be constructed along the Southern Parkway" and then two alternatives —
"prior to the issuances of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed school addition (that would be similar to the
condition you saw in the previous one) or within one year of completion of sidewalks on adjacent parcels." He
noted that we might need to fine tune that last condition if that is what the Commission is interested in, but he thinks
those are two timing conditions if in fact a sidewalk is anticipated.
Mr. Keller said he would like to ask Andrew a question does the sidewalk imply the concrete sidewalk or is that
generic enough for a different pedestrian alternative.
Mr. Gast -Bray said that he was going to change that to say a sidewalk or equivalent would be fine with me but he
has to make sure that is okay with our council. He suggested one thing he would suggest perhaps slightly in support
of Ms. Riley's suggestion would have the connection be on one side or the other. Mr. Gast -Bray said he could
foresee a connection going from the school to Avon as a part of that context and then later something else going in.
He said we would want to extend wherever these things are going because there are already active pedestrians and
users of this so we might as well take advantage of that as soon as there is a connection - not necessarily having to
connect on both sides to start with.
Mr. Keller said that we need a second to the friendly amendment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 24
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Herrick replied no, it would be subject to the acceptance or rejection of the original mover.
Ms. Riley asked to hear the actual language given what our Director has just recommended.
Mr. Herrick asked if you are suggesting a sidewalk or equivalent pathway meeting County or VDOT specifications
in allowing for interconnection to adjacent parcels shall be constructed along the Southern Parkway within one year
of the completion of sidewalks on adjacent parcels.
Ms. Riley said yes, she would accept the friendly amendment.
Mr. Herrick said there would be some additional language that he would suggest in terms of if the consensus of the
board were to not allow other ingress or egress through the right only and asked staff to put up the other conditions:
Mr. Herrick said if he understood Ms. Riley's motion correctly that we would be looking to strike the right turn
egress only access onto Southern Parkway from the first bullet point and the third conditions would also be rejected.
He said if the Commission was inclined not to allow for the ingress and egress they would need to go one-step
further and say, "That notwithstanding the application plan dated July 16, 2018 all direct vehicular access from and
to the site shall be limited to Stony Ridge Road."
Ms. Riley accepted the friendly amendment as stated by Mr. Herrick.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Mr. Keller asked for a roll call.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0 (Firehock absent).
Mr. Keller asked for a motion on the special exception.
Mr. Herrick said he believed that there should be a motion to address this special exception request as well. He
noted that it could be a motion to recommend denial, but one way or another there ought to be a recommendation of
the Planning Commission made to the Board of Supervisors whether it be approval or denial.
Ms. Riley moved to recommend denial of this special exception request for SP-2018-00004 Peabody School
Amendment because we have now decided under conditions that there will be no ingress/egress off Southern
Parkway into the school.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Mr. Keller invited further discussion. Hearing none, he asked for a roll call.
The motion to recommend denial of the special exception request was approved by a vote of 6:0 (Firehock absent).
Mr. Keller thanked everyone and the community for coming out and expressing their views to the Peabody School
for providing this wonderful educational service to our community and for a thoughtful discussion and deliberation
in this process. He said this request moves forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Spain noted that the public should recognize the difference that you made in this decision tonight since your
input and that of your neighbors allowed us to rethink the application and come up with a solution that sounds like it
will be more acceptable to the neighbors.
The meeting moved to the next item on the agenda.
Committee Reports
Mr. Keller invited committee reports.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2a 18 25
FINAL MINUTES
Daphne Spain reported:
- Places29 North CAC met last Thursday and it served as the community meeting for the request by the Montessori
School on 29 for expansion.
- Pantops CAC met last night with two major issues — the Commonwealth Senior Living Center request for removal
of parking spaces to allow for consolidation of offices from Downtown to the County and pulling together the
Pantops Master Plan. The Pantops Master Plan is on our schedule for November 20 and that means we are going to
have to hold another meeting to be able to come to terms with the final plan.
Mr. Gast -Bray noted that was a tentative date.
Julian Bivins reported:
- The Long Range Transportation Plan is hold an open house on October 17 from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. at East Water
Street at TJPDC for public input on how to improve and enhance pedestrian and bikes.
- Places29-Hydraulic CAC met last week and there was discussion about the Charlotte Humphries Park on
Whitewood Road in how we can bring other people to take care of the street space.
- He thanked the director, Andrew and two individuals from Zoning being Bart Svoboda and Keith Bradshaw who
came and spent some time helping people to understand a zoning approval that took place around the Roslyn Farms
property. He said there were a number of people who wanted to understand the difference between an
administrative approval and then a legislative approval and it was very helpful.
Tim Keller reported:
- The Steering Committee for the Rivanna River Corridor Plan Phase One had a meeting and update last week with a
presentation. He encouraged Commissioners to go to the Thomas Jefferson District Planning Commission website
and look at the Phase 1 report. There were many comments from the various members of the Steering Committee
about things that we felt had been discussed that were not necessarily showing up on that draft so the draft is being
revised as we speak.
Jennie More reported:
The Crozet CAC met last week. She did not attend but watched the video.
Tim Keller reported:
The Rivanna River Renaissance Conference this Friday beginning at 10:30 a.m. and the Urban Land Institute has
been thinking about the Rivanna River also.
Mr. Gast -Bray asked that any Commissioner interested to let staff know so we can pay for your membership so you
would be considered as members.
There being no further committee reports, the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meetings — September 5, 2018 and September 12, 2018
Mr. Gast -Bray reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors in September.
The meeting moved to the next item.
Old Business
Mr. Keller invited old business.
Mr. Dotson said he would bring up hopefully for the last time the resolution of intent action that the Commission
took and just state briefly that the evolution of that was on the resolution that we adopted that indicated that it was to
go to the Board of Supervisors with a request that they adopt a resolution of intent. He said our amendment to our
bylaws said that should be forwarded to the Clerk and to the Chair of the Board within a week and that only applies
to resolutions where we specifically say they need to go to the Board of Supervisors. He said for instance last week
Andrew reported that you had forwarded to the Board, no problem in it, but the resolution of intent that we adopted
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 26
FINAL MINUTES
on fees that we acted on tonight we were not asking the Board to adopt a resolution of intent but just clarify that the
only time you need to do that is when our resolution specifically says we are requesting that the Board do
something. Mr. Dotson said just a general comment is a resolution is just a form of a communication it is almost
like a memo and has recitations, whereas and be it resolved and we can use that for anything. The State Code allows
us to as we did for the fees adopt a resolution of intent. He said really what our action all it was trying to do is say
when we want it to go to the Board it needs to happen within a week. He said that he wanted to bring that up again
to make sure we are all on the same page.
Mr. Gast -Bray said in that context to distinguish because in past it had gone on in the action memo as well but you
also want a separate mention of that.
Mr. Dotson replied yes, the action memo happens on all action so this is a specific communication to the Clerk and
Chair providing them a copy of the resolution requesting Board action.
Mr. Herrick said to clarify and he would echo what Mr. Dotson said what the nature of a resolution is; a resolution is
simply a formal statement of a majority of a body and it can be about any subject matter in particular. He said the
State Code does allow both the local governing body and the Planning Commission to initiate rezonings and the
specific language of the Rule of Procedures that was adopted was, "The Commission may adopt resolutions to
request the Board of Supervisors to adopt resolutions of intent to initiate Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Zoning
Map Amendments and Zoning Text Amendments. Upon adoption of such a resolution the secretary shall provide a
copy of the resolution ..." and it goes on from there. He said so upon the adoption of such a resolution refers back
to resolutions to request the Board of Supervisors to adopt resolutions of intent to initiate and so forth. He pointed
out that he understands Mr. Dotson what you are saying this evening. He noted that the secretary and I inferred
about this before sending it out and we are erring on the side of caution but now that you have clarified that, the only
resolutions that you would like shared under this provision are resolutions requesting the Board of Supervisors adopt
resolutions of intent and he thinks we are clear on that. Mr. Herrick said we certainly could take that in account
going forward.
There being no further old business, the meeting moved to new business.
New Business
Mr. Keller invited new business.
Mr. Dotson said that he assumed Will Cockrill would be with us on October 30 about the Long Range
Transportation Plan and read in the TJPDC News Brief of a Pilot Study that TJPDC had completed and shared with
the Board, which is a Pilot in Neighborhood 7 of doing a community infrastructure inventory. He said we are all
interested in infrastructure and knows in thinking about the CIP it is important and so my thought was if Will is
going to be with us anyway why don't we ask him also to share the results of that Pilot Study because it sounds
interesting in terms of our planning not just for land use but infrastructure. He asked are the Commissioners in
agreement that we would like the staff to ask Will to talk about that since he will be with us on the 30' anyway.
Mr. Bivins asked to add that Siri Russell who is a staff member did a similar kind of infrastructure study in the area
that is going north off Georgetown Road and so it may be helpful to hear about that.
Mr. Gast -Bray replied that he thinks you are talking about the same thing because the TJPDC was the actual feet on
the ground that did that and Siri then framed it and packaged it.
Items of Follow Up
Luis Carrazana, UVA Representative, said Commissioner Bivins had brought some questions in an email about
Emmett/Ivy and so he is happy to answer some specific questions or provide the information that he had.
Mr. Keller asked Mr. Carrazana to speak on the topic.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 27
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Carrazana said that he had a couple points of clarification in that the physical plan and landscape framework
plan had been approved for Emmett/Ivy and he is hopeful that the Commission has seen that in some format at the
MPO and PACTECH. He said there was quite a bit of involvement with the City and he did not know how much
there was or was not with the County; however, what is being now moved forward under President's Ryan's
guidance is emphasis on a program plan, which to some degree could be equally if not more important primarily in
terms of academic program, but there are programs that could have both town and ground implication whether it was
art programs or some kind of hospitality hotel or conference. He said there have been conversations around that and
so all those program amenities will be talked about at this Steering Committee. He said they will be reaching out to
not only broad constituents but also outside the University and as it was stated that both the City and County will be
reached out for ideas on this parcel because obviously it is a link to the City and the County. He said that is the
intent and Beth Meyer is the Chair and, in fact, he had a conversation with Alice Raucher, University Architect, and
if she had any conversation with Beth on how they intend to engage the City, County, and she had not heard. Mr.
Carrazana said that they may not have thought about it in a lot of detail or it is opportunities to inform and how that
takes place and he would be happy to take some of those recommendations back and anyone could call Beth.
Mr. Keller said the Commission should think about this and respond at our next session.
Mr. Bivins asked for a link to the package so that we have something to inform the discussion.
Mr. Carrazana said that the framework plan was on the website and they could set up a presentation here if that was
useful and the information would be made available for Commission access.
Mr. Keller said the Commission would appreciate that information.
Mr. Keller announced:
• There will be no meeting on Tuesday, October 2, 2018.
• The next meeting will be on Tuesday, October 9, 2018 in the Auditorium at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Keller noted that
several Commissioners would be absent including Ms. More, Ms. Firehock and possibly himself.
There being no further new business, the meeting moved to new business.
Item for follow-up.
There being no items for follow-up, the meeting moved to adjournment.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6.58 p.m.
r.
Andr w Gast -Bray, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
Approved by Plannin Commission
Date: 11-20-2018
Initials: sct
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — September 25, 2018 28
FINAL MINUTES